Wednesday Open Thread

Busy jail today for me. The federal immigration detention facility is in the flood impacted part of Aurora. By tomorrow, it should be fine, so that's where I'll be.

Here's an open thread, all topics welcome.

< FISA Judge Rules NSA Mass Telephony Data Collection is Constitutional | OIG Report: DOJ Overstates Terrorism Convictions >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Michael Hayden (5.00 / 2) (#12)
    by Edger on Wed Sep 18, 2013 at 09:42:05 AM EST
    once again shoves his foot in his mouth, attempts to swallow his leg in public, and shoots himself and obama in both feet...

    Mike Masnick at TechDirt this morning...

    The Washington Post's Andrea Peterson has some more incredible quotes from former NSA and CIA boss Michael Hayden, who seems to have a way of saying exactly the wrong thing if he's trying to reassure those who are worried about excessive government surveillance.  First up, he continues to attack anyone who feels otherwise.  The same guy who insisted that people who were concerned about NSA surveillance were shut-ins who couldn't get laid has apparently decided that he can determine Ed Snowden's mental makeup from afar, despite never having spoken to the guy.  He can also predict his future:
    Hayden predicted a bleak future for Snowden. Describing the former NSA contractor as a "defector," Hayden also called him "a troubled young man -- morally arrogant to a tremendous degree -- but a troubled young man."

    Hayden further compared Snowden's prospects to those of defectors during the Cold War, saying,  "I suspect he will end up like most of the rest of the defectors who went to the old Soviet Union: Isolated, bored, lonely, depressed -- and most of them ended up alcoholics."

    Oh and then there's the bit where he insists that the public is actually fine with NSA snooping... just like they're fine with targeted killings. Except, what he really meant by "the public" was "American Presidents."
    At one point, Hayden also compared NSA snooping programs to other controversial programs that he says have been accepted by the public. He pointed to targeted killing, which he says two presidents have now signed off on "with some degree of enthusiasm."
    Note to Hayden from the internet shut-in community: having a President "enthusiastically" support his own ability to authorize spying on everyone and killing people overseas is, uh, somewhat different than suggesting the public supports it.

    This guy is a pro. If he tried this under a republican president he'd have democrats all over the country shrieking for impeachment. Good thing he's offering all this "support" to obama instead...

    I think I need a drink.

    Sláinte! :) (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by Nemi on Wed Sep 18, 2013 at 12:35:42 PM EST
    John Cusak on the other hand seems to 'get it'.

    I probably shouldn't be, but I'm always - pleasantly - surprised when people, from whom I actually mostly just expect something artistic, reveal informed and intelligent opinions on other topics.

    Despite the importance of his revelations, the US purposefully stranded Snowden in Russia by canceling his passport while he was in transit from Hong Kong to Russia, essentially forcing him into exile.


    It's hard to blame Snowden for not wanting to come back and rot in a US jail. Chelsea Manning spent three years in jail awaiting trial, nearly a year of it in torturous conditions. She has now been sentenced to 35 years in prison for leaks exposing war crimes, which have been almost universally acknowledged as having caused no real harm to the US, while those recorded in the "Collateral Murder" video have gone uncharged.

    Mr Snowden may have the faint suspicion that his rights would not be protected - given that a prosecution under the Espionage Act would leave him no way to mount a public interest defense if he came back to stand trial. Often, we export our US ideals, sometimes rightfully, sometimes tragically. Now, our action is drenched in irony: Russia is providing safe haven to our American whistleblower, and East Berlin, where the Stasi once roamed, is now where journalists and privacy rights advocates feel safe to work.

    Defected? (5.00 / 2) (#45)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Sep 18, 2013 at 01:34:48 PM EST
    I had no idea we were all behind an iron curtain here in the United States.  I thought we had freedom around here to go where we wanted to go?  I had no idea we could even have defectors.

    You don't even have to defect (5.00 / 1) (#109)
    by Edger on Thu Sep 19, 2013 at 05:12:01 AM EST
    to be an "adversary"...
    "We are investing in groundbreaking cryptanalytic capabilities to defeat adversarial cryptography and exploit Internet traffic," the director of national intelligence, James R. Clapper Jr., wrote in his budget request for the current year.

    Or, more stated more clearly, (none / 0) (#110)
    by Edger on Thu Sep 19, 2013 at 05:15:51 AM EST
    AN AXE LENGTH AWAY, vol. 131 (5.00 / 3) (#40)
    by Dadler on Wed Sep 18, 2013 at 01:17:28 PM EST
    The Starbucks convo... (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by kdog on Wed Sep 18, 2013 at 03:09:04 PM EST
    has got me thinking of a way to tackle the gun problem, no legislators required....good old fashioned social stigma.

    Spread the word far and wide...only sh*theads carry guns in public.  If ya gotta have one, the only appropriate place for it is safely stored in the home, or safely stored in a lockbox to and fro the firing range, hunting grounds, or gun shop.  Anything less in uncivilized and unwelcome.  

    If Mike Bloomberg got some cash for me, I'll start printing the posters and buying the airtime.

    Toss some cash my way, and I'll give ya (5.00 / 3) (#66)
    by nycstray on Wed Sep 18, 2013 at 03:15:57 PM EST
    some first rate, eye catching designs :)

    Can we do "Bring a dog, not a gun!"?  ;D


    Brilliant... (5.00 / 3) (#69)
    by kdog on Wed Sep 18, 2013 at 03:41:54 PM EST
    How about...

    "No Disarmament No Service"

    "Fetishes Are Best Practiced in Private"

    "Clips (w/ picture of a clipped half joint) Not Clips (w/ picture of a gun clip)"


    Social stigma is the real way to make the change. Look at smoking, etc.

    Actually? (5.00 / 2) (#74)
    by kdog on Wed Sep 18, 2013 at 03:59:19 PM EST
    Don't sound so surprised...I'm 100% right at least 10% of the time;)

    Good point, kdog (5.00 / 1) (#67)
    by christinep on Wed Sep 18, 2013 at 03:21:32 PM EST
    Clearly, a change in what is acceptable public behavior would be a precursor that can go a long way.  So ... steps to get this societal norm/societal attitude change?  Thoughts about how we promote a new mannerism ... so that open-carry in eating/coffee house establishments (& more) would be at least as unwelcome and unacceptable as openly picking one's nose in public or bending over to fart in someone's face in the line for the coffee?

    Perhaps a question asked of the (5.00 / 4) (#72)
    by Anne on Wed Sep 18, 2013 at 03:47:11 PM EST
    hostess or management when arriving, "do you permit your customers to carry weapons?"

    If the answer is "yes," respond with "well, thank you, but I'm not comfortable with that policy, so I will not be needing a table; I will also be letting my friends and family know, as they also will not be comfortable here on that basis."

    If the answer is "no," respond with, "I am so happy to hear that, and I have many friends who will be just as pleased - I will be sure to let them know so they can reward you with their business."


    Anne: I like your suggestion ... a lot (none / 0) (#77)
    by christinep on Wed Sep 18, 2013 at 04:17:42 PM EST
    I plan to use that approach from now on.  

    Why Don't I Believe... (none / 0) (#81)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Sep 18, 2013 at 04:46:45 PM EST
    ...the places you dine at are the same places people who dine with guns frequent ?

    Here in Texas, it is impossible to know because if it's not concealed, they will hammer you hard.  I do know that they can be taken into places that sell alcohol, which includes conveniences stores.  Not sure if that includes restaurants that have alcohol on the menu.  But I doubt it.

    I don't believe in 15 years I have ever seen a gun at a bar, or any public place for that matter.  And I used to hang in some pretty dark holes with some shady folks.  But again, Texas might love them sum guns, but they don't play with the concealed weapon permit.  It's definitely a privilege they will take in a heartbeat.  You brandish a gun, you are going to County for a couple months and County in Houston is the real deal.

    My point is that it wouldn't bother me because I simply have no way to know, neither would the restaurant.  I don't believe a business has the ability to decide because it has to be concealed which I believe includes any mention of it.


