home

Tuesday News and Open Thread

Washington Post: The real scandal in the AP phone logs matter: That it's legal. (and reporters already get more protection than the rest of us.)

Angelina Jolie explains her decision to have a preventive double mastectomy.

Caroline Kennedy has been selected as a juror in a NYC crack cocaine case.

Eric Holder will testify tomorrow at a congressional hearing. Added to the agenda: The AP telephone toll records and IRS targeting of conservative groups. Already on the agenda:

Intelligence coordination issues related to the Boston bombings, DOJ spending that Republicans deem wasteful, and conservative allegations of politicization under Holder.

This is an open thread, all topics welcome.

< Guantanamo Force-Feeding Protocol Revealed | "Expert" Reports in George Zimmerman Case Disclosed >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    With any luck... (5.00 / 4) (#1)
    by kdog on Tue May 14, 2013 at 01:41:09 PM EST
    Eric Holder will resign in disgrace by end of business day Wednesday....what a disaster that guy has been.

    Add deeming the big banks "too big to indict" to the long list of DOJ dirty under Holder.

    He may be a disaster, but he (5.00 / 2) (#5)
    by Anne on Tue May 14, 2013 at 02:49:21 PM EST
    didn't nominate himself to the position, nor has there been any suggestion that the president who did, Barack Obama, is at all unhappy with Holder's performance.

    It's not like this is an aberration, that this was a last resort action by an administration with no history of going after reporters:

    Glenn chimes in:

    The key point is that all of this takes place in the ongoing War on Whistleblowers waged by the Obama administration. If you talk to any real investigative journalist, they will tell you that an unprecedented climate of fear has emerged in which their sources are petrified to talk to them. That the Obama administration has prosecuted double the number of whistleblowers under espionage statutes as all previous administrations combined has already severely chilled the news gathering process. Imagine what message this latest behavior sends to journalists and their sources: that at any moment, the phone records of even the nation's most establishment journalists can be secretly obtained by the DOJ, which has no compunction about doing so even in the most extreme and invasive manner.

    And, predictably, there are so-called progressive outlets, like think Progress and TPM, that are already downplaying and defending the DOJ - and as Glenn points out, this kind of defense is one reason why the kinds of actions the Obama administration has supported and are engaging in are allowed to keep happening.

    The all-too-familiar axis that has enabled massive civil liberties assaults by the Obama administration - blindly partisan progressive media outlets and particularly obsequious self-styled neutral journalists - instantly sprung into action here and wasted no time jumping to the defense of the US government. TPM's Josh Marshall, while saying "there's still a very live question of whether this was a prudent action on the part of the DOJ", actually published an anonymous letter depicting the Obama DOJ as the victim here, saying AP "seeks to smear Justice" (in the annals of lowly journalistic behavior, printing anonymous emails defending the US government's surveillance actions and attacking targeted journalists is way down in the sewer, but that's the government-defending Josh Marshall in the Age of Obama). Similarly: before most people had even learned of the story, Think Progress purported to explain "Why The Department Of Justice Is Going After The Associated Press' Records" and, of course, offered the most benign and generous interpretation possible: they only did it to find out who is responsible for an "unauthorized and dangerous disclosure of classified information", quoting CIA Director John Brennan (offering instant "explainers" for even the most dubious of Obama administration actions is its typical tactic).

    And I think, the more I read what Marcy Wheeler's been writing about this, that the DOJ may have been using leaks in connection with the Undiebomb story as cover for what they were really after:

    Now, frankly, I think the witch hunt response to the UndieBomb 2.0 plot was mostly just an excuse to start investigating the AP, though it did lead John Brennan to make it clear that it was a Saudi-manufactured plot in the first place.

    But the response to that Dozier article, which provided the final piece of evidence for the timeline above showing Brennan grabbed control of drone targeting at roughly the moment we started signature strikes in Yemen, was more dramatic, at least in terms of the breathtaking propaganda the White House rolled out to pretend the drone strikes were more orderly than they actually were.

    [snip]

    I know I'm as least as worried about DOJ targeting Dozier's sources, who revealed a critical detail of how illegal the drone program was, as I am about the original UndieBomb 2.0 story.

    Food for thought, anyway.

    Parent

    My point exactly (5.00 / 2) (#9)
    by Slado on Tue May 14, 2013 at 03:01:32 PM EST
    There is a pattern here...

    First you could see Obama yesterday repeating the same misleading statements by Carney from the day before about Benghazi.  Then lambasting his critics in the hope no one would look into it further.

    Second he then acted surprised and shocked about the IRS scandal but went out of his way to say we can't rush to judgement, even after the IRS has already admitted doing exactly what it is charged of doing.

    Third the AP story breaks and the press has had enough.   To me its a shame its taken this long but no matter.   They are on the case now and they are pissed.

    Why anyone would give him and his administration the benefit of the doubt on anything is beyond me.

    The pattern is clear to anyone who wants to see it.   Some would say this is a "real" crisis but the crisis is this administration misleads if not lies all the time.   The reality is they've simply been caught up in three simultaneously and their strategy of circling the wagons attempts to intimidate the press and critics won't work with three scandals at once.


    Parent

    I find (none / 0) (#15)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue May 14, 2013 at 03:54:16 PM EST
    this highly ironic and the strange thing is that George W. Bush got away with so much Obama thinks he can too. But why wouldn't he?

    Better yet, just get rid of all the crap George W. Bush did in his 8 years and then maybe we can get rid of a lot of these problems because I'm sure the phone tapping was probably legal under the Patriot Act.

    And actually there was a bill that shielded the press from the wiretapping laws and the GOP blocked it. If you wonder why a lot of this stuff doesn't have any "legs' it is because they are always coming from the GOP. I mean how many times has the GOP screamed "wolf" and people have been badly burned by it? Lots of times. What if something really serious came up, who would even believe it if it came out of the GOP? If the GOP really thinks there is something there then they need to either make it bipartisan or they need to take the Clown Posse led by Issa off of it.

    Parent

    Oh please, GA (2.33 / 3) (#24)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue May 14, 2013 at 08:15:33 PM EST
    I watched the Left attack Bush time and again and again...

    Now that we have three on Obama, you want to scream politics.

    Let's review:

    1. 4 Americans died on 9/11. Evidently Obama didn't remember what happened on 9/11/01. Plus it is clear that his minions, most likely at his request, changed the "facts" 12 tines.

    Obama has lied and Americans have died.

    1. It is clear that the IRS was mining information and giving it to Left wing attack dogs re contributors to conservative web sites... Plus, they were delaying issuing approvals and we have the IRS honchos caught in fibs.

    2. The DOJ has listened in on the conversations of American citizens.

    Do you remember the screams of outrage when Bush listened to telcons of NON US citizens??

    (I'm sure you do.)

    You know, pride goes before a fall and Obama's ego has been on full display. Lord Acton said it best.... Power corrupts. And absolute power corrupts absolutel.

    Parent

    Distortions (5.00 / 2) (#27)
    by MKS on Tue May 14, 2013 at 08:52:11 PM EST
    In order:

      1.  Obama lied and Americans died.  Even the most rabid will have to argue that any lie came after the deaths. And show us the lie.  Obama said it was an act of terror the day after.  The Susan Rice comments stood for all of week before being corrected.

       2. The IRS was giving information to Left Wing attack dogs.  No evidence that information was used outside the IRS.   This is a problem but not the one you create.

       3.   The DOJ listened in on conversations.  No evidence of that.  Telephone records were reviewed.  Not conversations.  At least not part of the AP issue.  It appears you are not paying close attention to this but just grabbing whatever you can to justify the narrative that you already decided on.

    Parent

    No, (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue May 14, 2013 at 09:02:25 PM EST
    the IRS was not "giving" it to left wing groups. This is public information Jim. You can get it just like anyone else can. If you file as a 501C your information is public silly. You guys have such a large capacity to be fooled it's amazing.

