Friday Open Thread

O.J. Simpson could get a new trial in his Nevada case. Hearing next week.

This is an open thread, all topics welcome.

< Tamerlan Tsarnaev is Buried, Time to Move On | The Cost of James Holmes Death Penalty Prosecution >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Carbon Dioxide Level Passes Long-Feared Milestone (5.00 / 3) (#1)
    by NYShooter on Fri May 10, 2013 at 04:06:13 PM EST
    "The level of the most important heat-trapping gas in the atmosphere, carbon dioxide, has passed a long-feared milestone, scientists reported on Friday, reaching a concentration not seen on the earth for millions of years."

    Today's NYT


    Uh, make that (1.00 / 5) (#77)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri May 10, 2013 at 11:45:42 PM EST
    not seen since records have been kept...

    Some records we'd prefer not to be broken. Carbon-dioxide levels in the atmosphere surpassed 400 parts per million for the first time since the U.S. government began recording the concentration of the gas in the air, and likely the first time in millions of years.


    Of course we wouldn't want to stop a big useful media made disaster.



    Yes we wouldn't (5.00 / 4) (#79)
    by cpresley on Sat May 11, 2013 at 12:26:17 AM EST
    want the big bad media hyping Carbon-dioxide levels being highest since records have been keep.The big bad Government is keeping these records so they must be wrong. The only record that counts is my bible. Let me see what my bible tells me. I found it. Along time ago the weather was much worse and it rained for 40 days and 40 nights. This caused a flood. The flood was really bad but some cool guy that was best buds with God had the inside track so he built an arch before the floods and saved the world and all the cool animals. We have lived happily ever after.

    The moral of this story? If the Carbon-Dioxide levels get too high God will tell some cool guy and he will save all the cool animals with an arc. See the new bible King right wing 2030.


    cpresley, you read a Bible??? (none / 0) (#186)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat May 11, 2013 at 06:49:53 PM EST
    You know, I bet you think Christianity is based on the Old Testament.

    Now, let's address the real question.

    Why has temps been plateaued for the past 10 years or so?????

    What happened to the "amplification factor?"

    Jan. 28, 2010 -- A new estimate of the feedback between temperature and atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) concentration has been derived from a comprehensive comparison of temperature and CO2 records spanning the past millennium.

    The result, which is based on more than 200,000 individual comparisons, implies that the amplification of current global warming by carbon-cycle feedback will be significantly less than recent work has suggested

    Recent attempts to quantify the feedback by examining the co-variation of pre-industrial climate and CO2 records yielded estimates of about 40 parts per million by volume (p.p.m.v.) CO2 per degree Celsius, which would imply significant amplification of current warming trends.


    In this week's Nature, David Frank and colleagues extend this empirical approach by comparing nine global-scale temperature reconstructions with CO2 data from three Antarctic ice cores over the period ad 1050-1800. The authors derive a likely range for the feedback strength of 1.7-21.4 p.p.m.v. CO2 per degree Celsius, with a median value of 7.7.

    The researchers conclude that the recent estimates of 40 p.p.m.v. CO2 per degree Celsius can be excluded with 95% confidence, suggesting significantly less amplification of current warming.

    (Emphasis added)

    Science Daily


    And just like clockwork... (5.00 / 4) (#80)
    by shoephone on Sat May 11, 2013 at 12:43:06 AM EST
    here comes Jim, flogging that same horse. Again.

    Jim (5.00 / 3) (#143)
    by jondee on Sat May 11, 2013 at 12:00:28 PM EST
    I like your expanded explanation for how all this got started: something about left wing scientists commandeering our seats of higher learning and teaming up with America-hating politicians who want us to pay for the sins of colonialism etc etc..

    How you correct the errors of science with better science is truely enough to leave one in awe.



    Science vs. Right-Wing Crackpottery. (5.00 / 2) (#188)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sat May 11, 2013 at 09:48:44 PM EST
    Gosh, Jim, it's like we just don't know who to believe anymore on the issue of climate change -- Nobel Prize winning scientist Mario J. Molina, Ph.D., or a fat-a$$ed, oxycontin addicted college dropout with serious mommy issues?

    Decisions, decisions ...


    Gee Donald, I had no idea that (none / 0) (#197)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun May 12, 2013 at 06:45:17 AM EST
    In this week's Nature, David Frank and colleagues extend this empirical approach by comparing nine global-scale temperature reconstructions with CO2 data from three Antarctic ice cores over the period ad 1050-1800. The authors derive a likely range for the feedback strength of 1.7-21.4 p.p.m.v. CO2 per degree Celsius, with a median value of 7.7.

    David Frank and his colleagues were right wing uneducated flaks for big oil and that Nature and Science Daily were owned by the Koch brothers....

    The things I do learn from people that have made their life work telling others what to do.

    BTW - Just curious. Have you ever worked in private industry???


    Good (none / 0) (#2)
    by Slado on Fri May 10, 2013 at 04:15:40 PM EST
    Maybe it will finally get warmer.

    Extreme and consistent scientific ignorance. (5.00 / 3) (#105)
    by Dr Molly on Sat May 11, 2013 at 08:29:12 AM EST
    In case you are wondering (5.00 / 4) (#6)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri May 10, 2013 at 04:39:55 PM EST
    I'm not dead yet.

    Just dead tired from tons of work.

    Hope everyone is ok.

    very good to hear from you (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by Jeralyn on Fri May 10, 2013 at 07:39:42 PM EST
    BTD, we all miss you and I'll be glad when you come up for air.

    I was wondering (none / 0) (#8)
    by Slado on Fri May 10, 2013 at 04:47:44 PM EST
    Good to come up for air every once in a while.

    What are your thoughts about Tebow?

    I feel sorry for the guy.   At this point I think he'd get another shot if not for his popularity.  

    Oh well.  I'm not going to feel too sorry for him.


    Good to know! (none / 0) (#11)
    by Anne on Fri May 10, 2013 at 04:53:36 PM EST
    My daughter's getting married a week from tomorrow, so my brain is beginning to fray around the edges; been kind of a whirlwind, and I know next week is going to whip on by and it will be here before I know it.  Really excited, though - it's going to be a great day.

    And I'll tell you - it's nice to have this happy event going on in our lives - between the wedding and spending time with our other daughter's baby, it takes the edge off the increasingly depressing news.

    Hope there's something fun in your future and you'll be able to recharge your batteries!


    Glad to know you're not dead. (none / 0) (#13)
    by caseyOR on Fri May 10, 2013 at 04:58:01 PM EST
    Any break in the "tons of work" coming soon for you?

    Reminding me that I still (none / 0) (#20)
    by Militarytracy on Fri May 10, 2013 at 05:39:13 PM EST
    haven't read up on Stephen Douglas.

    Are you referring to the Little Giant? The (none / 0) (#29)
    by caseyOR on Fri May 10, 2013 at 06:12:55 PM EST
    mid-19th century Senator from Illinois? The only participant in the Lincoln-Douglas debates who was not named Lincoln? That Stephen Douglas?

    Yes (none / 0) (#32)
    by Militarytracy on Fri May 10, 2013 at 06:21:31 PM EST
    In BTDs last writing, you needed to have the goods on Stephen Douglas.  I did not have those goods.

    I just hopped over to DK read BTD's (5.00 / 2) (#33)
    by caseyOR on Fri May 10, 2013 at 06:37:32 PM EST
    post on Joe Klein-Stephen Douglas. I doubt I would have thought to compare Klein to Douglas, in part because I try to never spend any time thinking about Joe Klein.

    Still, Armando makes a good point. Douglas was a weasel, not the only weasel in American politics at the time, but surely one of the fiercest. Joe Klein is a weasel par excellence for our time.

    I grew up in Illinois so i absorbed Lincoln with mother's milk. One of the famed L-D debates was held in my hometown. So, just to throw my 2 cents in on this topic, I think another Joe, Joe Lieberman, also merits some serious comparison to Douglas.


    Thank you (none / 0) (#34)
    by Militarytracy on Fri May 10, 2013 at 06:40:37 PM EST
    I need all the Stephen Douglas help I can get :)

    Look up Douglas and the Freeport Doctrine. (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by caseyOR on Fri May 10, 2013 at 06:56:02 PM EST
    Also, Douglas and the Kansas-Nebraska Act. If you read about those you should have some good basic knowledge about Douglas and his too-clever-by-half efforts to thread the slavery needle.

    Also, see Democratic Presidential Convention of 1860 and campaign of 1860.


    Unlike Klein, Douglas was not a stupid man. (5.00 / 2) (#37)
    by caseyOR on Fri May 10, 2013 at 07:06:42 PM EST
    He made the mistake of investing all in compromise. He continued to believe that the nation could compromise on slavery and everything would hold. He kept devising compromises, each more clever than the last. And still, things got worse, not better.

    He was wrong, obviously. There could be no compromise on the issue of slavery. Douglas didn't see that. His investment was in compromise, what is today called bipartisanship, not in ending slavery.

    Some issues do not lend themselves to compromise. we ignore that truism at our peril.


    Thank heavens! (none / 0) (#46)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri May 10, 2013 at 08:00:28 PM EST
    That's how rumors get started.

    Been cooking (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by Zorba on Fri May 10, 2013 at 05:53:50 PM EST
    at church for three days.  We're having a food booth at a local venue tomorrow. Not as big as our Fall Featival, so quite doable.  Plus, we have some new people at church that are really great workers, and great with food.  Hurray!  So the prep went rather well.
    It's supposed to rain, though, so I don't know how well we'll do.

    If the leftovers are shippable, I'd pay (5.00 / 2) (#25)
    by Anne on Fri May 10, 2013 at 05:56:11 PM EST
    to have you send me some...bet others here would, too!

    Oyyyyyy (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by Yman on Fri May 10, 2013 at 06:08:29 PM EST
    I'd like to drop 5-10 lbs. before swimsuit weather.

    Baklava is low-calorie, ... right?


    Hahahahahaha! (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by Zorba on Fri May 10, 2013 at 06:19:51 PM EST
    And further, hahahahahaha!
    Yes, sure it is Yman.  Sure it is..........        ;-)

    Hey, the pirate crew has first dibs on any (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by caseyOR on Fri May 10, 2013 at 06:10:01 PM EST
    leftovers being doled out by Zorba. Take a number, Anne.  :-)

    Judge tells Obama "No" (5.00 / 4) (#45)
    by MO Blue on Fri May 10, 2013 at 07:45:53 PM EST
    A federal judge on Friday denied the Obama administration's request to delay his order that the Plan B morning-after pill be made available over the counter without age limits. The judge sharply rebuked the administration for appealing his decision, calling the move politically motivated, "frivolous," and "something out of an alternate reality."
    The administration's attempt to maintain an age limit on Plan B, Korman wrote in his decision, "ignores the fact that the FDA found that the drug was safe and could be used properly without a doctor's prescription, and was prepared to make it available over-the-counter for all ages." Thus, he added, "if a stay is denied, the public can have confidence that the FDA's judgment is being vindicated, and if a stay is granted, it will allow the bad-faith, politically motivated decision of Secretary Sebelius, who lacks any medical or scientific expertise, to prevail--thus justifiably undermining the public's confidence in the drug approval process."

    Korman said that Sebelius had "flagrantly violated" the FDA's "salutary principle," which is that only the FDA has the scientific expertise to make a decision on how to administer a particular drug. "Yet, in something out of an alternate reality, the defendants seek a stay to pursue an appeal that would vindicate the Secretary's disregard of the very principle they advocate," Korman wrote.  link

    Interesting happening in Oregon (5.00 / 2) (#47)
    by CoralGables on Fri May 10, 2013 at 08:04:04 PM EST
    Under Obamacare, health insurance rates are posted and available for comparison purposes. Insurance companies in Oregon gave their rates to the state, but as soon as they were posted online Thursday two companies (Providence Health and Family Health Care Plans) contacted the state on Friday asking to "reduce" their rates.

    This was a front page story in today's (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by caseyOR on Fri May 10, 2013 at 08:29:46 PM EST
    issue of The Oregonian.Oregon is creating its own exchange, not making the feds do it. Also, we have a long history of trying to manage health care costs through medicaid via the Oregon Health Plan. I don't alway agree with John Kitzhaber, but having a governor who was once an ER doctor and has devoted the last 20 years to reforming health care has its advantages

    I was interested to see that Providence was asking to resubmit a lower cost. The Sister of Providence have over the years bought up what I think is way too much of the medical infrastructure in Oregon. In too many places in this state the only option for health care is controlled by the Catholic Church. That, IMO, is not a good thing. So, anything that makes Providence more responsive to the needs of the people is a good thing.