    Texas, my dear, is different (none / 0) (#86)
    by christinep on Wed Sep 18, 2013 at 06:18:55 PM EST
    Heck ... look at your Governor Perry.  (Oh, and that former Governor Bush.)

    Wait (5.00 / 1) (#124)
    by jbindc on Thu Sep 19, 2013 at 03:55:29 PM EST
    Don't you live in Colorado, where they too, have pretty permissive gun laws, and where they just recalled two Democratic state senators because they dared to support more restrictive gun laws? (I mean - how crazy!  It's not like there haven't been TWO mass shootings in Colorado in the last twenty years!)

    Guess we can count Colorado in the "different" column with Texas too....


    Gulp ... you got me there, jbindc (none / 0) (#133)
    by christinep on Thu Sep 19, 2013 at 06:01:49 PM EST
    Should I confess to my long-held skepticism about things Texan or wait until it slips out again....

    Why not (none / 0) (#128)
    by Mikado Cat on Thu Sep 19, 2013 at 04:18:37 PM EST
    start with Tshirts and lawn signs proudly stating UNARMED.

    I like it... (none / 0) (#140)
    by kdog on Fri Sep 20, 2013 at 09:01:22 AM EST
    I'd wear one of those t-shirts.

    And though I would never be so rude as to patdown a houseguest, all my houseguests know guns ain't welcome.  Not that I roll with anybody so paranoid and fearful as to carry a gun out and about.


    It'll (5.00 / 1) (#83)
    by lentinel on Wed Sep 18, 2013 at 05:35:39 PM EST
    be back I'm sure... but it is refreshing for the Syria crisis-nightmare to be taking a back seat on the front pages to the shutting down of the government, Bernanke's decision to do nothing, and concerns bubbling anew about the activities of the NSA.

    It's interesting to me - because when these issues are HOT - it dominates everyone and everything.

    We are on the brink of war. The brink of another bombing campaign. It is a matter of such urgency that it demands the attention of the world.

    Then, it fizzles. However briefly.

    I welcome the fizzle.

    Me too (5.00 / 2) (#87)
    by ruffian on Wed Sep 18, 2013 at 06:20:37 PM EST
    I was thinking about the message of the Fed decision to keep the bond-buying in place. In a way it tells me that what they are doing is not working well enough to help the economy - so they are going to keep on doing it.  I need to check back in with CalculatedRisk blog and see what they say over there. Been too busy to 'blog around'.

    Today's Fed Decision (none / 0) (#94)
    by CoralGables on Wed Sep 18, 2013 at 08:09:16 PM EST
    was viewed as very positive by Wall Sreet that sees it now as the Bernanke/Yellen approach. The S&P hit a new all time high after the decision.

    Yes, millions of already-rich people (5.00 / 3) (#95)
    by Anne on Wed Sep 18, 2013 at 08:18:08 PM EST
    just got even richer; I'm still waiting for someone to tell me how Wall Street is helping the average Joe and Jane on Main Street, the millions who still don't have jobs, etc.

    On the plus-side, I guess my 401(k) probably got a nice bump.



    Is anyone concerned about those being kicked off (5.00 / 4) (#99)
    by nycstray on Wed Sep 18, 2013 at 09:43:41 PM EST
    unemployment at the end of Dec? ALL extensions will end at the end of Dec, no matter where you are on the unemployment scale . . .

    The trickle down (5.00 / 2) (#100)
    by Edger on Wed Sep 18, 2013 at 10:07:40 PM EST
    when the pockets of obama's friends on wall street split open from the enormous weight they are carrying now keeping the economy afloat should balance any loss of unemployment benefits, shouldn't it?

    Not only unemployment (5.00 / 2) (#115)
    by jbindc on Thu Sep 19, 2013 at 09:54:37 AM EST
    But add to that the rise in those on food stamps.

    Experts say part of the rise in food stamps results from states expanding eligibility but that much of the past few years' increase is due to extended unemployment.

    "In this economy we still have millions of individuals out of work," says Stacy Dean ofthe liberal Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. Poverty in America today, she says, is largely a story of unemployed workers or those who must combine their wages with public assistance in order to survive. "It's either that the wages or the hours are insufficient in order to be a living income."

    Like many others -- including analysts at the Congressional Budget Office -- Dean expects food stamp enrollment to taper off as a more robust recovery takes hold, but that may not happen for years. CBO doesn't expect SNAP enrollment to fall below pre-recession levels until 2019.

    "It is very much a barometer of the economy for low-income Americans," Dean says, "but what it's telling us is that it's still a very tumultuous time for them."

    One key indicator: 48% of households headed by females with children under 5 now live in poverty, up from 45 % in 2008.

    Yep - we've had a recovery, all right.


    That's why using the metric of (5.00 / 4) (#116)
    by Anne on Thu Sep 19, 2013 at 10:14:56 AM EST
    Wall Street's performance as an indicator of economic health/recovery makes no sense.

    But this is what they - the people who talk about such things on news programs - do - they get all giddy and breathless about where the Dow is, and ignore what's happening at the other end of the spectrum.

    Meanwhile, the only giddiness at the other end of the socioeconomic spectrum is the kind people get when they can't get enough to eat.  And yet, there is still talk about cutting more from food and nutrition programs.

    The more things change...well, they really don't, do they?  The rich get richer and the poor slowly die off as they get poorer.

    Hey - maybe that's the plan...?


    And then there's this . . . (none / 0) (#121)
    by nycstray on Thu Sep 19, 2013 at 11:11:48 AM EST
    Either way, benefits will be reduced in November automatically, when a provision in 2009's Stimulus Act expires.



    And, the really crazy thing is (5.00 / 3) (#123)
    by NYShooter on Thu Sep 19, 2013 at 03:12:25 PM EST
    that the food stamp program is about the most efficient program out there. It not only gets nutrition to those in need effectively, and quickly, it also provides a huge stimulative boost to the economy because of its well documented multiplier effect. Food stamps provide a 1.79% boost, meaning for every $1.00 a recipient receives the economy gets a $1.79 benefit.

    Pretty good deal.


    Also while our illustrious government (5.00 / 3) (#132)
    by MO Blue on Thu Sep 19, 2013 at 05:29:51 PM EST
    is eliminating unemployment benefits and cutting food stamps, many states are making basically making it illegal to be homeless.

    Awesome (none / 0) (#141)
    by jbindc on Fri Sep 20, 2013 at 11:30:13 AM EST
    There goes my retirement plan....

    The GOP House (none / 0) (#102)
    by CoralGables on Wed Sep 18, 2013 at 10:31:28 PM EST
    wants to shut government down in two weeks. Ending the unemployent benefits at the end of the year are but a small piece of what the GOP House members want to end.

    This isn't new (5.00 / 2) (#105)
    by nycstray on Wed Sep 18, 2013 at 11:15:12 PM EST
    or anything to do with shutting down the gov in 2wks, this is already on track. As in, notices have been out for awhile to the unemployed. As in, this is not new on the GOP agenda, it's already scheduled and going into effect. The GOP/WDC crowd seems to already have this as a done deal.

    Seems to me, people really need to be paying more attention to what's really going on. Since nobody is talking about how many folks are going to lose benefits who are on extensions (some may be early into their first), and how many will not get extensions shortly there after, and some in congress are fighting for food stamp cuts . . . and there is very little help, as is, for the over 45 crowd who no longer have "think of the children!" in their homes . . . . but are totally unemployable because they are EXPERIENCED (aka OLD!)

    But yeah, blame it on the GOP and what they want to do next . . . but please, start screaming yesterday about what it will do to people, as I haven't heard a word from you on this.

    BTW, Obama ROCKS! {pom-pom}


    The House and Senate have to agree (none / 0) (#106)
    by CoralGables on Wed Sep 18, 2013 at 11:33:36 PM EST
    It will be interesting over the next two weeks though as the GOP House and the GOP Senate do battle. Redistricting has given GOP House members safe districts and they care about nothing but their next primary. It's looking like the GOP House will pass a continuation by defunding the ACA (for the 42nd time) that will get stopped in the Senate by a handful of sensible Republicans.