    Unless you are going to start talking about sending George W. Bush to the Hague along with Dead Eye Dick to be tried for war crimes, you then you need to move along w/r/t to Benghazi and actually the latest polling on the subject is showing that Benghazi is actually hurting the GOP and on one trusts what they are saying on the subject but then again when you send the Clown Posse in that is what you are going to get.

    What the DOJ did is legal under the Patriot Act. Were you asleep during the entire Bush Administration??? Should they be doing it? No, they should not but you guys are the ones that were so desperate to have everybody's conversation listened to that this is what you get. Now when you are willing to actually take some responsibility for this mess we are in, get back to me but I'm not holding my breath.

    Again, the majority of Americans dislike the GOP and your post proves exactly why. The conservative victim syndrome is not very appealing.

    Parent

    Surprised you took this long to respond, Jim. (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue May 14, 2013 at 09:19:45 PM EST
    You must've been waiting all this time for your daily clichés-- er, I mean, political talking points to be faxed over.

    Parent
    What a load of malarkey (5.00 / 2) (#34)
    by shoephone on Tue May 14, 2013 at 10:05:53 PM EST
    wrapped in a b.s sandwich.

    Parent
    And Jonathan Karl at ABC (none / 0) (#28)
    by MKS on Tue May 14, 2013 at 09:01:06 PM EST
    overstated the case regarding the emails.   ABC supposedly broke the big story about the Department of State demanding edits to protect higher ups.

    The actual emails do not say that.  Karl apparently was relying on someone's  (House Republican staffer) account describing the email.

    See TPM for details.  

    Please just read the email instead of someone's summary of it.


    Parent

    Don't hide behind the email thing (none / 0) (#44)
    by Slado on Wed May 15, 2013 at 10:36:42 AM EST
    Did or did no Obama say the attack was terrorism?

    He didn't.

    He called it a generic "Act of Terror" then told reporters, the nation, the UN and the family members of the dead that it was a result of a video for 2 weeks.   We now know there was zero evidence to justify the administration taking such an active stance on the video.   While there was ample evidence that the video had nothing to do with it.

    Only when it became clear that this narrative was false did he begrudgingly call it terrorism.  And he didn't do it first he had his underlings do it for him.

    Mistakes happen and this doesn't rise to the level of our Iraq debacle obviously but Benghazi is an example of this administrations incompetence.  Poorly executed on the front end, during and then spinning after the fact.

    Thankfully they can no longer dodge it because two more scandals show the same pattern.

    Obama is a terrible, let me repeat that, terrible executive.  His hands off policy of leadership on everything has allowed his branch of government to overreach in all areas.

    Obamacare bears his name but really he had nothing to do with it.   He allowed congress to write a terrible law that his branch must now enforce and they're doing a terrible job of it.

    With these scandals a clear narrative is developing.  You can't trust Obama and his type of democrats to do anything.  He is practically writing the campaign adds himself for 2014.

    "Want more incompetent government?  Vote Democratic."

    We haven't even seen the full disaster that is the implementation of Obamacare.

    I can see the press conferences now.  

    Obama..."I just learned of (insert government over reach here) yesterday on the news.  If what was is being reported happened then my administration will look into it".

    Is this guy responsible for anything?  Why did we elect him.  To fund-raise and play golf?

    More of the same from this guy.

    Parent

    The Issa talking point (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by MKS on Wed May 15, 2013 at 11:17:34 AM EST
    Act of terror v. terrorism.  Good grief.  Can you really say there is a difference without laughing?

    And, Slado, I have at least twice quoted to you the langauage at the funeral and asked you what was false about Hillary's statement.

    You refuse to even answer.  Will you tell us what was false about Hillary's statement at the funeral (to the families, as you put it)?

    You can answer this question, or you can just throw out generalizations....Slogans....

    Parent

    The "email thing"???? (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by MKS on Wed May 15, 2013 at 11:20:10 AM EST
    The "email thing" is the entire thrust of the conservative attack on Obama over Benghazi.  

    That you want to diss the details, when they do not support you, and then jump straight to slogans is not an honest approach.

    Parent

    Don't you ever get tired of being ... (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by Yman on Wed May 15, 2013 at 11:57:07 AM EST
    ... proven wrong?

    He called it a generic "Act of Terror" then told reporters, the nation, the UN and the family members of the dead that it was a result of a video for 2 weeks.   We now know there was zero evidence to justify the administration taking such an active stance on the video.

    There was plenty of evidence suggesting it was due to the video, which is why the CIA reached that conclusion from day 1, even publicly available information:

    Eyewitnesses to the attack said it was prompted by the video:


    To Libyans who witnessed the assault and know the attackers, there is little doubt what occurred: a well-known group of local Islamist militants struck the United States Mission without any warning or protest, and they did it in retaliation for the video.

    Not to mention that there were global riots and protest all over the world in response to the video.

    And not to mention the 2006 destruction of the Italian mission in Benghazi which was prompted by perceived insults to Mohammed.

    "Zero evidence".

    Pffttt ...

    Parent

    Yman (none / 0) (#72)
    by Slado on Wed May 15, 2013 at 02:37:56 PM EST
    You can't wash this away with your selective lining.

    I'll let FactCheck.org spell it out for you.

    I'll quote one item just for fun...

    Obama says he didn't use the word "terrorism" in his Rose Garden speech because "it's too early to know exactly how this came about." Steve Kroft, the show's host, wonders how the attack could be described as a "mob action" since the attackers were "very heavily armed." Obama says "we're still investigating," but he suspects "folks involved in this . . . were looking to target Americans from the start."

    Read it and tell me Obama called it terror from Day 1 as he said Monday.

    We are getting into "depending on what the meaning of is is" territory here.  

    You're mind must be on overload.

    I'm not saying what the president did was criminal or impeachable but he lied.  He lied to win an election and now he's lying about lying.

    You can choose to believe it if you want but I'll let the "Facts" speak for themselves.

    Parent

    Changing the subject, huh? (5.00 / 1) (#85)
    by Yman on Wed May 15, 2013 at 03:57:01 PM EST
    To refresh your recollection, you claimed that there was no evidence that the video was responsible for the attack.

    He called it a generic "Act of Terror" then told reporters, the nation, the UN and the family members of the dead that it was a result of a video for 2 weeks.   We now know there was zero evidence to justify the administration taking such an active stance on the video.

    Once again, I've shown you how wrong you are, so you switch arguments to arguing the difference between "act of terror" and "terrorism", all the while complaining about parsing.  Then you once again accuse someone of lying about the video without a shred of evidence that he knew it was false at the time, ...

    ... as always.

    Parent

    Agree to disagree (none / 0) (#88)
    by Slado on Wed May 15, 2013 at 04:33:38 PM EST
    The link I sent shows pretty clearly that the administration misled on Benghazi.

    It's not just me saying it but you can call everyone in the press and media liars too if you want.

    The truth will set you free Yman if you choose to acknowledge it.

    Parent

    "Pretty clearly" - heh (5.00 / 1) (#96)
    by Yman on Wed May 15, 2013 at 04:52:40 PM EST
    We cannot say whether the administration was intentionally misleading the public. We cannot prove intent. There is also more information to come -- both from the FBI, which is conducting an investigation, and Congress, which has been holding hearings.

    From "lying" about the video to parsing the difference between "terrorism" and an "act of terror".  From "fact beyond dispute" to "pretty clearly" and an opinion piece from Ron Fournier  From "quoting" those incriminating emails to inaccurately paraphrasing them.

    I would be laughing if if thought the humor was intentional.

    Parent

    What about the deficit being cut in half? (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by MKS on Wed May 15, 2013 at 12:00:15 PM EST
    I thought conservatives were all up in arms about the deficit....

    This year's deficit is projected by the CBO to be approx 600 billion.   Under Bush II it was over a trillion...

    You guys change issues; when one doesn't work, go to the next.