    I still think the Rube Goldberg nature of Obamacare and the bottomless greed of the various parts of the  health care industry will implode the entire system sooner rather than later. Still, I'd rather face this brave new world in Oregon than in any of a number of other states.


    Any information on how the rates (none / 0) (#49)
    by MO Blue on Fri May 10, 2013 at 08:19:25 PM EST
    for the two nonprofit consumer-operated plans (CO-OPS) compare to the rates of the profit plans?  

    No idea (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by CoralGables on Fri May 10, 2013 at 08:34:29 PM EST
    In Florida they are now posting rates for different procedures at different hospitals. It's going to get interesting because in the same town rates at one hospital may be as much as four times what they are down the street.

    This little talked about part of Obamacare is going to open some peoples eyes to overpricing and over-billing and they'll shop accordingly.


    As a Debbie Downer... (none / 0) (#95)
    by kdog on Sat May 11, 2013 at 05:32:28 AM EST
    on Obamacare, I must admit this is good stuff.

    Sunlight is the best disinfectant, published pricing   makes it much more difficult for the insurance crooks and health care providers to keep rippin' us off.  I never understood why pricing is so "top secret" in this industry...so shady.

    I just gut my annual increase letter eff. 7/1 from Oxford, I need to make sure bossman is aware he can comparison shop if he looks to raise our employee contribution, or use it as an excuse to forego raises again.


    You don't need Obamacare (none / 0) (#201)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun May 12, 2013 at 07:13:42 AM EST
    for your local newspaper/TV station to call up the various hospitals and then publish them...

    I love your beneficent attitude.. (5.00 / 2) (#145)
    by jondee on Sat May 11, 2013 at 12:13:09 PM EST
    and farsighted too, considering that you're here and getting screwed as well..Putz.

    That point was, that at a crucial time like that there would have been even less reason to view people to be "expendable", as you imply that some did.

    That said, I never said, or meant to convey, that it was "all about" the election.    

    lol (1.00 / 1) (#156)
    by Slayersrezo on Sat May 11, 2013 at 12:43:31 PM EST
    Both the major parties have been busy screwing me my whole life. Even leaving this country is extremely hard, so I've decided that I can at least hold my head high and not vote for those who would screw me (or heck, YOU) over.

    I simply don't like partisan idiots, esp when it comes to matters of corruption in government or justice.

    "That said, I never said, or meant to convey, that it was "all about" the election. "

    In the case of things that could cause the loss of life or freedom for american government workers or citizens or heck, humans (of whatever nationality) in general 'the election' should never figure into it. That it does is (things like drone attacks) disgraceful.

    Anyway, GLAD to hear that to you, it's not "election uber alles".  


    Protections for Calif. Condors in doubt (5.00 / 4) (#152)
    by shoephone on Sat May 11, 2013 at 12:30:29 PM EST
    now that Fish & Wildlife has instituted a policy of exempting developers and wind farm companies for harassing or killing the birds in the course of business.

    California condors were brought back from the brink of extinction a quarter-century ago and still cling precariously to survival. Federal law prohibits the harassment or killing of endangered species for any reason.

    Fish and Wildlife also made an exception for the 270,000-acre Tejon Ranch Co., saying that the government will not prosecute if construction of the company's controversial 5,553-acre development of luxury homes, hotels and golf courses violates the harassment ban in the endangered species law. The exception will last for 50 years. The project is expected to consume 8% of the critical condor habitat in the Tehachapis, about 60 miles north of Los Angeles.


    "This is a sad day for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service," said Adam Keats, a senior attorney with the Center for Biological Diversity. "We're talking about perhaps one of the most endangered species on the planet, let alone in this country. So, the Obama administration said loud and clear today" that it doesn't care about the environment.

    Daniel Burnett, treasurer of Kerncrest Audubon, agreed. "I can't believe the federal government is putting so much money into a historic and costly effort to establish a stable population of condors, and at the same time is issuing permits to kill them. Ludicrous."

    Lordy (5.00 / 3) (#160)
    by sj on Sat May 11, 2013 at 01:11:50 PM EST
    I'm just glad Obama and most of the Dems continue to screw over people like you.
    You realize that you're sitting on the same branch that is being sawed off even as you cheer it on. I guess that's OK because apparently it makes you morally superior. Or something.

    Disgusting and par for the course.

    Jay Leno gas pump prank that involves a (5.00 / 1) (#169)
    by magster on Sat May 11, 2013 at 02:28:19 PM EST
    Thank you, that made my night! (5.00 / 1) (#196)
    by Jeralyn on Sun May 12, 2013 at 04:25:59 AM EST
    I laughed through the whole thing -- and he was good!

    Upgrading to Genie with DirecTV (5.00 / 1) (#174)
    by Militarytracy on Sat May 11, 2013 at 03:33:40 PM EST
    Saw the commercials, but had not really thought about it.  We are with Direct.  Figured it would happen all in good time.  Got a phone call a few days ago about getting a free DVR that I would only have to pay $20 shipping on, I thought it sounded like a good thing because Josh often clogs my DVR up with Family Guy, so he would have his own DVR.  Towards the end of phone conversation though I discover that this DVR will start my commitment clock again, we are about to run out.  Things didn't feel great, but with Genie you can record 6 programs at once and with 3 DVRs we should be able to do that too so maybe everything will be okay.

    DVR arrived, it is awful.  It is three generations old, refurbished, and made in 2009. Numerous complaints online about its performance.

    Called DirecTV and was sort of told so what, send it back, my clock has not restarted because I did not activate the DVR.  Was also told getting Genie was IMPOSSIBLE at this time.  First person was not very helpful, sort of slick and slimy.

    We investigate current Dish online, left Dish unhappy about 3 years ago.  Dish has very equal offers and a system mostly equal too, and we don't really watch the NFL stuff on Direct so we discuss moving back to Dish if Direct won't work with us.

    Call Direct back and say that we are very disappointed and thinking about moving to Dish, immediately transferred to someone who offers us Genie immediately for $49.99 and they will be here Monday evening to install.  I have no idea how I went from IMPOSSIBLE to Be There on Monday for $50, but DirectTV is a little bit comfy in their customer base right now.  Beginning to remind me of Dish before Dish fell off a cliff looking for a better class of customer.

    Most Transparent Admin in History (none / 0) (#3)
    by Slado on Fri May 10, 2013 at 04:27:52 PM EST
    Holds off the record meeting with reporters.


    Guess they want to get their story straight for the Sunday talk shows.

    To continue a discussion (5.00 / 2) (#36)
    by MKS on Fri May 10, 2013 at 07:00:04 PM EST
    from before the last thread closed....

    I asked you to show us how Hillary lied.  You quoted this:

    This has been a difficult week for the State Department and for our country. We've seen the heavy assault on our post in Benghazi that took the lives of those brave men. We've seen rage and violence directed at American embassies over an awful Internet video that we had nothing do to with.

    This statement is completely accurate.  I think people forget quickly that our embassies all over the Islamic world were under attack.  Republicans made a big deal how the whole Mideast was going up in flames.   The video was the cause of that.

    Our embassies in Egypt and Tripoli, among others, were under attack.

    We had no embassy in Benghazi or even a consulate there.

    Where is the lie?  The statement you quot absolutley true to this day.

    Show me the lie.


    Maybe not a lie... (5.00 / 1) (#96)
    by kdog on Sat May 11, 2013 at 05:46:08 AM EST
    but certainly misleading, less than true.  Because there was an election next month and Brand D wanted to minimize the attacks.  I think that's fairly obvious.

    You're a smart guy MKS...do you really think our foreign installations were under attack all because of a stupid video? Or was (and is) it due to 60 years of foreign policy, propping up dictators, setting up bases, etc that has fed the extremist maniacs and their brand of warfare?  

    Now I may not think it's some grand scandal like Slado, more so just the general bs were fed everyday by our pols, like when G-Dub said "they hate us for our freedoms".  Bullsh*t is bullsh*t.  


    You have to incredibly invested (5.00 / 1) (#101)
    by ExcitableBoy on Sat May 11, 2013 at 08:03:49 AM EST
    in this administration, and Clinton's future presidency, to not see what's going on here. All the 'who cares, Fox said it' (and no, I'm not a fan), all the vast right-wing conspiracies, all of it. It's unraveling.  

    I do think it's a scandal, a sad and frustrating one. But not a big one. The president was never going to take a big hit for this, at least if it could be ignored before the election, and now it's his last term, so the job now for all those straight-shootin', call-em-like-they-see-em media acolytes is to protect Hillary's candidacy at all costs. All I'm asking for is a fair and frank discussion of the facts surrounding her involvement when the time comes, but I won't get one. As in all other things, the discussion will be the GOP's vicious attacks, not the issue they're attacking. Darrell Issa's a meanie. He's an arsonist. He stole a car. He hates puppies. This is just the Republicans being political (politicians being political -- say it ain't so!).

    My sister is very liberal. The other day we were talking and I mentioned that I believe the media is generally left-leaning and that flavors their reporting (to put it nicely), but that she probably doesn't think so. She agreed that the media bias trope is basically a Fox News wet dream. I was thinking of that yesterday as I watched Cokie Roberts and Eugene Robinson on Morning Joe, desperately carrying water for the president and Secretary of State, insisting that the sky is green. Eugene was deflecting like an NHL defenseman. Poor Cokie. She was all nervous laughter (a sign, to me, that she knew she was basically full of crap), but at one point I think it was David Gregory (who was actually very good) pointed out that the stories were falling apart, that the testimony and emails were showing a concerted effort to shape the narrative and deflect criticism, that the talking points weren't the "best information we had at the time", that it was kinda BAD. Roberts' eyes hit the floor; she lowered her head sadly and just nodded a few times. She wasn't laughing any more. That's some non-partisan straight-shootin there.


    "Non-partisan, straight shootin" ... (5.00 / 2) (#113)
    by Yman on Sat May 11, 2013 at 10:03:37 AM EST
    ... "journalism", when the wingnuts agree with it.  When they disagree with Gregory, he's a left-wing liar.

    Funny how that works.

    All I'm asking for is a fair and frank discussion of the facts surrounding her involvement when the time comes, but I won't get one.

    Heh - at least you didn't say "fair and balanced".


    sorry Y (none / 0) (#121)
    by ExcitableBoy on Sat May 11, 2013 at 10:30:33 AM EST
    I'm not a wingnut. And I've never really said anything about David Gregory. And 'fair and balanced'? That's just the kind of crap I'm talking about.

    Pssstttt ... look up above (5.00 / 1) (#124)
    by Yman on Sat May 11, 2013 at 10:44:25 AM EST
    You just cited David Gregory as an example of "non-partisan, straight-shooting journalism" - because you agree with his opinion.

    What you said =

    All I'm asking for is a fair and frank discussion of the facts surrounding her involvement when the time comes, but I won't get one.

    That's what you claim - you may even believe it yourself.

    Based on everything else you've said, ...

    ... I don't.


    No, Y (none / 0) (#132)
    by ExcitableBoy on Sat May 11, 2013 at 11:06:45 AM EST
    This was my full, and exact, reference to David Gregory. Pay attention, because it went by real quick:

    "I think it was David Gregory (who was actually very good)". That was it. I then pointed out why I thought he was good IN THIS EXCHANGE. I've never, ever mentioned David Gregory before, and have never said he was a non-partisan anything, and didn't in this instance. I simply liked that he acknowledged that the evolving story is problematic.


    Not the "full" quote at all (5.00 / 1) (#155)
    by Yman on Sat May 11, 2013 at 12:42:42 PM EST
    I was thinking of that yesterday as I watched Cokie Roberts and Eugene Robinson on Morning Joe, desperately carrying water for the president and Secretary of State, insisting that the sky is green. Eugene was deflecting like an NHL defenseman. Poor Cokie. She was all nervous laughter (a sign, to me, that she knew she was basically full of crap), but at one point I think it was David Gregory (who was actually very good) pointed out that the stories were falling apart, that the testimony and emails were showing a concerted effort to shape the narrative and deflect criticism, that the talking points weren't the "best information we had at the time", that it was kinda BAD. Roberts' eyes hit the floor; she lowered her head sadly and just nodded a few times. She wasn't laughing any more. That's some non-partisan straight-shootin there.

    So unless you were referring to Cokie or Eugene when you said "That's some on-partisan straight-shootin there", you meant Gregory.  Unless you were assessing your own opinion, ...