    The funny thing about all this, in the Republican House Boehner is now viewed as a sellout RINO and too moderate to be in charge. The House has become as close to non-functional as is possible and their Speaker has zero leverage.


    And how does that help the unemployed? (5.00 / 2) (#107)
    by nycstray on Wed Sep 18, 2013 at 11:42:57 PM EST
    It will get worse (none / 0) (#108)
    by CoralGables on Wed Sep 18, 2013 at 11:57:47 PM EST
    As a NY Times editorial today makes clear, the GOP House plan is to shut down as many government programs as possible. In the House, the inmates are now running the asylum.

    If the Tea Party is going to dictate the (5.00 / 2) (#111)
    by Anne on Thu Sep 19, 2013 at 06:29:16 AM EST
    House GOP agenda, I think the only fitting title for the majority leader is "The Mad Hatter."

    Listen, I think the whole Obamacare thing was poorly conceived, missed a giant opportunity to pry the private insurance industry's hands off our necks and truly reform the system, relied too heavily on an outmoded Republican plan, and was significantly hurt by the overly long start date - but - enough is enough with these crackpot Republicans.  


    Time to put an end to their pattern of holding the entire country hostage as a way to push their wrong-headed, regressive agenda down our collective throats.

    Democrats should give them nothing.  Zip, zero, nada.  Let's see if the Dems have any idea how to play hardball, because now is the time to do it.  No more of this compromising, bipartisan BS.

    Yeah, I know: as if.  We'll hear tough talk, but soon enough we'll be hearing about how the American people want them to "get something done," and we know how that ends.

    Soon, the term "going caving" will not mean "exploring actual caves," but "the act of giving in to insane Republicans who really don't belong within 100 miles of any decision that affects people's lives."


    Anne, would you please quit trying (2.00 / 3) (#131)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Sep 19, 2013 at 04:54:16 PM EST
    to blame the Repubs for Obamacare???

    Check out who was Prez and who had a majority in both Houses when it happened.....


    Jim, will you quit trying to change the (5.00 / 3) (#135)
    by Anne on Thu Sep 19, 2013 at 06:11:42 PM EST
    content and meaning of people's comments, or at least work on your reading comprehension?

    I didn't blame Republicans, jim...I said Obamacare relied too heavily on a Republican plan - the one Bob Dole - a Republican - designed some years ago.

    I blame Democrats for Obamacare, jim - I always have.


    No one in their right mind (none / 0) (#134)
    by sj on Thu Sep 19, 2013 at 06:08:42 PM EST
    would quit trying
    to blame the Repubs for Obamacare???
    . If there was no Bob Dole, there could be no template for the (Un)ACA.

    Low interest (5.00 / 1) (#130)
    by Mikado Cat on Thu Sep 19, 2013 at 04:23:24 PM EST
    rates have hit a lot of retired people hard. The standard wisdom is to shift a retirement portfolio to low risk, which usually means cert of dep, bonds, etc. and five years of flat returns forced many to dig into core investments instead of living off SS and interest.

    Yikes (none / 0) (#136)
    by sj on Thu Sep 19, 2013 at 06:22:23 PM EST
    I find it disconcerting to agree with you :)

    LOL! (none / 0) (#138)
    by NYShooter on Thu Sep 19, 2013 at 11:09:41 PM EST
    You beat me to it, sj.

    Stopped clock, and all that....


    Your 401k definitely bumped (none / 0) (#96)
    by CoralGables on Wed Sep 18, 2013 at 08:27:25 PM EST
    I know my IRA did (1.2% just today). This is what to expect if Yellen is chosen for the Fed chair. My IRA and your 401k shouldn't complain. It's actually been an amazing September for the market with the immediate threat of Syria moved to the backburner and Summers dropping out.

    Anne (none / 0) (#97)
    by CoralGables on Wed Sep 18, 2013 at 09:20:13 PM EST
    Free baseball for the O's tonight. With the Yankees winning the O's need to pull this one out.

    Tie game, top of the 10th; (none / 0) (#98)
    by Anne on Wed Sep 18, 2013 at 09:21:52 PM EST
    top of the order batting.

    Be nice to win this one - guess we'll see soon enough!


    Great win for the O's (none / 0) (#101)
    by CoralGables on Wed Sep 18, 2013 at 10:16:29 PM EST
    No kidding - it was great! (none / 0) (#104)
    by Anne on Wed Sep 18, 2013 at 11:13:51 PM EST
    More like that please...

    After the Sox, we have the Rays, who have kind of had our number, so if we can finish strong in Boston and take a game or two in Tampa, that would be sweet.

    Buckle up!


    I can't remember which one of my pet economists (none / 0) (#114)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Sep 19, 2013 at 09:45:38 AM EST
    Compared it to pounding nails with a wrench but the metaphor goes; it takes a long time to get the job done and makes a hell of a mess.

    Yeh, the coming & going is "amazing" (none / 0) (#88)
    by christinep on Wed Sep 18, 2013 at 06:23:31 PM EST
    Which is why I say that we can afford to take a breath on the issue-of-the-day (in most cases.) Hot, cold, hot, cold.  While I definitely believe that the chemical weapons situation in Syria trumps many of the so-called issues-of-the-day simply because it involves life & death, even there--at this point--we do have to wait for negotiations to play out a bit.

    If it can (5.00 / 3) (#89)
    by lentinel on Wed Sep 18, 2013 at 06:29:30 PM EST
    fade out so easily, maybe it isn't the life and death issue it was being played out to be...

    What I mean by that, is the hyped immediacy of that life and death issue as opposed to the other life and death issues that are assaulting us on a daily basis.


    Anybody left of obama (none / 0) (#113)
    by Edger on Thu Sep 19, 2013 at 09:36:36 AM EST
    is always criticizing him. Hyped immediacy is pragmatic and proves he's at least as crazy on national security as any crazed republican, doesn't it? It even beats bipartisanship!

    NYT, September 18, 2013

    In a joint appearance in Dallas, both former Pentagon chiefs, Robert M. Gates and Leon E. Panetta, were critical of Mr. Obama for asking Congress to authorize the use of force against Syria in retaliation over its use of chemical weapons. But they disagreed on whether military action would be an effective response. Mr. Gates said Mr. Obama's proposed military strike was a mistake, while Mr. Panetta said it was a mistake not to carry out an attack.

    "My bottom line is that I believe that to blow a bunch of stuff up over a couple days, to underscore or validate a point or a principle, is not a strategy," Mr. Gates said during a forum at Southern Methodist University. "If we launch a military attack, in the eyes of a lot of people we become the villain instead of Assad," he added, referring to President Bashar al-Assad of Syria.

    Mr. Gates, the only cabinet member from the administration of George W. Bush whom Mr. Obama asked to stay, said missile strikes on Syria "would be throwing gasoline on a very complex fire in the Middle East."

    "Haven't Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya taught us something about the unintended consequences of military action once it's launched?" Mr. Gates said.

    Personally I think it would have been fun to see him ride a Tomahawk in waving a stetson to prove to the world that he's not a guy to be fcuked with. And the reactions of his supporters would have been even more interesting.


    Isn't (5.00 / 1) (#118)
    by lentinel on Thu Sep 19, 2013 at 10:38:10 AM EST
    it nuts beyond belief that I have to agree with Bush's boy, Gates, and recoil with disgust with the slithery liberal, Panetta.

    It all makes sense and becomes perfectly clear (none / 0) (#119)
    by Edger on Thu Sep 19, 2013 at 10:41:17 AM EST
    if viewed from the proper perspective, doesn't it?