    Obama has (not to my liking) been consistent on the warrant issue.  During the 2008 campaign, as a Senator, he voted against the liberal approach on FISA.  And now we hear Marco Rubio dissing the AP phone records issue.  Not it really is Benghazi--because Romeny got scorched on this issue during the debates.  All the major facts regarding Benghazi were knownn and "litigated" during the 2008 campaign.  The Right is so full of rage at having lost, it is trying to get a do-over.

    Parent

    "Meet the new boss, (none / 0) (#46)
    by kdog on Wed May 15, 2013 at 11:02:00 AM EST
    same as the old boss."

    - Pete Townsend

    Maybe after Hillary's first term we can all see the light together...the problem is a corrupted two party duopoly, the individuals matter so very little. The problem is the majority of the voting public thinking "if only Hillary had won the nomination things would be different" or "if only Romney had won the election" or "if only Al Gore had won the election", or "if only Bob Dole had won the election" etc, etc, etc.

    Parent

    And now Holder says... (5.00 / 3) (#10)
    by Dadler on Tue May 14, 2013 at 03:05:50 PM EST
    According to Glenn: (5.00 / 3) (#11)
    by Anne on Tue May 14, 2013 at 03:15:56 PM EST
    Indeed, the DOJ has adopted its own binding regulations that impose constraints on its ability to obtain the phone records of journalists. Those regulations require that "all reasonable attempts should be made to obtain information from alternative sources" before subpoeans are issued; that "negotiations with the media shall be pursued in all cases in which a subpoena to a member of the news media is contemplated" unless the DOJ determines that such negotiations would "pose a substantial threat to the integrity of the investigation in connection with which the records are sought"; and that "no subpoena may be issued . . . for the telephone toll records of any member of the news media without the express authorization of the Attorney General". The White House has denied involvement in the acquisition of AP's phone records, but presumably, Attorney General Eric Holder personally approved (Esquire's Charles Pierce, in calling for the resignation of Holder, expresses skepticism about White House denials, but I'm neutral at this point on that specific question).

    Link

    Someone signed off on it; whether it was Holder himself, or someone next in the chain of command, it appears to be wholly consistent with this administration's aversion to the transparency and openness it once campaigned on.

    Parent

    Yes. (none / 0) (#20)
    by Zorba on Tue May 14, 2013 at 04:41:04 PM EST
    I have long been over the "hopey-changey" thing myself.  As I'm sure that you are, too, Anne.

    Parent
    As far as I am concerned, (5.00 / 3) (#19)
    by Zorba on Tue May 14, 2013 at 04:39:09 PM EST
    I will rephrase the old saying.  "Uneasy rests the b*tt that sits on the throne."
    Either Holder (and Obama, for that matter), did not know about this and are therefore incompetent, or they did and are complicit.
    One way or the other.  Neither way says anything good about either.

    Parent
    Agree (none / 0) (#40)
    by Militarytracy on Wed May 15, 2013 at 07:40:52 AM EST
    And the unenthusiastic getting to the bottom of any of it is beating the crap out of both of them.  The waiting sweetly and patiently for the reports when a day of pissed off phone calls discovers so much more and gets so much more done in the end reminds me of Abu Ghraib.

    Parent
    And this stuff... (none / 0) (#7)
    by Dadler on Tue May 14, 2013 at 02:54:54 PM EST
    ...will probably make it easier for people like the Kochs to claim their money and resulting power will keep their newspapers from being bullied by DC -- so let us by the LA Times, we'll be the new bullies on the block. From every angle, this bullsh*t does all harm and no good.

    Parent
    Seems like (none / 0) (#38)
    by jbindc on Wed May 15, 2013 at 06:49:04 AM EST
    This is not going to be a good year for Mr. Hope 'N Change, when he has not only the Republicans (as always) after him, but many establishment Democrats and the press.  He doesn't know how to function with a press that's not friendly - how will he handle it?

    The town is turning on President Obama -- and this is very bad news for this White House.

    Republicans have waited five years for the moment to put the screws to Obama -- and they have one-third of all congressional committees on the case now. Establishment Democrats, never big fans of this president to begin with, are starting to speak out. And reporters are tripping over themselves to condemn lies, bullying and shadiness in the Obama administration.

    Buy-in from all three D.C. stakeholders is an essential ingredient for a good old-fashioned Washington pile-on -- so get ready for bad stories and public scolding to pile up.

    SNIP

    Obama's aloof mien and holier-than-thou rhetoric have left him with little reservoir of good will, even among Democrats. And the press, after years of being accused of being soft on Obama while being berated by West Wing aides on matters big and small, now has every incentive to be as ruthless as can be.

    This White House's instinctive petulance, arrogance and defensiveness have all worked to isolate Obama at a time when he most needs a support system. "It feel like they don't know what they're here to do," a former senior Obama administration official said. "When there's no narrative, stuff like this consumes you."

    Ouch.

    Parent

    Just goes (none / 0) (#39)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed May 15, 2013 at 07:16:40 AM EST
    to show that being a "media darling" is worth a warm bucket of spit in the long run.

    Parent
    Do Not Mess With the Press (none / 0) (#41)
    by ScottW714 on Wed May 15, 2013 at 09:13:41 AM EST
    That is like the golden rule, not only in politics, but in anything in which they are a part of.

    They don't like it, and Obama is about to find out how much.

    Parent

    Agreed (none / 0) (#45)
    by Slado on Wed May 15, 2013 at 10:40:46 AM EST
    However this pattern of incompetence has been around for a long time.

    Many here on this site have pointed it out on a range of issues.

    As I state above this guy simply sucks at his job, which we should remember is running the executive branch of government.

    Parent

    The Problem... (none / 0) (#48)
    by ScottW714 on Wed May 15, 2013 at 11:19:58 AM EST
    ...is that you and I think Obama is incompetent for completely different reasons.

    I hate that you think we are on the same page, we aren't.  Most of what you believe is right wing non-sense and most of it has nothing to do with reality.

    The reasons I dislike Obama are the very things the right generally supports.  And IMO if the right could get over their hatred, they would see a man who's policies resemble traditional R policies than traditional D policies.  

    He certainly isn't running the government like a liberal in any sense of the notion beyond one or two social policies, like gay marriage, which of course he didn't support not too far back.

    That being said, sans the Benghazi non-sense, these recent revelations are not political, they are straight up abuses of power and have the makings of actual scandals.  Scandals that so far look like the real deal and behavior that should be considered unacceptable to everyone.

    Parent

    Sorta (none / 0) (#50)
    by MKS on Wed May 15, 2013 at 11:29:49 AM EST
    The subpoenas of the AP phone records are concerning, but this scandal is probably the most clearly legal.

    It is a policy issue.  A scandal to those who disagree with the scope of the subpoenas but not a scandal in the traditional sense of "wrongoing" or illegal conduct.

    The IRS scandal is a problem but unless you have White House coordination or direction, it will not go far.  And today it appears that IRS was not only targeting Tea Party groups but also at the same time targeting liberal groups.  So, it is looking more like bureaucratic arrogance and overreach, not political payback or manipulation.

    It appears everyone was ready and wanting a reason to fulfill the propehcy of the second term curse--and were just waiting for the excuse to go there  So, you have people rushing to make the conclusions you make without first looking at what has actually happened--and in some detail, without accepting the broad-brush, first impression generalizations that too many espouse.

    The only "scandal" that has any merit is the AP records subpoena.  And that will get the least attention.  It could under ideal cirucumstances lead to revisiting the FISA issues....But it won't.

    Parent

    I think you underestimate (none / 0) (#58)
    by jbindc on Wed May 15, 2013 at 02:05:43 PM EST
    "Scandals".  It doesn't really matter what you THINK has merit, or more importantly, what actually HAS merit.  The mere fact that all of these things are being reported as "scandals" (and probably will be for a while, as the press seems to be dropping the kid gloves with Mr. Obama and does not seem to be willing to instantly bail him out like they have for 6 years), could have a much greater impact in voters' minds going into the mid-term elections. At least, it could hurt OBama's legislative agenda for the next two years.

