home

Friday Open Thread

Alfredo Vasquez Hernandez is scheduled to plead guilty in Chicago late today in the Jesus Vicente Zambada-Niebla case. His lawyer says he is not cooperating and the plea has nothing to do with Guzman's arrest. (El Chapo is also named as a defendant in the case.)

The Oscar Pistorius trial has ended for the week with several questions unanswered. The Last witness on the stand was the security guard who testified that at 3:24 am he spoke with Oscar on the phone who said "Everything is fine." The defense says there was a first call by Oscar to the guard at 3:21 a.m. The security guard will return Monday. Also, Oscar's ex-girlfriend testified about one of the gun charges. She said Oscar cheated on her with Reeva, but Oscar's lawyer says he will provide e-mails showing they had already broken up. The earlier witness testimony about sounds of cricket bats vs gunshots remains conflicting.

[More...]

The FBI has taken over a criminal investigation of private prison company CCA (Corrections Corp. of America). The probe stems from allegations in Idaho that the company ran a "gladiator school."

In 2012, a Boise law firm sued on behalf of inmates contending that CCA had ceded control to prison gangs so that they could understaff the prison and save money on employee wages, and that the understaffing led to an attack by one prison gang on another group of inmates that left some of them badly injured.

This is an open thread, all topics welcome.

< Comcast First to Air Medical Marijuana Ad | Sunday Open Thread >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    2016 Watch.... (5.00 / 2) (#5)
    by kdog on Fri Mar 07, 2014 at 03:17:07 PM EST
    Bernie Sanders is considering a 2016 run...I hope he goes for it, we could use a liberal on the ballot other than the Green Party candidate....if nothing else he might move the Brand D candidate left from Republican-lite.

    I am sticking to the topic... (5.00 / 4) (#23)
    by ruffian on Fri Mar 07, 2014 at 06:16:21 PM EST
    Me too! We need his voice at the debates at the very least.

    Parent
    I also would like him to enter the race (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by MO Blue on Fri Mar 07, 2014 at 06:58:29 PM EST
    I've pretty much sworn off giving money to presidential candidates but I might make an exception in his case. We definitely need a candidate promoting liberal ideas.

    Parent
    No segue. Your (none / 0) (#6)
    by oculus on Fri Mar 07, 2014 at 03:27:59 PM EST
    peacemaking skills are needed in the "Republicans block appointment" comments.

    Parent
    klatch vs cabal (5.00 / 2) (#19)
    by CoralGables on Fri Mar 07, 2014 at 05:46:32 PM EST
    should be arriving in this thread shortly. Wonder how long the starting pitchers will last. They are both throwing junk off the edges of the plate.

    Parent
    Noooooooooooooooooo! (none / 0) (#20)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Mar 07, 2014 at 05:48:03 PM EST
    Leave it where it is

    Parent
    Starting pitchers....:) (none / 0) (#21)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Mar 07, 2014 at 05:51:22 PM EST
    If it shows up here I'm telling jokes until the whole thread is full.

    I'll start with Josh's Chuck Norris jokes and move right into his Keanu Reeve's conspiracies.


    Parent

    KaffeeKlatch v Cabal (none / 0) (#22)
    by squeaky on Fri Mar 07, 2014 at 06:13:08 PM EST
    From OED:
    Gossip over coffee cups; a coffee party; cf. coffee klatsch (s.v. coffee n. 5 b). Hence kaffeeklatscher n., kaffeeklatsching vbl. n. Cf. klatsch.

       1888 in A. Randall-Diehl 2000 Words & Definitions.    1903 Current Opinion Aug. 205/2 She usually operates as an amateur, appearing at Kaffeeklatsches.    1906 S. Ford Shorty McCabe 111 He let it out one day after we'd had our little kaffee klatch with the gloves.    1911 International (N.Y.) July 35/2 Theatrical Kaffeeklatsch has now absorbed the space where once the redoubtable Charles Edward fought his battles.    1919 F. Hurst Humoresque 322 They're a darn sight better than the wads of respectability I see waddlin' in here to swap Kaffee Klatsches with you!    1936 H. Miller Black Spring 134 It's the hour of the kaffee-klatchers sitting around the family table.    1956 W. H. Whyte Organization Man (1957) xxii. 286 Dot will be Kaffee-klatsching and sun-bathing with the girls.    1958 M. West Second Victory i. 5 They came in summer to take the waters, to sit on the terrace for Kaffeeklatsch.    1969 R. Lockridge Murder in False Face ix. 112 If [he]‥wants a morning kaffee-klatch it's all right with me.    1972 J. Williams Home Fronts xiii. 233 The traditional friendly Kaffeeklatsch--the afternoon coffee party with friends.