    AN AXE LENGTH AWAY, vol. 132 (5.00 / 1) (#112)
    by Dadler on Thu Sep 19, 2013 at 09:10:09 AM EST
    Jon Gosselin now waiting tables... (5.00 / 1) (#120)
    by Dadler on Thu Sep 19, 2013 at 10:46:15 AM EST
    Rejuvenating and giving (5.00 / 1) (#122)
    by christinep on Thu Sep 19, 2013 at 11:55:50 AM EST
    The first extensive interview of Pope Francis was widely publicized today.  Wonderful words to read and to hear ... finally, words of inclusion and God's love. At one point, he even recalls how in his "crazy" youth (as Jesuit provincial for Argentina) he was "too authoritarian." He offers a truly foundational approach that is loving back-to-basics, as he pointedly eschews an "obsessive" narrow doctrinaire focus with its exclusionary concentration on Church hierarchy.

    A long life for Pope Francis, I pray.  Viva il Papa!

    At this rate (5.00 / 1) (#139)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Sep 20, 2013 at 02:20:06 AM EST
    Bill Maher is going to end up a practicing Catholic instead of a recovering Catholic.

    Seriously... (none / 0) (#143)
    by kdog on Fri Sep 20, 2013 at 03:16:54 PM EST
    We've got a pope even a heathen can love.  But I'd imagine they wanna give Francis an exorcism over at the Catholic League;)

    If he starts giving the billions in gold away to the poor and the sick, I'll even consider going to confession and taking communion.


    I'm watching Maher right now (none / 0) (#144)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Sep 20, 2013 at 09:42:28 PM EST
    He could barely contain himself in getting to talk about the Pope tonight :)

    Gotta love it. (none / 0) (#142)
    by NYShooter on Fri Sep 20, 2013 at 12:43:58 PM EST
    From a speech earlier this year regarding atheists.

    Pope Francis:  "do good and do not do evil. All   of us."

    Skeptic:  "`But, Father, this is not Catholic! (atheism) He cannot do good.'

    Pope Francis:  "Yes, he can... "The Lord has redeemed all of us, all of us, with the Blood of Christ: all of us, not just Catholics. Everyone!

    Skeptic: "`Father, the atheists?"

    Pope Francis:  "Even the atheists. Everyone!" We must meet one another doing good.

    Skeptic:  "But I don't believe, Father, I am an atheist"

    Pope Francis:  "But do good: we will meet one another there."


    Time magazine covers (none / 0) (#1)
    by Mikado Cat on Wed Sep 18, 2013 at 06:30:57 AM EST
    USA cover guy catching a football, rest of world, Putin. Don't they know about the internet, that media high-jinx we be found out?

    Seriously? (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by CoralGables on Wed Sep 18, 2013 at 07:04:15 AM EST
    Please visit the Time Magazine website. They post their magazine covers from around the world every week for your viewing pleasure. There are no high jinks involved. Covers are to sell magazines. Nothing more, nothing less.

    Baa waa waa (5.00 / 5) (#3)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Sep 18, 2013 at 07:51:08 AM EST
    All conservatives seem to say the same thing. It's like they get marching orders from Glenn Beck or something. I saw this exact same complaint yesterday on facebook by a conservative. Too funny.

    We are (5.00 / 4) (#4)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Sep 18, 2013 at 07:52:50 AM EST
    quite aware that conservatives feel that they are victims of the media in this country. The irony is they truly are victims but not of "mainstream" media but of their own self created monsters.

    So nothing (none / 0) (#5)
    by Mikado Cat on Wed Sep 18, 2013 at 07:59:30 AM EST
    to it, rest of world gets story on Putin schooling Obama, Time editor goes to work for Kerry, we get should college football players get paid.

    Again (5.00 / 4) (#6)
    by CoralGables on Wed Sep 18, 2013 at 08:08:57 AM EST
    Go to the website. The story on Putin is in the US edition also. Now you've shot yourself in the foot twice before 9:00am.

    The Internet is a tremendous resource. Use it to your advantage.


    Oh, lordy, CG, I guess it's going to (none / 0) (#9)
    by Anne on Wed Sep 18, 2013 at 08:30:03 AM EST
    be one of those kinds of days...must be a school holiday or something.

    You and I both know that Mikado Cat isn't going to trouble his little fingers to go look at the Time website when he can keep beating this dead horse until we all run screaming for the Advil.


    For my Advil I'll switch to baseball (none / 0) (#10)
    by CoralGables on Wed Sep 18, 2013 at 09:16:15 AM EST
    If the O's don't manage to grab a Wild Card spot, just staying in front of the Yankees would make it a hugely successful season for them.

    In the AL I'm a Boston fan, but last night found myself pulling for Baltimore just so they could move further in front of NY. This week I'm a big fan of Baltimore, Cleveland, Tampa Bay, Texas, and Kansas City.


    There's a reason why the (none / 0) (#11)
    by Anne on Wed Sep 18, 2013 at 09:29:56 AM EST
    catchphrase "Buckle Up" has become popular in Baltimore, not least because Jim Johnson is no longer as reliable as a closer, and we've gone from having the best record in 1-run games to the worst - in a year.

    As a Boston fan, you must be thrilled that the team that early on looked like it might be fighting to stay out of last place can clinch the AL East with another O's loss - but since I think that winning the division is going to happen regardless, the O's might as well win a few more to keep the Yankees out of any of it.  And it would be good to have a second winning season, too.

    There's a lot of talent on the Orioles - Manny Machado is just awesome - and I think they're working on building a team that legitimately contends, but I think if they make the wild card, it might be more that they backed into it than that they won it outright - but we'll see.  We're a little gun-shy after so many losing seasons - can you tell?


    Closers (none / 0) (#54)
    by CoralGables on Wed Sep 18, 2013 at 02:31:46 PM EST
    Ahhh that prima donna position in baseball where it feels like they all have written into their contract that they only come in to pitch to start the 9th inning so no one is on base and only if their team has a lead of 1, 2, or 3 runs...never more and never tied or behind.

    They are never brought into a pressure situation. The only pressure they ever face is of their own making. Poor Jim Johnson has now failed in about 25% of his save situations in his career.

    It's no wonder so many closers like Johnson fold in short time, with some like Joe Nathan and Mariano Rivera (prior to this season) being the exceptions. They are all catered to like divas.

    But I still have a favorite closer, at least for tonight, Casey Janssen. Go Toronto!

    The O's can go 2-10 in their last dozen and still have a winning record. The winning season is (almost) guaranteed.


    Are you so clueless that you think the (none / 0) (#8)
    by Anne on Wed Sep 18, 2013 at 08:26:13 AM EST
    cover story is the only story in the magazine?

    [That was a rhetorical question - no need to respond.]


    Many (none / 0) (#125)
    by Mikado Cat on Thu Sep 19, 2013 at 03:56:45 PM EST
    Never get beyond the cover, they don't buy the rag, just see it on the news stand.

    People actually still read Time? (5.00 / 3) (#7)
    by Anne on Wed Sep 18, 2013 at 08:17:24 AM EST
    This isn't media hijinks, it's media marketing; it's forever and always about selling magazines.  I can guarantee you there are more people in America who are interested in football than there are people in America interested in Vladimir Putin.  Maybe if he looked like George Clooney he'd be cover-worthy, but I don't know an American woman who'd get much of a tingle from seeing Vladimir Putin looking back at them from a magazine on her coffee table...I'm not even sure there's enough vodka to make that possible.

    Sometimes, it's helpful to remember that a cigar is just a cigar.

    And tinfoil has many other uses than being able to shape it to fit nicely on one's head.


    Except... (5.00 / 3) (#18)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Sep 18, 2013 at 11:16:00 AM EST
    ...like 3 stories are about Syria, the US, and Putin saving the day.

    The story isn't about Putin and Russian economics that might not interest Americans, it's about his cleverness in halting the US from bombing Syria.  I would argue we are the story(s), yet we are the only country to not get the cover.

    'Paying college athletes' makes the cover the week we nearly bombed the hell out of a Middle Eastern country.  The same weeks that the other media was basically blanket coverage of Kerry and/or Obama using very strong words and implying that we are going to bomb Syria.  Which, if I remember correctly, 60% of the country did not want.

    But I can see how running a story about paying college athletes, which has been a whispered around for years, deserves the cover in the US that week.