    A sampling of headlines from Obama-friendly media outlets:

    "Democrats in Triage Mode on White House Scandals"

    The Trio of Scandals Engulfing the White House

    Tina Brown on [MSNBC] Growing White House Scandals

    Nate Silver

    Even Jon Stewart is using the term "scandals"

    This is pretty damaging stuff, even if it's only optics. And with an angry press, they will be like bloodhounds (at least for a while), and who knows what else they are going to turn up?

    Parent

    Obviously you don't pay much attention (none / 0) (#60)
    by CoralGables on Wed May 15, 2013 at 02:11:03 PM EST
    What happens is the GOP, they huff and they puff and they blow their own house down.

    Parent
    Obviously (none / 0) (#65)
    by jbindc on Wed May 15, 2013 at 02:23:33 PM EST
    You haven't been reading major sites around the web, or even the Nate Silver piece I linked to.

    The Republican Party was dead in 2008, or so we were told by the likes of the Rachel Maddows, Chris Matthews, Markos, and Ezra Kleins of the world.  Seems they were wrong then, and while the Republicans may seem to be on the ropes, I am not foolish enough to think they are finished.

    There is absolutely no way they are done, or that they will never win another election.  Only arrogant fools believe that.

    Parent

    Oh (5.00 / 1) (#68)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed May 15, 2013 at 02:31:57 PM EST
    they can win another election all right. I see what they are trying to do. They are trying to demoralize Democratic voters so that they won't show up on election day. But if they do their typical stuff and Hillary runs, they are going to tick off a lot of people and get creamed in the general election. I think they are aiming so hard at her right now hoping that they can discourage her from running.

    Parent
    I think (none / 0) (#70)
    by jbindc on Wed May 15, 2013 at 02:35:44 PM EST
    They are trying to damage Hillary now, even though they know it won't work.  She has squashed them like bugs before, so this won't work.

    I think what they are looking at is 2014 - not 2016.  If they can get control of the Senate, that could be much more dangerous. Obviously, a lot can change by 2016, but if Hillary runs, they know they can't beat her.  But they can hold the purse strings by the time she gets there.

    Parent

    I suppose (none / 0) (#61)
    by MKS on Wed May 15, 2013 at 02:16:30 PM EST
    But even the larger scandals of Whitewater, Travlegate, and all the rest of the anti-Clinton stuff, it tends not to matter and make the accusers look bad in the end.

    Obama will be judged on War and Peace.   The economy is improving--with the deficit now apparently cut if half to 600 billion--and we are pulling out of Afghanistan.

    So, if you want to discuss optics, these big picture optics matter.   During impeachment, Clinton was at very high approval ratings...

    There are broader concerns--more on the liberal end--that will matter.  

    The conservartive chatter will evaporate and move on to something else....The charge of being aloof or arrogant won't buy you much scandal staying power.

    Parent

    True (none / 0) (#67)
    by jbindc on Wed May 15, 2013 at 02:29:25 PM EST
    But like I Said - we don't know what's coming next.

    You say being charged with being aloof or arrogant won't matter - I say it helps to weather the storm.  Obama is certainly no Bill Clinton. He doesn't have the charm or charisma to win people to his side to make them believe he's being persecuted by the big bad Republicans (especially when many Democrats are not wild about him either). The hope-n-change train left the station a long time ago on a one-way trip, and while some experts may say the economy is improving, there are tens of millions of people who would disagree with that statement.

    Parent

    Obama's (none / 0) (#71)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed May 15, 2013 at 02:36:16 PM EST
    worst problem is two fold. It's 1. he has foolishly thought that the GOP was his friend and they would do whatever he wanted them to do. Maybe he's finally quit that assumption. Secondly, it wasn't that Bill Clinton had all the charisma so much as he has an ability to explain complex problems to your average  voter which is a skill Obama is completely devoid of. Obama NEEDS the press to get out his message. Clinton never did. He could go directly to the voters and circumvent the press.

    Parent
    Yes, I know all things Clinton are good (none / 0) (#73)
    by MKS on Wed May 15, 2013 at 02:39:28 PM EST
    and all things Obama are bad.

    It was a booming economy that propelled Bill.  Many  thought Bill an abject liar (remember Bob Kerrey's observation?) and not so charming......

    The Republicans Impeached Bill during the most sucessful run a President may have ever had on the big pictuure issues of Peace and Prosperity.

    Scandal mongering usually backfires--in spite of the temporary glee of the anti-Obama folks.

    Parent

    Bill WAS an abject liar (none / 0) (#75)
    by jbindc on Wed May 15, 2013 at 02:40:48 PM EST
    But so is Obama.

    Next?

    Parent

    Huh? (none / 0) (#76)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed May 15, 2013 at 02:50:12 PM EST
    Obama lacks a lot of the skills that you need to get your message across. He's always been that way.

    The Republicans are a bunch of idiots and Bill Clinton wears impeachment as a badge of honor.

    Did I say it won't backfire? No, I didn't. The GOP ALWAYS goes over the top hysterical about everything.

    Parent

    "Many thought" - heh (none / 0) (#98)
    by Yman on Wed May 15, 2013 at 05:09:40 PM EST
    You're seriously down to "many thought" to try to minimize Clinton's obvious ability to charm people?

    Oy.

    Not that it really matters, considering the true measure of any POTUS is not whether they think he's a nice guy, but whether they think he's doing a good job.  Just a reminder about which one left office with the highest approval rating of any POTUS ...

    ... ever.

    Parent

    "Mistakes were made" (none / 0) (#69)
    by MKS on Wed May 15, 2013 at 02:34:11 PM EST
    The genesis of the phrase being a common political dodge goes back to the most expert dodger of them all:  Ronald Reagan.

    Reagan denied knowing about the arms for hostages swap.  Then evidence came out that he did know.  And he went on t.v. and said oops and "mistakes were made."  No big deal.

    This is not Watergate or Iran/Contra. Sorry critics it just is not.

    Parent

    Ronald Reagan (none / 0) (#74)
    by jbindc on Wed May 15, 2013 at 02:39:44 PM EST
    Didn't have 24 hour cable news and the internet to constantly hash on it.

    He also didn't have an angry press, ready to pounce on any little nugget.

    And he was perceived as more likeable than Mr. Obama, and it's harder to be mean to someone you like, rather than someone who is, (wait for it) arrogant and aloof.

    Presedentin' is hard.

    Parent

    Projection (none / 0) (#78)
    by MKS on Wed May 15, 2013 at 03:06:08 PM EST
    And totally wrong (5.00 / 1) (#80)
    by MKS on Wed May 15, 2013 at 03:14:30 PM EST
    America likes Obama.  He won re-election with unemployment higher than any other re-elected Presdient except FDR.

    The polling shows people who even disapprove of the job he he is doing still like him.

    Show me a poll or some objective date that the American people do not like Obama.

     

    Parent

    Who cares? (none / 0) (#97)
    by Yman on Wed May 15, 2013 at 05:02:55 PM EST
    While being "liked" by the public might help on the margins in terms of getting an agenda passed, Obama is down to an even split on likeability, and is in negative numbers on job approval.  This would be after starting with near historic highs in both.

    Neither of which is relevant to jbindc's point - which is that Reagan was perceived as more likeable than Obama.

    Parent

    While usually true, (5.00 / 1) (#117)
    by NYShooter on Sat May 18, 2013 at 01:08:35 AM EST
    "While being "liked" by the public might help on the margins in terms of getting an agenda passed,..."

    It helped Reagan more than most, I believe.  Being a NYC Punk, I always revert into my cynical, curmudgeon role when I see a politician weaving his/her spell over an adoring audience with their phony, rehearsed preening and fawning in front of them. So, if you tell one of their acolytes how much damage Ronnie did to the average citizen in America they look at you as if you blasphemed Jesus. "He lowered taxes for Everybody! they proclaim." So, you tell them, "he did away with the tax deduction for credit card interest (rich people don't carry balances) they look at you with that, "huh?" look. Then add, "he took away interest deduction for car loans, too (rich people pay cash for autos) "Huh?" again.