    ... which would be even funnier.


    No, I wasn't referring to Gregory (none / 0) (#190)
    by ExcitableBoy on Sun May 12, 2013 at 12:53:08 AM EST
    with that last underlined part, I was referring to Cokie Roberts. Sorry, I thought that was clear.

    My point was that her body language (eyes lowered, sadly --my opinion-- nodding her head, etc.) belied the image of non-partisan blah blah. Altogether, not worth the bandwidth we've wasted discussing it.


    ExcitableaBoy, give up (1.00 / 1) (#198)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun May 12, 2013 at 06:59:20 AM EST
    Yman specializes in misunderstanding and attacking.

    Cokie Roberts (5.00 / 1) (#138)
    by MKS on Sat May 11, 2013 at 11:34:01 AM EST
    has her own problems.  

    An apologist for the death squads in Guatemala because her brother's lobbying firm was representing the Guatemalan government.

    She blasted Obama for not staying in America for his vacation when he went to Hawaii.


    Cokie Roberts (5.00 / 3) (#161)
    by sj on Sat May 11, 2013 at 01:23:52 PM EST
    has been a very public bobble head for at least 25 years when I first started watching her, Sam Donaldson and George Will as the regulars on Brinkley's Sunday morning show.

    Program content purchased by Archer Daniels, Merrill Lynch and General Electric. Or, as they would say "sponsored by" yadda yadda. That sounds so much more genteel. Anyway as politically ignorant as I was then, even I could see that her comments were ridiculous and could only be made (IMO) by someone sorely lacking functional brain cells. And she's still around. Sheesh.


    Yes, the video was the spark (none / 0) (#136)
    by MKS on Sat May 11, 2013 at 11:27:33 AM EST
    for what was happening all over the world--at least that is what the protesters said.  Just like the Danish cartoon.

    Does it make sense to me or others here?  No.  But there you have it.

    The other causes you cite I would agree created the combustible stew too.....But to say the video caused the demonstrations all over the world clearly has merit.....  


    According to MoJo's David Corn: (5.00 / 3) (#40)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri May 10, 2013 at 07:19:39 PM EST
    "As ABC News reported on Friday morning, the most discussed talking points in US diplomatic history were revised multiple times before being passed to UN Ambassador Susan Rice prior to her appearances last September on Sunday talk shows. The revisions --- which deleted several lines noting that the CIA months before the attack had produced intelligence reports on the threat of Al Qaeda-linked extremists in Benghazi --- appear to have been driven by State Department spokesperson Victoria Nuland, who, it should be noted, is a career Foggy Bottomer who has served Republican and Democratic administrations, not a political appointee. Her motive seems obvious: fend off a CIA CYA move that could make the State Department look lousy. (The other major deletion concerned three sentences about a possible link between the attack and Ansar al-Sharia, an Al Qaeda-affiliated group; last November, David Petraeus, the former CIA chief, testified that this information was removed from the talking points in order to avoid tipping off the group.)"  (Emphasis is mine.)


    It should be noted that while David Corn was correct in his reference to Victoria Nuland as a "career Foggy Bottomer," or foreign service officer with the U.S. State Dept., he did NOT mention that she also served as Principal Deputy National Security Advisor to -- drum roll, please -- former Vice President Dick Cheney from 2003 to 2005, until appointed by the Bush White House as the 18th United States Permanent Representative to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO).

    Further, Ms. Nuland is the wife of -- repeat drum roll, please -- Robert Kagan, who was co-founder with William Kristol of the Project for the New American Century (PNAC), an affiliate of the American Enterprise Institute. Kagan is well known for having long advocated for preemptive war in Iraq prior to our March 2003 invasion of that benighted country, and further served as the principal foreign policy advisor to Republican Sen. John McCain during the 2008 presidential campaign.

    Therefore, I'd like to thank you, Slado, for doggedly pursuing this story, which has subsequently led to our finding out that the apparent root cause of this Benghazi kerfuffle / controversy, the woman whose judgment apparently set all this nonsense into motion in the first place, also has substantive personal and professional ties to the greater right-wing community in Washington. Why am I not surprised?



    Dick Cheney strikes again! (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by MKS on Fri May 10, 2013 at 07:21:37 PM EST
    I know. I swear, that guy ... (5.00 / 2) (#51)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri May 10, 2013 at 08:28:43 PM EST
    ... is like a herpes zoster that keeps reappearing after you thought it's finally gone away.

    Now THAT IS the story (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by Militarytracy on Fri May 10, 2013 at 08:39:39 PM EST
    Your Brian (1.00 / 1) (#66)
    by Slado on Fri May 10, 2013 at 10:20:34 PM EST
    Must be in knots coming up with that one.

    This story has legs now because Carney just lied to the Washington press and they are pissed.

    Watch the YouTube video from today's briefing.  It's quite comical.

    Like I've said all along this wasn't a big deal till the administration lied about it.


    I watched the whole thing live (5.00 / 1) (#81)
    by MKS on Sat May 11, 2013 at 01:07:48 AM EST
    Carney did not lie.  Show me where he lied.  He was consistent.  

    You have yet to provide one iota of (5.00 / 1) (#99)
    by Anne on Sat May 11, 2013 at 07:49:25 AM EST
    substance to your ongoing "they lied" mantra - not one.  You cite various articles, but apparently don't get past the headlines to read them, because what you cite doesn't necessarily deliver on the headlines they carry.

    If you paid actual attention to the hearings, you'd know that the accusations that have grabbed the headlines didn't stand up.  I know you're not an unintelligent person, so either you're not interested in trying to get past the media noise to the truth, or you are deliberately avoiding it in the hope that the garbage being put up in its place will be accepted as truth if only you - and the media - can keep repeating it.

    How many times do you have to see this kind of thing before you reject it in favor of trying to discern the melody underneath all the noise?

    Charlie Pierce is right - this is the same playbook used to get and keep the Clinton administration bogged down in investigations and hearings for most of his 8 years in office.

    Given how little respect I have for this administration and this president, it would be easy enough for me to fan these flames as well, hoping that a fake controversy would be the thing that would bring them to their knees instead of all the things there is no question they have done and are doing.  

    I find it chilling to think that while all this energy and hysteria is being brought to bear on Benghazi, things are marching right along on a long list of things that are eroding our basic rights and threatening the security of the safety net.

    When you wake up one day to find yourself living in a totalitarian, oligarchical society, don't say no one tried to warn you that's what was afoot while you were screaming about BENGHAZI! BENGHAZI! BENGHAZI!


    Anne, I just don't see a fake controversy (2.67 / 3) (#106)
    by ExcitableBoy on Sat May 11, 2013 at 08:57:52 AM EST
    You have a deteriorating security situation in Benghazi. The Red Cross and British consulate had both pulled out because of it. You've had a couple minor attacks on the American consulate (an IED exploded in the road, a hole blown in the perimeter). You have various reports, true or false, about requests for more security (and counter-accusations of it being the R's fault for pulling funding, which from what I've read isn't true. But let's put that aside because the controversy being discussed is from the R side basically).

    You've got the attack itself, and concerns about who-what-where-when-why help was or was not sent.

    And you've got the post-attack explanations, which NEVER made sense to me. The president of Libya came out the same or next day, and said (correctly) of course it was a terrorist attack. Because OF COURSE it was a terrorist attack. It was because of a video, except it wasn't. It started as a spontaneous demonstration in Benghazi. Oh, there was no demonstration in Benghazi? You didn't hear me clearly, I said Cairo. Definitely Cairo. Doesn't really matter. Anyway, did I mention it was because of a video. See, some guys were walking by with mortars and RPGs... Five talk shows, Anne. FIVE. To spread the video story. And every mic they could get their hands on. And in front of the United Nations. And, shockah, it wasn't true. And it never made sense that it was.

    It was ridiculous on its face. And now, through two sets of hearings about a fake controversy, the info is backing a lot of the prior ridulous,  charges. Now you've got testimony about threats; emails about changing the talking points. Was it just career CYA as Donald said above, or more pointed to this administration? I don't know (but I think I know), but I know it's not fake.


    You keep using that word - "lie" (none / 0) (#114)
    by Yman on Sat May 11, 2013 at 10:06:13 AM EST
    I do not think it means what you think it means.

    Great points, Donald (none / 0) (#104)
    by ExcitableBoy on Sat May 11, 2013 at 08:25:36 AM EST
    thanks for them. But the Secretary of State is the senior person, obviously, and some CYA by a subordinate shouldn't absolve or excuse her if there is other info pointing to her involvement. Which I think there is.

    You have a 20+ year member, second in command in Libya I believe, testifying that he gave her a detailed account that night. Also testifying that he received explicit warning from Clinton's personal aide described as her right-hand man, and that he was effectively demoted. You have emails showing involvement not just by Nuland, but others high at State to 'massage' the talking points. And you have the Secretary prattling on about a video long after we now know the video had no part. It just didn't.


    And you have testimony ... (none / 0) (#115)
    by Yman on Sat May 11, 2013 at 10:11:38 AM EST
    ... and a thorough non-partisan investigation (including interviews with DOZENS of career SD and intelligence employees) that contradict each and every one of points, which you ignore because you don't like them.

    Keep tilting at those windmills ...


    No windmills (5.00 / 1) (#129)
    by ExcitableBoy on Sat May 11, 2013 at 10:53:33 AM EST
    First, and this is a minor point, but nothing and nobody is non-partisan. It was a bi-partisan report, one I basically liked. I don't have it in front of me, but I remember not agreeing with a couple of its points, but whatever.

    I didn't ignore any points because I don't like them. My points were mostly from his testimony the other day, which I didn't see, I haven't had a chance. In any event I only made a few points in the post, so let's check them out and you can let me know what's wrong.

    1. He said he gave Clinton an account that night;
    2. He said he was basically told to shut up by Clinton's aide, campaign chief or whatever she is;
    3. He said he was effectively demoted;
    4. Claims that other(s) at State besides Nuland worked with CIA to change talking points;
    5. Attack on Benghazi not about a video.

    See, that's not many. I'd say the fifth needs no comment. I mean, it is common knowledge that the video thing was junk, right? And as for four, we know for a fact the talking points were changed, it's just a matter of who and why, if it was a big deal or not. But their being changed is a fact. So, have at them, set me straight. I'm always willing to listen to reason.

    No problem (5.00 / 3) (#141)
    by Yman on Sat May 11, 2013 at 11:55:06 AM EST
    He said he gave Clinton an account that night

    and ..?


    He said he was basically told to shut up by Clinton's aide, campaign chief or whatever she is

    "Basically" - heh.  Funny what you can do with the qualifiers.  What Hicks actually claimed was that he was told not to talk to Rep. Chaffetz, who was leading a Congressional delegation to Libya, without a SD lawyer present.  He was told that he was free to speak with Chaffetz as log as a SD attorney was present, which was standard SD policy - a hee-YOOGE difference when people are carelessly throwing around allegations of a "cover-up".  Moreover, Hicks actually did speak with Chaffetz (without a SD attorney present b/c he didn't have the required security clearance) and to the ARB investigators - twice.


    He said he was effectively demoted

    People can "say" (or believe) anything.  In reality, there is absolutely nothing to back up Mr. Hick's belief that he was "effectively" demoted.  In fact, Mr. Hicks returned from Libya at his own request and was assigned to SD headquarters temporarily.  "In a statement late Wednesday, a State Department spokesman, Patrick H. Ventrell, said the department had not and would not retaliate against Mr. Hicks. Mr. Ventrell noted that Mr. Hicks "testified that he decided to shorten his assignment in Libya following the attacks, due to understandable family reasons." He said that Mr. Hicks's current job was "a suitable temporary assignment" at the same salary, and that he had submitted his preferences for his next job."

    4)  Claims that other(s) at State besides Nuland worked with CIA to change talking points

    No idea what "claims" you're talking about, but "claims" per se are nothing more than allegations.  That being said, I would be shocked if only a single person at the SD wasn't involved in reviewing the TPs and suggesting changes.

    5)  Attack on Benghazi not about a video.

    So what?  There was evidence at the time that it was prompted by the video and that was the assessment of the intelligence community immediately afterwards, just as other attacks were inspired by "anti-Muslim" videos.  What you're claiming is that they knew the attacks weren't caused by the video, but lied and claimed it was.  Yet, you offer no evidence to show that the WH knew the CIA's assessment was wrong.


