home

Thursday Open Thread

Here's an open thread, all topics welcome.

< DOJ to Defer Challenge to New State Marijuana Laws | Third Friend of Dzhokhar Tsarnaev Indicted >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • The Internal Revenue Service (5.00 / 2) (#2)
    by KeysDan on Thu Aug 29, 2013 at 03:46:16 PM EST
    announced today that same sex couples will receive federal tax consideration no matter where they live; the state of marriage celebration is what matters.

     As an example, if a same sex couple is legally married in New York, the IRS will consider the couple married if they retire to Florida (a state that does not allow same sex marriage.)  

    According to Treasury Secretary Lew, same sex couples can move freely throughout the country and their federal tax status will not change.  This includes income, gift and estate taxes.  And, for the the 2013 tax year (amended forms can be filed for past years, 2010, 2011 and 2012.  

    Of course, as to actual tax benefits of filing separately or together, will depend on individualized circumstances, but, based on the Supreme Court decision,  this is a major ruling.

    Correctly summarized (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by Peter G on Thu Aug 29, 2013 at 05:23:35 PM EST
    and very big news, I agree.

    Parent
    Don't (none / 0) (#22)
    by Mikado Cat on Thu Aug 29, 2013 at 05:28:03 PM EST
    you pay more as married than separately?

    Parent
    Not if one person earns significantly less (5.00 / 4) (#23)
    by Peter G on Thu Aug 29, 2013 at 05:35:35 PM EST
    than the other, normally. In that situation, the joint return rate is often more favorable. Each couple has to check for themselves. And for inheritance purposes, this is even bigger news than for income tax.

    Parent
    Medicare and Medicaid are worse than ... (5.00 / 2) (#19)
    by Yman on Thu Aug 29, 2013 at 04:56:56 PM EST
    ... slavery and the KKK for AAs - says NRA board member Ted Nugent on the 50th anniversary of MLK's "I Have a Dream" speech.

    Sadly, I'm not quite sure if this even cracks the top 10 of his craziest statements.

    Read on Kos just now that his wife... (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by magster on Thu Aug 29, 2013 at 07:38:05 PM EST
    .... was arrested after security at an airport caught her with a gun.

    Parent
    If true, that sounds like (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by Peter G on Thu Aug 29, 2013 at 09:20:08 PM EST
    a blatant violation of her Second Amendment rights!
    <snark alert>

    Parent
    Wasn't he going to be dead or in jail by now? (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by shoephone on Thu Aug 29, 2013 at 07:45:55 PM EST
    That's what he claimed on April 14, 2012: that he'd either be dead or in jail a year from that date, if Obama won the November 2012 election.

    Hmm.

    Parent

    Yep (5.00 / 2) (#38)
    by Yman on Thu Aug 29, 2013 at 09:12:15 PM EST
    Those wingers sure do like to talk tough.

    Parent
    Ted's no (1.00 / 1) (#51)
    by Mikado Cat on Fri Aug 30, 2013 at 04:24:22 AM EST
    no poet laureate, and plenty of disagreeable stuff was said by others to commemorate the 50th anniversary of the march.

    Parent
    "Disagreeable stuff" (5.00 / 3) (#54)
    by Yman on Fri Aug 30, 2013 at 06:55:05 AM EST
    Heh.

    BTW - Are these "others" board members of national organizations with a long history of sexist and racist comments?  Maybe if you posted some of this "disagreeable stuff" we could compare.

    Parent

    Speaking of sexism and racism (5.00 / 2) (#127)
    by SuzieTampa on Fri Aug 30, 2013 at 12:40:22 PM EST
    I was pleased to find some articles on the March that detailed the work women did and their exclusion. For those who don't know ... the initial six official leaders were African-American men. They later added four white men who had been important in civil rights.

    A woman organizing behind the scenes complained that no women had been invited to speak. The men agreed to add a brief speech as a tribute to Negro women, and it was delivered by Bayard Rustin, the chief organizer who was gay and not allowed to have more of a public role. Another female leader was allowed to recognize female leaders in a brief speech (less than 150 words.)

    The male organizers had women leaders march separately down  Independence Avenue, while male leaders headed the bigger march covered by the press on Pennsylvania Avenue.

    March marked the 100th anniversary of the 1913 Woman Suffrage Procession, although it got very little attention this year. This march was instrumental in revitalizing the movement to gain voting rights for women.

    Many men heckled the women and men who marched, and some physically attacked. The police did little to help. Advertised as open to all women, the main leader decided black women should march at the back so as not to alienate some Southern suffragists, but the NAACP reported that women objected, and black women marched in the state delegations.

    I included few names to shorten this comment, but I hope people will click on the links to read more history.

     

    Parent

    You are right (5.00 / 3) (#72)
    by MO Blue on Fri Aug 30, 2013 at 09:24:25 AM EST
    disagreeable stuff was said by others to commemorate the 50th anniversary of the march.

    Here is one of your fellow wingers, Stan Solomon taking the opportunity to commemorate the 50th anniversary of the march.

    At least one comment he made on his show was identical to a comment you made on this site.

    Parent

    The British Parliament has voted NO on (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by caseyOR on Thu Aug 29, 2013 at 05:25:01 PM EST
    military action against Syria. This is a defeat for David Cameron, and leaves the U.S. standing alone. This is a repost from the Syria thread.

    What now?

    How long before we find something we (3.25 / 4) (#66)
    by Anne on Fri Aug 30, 2013 at 08:56:40 AM EST
    can threaten Britain with, do you think?

    I mean, isn't that our pattern with them when they look like they aren't going to play along with our plan?

    Plus, my guess is that if there's "no other choice," Obama will find some way to make our going it alone look like the courageous and righteous thing to do, you know, seeing as how we're the beacon of democracy and freedom and all.

    I mean, it will be a darn shame if Obama never gets the chance to show us how stunningly macho and so much more delicious he looks in a flight suit than GWB...I can hear Michelle now: "for crying out loud, Barack, I know how much you want to wear it, but will you please take that thing off - it's giving me the creeps."

    Parent

    Oh, not long (none / 0) (#121)
    by sj on Fri Aug 30, 2013 at 12:32:41 PM EST
    How long before we find something we (3.25 / 4) (#66)
    by Anne on Fri Aug 30, 2013 at 07:56:40 AM MDT

    can threaten Britain with, do you think?

    "We" don't need to threaten Britain. "We" just need to check NSA archives to see what we have on recalcitrant members of Parliament.

    Parent

    It would be interesting (5.00 / 2) (#167)
    by KeysDan on Fri Aug 30, 2013 at 01:52:26 PM EST
    to assess if, or to what  extent,  the "Edward Snowden affair "contributed to the political environment in which Cameron took a hit.   The over-reaching that took place in the handling of David Miranda in transit at Heathrow and the computer-smashing at the Guardian, with the acquiescence, if not at the behest of,  the Obama administration, may have affected populace feelings.  

    Similarly, the further souring of  relationship with Putin over Snowden is probably not helpful to  securing Russian's support  on the Security Council.   And, then, we have the luke-warm support of South America with a backdrop of the Evo Morales unscheduled stop in Vienna that was outside of "international norms."  

    Parent

    They got those Olympics in right under the wire (none / 0) (#168)
    by ruffian on Fri Aug 30, 2013 at 01:52:57 PM EST
    And I'm sorry, but I am not boycotting Downton Abbey.

    Parent
    According to this AP article (none / 0) (#24)
    by MO Blue on Thu Aug 29, 2013 at 05:42:08 PM EST
    Obama is willing for the U.S. to act alone.

    Still, the Obama administration vowed to take action even without the backing of allies or the U.N. The president said that while he had not settled on a response to last week's purported chemical weapons attack near Damascus, the U.S. has concluded that Assad's regime perpetrated the attack, which killed at least 100 Syrians. link

    If I'm not mistaken, this article came out before the British Parliament voted so who knows.

    Parent

    The British Parliment's "no" should (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by oculus on Thu Aug 29, 2013 at 07:53:03 PM EST
    give our Pres. pause. .

    Parent
    I agree but it appears (none / 0) (#31)
    by MO Blue on Thu Aug 29, 2013 at 08:27:00 PM EST
    that Obama does not want to back away even after being advised of vote in UK.

    WASHINGTON (AP) -- President Barack Obama on Thursday prepared for the possibility of launching unilateral American military action against Syria within days as Britain opted out in a stunning vote by Parliament. Facing skepticism at home, too, the administration shared intelligence with lawmakers aimed at convincing them the Syrian government used chemical weapons against its people and must be punished.

    Despite roadblocks in forming an international coalition, Obama appeared undeterred and advisers said he would be willing to retaliate against Syria on his own. link



    Parent
    Caught by his pesky little "red line" ! (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by gbrbsb on Thu Aug 29, 2013 at 10:19:51 PM EST
    Nothing about any of this makes sense, (5.00 / 3) (#77)
    by Anne on Fri Aug 30, 2013 at 10:02:45 AM EST
    and the worst of the nonsense is coming from those with the power to make things happen.

    Charlie Pierce:

    So the responsible mainstream progressive legislative position on the whole matter is that we should bomb Assad's country just enough to express our disapproval, but not enough so that the guy who went "outside the realm of basic human rights" loses his job. Exactly how many Syrians have to die in order for our disapproval to be properly expressed remains unclear.

    The whole debate is surreal. The country doesn't want this. The Brits don't want it. Most of the Syrians, I'd imagine, aren't exactly looking forward to the duck-and-cover competition come their way. And it's still a proposed military action based on sending messages. And one of the consequences of that is we get to see Marco Rubio, onetime rising star in the Republican party, step on another rake. Whap!

    [snip]

    Forget the missiles and just feed the damn refugees, OK? It won't get you a Christmas card from John McCain, but it makes more sense than anything else on offer at the moment.

    Sometimes I don't know why we bother trying to make sense, since whatever happens will happen anyway.

    I'm just so disgusted and ashamed of the people running the show, who have run away and hidden or who are making comments from the sidelines.  

    But, gosh, it is August after all, and Labor Day Weekend to boot...we wouldn't want people to have to leave the beach or the golf course or the lounge chair to come back to DC and have a real, on-the-record debate about this, would we?  I mean, do we pay them enough to be able to ask them to sacrifice some hard-earned time off?