    Of course, you're right, on the margin, it's usually a small plus. But, for the trained, and seasoned, real charlatans, it sometimes is much, much more.  

    Parent

    for my exclamation point (none / 0) (#118)
    by NYShooter on Sat May 18, 2013 at 01:15:02 AM EST
    I'll just point to Obama's first election,
    .
    .
    .
    then, I'll shut up and go to bed.


    Parent
    oh don't quote politico (none / 0) (#54)
    by kmblue on Wed May 15, 2013 at 01:03:04 PM EST
    I will have to guzzle antifreeze, right Ann?

    Parent
    According to Charlie Pierce...yes, (none / 0) (#55)
    by Anne on Wed May 15, 2013 at 01:04:48 PM EST
    and not out of a glass, but right out of the big square jug.

    Parent
    I think Anne (none / 0) (#57)
    by jbindc on Wed May 15, 2013 at 01:50:35 PM EST
    Would probably agree with these sentiments:

    Obama's aloof mien and holier-than-thou rhetoric have left him with little reservoir of good will, even among Democrats. And the press, after years of being accused of being soft on Obama while being berated by West Wing aides on matters big and small, now has every incentive to be as ruthless as can be.

    This White House's instinctive petulance, arrogance and defensiveness have all worked to isolate Obama at a time when he most needs a support system. "It feel like they don't know what they're here to do," a former senior Obama administration official said. "When there's no narrative, stuff like this consumes you."



    Parent
    Rent disabled people for Disneyland trips (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by Dadler on Tue May 14, 2013 at 02:22:52 PM EST
    Isn't it disgusting? (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by Militarytracy on Wed May 15, 2013 at 10:31:14 AM EST
    When we took Josh before he had to go through halo traction we did not know about the special pass for disabled people.  My husband lived near Disney in Orlando though and did have year round passes so he knows the layout well.  You can have two fast passes out per person in the park.  He ran ahead of Josh and I and got fast passes for the first two days and we had a great time.  A Disney employee towards the end of the second day told us about the special pass for the disabled.

    The third day was a little less stress not having someone out front collecting fast passes, but it wasn't THAT much different than collecting the damned fast passes if you are able bodied.  What a bunch of losers.

    We had the pass for Josh during the whole trip last month.  We didn't ride on a greater number of rides than we did before, we just didn't have a fast pass runner.  And because we also had two toddlers to watch out for I suppose that was nice, but really...hasn't Josh earned a trip to Disney with his young nieces where people can have the mental space to have a spot of fun too?

    What surprises me most is that many families who could qualify for the pass are often the last ones to show up in that line at the park every morning.

    Parent

    What is the worst part of this story? (none / 0) (#4)
    by CoralGables on Tue May 14, 2013 at 02:34:49 PM EST
    that someone will pay a disabled person $130 an hour to skip their family to the front of the line? Or that someone might pretend to be disabled to get paid $130 an hour?

    Parent
    I'm just going to start selling crutches... (none / 0) (#6)
    by Dadler on Tue May 14, 2013 at 02:52:10 PM EST
    ...and renting wheelchairs across the street from Disneyland. When in Rome.

    Parent
    Sounds like a two person business (none / 0) (#8)
    by CoralGables on Tue May 14, 2013 at 03:00:37 PM EST
    the boyfriend that takes the calls, and the cynic in me that says the faux-disabled girlfriend who breaks out the scooter only for Disney.

    Parent
    This is (none / 0) (#17)
    by lentinel on Tue May 14, 2013 at 04:19:02 PM EST
    reminiscent of the "Curb Your Enthusiasm" episode in which Larry engages a hooker to sit with him in his car so that he can use the carpool lane.

    Parent
    that was also... (none / 0) (#29)
    by Dadler on Tue May 14, 2013 at 09:01:40 PM EST
    ...the episode where he bought pot for his dad's glaucoma off the street, then got stoned with the hooker and his dad back at dad's house. might be my favorite episode.

    Parent
    I liked (none / 0) (#37)
    by lentinel on Tue May 14, 2013 at 11:00:21 PM EST
    the way the "'hooker" was so sweet to "Daddy" (Shelley Berman).

    Parent
    Ukelele virtuoso Jake Shimabukuro. (none / 0) (#33)
    by caseyOR on Tue May 14, 2013 at 09:50:39 PM EST
    The other night I saw a PBS show on Jake. I was so taken with this music. Donald, have you seen Jake perform?

    I have never heard the ukelele played like Jake plays it. Here is his version of George Harrison's While My Guitar Gently Weeps.

    And here is Jake playing my very favorite Beatles' song In My Life.

    I am now on the lookout for Jake CDs.

    Parent

    Coupla decades ago, when the kids were young (none / 0) (#22)
    by Peter G on Tue May 14, 2013 at 05:09:55 PM EST
    we visited Disney World.  I managed to trip and fall off the curb on "Main Street" right after entering the park, and sprained my ankle so that it was quite painful to walk.  First Aid issued me a wheelchair, which my kids greatly enjoyed pushing me around in for the rest of the day.  But even better was that as a result, there were no lines anywhere, all day, for any of us. We often talked after that, in the family, of renting a wheelchair in the event that we decided to make a return visit.  Never did, though.

    Parent
    Moral of your story is (none / 0) (#23)
    by MO Blue on Tue May 14, 2013 at 05:42:21 PM EST
    Take your favorite klutz to Disney World and save $130.00 per hour.

    In my family, the favorite klutz is me. ;o)

    Parent

    Monarch update (5.00 / 3) (#13)
    by CoralGables on Tue May 14, 2013 at 03:36:46 PM EST
    between inside and outside I was able to track 9 of the 11 caterpillars into pods (chrysalides is too tough to type).

    So far: four flyers, one struggling and doesn't look good, 4 still in the pods (2 of the 4 remaining pods now black).

    At first I thought maybe Prince Harry (none / 0) (#114)
    by Militarytracy on Thu May 16, 2013 at 10:54:17 AM EST
    Was getting on your nerves too.

    Parent
    Great stuff. As you are experiencing, (none / 0) (#115)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu May 16, 2013 at 12:07:18 PM EST
    some simply don't make it.

    Parent
    Article by one Jay Carney (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by Slado on Tue May 14, 2013 at 03:45:46 PM EST
    back in 2007 regarding the Bush AG scandal.

    Memories

    Well (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed May 15, 2013 at 12:06:14 PM EST
    so much for the targeting scandal.

    Apparently the IRS gave all these 501C organizations the same letter but approved all of teh conservatives groups and denied at least one liberal group. Once again, the GOP sits with egg on their face. Will they never learn? Apparently not.

    link

    New Hampshire 2016 Primary Poll (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by CoralGables on Wed May 15, 2013 at 02:08:30 PM EST
    by the New England College Poll.

    It's never too early to see the damage all these GOP talking points might be doing to Hillary:

    Hillary 65%
    Biden 10%
    Warren 5%
    Cuomo 4%
    Patrick 3%

    Okay, so that Benghazi fake GOP scandal isn't working very well.

    Actually, your Hillary criticism (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by MKS on Wed May 15, 2013 at 02:19:22 PM EST
    is quite pedestrian.   Amateurish.  Here is what a real pro, a real conservative, would say:

    This poll questions her standing.  Why is she at only 65%.  Should she not be at 80%.  This scandal has really diminished her.

    Parent

    Ha. (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by CoralGables on Wed May 15, 2013 at 02:21:26 PM EST
    Well done

    Parent
    PPP 2016 National Primary Poll Out Today (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by CoralGables on Wed May 15, 2013 at 02:20:35 PM EST
    Clinton 63%
    Biden 13%
    Cuomo 4%
    Warner 3%
    Warren 3%
    O'Malley 2%

    Parent
    Not surpised (5.00 / 1) (#66)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed May 15, 2013 at 02:28:57 PM EST
    there was another poll out that said the majority of people trust Hillary over the GOP.