    And there's more info on claim #3 (5.00 / 2) (#146)
    by shoephone on Sat May 11, 2013 at 12:15:44 PM EST
    He said he was effectively demoted

    from state dept. staffers working with Hicks in Libya, via Think Progress:

    "[Jones] and her aide had one-on-one meetings with us to see if [Hicks] could be guided into being a better leader," a State Department employee posted to Libya told ThinkProgress. "Literally every single one of us begged for him to be removed from post," said the employee, who spoke to ThinkProgress on the condition of anonymity, as they were not cleared to discuss personnel issues with the press.

    A second State Department employee present in Libya before and during the Benghazi attacks confirmed the meetings occurred. Assistant Secretary Jones' meetings with the staff prior to Oct. 2 were "entirely" focused on Hicks' performance, according to this second employee, who also believed that Hicks should be removed from his position. "The group of us who were here during the attacks, we sat here two nights ago and watched [the hearing] with our jaws dropped," the staffer said, referring to Hicks' claim that he was demoted out of retribution for speaking out.

    "He was removed from here because he was a disaster as a manager," the second employee went on to say, expressing the belief that Hicks' reassignment had "nothing to do with him being a whistleblower, it had everything to do with his management capacity or lack thereof." This statement contradicts the narrative promoted on conservative media outlets that Hicks was being forced to remain silent and being punished for speaking out.

    This explains Hicks's opening (none / 0) (#148)
    by MKS on Sat May 11, 2013 at 12:24:31 PM EST
    statement at the hearings that focused extensively on his being such a dynamic leader....It seemed really odd at the time.

    So they weren't cleared to discuss (none / 0) (#200)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun May 12, 2013 at 07:07:33 AM EST
    personnel issues?? What in the blue blazes do you think this is??????

    "He was removed from here because he was a disaster as a manager," the second employee went on to say..."

    What that is an attack from someone who hasn't the balls to use their name and thus be ready to defend their statement.


    Chaffetz was a sieve (none / 0) (#147)
    by MKS on Sat May 11, 2013 at 12:20:32 PM EST
    and got into trouble for leaking classified information.....He was the one who let the cat out of the bag that the facility that was attacked was a CIA facility.

    Yman and shoe, (none / 0) (#191)
    by ExcitableBoy on Sun May 12, 2013 at 02:47:47 AM EST
    thanks for the responses. A lot of good info. My responses:
    1) Since he spoke to Clinton herself that night, he must have conveyed some basic info. Like that there was no protest going on, it was a calm quiet night and then an assault. He would have been able to convey a sense of the assault itself. But Susan Rice's statements five days later, which were the admin's statements, don't properly convey the actual conditions, and we've always gotten the 'best info at the time' line.
    2)your points on this are excellent.
    1. good points here too, but I notice yours says that Hicks wasn't demoted but left of his own accord for his family, while Shoe's says he was pulled because he was useless. Obviously the State statement could have been agency-speak for "the guy's useless", but it could just have easily been exactly what he later said, covering a demotion. "Nice pension you got here, it would be a shame if you wuz to lose it". This is true from business to sports to government.
    2. I don't have to go through the history of the talking points. It's clear that they went through much more extensive revisions than we'd been led to believe. And those revisions had much more input from State than we'd been told.
    3. Yes. I AM CLAIMING THEY KNEW KNEW KNEW THE ATTACK WASN'T CAUSED BY THE VIDEO, BUT LIED AND CLAIMED IT WAS. For obvious political considerations. And NO, I'M NOT OFFERING ANY EVIDENCE (but pointing ways it makes sense, and that emerging info seems to me to back it up). Look, to me, it's pretty simple: if the attack was caused by the video, then logic states that if there was no video, there would have been no attack. I just find that ludicrous. Extremist groups were proliferating in the area, there had already been an attempt on the British ambassador's life, there had been a couple smaller attacks on the Americans (the IED in the street and hold in the perimeter). The group that staged the attack possessed military weapons, which we know from the attack -- mortars rpg's, etc. These are all facts. And we're sitting there, small, not very secure, the big apple, the Great Satan, ripe for the picking. Then you have the attack itself, which was definitely not a protest that kinda grew (there was no protest - fact), but an actual co-ordinated attack. But with all these facts laid out, you believe that the administration believed that were it not for the video, the attack would not have happened? Security was weak, they had the forces, they had the weapons, they had the will, they had the history (light attacks on us, attempt on the British), but if not for this video, THIS ONE VIDEO, it would not have happened?

    The trouble with all this Fox-talk radio (none / 0) (#7)
    by jondee on Fri May 10, 2013 at 04:45:52 PM EST
    flogging-Benghazi-to-death is that the audience is composed of a lot of folks who say things like "Libya..Libya..(now, where have I heard that name before?).."

    Perhaps we should try and make (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by nycstray on Fri May 10, 2013 at 04:48:50 PM EST
    Benghazi and Libya the new popular dog names to help these folks out :)

    Shooting the messenger (5.00 / 1) (#111)
    by ExcitableBoy on Sat May 11, 2013 at 09:49:01 AM EST
    One of my pet peeves. I'm always skeptical of posts that attack the medium to discredit the message. I don't watch Fox, but I think you make a mistake denigrating who they are instead of what they say. It's the same tactic people on the right use to dismiss MSNBC, and the NY Times, and ABC, and... I think you also conflate the a-hole talking heads on the network, like Hannity (can't stand him) with the news operation, which I'm told it actually has.

    The very first place I read that there was no demonstration in Benghazi, spontaneous or otherwise, was in a news article that quoted reporting by Fox. Initial reporting by most groups was of a protest outside the Benghzai consulate. It was days later when that switched (seamlessly, in most cases) to a demonstration in Cairo. A lot of what I've read from other sources that was attributed to Fox has turned out true, at least when discussing facts -- timelines, etc. Now, their pundrity, that I don't listen to at all.  


    I'd agree with you (none / 0) (#10)
    by Slado on Fri May 10, 2013 at 04:49:15 PM EST
    but I think the story from ABC today may push it into a mainstream story.  We'll see this weekend.  it will be topic #1 on most of the Sunday chatter shows.

    It's taken awhile but this story has legs.

    The administration should just come clean and then this thing will die quickly.


    Oh, Slado - this is a total non-story, (5.00 / 2) (#14)
    by Anne on Fri May 10, 2013 at 04:58:07 PM EST
    Leave it to Charlie Pierce to coin a new term: "Benghazm:"

    Now it seems that ABC is determined to revive its role from the days of Whitewater in connection to Benghazi, Benghazi!, BENGHAZI! We discussed the other day how one ABC producer became a main conduit for the puke funnel that led from Arkansas con-men to the Whitewater special prosecutor to ABC to the American public. Now, it seems, we must all be shocked -- SHOCKED! -- that The Talking Points may have gone through several iterations before they went out on The Sunday Showz -- where everybody is under oath and subject to the pains and penalties of perjury, especially Dick Cheney when he talked about Mohammad Atta's frolicking around Prague.

    Media Matters puts paid to most of this latest fauxtrage, mainly by demonstrating that there is absolutely nothing new in ABC's "exclusive." But it is becoming increasingly clear to me now that B, B!, B! is further along towards being an actual infotainment miniseries than I thought it was. May sweeps are coming, and then the news doldrums of high summer, and that's when the Whitewater hearings began to multiply back in the day. I honestly believed this particular nothingburger was fed to the hounds last fall. But with Jodi Arias just about finished, and the Tsarnaevs bumped off the radar by the Cleveland case, which will die in a month until when and if there's a trial, I can see a very long few months of "exclusive" parsing of who said what to whom and when, and when will we get all the facts, and Rule Of Law, and all of it over the preposterous notion that anyone takes The Sunday Showz seriously except John McCain. It will not all be on the Fox News Channel, either. The puke funnel has many outlets.

    Anne I have never disagreed with you (3.00 / 3) (#18)
    by samsguy18 on Fri May 10, 2013 at 05:30:03 PM EST
    Today I do....four people died in Benghazi ! The state department and the White House deliberately misled the American public . I don't care who ithey are ....Republican or Democrat they should be held accountable.

    If that was true, they should be (5.00 / 4) (#22)
    by Yman on Fri May 10, 2013 at 05:46:37 PM EST
    It's not.

    Watch Carney today (3.00 / 2) (#67)
    by Slado on Fri May 10, 2013 at 10:21:47 PM EST
    And say that again.

    They are in full spin mode.

    Fun to watch.


    Jonathan Karl (3.00 / 2) (#92)
    by MKS on Sat May 11, 2013 at 01:48:11 AM EST
    seemed remarkably dense during Carney's briefing.  He kept saying that "you" did make substantive changes to the talking points.

    Carney would say the White House made one non-substantive change after receiving the talking points from the CIA.....True, State did have input, but the White House made no substantive changes to the talking points...

    Round and round repeat....


    I did watch him (none / 0) (#116)
    by Yman on Sat May 11, 2013 at 10:14:38 AM EST
    If that was true, they should be.

    It's not.


    Yman, I don't get what you don't see (1.50 / 2) (#117)
    by ExcitableBoy on Sat May 11, 2013 at 10:15:45 AM EST
    When I try to analyze things, I go to facts (as opposed to stats, which are different and easily manipulated),and mix in logic and common sense. In the beginning facts were hard to come by. You had a chaotic, tragic situation, whose aftermath was still unfolding. In almost all cases like this, you get the standard boilerplate: "continuing to investigate...we will update...God bless America". Instead, they screamed 'VIDEO!' from every rooftop, Sunday talk show, microphone and UN assembly they could find. I thought that was strange. Especially, what would a video, even if true, have to do with what was obviously a military assault? Clinton's comments, roughly 'what difference does it make if it was just guys walking by or...'. Guys walking by, are you f-ing kidding me?

    You have an election around the corner with an incumbent touting GM's alive and bin Laden's dead, al Qaeda's on the run, etc. The head of the State Dept. is the prime candidate for the next election. The timing and the reaction just smelled from the beginning. Any hint of a terrorist attack would have been devastating, the Rose Garden non-statement notwithstanding.

    I don't believe they're responsible for 4 dead Americans, but I honestly believe it's pure partisan hackery to think this is a fevered GOP dream.


    What you do ... (5.00 / 2) (#122)
    by Yman on Sat May 11, 2013 at 10:37:53 AM EST
    ... is go to the facts that you agree with - the ones that fit your preconceived notions of what you'd like to believe.  Then you mix in the opinions of those that fit your theory, like Hicks.

    What you completely and utterly ignore are the facts that clearly contradict your story:

    1.  There WAS evidence that the attack was motivated by the video.

    2.  That assessment - that the attack was likely a spontaneous attack inspired by the video - was in the very first assessment from the CIA.  Yet - to YOU - it was obviously from day one it was an organized military attack becaus

    3.  Petraeus testified that the CIA drafted the talking points, that the references to specific terrorist groups were dropped to protect the investigation, and that the CIA approved the changes.

    4.  The claim that Sec Clinton denied additional security to Benghazi because her name was on a cable has been thoroughly debunked by the ARB members and anyone with half a clue about how the SD works.

    Yman, this is much better. (2.00 / 1) (#140)
    by ExcitableBoy on Sat May 11, 2013 at 11:46:16 AM EST
    I'll reply as best I can.

    1 and 2. If you see this as me cherry-picking facts I'll accept it I guess, but I just think the video is and always was total crap. First, there's no such thing as a "spontaneous" terror attack. Maybe that's being nit-picky, but it's by definition a planned event. These were not guys walking by who just decided to join a demonstration (the first story). The reason I always thought it was an organized military attack is because it was an organized military attack. They had mortars and RPGs, not knives and bottle rockets. And it wasn't just me, a lot of people looked at the precision and the outcome and said no way was that spontaneous. And don't forget, it wasn't. As for the CIA, yes I discount them, but not because it was convenient for me. They've always been an ass-covering group, I just don't trust them.

    1. I understand Petraeus' testimony, but new info seems pretty clear that State was very involved with the revisions.
    2. I don't think I mentioned anything about Clinton and a memo, but it's been a long day, and maybe it ties into something else I said. Let me know.

    Thanks for the points. I have the ARB report on my laptop somewhere, I'll re-read it.

    Let's see the actual EVIDENCE (5.00 / 3) (#150)
    by Yman on Sat May 11, 2013 at 12:27:36 PM EST
    1 and 2)  That's great that you (and some others) thought the video was "total crap", but the intelligence agencies had much more information an expertise than you or those other people.  Of course they're not always right, but I'd much prefer the WH rely on the information and experience of numerous career intelligence officers than the opinions of a guy watching this stuff on TV.  Either way, the claims that the WH was "lying" about the video - when it was relying on information from the CIA - are ridiculous.