    Cabal:

    5.5 A small body of persons engaged in secret or private machination or intrigue; a junto, clique, côterie, party, faction.

       1660 Trial Regic. 175 You were‥of the cabal.    1670 Marvell Corr. cxlvii. Wks. 1872-5 II. 326 The governing cabal are Buckingham, Lauderdale, Ashly, Orery, and Trevor. Not but the other cabal [Arlington, Clifford, and their party] too have seemingly sometimes their turn.    1732 Berkeley Alciphr. v. §21 A gentleman who has been idle at college, and kept idle company, will judge a whole university by his own cabal.    1767 G. Canning Poet. Wks. (1827) 56 Should Fat Jack and his Cabal Cry `Rob us the Exchequer, Hal!'    1859 Gullick & Timbs Paint. 183 In Naples, where a cabal of artists was formed.



    Parent
    Can we be a cabal of artists? (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Mar 07, 2014 at 08:17:26 PM EST
    Sure, Why Not? (5.00 / 3) (#30)
    by squeaky on Fri Mar 07, 2014 at 08:56:01 PM EST
    Although best to keep it a secret.

    Parent
    How to (5.00 / 2) (#43)
    by Zorba on Sat Mar 08, 2014 at 09:48:53 AM EST
    Brew Coffee:

    The Grind
    If you purchase whole bean coffee, always grind your beans as close to the brew time as possible.

    Before using the coffee, try rubbing some of the grounds between your fingers so that you can 'feel' the grind and become acquainted with the differences in size.

    The Water
    The water you use is VERY important to the quality of your coffee. Use filtered or bottled water if your tap water is not good or imparts a strong odor or taste, such as chlorine. If you are using tap water let it run a few seconds before filling your coffee pot. Be sure to use cold water. Do not use distilled or softened water.

    Ratio of Coffee to Water
    Use the proper amount of coffee for every six ounces of water that is actually brewed, remembering that some water is lost to evaporation in certain brewing methods. A general guideline is 1 to 2 tablespoons of ground coffee for every six ounces of water. This can be adjusted to suit individual taste preferences.  Be sure to check the 'cup' lines on your brewer to see how they actually measure.

    Water Temperature During Brewing
    Your brewer should maintain a water temperature between 195 - 205 degrees Fahrenheit for optimal extraction.  Colder water will result in flat, underextracted coffee while water that is too hot will also cause a loss of quality in the taste of the coffee.  If you are brewing the coffee manually, let the water come to a full boil, but do not overboil. Turn off the heat source and allow the water to rest a minute before pouring it over the grounds.
    Brewing Time

    The amount of time that the water is in contact with the coffee grounds is another important factor affecting the taste of your coffee. In a drip system, the contact time should be approximately 5 minutes. If you are making your coffee using a plunger pot, the contact time should be 2-4 minutes.

    National Coffee Association.

    Parent

    Roasting Green Beans Today (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by squeaky on Sat Mar 08, 2014 at 01:22:52 PM EST
    In an air popper...  yummmmmm!

    Yellowing: For the first few minutes the bean remains greenish, then turn lighter yellowish and emit a grassy smell.

    Steam: The beans start to steam as their internal water content dissipates.

    First Crack: The steam becomes fragrant. Soon you will hear the "first crack," an audible cracking sound as the real roasting starts to occur: sugars begin to caramelize, bound-up water escapes, the structure of the bean breaks down and oils migrate from their little pockets outward.

    First Roasted Stage: After the first crack, the roast can be considered complete any time according to your taste. The cracking is an audible cue, and, along with sight and smell, tells you what stage the roast is at. This is what is call a City roast.

    Caramelization: Caramelization continues, oils migrate, and the bean expands in size as the roast becomes dark. As the roast progresses, this is a City + roast. Most of our roast recommendations stop at this point. When you are the verge of second crack, that is a Full City roast.