    I'm wondering what the GOP will do IF she runs. I'm wondering if it will scare off a lot of potential candidates for the GOP nomination and they'll end up with crazy. Maybe they will nominate Michele Bachmann. Oh, wouldn't that be a kick.

    Parent

    I'm enjoying the Hillary love (1.00 / 1) (#77)
    by Slado on Wed May 15, 2013 at 02:52:30 PM EST
    However misplaced.

    Here are what I see the main issues being, lets leave out what a terrible Secretary of State she has been just for arguments sake...

    1. She lost the Democratic primary to a nobody.  Why won't that happen again?

    2. People are tired of retreads.  She's Bill's wife and a one time loser.   Why would anyone other then a total democratic partisan hack support her?

    3. She'll be 69 when the election happens.  Sorry guys, that's not going to cut it.

    I hope democrats run her.  Heck Ron Paul could beat her.

    On the plus side she'll have the first women president thing in her favor but honestly I think that ship has sailed.  2008 was lined up on a platter for her and it didn't happen (it was her fault by the way).

    I don't think she gets a second chance.

    Parent

    Conservative trash talk (5.00 / 1) (#79)
    by MKS on Wed May 15, 2013 at 03:08:48 PM EST
    You are just going by your own views.  Others do not share your views.

    Republicans just believed that Romney was going to win in a blow out.

    Show me a poll or some objective data, not just your personal dislike.

    Parent

    A Hillary Clinton Presidency... (none / 0) (#81)
    by kdog on Wed May 15, 2013 at 03:14:52 PM EST
    is what it is going to take to get the left side of the American aisle's head out of their arse.  After 4 or 8 years of Hillary and the same crooked sh*t, maybe we will be ready to take our votes and walk.  Unless there is a kool-aid drinking Joe Biden Fan Club I'm not aware of out there who will be saying in 2020 or 2024 "If only we elected Joe Biden.

    I don't what it will take to the right side of the American aisle to get their head outta their arse.  If Bush didn't show 'em they got played, who will?

    Parent

    It all depends on if you believe (none / 0) (#84)
    by MKS on Wed May 15, 2013 at 03:29:48 PM EST
    our political leaders lead or follow public opinion.

    If the country as a whole wants something, we generally get it.  

    I subscribe to the John Steinbeck theory of political leadership.  In the Log from the Sea of Cortez, Stenibeck likens political leadership to an amoeba: an arm of the amoeba may be in the lead but it is just being pushed by the rest of the amoeba; when the amoeba changes direction, it is not because the leading arm is dragging the rest of the amoeba but rather because it just happened to be where the rest of the amoeba was headed.

    And so with political leadership.  Democratic public officials now support marriage equality because that is where the people are, not because they have changed public views...

    So, if you are right, the political leaders will mirror what the public wants, and Hillary is not immune to this.

    Parent

    First off polls are meaningless (none / 0) (#89)
    by Slado on Wed May 15, 2013 at 04:36:42 PM EST
    Obama wasn't even in the polls in 2005.

    Take it for what it's worth.

    I'm just saying I wouldn't hitch my wagon to Hillary at this point.

    If Christie or Rubio runs the republican nominee could be 15 to 30 years younger.

    Wouldn't that be weird?

    Parent

    Christie is not running and (none / 0) (#91)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed May 15, 2013 at 04:41:13 PM EST
    there's no way he would win the nomination if he did run. The Tea Party hates the guy because he praised Obama for his handling of the hurricane. They are calling him a Democrat and if they believe he's a democrat, there's no way they are going to vote for him. Secondly, Rubio has endorsed immigration reform which the GOP base loathes. That's enough to knock him out right then and there. I'm not seeing people who are going to go with anyone other than who they want in 2016. They feel like held their nose for McCain and Romney and are not going to do it this next time. They seem to want full on crazy like Bachmann to be the nominee or Santorum.

    Parent
    And one of them is extremely overweight and (none / 0) (#92)
    by Angel on Wed May 15, 2013 at 04:43:04 PM EST
    could die of a heart attack before I finish typing this sentence.  The other one, the guy who wanted the IRS Commissioner to be fired even though he had already left the position seven months prior?  Heh.  It's a long way to 2016 but the GOP is already mighty scared.

    Parent
    Well (5.00 / 1) (#82)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed May 15, 2013 at 03:16:46 PM EST
    first of all you are forgetting that Obama did not have enough delegates to win the nomination for himself and super delegates decided the primary. Ronald Reagan was a TWO TIME loser and major retread when he ran in 1980 wasn't he?

    She has a large base of support among the voters. She has a demographic base that is wider than Obama's. As BTD says, demographics are destiny. The GOP is on the losing end of that one no matter who they run for president.

    And what you are postulating is just what I expect from the GOP and what some of my Republican friends are exactly afraid the GOP will do--69? So older women have no worth in this society? That's a statement worthy of Rush Limbaugh. I hope the GOP uses your strategy because you are going to manage to tick off large numbers of women.

    The polls do not back up your assertions at all. Right now they show her beating Jeb Bush in FL and Rick Perry in TX. Yes, they are far out but Bush and Perry are known in those states as well as Hillary.

    If she runs, what state is she not going to carry that Obama didn't? I can't think of one plus she would carry AR and probably MO.

    Parent

    So I'm an agist? (none / 0) (#93)
    by Slado on Wed May 15, 2013 at 04:43:17 PM EST
    No a realist.

    Hilarious seeing liberals take this stance after dismissing Reagan and McCain.

    But I digress, I'm just saying it's an obstacle for her.  Not a disqualification.

    DailyKos sums up my argument better than I.

    Also history is not on her side but why look at that?

    Parent

    No (none / 0) (#99)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed May 15, 2013 at 05:26:13 PM EST
    just making the point that if Hillary losing in 2008 makes her a has been then you would have to consider Reagan a major has been when he was running in 1980. Did you?

    Daily Kos is full of Hillary haters. It was that way back in 2008 too. Misogyny is not just limited to the right unfortunately and I consider their opinion on a lot of things not too great because they were all "in love" with Obama and bought his PPUS crap hook line and sinker.

    Parent

    And that diarist (none / 0) (#101)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed May 15, 2013 at 05:29:39 PM EST
    ignores the fact that if Hillary runs, a lot of people like Cuomo etc. have said they WILL NOT run. She pretty much clears the field.

    Parent
    After perusing (none / 0) (#107)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed May 15, 2013 at 05:58:23 PM EST
    that diary I now know why you are screaming so hard and trying to trash Hillary. The WaPo poll said that she would take 35% of the votes of GOP women. There is no way the GOP could win an election with 20% of the female vote in this country. The GOP would lose in a landslide.

    Parent
    Name (5.00 / 1) (#83)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed May 15, 2013 at 03:21:46 PM EST
    a state that Ron Paul would add to the GOP's ever dwindling numbers in the electoral college? Okay. I'm sure he would carry TX but he might not even do as well as Romney.

    Remember the GOP thought Paul Ryan was great and he could not even carry his own district for Romney

    Parent

    The one positive of the HIllary Talk (none / 0) (#94)
    by Slado on Wed May 15, 2013 at 04:44:25 PM EST
    is we've all agreed the Obama presidency is no longer worth talking about.

    Parent
    You sure seem to talk a lot about something you (none / 0) (#95)
    by Angel on Wed May 15, 2013 at 04:46:12 PM EST
    just said isn't worth talking about.  

    Parent
    Okay., (none / 0) (#100)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed May 15, 2013 at 05:27:31 PM EST
    So you can't name a state that Ron Paul would carry. That's what I figured. Though if you did run him, it would at least get the neocon monkey off the back of the GOP which would probably be good for them long term.  

    Parent
    Ron Paul (none / 0) (#102)
    by CoralGables on Wed May 15, 2013 at 05:41:37 PM EST
    wouldn't win a state GOP primary in 2016 much less ever win a state in the general election.