    Parent

    The only influence on the president's (none / 0) (#33)
    by KeysDan on Thu Aug 29, 2013 at 08:32:06 PM EST
    change in course is broad Republican opposition.  He does not care what Democrats think.  

    Parent
    So it seems (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Aug 29, 2013 at 08:34:08 PM EST
    But they could still grab a mic.....the rest of us care what they have to say

    Parent
    Some democrats have earned (5.00 / 1) (#83)
    by Politalkix on Fri Aug 30, 2013 at 10:57:47 AM EST
    the scorn that is heaped on them. When they profess the mantra that it is useless to negotiate with Republicans on any matter but useful to negotiate with Putin to change his behavior, I know fr a fact that they have lost their way.

    A debate will be useful only if people who are opposed to military strikes are open to changing their minds if good evidence is presented that Assad used chemical weapons against his own people. However given the fact that many in the left are gloating that they have the power to stop military strikes or make such strikes appear illegal, even if Assad has used chemical weapons, it appears to me that they are undermining arguments to initiate a debate.

    I have said many a time that I am extremely reluctant about using military force in Syria (unlike in Libya). However, it is also very troubling to see how callous liberals can be in overlooking the use of chemical weapons. In their zeal to mock the President's "red  line", some are stupidly congratulating themselves for having no "red line" as they are ideologically opposed to the use of military force under any circumstance.

    What is to prevent a dictator or military junta in any country from using chemical weapons instead of tear gas as a means of crowd control over restive populations in the future if there is no fear of punitive action from the world community? If there are no red lines to be crossed, why wouldn't a dictator feel confident to build chambers where prisoners can be gassed?

     

    Parent

    Gradated responses (none / 0) (#88)
    by christinep on Fri Aug 30, 2013 at 11:35:19 AM EST
    Have long been employed in behavior modification at many levels.  The more that I think about the "if you do x, there will be a response of y," the more that I see the potential.  The real dilemma in a world not very used to an open statement of a standard, an action covered by the standard, & a methodical consequence is the establishment of an international relations approach to telegraphed expectations.  IF the UN inspectors' report substantially supports a conclusion that illegal chemical agents were used on the civilian populace in Syria, it would seem to me that a gradated response would make international sense ... to Syria (fairly rapid response shows that transgression of commonly accepted international standards has a proportionate consequence with some cost) and to Iran (fairly rapid response shows that said international deviance leads to a defined cost.)  

    Gradated responses, in future, could prevent large & wanton emotional retaliation or actual warfare leading to the despairing deaths of thousands.  There is a lot to be said for method, because--for one thing--it could actually deter the Iraq-type of debacle.  The conundrum, of course, concerns the first instance of defining & delivering an appropriate response.  Perhaps, in this case, Cruise Missiles for a limited time would satisfy that necessary consequence ... and, according to the NBC poll just released, the American public may recognize that measure (50 to 44.)

     But, IMO, I also believe that any action should include prior discussion in Congress ... similar to the British demonstration of that process. While I believe that short term action on the part of the Executive would be permissible under the Constitution, it would be wise to seek that Congressional counsel ... in view of our recent decades of mostly disastrous experience with pushing the limits of ramming through Article II actions in response to perceived strategic military responses.

    Parent

    Who are you referring to? (5.00 / 3) (#136)
    by shoephone on Fri Aug 30, 2013 at 12:51:34 PM EST
    However, it is also very troubling to see how callous liberals can be in overlooking the use of chemical weapons.

    Distaste for military action does not equal callousness about the use of chemical weapons. After the lies that led to the debacle in Iraq, it is hardly surprising that many Americans would find another bombing of another Middle Eastern country to be a net negative.

    What is the goal of bombing Syria? Really and truly, what is the goal? Because it has not been clearly explained by Obama, Biden, Kerry, or Carney. "A shot across the bow" is a useless phrase in this instance, and I, for one, am really disappointed that Obama is using it.

    Can this -- as yet unstated -- goal be achieved? How soon?

    Is there evidence that either rebel forces or an independently acting military faction of Assad's regime has gotten control of those chemical caches and could have been the perpetrators of this crime? Who is controlling the chem weapons right now?

    These are the questions that need to be asked and answered before we engage in another quagmire in the Middle East. Apprehension and distaste of that quagmire does not equal callousness about the victims of the chemical weapons attack. It equals nothing more than the right of the American people to know, once again, what aggressive actions may be taken in our names, and what the odds are that those actions will result in the intended consequences.

    Parent

    That has been my question too (5.00 / 1) (#170)
    by ruffian on Fri Aug 30, 2013 at 01:56:33 PM EST
    I don't see the goal. It just seems to be to punish, but the punishment will punish people that had nothing to do with the deployment of the chemical weapons.

    Senseless.

    Parent

    I see one goal... (5.00 / 1) (#180)
    by kdog on Fri Aug 30, 2013 at 02:18:39 PM EST
    depleting some of our stock of weapons, so we can buy more.

    Parent
    If you really believe what you are saying (2.00 / 1) (#142)
    by Politalkix on Fri Aug 30, 2013 at 01:01:13 PM EST
    "Is there evidence that either rebel forces or an independently acting military faction of Assad's regime has gotten control of those chemical caches and could have been the perpetrators of this crime? Who is controlling the chem weapons right now?"

    If you really believe this, you should argue to put boots on the ground and do everything possible to secure chemical caches. It is beyond capabilities of UN inspection teams to secure chemical caches.

    Based on what I am hearing from both sides and reports, there seems to be no doubt that chemical weapons were used in Syria. This is totally different from the situation in Iraq in 2003 where WMDs were a figment of the imagination.

    Parent

    I never expressed any doubt (5.00 / 2) (#146)
    by shoephone on Fri Aug 30, 2013 at 01:04:57 PM EST
    that chemical weapons were used, did I? I questioned who used them. And you don't actually know the answer to that, do you?

    If you ever decide to stop putting words in people's mouths, let me know. At that point, a serious discussion might be possible.

    Parent

    If there is no doubt that chemical weapons (2.00 / 1) (#181)
    by Politalkix on Fri Aug 30, 2013 at 02:19:19 PM EST
    were used and

    (1) if chemical caches are unsecure and in nobody's control or in rebel hands along with that of the Assad regime, we should argue to put American and international boots on the ground in Syria to secure these caches and make every effort to prevent them from getting distributed. We should also try to find the perpetrators of this crime and bring them to justice.

    (2) if chemical weapons were used by Assad, military strikes should be launched against his regime as a punishment and to degrade his capabilities and force him to come to the negotiating table to end the civil war. A warning should also be issued to him that any further use of chemical weapons will necessitate action for regime change and end with him getting hauled to the international criminal court of justice.

    If anyone wants to argue against military strikes against Assad even if there is evidence that he used chemical weapons, they should come forward and unequivocally define their red line that should not be crossed.

    If it is established that no chemical weapons were used, no military strikes should be ordered. Nor should boots be put on the ground to secure chemical caches.

    This is of course my view.

    Parent

    PK, you continue to float (5.00 / 2) (#191)
    by shoephone on Fri Aug 30, 2013 at 02:56:49 PM EST
    the false narrative that there is a strong rejection of the evidence that chemical weapons were used. Your "if"s are really disingenuous on that point.

    And to propose that we go in "with boots on the ground" to try and ferret out chemical weapons when we don't even know who has them is such a dangerous proposition I barely know how to respond to it. If a rebel group affiliated with Al Qaeda is in possession of those weapons, I cannot imagine a positive outcome of the U.S. going in with boots on the ground -- in other words, invading Syria on very possibly a wild goose chase. Not to mention, giving Iran and Hezbollah further political ammunition against us within the Muslim world.

    It's clear you are simply trying to find a justification -- any justification -- for the U.S taking military action in Syria.

    Parent

    He's just stupid now (none / 0) (#34)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Aug 29, 2013 at 08:32:11 PM EST
    I do not make casual equality comparisons between Obama and Dubya but I am now.  He's looking for a coalition of the willing.

    British parliament made it clear they need UN inspector evidence and they stated that the United States Congress must debate this out before many of the opposition can sign on.  They said this, out loud, for the whole world to hear.  And Obama went and had a meeting with Clapper to fix what ails him I guess.  He has lost his mind, and he is going to get something slammed in a door hard.

    Parent

    The Guardian link I previously posted stated the (none / 0) (#37)
    by oculus on Thu Aug 29, 2013 at 09:08:54 PM EST
    samples  the U.N. team collects will take weeks to test.

    Parent
    Complete tests will take (5.00 / 1) (#91)
    by christinep on Fri Aug 30, 2013 at 11:46:15 AM EST
    the longer time that you stated, oculus.  Short-term results will be available within days.

    Parent
    Would the UN fastrack the initial (none / 0) (#154)
    by Visteo1 on Fri Aug 30, 2013 at 01:15:13 PM EST
    findings to the US?  I saw where the UN had arrived at the sight of the chemical weapons attack.  Shell fragments will show the source of the attack.  Of course, enough time did pass for planted evidence...hating to complicate things, but the opposition does have a stake in the findings.

    I also believe at some point a finding will be made as to the quality of the chemical...Syrian or some lesser grade, possibly held by the opposition forces.

    Just wait dammit.

    Parent

    My spouse doubts that they will (none / 0) (#43)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Aug 29, 2013 at 10:09:16 PM EST
    Weigh in positively on the delivery system being beyond a shadow of doubt something only the Assad regime could have used. I am just grateful for debate, because public debate is just as likely to alter Assad's behavior.  His wife at one point was a human rights activist and he has a paranoid streak.

    So disappointed in the President and our Congress tonight.  We have a real breakdown in checks and balances.

    Parent

    Apparently they were only there to (none / 0) (#47)
    by oculus on Thu Aug 29, 2013 at 10:23:51 PM EST
    help determine whether chemical weapons were used, not who deployed any such weapons.

    Parent
    Without evidence that the attack (5.00 / 1) (#68)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Aug 30, 2013 at 09:00:31 AM EST
    Could have only come from Assad regime Obama's got nothing.