    Second Crack: At this point a "second crack" can be heard, often more volatile than the first. The roast character starts to eclipse the origin character of the beans at this point and is also known as a Vienna roast. A few pops into second crack is a Full City + roast. Roasting all the way through second crack may result in small pieces of bean being blown away like shrapnel!

    Darkening Roast: As the roast becomes very dark, the smoke is more pungent as sugars burn completely, and the bean structure breaks down more and more. As the end of second crack approaches you will achieve a French roast.

    Ack!! Too Late! Eventually, the sugars burn completely, and the roast will only result in thin-bodied cup of "charcoal water."

    Sweet Marias

    Parent

    Wish I was there (none / 0) (#59)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Mar 08, 2014 at 01:51:02 PM EST
    Supposed to be the best coffee in the world, and many Ethiopians do it over an open fire in a skillet.

    Parent
    Always wanted to try this (none / 0) (#64)
    by Zorba on Sat Mar 08, 2014 at 02:10:41 PM EST
    Is Sweet Maria's a good source of green coffee beans?  Don't have an air popper, but they're a whole heck of a lot cheaper than actual coffee roasters, it looks like.

    Parent
    Yes (5.00 / 1) (#66)
    by squeaky on Sat Mar 08, 2014 at 02:18:36 PM EST
    Sweet Maria's sells green beans.

    Air poppers are cheap. The best ones are at thrift stores..  air must be coming from side vents in the hopper, ones with screen on bottom of hopper (air from bottom) are no good..

    Parent

    Heck, I've seen them (none / 0) (#71)
    by Zorba on Sat Mar 08, 2014 at 02:38:13 PM EST
    at both thrift shops and yard sales.  
    I think I have to try this.  Hmmmm.  Side air vents, not bottom.
    We love good coffee.
    What are some of the best green coffee beans to try?

    Parent
    Green Beans (5.00 / 1) (#85)
    by squeaky on Sat Mar 08, 2014 at 04:45:16 PM EST
    Best to start with a sampler pack..  4 or 8 lbs of as many different beans. You specify which kind of roast you are planning to do, espresso etc..  Probably best to get the 8 lb...

    It is a big subject, and some failure is involved..  not a big learning curve to get decent results, but it depends on how refined you want to get, like anything culinary it can get involved.


    Parent

    Thank You Squeaky (5.00 / 1) (#115)
    by Amiss on Sun Mar 09, 2014 at 04:45:58 PM EST
    Great info and very interesting subject. I, too have been interested in roasting my own coffee beans. It would be something I would be physically able to do and rewarding as well.
    Again, many thanks.

    Parent
    Great (none / 0) (#116)
    by squeaky on Sun Mar 09, 2014 at 05:42:07 PM EST
    Oh, and you need plenty of good ventilation to roast as it can get smokey.

    Using an extension cord, for the air popper can result in longer roasting times. Best to avoid if possible.

    Some of the newer models may have an automatic cut off switch if it gets too hot. That is not good as you will want your roast to maintain 400-475º F.  So avoid air poppers with an automatic cut off switch. Older models good... many newer models ok too.

    And, you MUST watch, look, listen, and use your nose, the whole roasting time. 4-7.5 minutes or longer depending on your roast and bean.

    Parent

    Okay, I like that idea (none / 0) (#97)
    by Zorba on Sat Mar 08, 2014 at 06:13:20 PM EST
    Not interested in the decaf.  Nor the Espresso sampler.
    Thanks, sounds good.

    Parent
    Link (5.00 / 1) (#123)
    by squeaky on Tue Mar 11, 2014 at 11:29:50 AM EST
    I have looked at a lot of links for air-popper roasting and this one seems really good.

    Parent
    In the above mentioned case (none / 0) (#14)
    by CoralGables on Fri Mar 07, 2014 at 05:17:36 PM EST
    the use of kdog's talents would be a useless endeavor.

    Parent
    Maybe, but it is his new avocation. (none / 0) (#15)
    by oculus on Fri Mar 07, 2014 at 05:20:32 PM EST
    I have the utmost respect (none / 0) (#18)
    by CoralGables on Fri Mar 07, 2014 at 05:30:34 PM EST
    for those that take on quixotic quests, as long as they inflict no damage along the way.

