Thursday Open Thread

The Wall St. Journal has an article today about a recent 5th Circuit opinion reining in multi-district wiretapping. The opinion is here.

Here's an open thread, all topics welcome.

< Tom DeLay's Conviction Overturned | Friday Open Thread >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    AN AXE LENGTH AWAY, vol. 132 (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by Dadler on Thu Sep 19, 2013 at 12:44:49 PM EST
    The patented Compatibility Matching System® still has a few bugs in it. (link)

    Vol. 131
    Vol. 130

    Happy Thursday, my friends. Is it basketball season yet?


    New Republican conspiracy theory? :-) (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by MO Blue on Thu Sep 19, 2013 at 02:06:49 PM EST
    "Cruz is the leader of a secret cabal of leftists that are seeking control of the conservative movement," quipped one senior House Republican leadership source. "Their aim is to force the party to take on suicidal missions to destroy the movement from within." link

    Because he acknowledged (5.00 / 2) (#9)
    by Zorba on Thu Sep 19, 2013 at 02:40:05 PM EST
    the reality that ACA defunding won't pass the Senate, he's seen as some kind of leftist?
    Truly, the Tea Party types have way more than veered off into Fantasyland.  If they were not so dangerous to the country on a fundamental level, I would be laughing my @ss off.  But unfortunately, we cannot ignore their potential for doing extensive harm to this nation.

    But You Can... (none / 0) (#20)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Sep 19, 2013 at 03:18:25 PM EST
    ...laugh your A off at the fact that the deranged idiots have turned on one of their star deranged idiots with the worse possible insult they could ever wage, "He's part of a liberal conspiracy".

    And even if they had the votes in the Senate, they would need 291 in the House and 66 to override the obvious veto from Obama on his signature legislation.

    Fear not, according to the article:

    For liberals, Cruz and the tea party have been the gift that keeps on giving. In both 2011 and 2012, tea party opposition staved off a "grand bargain" between Boehner and Obama that would have brought draconian cuts to Medicare and Social Security. In 2010 and again in 2012, the tea party pushed extreme Republicans through Senate primaries, where they subsequently lost winnable races in Delaware, Nevada, Colorado, Indiana and Missouri.

    It's too bad Cruz decided to have a moment of clarity because this fight would have cost the republicans dearly in 2014 IMO.


    Me (none / 0) (#22)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Thu Sep 19, 2013 at 04:16:49 PM EST
    I wouldn't put it past Obama in the 11th hour to say...oh gee, we had to get rid of subsidies in the 11th hour so the debt ceiling increase will pass.

    At my house, we call Prez Obama "Mr. Grand Bargain."


    Speaking of the Liberal Conspiracy, ... (none / 0) (#31)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Sep 19, 2013 at 05:25:31 PM EST
    ... could you please do us a favor and send us the minutes to the last meeting? We had an onvious conflict that night because we had accepted a prior invitation from the ACORN Liberation Front to make a presentation on how to intimidate white people while simultaneously committing widespread voter fraud without leaving any traceable records, before making our annual appearance at the Homosexual Agenda to promote turning more straight kids into gays.



    Nobody ever sends me the memos... (none / 0) (#39)
    by unitron on Thu Sep 19, 2013 at 06:53:59 PM EST
    ...about any of those get togethers.

    All by myself like this, it's hard to even keep a half-vast left wing conspiracy going.


    That would be some 11-dimensional cult, (none / 0) (#6)
    by Anne on Thu Sep 19, 2013 at 02:24:27 PM EST
    wouldn't it?  I guess we're sure this "senior House Republican" wasn't just being snarky?

    I think they are just livid that Cruz isn't hopping on the bandwagon of holding the budget and the debt ceiling hostage to the defunding of Obamacare...

    How are people like this getting elected?  I am not kidding when I say that it simply boggles my mind that there are voters who have bought into this kind of craziness, in numbers sufficient to get these nutters elected to Congress.

    I think we need to start identifying these people as being "(R, Crazy Town, USA)"


    The voters who (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by Zorba on Thu Sep 19, 2013 at 02:53:47 PM EST
    buy into this craziness are truly clueless.
    Maybe at least some of them would realize what a total government shut-down would mean if HHS stopped delivering Social Security checks, S.S. disability payments and Medicare reimbursements.   Shut down the VA hospitals.  Stop paying the military. And so on.  (Not that this would happen.)
    Do I advocate this?  No, because it would cause so much hardship among those who can least afford it.
    But perhaps it might take something like this to make at least more than a few voters to wake the f*ck up.

    And just selfish (5.00 / 3) (#54)
    by Yman on Fri Sep 20, 2013 at 08:23:43 AM EST
    A lot of these supporters don't really care about the effects, because it won't affect them directly - or they think it won't.  As usual, they'll oppose almost all forms of government or social spending unless they receive a direct benefit from it.  They're good with less $$ for foodstamps, Medicaid SCHIP, etc., but if you try to touch anything that they receive, they're just fine with pushing anyone else over the edge.

    Gets worse when you consider how (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by Anne on Fri Sep 20, 2013 at 09:35:29 AM EST
    these well-paid members of Congress have no problem making use of taxpayer-funded per-diems to get plenty to eat while traveling:

       "Let me give you a few examples: One member was given $127.41 a day for food on his trip to Argentina. He probably had a fair amount of steak," the California Democrat continued. "Another member was given $3,588 for food and lodging during a six-day trip to Russia. He probably drank a fair amount of vodka and probably even had some caviar. That particular member has 21,000 food stamp recipients in his district. One of those people who is on food stamps could live a year on what this congressman spent on food and lodging for six days."

        Speier was most likely referring to Rep. Steve King (R-IA), who traveled to Russia with an official U.S. Congressional delegation in September. According to the Des Moines Register, King could have eaten for 881 days on food stamps for the $3,588 he spent during six-day trip to Russia.

    The thing that really gets to me is the rationale for the cuts: it will encourage people to go get jobs.  Apparently, people like Eric Cantor are not aware that the majority of those receiving benefits from SNAP are already working.

    What's next?  Change the child-labor laws so the kids who have no control over mom and dad's income can get out there and start working for food?

    Just disgusting.


    Republicans have already suggested (5.00 / 1) (#80)
    by MO Blue on Fri Sep 20, 2013 at 11:47:04 AM EST
    doing away with child labor laws.

    The War On Child Labor Laws
    While the article lists numerous ways Republicans in various states want to exploit children, I'm ashamed to say a Rep. in MO has exceeded her Republicans colleagues in how far she wants to go in bringing back child labor.

    Missouri State Sen. Jane Cunningham (R) introduced a bill which would "eliminate[] the prohibition on employment of children under age fourteen. Restrictions on the number of hours and restrictions on when a child may work during the day are also removed."

    Funny, I have a 14 y/o, and am friends (none / 0) (#81)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Sep 20, 2013 at 11:57:07 AM EST
    with a number of the parents of his friends. Just last weekend we had a bbq and about a dozen of us parents were sitting around as the kids swam, and one of the topics we discussed was, of course, how different is was for us when we were kids compared to our own kids.

    Anyway, as it turned out, every single parent at that table had had some kind of a part-time job before they were 14, and none of our kids have.


    I'm not real sure what your point is (5.00 / 1) (#94)
    by MO Blue on Fri Sep 20, 2013 at 01:24:58 PM EST
    if it is in reply to my post. The MO Rep. wants to eliminate the prohibition on employment of children under age fourteen and remove all restrictions on the number of hours and restrictions on when a child may work during the day are also removed.

    Are you in favor of allowing children under the age of fourteen working unlimited hours during the day when he/she should be in school? Is there an age limit that you think is acceptable for putting a child to work...either part time or full time? If so, what do you feel would be acceptable to you.

    As a point of reference my children are in their late 40s. There were child labor laws in force when I was the age of your child which required obtaining a (hard to get) work permit for anyone under the age of 16 to work and limited the number of hours anyone under 16 could work very much like they are today.