    Parent
    Test results purportedly can show (none / 0) (#98)
    by christinep on Fri Aug 30, 2013 at 11:57:51 AM EST
    the source of the compound, toxin, etc.  (Note: That news was on CBS this am -- Yet, it is unclear whether it may show the source or will show the source.)  I suppose that, as in the large majority of trials, there will be no 100% proof ... science is pretty darn accurate, but not perfect in terms of incontrovertibility in these matters.  Most things come down to "circumstantial" ... and, then a decision is made.  

    Because most events come down to levels of circumstantial evidence, the only way out of hand-wringing is to face the evidence & make a decision.  Because most decisions are necessarily somewhat imperfect, I tend to support limited consequences rather than all-out entry should the UN inspectors confirm the presence of certain chemicals used as weaponry against Syrian citizens in Damascus (an area under the control of Assad & his government.)  I also agree that the circumstances here militate in favor of Congressional discussion ... so, where are they? As for Obama & the WH, I cannot find any reason to date in this matter to feel disappointed in the President for earlier saying that use of outlawed international chemical weaponry should/must by met with a punitive response.  (The real question, as you would realize more than most, is the nature & timing & delivery of such strategic response?)

    Parent

    Well, isn't Carney sying "who else (none / 0) (#99)
    by oculus on Fri Aug 30, 2013 at 12:00:04 PM EST
    could have done it"?    

    Eerily reminiscent of the Iraq invasion, if it's true that the invading militaries did not immediately secure Iraq's munitions.

    Parent

    It is my understanding (5.00 / 1) (#104)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Aug 30, 2013 at 12:07:53 PM EST
    That rebel forces may have taken over some of the chemical weapon caches.  Earlier reports of chemical weapons use were met with this information or disinformation, and the Assad regime said that rebels were unleashing the chemical weapons attempting to get the world to attack the Assad regime.

    Parent
    What evidence have (none / 0) (#65)
    by Wile ECoyote on Fri Aug 30, 2013 at 08:46:45 AM EST
    you that shows public debate in the US or UK will influence Assad's behavior.

    Parent
    Oh for God's sake (5.00 / 1) (#69)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Aug 30, 2013 at 09:05:56 AM EST
    It's in the very nature of standoff.  It is a very important component of the most successful functional standoff.  I know exactly why people like you hate debating, because bullies are always exposed and lose in the end.

    As was discussed during the UK debate, look what the rush to war did to all of us in Iraq.

    Parent

    I am willing to debate (none / 0) (#85)
    by Wile ECoyote on Fri Aug 30, 2013 at 11:11:16 AM EST
    What evidence have you that public debate in the US or UK will influence Assad?  Any past debates?  

    Parent
    Exactly what evidence is there that (5.00 / 2) (#86)
    by MO Blue on Fri Aug 30, 2013 at 11:29:45 AM EST
    having a debate with you will have any influence on Assad or on whether or not taking military actions against Syria is in the best interest of the U.S.?

    Past online debates with Republican commentators did not prevent the debacle in Iraq so why should I place any value on a debate with you on this issue now.

    Parent

    You mistake me. (none / 0) (#156)
    by Wile ECoyote on Fri Aug 30, 2013 at 01:18:55 PM EST
    Just because President Obama likes the sound of his voice and blathers on to his detriment,(red line nonsense) doesn't mean we need to take this on.  He has painted himself into a corner though.  If the US does nothing, then everyone (Iran and the nuclear weapon line) will just roll their eyes when he talks again.  

    Now back to the subject of the post:
    MT posted:  

    I am just grateful for debate, because public debate is just as likely to alter Assad's behavior.

    I again ask for any evidence that public debate will alter Assad's behavior.  

    Parent

    Your mindset is exactly how we (5.00 / 1) (#158)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Aug 30, 2013 at 01:25:11 PM EST
    Got a Nazi Germany

    Parent
    Wile, have you heard of the Arab Spring? (5.00 / 1) (#165)
    by Visteo1 on Fri Aug 30, 2013 at 01:37:16 PM EST
    I believe it started as a debate. You don't think our free society is capable of moving from debate to greater things?  Non-violent protests to start with?  Look at the UK debate for voices outside of Parliament...did they have any influence?

    Parent
    It is more the obverse, wile ecoyote (none / 0) (#103)
    by christinep on Fri Aug 30, 2013 at 12:06:11 PM EST
    The problem in recent memory has been a rush without too much questioning. That was Iraq ... and we are suffering from not just that reality, but from the memory of how we entered.  That was at the heart of the British Parliament's debate & decision yesterday. For reasons similar to the British' fears of a repeat, we are treading methodically.

    Parent
    Think you mean, debated by United Nations... (none / 0) (#44)
    by gbrbsb on Thu Aug 29, 2013 at 10:14:26 PM EST
    not "United States".

    And labour didn't just want any "evidence" but "compelling evidence", albeit the motion was denied with the whole caboodle going even further considering it was no more than a preliminary vote to not rule out UK participation in strikes which has resulted in a very rotund NO due to conservative back benchers ! Not very surprising considering that the previous weapons of mass destruction turned out to be weapons of mass deception!

    Parent

    Although don't you wonder how U.S. conservatives i (none / 0) (#46)
    by oculus on Thu Aug 29, 2013 at 10:21:19 PM EST
    in the U.S. Congress would vote, if asked, on U.S. intervention in  Syria?

    Parent
    I was wrong. From new US polls out today... (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by gbrbsb on Fri Aug 30, 2013 at 08:43:48 AM EST
    it appears the public over there is equally reluctant for strikes as we in the UK. The BBC just quoted someone comparing Obama to the Lone Ranger rather than to Paul Revere !

    Parent
    I love the "over rhere." (5.00 / 1) (#100)
    by oculus on Fri Aug 30, 2013 at 12:02:16 PM EST
    Yes, but imbw but from what I am hearing... (none / 0) (#48)
    by gbrbsb on Thu Aug 29, 2013 at 10:49:03 PM EST
    your lot seem a lot more gung-ho for action than ours here and even polls show more public in favour than here.. certainly McCain and Biden appear to be raring up the rhetoric to go !

    I hope sanity will prevail but if I'm honest I think it's a done deal and will happen pretty quick now with at least France and Australia on board. In the Libya intervention, France were bombing before the UN ink had had time to dry on the resolution.

    Parent

    It is important that we all know (none / 0) (#73)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Aug 30, 2013 at 09:33:40 AM EST
    Who would vote how and why.  We aren't ever supposed to be in such darkness going to the voting booth while our youth sign up to "serve" their country.

    Parent
    There are red lines there too (1.00 / 1) (#74)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Aug 30, 2013 at 09:34:10 AM EST
    No, I did not get to watch (none / 0) (#70)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Aug 30, 2013 at 09:16:51 AM EST
    All the debate but CNN reported yesterday that the opposition said that the United States Congress must weigh in.  What I did see argued about concerning the UN was the UN was toothless and dysfunctional, and then opposition argued that they (UK) had a responsibility to work to make the UN functional again.  It was flagged around that France would go with the United States and make the UK look bad, then George W Bush and Barack Obama was used in the same sentence and it wasn't a pleasing reflection.

    What I took away from the debate pertaining to the UN was that the UK had to put their pride in their pocket and approach Russia  on making Assad behave, and that the strong alliance that the UK has with France should be used to approach Iran in making Assad behave.

    Parent

    I do so hope it doe but not holding my breath ! (none / 0) (#41)
    by gbrbsb on Thu Aug 29, 2013 at 09:42:07 PM EST
    b

    Parent
    Yes, it should (none / 0) (#110)
    by sj on Fri Aug 30, 2013 at 12:13:27 PM EST
    The British Parliment's "no" should (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by oculus on Thu Aug 29, 2013 at 06:53:03 PM MDT

    give our Pres. pause.

    But, will it? That's the question.

    Parent
    I don't know if that (none / 0) (#107)
    by sj on Fri Aug 30, 2013 at 12:11:08 PM EST
    particular article came out before the vote, but I read the US's position on this before it happened, for sure. I don't suppose the US was in any way attempting to influence the UK...

    Parent
    What now is that the ball is in the US' court now (none / 0) (#42)
    by gbrbsb on Thu Aug 29, 2013 at 09:46:32 PM EST
    I just hope they make damn sure of where to kick it because imho a lot could be riding on this... a lot!

    Parent
    AN AXE LENGTH AWAY, vol. 112 (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by Dadler on Fri Aug 30, 2013 at 08:41:21 AM EST
    Retail is no place for the weak. (link)

    Volume 111
    Volume 110

    TGIF, my good peeps. I have to go battle with the middle school administration to get my son in the right math class. Second year of the last three we've gone through this bureaucratic irritation. But I always win. ;-) Gotta advocate hard for your child, because no one else likely will. Geometry, here we come! Peace.

    AN AXE LENGTH AWAY (a free comic a day)


    And a great opinion piece in the Bay Guardian (5.00 / 1) (#78)
    by Dadler on Fri Aug 30, 2013 at 10:24:09 AM EST
    Of course, the very idea will chafe painfully (5.00 / 3) (#81)
    by jondee on Fri Aug 30, 2013 at 10:51:26 AM EST
    for those who've deeply internalized the belief - and many have - that people only act creatively and constructively when forcibly goaded by the most primitive necessities..

    Which, of course, also leads to an argument against inherited wealth (the rich's welfare) because it encourages degeneracy..  

    Parent

    Let's be honest, in 'Murica... (none / 0) (#87)
    by Dadler on Fri Aug 30, 2013 at 11:30:51 AM EST
    ...it's pretty much like proposing we outlaw fireworks and baseballs in our apple pie.

    Parent
    Where do I sign? (5.00 / 2) (#92)
    by kdog on Fri Aug 30, 2013 at 11:48:58 AM EST
    It's not like a guaranteed income/cash grant of 10k is enough to disincentivize work, but it would sure take the edge of for a sh*tload or people, and be a huge boost to the economy putting cash in hands anxious to buy sh*t they've been going without.

    You guys are right though...it makes too much sense to ever happen.