    Parent
    Arkansas judge reveals details of (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by Anne on Fri Mar 07, 2014 at 06:17:46 PM EST
    the adoption of Charlize Theron's baby:

    An Arkansas judge has admitted that he posted a series of anonymous online comments that critics say are racist, sexist and otherwise inappropriate, including one in which he revealed alleged details of confidential proceedings involving actress Charlize Theron's adoption of her son.

    Circuit Judge Mike Maggio acknowledged Wednesday that he posted the comments on a Louisiana State University fan message board, Tiger Droppings, under the pseudonym "geauxjudge." He also ended his campaign for a seat on the Arkansas Court of Appeals.

    Guy sounds like a real piece of work.

    See more at Blue Hog Report.  If you can stand it.


    (Sigh!) America's GOP: (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri Mar 07, 2014 at 07:45:49 PM EST
    Partyin' like it's 1899.

    Parent
    Need a good story to sell taking away (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by MO Blue on Fri Mar 07, 2014 at 07:09:07 PM EST
    food from children...just make it up.

    Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) fired up the audience Thursday at the Conservative Political Action Conference with an anecdote about what he called the heartlessness of giving out free school lunches -- but it turns out that "moving" story never really happened.

    Ryan used a story about a young boy choosing a lovingly made brown bag lunch over a free school meal, relayed to him by Wisconsin Department of Children and Families Secretary Eloise Anderson, to illustrate that Democrats offer Americans a "full stomach and an empty soul."
    ...
    H found Anderson told the story at a 2013 congressional hearing that Ryan chaired, and claimed she had spoken to the boy herself. Kessler notes the story closely paralleled an exchange from a book called "An Invisible Thread," in which an executive offers to either give a young, homeless panhandler money to eat for the week or else make lunch for him each day. The boy insists on having his lunch made for him in a brown-paper bag, because that means "somebody cares" about him.

    A spokesman for Anderson told Kessler that the secretary "misspoke" and was actually describing a television interview she had seen with Maurice Mazcyk, the boy described in the book. Kessler further noted that school lunch is not brought up in the book, which means Anderson inserted the program into the anecdote. TPM

    The author of the book does not agree with Ryan's "full stomach and an empty soul" comment. According to Laurie Schroff, "...we are talking about children that need to be fed. Cutting school lunch programs doesn't accomplish that."

    BTW not only was Eloise Anderson (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by MO Blue on Sat Mar 08, 2014 at 12:10:14 PM EST
    a person who thought lying to a Congressional Committee was perfectly valid if it led to taking food away from children, both she and Ryan kinda failed to mention that due to Ryan and his SOB cronies, poor families have a lot less ability to provide food to put in those brown lunch bags. Cut SNAP programs to bare bone and eliminate school lunch programs while strutting around proclaiming their Christianity. Makes a person want to retch (preferably on their expense shoes).

    Parent
    Mother, make it stop! (none / 0) (#28)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri Mar 07, 2014 at 08:03:07 PM EST
    These people make my head hurt.

    Parent
    Really, I can feel brain cells die just reading (none / 0) (#31)
    by ruffian on Fri Mar 07, 2014 at 09:14:29 PM EST
    their crapola.

    Parent
    If you haven't read Charlie Pierce's (none / 0) (#32)
    by Anne on Fri Mar 07, 2014 at 09:47:14 PM EST
    postings from CPAC, you are missing Charlie in rare form.  His description of Oliver North's remarks to the attendees is priceless.

    I don't know how anyone could sit through any of that stuff without copious amounts of alcohol or medication.

    Parent

    Must get to that immediately (5.00 / 1) (#113)
    by ruffian on Sun Mar 09, 2014 at 02:02:47 PM EST
    Thanks fro the reminder. Don't know how I forget to check Charlie every day.

    Parent
    Did Charlie stick around for Ann Coulter? (none / 0) (#128)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Mar 12, 2014 at 02:43:30 PM EST
    Because she was also in none too rare, full-throated form at CPAC:

    "You have the Democrats who want more immigrants, particularly illegal immigrants, because they need brand new voters, just warm bodies, more votes. Amnesty goes through and the Democrats have 30 million new voters, and I don't think Republians have an obligation to forgive lawbreaking just because the Democrats need another 30 million voters. [...] You gotta vote for the Republicans one more time and make it clear: If you pass amnesty, that's it, it's over, then we organize the death squads for the people that wrecked America."