    I dunno. (none / 0) (#98)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Sep 20, 2013 at 02:58:28 PM EST
    I started out selling pizza and coffee for tips at bingo when I was about 10 or so. In the summer after 6th & 7th grades I worked 5 days/week for a lawn-care guy mowing lawns.

    During the school year of 8th grade I hooked up with my neighbor who had weekend business building decks and stuff, and swung a hammer for him every Sat and Sun.

    The summer after 8th grade I continued with that neighbor on the weekends and found another contractor for the weekdays.

    In HS I had my own biz mowing laws, home maintenance/handyman and light construction.

    I have no idea of the child employment laws back then (mid-late '70's), maybe that was illegal. If so, it doesn't seem right.

    Regardless, I feel I benefitted greatly from that experience.

    For the first time in my life I took responsibility for being on time, doing good work, etc., that was not parent or teacher dictated.

    And I had money in my pocket to buy albums, a stereo, fishing stuff, etc.

    I really don't know anything about child employment laws now either. Would it be illegal for a U14 kid to do that type of stuff now?


    So you would be in favor of eliminating (5.00 / 1) (#99)
    by MO Blue on Fri Sep 20, 2013 at 03:19:23 PM EST
    the child labor laws? Elimination of age restrictions and restrictions on the number of hours worked or when a child may work during the day is O.K. with you?

    For example: It would be permissible for a retail entity to hire 10 - 14 year olds for 8 hour shifts during school hours to stock shelves and pay them $3 - $4 under the minimum wage for their work.  


    Don't be ridiculous. (none / 0) (#102)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Sep 20, 2013 at 03:24:52 PM EST
    Is it not already illegal for school-aged children to not be in school during school hours?

    Are you in favor of there being no option for U14's to work at all during the summer/weekends?


    I'm not the one being ridiculous (5.00 / 1) (#114)
    by MO Blue on Fri Sep 20, 2013 at 04:45:28 PM EST
    As clearly stated in my two previous comments, the proposed legislation by the MO Rep. eliminates all age restrictions as well as all restrictions on the number of hours worked and restrictions on when a child may work during the day are also removed. We are not talking about kids working a few hours a week for spending money. Without these laws nothing, let me repeat that once again, nothing makes it illegal for a company to hire young children for full time work during the school year or for any other time whats so ever.

    and accusingly, cast me as being in favor of: "eliminating the child labor laws and elimination of age restrictions and restrictions on the number of hours worked or when a child may work during the day."

    This in lieu of actual honest conversation.


    All of my comments dealth with (5.00 / 1) (#120)
    by MO Blue on Fri Sep 20, 2013 at 05:18:19 PM EST
    specifically and clearly with "eliminating the child labor laws and elimination of age restrictions and restrictions on the number of hours worked or when a child may work during the day."

    Nothing in the proposed legislation that I quoted limited the work performed by children under the age of 14 to part time or summer work. In fact, as clearly stated, the proposed legislation eliminated the requirement that the hours and timing be limited.

    When asked if you were in favor of eliminating these laws you responded:

    I dunno

    Your comments stated that it was character building experience for children under 14 to work on a regular basis. In fact, you went down to age 10 per your own experience.

    At no time did you state that you opposed the legislation that was addressed in my comments. You apparently decided to have a different argument - in lieu of having an honest conversation.


    to me, and I responded with my youth work history.

    However, in the future I will note that when responding to you I must proclaim support or opposition to your comment, that way you'll know whether you're having a conversation or an argument.


    Prior to asking what was acceptable, (5.00 / 1) (#125)
    by MO Blue on Fri Sep 20, 2013 at 06:07:37 PM EST
    I asked:

    Are you in favor of allowing children under the age of fourteen working unlimited hours during the day when he/she should be in school?

    Since all those who responded to your initial comments on the subject defended the need for the child labor laws, it appears that it may have been unclear whether you were defending eliminating these laws.


    was about all us parents having worked P/T while youths, so your asking me about unlimited hours during school was unclear as well.

    I am not opposed to youths picking up part-time work if they wish to and can manage it, no more than I am opposed to them spending similar amounts of time in youth sports, etc.


    Though I am thankful of learning about (none / 0) (#119)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Sep 20, 2013 at 05:15:10 PM EST
    the child labor laws regarding 14 y/o's and younger.

    The real problem (5.00 / 2) (#106)
    by christinep on Fri Sep 20, 2013 at 03:40:53 PM EST
    is not the permissive ("I get to work a few hours here & there to learn the value of making money or whatever.)  The real problem is what that step leads to without laws & regulations protecting minors.  

    In the past--see reams of info and background on abusive child labor in history--the non-regulatory approach in 19th and early 20th century America led to children deep in the mines breathing in the air of a future black lung patient, children in sewing sweatshops, children in the nation's grease pits, etc.  While it might not have been identical to Dickensian London, it was close to it.  Many countries still struggle with that emaciating type of child abuse. No, the making-a-few-dollars-a-day thing to which you allude is a far cry from the reality of putting hard labor, even for adults, on the backs of children.  Without strict regulation, the la-la land of a few $$$ here and there becomes the harsh tomorrow of unprotected children where neither the type of work nor number of hours is regulated.  That is what that kind of "marketplace" would devolve to without strict controls.


    Well said... (5.00 / 1) (#107)
    by kdog on Fri Sep 20, 2013 at 03:59:49 PM EST
    I would add what jobs are there for even legal working age teens with all the underemployed adults working the McJobs?  Never mind 13 year olds.

    Lots of ways for kids to learn work ethic while leaving child labor laws in place...parents making them actually work for an allowance, the shoveling snow and mowing lawns thing, etc.  Me and my little brother used to collect cans from local businesses to get our ice cream man money.  

    Or when dad would take us to work with him, he'd throw us a couple bucks for working the drill press (heavily supervised of course) or running for tools...but that was probably illegal;)


    The working-for-an-allowance thing (none / 0) (#110)
    by christinep on Fri Sep 20, 2013 at 04:13:13 PM EST
    was a reality for me and my sister ... when we weren't doing the baby-sitting jobs that we had lined up in the neighborhood.  The generational training in your family, kdog, sounds a lot like mine.

    the same thing.

    Since the '70s followed (none / 0) (#101)
    by sj on Fri Sep 20, 2013 at 03:21:10 PM EST
    1937 child labor laws, they were indeed in effect back then. What you are describing is "odd jobs", much like babysitting, not part-time jobs. Although frankly speaking, I'm not sure what difference would be legally. Were you issued a check or paid in cash?

    I'm not sure what you mean here:

    If so, it doesn't seem right.
    What doesn't seem right? That children were protected? Or that you may have been breaking the law?

    I know that I was unable to get a real part-time job until I turned 16 (you know, the kind that required my SSN and gave me a paycheck) while I as able to pick up the occasional odd job.


    by check, hard to remember. All of the jobs paid min wage or slightly above, iirc.

    I did get my SS at around that time, though it may have been HS. I do not remember if any of these jobs asked for it.

    What I meant was if I was working illegally, imo, it shouldn't have been.


    Actually, I'm sure I was paid by check. (none / 0) (#105)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Sep 20, 2013 at 03:36:56 PM EST
    Slado: "I really don't know anything about child employment laws now either. Would it be illegal for a U14 kid to do that type of stuff now?"

    Neighborhood odd jobs excepted, it is the established policy of the State of Hawaii that a minor who's under 16 years of age has absolutely no business whatsoever either seeking employment or being employed, because his or her first obligation is to attend school.

    A minor between the ages of 16 and 18 years who is enrolled in school may be employed by a business establishment, provided that his or her hours of employment are restricted to between the hours of 3:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. Monday through Friday and 9:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. on weekends and holidays, and further must not exceed 19 hours in any given week. Employers who violate that law face rather stiff penalties.

    The underlying premise for Hawaii's restrictions -- which Stuart Varney of Fox News once ludicrously called "draconian" -- on a minor's employment is to encourage our children to stay in and finish high school, and not provide unscrupulous employers an opportunity to seduce teenagers with the prospect of quick cash in hand.