    Parent

    $100/Month for Life (5.00 / 1) (#93)
    by squeaky on Fri Aug 30, 2013 at 11:55:17 AM EST
    A cash incentive works for some...
    In 1969, publisher John Martin offered to pay Charles Bukowski $100 each and every month for the rest of his life, on one condition: that he quit his job at the post office and become a writer. 49-year-old Bukowski did just that, and in 1971 his first novel, Post Office, was published by Martin's Black Sparrow Press.



    Parent
    Charlie Buk... (5.00 / 1) (#95)
    by kdog on Fri Aug 30, 2013 at 11:57:09 AM EST
    supplemented his grant with track winnings;)

    But if an artist can live on 10k a year and devote all their time to art, all the better for them and society.

    Parent

    I got me an early copy of that (none / 0) (#112)
    by Dadler on Fri Aug 30, 2013 at 12:16:29 PM EST
    And of some of Bukowski's fave, John Fante (link).

    Parent
    NBC Poll (5.00 / 1) (#84)
    by squeaky on Fri Aug 30, 2013 at 11:10:12 AM EST
    Listening to Kerry right now (5.00 / 1) (#101)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Aug 30, 2013 at 12:02:31 PM EST
    They don't care, they (the royal they) are doing this.

    Parent
    With the French, of all ironies! (5.00 / 1) (#102)
    by oculus on Fri Aug 30, 2013 at 12:04:57 PM EST
    Is France in? (none / 0) (#105)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Aug 30, 2013 at 12:08:50 PM EST
    I haven't seen anything yet that they were firmly with us.

    Parent
    I thought they are. Must research. (none / 0) (#108)
    by oculus on Fri Aug 30, 2013 at 12:11:20 PM EST
    Rethinking, per CSM. Full speed ahead re (5.00 / 1) (#129)
    by oculus on Fri Aug 30, 2013 at 12:42:08 PM EST
    Reuters (2 hrs. ago)

    CSM

    Parent

    I went to read (none / 0) (#140)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Aug 30, 2013 at 12:54:48 PM EST
    France's President supports Obama and doesn't need a parliament vote to do so.  Can he commit assets and forces though?

    Parent
    Good question. (none / 0) (#149)
    by shoephone on Fri Aug 30, 2013 at 01:07:59 PM EST
    Am I deluding myself to hope Hillary (5.00 / 1) (#106)
    by oculus on Fri Aug 30, 2013 at 12:10:21 PM EST
    Clinton, as Obama's Sec'y of State, would be less in a rush to judgment under these circumstances?  She did publicly publicly state last Dec. that Syria's rebels may have obtained access to the government's chemical weapons.

    Parent
    I don't think she would have been idiot (5.00 / 1) (#113)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Aug 30, 2013 at 12:16:57 PM EST
    Enough to stand up there right now and declare is the mostest greatest responsible keepers of our brothers.

    Parent
    Really? (5.00 / 1) (#133)
    by squeaky on Fri Aug 30, 2013 at 12:45:22 PM EST
    Even for the women and children who are now dead?

    She has never shied away from warmongering.

    Parent

    So you will speak for her (none / 0) (#135)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Aug 30, 2013 at 12:48:31 PM EST
    HUh? (none / 0) (#164)
    by squeaky on Fri Aug 30, 2013 at 01:37:15 PM EST
    Her record regarding military intervention is clear. She is a 100% Hawk.. that record speaks for itself.


    Parent
    Squeaky (5.00 / 2) (#166)
    by CoralGables on Fri Aug 30, 2013 at 01:43:36 PM EST
    That is an absolutely foolish statement. If Hillary is 100% hawk, at what percentage do you label Dick Cheney?

    Parent
    Hillary is a Hawk (5.00 / 1) (#195)
    by squeaky on Fri Aug 30, 2013 at 03:08:43 PM EST
    Let's put it this way, to imagine that Hillary would do something more dovelike than Obama is insane. She has an esatablished relationship with the defense industry who was a huge supporter and has been pro war on almost every war since VIetnam. Arming Syrian rebels?

    "We have worked assiduously, first to create some kind of legitimate opposition," she said. "We have been the architect and main mover of very tough sanctions against Assad."

    She added: "Having said all that, Assad is still killing. The opposition is increasingly being represented by Al Qaeda extremist elements." She also said that the opposition was getting messages from the ungoverned areas in Pakistan where some of the Qaeda leadership was believed to be hiding -- a development she called "deeply distressing."

    "...And we cannot take any option off the table in sending a clear message to the current leadership of Iran - that they will not be permitted to acquire nuclear weapons."

    If last December's elections lead to a successful Iraqi government, that should allow us to start drawing down our troops during this year while leaving behind a smaller contingent in safe areas with greater intelligence and quick-strike capabilities. This will help us stabilize that new Iraqi government. It will send a message to Iran that they do not have a free hand in Iraq

    Then there is Libya..

    And a comparison of advisors pre election showed Hillary to be more Hawkish than Obama, at least when it came to Iraq.. but the Nation did get it wrong.. or we will see..

    ...The Nation magazine noted, a Barack Obama administration would be more likely to examine the actual evidence of potential threats before reacting, to work more closely with America's allies to maintain peace and security, to respect the country's international legal obligations, and to use military force only as a last resort.

    Not a dimes worth of difference, but if you want to split hairs Hillary was/is more Hawkish.. and a longer record of it.

    Flashback 2006

    Senator Clinton and Defense Contractors:

    The first New York senator to serve on the Armed Services Committee in the modern era, Clinton has used her two years there to carve out a muscular image on national security. Last week, when the head of the Defense Intelligence Agency told lawmakers he thought North Korea could deliver a nuclear strike, it was Hillary Clinton who had asked the key question.


    Parent
    The really significant (none / 0) (#201)
    by sj on Fri Aug 30, 2013 at 03:32:23 PM EST
    portion of that is that you are providing justification for your assertion that there is not a "dime's worth of difference".

    What BTD did not mention in that post you link to was that his original statement was "not a dime's worth of difference on the issues I care about." Emphasis mine. What he actually cared about when making that statement was Foreign Policy (apparently he didn't care about domestic policy which is almost exclusively where I am focused) so there is something to what you are saying.

    A few years later and actual events having happened, that statement is ludicrous on its face. Hillary Clinton is still much too hawkish for me, that is very true. But can even you really see Obama making gender equality/women's rights a priority? Anyone who still uses that phrase should just be embarrassed. Period. It is demonstrably false.

    Treat them as the separate people that they actually are.

    Parent

    Her statement last December (5.00 / 1) (#179)
    by BackFromOhio on Fri Aug 30, 2013 at 02:16:07 PM EST
    and her comments at the beginning of the Egyptian mess (back when) conflict with your statements about her.

    Parent
    I haven't seen any media reporting she has uttered (none / 0) (#119)
    by oculus on Fri Aug 30, 2013 at 12:29:36 PM EST
    a word on the current run-up.

    Parent
    She shouldn't (none / 0) (#122)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Aug 30, 2013 at 12:33:11 PM EST
    What a mess, and she currently holds no office making her responsible.

    I watched Dubya Bush weigh in, wow he looks old, like overnight ancient.  Was he wearing fake hair in 2008?  Cuz it's gone now.  He seemed very feeble.  I wonder if he suffered an actual heart attack before they stented him?

    Parent

    What did W advise? Has Colin Powell (none / 0) (#126)
    by oculus on Fri Aug 30, 2013 at 12:38:44 PM EST
    weighed in (except re Z verdict)?  Where Susan Rice?

    Parent
    Tammy Duckworth does not support (5.00 / 1) (#163)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Aug 30, 2013 at 01:31:32 PM EST
    Intervention without Congressional approval.  Diary at Orange

    Parent
    Good for her. How would she vote? (none / 0) (#183)
    by oculus on Fri Aug 30, 2013 at 02:27:05 PM EST
    Here's a resounding answer: (5.00 / 1) (#189)
    by oculus on Fri Aug 30, 2013 at 02:53:41 PM EST
    Washington Post

    Maybe Duckworth wil be our first disabled veteran female Thai/American President.

    Parent

    Samantha Power tweets Syria is responsible. (5.00 / 3) (#186)
    by oculus on Fri Aug 30, 2013 at 02:34:53 PM EST
    Susan Rice tweets back in agreement   Is tweeting he appropriate vnue forbdiscusion of such important matters of state?

    Link

    Parent

    Why am I unmoved (5.00 / 3) (#193)
    by shoephone on Fri Aug 30, 2013 at 03:02:44 PM EST
    by Samantha Powers' and Susan Rice's tweets?

    Maybe I'm just another luddite for peace.

    Parent

    Tweeting is OK with me, (5.00 / 4) (#198)
    by KeysDan on Fri Aug 30, 2013 at 03:24:27 PM EST
    obtuseness less so.   Susan Rice: " Only regime has capacity to launch CW with rockets."    Yes, only the regime has the capacity.  Now, which regime?  

    Rebels,  aka, al Qaeda, do not have the imagination or connections to get any weapons, those AK-47s were just dropped in from outer space, for example.

    And, isn't "CW" a little weak as a forensic descriptor?  Chemical weapons embraces a big grouping.  Was it sarin?  --that lingers and still can be detected?  Are there tell-tale markers of provenance?  What about those rocket pieces?  

    Bombing another country should not stand on evidence thinner than Rice's tweet.  And Sam Powers:  "Verdict is clear, Assad has used CW against civilians in violation of "international norms."  Yes, norms.  How about "international laws", tweet us about the legal basis for your verdict, please.
     

    Parent

    Colin Powell says no: (5.00 / 1) (#192)
    by oculus on Fri Aug 30, 2013 at 02:57:01 PM EST
    He's forever damaged by his legacy from Iraq (5.00 / 1) (#194)
    by shoephone on Fri Aug 30, 2013 at 03:05:21 PM EST
    Yes, but he learned something frm that (5.00 / 1) (#197)
    by oculus on Fri Aug 30, 2013 at 03:17:40 PM EST
    apparntly. That's good.

    Parent
    He supported Obama (none / 0) (#132)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Aug 30, 2013 at 12:45:03 PM EST
    Said he didn't ever like Assad, smiled weird, and said Assad made mischief.  And you know, Dubya Bush did always consider life and death situations brought about by leaders to be "mischief".  Stand in the corner offenses :)

    Parent
    Rice must be all in on this (none / 0) (#134)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Aug 30, 2013 at 12:46:55 PM EST
    She has been part of at least two meetings I know of, one of them this morning before Kerry came out.