    You know, the prospective political commercials for Democrats practically write themselves.

    Parent

    Sadly, (5.00 / 2) (#51)
    by desertswine on Sat Mar 08, 2014 at 12:57:19 PM EST
    Bartcop has passed away
    We are deeply saddened to report the passing of Bart on the morning of March 5, 2014. He died peacefully due to his flu, pneumonia and his Leukemia.


    Oh, thanks for letting us know. I used to read (5.00 / 2) (#74)
    by Angel on Sat Mar 08, 2014 at 03:10:49 PM EST
    his site daily. I recall when he told everyone he had been diagnosed with a terminal illness and would live only a few more years.  Sad.  He was blessed with a great sense of humor and a strong sense of what was right and what was wrong.  I'll miss him.

    Parent
    I saw that this morning (none / 0) (#52)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Mar 08, 2014 at 01:03:30 PM EST
    RIP Terry Copppage.  A great trailblazer


    Parent
    Court rules Skakel's lawsuit v. Nancy Grace, et (5.00 / 2) (#107)
    by oculus on Sat Mar 08, 2014 at 11:42:41 PM EST
    al., may proceed.

    Libel lawsuit

    Hope he prevails. Nancy Grace is a nasty piece (5.00 / 1) (#111)
    by Angel on Sun Mar 09, 2014 at 11:05:33 AM EST
    of work.

    Parent
    Ah, the Tea Party (none / 0) (#1)
    by jbindc on Fri Mar 07, 2014 at 02:11:41 PM EST
    Now eating their own.  As predicted.

    They arrived in January of 2011, unfamiliar with the ways of Washington, and promising never to adapt. The Republican freshman of the 112th Congress had helped take back the House, riding a Tea Party-infused, throw-the-bums-out wave of conservative disgust with career politicians.

    But after three years in office and an election season looming, a number of GOP Congressmen find themselves facing scrappy challengers who say that they are now the ones with a serious case of Potomac Fever.

    SNIP

    The current crop of GOP primary challengers are a different group from those of 2010. For one thing, they don't all call themselves members of the Tea Party, cognizant of both that group's low popularity and the fact that in some cases their opponent remains close to many local tea party groups. And in some cases, these primary challengers are hitting their Republican opponents from the center, as is the case in Michigan where businessman Brian Ellis is running against libertarian-leaning Congressman Justin Amash on the grounds that he is not sufficiently friendly to the district's business interests.

    But still, across the country, there are a new crop of candidates running against members of Congress who have only been in office a term and a half, but are, these challengers say, not keeping to the values they proclaimed on the campaign trails a mere few years ago.

    Keep it coming.  The Tea Party movement will not be the threat it was in 2010 or even 2012.

    The trifecta of disappointing returns for conservatives isn't coincidental. In previous years, insurgent conservative candidates like Christine O'Donnell weren't taken seriously in the GOP primary, with the problematic parts of their record hidden away until a general election.

    But with incumbents now keenly aware of the danger they face in a primary, those same tea-party-aligned hopefuls are finding themselves under more scrutiny than ever. And oftentimes they're not holding up well.

    "Inevitably, in a statewide race, any issues in any candidate's background would come to the forefront," said Brian Walsh, a former NRSC communications director. "And we're seeing incumbents who aren't taking anything for granted."

    Even the National Review recognizes that the Tea Party is imploding.  (Some of the comments are amusing - basically calling the author out as part of a conspiracy with Establishment Republicans and the liberal media).

    Hilarious.

    I'm so glad I live where I live (5.00 / 2) (#3)
    by nycstray on Fri Mar 07, 2014 at 02:42:11 PM EST
    I don't have to put with any of these idiots :)

    Parent
    Well (none / 0) (#49)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Mar 08, 2014 at 12:31:16 PM EST
    sincea about 3/4 of the GOP's base agress with the tea party I'm guessing that they won't be showing up at the polls then.

    Parent
    Is it just me (none / 0) (#57)
    by jondee on Sat Mar 08, 2014 at 01:28:15 PM EST
    or does jb have a bit of an obsession with downplaying the influence of the hard-right within the GOP?