    (I believe that Hawaii is one of the very few states which does not allow a minor child under 18 years of age to drop out of school. That said, children out here can and do occasionally separate from the school system for a variety of reasons, but it's actually against the law for them not to be in school during school hours. And parents / legal guardians can and will be cited and charged accordingly if their minor children cause trouble as a result of their truancy.)

    Personally, I feel that it is very poor and shortsighted state policy to loosen restrictions on child labor, which could have the unfortunate effect of offering kids -- and some of their parents, too, for that matter -- a ready excuse to drop out of school and enter the work force prematurely. (Are you listening, Texas?)

    Our country has a long and rather unsavory past with the crass exploitation of child labor for private gain, and I would suggest that we would not want a repeat performance of that sorry chapter of U.S. labor history.



    it is the established policy of the State of Hawaii that a minor who's under 16 years of age has absolutely no business whatsoever either seeking employment or being employed

    Are you sure?

    Under the Hawaii Child Labor Law, a child labor certificate or "work permit" is required for working minors until they reach 18 years of age.  [...]

    Certificate of Employment (for 14- and 15-year-old minors)

    When a 14- or 15-year-old minor is hired, the employer is required to obtain a Certificate of Employment before the minor starts working.

    Unless It's Agriclutural (5.00 / 1) (#121)
    by ScottW714 on Fri Sep 20, 2013 at 05:21:03 PM EST
    I can attest that growing up on cash crop farm, that it sucks to have to spend about half your waking hours in the summer working on the farm.

    My dad paid us well, the same as the his friends from work that would help out.  When the weather was nice, your worked  12 + hours and when it wasn't, you couldn't enjoy it the things other kids did.

    It did teach me things, but being forced to work your summer vacation, even for good pay seriously blows.  And I can promise you I was working, mostly driving tractor, just as soon as my legs were strong enough to press a tractor clutch.  And it dangerous, I got my leg wrapped around a read wheel of a moving tractor at age 5.  Which I actually loved, my bed was put in the middle of living room and I was waiting on because I had a body cast, plus I got out of half of my kindergarten year.

    But that is working for my father who is an extremely kind person, it's just the nature of family farming.  Even now, if go up in the summer, there ain't no way the old man is gonna let potential labor slip away.  

    Our neighbors who had milking cows, kids up up at like 5 to help milk and to beda round 8 after milking, and that is 365.  We were lucky in that we had no animals so the farm was silent for half the year and only mildly busy for some months, but the three moths of summer...  Kids should not dread every summer of their childhood IMO.

    The child labor laws have have been on the books since the Depression, grown ass men were taking kids jobs for kids wages.  They weren't enacted to protect kids from being exploited, it was to keep desperate adults from being exploited like kids.

    They are rarely enforced because no one pays a kids through payroll, it's cash, which is fine, and unless someone can point to a problem beyond Business owners never ending whining about the cost of labor, they are needed.  If anything, they need to tightened up the Ag exemption so migrant kids quite being exploited by Corporate Ag.  I had read that something like 75 of the hand picked produce in America is done by people younger than 16.

    They travel from the sound to the north with the seasons, families of migrant workers, so they aren't real concerned about all kids attending school.  And I would imagine anyone that wants a worker, there's some sort of home school exemption for the Ag industry as well.  But I do not know.

    Choosing to work and being forced are entirely different concepts, for me the money was pointless in that I was too busy working to spend it at the optimal time.  And my parents were pretty good about giving us spending cash when we asked for it, so to me at least, it was nothing but a number in a book.


    You got to drive tractors? (none / 0) (#126)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri Sep 20, 2013 at 06:11:39 PM EST
    Scott: "And I can promise you I was working, mostly driving tractor, just as soon as my legs were strong enough to press a tractor clutch."

    I loved driving tractors in northern Illinois when I was a teenager and visited my grandparents' farm outside Wauconda during the summer. I don't know why, I just thought it was way cool at the time, probably because I never had the opportunity to do anything similar in suburban L.A.

    I remember when my 16-year-old uncle (who was only three years older than us) first allowed my 13-year-old cousin and me to drive one of my grandfather's tractors. So off we merrily went, only to roll the machine into a shallow ditch, about 150 yards from the barn, and they had to use a pulley to get it upright and tow it out.

    My grandfather was (rightly) furious with my uncle for allowing us to drive -- and truth be told, he was not very happy with us grandsons, either. We did our best to stay out of his way for the rest of the day. Ah, the joyous follies of youth ...



    Thank you. I stand corrected. (none / 0) (#122)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri Sep 20, 2013 at 05:50:38 PM EST
    They've amended the law since I worked in the legislature full-time, to allow for 14- and 15-year-olds. But as you no doubt noticed, the restrictions on such employment are still quite considerable, including not more than 3 hours per day on a school day, 8 hours per day on a non-school day, and not more than 18 hours during any given school week.

    I suppose it's a reasonable amendment, especially when compared to Texas, which allows 14- and 15-year-olds to work:

    • Up to 8 hours in one day and 48 hours in one week; and
    • Between the hours of 5:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. on school days, and between 5:00 a.m. and midnight on weekends, holidays and summer recess.

    When I was growing up in California, employers were not allowed to hire minors under 16 years of age, period. The sole exceptions were in family-owned businesses that hired their relatives, and also in employment related to agriculture -- the latter, I guess, because a lot of people back then still thought Mexican kids didn't count. (Cesar Chavez subsequently changed that.)

    I believe that most of us understand perfectly well why kids would be in favor of being allowed to get jobs, because we probably remember feeling the same way when we were their age. And given the often severe economic stresses under which families are muddling through as of late, the idea of an additional paycheck for the household probably does sound awfully attractive.

    But I just think it's very dubious public policy to allow for the hiring of young teenagers, when their minds should really be focused on their education. It's just one more indication how we're shortchanging the future to pay for the present.



    Well, like you've previously stated, (none / 0) (#124)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Sep 20, 2013 at 05:57:43 PM EST
    HI is the most Democratic state in the country, so by definition the (D) amendment must be reasonable. ;-)

    What was the consensus? (none / 0) (#91)
    by Yman on Fri Sep 20, 2013 at 12:49:25 PM EST
    That it was a good change or a bad change?

    Generally we thought a PT job would be (none / 0) (#93)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Sep 20, 2013 at 01:12:18 PM EST
    good for them. Though since school, sports, etc., have filled their days much more completely than it ever did for us, back in the day, none of us really could put a finger on what kind of PT job they could realistically do.

    I think kids can learn a lot ... (5.00 / 1) (#113)
    by Yman on Fri Sep 20, 2013 at 04:43:43 PM EST
    ... of good lessons from working part time.  that being said, I also think there are very good reasons that the FLSA limits the amount and type of work kids can do.  Plus, kids today generally have much more of their time taken up by organized activities/extracurricular/sports/etc.  Not to mention that sometimes these stories of parents reminiscing about their hard-working youth (not you) remind of - "When I was a kid, we had to walk 10 miles through snow, uphill to school ... both ways!".

    In general (under federal law), kids under 14 are allowed to deliver newspapers; perform in radio, television, movie, or theatrical productions; work in businesses owned by their parents (except in mining, manufacturing or hazardous jobs); and perform babysitting or perform minor chores around a private home.  Oddly enough, they're also allowed to be employed as homeworkers to gather evergreens and make evergreen wreaths.  Some states have stricter laws.

    My two oldest kids have each worked part-time jobs, but not until age 14 - and then with the understanding that school always takes priority.


    Sounds like we have similar experiences (none / 0) (#117)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Sep 20, 2013 at 05:04:45 PM EST
    re: our kids.

    I'm with you (none / 0) (#49)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Sep 20, 2013 at 02:14:49 AM EST
    I'm tired of fighting it and them. It's like the no vaccinators, you can argue with them until you are blue in the face....but you will have to wait for a few outbreaks and needless death.

    Cruz does want to hold it hostage (none / 0) (#7)
    by CoralGables on Thu Sep 19, 2013 at 02:32:24 PM EST
    he just doesn't have the votes in the Senate. Cruz is the instigator behind this plan and he's encouraging the GOP House to stick by the plan.