    As far as drawing the conclusion that this had to be a terrorist attack because mortars and RPGs were used.  Yeah, I'm sure that never occurred to all of the analysts and experts.  Or, they realized that we're not talking about Washington, DC and that post-revolution Libya is laden with these kinds of weapons - and more.

    1.  Petraeus never said State wasn't involved in the revisions.  In fact, he testified that the revisions were the result of an interagency review and input process that occurs whenever this kid of information is released, including the State Department.  But Petraeus's testimony confirms that of many others - that the dropping of references to specific terrorist organizations was not done for political purposes, but to protect the investigation.

    2.  No idea if you referenced it specifically, but this is just one example of numerous conspiracy myths pushed by Republicans that have been debunked.  There are plenty more.

    Won't go point by point on this (none / 0) (#192)
    by ExcitableBoy on Sun May 12, 2013 at 03:16:34 AM EST
    Too late (or early) and really who cares, we disagree. E v e r y b o d y in politics covers their own and everybody else's asses all the time, so it's hard to rely even on testimony, and I say this knowing I also say "hey, I believe so-and-so; he testified that...", so who the hell knows. That being said, I don't really buy the Petraeus line changing the points for the investigation, not the politics. One, how's it working out for them so far, and two, in that case they should never say anything about anything.

    And though you're right that I've said this, it isn't the presence of the weapons that make this a terrorist attack; any yahoo can throw a grenade or fire a rocket. It was coordinated, it was quick, it was effective. It wasn't some guys out for a walk who decided to kill Americans.

    Now, the CIA. You seem to have MUCH more faith in their honesty and good graces than I do. When they're doing their job well, they're lying their asses off. And when they're doing their job badly, they're lying their asses off.


    one more (none / 0) (#193)
    by ExcitableBoy on Sun May 12, 2013 at 03:49:58 AM EST
    there was a CIA outfit attached to the consulate or annex or whatever, so there's any number of reasons we wouldn't be getting true info from them, or about them.

    You had the consulate, and about a mile away the annex, which I


    oops (none / 0) (#194)
    by ExcitableBoy on Sun May 12, 2013 at 03:57:37 AM EST
    You had the consulate and about a mile away the annex, which I think was the CIA outfit (so hard to tell the players without a program). Both were hit.

    Was it just a matter of following the escapt/retreat, or was this part of some intelligence/plan. The attackers had to at least know it was there beforehand, perhaps not its purpose.


    The Republicans are currently ... (none / 0) (#48)
    by Robot Porter on Fri May 10, 2013 at 08:07:55 PM EST
    the best people to maintain the Benghazi cover-up.  Because they are currently so unpopular that if they say there's a cover-up, most of the public will believe there isn't.  

    A classic triple fake.  And probably intentional.  It all has the whiff of greasepaint to it.

    The full story behind all this probably won't come out for thirty years.  But the aggressive lying around Libya, Benghazi, the "Arab Spring" and now Syria points in the usual directions.


    Republican to English Dictionary (5.00 / 2) (#21)
    by Yman on Fri May 10, 2013 at 05:45:04 PM EST
    Benghazi (Ben-gah-zee) - Commonly exploited winger phrase meaning, "Please God, don't let Hillary run in 2016!"

    Never fear. Karl Rove is on the case. (5.00 / 5) (#26)
    by caseyOR on Fri May 10, 2013 at 06:08:05 PM EST
    If you had any doubt that Benghazi Benghazi was about anything other than smearing Hillary in the lead-up to 2016, Rove is here to set the record straight.

    Here is a new ad about Benghazi from American Crossroads. Watch it, and then try to make the case that all this keening and gnashing of teeth by Republicans has anything to do with concern over the deaths of those four Americans. They could care less about those who died.

    The GOP is afraid of Hillary's candidacy, and they will stop at nothing to stop her.

    Feeling outrage about those four dead Americans? You might want to direct that anger at the people who are shamelessly exploiting those death for cheap political advantage. And that is not Hillary Clinton.


    Is the New Yorker (3.00 / 2) (#64)
    by Slado on Fri May 10, 2013 at 10:13:35 PM EST
    A right wing rag?


    This story has legs.

    Sorry Yman you're the last to know.


    Alex Koppelman is "The New Yorker"? (5.00 / 1) (#118)
    by Yman on Sat May 11, 2013 at 10:18:40 AM EST

    You are remarkably, consistently vague (5.00 / 1) (#90)
    by MKS on Sat May 11, 2013 at 01:39:42 AM EST
    You just say they lied--never specifying the lie.....

    It would be quite easy to spell it out here.  (Now I understand the purpose behind the pleading rules requiring specificity in alleging fraud.)

    Just cut and past the deceitful statement here.


    Here's another 'right wing rag' (3.00 / 2) (#82)
    by Slayersrezo on Sat May 11, 2013 at 01:08:52 AM EST
    A New York Times Link

    I personally don't care who ends up implicated in this mess, indeed I suspect most of it more about bureaucratic infighting mostly with members of the 'permanent bureaucracy' than any bad 'Executive' decisions, despite the Presidents unfortunate and kinda disgusting use of that Anti-Mohammed video as a convenient explanation.

    Fact is , warnings were ignored and Americans died needlessly. A big goof up was made at minimum, at maximum someone decided those lives were expendable for some obscure governmental reason of which we are likely to never find out.

    That being said, watching some here spin to mindlessly defend the Administration or Hillary or Democrats or whatever on this is rather comical. I think there's plenty of bloopers in this mess to go around.


    The CIA had more than 20 people in Benghazi (5.00 / 2) (#85)
    by Towanda on Sat May 11, 2013 at 01:22:35 AM EST
    that day, that night -- says the link -- and the CIA did what with its dozens on hand? And when the troops and ships and more that the Repubs mutter about were many miles and many hours away.

    I read that link and see lots of clues to the CIA still messing up not only other countries but also our own.  That's the agency to grill -- but once again, it's getting a bye from the Repubs.  Why?


    "The troops" who Republicans (5.00 / 3) (#89)
    by MKS on Sat May 11, 2013 at 01:32:43 AM EST
    say were wrongly told to stand down consisted of a grand total of four troops.  One of them had a broken foot and could barely walk.  

    If they had boarded the plane in Tripoli as Repbulcians say they should, they would have arrived after the second attack was over.

    Moreover, our people in Tripoli had suffered two deaths in attacks that night, and sending their only military support away sounds like a bad idea.


    Well Towanda (none / 0) (#109)
    by Slayersrezo on Sat May 11, 2013 at 09:33:48 AM EST
    At least you'll admit SOMEONE messed up, and this isn't all because of a video on Youtube and Republican politics.

    Baby steps, but a step nonetheless.

    Now who do we fire/hold accountable in the CIA?


    The warnings were "ignored" (5.00 / 1) (#137)
    by jondee on Sat May 11, 2013 at 11:29:25 AM EST
    and lives were "expendable"..

    Of course it makes perfect sense for Democrats of above-average intelligence to adopt that view in the middle of a heated election run up..

    Because the Republicans would never make hay out of "expendable" Americans, including an Ambassador being killed..

    Jims explanation is better. An honest unveiling of the right wing id in all it's glory: Obama and his cronies just hate Americans and colonialism That much.



    The article you link to (3.00 / 2) (#86)
    by MKS on Sat May 11, 2013 at 01:23:40 AM EST
    does not say that "someone decided those lives were expendable for some obscure governmental reason."

    Rather, the article says:

    Indeed, the e-mails do not reveal major new details about the attack or other discrepancies in the administration's evolving account of it.

    You are venturing into Vince Foster style conspiracy theories here.  Strange how people assume the worst about Hillary.


    What?? (none / 0) (#84)
    by MKS on Sat May 11, 2013 at 01:17:08 AM EST
    Someone decided the four lives lost were expendable????

    Where do you get this from?

    The evidence is that we did have the capability to provide military assitance during the raid on Benghazi compound.

    And the video was the state reason why our embassies around the world were under attack.....It was not crazy to assume it had a role in Benghazi too.


    It was crazy (2.33 / 3) (#107)
    by ExcitableBoy on Sat May 11, 2013 at 09:14:46 AM EST
    to keep insisting it had a part in this attack when they categorically knew it didn't. Of course, it wasn't crazy because when you're crazy you think you're telling the truth.

    BS (5.00 / 2) (#125)
    by Yman on Sat May 11, 2013 at 10:48:22 AM EST
    It was crazy to keep insisting it had a part in this attack when they categorically knew it didn't.

    Where is the actual evidence that they "categorically knew it didn't"?

    These are precisely the kind of BS accusations that belie your claims of simply wanting "a fair and frank discussion of the facts".


    "keep insisting on" (none / 0) (#123)
    by MKS on Sat May 11, 2013 at 10:42:51 AM EST
    It lasted 5 days.  

    "stated reason"--by the attackers (none / 0) (#87)
    by MKS on Sat May 11, 2013 at 01:25:18 AM EST
    "did not have the capability" (none / 0) (#88)
    by MKS on Sat May 11, 2013 at 01:26:32 AM EST
    It won't be any more the leading story (none / 0) (#19)
    by Militarytracy on Fri May 10, 2013 at 05:36:56 PM EST
    Than Hicks being woefully short on promotions for his time served and being labeled a whining underachiever by a peer, who also points out that Hicks' inability to come to grips with the fact that F-16s from Italy really weren't at his disposal is only more evidence of how ineffective at State he was and is.

    It won't be a mainstream story any more than the story that in an effort to remain relevant Hicks is running for a leadership position in the State Department Employee Association and he must be voted into that position by State Department employees.  I'm going to assume that is their employee union, and he hoped to use THIS Benghazi hearing as a form of campaigning for that position.


    Tracy, (3.00 / 2) (#108)
    by ExcitableBoy on Sat May 11, 2013 at 09:28:09 AM EST
    He was second in command in Libya, so I'll assume for now he knows what he's talking about.

    Having a peer knock him doesn't mean anything to me, especially if it was anonymous (not sure from your post if it was).

    About thinking the planes were at his disposal, that's not right, but I didn't really care when I read the same thing about Nancy Pelosi. Maybe you did.

    Everybody tries to smear everybody else, so you won't even listen to what they have to say. I pay no attention to that. If you have any substantive knocks on the guy re Benghazi, I'd be glad to hear them. Don't know too much about what he's said, just the Cliff Notes.


    Classic Defense (2.67 / 3) (#65)
    by Slado on Fri May 10, 2013 at 10:17:54 PM EST
    Attack the underlings.

    I'd expect nothing less.


    Who were you attacking again? (none / 0) (#71)
    by Militarytracy on Fri May 10, 2013 at 10:55:53 PM EST
    Hicks said nothing of relevance (none / 0) (#93)
    by MKS on Sat May 11, 2013 at 01:58:18 AM EST
    And what he chose to talk about (none / 0) (#133)
    by Militarytracy on Sat May 11, 2013 at 11:07:16 AM EST
    In such a way as to cast false doubts is evidence that he is either highly manipulative, very ineffective at his job, or is highly manipulative so he doesn't have to be effective at his job.  In all three cases not a great employee for the State Department but it is hard as hell to shed a really bad egg at the State Department I'm guessing.  If their union is as effective as the GS employee union, you just have to find a way to live with them and find them a place where they can do the least damage.

    I think I have met a couple of people cut from the same cloth trying to make my doctors appointment at Lyster.  I stand in line behind the sign, I'm the next one, they know I'm there but they are watching this thing on television, they will be with me in five minutes and by God I had better not question them in their performance of anything.


    That was amusing (none / 0) (#38)
    by MKS on Fri May 10, 2013 at 07:09:45 PM EST
    when a Republican was leading Hicks during the hearing.....And when they got to the big finish, Hicks said the jets were 2-3 hours away, but no tankers.  

    That means there were no jets within reach within time.....How do they not understand this?

    Hicks added nothing.  


    Were you an Ambassador?? (none / 0) (#78)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri May 10, 2013 at 11:48:02 PM EST

    Thought so.


    I'll have to remember that one (5.00 / 3) (#131)
    by Yman on Sat May 11, 2013 at 10:56:49 AM EST
    Anytime you post about sending troops into combat, ...

    ... or global warming, ...

    ... or "Shariah Law!" ...

    ... or what liberals believe, ..