    Yet one of the major news channels the other night proclaimed Ted Cruz and Rand Paul the two Republican Party "front-runners"..

    Also, as a side-note, notice how little bandwidth I took up making that observation. Snip.

    Parent

    Straw Poll Results (none / 0) (#99)
    by MO Blue on Sat Mar 08, 2014 at 07:13:22 PM EST
    Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) won the 2014 Conservative Political Action Conference presidential straw poll for the second year in a row.

    Paul won the results with 31 percent of the vote followed by Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) with 11 percent of the vote. Behind those two were Dr. Ben Carson with 9 percent and New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie (R) with 8 percent of the vote.



    Parent
    "Now eating their own"??? (none / 0) (#58)
    by christinep on Sat Mar 08, 2014 at 01:35:52 PM EST
    A number of interpretations and general comments have been made in recent days about the fate of the Tea Party.  On the surface, e.g., the Texas primary shows Tea Party losses in Senate race and elsewhere; yet, the "establishment" Republicans are said to have drifted ever rightward toward Tea Party positions in exchange for victory.  Similarly, the strange Kentucky Repub primary hijinks have that picture of Mitch McConnell with improperly raised gun, in apparent imitation of the late Charleton Heston, trying to "outright" the right for the NRA & Tea Party types while his Repub opponent clucks that McConnell's pose reminded him of the infamous Dukakis photo in a tank in the 1988 general election campaign.

    It is very understandable that Republicans are trying to portray the internal Repub conflict today as being solved as the regular/old guard not-crazy Repubs vanquish the Tea Party.  That interpretation may have some validity in form, but ... in substance?  In substance, it may be that the non-Tea Party regulars have adapted by incorporating or ingesting the views typically advanced by Tea Party activists so as to placate TP followers who vote in primaries.  I wonder how far to the right the Tea Party has already pushed the so-called Republican mainstream?

    "...eating their own"?  The question is more likely to be "who is swallowing what?"

    Parent

    Has this faction within the GOP (none / 0) (#60)
    by jondee on Sat Mar 08, 2014 at 01:54:03 PM EST
    imploded yet?

    "There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what...who are dependent upon government...who believe that they are victims."

    Parent

    A brief reference the other day (none / 0) (#65)
    by christinep on Sat Mar 08, 2014 at 02:13:33 PM EST
    contained that provocative phrase.  It seems that, in a recent poll pairing named Repubs for possible GOP general election nod, C. Christie beat out M. Romney ... Christie garnered "47 percent" of that poll's vote.  (Sorry that I cannot recall which pollster. Perhaps, Quinnipiac.)

    Parent
    Check this out: (none / 0) (#67)
    by NYShooter on Sat Mar 08, 2014 at 02:23:36 PM EST
    What's going on here?

    The Senate on Thursday blocked Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand's bill that would have taken authority away from military commanders in cases of sexual harassment, and, other sexual violations.

    Guess who voted FOR the bill?
         Sens. Ted Cruz of Texas and Rand Paul of    
         Kentucky

    And, who voted AGAINST the bill?
         Sen. Carl Levin of Michigan

    I think we've just seen a glimpse of the Republican strategy going into the fall elections. And, that is to take advantage of the Democrat's disunity and show the public which party really is the Party of Compassion.

    (cough, cough)

    Parent

    It wasn't a vote on the bill (none / 0) (#69)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Mar 08, 2014 at 02:35:35 PM EST
    She needed 60 votes to break the filibuster and advance the bill to a vote.  So even though Levin's vote is a WTF vote, Ted Cruz and Rand Paul did not vote aye to reforming the over arching legal authority of military commanders.  

    Parent
    Yes, exactly, MT (none / 0) (#73)
    by Zorba on Sat Mar 08, 2014 at 02:50:26 PM EST
    I hope MOBlue weighs in on her "Sweet Claire" McCaskill's opposition to Gillibrand's bill.  
    Gillibrand wanted to take away military commanders from the decision whether to prosecute subordinates for the most serious allegations.
    The way is now clear for Claire's alternative bill, which would not take military commanders out of the process.  (Although, it at least would give the victim some say on whether to have the case heard in military or civil court.  How much say they get, and how much attention the commander of the alleged offender has to give this, I am unclear on.)
    What do you and your husband think of Gillibrand's Bill, and McCaskill's alternative?