    Parent
    That's (none / 0) (#109)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed May 15, 2013 at 06:00:55 PM EST
    pretty much what I think too but if they are going to lose, the would be better off losing with someone like Paul who could redefine the GOP away from the Neoconservative agenda and bring in some young voters to the party instead of someone like Michele Bachmann

    Parent
    Since I just finished sitting shiva (none / 0) (#116)
    by jondee on Thu May 16, 2013 at 02:09:18 PM EST
    for Mrs Thatcher-Pinochet, I feel freed up to observe that A woman president doesn't cut it anymore than A black president cuts it..

    The devil's in the details.

    Of course, judging by all the hit-piece "the truth about Hillary" books that came out in the last twenty years, you'd think she was the former head of the European Green Party, who transforms into the succubus at night to drain the vital life force from conservatives..

    An uppity, back-talking liberal woman who had the temerity to marry that secret radical, Bill..

    Parent

    Is weed the new diabetes drug? Can it (5.00 / 1) (#90)
    by caseyOR on Wed May 15, 2013 at 04:37:05 PM EST
    fight obesity and keep cholesterol in check? The answer, according to a study conducted by the University of Nebraska, the Harvard School of Public Health and Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center is well, it just might be.

    RESULTS: Current marijuana users had significantly smaller waist circumference than participants who had never used marijuana, even after adjusting for factors like age, sex, tobacco and alcohol use, and physical activity levels. They also had higher levels of HDL ("good cholesterol"). The most significant differences between those who smoked marijuana and those who never or no longer did was that current smokers' insulin levels were reduced by 16 percent and their insulin resistance (a condition in which the body has trouble absorbing glucose from the bloodstream) was reduced by 17 percent.

    People who had previously used marijuana, but not in the past thirty days, tended to have similar outcomes, but to a much lesser degree. In addition, none of these measures were impacted by how much marijuana people reported smoking.

    Weed, it's good for you. Who knew? Now, will this study prod the federal government into ending the War on Drugs or at least legalizing marijuana? IMO, the answer is no. Imagine the hit to Big Pharma's profits if we could avoid diabetes and obesity and high cholesterol and all their attendant illnesses by using something each of us could grow on our own.

    YESSSS!! (none / 0) (#112)
    by desertswine on Wed May 15, 2013 at 09:45:06 PM EST
    Another concealed carry ninja ... (5.00 / 1) (#105)
    by Yman on Wed May 15, 2013 at 05:56:41 PM EST
    ... manages to shoot himself ...

    ... while bowling.

    Florida.

    I almost hate to ask how one ... (none / 0) (#108)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed May 15, 2013 at 05:59:39 PM EST
    ... shoots himself while bowling. These people are characters straight out of a black comedy.

    Parent
    Not even the best example (5.00 / 2) (#111)
    by Yman on Wed May 15, 2013 at 06:43:49 PM EST
    Another woman managed to shoot the woman next to her while going to the bathroom.

    Florida - land of a million concealed carry holders.

    Parent

    Interesting Story... (none / 0) (#2)
    by ScottW714 on Tue May 14, 2013 at 02:21:03 PM EST
    ...about Japanese use of 'comfort women', some not willing, to aid in troop morale during WWII.

    What really interested me was the reactions to a extremely inappropriate comment from Toru Hashimoto, mayor of Osaka.

    One of the strongest rebuttals came from a top official in Hashimoto's own party.

    "This is not something that's coming out of our party. I think Mr. Hashimoto was expressing his own private opinions," said Sakihiti Owaza, a senior official in the Japan Restoration Party. "If these comments continue, we will need to look into his true intentions and put a stop to this."

    Yoshihide Suga, chief cabinet secretary in the government of Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, declined to directly criticize Hashimoto; doing so would be considered inappropriate because they are members of different parties. LINK

    His own party slammed him and the opposing party declines to comment because he is in the opposing party ?  Bizarro World ?

    It's no "Bizarro World." (none / 0) (#12)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue May 14, 2013 at 03:33:38 PM EST
    But it's very Japanese. They have inherent social protocols that are often unfathomable to many of us in the West, one of which is an almost pathological aversion to public displays of rudeness or impolite behavior, which includes airing one's dirty laundry in public.

    That why you'll note that Mr. Owaza was actually very circumspect in his almost oblique criticism of Mr. Hashimoto's offensive remarks, and did not contemptuously dismiss him in public as some sort of demented idiot, as no doubt would have been the case if this had happened here. Owaza is giving Hashimoto the opportunity to save face.

    People in Japan can be bitter rivals and really not like each other, but if one of them says something considered rude or impolite about the other person in public, i.e., in front of other people, that person is then expected to humble himself and offer an apology for his offending remarks or behavior, lest those who witnessed that breach in protocol then feel compelled to express their own shame for him, which implies that he has lost face before them.

    Further, it is considered ill-mannered in traditional Japanese society to comment upon or otherwise interfere in a shameful private matter of another family, group or organization, especially when it's apparent that they are acting to resolve the problem internally, which is what's happening here.

    We Americans, of course, obviously harbor little or no such inhibitions about manners or protocols if it doesn't suit our purposes, and will feel free to offer our opinions -- informed, solicited or otherwise -- on all sorts of issues, even when it's really none of our concern. And there are many times when I think that's a real pity.

    Aloha.

    Parent

    Yes, but (5.00 / 3) (#21)
    by Zorba on Tue May 14, 2013 at 04:57:48 PM EST
    ask the Korean, Chinese, Filipino, and Indonesian "comfort women" how they felt about the whole thing.
    It may be a very Japanese thing, but it is totally not acceptable, and in fact extremely insensitive.
    If it is considered ill-mannered to publicly comment upon a "shameful private matter......that they are acting to resolve," I am sorry, but I don't think that's exactly okay with the women and their families, or to their countries.  
    The Japanese have made great strides in becoming part of the global economy.  They need to acknowledge their part in the awful things that they did.  As the German government has done in acknowledging and teaching about the Holocaust, teaching their children about that history, and opening museums there about it.  I'm not saying that all Germans are happy about this, but that's the path that the German government has chosen, and rightly so.
    I will be the first to give a pass to cultural differences among people.  But not when it comes to war crimes.    

    Parent
    Agreed. It's not acceptable to us ... (none / 0) (#25)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue May 14, 2013 at 08:32:24 PM EST
    ... and the victims. But Scott was asking why the opposition party was not commenting on the mayor's offensive remarks, while a member of the mayor's own party was politely suggesting that he reconsider what he said. I tried to answer that as best I could, given my own knowledge of Japanese culture.

    And strictly from that standpoint, this is an internal discussion between Japanese politicians, and how that conversation unfolds is going to be dictated by Japanese social protocols. And in that regard, I think that they've made it very clear to outsiders that whatever people like you and me might think of those protocols or the subject matter being discussed, our opinions are going to be completely irrelevant to them.

    I'm not saying that's right or wrong, only that it is what it is. I'm certainly not going to defend the Japanese regarding their comfort women, because I have an aunt by marriage who as a child was held prisoner -- along with her parents and two younger brothers -- by the imperial Japanese Army for over three years at the Los Baños Internment Camp in the Philippines, and I've heard her own horror stories.

    (She is an American, not Filipina, and her father had been transferred to Manila in 1940 to serve with the American colonial government. Unfortunately, he took his family along with him, and they got caught up in the Japanese invasion after the war broke out in Dec. 1941. Along with thousands of other American civilians, they were effectively abandoned by Gen. MacArthur in Manila when U.S. forces retreated to the Bataan Peninsula, and were then rounded up by Japanese troops and interned, first at Santo Tomas University in Manila, and then at Los Baños.)

    So, I happen to agree with you wholeheartedly that the Japanese have yet to fully come to terms publicly with the inherently cruel nature of the Empire of Japan with regards to its non-Japanese subjects, and to formally acknowledge the countless and grievous atrocities that were repeatedly inflicted upon conquered peoples in the name of the Emperor between 1937 (the year Japan invaded China) and 1945, when the Empire surrendered to the Allies.