    ... etc. etc. etc.


    Well.. (5.00 / 1) (#135)
    by jondee on Sat May 11, 2013 at 11:10:55 AM EST
    the lack of formal education and scientific credentials become irrelevant once the overarching truth about the conspiracy of America-haters has been revealed to you.  

    It's limeric Friday, y'all (none / 0) (#4)
    by Dadler on Fri May 10, 2013 at 04:32:32 PM EST
    Dadler's new habit:

    pfk, vol. 591

    The burdens of the mind are rot
    The pleasures of the body not
    Our flesh is a house
    Our brain is a spouse
    Time is so cold, our blood so hot.

    Have a great weekend, peeps. Think we're heading to Monteray/Carmel/Point Lobos State Reserve. Should be lovely. Peace out.

    I lost the "k" in limerick (none / 0) (#5)
    by Dadler on Fri May 10, 2013 at 04:33:58 PM EST
    Damn. Anyone who finds it, you have my thanks.

    I thought that all limericks... (none / 0) (#166)
    by desertswine on Sat May 11, 2013 at 02:23:09 PM EST
    had to have the word "Nantucket" in it.

    Mine does (none / 0) (#187)
    by Dadler on Sat May 11, 2013 at 08:18:46 PM EST
    It's just a silent Nantucket, and it's not spelled phonetically. ;-)

    Using permits to determine number of gun owners (none / 0) (#12)
    by MO Blue on Fri May 10, 2013 at 04:56:00 PM EST
    does not take into account that individuals can have numerous permits for guns and for conceal and carry and various permits have to be renewed. It also does not take into account the number of gun owners lost per year through the death of gun owners (natural, accidental or suicides). Anecdotal evidence of new gun owners supplied in previous open thread.

    Purely anecdotally, a couple years ago my neighbor talked to the rest of us in the 'hood about buying uppers and lowers and building our own AR15s. He and 5 of my neighbors did it, I was the only one who didn't. (A decision I regret, after using the guns they built. They shoot like buttah.)

    Anyway, he already had guns, but the others did not, so, 4 new gun owners.

    2009 reported suicide deaths by gun  18,735 deaths
    Evidence that there were approximately 52 fewer gun owners per day in 2009.

    2010 reported suicide deaths by gun  19,392 deaths
    Evidence that there were approximately 53 fewer gun owners per day in 2010.

    MOBlue, I'm getting a bit worried for you. (5.00 / 3) (#24)
    by caseyOR on Fri May 10, 2013 at 05:55:47 PM EST
    The more I read about all the goings-on by the elected yahoos hanging out in Jeff City the more I think that for the safety of you and yours it might be time to pack up and leave the show-me state.

    Obviously, someone has put some very powerful hallucinogenic drugs in the water back there.  Either that, or an astonishing number of elected officials in Missouri were dropped on their heads as infants.

    Run MO, run I say. Save yourself.


    Have to wait to win the lottery (5.00 / 3) (#43)
    by MO Blue on Fri May 10, 2013 at 07:40:52 PM EST
    before I can afford to leave MO.

    MO is suffering from the same disease as the other states that have large Republican majorities up in their state capital. I'm not sure that the state will recover from what keeps going from bad to worse.

    I have to admit that it can get pretty crazy around here. At one time, I spent most of my time with people from the artist community. We are a different kind of crazy - the fun kind. Now I am staying closer to home and more involved with some of the senior activities which are fun but it never ceases to amaze me how conservative and narrow minded some of my peers are about almost everything. It covers the whole range of things from food to politics. A real lack of knowledge also. Very limiting IMO.

    Also, I find myself neither fish nor fowl since I'm definitely not conservative and not an Obama/New Democrat fan either. So my comments seem to horrify just about everyone.

    Maybe one of these days I will join your pirate crew or go become a citizen of the Republic of Zorba, ;o)


    My Mizzou brother (3.67 / 3) (#76)
    by Towanda on Fri May 10, 2013 at 11:41:13 PM EST
    has been filling Facebook this week with sputtering made reactions at the ridiculous flimflammery of your legislature, possibly even nuttier than ours under a Republican majority that . . . well, imagine if the sole aim of your legislature was to pass bills that would destroy the economy of St. Louis.  That's what the idjits here are doing to our big city.

    But our idjits have yet to pass a bill that punishes teachers for not carrying guns into the classroom.  I thought my bro was going to stroke out at that one.  We have to keep him sane for just a few weeks more there, and then he heads out of Missouri for several weeks, thank heavens.  He needs to get far, far away from your legislature for a while for his health.


    Slayerzero likes guns in the classrooom (5.00 / 2) (#149)
    by Towanda on Sat May 11, 2013 at 12:24:58 PM EST
    it seems.

    That sez it all.


    Yes, I do. (1.00 / 3) (#153)
    by Slayersrezo on Sat May 11, 2013 at 12:37:45 PM EST
    As a matter of fact, the more guns the better.

    That they cause you to hide under your bed is just icing on the cake.

    I think the 'risk templates' of many on this site are all messed up. You'll worry about the wrong things.


    So "messed up" (5.00 / 4) (#157)
    by Yman on Sat May 11, 2013 at 12:49:51 PM EST
    I think the 'risk templates' of many on this site are all messed up. You'll worry about the wrong things.

    Why worry about the reality of tens of thousands being killed and maimed with guns every year when equal numbers of men are being maimed and killed by the oppression and reverse-sexism of our matriarchal society.



    Pats yman on the head (1.00 / 2) (#168)
    by Slayersrezo on Sat May 11, 2013 at 02:28:00 PM EST
    "The Tens of Thousands" you worry about are either suicides - which I keep saying we should find out WHY and you and others here keep ignoring - and criminals killing criminals which would largely be ended if we stopped the war on drugs and made some other justice system reforms.

    The hundreds..or even dozens... are the mass shootings and accidents you love to whine about, and that you want to give the government even more power over your life in order to (for the trillionth time) try to prevent.

    If you were truly worried about the "tens of thousands" you'd worry about the suicides and the gangbangers and druglords.

    But since your only solutions seem to be about the far more rare events I have no trouble not taking you seriously or believing you give a crap about the 'tens of thousands' at all.


    Silly boy (5.00 / 3) (#172)
    by Yman on Sat May 11, 2013 at 03:19:14 PM EST
    You actually think that someone - anyone - cares what you believe, ... let alone me?

    That is seriously funny.

    BTW - Do you really fail to see that your fallacy of false alternatives is so transparent?  Hard as it may be for you to believe, you can be in favor of ending the war on drugs, providing better mental health screenings and services, and limiting the accessibility of weapons for these (and other) criminal purposes simultaneously.

    Walk ... chew gum.

    Most everyone can do it.


    You brought up the (1.00 / 2) (#175)
    by Slayersrezo on Sat May 11, 2013 at 03:34:02 PM EST
    Criminals and the suiciders, not me. "Tens of thousands" my butt. The gun deaths you give a crap about almost always are far less than 1000 deaths a year total.

    And you have yet to show that your particular solutions (assault weapons bans, gun registries etc) will help THEM in any way, shape, or form.

    Better and more widely available mental health treatment would probably solve far more firearms deaths than all your stupid purported 'solutions' put together.

    But then I am talking to someone of limited honesty and very limited education. I wonder if you even took a basic stats course?


    The criminals and suiciders" ... (5.00 / 1) (#176)
    by Yman on Sat May 11, 2013 at 04:02:23 PM EST
    ... are people, too, which is precisely why I include them.  You dismiss them, then claim that I'm the one who "doesn't give a crap" about them.

    But then I am talking to someone of limited honesty and very limited education. I wonder if you even took a basic stats course?

    Slayer - You - accusing someone of dishonesty - is like Rush Limbaugh accusing someone of dishonesty, or lecturing someone on the importance of marriage, or the dangers of illegal drugs, or complaining about sexism, or ...

    ... well, you get the point.

    BTW - I've had several statistics course, including at the graduate level.  If you'd like to compare educations, I'd be more than happy to do so.  :)


    I have a BA in biotech (none / 0) (#177)
    by Slayersrezo on Sat May 11, 2013 at 04:06:41 PM EST
    You have a degree in law.
    I've also got a few technical certifications.

    Even though this level of education hardly makes me Stephen Hawking, I'd put a BA in an applied science against pretty much any 'legal eagle' any day.


    Yawn (5.00 / 2) (#178)
    by Yman on Sat May 11, 2013 at 04:24:02 PM EST
    A B.A. in "Biotech"?  Huh ... doesn't seem to be workin' out for ya very well.  Maybe it was the school?

    My undergraduate degree was a B.S. in Chemical Engineering.  My Master's was in education (MSEd) and then (of course) my J.D.

    But it's nice to hear you'd put it up "against pretty much any 'legal eagle' any day".



    And yet you argue so dishonestly (1.00 / 1) (#179)
    by Slayersrezo on Sat May 11, 2013 at 04:47:17 PM EST
    Seriously, WHY do you work in law again?

    Failed in your first field? Decided you liked having Godlike power in family court? Making lots of money in private practice? We know teaching (except at a very few private academies) doesn't pay very well, so obviously you weren't going to work in THAT.

    I suspect it's because Chemical Engineering doesn't respond very well to slick arguments. A chemical reaction will either work the way you want it to or it won't and you won't be able to pretend you succeeded in your experiment by changing the title or putting some other spin on the experiment.

    It's not...flexible enough of a field for you.

    And with that all being said I now get ready to go off and visit the relatives for Mother's Day.


    Maybe the two of you could (5.00 / 3) (#180)
    by Anne on Sat May 11, 2013 at 05:29:29 PM EST
    just go off somewhere and settle once and for all which of you has the bigger d!ck, because that's about where the level of discourse between you has gotten to.

    You've made no bones about the fact that you have no respect for Yman because he works in the area of family law, assuming unfairly, and no doubt inaccurately, that he is someone with no integrity whose mission is to destroy families and ruin people's lives.

    It makes you look like a pouty, petty - and mean - little baby, and makes it hard to take any of your arguments seriously.  I mean, what on earth is the point in putting the most negative spin possible on why someone with a chemical engineering degree ended up going to law school?  And if you're tempted to say - whine - that Yman started it, I'm gonna have to say what I've wanted to say to most of your comments: grow the fck up.

    If you want to argue the issues, argue them - instead of throwing a fit every time someone successfully calls you on your BS, try going back to your sources and making a better argument - on the issues.


    Anne, thank you (5.00 / 2) (#181)
    by Zorba on Sat May 11, 2013 at 05:37:08 PM EST
    You have absolutely articulated how I feel.  Thank you very much, my sister.

    Yeah, ... I'd run away, too ... (5.00 / 1) (#183)
    by Yman on Sat May 11, 2013 at 05:44:59 PM EST
    ... if I were you.  One silly theory after another shot down again and again.  Embarrassing, huh?  Didn't your professor's caution you against formulating hypotheses with absolutely no knowledge of what you're talking about? He//, ... even my high school students knew that much.

    But to answer your latest nonsense - I majored in a hard science because: 1) I had no idea what I wanted to major in when I graduated from high school, 2) my parents (and guidance counselor) suggested a science background would give me the most options and 3) the best scholarship offer was for a science program.  By my junior year I knew i didn't want to spend my life in a lab/pharmaceutical research like most of my friends, so I decided to teach.  I got my MSEd while teaching in Charm City, then moved out to the county.  I loved teaching, but even then I knew it wouldn't pay the bills, so I went to law school and the rest is history.  Much as you fantasize otherwise, my reasons for leaving teaching were as mundane as the fact that I couldn't raise a family on the salary.

    As for law, I must admit it's been enjoyable.  I've worked in several areas, but I now do a lot of family law mediation (divorces, post-divorce, custody issues, etc.).  I probably would have stayed in teaching if I would've been able to meet the financial responsibilities of a growing family, but it just wasn't possible.

    So, Slayer ... any more of your BS you need me to clear up for you?  Gotta admit I'm curious about how you ended up in your circumstances ... given your technical certifications and all.

    I'm sure that piece of the puzzle would explain a lot of things ...


    Have you ever taught (5.00 / 3) (#163)
    by Towanda on Sat May 11, 2013 at 01:44:29 PM EST
    and, if so, at what level?  

    How many students at a time, in the room?  

    Dozens of kindergarteners?  I have.

    Dozens of middle schoolers?  I have.

    Hundreds of college students?  I have.

    How much was in your book bag, with the gun at the bottom, while you walked the aisles -- as you certainly would not want us holstered as we do so, if you think through it for even a minute?