    Parent
    While we are discussing this too (5.00 / 1) (#77)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Mar 08, 2014 at 03:52:42 PM EST
    I know that Gillibrand wanted a civilian advocate available to victims too, I do not know if McCaskill addresses this. I am willing to bet that because the military is really working its SHARP program over that McCaskill wants to give the military "a chance" if she addresses this at all.

    I have met the individuals who will be a victims "advocate" on Fort Rucker though and I am not impressed, not one bit.

    To make the cut now to be a SHARP officer you have to have a spotless record, completely spotless, you can't even have any kind of abundance of traffic violations.  So of course if you made the cut, you rock and it is all about you....you...one more case of super soldier.  But such people are not good advocates for traumatized victims IMO, they seldom have one authentic emotion :)  And the world will never be free of perfectionists and hyper vigilant over achievers, but I don't think many of them ought to be holding the hand of a sobbing traumatized rape victim.  It is fine if the military wants to make such people largely responsible for investigation of charges and full processing of the allegations....they'd probably be great at that and no stone unturned, but victims need to be provided with someone who has a beating heart, something warm blooded.

    Parent

    Oy, vey (5.00 / 1) (#81)
    by Zorba on Sat Mar 08, 2014 at 04:28:48 PM EST
    I agree about "perfectionists and hyper vigilant over achievers" not generally making the best advocates for the traumatized.  
    You would like someone with a great deal of empathy, as well as a high degree of competence.
    You're making me depressed, MT.    :-(

    Parent
    I was raped when I was 16 (5.00 / 1) (#91)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Mar 08, 2014 at 05:12:59 PM EST
    And I think I have recovered as well as a person probably can.  I am not afraid of men.  I have my sexuality.  And it took some work, it didn't heal on its own.

    I think that is perhaps the primary reason why the problem in the military is important to me.  The military system is a system I have participated in and been enriched by, and thereby I have propped it up and supported it.

    When I met the people running the new SHARP response I shook hands as someone looking into the face of safety, and safety did not look back.  There are outside groups though now that have been formed of military sexual assault survivors, and this may be the best, safest, and sanest support system available at this time for those who will be ringing Senator Gillibrand's phone.

    Parent

    Oh, MT, I am (5.00 / 3) (#96)
    by Zorba on Sat Mar 08, 2014 at 06:09:51 PM EST
    so sorry for your own experience.  Hugs to you.
    I can certainly understand your deep concern about this, not only as a vet and the spouse of someone still in the military, but as a rape survivor yourself.
    Something really, really has to change profoundly regarding sexual assault.
    And not just in the military, but in society in general.

    Parent
    One thing I do not know about (none / 0) (#75)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Mar 08, 2014 at 03:19:52 PM EST
    McCaskill's bill is if it reforms any commander's legal authority other than sexual assault.

    Something not spoken of much is that Gillibrand's bill was a sweeping reform of a commander's legal authority.

    Here at Fort Rucker, we have a GS employee who is very abusive to her peers and subordinates, but she has a lot of seniority and is way up the GS food chain so everyone must survive her.

    Two different commanders though gave her authority over items with almost no oversight.  Now we have several $100,000 of computer equipment missing.  I would think that this would also be some kind of security breach possibility too but it is a felony just by the dollar amount.  Someone on the command chain though has broken the dollar figure down into $10,000 increment charges so that the felony charge is removed, because what happened would also go on her commanders records too.  Gillibrand's reform would have ended anyone being able to do such a thing, will McCaskill's?  I don't know

    I am happier with commanders having civilian oversight.  And McCaskill's bill prevents any commander overturning the jury conviction on a sexual assault but I don't know if that holds true for any other conviction.  It's a start.  I will have to get with angelajean though to find out exactly what is in McCaskill's bill.

    Gillibrand has already changed sexual assault in the military though. Because of her voice and her fight on this, because there is a Senator to call now, reporting of sexual assault has increased 50% in the military this year alone.  Almost simultaneous with the Senate vote too, Stars and Stripes released this story, and Gillibrand also said that her fight is not over, and with continuing offenses why should it be?