    Whether we can ultimately compel them to do so is another matter entirely, because thus far they've shown themselves to be rather impervious to world opinion regarding their conduct in the Second World War.

    Aloha.

    Parent

    Bizarro World... (none / 0) (#16)
    by ScottW714 on Tue May 14, 2013 at 04:08:57 PM EST
    ...is a place where black is white, up is down and where politicians are civilized to each other.

    It wasn't a dig on Japanese culture.

    Parent

    I didn't say it was. (none / 0) (#31)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue May 14, 2013 at 09:07:25 PM EST
    I just attempted to explain why the Japanese are discussing the subject of comfort women in this rather roundabout way. To us, I agree, it's Bizarro World as you described. But to them, it's simply a political form of kabuki, in which both sides know their parts and play their roles in accordance to the ancient social tradition, albeit in a modern setting. And to be honest, it's actually a pretty effective way to resolve disputes, sort of like social due process, as it were.

    I deal with Japanese all the time, and they're really nice people who are almost always polite and deferential. But honestly, it's awfully hard sometimes to figure out for certain what they're actually thinking, because by nature they are very reserved and not at all inclined to take outsiders into their confidence -- that is, until you're invited to go drinking with them. (And let me tell you, a lot of them really know how to pound 'em home.) Once you drink with them, then you've arrived, and the barriers tend to fall away pretty quickly.

    Aloha.

    Parent

    You're (none / 0) (#36)
    by lentinel on Tue May 14, 2013 at 10:49:08 PM EST
    doing the same thing here.

    You think that it is hard to figure out what "they" are "actually thinking.

    The inference is that you claim to know what one of our own politicians is "actually thinking" despite them laying out a "political form of kabuki" in which they maneuver around and say the opposite.

    I deal with Americans all the time, and they're really nice people. Once you drink with them, then you've arrived, and the barriers tend to fall away pretty quickly.

    Parent

    I'm just going to ignore you, since ... (none / 0) (#106)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed May 15, 2013 at 05:58:07 PM EST
    ... you appear to be interested in baiting me and picking a fight, as a means to validate your own viewpoints.

    Parent
    No. (none / 0) (#113)
    by lentinel on Thu May 16, 2013 at 05:22:25 AM EST
    You want to ignore what I wrote because you do not want to confront or discuss your generalization about the Japanese.

    Unfortunately, you feel every challenge to your assertions as a personal affront.

    I have no interest in baiting or picking a fight.
    I have no time for things like that.

    I do have an interest in a serious discussion, but that does not seem possible.

    Parent

    The (none / 0) (#18)
    by lentinel on Tue May 14, 2013 at 04:30:07 PM EST
    social protocol you are citing as being very Japanese is reminiscent of Mr. Obama's gush toward the very evil Mr. Bush at the dedication of what is supposed to pass as W's "library".

    Instead of calling him what he is, a traitor, a liar and a mass murderer, he referred to how "likable" he is, how comfortable in his own skin, and how he is a "good man".

    Somehow, the American version of this social protocol of b.s. does not seem all that dissimilar to me.

    Parent

    Good Point... (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by ScottW714 on Wed May 15, 2013 at 09:20:31 AM EST
    ...basically the decorum for our Presidents is theirs for all politicians.


    Parent
    We're not talking about Obama and Bush. (none / 0) (#26)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue May 14, 2013 at 08:42:15 PM EST
    The subject we're discussing is the Japanese views about their military's sex slaves, the so-called "comfort women," during the Second World War.

    Parent
    Your words (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by lentinel on Tue May 14, 2013 at 10:40:01 PM EST
    were taking the occasion of this "discussion" to comment on what you referred to as "social protocol" that was "very Japanese".

    My reply was and is that we do virtually the same thing here and used as an example Obama's commentary vis a vis Bush.

    Don't you read what you write - and have I no right to comment on it?

    Parent

    Tradition protocols are one thing.. (none / 0) (#56)
    by jondee on Wed May 15, 2013 at 01:43:00 PM EST
    On the other hand, hundreds of years of the teachings of the compassionate Buddha couldn't prevent the Rape Of Nanking..

    Parent
    No, it couldn't. (none / 0) (#104)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed May 15, 2013 at 05:55:11 PM EST
    But then, most Japanese subscribe to Shintoism, which is a very Japanese-oriented offshoot of Buddhism that partially incorporates ancestor veneration and worship.

    One of its centers of worship is the Yasukuni Shrine in the Chiyoda District of Tokyo, which was created by the Emperor Meiji to venerate the memory of soldiers and civilians who died in service to the Empire of Japan.

    Listed on its rolls are the names of over 2 million men, women and children -- including a not-insignificant number of individuals who were arrested, convicted and executed for war crimes by the United States after the Empire's surrender in Sept. 1945, such as former Prime Minister Hideki Tojo.

    The Yasukuni Shrine is understandably a source of considerable controversy in Asia, as Japan's neighbors are for good reason deathly afraid of any possible resurgence in Japanese militarism, and they will frequently file public diplomatic protests whenever Japanese prime ministers makes occasional public pilgrimages there. Of course, in keeping with longstanding Japanese behavior, their objections are simply ignored.

    Aloha.

    Parent

    When polls go wrong, very wrong. (none / 0) (#86)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed May 15, 2013 at 03:57:58 PM EST
    Going into yesterday's provincial elections in British Columbia, the New Democrats and their leader, Adrian Dix, had every reason to feel confident of gaining a smashing victory.

    After all, poll after poll after poll had them comfortably in front -- sometimes by double digits -- over incumbent B.C. Premier Christy Clark and the Liberals, and final polls released on Monday predicted an easy 9-point NDP victory, a large majority and change of provincial government.

    But when the ballots were counted and the smoke cleared, it was Ms. Clark's Liberals who scored a smashing and historic upset, winning 50 of the 85 seats in the B.C. parliament, which constitutes a gain of five seats for them in Victoria. The NDP finished far behind, with only 33 seats (a net loss of three seats), and one seat went to the Green Party and another stayed independent. Two independents lost their seats.

    It will be interesting to see the post-election analysis, as Canadian political pollsters seek to come to grips with this epic failure on their part. For two months during the campaign, they were prognosticating a decisive NDP victory, the exact opposite of what subsequently occurred. As it happened, pollsters were not only not in the ballpark, they had never even reached the parking lot by the time the final out was recorded.

    Do you happen to know if the Liberals (none / 0) (#87)
    by caseyOR on Wed May 15, 2013 at 04:20:30 PM EST
    in Canada are actually liberal? Are the New Democrats conservative?

    Parent
    The Liberals are liberal. (none / 0) (#103)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed May 15, 2013 at 05:42:53 PM EST
    They are the party of the late Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau. Trudeau's son Justin is now the national leader of the Liberal Party.

    There is a Conservative Party in Canada, which currently controls the national parliament in Ottawa, but its strength lies in the eastern part of the country, and -- like the GOP in Hawaii -- their political presence is just this side of negligible in British Columbia.

    The NDP seems to be a more populist, "middle of the road"-to-conservative group, and they are actually quite strong in the west. I believe they control the provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan -- but don't hold me to that.

    The fourth major party is Le Parti Quebecois, but that's a Francophone party which is exclusive to Quebec. For years, they've sought Quebec's independence from the rest of Canada, but while they've occasionally constituted a majority party in Quebecois provincial politics, and were once even the second largest party in the Ottawa national parliament after the Liberals back in the 1980s, they've been quite inconsistent in their messaging, are prone to infighting, and are thus unsuccessful (obviously!) in attaining their primary goal.

    Aloha.

    Parent

    ... in a few minutes, and we're going to the Rolling Stones concert tonight at the Honda Center in Anaheim. Yay!

    Tomorrow morning, we're flying out to Albany for Elder Daughter's college graduation this weekend, and then we're packing up all her belongings for her return home to the islands.

    Enjoy the afternoon and evening, everyone. Aloha.