    Parent
    Please, Mr. President, listen up: (none / 0) (#199)
    by oculus on Fri Aug 30, 2013 at 03:24:52 PM EST
    Hilary is damned if she does and damned if she (none / 0) (#178)
    by BackFromOhio on Fri Aug 30, 2013 at 02:15:08 PM EST
    doesn't; anything she might say could be countered with her lack of current access to highest level intelligence.  She should be quiet, but what about Congressional leaders and others?

    Parent
    I believe that to be a misquote (none / 0) (#137)
    by CoralGables on Fri Aug 30, 2013 at 12:52:41 PM EST
    I believe the quote from December is:

    Our concerns are that an increasingly desperate Assad regime might turn to chemical weapons, or might lose control of them to one of the many groups that are now operating within Syria.

    That's a far cry from "may have obtained" that has been used instead. If you have a different quote though please link.

    Parent

    I previously linked to the Guardian article (none / 0) (#148)
    by oculus on Fri Aug 30, 2013 at 01:06:42 PM EST
    re her statements in Brussels.

    Parent
    The qoute I listed (none / 0) (#161)
    by CoralGables on Fri Aug 30, 2013 at 01:26:23 PM EST
    was the Brussels interview. Couldn't find yours. That's why my objection to the spread of the term "may have obtained" that's being used everywhere when she clearly didn't use those words.

    Parent
    Here's The Guardian article: (none / 0) (#182)
    by oculus on Fri Aug 30, 2013 at 02:25:55 PM EST
    Are you talking about this quote? (none / 0) (#185)
    by Visteo1 on Fri Aug 30, 2013 at 02:28:27 PM EST
    After meeting other NATO foreign ministers in Brussels, Clinton said: "Our concerns are that an increasingly desperate Assad regime might turn to chemical weapons, or might lose control of them to one of the many groups that are now operating within Syria.


    link

    I read that there is the potential, not that they "may have obtained".  

    Parent

    We should have debate & discussion (none / 0) (#89)
    by christinep on Fri Aug 30, 2013 at 11:39:14 AM EST
    in Congress ... and quickly.  And, read also the entire poll.  Americans do seem predisposed to being supportive of Cruise Missile/limited strike response (50% to 44%.)  We may be finding that all-or-nothing responses are problematic (& worse) in these recurring international situations.  That is why Congressional discussion should be incorporated in any such response.

    Parent
    Yes (none / 0) (#97)
    by squeaky on Fri Aug 30, 2013 at 11:57:23 AM EST
    And sadly most Americans are bloodthirsty imperialists who believe America should rule the world by whatever means it takes.

    Parent
    Long ago (5.00 / 1) (#114)
    by christinep on Fri Aug 30, 2013 at 12:17:08 PM EST
    my Dad told me that it would be wrong-headed to assume that everyone-in-the-country-was-wrong-but-me-&-my-friends.  And, seriously, squeaky ... in reality, this country is no more blood-thirsty than any nation ... in fact, looking at even recent history, you would find the opposite in comparison.  While I understand that we feel society should move more quickly toward the good, it doesn't further that movement to consign our fellow citizens to the category of "bloodthirsty imperialists" when frustration sets in.  I don't intend to be preachy ... I'm just one of those who don't respond well to the we-are-all-so-bad argument.  Just sayin'.

    Parent
    Although (none / 0) (#109)
    by squeaky on Fri Aug 30, 2013 at 12:12:26 PM EST
    For humanitarian reasons, not so much... strategic reasons aka controlling oil reserves boosting stock prices.. well that is worth fighting for.

    Stock market usually goes down after a bombing..

    Parent

    Out of curiousity (none / 0) (#143)
    by Socraticsilence on Fri Aug 30, 2013 at 01:03:14 PM EST
    did we do the right thing by doing nothing in Rwanda?

    Parent
    No, (none / 0) (#157)
    by christinep on Fri Aug 30, 2013 at 01:20:44 PM EST
    Bill Clinton agrees with you (none / 0) (#162)
    by CoralGables on Fri Aug 30, 2013 at 01:29:02 PM EST
    Syria is a very different situation (none / 0) (#176)
    by BackFromOhio on Fri Aug 30, 2013 at 02:12:24 PM EST
    and the facts on the ground are not clear.  Fog of war and all....

    Parent
    The Internet is going to go wild (5.00 / 1) (#111)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Aug 30, 2013 at 12:14:57 PM EST
    With outraged Liberals.  Kerry is waxing grandiose about America's adherence to important standards guarding against inhumane actions.  Oh Boy!  Hey Kerry, how about that two page report stating that depleted uranium is a good thing, fine for pregnant women to live around where it has been used?

    Tomahawks to fly at anytime now (5.00 / 1) (#115)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Aug 30, 2013 at 12:19:38 PM EST


    Not likely (5.00 / 1) (#187)
    by woodchuck64 on Fri Aug 30, 2013 at 02:37:49 PM EST
    Obama has played this masterfully so far, first ensuring high quality of intelligence before saying anything, then ratcheting up war rhetoric to scare Syria into allowing UN inspectors, now patiently waiting for the inspection report.

    It's clear the UN report will confirm  Assad's indirect responsibility and that will put enough countries on-board for a coalition to take severe punitive action.  

    But Obama isn't interested in overthrowing a regime, here.  He's acting ideologically as the leader of a strong and responsible member of the world's police force.  A world where are there are no consequences for actions like Assad's is a more violent world and one less safe for America.  It's that simple.

    Parent

    masterfully.. (5.00 / 2) (#202)
    by sj on Fri Aug 30, 2013 at 03:34:18 PM EST
    uh-huh. If "masterfully" equals "desperately" then you're right.

    Parent
    He needs to (none / 0) (#116)
    by Edger on Fri Aug 30, 2013 at 12:21:37 PM EST
    be a step ahead of the UN Inspectors.

    Just in case.....

    Parent

    I think he has lost it (5.00 / 1) (#117)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Aug 30, 2013 at 12:23:31 PM EST
    I read one report stating that the administration has decided to do this quickly before debate can be further ignited.

    Parent
    Where the heck is anyone in Congress (5.00 / 2) (#171)
    by BackFromOhio on Fri Aug 30, 2013 at 01:56:51 PM EST
    or anyone else with a public face and any courage to speak against precipitous action?  I'm sorry, but I think unilateral action here will have disastrous consequences for the world of nations as well as the U.S. If this were the 1960s or 1970s, the Congress would not be quiet, vacation or no.  

    Parent
    Here is one, (none / 0) (#175)
    by KeysDan on Fri Aug 30, 2013 at 02:11:41 PM EST
    Democrat Alan Grayson.

    Parent
    Grayson (none / 0) (#177)
    by KeysDan on Fri Aug 30, 2013 at 02:14:19 PM EST
    He has to do it quickly (3.67 / 3) (#120)
    by sj on Fri Aug 30, 2013 at 12:29:56 PM EST
    How else to keep the focus off discussion wrt NSA/surveillance? Not to mention whatever new information is scheduled to come out.

    Parent
    But this country doesn't feel directly (5.00 / 2) (#124)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Aug 30, 2013 at 12:37:01 PM EST
    Threatened.  So, he's dragging a tired, broke, illegally monitored nation into more crap.  I think this can only blow up in his face.  Maybe I'm wrong.  He's very confident and has focus groups and I don't.

    Parent
    He's very confident (5.00 / 1) (#128)
    by sj on Fri Aug 30, 2013 at 12:40:57 PM EST
    But I doubt that he has need of focus groups. For example, any focus group wrt Social Security/Medicare would have said "hands off" but he still believes in a Grand Bargain.

    Parent
    Clapper tapped the phones (5.00 / 3) (#118)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Aug 30, 2013 at 12:27:19 PM EST
    Bring on the Tomahawks, diplomacy is futile even though before phone tapping diplomatic relationships stayed many a hand.

    Parent
    And Clapper would never lie. (5.00 / 2) (#130)
    by Edger on Fri Aug 30, 2013 at 12:42:41 PM EST
    He might erroneously say something that is the absolulte least untruthful thing he can think of off the top of his pointy head, but lie?

    Never, much...

    Parent

    I think he's telling the truth (none / 0) (#150)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Aug 30, 2013 at 01:08:22 PM EST
    But if someone tapped US forces phone calls about Iraq in 2007 they would have come to conclusion that the United States was never leaving Iraq and the war was never going to be over.


    Parent
    I don't know (none / 0) (#153)
    by Edger on Fri Aug 30, 2013 at 01:12:53 PM EST
    But personally I lean towards that lying is what he does for a living. And what he was appointed to his job to do, based on his resume, work history, and re-lie-ability.

    Parent
    Someone who will remain unnamed (none / 0) (#155)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Aug 30, 2013 at 01:18:17 PM EST
    Mentions satellites that saw Iraqi tanks on the Saudi Arabian border that were never there and WMDs and uranium.  Can't imagine why he has trust issues anymore.  Same person told me to look for something new and sensational to hit the news...and now I've got the school film footage.  Whoomp there it is!

    Parent
    On a school, and now I'm allowed to see the film footage where before the film footage was too gruesome for me to see on CNN.

    I magically became mature enough to see and handle this stuff overnight.

    Big loss to those of us who love poets (5.00 / 2) (#200)
    by shoephone on Fri Aug 30, 2013 at 03:27:25 PM EST
    Seamus Heaney has died.

    No words, just sadness. He was such a beautiful, soulful writer. And, strangely, coincidentally, this past week I've been immersed in Edna O'Brien's fabulous memoir. I'm overflowing with love for the Irish wordsmiths these days.

    AN AXE LENGTH AWAY, vol. 111 (none / 0) (#1)
    by Dadler on Thu Aug 29, 2013 at 02:51:13 PM EST
    LINKY

    And a last link to my mother's latest little documentary, SHOSHOLOZA (link), which just won Best Social Commentary at this year's Action On Film Festival.

    Viva Mi Madre!!

    Peace out.