    In fact, since one of the GOP aides said "It is disappointing to see that Wendy Davis has more balls than Ted Cruz", Cruz is planning a talking filibuster in the Senate in an attempt to show in his own strange way that he does have as many.


    He may lust for the defunding in his heart, (5.00 / 2) (#14)
    by Anne on Thu Sep 19, 2013 at 02:55:56 PM EST
     and maybe he has some plan to keep working to defund, but the real unpardonable sin is that he's said - out loud - that it can't be done tied to the government-funding CR because they don't have the votes.

    Honestly, these people are making bedbugs look sentient.

    The House outrage stems directly from a statement from Cruz and fellow GOP stalwarts against Obamacare in the Senate, Marco Rubio and Mike Lee. In it, Cruz said Senate Republicans simply don't have the votes necessary to keep defunding language in the continuing resolution to fund the government after Oct. 1. Republicans have been attempting to push a bill that would fund the rest of the government while defunding the health care law, a bill Democrats have vowed to fight.


    The reaction from House Republicans and senior GOP leadership aides to Cruz's latest statement on the matter was swift and angry, both about Cruz's lack of confidence in a vote and his urging of the House to "stand firm." "They said nothing is impossible if you fight hard enough, and the minute the House announces the vote, they give up the fight? It's crazy," one senior GOP leadership aide told CNN. "They should walk the walk," the aide said, predicting it would backfire on the conservative senators. Another senior GOP leadership aide took a shot at Cruz declining to say whether he would filibuster the bill, telling CNN, "It is disappointing to see that Wendy Davis has more balls than Ted Cruz," in reference to the state senate Democrat who filibustered an abortion bill in the Texas legislature over the summer.


    Charlie Pierce:

    Clearly, what they want is for Cruz to get up and talk and, through his gilded rhetoric, as demonstrated before audiences of enraptured amateur nutballs across the land, get enough Democrats to submarine their own president and give the House Republicans the glorious victory they thought they'd won in the 2010 midterms. There's no reasoning with this kind of thing. We are all merely spectators as the American government is turned by crazy people into Saturday night at a dirt-track speedway in Iowa, and we all sit there and wait for the big pile-up in the far turn.



    It will be interesting to see (none / 0) (#16)
    by CoralGables on Thu Sep 19, 2013 at 03:07:20 PM EST
    how many GOP Senators side with the dems after the bill comes from the House. Since Cruz went into full retreat on the possibility of it passing I can only guess that both Independent Senators and a few more than the 4 GOP Senators needed have jumped off the CruzCrazy ship. Otherwise they would be naming names trying to swing a vote.

    Couldn't we just stipulate... (2.00 / 1) (#40)
    by unitron on Thu Sep 19, 2013 at 06:58:28 PM EST
    ...that Cruz is every bit the man Wendy Davis is and save ourselves being subjected to his filibuster?

    It's Take a Whole Lot of Hate... (5.00 / 2) (#69)
    by ScottW714 on Fri Sep 20, 2013 at 10:48:21 AM EST
    ...selfishness, and a serious superiority complex to filibuster a bill that gives people medical care, when they receive exponentially better medical care, that is paid from the same source, taxpayers.

    Filibustering a bill that takes away ones own rights should be mandatory for any legislator.

    Here I thought you were a champion of rights, turns out you just like taking swipe at women who want them using sexist remarks.


    Sexist troll. (5.00 / 1) (#75)
    by Angel on Fri Sep 20, 2013 at 11:19:34 AM EST
    Wow Coo Coo (none / 0) (#64)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Sep 20, 2013 at 10:20:11 AM EST
    I only think this is a set up to shore up their tea party rightwing credentials, and discourage being primaried.  It also kicks off some fund raising.  I know my cousin who drives around in his Escalade but refuses to buy insurance has some cash for them :)

    No surprises here: (5.00 / 3) (#3)
    by Anne on Thu Sep 19, 2013 at 02:08:22 PM EST
    (emphasis is mine)

    As historic floods of "biblical" proportions continue to ravage Colorado, President Obama signed an emergency declaration on Sunday -- a move that was encouraged by a bipartisan letter last week from the state's nine-member Congressional delegation. But the four Republican Congressmen who are now supporting disaster relief for their own state were among those voting earlier this year against the emergency aid funding for Superstorm Sandy victims on the East Coast.

    Colorado Republican Reps. Mike Coffman, Cory Gardner, Doug Lamborn, and Scott Tipton joined their delegation in asking the president to send emergency funds to help their constituents combat and recover from the more than 14 inches of rain that have flooded Colorado this month.

    All four also signed onto a July 10, 2013 letter from the entire delegation to President Obama asking him for a federal major disaster declaration for summer wildfires. Their request noted that such a declaration would "provide urgently needed resources and support to the state, communities, and especially the families who have been uprooted by these wildfires."

    But back in January, a vote in the House of Representatives provided $50 billion in Sandy relief, yet among those voting against the bill were Coffman, Gardner, Lamborn, and Tipton. Their opposition stemmed, in part, because they we unable to steer some of the Sandy aid to their own state. Though he had himself sought disaster aid after damages from Colorado wildfires in June 2012, Lamborn even voted against a smaller $9 billion emergency Sandy relief bill 11 days earlier.

    Think Progress

    Did they think we wouldn't notice?

    You know that phrase (5.00 / 2) (#17)
    by sj on Thu Sep 19, 2013 at 03:09:36 PM EST
    "the party of No!" bugs me. To me, it always sounds jingoistic and rather stupid. Having said that, I've always felt that a better description is "the party of Me! Me!"

    It's not like there is no concern for the common good, it is more like there is no concept of the common good.


    Good point (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by CoralGables on Thu Sep 19, 2013 at 03:15:12 PM EST
    I suspect their inaction/action won't make a bit of difference in their standings with the voters. The only people that probably matter are the GOP primary voters in their Colorado districts, and they'll be happy with the what's in it for me approach of their House Reps.

    Unfortunately, (none / 0) (#4)
    by Zorba on Thu Sep 19, 2013 at 02:16:59 PM EST
    most people won't.  We will, but how many American voters will?  Too many of them get their "news" from Fox News and company.
    I do appreciate the extreme irony here, however.  "We are deserving, but everyone else is not!"

    The DOJ's internal ethics watchdog says (5.00 / 2) (#19)
    by Mr Natural on Thu Sep 19, 2013 at 03:17:49 PM EST
    -it never investigated repeated complaints by federal judges that the government had misled them about the NSA's secret surveillance of Americans' phone calls and Internet communications.

    Luckily, we elected a "Constitutional Law Professor" president.

    Or, as he'll be known in a few years, a Con-Man.

    Ken Norton, RIP (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by scribe on Thu Sep 19, 2013 at 04:46:08 PM EST
    Former heavyweight champion, Ken Norton, who broke Muhammad Ali's jaw and sent him to the hospital in the first of their three classic fights, has died at 70.

    About 20 minutes ago (5.00 / 2) (#37)
    by Edger on Thu Sep 19, 2013 at 06:48:50 PM EST
    US denied Venezuelan president travel through its airspace - Caracas
    Venezuelan Foreign Minister Elias Jaua told media that an aircraft carrying President Nicolas Maduro was denied travel over Puerto Rico's airspace.

    President Maduro's flight, which was en route to China, was forced to find an alternate path according to Jaua, who denounced the act as "an act of aggression."

    "We have received the information from American officials that we have been denied travel over its airspace," Jaua said, speaking to reporters during an official meeting with his South African counterpart.

    "We denounce this as yet another aggression on the part of North American imperialism against the government of the Bolivarian Republic," he added.  

    No other info available via google at this point.

    You stay classy, Barry (5.00 / 2) (#42)
    by Dadler on Thu Sep 19, 2013 at 07:18:34 PM EST
    Shoot that phucker down, you know you want to. Oh wait, it's that chess-playing thing you do, right?


    What a charlatan.


    Hah! (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by Edger on Thu Sep 19, 2013 at 08:07:03 PM EST
    Thanks Dadler. That one got the first out loud laugh out of me today. Lol.