    They decided not to run the cover and caption that clearly makes shows Putin doing what Kerry and Obama couldn't, laying out a plan to disarm Syria without 60 days of shock and awe.

    I don't think it's some big conspiracy, it the US press doing what they have been doing since Iraq, putting access above integrity.


    That is exactly it (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Wed Sep 18, 2013 at 11:33:37 AM EST
    The theme of the mag is Putin, not college sports.  And the reality is that whether for good or nefarious reasons, Putin saved our sorry hineys from Kerry and Obama.  People would likely appreciate that cover, because they are behind what Putin did.   It would sell magazines.

    So Time covers college sports instead.  

    It's clear to me what their agenda was.  Time is clearly a bastion of Obama. What they've done is very similar to the articles on Obamacare polls I've been seeing, where the polls say one thing, and the media interprets it as something else.  Or worse, they reiterate some of Obama's lies about Obamacare...NBCNews is a nice case in point on that.  One doozie is it's only people without insurance who will notice.  Well, I'm noticing, a 25% rate increase notice that I got yesterday, and for less usable coverage and a  higher deductible.

    Anyway, the twisting of the facts is pretty obvious to those who choose to see it.  


    Okay, so now that we've all agreed that (none / 0) (#36)
    by Anne on Wed Sep 18, 2013 at 12:39:08 PM EST
    the media - the American media, anyway - are close to worthless, I'll repeat my question: does anyone still read Time?

    I don't think you can pick up a newspaper, or magazine, or even click on some media websites, and expect to get anything that resembles unfiltered news/information that hasn't been shaped, spun, or had its context messed with anymore - so, the manipulation behind the choice of the Time cover is pretty much business as usual, in my opinion.

    I think people are hungry for some truth, and they get so little of it they've been reduced to kvetching about and critiquing the magazine covers - has anyone here actually read the content of the Putin-related stories, and if so, how accurate/fair do you think they are?

    Am I the only one who finds it all a little ironic, and sad?


    Soooooo sneaky! (none / 0) (#21)
    by Yman on Wed Sep 18, 2013 at 11:39:10 AM EST
    They also did this in August!  I was all set to read about the importance of the Euro to the German economy, when those sneaky editors tried to hide it with a cover about "The Child Free Life" - only on the U.S. issue!  But luckily in this day of the internets, we found them out!

    Nice try, Time Magazine ...


    The Cover... (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Sep 18, 2013 at 12:12:15 PM EST
    'Why Germany Must Save the Euro' is a cover that makes perfect sense to not run in the US, ditto for the Merkel cover.

    They didn't run the cover about Australia or Travon Martin in Europe or Asia, which again makes perfect sense.

    Even if they didn't run the Putin cover, it's absurd to not have the cover about US/Syria, there hasn't been a news story directly involving the US since probably Qaddafi that has been in the same vicinity as us nearly bombing Syria  They could have even run a WMD story about Syria/Assad cover, something related to the overwhelming content within.

    They ran the Putin in South Pacific, but not in the country that is at the center of the story.

    We got a weak Sports Illustrated cover about a topic hasn't had any movement in a decade.


    I don't agree with their choice ... (none / 0) (#62)
    by Yman on Wed Sep 18, 2013 at 03:08:39 PM EST
    ... of cover because I don't think the story they selected is very important compared to other (including Syria).  That being said, they often choose covers involving stories that I think are (relatively) unimportant - like the "Living Kids Free" cover I linked to.  My point was that the US cover often differs from the other covers - all of which are available on their website.  Moreover, there's no evidence of a plot to hide a story to protect Obama/Kerry, as Mikado has claimed.

    Have They Ever Not... (5.00 / 1) (#75)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Sep 18, 2013 at 04:08:08 PM EST
    ...featured the cover story related graphic in the region the the main story is about them.  Or have they ever not run the cover graphic in country who was on the verge of invading/striking or whatever they are calling it.

    Seems unlikely, but I do not know.

    I doubt many people who subscribe or buy it are going to skip that story.  And the only time in the past decade I have read it is in a waiting room where there is a 80% I won't finish the 3 month old article.

    I don't know why it's rubbing me the wrong way, i can only guess because it's so GD blatant; the press here has just given up any pretense of objectivity.  And had Putin not brokered a deal and we decided to bomb, I would bet my last dollar that cover would not have seen the light of day and willful Obama cover would have hit the US market.

    But that is my opinion and I can't believe I have wasted time commenting, its so stooopid.


    Hey, dude! I just Googled ... (none / 0) (#28)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Sep 18, 2013 at 12:10:51 PM EST
    ... "time magazine cover putin conservative", and came up with THIS, THIS, and THIS.

    Polly want a cracker?


    Maybe I haven't had (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by sj on Wed Sep 18, 2013 at 12:32:13 PM EST
    enough coffee, but I don't get your point at all. You seem to be validating Mikado Cat's last sentence while sneering.

    No, I'm not. (none / 0) (#64)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Sep 18, 2013 at 03:12:13 PM EST
    I'm simply pointing out that Mikado and numerous other right-wing sources are parroting the same nonsensical talking point simultaneously.

    Oh (5.00 / 3) (#137)
    by sj on Thu Sep 19, 2013 at 06:31:28 PM EST
    Okay. Didn't read that way to me; maybe it did to others. I wouldn't go all nuts on that parrot business, though. The Rs don't have a monoply on it.

    That is Odd... (5.00 / 2) (#38)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Sep 18, 2013 at 01:03:03 PM EST
    ...in that most conservatives seem to think Putin didn't save the day, it was Kerry who actually suggested it...

    I swear, when it comes to dropping bombs on Syria, Snowden, the NSA, and Russia, conservative hatred of everything O is muted.  Arguing with conservatives that they administration is wrong and they being adamant they are not, is really screwing with my brain.  They won't go so far as backing Obama, just back what he and his administration are doing.

    It's like that Onion article someone posted last week about Obama rethinking his position in Syria after Boehner publicly gave Obama his support.

    I Googled 'Donald Hawaii Conservation'.  Not sure what they proves, but it odd how it bring us conservative hits...


    At a certain base level, ... (none / 0) (#68)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Sep 18, 2013 at 03:30:03 PM EST
    ... the art of practical politics in a democracy does require some amount of tension and contrarianism for it to be truly effective in developing public consensus.

    But of late, Republicans have been taking that concept to evermore extreme and now even absurd lengths, to the point that they would willingly  place the entire country's economic well-being at grave risk, simply to continue indulging their own fact-free socio-political misconceptions about the nature of health care delivery in general, and the Affordable Care Act in particular.

    The art of practical politics is never going to work optimally when one of the parties is behaving with all the emotional equivalence of a class of third-graders during afternoon recess.



    This convo made me google. (none / 0) (#70)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Sep 18, 2013 at 03:44:35 PM EST
    You might want to look at the wiki Hawaii Republican Party webpage and make an edit...

    Actually I take that back. (none / 0) (#73)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Sep 18, 2013 at 03:53:41 PM EST
    The Hawaii GOP is moribund. (none / 0) (#103)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Sep 18, 2013 at 11:05:01 PM EST
    Republicans only hold 8 of the 76 seats in the State Legislature, and one Maui County Council seat. That's makes us the most Democratic state in the entire country.

    Where it isn't (none / 0) (#126)
    by Mikado Cat on Thu Sep 19, 2013 at 04:02:55 PM EST
    says as much as where it is. Same for Benghazi, it wasn't that questions didn't need to be asked, and information revealed, it was about who asked questions and who acted like it was a bump in the road and phony scandal.

    If what you really want is only the news you would like to hear that puts a positive spin on things you favor and a negative spin on everything you don't, not much hope for you.


    Starbucks making policy change regarding guns (none / 0) (#13)
    by Angel on Wed Sep 18, 2013 at 10:04:18 AM EST
    inside their stores.  I'm wondering how people are going to know about this policy change if there are no signs explaining it and employees aren't going to ask or tell customers to leave their firearms behind.  Looks like a cop out to me.