    More not-so-good news (none / 0) (#3)
    by jbindc on Thu Aug 29, 2013 at 03:55:50 PM EST
    about Obamacare:

    Republicans have long blamed President Obama's signature health care initiative for increasing insurance costs, dubbing it the "Unaffordable Care Act."

    Turns out, they might be right.

    For the vast majority of Americans, premium prices will be higher in the individual exchange than what they're currently paying for employer-sponsored benefits, according to a National Journal analysis of new coverage and cost data. Adding even more out-of-pocket expenses to consumers' monthly insurance bills is a swell in deductibles under the Affordable Care Act.

    Health law proponents have excused the rate hikes by saying the prices in the exchange won't apply to the millions receiving coverage from their employers. But that's only if employers continue to offer that coverage--something that's looking increasingly uncertain. Already, UPS, for example, cited Obamacare as its reason for nixing spousal coverage. And while a Kaiser Family Foundation report found that 49 percent of the U.S. population now receives employer-sponsored coverage, more companies are debating whether they will continue to be in the business of providing such benefits at all.

    Economists largely agree there won't be a sea change among employers offering coverage. But they're also saying small businesses are still in play.

    SNIP

    Whether the quality of care in the new market is comparable to private offerings remains to be seen. But one thing is clear: The cost of care in the new market doesn't stack up. A single wage earner must make less than $20,000 to see his or her current premiums drop or stay the same under Obamacare, an independent review by National Journal found. That's equivalent to approximately 34 percent of all single workers in the U.S. seeing any benefit in the new system. For those seeking family-of-four coverage under the ACA, about 43 percent will see cost savings. Families must earn less than or equal to $62,300, or they, too, will be looking at a bigger bill.

    Those numbers include the generous tax subsidies designed to make the new system more attractive to consumers.



    That first (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Aug 29, 2013 at 04:08:27 PM EST
    sentence is very misleading. Of course it's going ot be more in the individual exchange. Individual policies have always been more expensive than employer policies.

    The real elephant in the room is the insurance company's business model but NO ONE ever mentions that problem.

    Parent

    Read further (none / 0) (#9)
    by jbindc on Thu Aug 29, 2013 at 04:14:44 PM EST
    But others aren't as confident. The drop-off in employer coverage paralleled an increase in premiums, which rose 80 percent for families and 74 percent for singles in the last 10 years, the Kaiser study found.

    As someone who has purchased her own individual plan for the last 10 years, I can tell you that I have experienced this first hand.  And since my rates went up by 20% as of January 1st of this year, and are expected to increase another 10-20% on January 1st of 2014, I know we are talking about real numbers.

    Parent

    We were in (5.00 / 2) (#13)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Aug 29, 2013 at 04:33:18 PM EST
    the individual market for years. Our insurance started skyrocketing in 2002. The rates skyrocketing is NOT a new problem. This is what is so annoying to me. By the time 2010 rolled around we were paying 10K a year for a policy that had a 5K deductible. The only difference now is they get to blame Obamacare for their increasing policies instead of doctors, hospitals or something else. Insurance policies were going to skyrocket whether Obamacare came around or not. Like I said the before the problem is their business model and Obamacare does nothing to change that part of the equation.

    Parent
    Yep (none / 0) (#10)
    by Dadler on Thu Aug 29, 2013 at 04:15:24 PM EST
    I don't know how they're going to make enough profit to placate Wall Street/shareholders and not continue to screw the average patient/member/consumer/rube and also manage not to violate the ACA in every which way. Sort of a conflict.

    Think happy thoughts, happy thoughts, happy thoughts...

    Parent

    Not if your one (none / 0) (#25)
    by Mikado Cat on Thu Aug 29, 2013 at 07:13:47 PM EST
    of Obama's pets who gets a waiver on profits like AARP.

    Parent
    I should know better, but, (5.00 / 2) (#39)
    by NYShooter on Thu Aug 29, 2013 at 09:15:52 PM EST
    what the He!! are you talking about??

    Parent
    Doubt you like the sources (none / 0) (#49)
    by Mikado Cat on Fri Aug 30, 2013 at 01:22:44 AM EST
    Google obamacare aarp waiver, but hits will be Dailycaller and Politico, seems few others cared the information.

    Parent
    Yep (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by Yman on Fri Aug 30, 2013 at 07:00:13 AM EST
    ... and there's a reason the Daily Caller was the only one who "cared for the information."

    Parent
    Don't confuse (5.00 / 1) (#90)
    by Zorba on Fri Aug 30, 2013 at 11:44:55 AM EST
    the Cat with any websites that do not adhere to the right-wing meme.  He (or is it she?) won't be listening.       ;-)

    Parent
    Don't go by UPS (5.00 / 2) (#8)
    by sj on Thu Aug 29, 2013 at 04:13:48 PM EST
    I've worked there and they are shysters through and through. I have at least one very disturbing story about how they "mobilized" their workforce to protest some new regulation.

    I still know "people" and the "personal" plan boils down to self-insurance. Not because it's mandated under ACA, but because, UPS' higher management are basically shysters with no morals and no heart. But they are positively thrilled to do this and then point to "Obama care" as the reason.

    And I don't ship with them any more if I have any other alternative.

    Parent

    I believe you (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by Dadler on Thu Aug 29, 2013 at 04:20:35 PM EST
    The interview I had included a tour of the floor, from high above on a catwalk, and the HR guy was about as warm and friendly as a neglected pitbull. A few minutes into this part of the tour, when he asked if anyone had questions, I raised my hand and offered the following query:

    "Where is the nearest exit?"

    The guy laughed, thought I was kidding.

    "No, seriously. This place just is not for me, I can already tell. Point me to the door, Joe."

    I woulda snapped if I'da taken a loader job. Somebody mighta gotten hurt. Besides me, that is.

    And I like using the good ol' Post Office. Call me a geezer from the 1900s, go ahead.

    Parent

    By the way (5.00 / 2) (#18)
    by sj on Thu Aug 29, 2013 at 04:54:22 PM EST
    a neglected pitpull who has not been abused can be very warm and friendly. They are, by nature, very sweet. It's the fact that they're so strong that makes people try to turn them.

    I'll take a pit over a UPS executive any time. The pup will always come out ahead in the "fine qualities" category.

    Just sayin'

    Parent

    I know (5.00 / 1) (#79)
    by Dadler on Fri Aug 30, 2013 at 10:33:09 AM EST
    I just have had a few bad experiences with hybrid anvil-headed types, bred by ghetto aceholes with tiny dicks trying to compensate for it with their dog's balls.

    I shoulda said he had the warmth of a depressed sadist.

    Parent

    My (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Aug 29, 2013 at 04:45:56 PM EST
    neighbor works for them and she said they are awful towards women. She said they treat all women even management level women like they are housewives or secretaries. The only reasons she stays is because she needs the job.

    Parent
    Really smart (5.00 / 1) (#172)
    by BackFromOhio on Fri Aug 30, 2013 at 02:01:25 PM EST
    businesses and family men treat secretaries and housewives like gold.  Can't we say women are treated badly by a company without casting aspersions on women in different in different positions?  

    Parent
    They are bad (none / 0) (#16)
    by sj on Thu Aug 29, 2013 at 04:49:18 PM EST
    in so many ways.

    Parent
    What she (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Aug 29, 2013 at 04:51:50 PM EST
    has said completely jibes with what you are saying. But she has a house payment and bills and it's not like jobs are plentiful here in GA....

    Parent
    Gotta be non-union UPS spouses, yes? (none / 0) (#4)
    by Dadler on Thu Aug 29, 2013 at 03:58:22 PM EST
    But still crappy and short-sighted and ultimately defeating for a company that big and well-off.

    And also, the number of places where you can actually live on twenty grand pre-taxes is where? One of those hermit shacks in the Sierras?

    Sigh.

    Parent

    The UPS spouses getting cut off (none / 0) (#5)
    by jbindc on Thu Aug 29, 2013 at 04:06:19 PM EST
    Are supposed to be the ones who have (or can get) insurance through their own employer.  So, it's not completely cutting people off, but my guess is, if my spouse worked at UPS and I take their insurance, it probably means that their insurance is better than what I can get at my own job.

    Parent
    Bwaa-haa-haaaa-ha-ha (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by sj on Thu Aug 29, 2013 at 04:29:19 PM EST
    my guess is, if my spouse worked at UPS and I take their insurance, it probably means that their insurance is better than what I can get at my own job

    Oh. What? You were serious about that? Because unless your own employer offered you no insurance you are most likely wrong. In fact, what "it probably means" is that you don't have any other insurance.

    Parent
    Uh ,no (none / 0) (#61)
    by jbindc on Fri Aug 30, 2013 at 08:16:02 AM EST
    I meant exactly what I said. I know plenty of people who do not take insurance at their job because their spouse's insurance was much better.

    So, actually, it is YOU that are wrong.

    Parent

    You are being a obtuse (2.00 / 1) (#94)
    by sj on Fri Aug 30, 2013 at 11:55:18 AM EST
    I also know many people who choose their spouse's insurance because it's better. My office mate is one of them.

    What I am saying -- if you bothered to read -- is that no one in their right mind would say that UPS would have better insurance. They don't. This I know for a fact. Moreover this year they are doing something (although I can't recall what it is exactly because it would not have applied to me) to actively discourage family coverage.

    If you want to talk concept that's one thing. If you want to talk UPS that's another thing. Make up your mind. I'm telling you that when you keep bringing UPS into it you sound delusional when you talk about "better".

    Parent

    And you are delusional (none / 0) (#123)
    by jbindc on Fri Aug 30, 2013 at 12:36:22 PM EST
    If you think that any spouses who have insurance elsewhere would take UPS' if it wasn't better.

    As usual, you always will try to have the last word, so I expect a snarky, nonsensical retort from, but I'm done with you today.

    Parent

    Oy (none / 0) (#125)
    by sj on Fri Aug 30, 2013 at 12:37:39 PM EST
    [last word]
    But at least you stopped digging, so that's good.

    Parent
    And proving my point (none / 0) (#131)
    by jbindc on Fri Aug 30, 2013 at 12:44:16 PM EST
    But you didn't stop being obnoxious.

    Bless your heart - maybe you need a nap.