    Morales responds in support of Maduro (none / 0) (#51)
    by Edger on Fri Sep 20, 2013 at 05:19:08 AM EST
    Bolivian president to sue US govt for crimes against humanity
    Bolivian President Evo Morales will file a lawsuit against the US government for crimes against humanity. He has decried the US for its intimidation tactics and fear-mongering after the Venezuelan presidential jet was blocked from entering US airspace.

    "I would like to announce that we are preparing a lawsuit against Barack Obama to condemn him for crimes against humanity," said President Morales at a press conference in the Bolivian city of Santa Cruz. He branded the US president as a "criminal" who violates international law.

    In solidarity with Venezuela, Bolivia will begin preparing a lawsuit against the US head of state to be taken to the international court. Furthermore, Morales has called an emergency meeting of the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States (CELAC) to discuss what has been condemned by Venezuela as "an act of intimidation by North American imperialism."  

    The Bolivian president has suggested that the members of CELAC withdraw their ambassadors from the US to send a message to the Obama Administration. As an additional measure he will call on the member nations of the Bolivarian Alliance for the Americas to boycott the next meeting of the UN. Members of the Alliance include Antigua and Barbuda, Cuba, Dominica, Ecuador, Nicaragua, Venezuela and Saint Lucia.

    String 'em along Theory (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by Edger on Thu Sep 19, 2013 at 08:44:09 PM EST
    kerry says he has crucial dots and phantom string, and reluctantly confesses that "We really don't have time today," ... "to pretend that anyone can have their own set of facts", but assures that anyone can understand what those facts he doesn't have mean and he'd explain further but he's tied up.

    He also says there's not a shred of evidence - that he would consider looking at - that differs with his crucial dots and phantom string, and bellows that it's absolutely necessary to act quickly before some such does materialize.

    Isn't there some help someone can get for this guy?

    I got me... (5.00 / 8) (#46)
    by desertswine on Thu Sep 19, 2013 at 10:30:01 PM EST
    a new grandbaby today.  An 8.8lb beautiful boy. The baby came so fast that my daughter didn't even have time to get to the hospital and had him at home, after about a 25min labor.  They're in the hospital now and are doing just fine. Yay!!!

    His name is Henry.

    Congrats (5.00 / 2) (#47)
    by MO Blue on Thu Sep 19, 2013 at 10:50:03 PM EST
    Grandbabies are so wonderful. Sending a warm welcome to Henry and my best wishes to him and your family at a joyous time.  

    Congratulations. (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri Sep 20, 2013 at 01:50:22 AM EST
    Grandbabies are way cool.

    A few years ago, my niece went into labor at home, and being as no one else was around and she couldn't get hold of anyone, she drove herself to the hospital.

    I'm still in awe of that accomplishment.


    Oh, that's such happy news - congrats! (5.00 / 2) (#52)
    by Anne on Fri Sep 20, 2013 at 06:17:05 AM EST
    My first grandchild - a boy - was born last December, and I can't even begin to describe how wonderful it is to be a grandma, and what joy there has been in being a part of this wonderful baby's life.  

    His first tooth made its appearance last weekend! And what's really amazing is that he's coming up on his first birthday - I mean, how did time manage to zip along that fast?  Makes us so glad they're only 15 minutes away and we can see him all the time!

    Anyway - glad to hear your daughter is okay and that the unexpected home birth was without complications.

    Cheers to you and the happy family!


    Thanks everyone.. (5.00 / 1) (#77)
    by desertswine on Fri Sep 20, 2013 at 11:26:52 AM EST
    for your kind wishes.

    Congratulations! (none / 0) (#95)
    by sj on Fri Sep 20, 2013 at 02:08:19 PM EST
    That 25 minute labor was definitely a mixed blessing! Enjoy the new member of your family.  :)

    I miss cboldt... (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by DebFrmHell on Fri Sep 20, 2013 at 09:13:02 AM EST
    That is all.

    The Clapping Stopped (5.00 / 4) (#56)
    by Edger on Fri Sep 20, 2013 at 09:18:40 AM EST
    Church Members Mistreat Homeless Man in Church Unaware It Is Their Pastor in Disguise
    Pastor Jeremiah Steepek transformed himself into a homeless person and went to the 10,000 member church that he was to be introduced as the head pastor at that morning.

    He walked around his soon to be church for 30 minutes while it was filling with people for service, only 3 people out of the 7-10,000 people said hello to him.

    He asked people for change to buy food - no one in the church gave him change.

    He went into the sanctuary to sit down in the front of the church and was asked by the ushers if he would please sit in the back.

    He greeted people to be greeted back with stares and dirty looks, with people looking down on him and judging him.

    As he sat in the back of the church, he listened to the church announcements and such.

    When all that was done, the elders went up and were excited to introduce the new pastor of the church to the congregation.

    "We would like to introduce to you Pastor Jeremiah Steepek." The congregation looked around clapping with joy and anticipation.

    The homeless man sitting in the back stood up and started walking down the aisle.

    The clapping stopped...

    Wow (5.00 / 2) (#57)
    by Yman on Fri Sep 20, 2013 at 09:27:07 AM EST
    At the risk of being accused of being sexi$t again, pretty b@llsy move for a new pastor.

    Hope it opened a few eyes in that congregation.


    I wonder (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by Edger on Fri Sep 20, 2013 at 09:38:19 AM EST
    how many of them switched churches?

    Snopes: (5.00 / 2) (#62)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Sep 20, 2013 at 09:44:16 AM EST


    However, the story is almost certainly just a modern parable. [...]

    Thus, its seems likely that there is no Pastor Steepek and the events described in the message are fictional.

    That said, it seems plausible to suggest that the piece was inspired by the real-life story of pastor Willie Lyle of Clarksville, Tennessee.

    Parables (none / 0) (#67)
    by Edger on Fri Sep 20, 2013 at 10:33:20 AM EST
    are blatant fiction. BS. Hoaxes.

    Uhhmm... <whistles softly, looks at ceiling, falls down laughing>


    If it's based on Willie Lyle (5.00 / 1) (#96)
    by sj on Fri Sep 20, 2013 at 02:11:07 PM EST
    It is still pretty cool.

    Just another day in Chicago (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by Slado on Fri Sep 20, 2013 at 09:33:06 AM EST
    Mass Shooting

    Nothing to see here.  No need for real media coverage.

    To date 271 Chicagoans killed in gun violence this year.

    Why the focus on Chicago? (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by Yman on Fri Sep 20, 2013 at 10:13:30 AM EST
    Why do conservatives always want to focus on Chicago shootings?  Even ignoring the higher crime rates of cities compared to states, there are several states with historically higher gun death rates than Chicago.  Not to mention that, even with Chicago's recent increase in gun murders (it's now falling), it's rate is still about the same as several Southern/Western states.  With the spike in 2012, Chicago's murder rate was 21st among cities.

    BTW - "No real media coverage"?

    CBS News/AP


    MSN (lead story on page 1 of website at the moment)


    Fox News

    NY Times

    USA Today

    Huffington Post


    Chicago was #1 last year (5.00 / 1) (#71)
    by Slado on Fri Sep 20, 2013 at 10:56:16 AM EST
    Still a long way to go this year.  Maybe they can retain the title.

    They also have some of the strictest gun laws in the country but that's another debate.

    I only point out that the media is selective when it comes to gun violence.

    They don't really care when poor people are gunned down because we just accept it I guess.  

    Shoot up a school or a movie theater and we spend months on it and it sparks a national conversation and memorial services etc...

    Meanwhile thousands are killed at an alarming rate all over our country.   No need to talk about that.

    Also the real issue in "mass Shooting" is mental health and nobody seems to want to do anything about that.

    Just annoyed is all.


    You nailed it... (5.00 / 1) (#74)
    by kdog on Fri Sep 20, 2013 at 11:17:09 AM EST
    They don't really care when poor people are gunned down because we just accept it I guess.

    We accept it and expect it and that's sad.