    Tired of being thrust onto the front lines of the nation's debate over guns, Starbucks is asking customers to leave firearms behind when they are in its stores and its outdoor seating areas.
    Under the change, baristas and other store employees will not ask customers who come in with guns in holsters, say, to leave or confront them in any way, Mr. Schultz said. No signs explaining the policy will be posted in Starbucks stores, either.
    He said store officials would evaluate compliance over time and consider posting signs if necessary.

    Maybe Starbucks (5.00 / 2) (#14)
    by fishcamp on Wed Sep 18, 2013 at 10:12:04 AM EST
    could set up a mental evaluation table too.  But over in the corner for privacy.

    Cop Out? (none / 0) (#15)
    by squeaky on Wed Sep 18, 2013 at 10:21:48 AM EST
    Hardly, it is marketing... win win..  taking advantage of the advertising value of the hot story in the news.

    Safety issue too for employees (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by nycstray on Wed Sep 18, 2013 at 10:42:40 AM EST
    Since it can be a very 'hot' issue with some gun owners, don't think their employees really need to be put in the middle of policy and the 'pry it from my cold, dead hand' crowd . . .

    Yes (none / 0) (#17)
    by squeaky on Wed Sep 18, 2013 at 10:54:18 AM EST
    The self serving rhetoric about protecting their employees is touching... barf...

    Concealed gun owners now have an extra incentive to choose starbucks. As your famous Heston quote exemplifies, gun owners love being challenged to remove their weapons.

    And the liberal latte crowd is covered in spades.

    Quite brilliant for Starbucks to come up with this marketing strategy, imo.


    Aside from all your liberal latte crowd (5.00 / 2) (#19)
    by nycstray on Wed Sep 18, 2013 at 11:23:46 AM EST
    barf, I was just reacting to the fact that I sure as heck wouldn't want to be confronting gun owners at 9 bucks an hour . . . and since guns tend to go off . . . of course this is speaking from the perspective of a person who doesn't even like to stand on the NYC subway next to a cop with a gun :)

    Perhaps someone from the Heston belief crowd will open a counter chain called "Shot of Latte", for the guns only population ;)


    Yeah, Me Either (none / 0) (#23)
    by squeaky on Wed Sep 18, 2013 at 11:44:49 AM EST
    I also do not like to stand anywhere near a cop, they all have guns btw...  

    Do you think that the pseudo ban at starbucks also includes Police?

    That would be my preference..  

    Disarm the police then we can talk about disarming the population at large..   From my POV that is at the heart of the 2nd amendment and exactly why it was put in the constitution.


    I agree about not standing anywhere (none / 0) (#30)
    by nycstray on Wed Sep 18, 2013 at 12:13:36 PM EST
    next to a cop, but on the subway, I often seemed to be next to one and it's harder to move during rush hour :)

    I wouldn't mind policing per the Brits at all . . .

    I'm guessing SB's is going for that gun-free zone that is similar to an army base, police ok . . .


    According to their CEO (none / 0) (#24)
    by Yman on Wed Sep 18, 2013 at 11:46:11 AM EST
    ... that's the main reason they're worried about putting people in the position of enforcing it:

    In an interview with USA TODAY, also Tuesday, Schultz says: "The presence of a weapon in our stores is unsettling and upsetting for many of our customers."

    But, to be clear, Starbucks will not slap an outright ban on guns, he says, because enforcing such a ban "would potentially require our partners to confront armed customers."


    Just curious (none / 0) (#22)
    by Yman on Wed Sep 18, 2013 at 11:43:08 AM EST
    So your conclusion that this policy is just a marketing ploy is based on ... ?

    Starbucks (none / 0) (#27)
    by squeaky on Wed Sep 18, 2013 at 12:08:11 PM EST
    Not a charity but instead pulls in almost a billion dollars annually. The company was named after the chief mate of whaling ship in Moby-Dick.. and the a siren is their logo..

    And it is rather obvious that for the gun toting crowd this is an invitation. Do you seriously think that activists who comprise the large percentage of gun owners are going to leave their gun at home when they go for a latte, because Starbucks suggested it?

    I don't. This an empty gesture by Starbucks that can only be seen as marketing, imo. They are not going to give up gun toting customers, they are not going to do anything to limit their customer base.

    As gun laws in many US states have become more relaxed, and more states have adopted open carry or concealed carry statutes, some gun owners have begun carrying guns while performing every day shopping or other tasks. Many stores and companies have responded by banning the carrying of guns on their premises, as allowed by many states local laws. Starbucks has not instituted a policy banning guns in their stores.

    In 2010, the Brady Campaign proposed a boycott of Starbucks due to their gun policy.[213][214] At that time, Starbucks released a statement saying "We comply with local laws and statutes in all the communities we serve. That means we abide by the laws that permit open carry in 43 U.S. states. Where these laws don't exist, openly carrying weapons in our stores is prohibited. The political, policy and legal debates around these issues belong in the legislatures and courts, not in our stores."[215][216]

    In 2012, the National Gun Victims Action Council published an open letter to Starbucks, asking them to revise their policy, and also proposed a "Brew not Bullets" boycott of the chain until the policy is changed, with Valentine's Day selected as a particular day to boycott the chain.[217][218][219]

    In response, gun rights advocates started a counter "Starbucks Appreciation Day" buycott to support Starbucks stance, and suggested paying for products using two-dollar bills as a sign of Second Amendment support.[220][221][222]

    On July 29, 2013, the organization, Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America, initiated a petition demanding a ban on guns in Starbucks stores.[223]

    On September 17, 2013, founder and CEO Howard Schultz asked customers to no longer bring guns into its stores. He made the comments in an open letter on the company's website. Schultz said he was not banning guns, but making a request.[224]



    Matt Lower... (none / 0) (#31)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Sep 18, 2013 at 12:22:50 PM EST
    ...said that that in some states, where people can openly display guns, were showing their support for Starbucks with rallies of people displaying guns.

    Take it for what it's worth, I have no idea if that is true.  

    But where is the controversy, they policy is like nearly every other business and they are not going to ask anyone to remove their weapon.

    I found the old policy bizarre when you consider their demographic, but only from a business perspective.


    I thought so, too (none / 0) (#60)
    by Yman on Wed Sep 18, 2013 at 03:02:38 PM EST
    I found the old policy bizarre when you consider their demographic, but only from a business perspective.

    Starbucks has never been popular with the conservative crowd who prefers DD.  They've already urged boycotts of Starbucks over everything from Starbucks' support of gay marriage to the ACA to its "inappropriate" logo.  

    Maybe their original strategy was to straddle the fence to avoid offending as many people as possible.


    Sooooo ... (none / 0) (#56)
    by Yman on Wed Sep 18, 2013 at 02:44:16 PM EST
    Your logic is:

    1.  Starbucks makes money
    2.  Something about Moby Dick
    3.  They're request will likely not be honored, and
    4.  They've been pressured by both sides.

    Ergo, IYO it can only be a marketing ploy designed to take advantage of the Navy Yard shooting.


    You could have just said "Speculation" .... or "Nothing".

    BTW - No, I don't think a request will work, given the penchant of many 2A for confrontation.  OTOH - I can't blame the company for not wanting to put its employees in the position of asking armed people to leave.  Plus, there is no basis for the claim that they timed this to take advantage of the publicity of the Navy Yard shooting.  Schultz stated that they've been reviewing this policy for months and were responding to numerous complaints about guns being permitted in their stores.  He said they considered postponing the announcement due to the shooting.  OTOH, high profile shootings happen regularly in the U.S., so they would be just as likely to be cynically accused of a marketing ploy next week or next month, after the next shooting.

    BBTW - I can guarantee you there will be gun groups calling for a boycott of Starbucks as a result of this policy, despite the fact that it's merely a request.  I'd be happy to put $$$ on it if you'd like.