    Parent

    Ordinarily I would (1.00 / 1) (#138)
    by sj on Fri Aug 30, 2013 at 12:53:46 PM EST
    just shrug, or laugh (because I really would like a nap so you are totally on target there) and go away, but now I'll laugh and stay. I'm just wondering which one of us will have the "last word". Probably you because I have a meeting soon. But after your attempt at a scathing remark about my need to have the last word, you couldn't stay out of it and let me have it. You reacted just as I predicted you would when I made the comment.

    I think that's a funny and brilliant demonstration of human nature. Don't you?

    Bless your heart.

    Parent

    Let's all play nice in the sandbox (none / 0) (#173)
    by BackFromOhio on Fri Aug 30, 2013 at 02:05:43 PM EST
    the important point -- to me at any rate, is that health insurance rates have sky-rocketed for both group (employer-based) and individual policies.  There are no caps on what the insurance companies are permitted to charge and they all had record profits last year.  All my married friends look at both spouses' employer policies when they have the option and choose the better coverage for the price.  And, many employers are dropping employer-sponsored insurance.  The bottom line is there are no good or affordable options anymore for most of the us.  

    Parent
    I would think so, too (none / 0) (#7)
    by Dadler on Thu Aug 29, 2013 at 04:12:39 PM EST
    But I know it depends on the job you have, too. Any job on the actual delivery floor/loading docks, as far as I remember from applying for a holiday stint there in college, meant you were were a teamster just like the drivers. And it did get you great bennies. I'd be curious to compare the bennies of union and non-union employees today.

    Parent
    National Journal and Rand Corporation disagree (none / 0) (#15)
    by CoralGables on Thu Aug 29, 2013 at 04:48:36 PM EST
    Today's report by the Rand Corporation say premiums are dropping.

    Parent
    That defies (5.00 / 1) (#174)
    by BackFromOhio on Fri Aug 30, 2013 at 02:07:29 PM EST
    experience.  Perhaps they are comparing former low-deductible plans with the same plans that now have higher deductibles across the board.  It's always possible to arrange the numbers and the analysis to argue a point; does not make the argument a solid one.

    Parent
    Maybe Rand (none / 0) (#26)
    by Mikado Cat on Thu Aug 29, 2013 at 07:20:04 PM EST
    could send a note to Blue Cross, because they have not gotten that message. Our insurance took a big jump, deductibles increased, and some desired providers are no longer in plan.

    Parent
    Blue Cross (5.00 / 2) (#57)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Aug 30, 2013 at 07:26:44 AM EST
    is who we had for years that was increasing their policies 20% a year starting back in 2002 here in GA.

    Parent
    Wait! Wait! (5.00 / 3) (#58)
    by MO Blue on Fri Aug 30, 2013 at 07:56:15 AM EST
    Surely you jest. You can't possibly mean that BC increased their rates by double digits long before Obamacare was passed.

    I can't believe that wingers like the cat would be dishonest enough to use the fact that the insurance companies are continuing their practice of gouging the public to discredit Obamacare which BTW was a winger plan developed by the Heritage Foundation.

    Parent

    I know (5.00 / 3) (#59)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Aug 30, 2013 at 08:10:20 AM EST
    and it's so ANNOYING to me. They act like everything was hunky dory until Obamacare came along and it was not.

    Parent
    Disingenuousity to the max... (5.00 / 1) (#80)
    by kdog on Fri Aug 30, 2013 at 10:37:41 AM EST
    but since the ACA failed to address the failed insurance model in a meaningful way, Obama and the Dems gave the insurance co's a handy scapegoat for the latest whopper increases.

    Parent
    So true (5.00 / 2) (#82)
    by MO Blue on Fri Aug 30, 2013 at 10:53:45 AM EST
    It is a shame that our government (both parties) dance to the tune of the ones who brought them to the dance or we could have actual health care instead of high price insurance that may or may not result in care.

    Parent
    Blue Cross of Calif is terrible (none / 0) (#27)
    by shoephone on Thu Aug 29, 2013 at 07:35:54 PM EST
    I'm in Calif (none / 0) (#50)
    by Mikado Cat on Fri Aug 30, 2013 at 01:23:52 AM EST
    My BC is IL, doesn't sound good does it. ;)

    Parent
    Don't know what to make of this ... (none / 0) (#32)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Aug 29, 2013 at 08:27:57 PM EST
    ... rather loopy story about purported threats made against the life of Hawaii Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard, which is presented being headlined over at Talking Points Memo.

    Specifically, I consider The Hawaii Reporter -- which seems to be TPM's primary go-to on this sorry tale -- to be a pretty sketchy source of news. Its editor is Malia Zimmerman, a real wingbat who's no stranger to controversy. As a reporter for the Pacific Business News, she was fired by that publication in 2000 after its editors determined that she conspired with Deborah Phillips of the Voting Integrity Project and the Wall Street Journal's John Fund to manufacture a scandal about non-existent voter fraud in our 1998 gubernatorial election. She created such a public fuss that state election officials ordered an entire hand recount of all ballots cast, which merely reaffirmed the original results.

    Further, the congresswoman's family is -- to put it politely -- a real piece of collective work. Her father Mike Gabbard is a state senator, and a well-known homophobe who is not well-liked by Democrats. The longstanding ties between the Gabbards and the right-wing Hindu sect headed by Chris Butler have been well known in Honolulu for the better part of two decades.

    So, not to discount this story's overall veracity, but all the same, TPM should really consider the source.

    Aloha.

    He had a 3 year (none / 0) (#36)
    by CoralGables on Thu Aug 29, 2013 at 08:55:12 PM EST
    restraining order against him. He obviously violated it.

    Parent
    Any real (none / 0) (#52)
    by Mikado Cat on Fri Aug 30, 2013 at 04:32:52 AM EST
    fallout from the fast food strike?

    I saw some media events in the google news feed, but had fast food for lunch and noticed nothing at all.

    I was talking with a medical tech today and asked him what he thought of fast food workers making $15/hr. Not a happy person, seems he paid serious bucks to be trained for his job which pays, $15/hr and didn't like the idea of that becoming minimum wage.

    Kick the dog is alive and well.... (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by kdog on Fri Aug 30, 2013 at 05:59:42 AM EST
    the 1% can rest easy, we'll never get our sh*t together, we're too busy hatin' on each other.

    Parent
    If the med tech you were talking to is (5.00 / 2) (#64)
    by Anne on Fri Aug 30, 2013 at 08:45:44 AM EST
    that stupid, I'd say he doesn't deserve the inevitable raise he would get if $15/hr became the new floor for wages.

    Given that you have a terrible track record when it comes to substantiating anything you post, I'm pretty sure there was no med tech that said any such thing.

    [rolling eyes]

    Parent

    Wow what a surprise (5.00 / 2) (#67)
    by MO Blue on Fri Aug 30, 2013 at 09:00:15 AM EST
    You are just another winger on a mission to spread disinformation to pit those who currently make $15/hr. against those who make poverty level salaries.

    Do you keep count on how many people you manage to set against the poor through your lies? You must be proud.

     

    Parent

    How about (5.00 / 2) (#151)
    by jbindc on Fri Aug 30, 2013 at 01:11:04 PM EST
    During the original March on Washington in 1963, one of the demands the marchers wanted was to raise the minimum was up to $2 / hour.

    In case you're interested:

    One of the tent poles of the March on Washington was an increase in the federal minimum wage, which was $1.25 in September 1963. That would be equal to about $9.25 in 2013 dollars, $2 higher than the current federal minimum wage. The march organizers wanted a wage floor of $2 an hour. But $2 in 1963 would have been more than $14.80 in 2013 -- more than double the current federal minimum wage, which hasn't been raised since 2009. It's pretty safe to say that that goal has gone unrealized.

    (In case you were wondering, the state of Washington's minimum wage is the highest in the country -- $9.19 -- and it comes the closest to holding constant with the actual 1963 goal of the march's organizers.)

    Hmmm....they wanted the equivalent of what today would be about $15.  My, how nothing has changed in 50 years.

    Parent

    His salary is possible (none / 0) (#71)
    by SuzieTampa on Fri Aug 30, 2013 at 09:19:40 AM EST
    but would be at the very low end for med technologists. Here are some stats. If he's a med technician, his salary is near average.

    One of my sisters has long worked in the medical field with only a GED. She has no certification. I don't think she's ever made more than $14 an hour. Doing registration in ERs, she has been able to take information from patients and families while keeping them as calm as possible. Now she works in a pharmacy.

    My sister isn't stupid or foolish. We were poor in our teen years, and she got pregnant at 14 and dropped out of school. She has remained one of the working poor.  

    If fast-food workers can make more money, good for them. But let's not forget people who do vital jobs for low wages. Mikado, I'm responding to you rather than those who sneer at you before checking facts.

    Parent

    No one was questioning the (5.00 / 2) (#75)
    by Anne on Fri Aug 30, 2013 at 09:45:16 AM EST
    med tech's salary, Suzie; what was being questioned was why someone currently making $15/hour wouldn't see that raising the lowest-paid workers' hourly rates would inevitably mean raises up the line.

    The last thing any low-paid worker should want is for minimums to stay low; that is how downward pressure is exerted on wages.

    The facts and information you provided are all well and good, but you completely missed the points being made.

    And you've apparently completely missed that Mikado Cat has developed a habit of and a reputation for essentially making sh!t up; I wasn't questioning the wages of the med tach, only that MC had actually talked to one, because if I was that med tech, and I thought there was a chance minimum wages could go to $15/hr, I'd know that it was only a matter of time before my wages were going to go up, too.

    And that's how I know Mikado Cat made up the conversation with the med tech, even if he was reasonably close on imaginary tech's wages.  

    Parent

    You & MO Blue suggested Mikado Cat (2.00 / 3) (#144)
    by SuzieTampa on Fri Aug 30, 2013 at 01:03:24 PM EST
    made up the med tech. I assumed the salary was part of your reason to question the story.

    You don't know what everyone who makes low wages thinks. Plenty of them vote Republican, as you know. Although Jeralyn has said commenters should not accuse others of lying, some commenters do that routinely when they disagree with someone else. I'll believe that MC makes sh!t up when/if I catch something.