    Interesting article on (none / 0) (#76)
    by Slado on Fri Sep 20, 2013 at 11:20:04 AM EST
    Can't even wrap my head around it... (none / 0) (#78)
    by kdog on Fri Sep 20, 2013 at 11:30:45 AM EST
    vicious cycle of retaliation and little else behind all this bloodshed, like a microcosm of the Middle East or something.

    At least back in the day in LA the Bloods and Crips could sit down and agree to a cease-fire...in Chicago with so many small gangs all shooting at each other where do you even start?


    "#1" - Heh (5.00 / 1) (#87)
    by Yman on Fri Sep 20, 2013 at 12:09:39 PM EST
    They had the highest murder rate in the country?!?  Oh, wait, ... no.  They had the highest raw number of murders among cities, which doesn't factor in their huge population, of course.  As I said, even with the spike in 2012, Chicago wasn't even in the top 20 for murder rate, and it was 43rd in violent crime, yet conservatives always want to focus on Chicago.  Hmmmmm .... wonder why that is ...?

    They also have some of the strictest gun laws in the country but that's another debate.

    Oh, ... look at that!  I think we have the answer!  This is precisely why conservatives keep pointing to Chicago rather than the 20 other cities with higher murder rates.  It's also why they keep wanting to focus on a single year in which the murder rate spiked higher in Chicago, ignoring the 42% drop in the first 4 months of this year, the lowest number of murders since 1963.  They also prefer to focus on 2012 in a vacuum when discussing gun laws, ignoring the long term decline in Chicago's murders and the fact that - just one year earlier (2011) - Chicago had the fewest recorded murders in the past 20 years.  They also want to forget that the the biggest proportion of police-recovered guns are purchased legally just outside Chicago in the suburbs or Indiana.

    They don't really care when poor people are gunned down because we just accept it I guess.  

    Shoot up a school or a movie theater and we spend months on it and it sparks a national conversation and memorial services etc...

    Not because the victims are poor ... it's because the media consumers can't relate, don't feel threatened by these crimes, and it's not that unusual.  Most news consumers don't live in these poor, high-crime, urban neighborhoods.  If you have a drive-by shooting like the one last night in Chicago, the media doesn't give it as much attention as a mall/theater/school/random mass shooting because most news consumers won't focus on it for very long.  It happened "over there" where that kind of thing happens frequently.  It doesn't threaten them, because they live in a nice neighborhood or out in the suburbs or country.

    That being said, this story was the first thing I saw when I turned on the TV this morning and was all over my news feed.  I'm sure the interest will fade quickly, but the media has not ignored this story.


    Agree it's reported on (none / 0) (#89)
    by Slado on Fri Sep 20, 2013 at 12:21:32 PM EST
    but like you said it doesn't get the wall to wall media attention that these mass shootings do.

    Once again the media would rather focus on the less important but more alarming news then the real problems going on.


    Yeah (5.00 / 3) (#90)
    by Yman on Fri Sep 20, 2013 at 12:29:57 PM EST
    I'd try to ignore the main point, too ...

    ... the real reason conservatives distort reality and act concerned about urban crime ... when it happens in Chicago.


    You need to take the (none / 0) (#103)
    by Slado on Fri Sep 20, 2013 at 03:27:55 PM EST
    partisan blinders off every once and a while.

    That's the best argument you can make? (5.00 / 1) (#116)
    by Yman on Fri Sep 20, 2013 at 04:58:05 PM EST
    You need to deal with FACTS every once-in-a-while, rather than simply spouting right-wing, talking points (i.e. "Chicago is "#1" in murders and they have strict gun laws!", followed by complete and utter silence when it comes to concern for the poor people in those gun loving, red states with lax gun laws that are dying at even higher rates).

    Jeez. Look. Who's. Talking. (5.00 / 1) (#118)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri Sep 20, 2013 at 05:13:17 PM EST
    Slado: "You need to take the partisan blinders off every once and a while."

    Conservatives are obviously bringing up Chicago repeatedly for a very specific reason. I really don't hear you guys talking about similar problems in Houston, Nashville, or Shreveport, LA.

    Why is that, I wonder? You think it could perhaps be because -- oh, I don't know -- Barack Obama's hometown is Chicago? Hmmmmmm ...?

    Look, here's the rub with all the conservative handwringing about Chicago -- or I daresay in some serious nutball cases, handjobs:

    While Chicago actually has some of the toughest firearms laws of any American city, to the point where there are no gun shops anywhere in the city, such ordinances are only applicable inside the city limits.

    According to a study cited by the New York Times in January of this year, of the 49,878 firearms confiscated or recovered in the City of Chicago during the course of criminal investigations between the period 2001-2012, it was found that:

    • 42,129 (85%) came from just ten states -- Illinois, Indiana, Mississippi, Wisconsin, Kentucky, Ohio, Tennessee, Alabama, Arkansas and Texas.
    • 22,171 came from suburban Cook County, IL; and
    • Indiana and Mississippi further accounted for 7,747 and 4,296 guns, respectively.

    Further, a 2012 University of Chicago study commissioned by the city's police department showed that of the 17,230 guns seized by Chicago PD between July 2008 and March 2012 and traced by the ATF Chicago to their point of origin:
    • 45% were acquired in the Cook County suburbs;
    • Lake County, Ind., was the second largest source, accounting for 6% of sales; and
    • An eye-popping 32%, or just under one in three guns, could be traced to just three suburban gun stores --Midwest Guns, Inc. (Lyons, IL), Chuck's Gun Shop (Riverdale, IL) and Westforth Sports (Gary, IN).

    "Our gun strategy is only as strong as it is comprehensive, and it is constantly being undermined by events and occurrences happening outside the city -- gun shows in surrounding counties, weak gun laws in neighboring states like Indiana and the inability to track purchasing. This must change."
    - Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel (January 29, 2013)



    media coverage.

    I'm a little surprised by the comment (5.00 / 1) (#82)
    by MO Blue on Fri Sep 20, 2013 at 11:59:15 AM EST
    that this tragedy received no media coverage. This story was reported as one of the Top News items on the internet after it happened. In fact, it just dropped out of that category on my homepage within the last hour or so.

    Well, there ya go. (none / 0) (#85)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Sep 20, 2013 at 12:06:14 PM EST
    Still listed as #5 news item (none / 0) (#84)
    by MO Blue on Fri Sep 20, 2013 at 12:05:07 PM EST
    on Yahoo (not my homepage) as of 12:00 p.m. central time.

    Good lesson in trust but verify. (none / 0) (#86)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Sep 20, 2013 at 12:06:55 PM EST
    Belated Happy Constitution Day! (5.00 / 1) (#60)
    by kdog on Fri Sep 20, 2013 at 09:36:57 AM EST
    It comes with good news and bad news.

    Good news...Library of Congress has made a complete copy with case law and annotations available for free download, same thing used to cost $ 290 bucks.  Good sh*t.

    And the bad news...one free American's idea to celebrate the day by handing out free copies of the Constitution got the smackdown by Modesto Junior College. The "free speech zone" strikes again...not cool.

    That kid should sue (5.00 / 1) (#68)
    by Dadler on Fri Sep 20, 2013 at 10:45:32 AM EST
    The school could make no rational argument to defend their censorship, except that corrupt laws may let them. Hope any school administrator involved was fired. I'm sure they make voter registration folks adhere to the same standard. Not.

    The concept of "free speech zones" (none / 0) (#97)
    by sj on Fri Sep 20, 2013 at 02:24:07 PM EST
    was a brilliantly evil master stroke. I first heard about them during the 2004 Nominating Conventions for both parties. A little research this morning and I learned this:
    During the 1988 Democratic National Convention, the city of Atlanta, Georgia set up a "designated protest zone" so the convention would not be disrupted. A pro-choice demonstrator opposing an Operation Rescue group said Atlanta Mayor Andrew Young "put us in a free-speech cage."
    And that was back when I was firmly convinced that the Dems were the Good Guys Wearing White Hats.

    And here I was thinking... (5.00 / 1) (#100)
    by kdog on Fri Sep 20, 2013 at 03:19:36 PM EST
    the border of the free speech zone were the same as the borders of the United States.