    I agree that employees shouldn't be the ones (none / 0) (#25)
    by Angel on Wed Sep 18, 2013 at 11:48:31 AM EST
    responsible for determining if a customer has a gun. I guess I wasn't clear on that in my comment.  My point was that they've created this new policy but there won't be notification of any kind at their stores, so essentially nothing's changing.  How can they enforce the policy when they don't give notice to that policy?  

    It's not really a policy (none / 0) (#26)
    by nycstray on Wed Sep 18, 2013 at 12:07:59 PM EST
    that would be a ban, it's a request . . .

    A policy is meant to achieve some outcome and (none / 0) (#35)
    by Angel on Wed Sep 18, 2013 at 12:36:52 PM EST
    this policy does nothing.  Their intent is that no guns be on their properties yet they don't tell their customers and they don't let their employees ask...how does that change anything?!  

    I agree completely (5.00 / 2) (#39)
    by shoephone on Wed Sep 18, 2013 at 01:11:08 PM EST
    I've been criticizing Starbucks on this issue for two years, and have posted my thoughts about it here on a few occasions. Schultz did this as a PR move because of the shooting at the D.C. naval yard (though he denies it -- big surprise). Either it's a policy, which includes enforceable action, or it isn't. This one isn't, precisely because he's terrified of having gun carrying customers be confronted and then having baristas get shot. He's trying to straddle both sides of the fence: placate anti-gun customers with this phony "policy" while not confronting or requiring any change in behavior from gun-toting customers.

    It's b.s., and typical Schultz behavior. If he had any cojones he'd institute a real no gun policy, just as Peet's Coffee has. I'm a Peet's customer, and won't step foot into a Starbuck's.


    And speaking of guns... (5.00 / 2) (#41)
    by Anne on Wed Sep 18, 2013 at 01:18:23 PM EST
    From The Guardian:

    Guns do not make a nation safer, say US doctors who have compared the rate of firearms-related deaths in countries where many people own guns with the death rate in countries where gun ownership is rare.

    Their findings, published Wednesday in the prestigious American Journal of Medicine, debunk the historic belief among many people in the United States that guns make a country safer, they say. On the contrary, the US, with the most guns per head in the world, has the highest rate of deaths from firearms, while Japan, which has the lowest rate of gun ownership, has the least.

    The journal has fast-tracked publication of the study because of the shootings at the Washington navy yard. It was originally scheduled for later this week.


    They examined data from 27 developed countries, using gun ownership figures from the Small Arms Survey and deaths from the World Health Organisation, the National Center for Health Statistics and others. They also looked at crime rates compiled by the United Nations for an indication of the safety of each country.

    More guns meant more deaths, they found. "The gun ownership rate was a strong and independent predictor of firearm-related death," says Bangalore. "Private gun ownership was highest in the US. Japan, on the other end, had an extremely low gun ownership rate. Similarly, South Africa (9.4 per 100,000) and the US (10.2 per 100,000) had extremely high firearm-related deaths, whereas the United Kingdom (0.25 per 100,000) had an extremely low rate of firearm-related deaths.

    "There was a significant correlation between guns per head per country and the rate of firearm-related deaths with Japan being on one end of the spectrum and the US being on the other. This argues against the notion of more guns translating into less crime. South Africa was the only outlier in that the observed firearms-related death rate was several times higher than expected from gun ownership."

    High rates of mental illness in any country, on the other hand, did not predict more gun deaths.

    Golly, who'd a thunk it?

    Since I doubt this will get the kind of media attention it deserves, I guess we'll be spared the outraged cries of conservatives who've been arguing for years that more guns means we're more safe.


    Anne... (5.00 / 3) (#47)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Sep 18, 2013 at 01:56:01 PM EST
    ...there is literally no piece of evidence or number of dead bodies that are going to change anything.

    This report will be debunked by some another group of doctors on the Colt payroll.  I call it the 'Global Warming is a Myth' model.  For every real scientists/experts/doctors.  They will be debunk with their corporate report/scientist/experts/doctor.


    I know, Scott - maybe if the gun lobby has (none / 0) (#51)
    by Anne on Wed Sep 18, 2013 at 02:23:22 PM EST
    its way, eventually we will be at the level of mutually assured destruction.


    Some days, I just can't stand all the stupid.


    And I tried calling Starbucks an hour ago (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by shoephone on Wed Sep 18, 2013 at 01:20:16 PM EST
    to get clarification on how this "policy" is an actual policy...lo and behold,, they are not answering their phones at Starbucks Corporation today.

    I Think in States... (none / 0) (#43)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Sep 18, 2013 at 01:26:53 PM EST
    ...where people can openly display weapons, it's going to at the very least get them concealed.

    And if they are concealed properly, one one should know whose packaging.

    See my remarks above about open displays.


    They seem to be 'informing' their customers (none / 0) (#46)
    by nycstray on Wed Sep 18, 2013 at 01:53:20 PM EST
    via news and taking out an ad for tomorrow . . . {shrug}

    I don't know, (none / 0) (#32)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Sep 18, 2013 at 12:29:44 PM EST
    did they previously give notification at the stores that guns were welcome?

    I would hope it would be assumed... (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by kdog on Wed Sep 18, 2013 at 12:49:57 PM EST
    that a coffee shop ain't a firing range...but I guess I assume too much, the wild west look must be back in style this season.

    I'm with you (none / 0) (#48)
    by nycstray on Wed Sep 18, 2013 at 01:58:10 PM EST
    If these pansies... (5.00 / 2) (#49)
    by kdog on Wed Sep 18, 2013 at 02:07:57 PM EST
    with guns can order a mocha-choca-macallit with a glock, I wanna order one without shoes and a shirt! ;)

    And I want Rox, indoors, on the chair (5.00 / 3) (#55)
    by nycstray on Wed Sep 18, 2013 at 02:40:58 PM EST
    next to me :) I wonder if she likes to lap the whipped cream off drinks like the Dot did . . .

    Now we're talking... (5.00 / 2) (#57)
    by kdog on Wed Sep 18, 2013 at 02:47:23 PM EST
    the customer is always right...right?

    I'd rather drink my overpriced burnt coffee sitting next to one of Dot's doodies, than next to a loaded weapon strapped to a human pile of doodie.

    Not to imply you wouldn't curb Dot, I know you would kid;)


    It's now Rox . . . (5.00 / 2) (#58)
    by nycstray on Wed Sep 18, 2013 at 02:56:26 PM EST
    Dot passed on . . . and yes, curbing is a very import part of doggie ownership :) And I hope you wouldn't be offended by a stray dog hair (on the chair!!) that I don't have control over ;)

    It's funny, I can't take my dog into places that serve food (unless she's a SD) because it could be a health issue, but guns . . . hey, why not! we got rights!!

    Maybe if we had more dog ownership/acceptance in public spaces, we would have less shoot outs?


    Sorry.... (5.00 / 3) (#61)
    by kdog on Wed Sep 18, 2013 at 03:03:30 PM EST
    I'd eat or drink next to Rox or the dear departed Dot anytime...as long as they don't have one of the Bushmaster Canine Collection strapped to their hind quarters.

    I'm a total dog lover (none / 0) (#59)
    by shoephone on Wed Sep 18, 2013 at 02:58:12 PM EST
    and dog sit for friends whenever asked. BUt I don't want either a gun or a dog next to me when I'm eating at a restaurant.

    Most dogs (5.00 / 2) (#65)
    by nycstray on Wed Sep 18, 2013 at 03:13:54 PM EST
    lie under the table/side of owners chair on the floor. If I was allowed to bring Rox, she would be there also. And, it would be fully within your rights to request another table (dog or gun owner next to you).

    btw, you have a better chance of being exposed to a bratty/screaming/germ infested child. Dogs are expected to behave/not disturb others in public, children, not so much. Gun owners . . . {shrug}


    Sorry, but restaurants are for people (none / 0) (#78)
    by shoephone on Wed Sep 18, 2013 at 04:23:21 PM EST
    There is no reason for animals to be in restaurants unless they are certified aid dogs. Furthermore, while I'm not allergic, lots of people are. And some people are just plain frightened of dogs. To suggest that a paying customer needs to move to another table because some other customer is so attached to their dog they can't leave it at home strikes me as a very disrespectful expectation, and frankly, a priority that's way out of whack. IMO.