    How far, if in K12, was the cloakroom, or the desk, where the gun would be, unless <see above>?

    How reality-based, from experience in teaching, are you?


    Rather than asking me irrelevent personal question (1.00 / 1) (#170)
    by Slayersrezo on Sat May 11, 2013 at 02:34:50 PM EST
    Towanda, why don't you ask some teachers here:
    teachers carrying guns

    Gosh, children and other innocents must be dropping like flies in that town!


    I'll ask the Texas school custodian (5.00 / 4) (#185)
    by Towanda on Sat May 11, 2013 at 06:18:30 PM EST
    who was doing his job and was shot during gun class.

    Texas is your example to which we ought to aspire?

    Texas SCHOOLING is your example?

    That you cite Texas "education" as an example only shows how little you know about education, at all.


    The pirate crew would welcome you with (none / 0) (#91)
    by caseyOR on Sat May 11, 2013 at 01:45:26 AM EST
    open arms, MO Blue. The more the merrier. And speaking of the Republic of Zorba, that is where the crew hangs its various hats when on Eastern Seaboard land leave.

    c'mon down to the Conch Republic (none / 0) (#100)
    by fishcamp on Sat May 11, 2013 at 07:52:37 AM EST
    nothing much happens here other than fishing and drinking.  And, of course, TL.

    Do you know (none / 0) (#139)
    by CoralGables on Sat May 11, 2013 at 11:37:59 AM EST
    where the current Keys bike path that borders US-1 starts and ends as of now?

    CG, not sure where the bike path (none / 0) (#154)
    by fishcamp on Sat May 11, 2013 at 12:38:58 PM EST
    starts up in Key Largo but here in the middle keys there are long stretches being paved and others that are fine.  You still have to ride on the highway on the 42 bridges and the no bike path areas.  People ride it all the time with big custom bike packs.  There are several beautiful State parks to camp in.  They are on the best beaches in the keys and we go just for the day sometimes. $5, but it's worth it.  You can stop here at mm 75 for some guacamole.  Key West is mm 0 and Key Largo is mm 106.  

    I'm having a giggle (none / 0) (#30)
    by Militarytracy on Fri May 10, 2013 at 06:18:08 PM EST
    I just read this story to my husband and he melted down right in front of me.  He said the Air Force and the Navy did this and they get away with it because of Title 10.  He's really livid.  He says the Air Force has a blue camo now, he guesses that it is so if you fall out of a plane you'll blend in with the sky.

    Who knew West Point had a professor (none / 0) (#39)
    by oculus on Fri May 10, 2013 at 07:15:28 PM EST
    of  the history of Army uniforms?  I say government is toooo big!

    I guess there is a professor for anything (none / 0) (#44)
    by Militarytracy on Fri May 10, 2013 at 07:43:14 PM EST
    anymore.  My husband was very down learning that your dress blues pants are lighter in shade of blue due to two different contractors making the uniform many years ago.  One made the jacket and one made the pants, and then they didn't match...and then that became the traditional uniform...a giant mistake :)

    I always wondered why the dress blues looked (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by caseyOR on Fri May 10, 2013 at 08:37:15 PM EST
    like a public service announcement for why one should never dry clean the jacket and pants of a suit separately.

    Your giant federal bureaucracy at work, people.


    Breaking: Ríos Montt convicted of genocide. (none / 0) (#50)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri May 10, 2013 at 08:25:04 PM EST
    "Well, I learned a lot. You'd be surprised. They're all individual countries."
    - President Ronald Reagan, speaking to reporters aboard Air Force One about his meeting with Central American leaders in Honduras (December 5, 1982)

    Gen. Efraín Ríos Montt, the once-feared strongman of Guatamala who was hailed by President Ronald Reagan in December 1982 as "a man of great personal integrity" who was "totally dedicated to democracy," has been found guilty by a three-judge panel in Guatamala City of genocide and crimes against humanity for the systematic massacre and displacement of ethnic Mayan people.

    Mr. Reagan, who also claimed in that same Dec. 1982 speech that the Guatemalan dictator had "gotten a bum rap" from human rights organizations for the ruthless campaign his military waged against leftist guerrillas, was still deceased and therefore not available for comment.

    Karma will exact its toll.

    One of my dearest personal political (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by caseyOR on Fri May 10, 2013 at 08:54:59 PM EST
    memories happened in 1984. I was doing an extensive amount of local organizing for the Mondale-Ferraro campaign. Mostly phone banks back in the days before today's ubiquitous cell phones. This meant finding a local business who both supported your candidate and had enough phones and phone lines to support a phone bank team, and then recruiting the people to spend an evening making calls to registered voters.

    As a reward for my work I got to meet Geraldine Ferraro when she came to town. I was one of a small group of volunteers in the back room of a hotel ballroom. Ferraro worked the group like the pro she was. When she got to me she clasped my hand, looked deeply into my eyes and spoke the words I will never forget.

    "We must end the covert war in Nicaragua. "

    As a result, I remain, nearly three decades later, committed to righting the wrongs we brought to Central America.


    Good news (none / 0) (#57)
    by MKS on Fri May 10, 2013 at 09:04:56 PM EST
    It took a long time, and the amnesty part of the 1996 Peace Accords made this type of prosecution a long shot.

    Peggy Noonan was an apologist for the atrocities in Guatemala....


    I did my senior thesis on this guy... (none / 0) (#73)
    by magster on Fri May 10, 2013 at 11:01:08 PM EST
    This is welcome news!

    Guacamole alert!!!!!!! (none / 0) (#58)
    by caseyOR on Fri May 10, 2013 at 09:08:46 PM EST
    I know Cinco de Mayo has passed. Still, there is a glut of avocados at the market, and they are on sale.

    I am looking for simple and tasty recipes for guacamole. Who has one that they are willing to share?  Please post it here. I will try them all and post my reviews. Honest. I promise. And I am not an elected official. So, a promise still means something o me.

    Help me help the avocado farmers of America.

    It is a fact that (5.00 / 2) (#68)
    by sj on Fri May 10, 2013 at 10:25:22 PM EST
    I will never, ever get green chili here in Baltimore (unless I make it myself) so I have pretty much given up on Mexican food.

    Having said that, I recently discovered a restaurant (Mari Luna Bistro) quite close to me that has a heavenly guacamole menu.  To wit:

    Traditional:  Avocado, jalapeño, onion, tomato and cilantro

    Yucatán:  Avocado, bacon bits, queso fresco, tomato and cilantro

    Puebla:  Avocado, leek, poblano pepper, tomatillo, onion and cilantro

    Azteca:  Avocado, pumpkin seed, goat cheese, roasted garlic, roasted corn tomato and cilantro

    Cabo San Lucas:  Avocado, crab, jicama, orange, scallion, tomato and cilantro

    Mayan:  Avocado, Squash, zucchini, wild mushroom, corn, tomatillo, red pepper and cilantro

    Veracruz:  Avocado, mango, papaya, pomegranate seeds, tomato and cilantro

    And I could be wrong, but I think there is some fresh lime juice squeezed in there as well. All ingredients are very fresh and finely chopped. Minced maybe? For example, I'd be hard pressed to pick out a bit of mango from the Vera Cruz (my fave) but it has provided flavor. The pomegranate seeds are whole, though.  Yum.

    So, while these aren't recipes, here are some ideas.


    I love avocado with mango too (5.00 / 2) (#70)
    by Militarytracy on Fri May 10, 2013 at 10:53:57 PM EST
    I could try some Veracruz.  It almost sounds like desert.

    A long time ago I used to eat gazpacho with cucumbers, avocado, and shrimp diced in it.  I had forgotten all about that.  Must do it this weekend.


    Go simple and let avocado be the main flavor. (5.00 / 1) (#72)
    by magster on Fri May 10, 2013 at 10:58:47 PM EST
    3 avocados, juice of up to half lemon but start with less, light dusting of black pepper and garlic salt, and a handful of shakes from a bottle of red pepper sauce (Tobasco is hotter than the red pepper sauce I use, so if you use Tobasco, use only a couple of shakes). Mix with a fork so it's kinda chunky instead of creamy smooth. Add any more of the above ingredients to suit your taste.

    We've got a lot of mangoes (none / 0) (#103)
    by fishcamp on Sat May 11, 2013 at 08:09:49 AM EST
    down here right now.  Buck apiece at Publics.

    This is the best guacamole recipe ever. (3.00 / 2) (#62)
    by Angel on Fri May 10, 2013 at 09:53:42 PM EST
    Now, why would anyone who's (none / 0) (#59)
    by Anne on Fri May 10, 2013 at 09:22:20 PM EST
    been shoved to the back of the line for not being in the pirate crew want to part with a guacamole recipe?



    Bragging rights? (5.00 / 1) (#60)
    by caseyOR on Fri May 10, 2013 at 09:25:24 PM EST
    A chance to move up in line for Zorba leftovers? ? The need to flaunt one's superior culinary skills?

    Whatever works for you, Anne. Just cough up the recipe, please.


    I usually just wing it... (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by Anne on Fri May 10, 2013 at 10:02:48 PM EST
    I do guac very much like Tracy's - lime juice, salt, garlic (I grate it on a microplane grater so it's really fine), a little minced chipotle chiles in adobo, chopped cilantro, fresh oregano, ground cumin, chopped tomato and a little onion.

    I mash three or four avocados, and just kind of eyeball (and taste frequently) the rest of it.


    I cheat (none / 0) (#61)
    by Militarytracy on Fri May 10, 2013 at 09:34:00 PM EST
    I mash my avocados up with the Rotel that has lime juice and cilantro in it, a little cumin and oregano, sneak in a little garlic (I cheat on that too and buy the jars of minced) salt to taste.

    I love avocado with balsamic vinegar


    I love avocados (none / 0) (#69)
    by sj on Fri May 10, 2013 at 10:28:00 PM EST
    and I love balsamic vinegar. I haven't tried them together before, but I sure will now.

    Glenn Greenwald was quiet as a mouse (none / 0) (#74)
    by Militarytracy on Fri May 10, 2013 at 11:04:49 PM EST
    For awhile tonight on Bill Maher.  It was a little tiny bit tense-ish, you could feel it, you knew he was going to do it, and then he opened up a can of Glenn Greenwald whupazz on Bill.

    On what issue? (none / 0) (#75)
    by magster on Fri May 10, 2013 at 11:07:29 PM EST
    He was just contrarian (none / 0) (#83)
    by MKS on Sat May 11, 2013 at 01:12:11 AM EST
    We have always had people who wanted to have guns to rebel agains the government.

    Benghazi should be investigated and the government lied--people just role over on this one--

    There is nothing we can do about 3-D plastic guns.....

    It was weird.  He was quiet when the issue of gay rights came up--Maher saying that being anti-gay based on the  Bible was going to harm younger folks view of the Bible--and Glenn saying nothing.  I got the impression that he personally had a tiff with Maher.....


    I thought he made the most sense... (none / 0) (#97)
    by kdog on Sat May 11, 2013 at 05:55:24 AM EST
    on the panel.  Prohibition doesn't work and creates new problems.  That doesn't mean we try full-on anarchy, it means tread carefully.

    Not to say home manufacture of plastic guns isn't bad news...just saying granting government new powers over plastic gun specs on the internet can be worse news.  Just like drinking can be bad news, but prohibition was worse news.


    He often doesn't make the most sense to me (none / 0) (#126)
    by Militarytracy on Sat May 11, 2013 at 10:48:58 AM EST
    But I wouldn't want his points to be excluded from the table.  Particularly on how much power do you want to grant government?

    He is very very biased when it comes to all military issues.  Case in point, when Bill was talking about our military rape problem.  I think Bill gets it utterly correct and Glenn is miles off.  Simply because who is our worst offender right now?  It is surprisingly the Air Force and the Air Force is very seldom exposed to the horrors of the wars we have fought in.  If the new numbers coming in reflect accuracy (and we are talking Marines so they could be skewed based on cultural pressure, we talked about it last night and we don't kid ourselves on that) but the Marines have the best numbers on rape.

    As dehumanizing as war is, for many it has humanizing aspects if you've a bit of a sheltered American life.  My husband came home a better person.  He has seen horrible things, many people died, some of them were his friends.  He is awake.  Should anyone chase this kind of wakefulness, probably not, but the price has already been paid now, the decisions made and executed and those that lived it can't unlive it.