    You expect this sh*t from pols, but in institutions of supposed higher learning it's even harder to stomach.


    House votes to defund Obamacare while (5.00 / 2) (#65)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Sep 20, 2013 at 10:31:11 AM EST
    Voting to keep the gov funded.  Getting huge news coverage, because the House voting to defund Obamacare while allowing the rest of government to operate is something all sparkly and new.

    "You can keep your insurance" (5.00 / 1) (#72)
    by Slado on Fri Sep 20, 2013 at 11:03:39 AM EST
    Note to self... (5.00 / 2) (#83)
    by kdog on Fri Sep 20, 2013 at 12:01:51 PM EST
    consider a part-time second job at Home Depot to score some vision and dental coverage. Pretty cool to offer that to part-timers.

    Finally had to bite the bullet and get glasses for my nearsightedness...didn't know how blurred I was till I got the specs, it's like HD now!  But them b*tches weren't cheap.  And the dentist, forget about it.


    You can't make this stuff up (none / 0) (#5)
    by jtaylorr on Thu Sep 19, 2013 at 02:21:44 PM EST
    Two concealed carry license holders shoot each other to death after road rage incident.

    And if you read (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Sep 19, 2013 at 04:01:10 PM EST
    the article one of these guys should have had his conceal to carry permit revoked because he was drunk with a gun but apparently no one wants to go up against the NRA.

    It gets worse than that (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by Yman on Thu Sep 19, 2013 at 04:27:49 PM EST
    Tonight, in Gilberton, PA, there's a meeting to determine whether the police chief should be disciplined or fired.  This is a guy who - while off duty at a bar - managed to shoot himself in the hand.  The issue at present is his series of Youtube videos which have made him a celebrity among the 2A activist crowd.  While firing (presumably government owned) automatic weapons, he curses angrily about "Libtards" SOS Kerry among other things.  He's posted a video about "Shooting a Libtard out of a tree."  He's formed his own militia group and thinks he's being targeted by other law enforcement officials (county sheriff), even posting a video of a plane flying low near him.

    You can't make this stuff up.


    Nothing (1.75 / 4) (#25)
    by Mikado Cat on Thu Sep 19, 2013 at 04:36:02 PM EST
    to do with the NRA, local DA declined to press related charges so case went nowhere.

    Beyond that, I plan to wait for more information than a headline with no real facts yet known.


    In the article and I quote: (5.00 / 4) (#38)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Sep 19, 2013 at 06:53:14 PM EST
    Robert Taylor, 56, ultimately was convicted of misdemeanor operating while intoxicated and the weapons-related charge was dismissed. He was sentenced to one year of probation, ordered to pay $1,100 in fines and costs and credited with serving two days jail.

    That is not a headline. It's in the body of the article FYI. ROTFLMAO.


    Remember those R.I.F. PSAs from the 70s? (5.00 / 3) (#41)
    by Dadler on Thu Sep 19, 2013 at 07:14:21 PM EST
    "Reading Is Fundamental."

    Is sure is.


    See, it's not enough that a link was (5.00 / 3) (#43)
    by Anne on Thu Sep 19, 2013 at 07:40:45 PM EST
    posted to an article, that Mikado Cat could have read; no, he had to wait for someone else to do that and post an excerpt.

    I'm pretty sure he won't even read that, so I don't know why anyone would waste one more minute responding to what are, more often than not, trollish comments.


    If only all... (none / 0) (#11)
    by kdog on Thu Sep 19, 2013 at 02:51:44 PM EST
    gun violence incidents ended so justly, we'd have this problem solved in a generation....we could just let darwinism do its thing, if not for stray bullets and innocent bystanders.

    That's why I'm a baseball bat home defense guy...it's pretty damn hard to unintentionally bat an innocent bystander.


    The rare instance... (none / 0) (#15)
    by sj on Thu Sep 19, 2013 at 03:00:36 PM EST
    ... in which the carry laws really did make the world a safer place.

    Even so, peace to their families. They didn't deserve this.


    Police (none / 0) (#26)
    by Mikado Cat on Thu Sep 19, 2013 at 04:41:44 PM EST
    arrived several minutes after the shooting and put the guy giving CPR in handcuffs at gun point.

    Relevance? n/t (5.00 / 3) (#28)
    by Yman on Thu Sep 19, 2013 at 04:50:42 PM EST
    Who needs relevence? (5.00 / 2) (#32)
    by NYShooter on Thu Sep 19, 2013 at 05:26:09 PM EST
    It's one of those catchy phrases wingers love to use because you just know there's something hypocritical or sinister behind it. Does it have to make sense? Hah!

    Now you know (none / 0) (#33)
    by Edger on Thu Sep 19, 2013 at 05:57:52 PM EST
    how safe guns make everybody.

    Neither of these two will ever shoot anyone again.


    I'm glad doorjambs were invented. They have just enough give but still do the job. Concrete or brick walls are too dense and liable to render you unconscious too fast.


    Donald (none / 0) (#8)
    by CoralGables on Thu Sep 19, 2013 at 02:35:42 PM EST
    thought you might enjoy this blog post from the Federal Judge that writes

    Hercules and the Umpire

    Speaking of Hercules... (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by kdog on Thu Sep 19, 2013 at 02:53:29 PM EST
    RIP "Black Hercules" Ken Norton...one helluva fighter.



    Mahalo for the link. (none / 0) (#36)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Sep 19, 2013 at 06:15:58 PM EST
    Nebraska is one of only four schools outside of the states of California and Hawaii to win an NCAA national championship in women's volleyball, the others being Penn State, Texas and Washington.

    Women's volleyball has become absolutely huge in Lincoln since the advent of Title IX, and the Cornhuskers have every bit as loyal a following as the UH Rainbow Wahine out here. And with the increased capacity at the remodeled Bob Devaney Center (which now seats over 12,000), the Cornhuskers are poised to end Hawaii's 30-year NCAA reign this season as the school with the biggest attendance marks. As you can see in that video, the Devaney Center is just an incredible venue to showcase Nebraska volleyball.

    NCAA women's volleyball is both exciting and competitive, and if you've yet to see a match, you're missing something really special. I would also urge you to support local volleyball clubs / programs for the boys and girls in your respective community.



    For those that haven't seen (none / 0) (#10)
    by CoralGables on Thu Sep 19, 2013 at 02:44:21 PM EST
    Who needs sound? (none / 0) (#23)
    by sj on Thu Sep 19, 2013 at 04:21:15 PM EST
    This video speaks for itself. It's a whole new Catholic Church out there :)

    Based on past experience, (none / 0) (#29)
    by MO Blue on Thu Sep 19, 2013 at 05:08:41 PM EST
    somehow I just can's see some of our U.S. Cardinals participating in this new Catholic Church.

    I've been wondering when we'll see (5.00 / 2) (#34)
    by Anne on Thu Sep 19, 2013 at 06:03:46 PM EST
    the first use of Catholic In Name Only...and by whom.

    Lol. I almost married her. (none / 0) (#35)
    by Edger on Thu Sep 19, 2013 at 06:12:42 PM EST
    I cancelled the wedding the day after we mailed out the invitations. I was considerate enough to pull over at a bus stop before reaching across, opening the passenger door, and giving her a gentle encouraging nudge with my elbow, though.

    It was a very relieving day, and probably saved us both from a life of hell. ;-)


    I can't either (none / 0) (#30)
    by sj on Thu Sep 19, 2013 at 05:23:16 PM EST
    but it made me laugh out loud with delight to see the Brazilian bishops described as a "flashmob". In Italian.

    You know, I think I really like this guy. (none / 0) (#50)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri Sep 20, 2013 at 04:11:09 AM EST
    Pope Francis calls it like he sees it, as he attempts to reorient the Roman Catholic Church's focus to become a forceful advocate for the less fortunate and forgotten:

    Los Angeles Times | September 19, 2013
    Pope seeks to shift Catholic Church's priority from dogma to mercy -- "In an extraordinary, wide-ranging interview, Pope Francis expressed frustration that the Roman Catholic Church is 'obsessed' with issues such as abortion, homosexuality and contraception, and called instead for a focus on healing and mercy. 'The church sometimes has locked itself up in small things, in small-minded rules,' Francis said in the interview published Thursday by an Italian Jesuit magazine. 'The people of God want pastors, not clergy acting like bureaucrats or government officials.'"