    You do realize, I am operating (5.00 / 1) (#80)
    by nycstray on Wed Sep 18, 2013 at 04:37:22 PM EST
    under the assumption dogs are just as welcome as guns are :) You would 'have the right' to ask to sit elsewhere, take your biz elsewhere etc. As for severe allergies, you would no more walk into a dog friendly place now, than you would a dog friendly eating joint in my little scenario. Luckily for non-dog people, you'll know if you're in a dog friendly place, not so much a gun one . . .

    I do realize my second paragraph may have thrown you off, but it is a bit of truth, unruly kids will always get more of a pass than an unruly canine . . . and again, gun owners got rights! D@mnit!!! so they don't need to worry about no stinkin' public behavior/opinion ;)


    No Offense, But this Dog Owner... (none / 0) (#82)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Sep 18, 2013 at 05:14:02 PM EST
    ... is in the shoephone court, you dog may be great and clean, but I don't know that, nor do I know if that 70 lbs German Sheppard eyeing me up is as well adjusted and disease free, ditto for the owner.

    I would never return to place in which I found a human hair near my food, nor would I eat at a place that serves food and allows dogs, they clearly aren't concerned with hygiene.  It's why I can find good Chinese beyond the chains, I walk in the bathroom and realize they have absolutely understanding of hygiene and how it relates to health.

    They have a couple of bars in town where they are permitted for dogs.  It's disguising, dogs laying on bar floors which at neighborhood bars are cleaned when the filth starts sticking to people shoes.  The same dogs who will shortly be laying on their furniture that most likely include the bed.  It makes me shiver just thinking about it.

    Taking a dog into a place not permitted for it is IMO showing a complete disregard for the other patrons who might be as enlightened as you in regards in places they aren't suppose to be.


    You obviously did not really read (5.00 / 2) (#84)
    by nycstray on Wed Sep 18, 2013 at 05:45:57 PM EST
    what I wrote.

    and BTW, there are some very nice places that allow dogs on their patios and they are no dirtier than any other similar eating establishment. There's a lil' thing called food safety requirements. And there's also more upscale bars that allow dogs and clean their floors.

    I NEVER said anything about taking dogs where they were not permitted (or welcomed). And where dogs are permitted, there's pretty much an unwritten (many times it IS written) that if your dog can't behave, it's not welcome/must leave. Heck many/most DOG parks are that way. Again, not so much when it comes to children and gun owners and other peoples rights . .   :)


    Hoo ha ... one of the better dinners (5.00 / 1) (#85)
    by christinep on Wed Sep 18, 2013 at 06:16:33 PM EST
    was in Paris ... where my sister & I dined in a small restaurant with white starched tablecloth, red roses, wonderful staff & owner, very private (and stumbled upon) AND the in-house pregnant cocker spaniel who sat near the table by chance and leisurely savored the beef under the table that I fed her.

    Different strokes for different folks.  And, Paris--which, I hear, does know a bit about food & food service--does it differently.


    Then there's the english pub pups :) (5.00 / 2) (#90)
    by nycstray on Wed Sep 18, 2013 at 06:54:35 PM EST
    My old 'hood in Brooklyn was getting pretty pet friendly on the eating front. Most of it was sidewalk or patio dining, but again, food /restaurant safety was in place. Kinda nice to meet your friends and their pups for brunch on a lovely weekend morning, and then walk it off in the park :)

    There's the added hidden benefit also, the more places that accept dogs, the more owners will work on their manners. Bottom line, most people don't want to have "THAT dog", lol!~ but would like to include their pet on family/friend outings.


    Yes, I read what you wrote (none / 0) (#91)
    by shoephone on Wed Sep 18, 2013 at 07:25:20 PM EST
    I simply don't agree with it.

    As for dogs in Paris, at least they are finally doing something to get dog owners to clean up the mess their pooches leave all over the sidewalks. I love Paris and had a great time there, but the dog sh*t everywhere is not a pleasant memory. And I never had to deal with dogs in the restaurants either.

    But the French still do a superior job of raising their kids to know how to behave in public.

    But it's not s zero sum game, ie., either dogs or kids or guns. Those comparisons don't even make sense to me.


    Sorry, didn't see the response was to Scott (none / 0) (#92)
    by shoephone on Wed Sep 18, 2013 at 07:28:55 PM EST
    Once the threads go to that point, it's sometimes hard to know which comment is being responded to. (And I guess I could have clicked "parent" to see, but even then...)

    And, for the record, (none / 0) (#79)
    by shoephone on Wed Sep 18, 2013 at 04:25:27 PM EST
    I'm not too enamored of bratty, out of control children ruining an evening out either. Americans could learn some things about child rearing from our European neighbors.

    From What I Can Piece Together... (none / 0) (#44)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Sep 18, 2013 at 01:32:08 PM EST
    ...business in states with open carry can decide if they want to allow weapons inside, and Starbucks said OK months ago.

    Starbucks, which unlike many restaurant chains and retailers until now tolerated guns inside its coffee shops, had been embraced by gun-rights activists as a champion of their cause. The new policy took shape over a period of months, Schultz said, and wasn't related to this week's Washington Navy Yard shooting rampage, which prompted Democrats in Congress to renew their campaign for tougher gun-control laws.

    "Pro-gun activists have used our stores as a political stage for media events misleadingly called `Starbucks Appreciation Days' that disingenuously portray Starbucks as a champion of `open carry,'" Schultz wrote in an open letter released today. "To be clear: we do not want these events in our stores."



    Personally, I sympathize (none / 0) (#50)
    by NYShooter on Wed Sep 18, 2013 at 02:10:53 PM EST
    with owners who have to deal with, not only gun issues but, all sorts of other social issues, also. I don't patronize Starbucks and, don't particularly care for Schultz either. But, I think he's handling this about as well as possible. He's a businessman, not a social engineer; his responsibility is to the business. And, regardless of which way he leans on the issue of guns in his stores he's going to piss off a whole lot of people.

    It's great to sit here and pontificate about what's "right," but, what's not so great is that sometimes doing "what's right" also leads to bankruptcy.

    And, as far as promoting/advertising his policies I think he's also right in letting "word of mouth" do it for him. Why polarize, or inflame, the issue any more than necessary. Everyone here heard about his positions somehow; a company as big and famous as Starbucks doesn't have to go out of its way to "inform" the public about its wishes.


    Costco doesn't seem to have suffered (none / 0) (#52)
    by shoephone on Wed Sep 18, 2013 at 02:25:21 PM EST
    any loss of business. They've banned members from entering their stores with guns. But you're right about Schultz: he's a businessman, and it's all about the money for him, always has been.

    Here's the link (none / 0) (#53)
    by shoephone on Wed Sep 18, 2013 at 02:29:30 PM EST
    for Costco's no gun policy.

    As stated in that link, it is a longstanding policy of the company.


    Pretty brave (none / 0) (#127)
    by Mikado Cat on Thu Sep 19, 2013 at 04:07:27 PM EST
    telling someone armed they can't have coffee.

    Actually, it would be ... (none / 0) (#129)
    by Yman on Thu Sep 19, 2013 at 04:18:59 PM EST
    ... telling them they have to leave or leave their gun outside the business.  In case you haven't noticed, it doesn't take much to set some of these guys off.

    Convictions of NOLA police (none / 0) (#76)
    by oculus on Wed Sep 18, 2013 at 04:10:27 PM EST
    overturned due to trash talking Internet postings by fed. prosecutors under user Ids.


    That wasn't just being stupid... (5.00 / 1) (#93)
    by unitron on Wed Sep 18, 2013 at 07:41:08 PM EST
    ...that was working hard at being stupid.

    Tom DeLay Conviction Reversed (none / 0) (#117)
    by Dadler on Thu Sep 19, 2013 at 10:32:25 AM EST