    It was hard when my brother-in-law went to Iraq, his family missed him and they were worried.  But he wasn't really in Iraq, he was in Kuwait and he flew over Iraq everyday.  He slept someplace pretty safe all night, and even during his exposure to the battlefield he was very safe at thousands of feet high.  It isn't the same.  Most of the Air Force was safe in Kuwait or safer on Baghram.  But they get all the same current hero worship, and the inability to criticize them because they have paid so much, but they really haven't.  It wasn't on the same level as other branches who are much more war torn now.

    So why do they have the worst rape numbers and horrible basic training horror stories where they are working together as a raping group?  Not just a single predator being protected, but a whole group working together raping people?  They also have the worst proselytizing abuses.  Why?  Is it all this deference without cost of life and quality of life on their part?


    And the Air Force has (none / 0) (#151)
    by MKS on Sat May 11, 2013 at 12:29:28 PM EST
    issues about religious intolerance....

    Could they be in trouble becasue they don't have enough to do?


    It puzzles us (none / 0) (#164)
    by Militarytracy on Sat May 11, 2013 at 01:53:42 PM EST
    The fighter pilot past IG in Italy letting the current fighter pilot IG off for sexual assault really floored us too.  Turns out that Wilkerson (guy who was convicted, but then pardoned by a superior) also had run ins with MPs while he and his buddies were burning a couch in the street on the base in Italy I guess..  Some weird "buddy ritual" they claimed.  Wilkerson called the MPs "the man" in that confrontation...and he was the current Inspector General in Italy.  What in the hell is going on there?  Who in Wilkerson's position does that and gets away with it? It's bizarre.

    Today though, my husband agrees with you (none / 0) (#142)
    by Militarytracy on Sat May 11, 2013 at 11:56:28 AM EST
    Greenwald was the person worth your time last night.  He wishes that everyone/anyone could hear what Greenwald says about us getting involved in anyone's revolution.  We are such an absolute power, every revolution we touch turns to $h*t.  If we are propping up Morsi shame on us, and the minute we touched him we propped.  We must stay out of everything like that.  The only revolution we will ever touch that doesn't turn to crap is our own and that already happened and now the super wealthy are ripping us all off and nobody notices much.

    Wow, who is this guy?


    I did too (none / 0) (#134)
    by Militarytracy on Sat May 11, 2013 at 11:08:10 AM EST
    They have been fighting :)

    Over faith and a certain faith (none / 0) (#127)
    by Militarytracy on Sat May 11, 2013 at 10:50:05 AM EST
    preaching violence.

    ISS EVA to repair coolant leak today (none / 0) (#98)
    by Cylinder on Sat May 11, 2013 at 05:56:58 AM EST
    NASA TV will be covering the short-notice, long-duration EVA to change the suspected coolant pump leak near one of the stations solar arrays today.

    The nominal timeline:

    7:00 AM EDT (11:00 UTC) - Coverage begins
    8:15 AM EDT (12:15 UTC) - EVA egress
    9:00 AM EDT (13:00 UDT) - EVA team to work site

    Since the work is being done on the outboard truss (P6), the EVA should offer some spectacular views. The EVA team will inspect the anamolous pump to pinpoint the leak source while the system is still pressurized, retreive the spare pump stowed on the truss assembly, change the pump, restow the anamolous pump and then prepare to return to the station. The EVA is scheduled to last 6-1/2 hours.

    EVA Closeout (none / 0) (#159)
    by Cylinder on Sat May 11, 2013 at 01:10:55 PM EST
    Th EVA team is doing a closeout. No ammonia leak was found, but the manfunctioning system had already lost pressure. The pump was replaced successfully and is running, though it will be days or weeks of monitoring before the issue can be closed.

    Holy Crow (none / 0) (#102)
    by fishcamp on Sat May 11, 2013 at 08:05:44 AM EST
    I wouldn't step out that door into space for all the tea in China.  Maybe for all the Kalamata olive oil in Greece though.

    I (none / 0) (#110)
    by lentinel on Sat May 11, 2013 at 09:36:57 AM EST
    read that OJ is petitioning for a new trial based on the fact that he had lousy representation from Galanter.

    In the article I read, in the NYTimes I believe, OJ is quoted as saying that Galanter told him that it would OK to "confront" the people who had his memorabilia - but not to trespass on private property and not to threaten violence.

    It seemed to be that the evidence in the case clearly stated that OJ entered the premises (private property to the best of my knowledge) and at least one member of his entourage had a gun.

    So what's with that?

    As has (none / 0) (#112)
    by lentinel on Sat May 11, 2013 at 10:01:22 AM EST
    been noted by NYShooter below, the CO2 levels in our atmosphere have reached truly dangerous levels - levels not seen for three million years. It is a threshold that many hoped that we would not cross - and now threatens consequences that are irreversible.

    There is a front page article about this in todays Huffpo.
    There is a small box on the front page of the Times detailing the crux of the story.

    But it is not the subject of much discussion.

    Considering the damage that weather-related anomalies can inflict on people - killing thousands at one go, one would think that this story would attract more attention and more animated and emotional reaction from the people of the Earth.

    The negative consequences of our continued and unbridled expansion of the use of fossil fuels are at least as profound as a nuclear bomb exploding upon a civilian target. At least as profound as a terrorist incident.

    Yet there is no outcry. And I am pondering about why this might be so.

    One reason that occurs to me is that no one wants to give up heating their homes, air conditioning their homes or restaurants, flying by airplanes or driving their cars. These are necessities and there are no alternatives being offered. So people keep quiet. What are we to do?

    Then, there is the mega-powerful energy industry.
    They have our government and virtually all governments completely in their control. And they also, in a terrible economy such as ours, tie their growth to employment. Unions are among those supporting the proposed Keystone pipeline. That's how many nuclear power plants got constructed: they offered jobs to the towns in which these monsters were built. Environmentalists were and are pitted against people who are just trying to find a job and support their families.

    And then, there is the abysmal political leadership under which we are suffering.

    I am pessimistic.
    And I don't like it.

    lentinel (none / 0) (#119)
    by Slayersrezo on Sat May 11, 2013 at 10:21:38 AM EST
    A. Now that the world has allegedly passed some tipping point that is 'irreversible'(really? Even if we had carbon scrubbers?) just what do you think the consequences are going to be?

    B. Given that you apparently hate nuclear power - and probably (if you are even aware of them) much safer nuclear power plants such as those proposed to run on the thorium cycle that literally cannot meltdown - just what baseload power source do you propose we use? You'll note that the non-use of a baseload power source isn't an option and that currently solar cannot serve as baseload power though it could if we built large enough solar power satellites.

    C. Given our current corrupt and even downright unconstitutional political system in the US:
    A. How do you propose people beat the 'big players' that currently dominate Washington?
    B. Just how much more power over our personal lives and ability to make a living should we trust these goofs with?

    I look forward to your answers.



    Briefly, (5.00 / 2) (#184)
    by lentinel on Sat May 11, 2013 at 06:15:40 PM EST
    I have no answers to the questions you pose.

    It is not, by the way, that I "hate" nuclear power.
    It is simply that I am influenced by the fact that the existing plants have proven themselves to be extremely dangerous.

    You are aware, I imagine, of what happened in Japan a short time ago - and is continuing to happen. Their food supply has been compromised. And God knows what else. They are dumping gallons upon gallons of toxic water into the Pacific. Not good.

    Just last week, a plant in Indiana I believe it was, was leaking "slightly" (!) radioactive water.

    Some of those plants - like the one on Croton-on-Hudson in NYC is uncomfortably near heavily populated areas. Some are built near fault lines.

    And what do we do with the waste?

    I would like nuclear power if it were not for the fact that it makes me feel as if I am living on the brink of a disaster.

    As to our political system - as you said, it has been corrupted beyond redemption. Barring some revolutionary fervor from the public I see no change on the horizon. And I do not see that fervor forthcoming. As I said, the public is both comatose and helpless. And there is no one to lead us.

    I do think that if we - as citizens - could find alternate sources of power. Solar has great potential imo. Wind does also. Were we to commit - were our sorry-arsed government to commit to an all-out search for safe alternatives to fossil fuels and nuclear power, with the same energy that they mustered to send some chaps to the moon - I'll bet we could find them.

    Of course, as has been pointed out, solar and wind bypass electric companies as they are presently constituted. But those companies have the capacity to build huge collectors and supply energy to homes and make money without killing us were they to be so motivated.

    Lethargy is a definite problem.
    Greed is a definite problem.
    Gutless and greedy politicians is definitely a problem.
    And we're not going to see any change until at least 2016 when the current crop of nothings are retired.

    I have no answer.
    I wish I did.


    That has got to be (4.00 / 1) (#120)
    by Slayersrezo on Sat May 11, 2013 at 10:23:40 AM EST
    The worst constructed post I have ever posted here.
    And I don't know where that final 'C' came from. And I should have used '1' and '2' for my sub paragraphs to make them stand out more from my main headers.

    Oh well. It's noon, I'm getting up late and I haven't eaten yet.


    The environmental side (none / 0) (#158)
    by brodie on Sat May 11, 2013 at 01:01:35 PM EST
    could use a charismatic expert spokesperson, non-pol (sorry Al) out there educating the public and leading the charge, as Carl Sagan did for science and astronomy in the last half of the 20th C.

    But last I checked, such a person has not come forward.

    Of course back in the day, people like Sagan and Paul Erlich (population bomb) always had the highly popular Tonight Show w/Johnny Carson to go on, and of course Sagan had his own PBS show, back when PBS was good and a fair number of us elitist types were regular viewers.  Not sure also if Letterman et al would have a regular slot for someone to talk about inherently depressing things like climate change.

    Not even sure where in the msm-electronic these type of things get discussed except online.  Probably relegated to the occasional soft-hitting doc on NatGeo or similar -- iow, Balkanized.  

    Sort of like how TED marginalizes controversial serious anti-mainstream topics to their "TED-x" category.


    I (5.00 / 3) (#182)
    by lentinel on Sat May 11, 2013 at 05:38:18 PM EST
    won't beat a dead horse, or maybe I will, but when Obama was elected, many people worldwide thought and hoped that Obama was in fact that charismatic spokesperson.

    I was in Europe shortly he was elected - and there was an international conference in Copenhagen about the environment. There was electricity in the air as Obama came to town.

    The fizzle was almost immediate.
    He revealed himself to be but another corporate lackey.

    It was sad to behold.

    We do need some charismatic spokesperson, I suppose.
    Nader has been trying for years and years to get our attention.

    But - you would think that since we have guns figuratively pointed at our heads and at those of our descendants, we would not need a spokesperson. We would be in the streets.

    But we say nothing.
    We put on our air conditioners and sigh.
    I know I do.

    I don't know the answer.
    I wish I did.


    I think Letterman would be the best bet for (none / 0) (#167)
    by caseyOR on Sat May 11, 2013 at 02:25:28 PM EST
    those kinds of guests. Since he became a father Letterman has become much more political on his show. He has expressed great concern about climate change. If there were a couple of good spokespeople for climate change, a Carl Sagan of climate change, Dave would be right there with the bookings.

    Another good one would be Craig Ferguson who has the most intelligent discussions generally on late night TV. Yes, he has a lot of dopey stuff, but he consistently has authors on the show and engages with them in an informed way.

    For that to happen, though, the right person has to come along to speak to these issues, speak to them in a way that people can understand in a short TV interview format.


    Yeah maybe Dave or (none / 0) (#173)
    by brodie on Sat May 11, 2013 at 03:29:51 PM EST
    Ferguson.  Thing is tho that combined those two shows get maybe 20% of the audience Johnny had alone back in the pre-cable era.  

    Those authors on Carson's show had huge influence on middle America.  Plus he gave them time.  Ditto on the time, times two, for Cavett.


    Jon Stewart (none / 0) (#189)
    by NYShooter on Sat May 11, 2013 at 10:31:20 PM EST
    seems to have the most effect

    Vanishing Thread (none / 0) (#165)
    by nomatter0nevermind on Sat May 11, 2013 at 02:22:20 PM EST
    The thread on Shellie Zimmerman's deposition seems to be gone.

    the thread is (none / 0) (#195)
    by Jeralyn on Sun May 12, 2013 at 04:18:23 AM EST
    here (It's combined with the thread on the motion for anonymous jury.)

    Potato Roll Success! (none / 0) (#171)
    by Cylinder on Sat May 11, 2013 at 02:44:50 PM EST
    My first ever attempt at potato rolls was a success. Light, fluffy, GBD. They could have been a touch sweeter, though.