    Parent

    Once again MO Blue did not in any way (5.00 / 2) (#196)
    by MO Blue on Fri Aug 30, 2013 at 03:11:26 PM EST
    suggest that Mikado Cat made up the salary of the med tech. That is a complete distortion of what I said. Just to give you a chance to really read my comment, I will post it for you once again:

    You are just another winger on a mission to spread disinformation to pit those who currently make $15/hr. against those who make poverty level salaries.
    Do you keep count on how many people you manage to set against the poor through your lies? You must be proud.

    Now please tell me exactly where I stated that med techs did not make $15/hr. Did I reference a med tech anywhere in that comment? No I did not.

    I can definitely see why you jump on Mikado Cat's bandwagon. You both like to make things up. I am really tired of you making things up about me. I will take this opportunity to restate my position one more time.

    Unless you can substantiate something about me is a well documented fact, I would prefer that you not name me in your posts.


    Parent
    It is a good thing that neither Anne or I (5.00 / 2) (#76)
    by MO Blue on Fri Aug 30, 2013 at 09:53:29 AM EST
    claimed that the "medical tech" made more or less than what was stated in Mikado Cat comment.

    Do you really think that promoting the theme that if fast food workers get a higher wage that it will somehow diminish those who are currently making $15/hr.? That is the meme that Mikado Cat is promoting on her mission to not just keep the minimum wage low but to eliminate it all together. He would like to see workers making $5/hr and not $15/hr.

    If the minimum wage was eliminated or the floor was reduced to $5/hr. as Mikado Cat wants, what do you think would happen to the hourly wage for your sister? If the floor was $5, do you really think that companies would pay your sister $14?

    Do you really think that if the minimum wage went to $15/hr. those people like your sister wouldn't receive more per hour based on their skill set.
    If the minimum wage was raised to $15/hr., people who are currently making $15/hr based on their skill set, would see an increase in pay.

    Do you really think that pitting one low wage worker against another will result in either worker receiving more money?

    Maybe you better check the facts, before you get on Mikado Cat's bandwagon.

    Parent

    Discussing facts is not the same as agreeing (2.00 / 1) (#160)
    by SuzieTampa on Fri Aug 30, 2013 at 01:25:59 PM EST
    with opinions. I'm in favor of increasing the minimum wage.

    Do you really think that promoting the theme that if fast food workers get a higher wage that it will somehow diminish those who are currently making $15/hr.? I'm not in favor of promoting that theme, but I do think some low-wage workers will be disgruntled if someone makes more money than them for doing a less important job with fewer requirements. (And others will feel differently.)

    If the floor was $5, do you really think that companies would pay your sister $14 That's hard to say because she has proven herself at her company and has valuable skills.

    Do you really think that pitting one low wage worker against another will result in either worker receiving more money? No.

    Parent

    One fact is that Mikado Cat (5.00 / 2) (#190)
    by MO Blue on Fri Aug 30, 2013 at 02:54:46 PM EST
    is in favor of eliminating the minimum wage and thinks that many workers should be paid $5/hr or less. That is not my opinion that is his stated position.

     

    Parent

    Your friendly surveillance drone (none / 0) (#56)
    by Politalkix on Fri Aug 30, 2013 at 07:17:55 AM EST
    Conspiracy theories (none / 0) (#60)
    by Politalkix on Fri Aug 30, 2013 at 08:15:05 AM EST
    Hope FSM helps us today (none / 0) (#96)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Aug 30, 2013 at 11:57:20 AM EST
    Now the Obama Administration comes out and says they never said there would be a broad international coalition to take on Assad even though Joe Biden basically said that.

    The new joke is "the coalition of one"

    Is it really new though, this is exactly what happened going into Iraq?

    The Obama administration is touting French support even though there are numerous reports that French zeal is waning since the UK public debate and vote.

    What was David Miranda carrying (none / 0) (#139)
    by jbindc on Fri Aug 30, 2013 at 12:54:23 PM EST
    when he was detained in Heathrow?

    Says the British governement:

    Oliver Robbins, the deputy national security adviser for intelligence, security and resilience in the Cabinet Office, said in his 13-page submission: "The information that has been accessed consists entirely of misappropriated material in the form of approximately 58,000 highly classified UK intelligence documents.

    "I can confirm that the disclosure of this information would cause harm to UK national security.

    "Much of the material is encrypted. However, among the unencrypted documents ... was a piece of paper that included the password for decrypting one of the encypted files on the external hard drive recovered from the claimant.

    "The fact that ... the claimant was carrying on his person a handwritten piece of paper containing the password for one of the encrypted files ... is a sign of very poor information security practice."

    He added: "Even if the claimant were to undertake not to publish or disclose the information that has been detained, the claimant and his associates have demonstrated very poor judgement in their security arrangements with respect to the material rendering the appropriation of the material, or at least access to it by other, non-State actors, a real possibility."

    The government has been forced to assume that copies of the information held by Mr Snowden, who worked for the US National Security Agency, are now in the hands of foreign governments after his travel to Moscow via Hong Kong, Mr Robbins said.



    "The British government says..." (5.00 / 3) (#141)
    by shoephone on Fri Aug 30, 2013 at 01:00:58 PM EST
    Does anyone really care what the British government of David Cameron says? And this

    The government has been forced to assume that copies of the information held by Mr Snowden, who worked for the US National Security Agency, are now in the hands of foreign governments after his travel to Moscow via Hong Kong, Mr Robbins said.

    is a whole lotta whatever.

    Parent

    They actually used the word "assume"? (5.00 / 1) (#159)
    by nycstray on Fri Aug 30, 2013 at 01:25:55 PM EST
    You'd think they would avoid that word :)

    Parent
    I thought the standard to detain... (5.00 / 1) (#184)
    by kdog on Fri Aug 30, 2013 at 02:27:05 PM EST
    was involvement in terrorism...even if what the British are saying is true (I'll wait to hear from the less suspect Miranda or Greenwald), where's the terrorism connection?  Still none as far as I can tell.

    And the super-spies who had all their docs liberated have alotta balls tellin' anybody their "information security practices" are poor...that's some funny sh*t.

    Snowden related...we have Snowden to thank for the new insight as to how the spying industrial complex is pissing our money away.  Thanks again bro!

    Parent

    There was a motion hearing today in the UK (none / 0) (#188)
    by jbindc on Fri Aug 30, 2013 at 02:49:07 PM EST
    The high court granted the Metropolitan police extended powers to investigate whether crimes related to terrorism and breaches of the Official Secrets Act have been committed. Appearing for Miranda, Matthew Ryder QC said his client accepted the terms as part of "a pragmatic approach" to the dispute ahead of a full hearing into the legality of Miranda's detention and the seizure of his data which is expected in October.

    Following a ruling by Lord Justice Laws and Mr Justice Kenneth Parker, the police will now investigate whether possession of the seized material constitutes a crime under the Terrorism Act 2000 which prohibits possessing information that might be useful to terrorists and specifically "eliciting, publishing or communicating" information about members of the armed forces, intelligence agencies and police which terrorists could use. They are also considering possible crimes under section one of the Official Secrets Act 1911 which deals with communication of material to an enemy and "various offences" under the Official Secrets Act 1989.

    Link

    Parent

    The thing now being stated (none / 0) (#147)
    by Socraticsilence on Fri Aug 30, 2013 at 01:06:28 PM EST
    was that the info included the real identities of british intelligence people working overseas, which if true would kind of dramatically alter the story-- I can't think anyone would argue that we have the right to know the IDs of Americans working overseas?

    Parent
    How the Senate exploits interns (none / 0) (#145)
    by jbindc on Fri Aug 30, 2013 at 01:04:29 PM EST
    A little embarassing for the Dems....

    First, nearly 70 senators ask their interns to perform a public service for free every summer. Over the same three-month period (August recess included), those senators earn $43,500 apiece. Needless to say, there is a distinct contrast between the leaders -- many of whom are proud of their own previous internships -- who perform "public service" for pay, and the youth they ask to do the same for free.

    Second, and embarrassingly for Reid and the blue team, the vast majority of senators who do pay are Republicans. Of those 35 senators, only 11 are Democrats -- meaning almost 80 percent of Dems require volunteer participation (not counting Bernie Sanders, an independent who caucuses with the Democrats). This is peculiar and troubling for a party that elsewhere signals its commitment to fair pay, equal representation, economic inequality, and workplace welfare. When it comes to interns in the Senate, it seems that traditional beliefs about labor and economic opportunity are suddenly switched. Despite frequently proposing and voting in favor of legislation that opens the workplace door to all Americans, Democrats ignore the same values when it comes to their interns. Reid's office did not respond to requests for comments.*

    Conversely, the ever budget-conscious GOP might consider taking a look at the extra expenses afforded to paid internships. One might argue that paying interns who would work for free is a prime example of "government waste." Nonetheless, half of senate Republicans have decided to pay interns, and should perhaps earn some rare positive reinforcement from labor activists.

    Unpaid internships, besides the intrinsic problem of failing to pay for work that is necessary to the Senate, are some of the stronger remnants of socio-economic stagnation. For those who can afford to pay out of pocket for a summer in Washington, or are lucky to win a rare grant or scholarship, a Hill internship is a crucial first toehold in the political establishment. Full-time work for no pay clashes with liberal values, but it does perpetuate the cycle of socioeconomic privilege. Until they align their actions with their stated political goals, Democrats will have to confront the better, if confusing, behavior of their Republican colleagues.



    Obama "modest-izes" Syria strategery (none / 0) (#169)
    by Edger on Fri Aug 30, 2013 at 01:56:14 PM EST
    in transparent consistency bid...

    Attempting to quell criticism of his proposal for a limited military mission in Syria, President Obama floated a more modest strategy today, saying that any U.S. action in Syria would have "no objective whatsoever."

    "Let me be clear," he said in an interview on CNN. "Our goal will not be to effect régime change, or alter the balance of power in Syria, or bring the civil war there to an end. We will simply do something random there for one or two days and then leave."

    "I want to reassure our allies and the people of Syria that what we are about to undertake, if we undertake it at all, will have no purpose or goal," he said. "This is consistent with U.S. foreign policy of the past."

    [...snip...]

    "Maybe we get in there, take a look around, and get out right away. But however long it takes, one thing will not change: this mission will have no point. The President is resolute about that."