    I'm under no illusions that change will occur overnight, but Francis has certainly caught the attention of a lot of estranged Catholics with his papacy's emphasis on humility, compassion and good works, and his gentle but pointed criticism of the Church's conservative bloc for its mindless pursuit of doctrinaire policies that serve only to increasingly alienate significant numbers of the faithful.


    It's almost like he chose the papal name of (none / 0) (#53)
    by Farmboy on Fri Sep 20, 2013 at 07:55:14 AM EST
    Francis for a reason. Huh; who woulda thunk it.

    What is ironic (none / 0) (#73)
    by Slado on Fri Sep 20, 2013 at 11:10:33 AM EST
    Is the Church I've been attending mass at since 2005 has been preaching this message for years.

    I'd be willing to wager that a majority of Catholics share this belief and quite frankly the teachings of Jesus back this up.

    I've always asked myself would Jesus ban gays, the divorced etc.. from Church because of their "sins"?

    Of course not.  

    The most important thing he said is "I am a sinner whom the Lord has looked upon".  

    Don't cast the first stone, let he who has not sinned etc...   The church needs to be more welcoming of all people ..."All are welcome" and this is a great start.

    Sorry to get so churchy but like Donald this is encouraging.


    This is true. (none / 0) (#88)
    by NYShooter on Fri Sep 20, 2013 at 12:10:50 PM EST
    "What is ironic" ?

    "..the Church I've been attending mass at since 2005 has been preaching this message for years."


    "Hypocrisy" is the word you're looking for.

    Of course "this message" has been preached for years; they just haven't gotten around to living it.

    That's the message this Pope is trying to get across.


    As a lifelong Catholic (none / 0) (#109)
    by christinep on Fri Sep 20, 2013 at 04:07:09 PM EST
    I sing for joy over the significant change in tone, attitude, and approach.  Attitude matters ...don't kid yourself Slado. A welcoming Church, a community filled with love beyond a small fraternity who only speak of the "No" and "Do Not Do" list can and will make a graceful difference in many ways ... not the least of which is focusing on helping each other.  A renewed focus on helping our brothers/sisters and all neighbors.

    Perhaps, Slado, you have been very fortunate not to hear the almost continual (for want of a better word) harping on the limited issues to which Pope Francis refers.  OTOH, a number of people in the Denver area reacted as I did during the years of very conservative Archbishop Chaput (now Archbishop of Philadelphia), who must have spent many hours preparing political-type letters to the Denver Post, who altered the style of the See by delivering attacks from the pulpit (and sometimes, via his priests) from the altar on candidates and legislators who differed from him. It was "litmus test" religion -- finger-pointing, condemning, almost angry -- very divisive.  It changed the atmosphere in many churches of the diocese.  But -- back to tone -- there already is a change afoot.  In the past few months, surprisingly and thankfully, the homilies are instructive about the gospel; and not what had become the same predictable stretch to a clear "political" message.

    I am very hopeful about what definitely appears to be Pope Francis' expanded direction.  And, btw, thank you in advance for allowing me to get the years of frustration a bit off my chest.  As my cousin wrote last night--she of the Catholic grade school, high school, and college--"This Pope is a breath of fresh air."  

    As you suggest, I think, it is not "either-or."  But for those of us--and there are many--who longed to hear of and act in the full message of Christ, for some years heretofore, the times have been trying.  With this Pope's guidance, I believe that we are all free to grow again ... and that growth may well start with the inclusiveness and attitude of "Yes" that he has invoked.


    I don't think (5.00 / 1) (#128)
    by NYShooter on Fri Sep 20, 2013 at 06:35:46 PM EST
    the extent to which this Pope is reaching out has been fully appreciated by the public at large yet. I believe he is not only transformative, but revolutionary. As a Non-Catholic (Non-anything, actually) the affect this man has had on my heart is just amazing.

    Let's face it; what is the hammer this religion, and most religions, hold over the heads of their flock? "Do this, or don't do that, or/and you're going to Hell." I'm sorry, but as a half-way cognizant person I could never reconcile the dogma that states: the most decent, loving, and giving person on earth will go to Hell unless he recites some gibberish demanded of him, and conversely, Pol Pot will live out eternity in the splendor of Heaven if he simply "accepts" Jesus a minute before his death.

    And, the inexplicable folly, the irreconcilable duplicity, that ALL religions preach, and demand, of their followers is, "Believe in MY God or you're going to Hell."

    Enter Pope Francis: Finally.....FINALLY, a religious leader is saying what I have believed all my life. It's not what you "say;" it's not even what you "believe" that will get you into Heaven. It's what you do.

    To almost every question put to Pope Francis, whether it's homosexuality, abortion, civil/women's rights, even atheism, he has but one answer:

    Do good.



    Went to Catholic school (5.00 / 1) (#130)
    by MO Blue on Fri Sep 20, 2013 at 07:52:48 PM EST
    Never could understand how someone who was Catholic could "sin" all their life but could evidently go to heaven if they confessed their sins before they died. OTOH a non-Catholic or non-Christian could live a good life and be damned.

    I can't remember at what age (probably around 3rd. grade) I asked a nun how that could be. A good person who lived according to the teachings of Jesus even if he/she did not know who he was vs someone you choose to ignore his teachings until he/she was faced with death. IIRC correctly the nun finally found a compromise position in saying it was possible that he/she would spend eternity in purgatory.

    I tend to agree....

    FINALLY, a religious leader is saying what I have believed all my life. It's not what you "say;" it's not even what you "believe" that will get you into Heaven. It's what you do.

    Agree with everything you just said (none / 0) (#129)
    by sj on Fri Sep 20, 2013 at 07:01:52 PM EST
    Well, except for the "heaven" part (I have more in common with Buddhism and Hinduism than Christianity when it comes to "life after death" matters).

    But he stopped me dead in my tracks when I first read about his Holy Thursday tradition. I am amazed and in awe that he doesn't hold Catholicism to be the one and only true path to God. That creates absolutely no conflict between my regard for him and his message, and my long-standing rejection of Catholicism.

    Do good.  There's a message for you, right there.



    I've always felt that way. (none / 0) (#131)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri Sep 20, 2013 at 10:31:03 PM EST
    Those Catholics I've tended to admire have been persons whose faith inspires them to act selflessly on behalf of the less fortunate.

    Here in Hawaii, we have had two shining examples of faith in action, Father Damien de Veuster and Mother Marianne Cope, who both ministered to those unfortunate souls exiled to the island of Molokai for having been afflicted with what native Hawaiians called ma'i Pākē (rough translation: "the Chinese disease"), which westerners knew as leprosy.

    Mother Marianne voluntarily took over for Fr. Damien when he became to ill to continue, and she nursed him until his death in 1889, and then buried him at Kalawao next to the church he built with his own hands, St. Philomena's.

    Both have recently been canonized into sainthood by the Church for their good works, and Molokai is now becoming a place of spiritual pilgrimage for Catholics.



    AN AXE LENGTH AWAY, vol. 133 (none / 0) (#66)
    by Dadler on Fri Sep 20, 2013 at 10:31:16 AM EST
    Tie a load on Fanny! (none / 0) (#70)
    by kdog on Fri Sep 20, 2013 at 10:51:41 AM EST
    Tie a load for freeee

    Speaking of which, lots of heavy drinking on the agenda in the next month...cousin's bachelor party, cousin's wedding (if still held after the bachelor party;), and not one but two 21st birthday parties for my beloved nephew.  Pray for my liver.


    Hail Mary, Full of Grace... (5.00 / 6) (#92)
    by Dadler on Fri Sep 20, 2013 at 12:52:41 PM EST
    ...keep Dog's liver in a safe and healthy, if insane, place.