    Parent

    I agree about civilian oversight (5.00 / 2) (#79)
    by Zorba on Sat Mar 08, 2014 at 04:21:10 PM EST
    And I am glad that Gillibrand has shed a lot of light on the sexual assault problem within the military.
    Let us know as you find out more.
    And thanks for the Stars and Stripes link.  Depressing.  Who is watching the watchers?

    Parent
    One thing stands out starkly too (5.00 / 2) (#88)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Mar 08, 2014 at 05:01:28 PM EST
    The new SHARP training is an amped up version of what was failing, it is a lot of teaching about how every soldier keeps each other in line and if you see something that doesn't look right you say something before a horrible thing happens, yadda yadda yadda you are your brothers and sisters keeper essentially.

    They take hours and hours and hours trying to teach around something that could be taught in one sentence, "United States service members WILL NOT RAPE other beings!"

    It boggles the mind, they can't even say the word rape.  They act like if they did say the R word and then said nobody can R someone, some magic spell would be broken.  I can't imagine what that spell is.  Would some service members not be able to get wood ever again if you said that to their face, that they can't rape other people or they are no longer a U.S. soldier?

    Parent

    Its easier (none / 0) (#84)
    by Mikado Cat on Sat Mar 08, 2014 at 04:38:10 PM EST
    to keep your constituency inline when you control the check they get each month.

    Parent
    "Conflicting" is an understatement! (none / 0) (#2)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Mar 07, 2014 at 02:22:36 PM EST
    The earlier witness testimony about sounds of cricket bats vs gunshots remains conflicting.


    Since this is an open thread: (none / 0) (#4)
    by oculus on Fri Mar 07, 2014 at 03:09:29 PM EST
    WOW (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by squeaky on Fri Mar 07, 2014 at 03:59:09 PM EST
    What a treat... Wozzek is one of my favorite pieces of music.
    Alban Berg is tops.

    Parent
    I really wish you were there. (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by oculus on Fri Mar 07, 2014 at 04:10:42 PM EST
    The perfect end of so many wonderful musical offerings.

    Parent
    Next Time! (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by squeaky on Fri Mar 07, 2014 at 04:28:51 PM EST
    I needed verification it was (none / 0) (#11)
    by oculus on Fri Mar 07, 2014 at 04:32:54 PM EST
    a memorably excellent performance. Another amateur critic ( as I am) thought Goerne sounded tired (how else should a world-weary Wozzeck sound) and he didn't like the curtain going down after each scene.  Huh?

    Parent
    Yes (5.00 / 2) (#12)
    by squeaky on Fri Mar 07, 2014 at 04:40:25 PM EST
    Wozzek is the epitome of the downtrodden, being experimented on for a few pfennigs and nowhere to gain comfort.

    He has to sound tired and weary. Just like the drum major has to sound upbeat and bouncy.

    so sad..  

    Parent

    Was this the venture capitalist? :) (none / 0) (#13)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Mar 07, 2014 at 05:09:45 PM EST
    You guessed! (none / 0) (#16)
    by oculus on Fri Mar 07, 2014 at 05:21:27 PM EST
    One of you may have been more of (none / 0) (#17)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Mar 07, 2014 at 05:27:18 PM EST
    An amateur critic than the other :)

    Parent
    A review: (none / 0) (#7)
    by oculus on Fri Mar 07, 2014 at 03:42:42 PM EST
    link

    Deborah Voigt was a very effective Marie. Met Orch., terrific, as always. But Nelson and the Vienna Phil. were superb.

    Yes, I am obsessed.

    Parent

    Why the Pause in Global Warming? (none / 0) (#33)
    by Slado on Sat Mar 08, 2014 at 04:28:25 AM EST
    Economist

    I only ask that you read the article with an open mind.  The question you should ask yourself is why has the warming been so much less then the scientists predicted?  

    The articles does a good job listing all the explanations but one observation becomes obvious.  Pro warming scientists have already made up their mind.   They do not have a good understanding of how our climate really works but can coddle together an explanation of why there's been a pause.

    This just makes my skepticism grow.   They are no longer looking for an answer but instead justification for political action.   They are no longer interested in the total science of our climate, just the part that backs up their theory.

    Because YOU don't like ... (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by Yman on Sat Mar 08, 2014 at 07:27:08 AM EST
    Pro warming scientists have already made up their mind.   They do not have a good understanding of how our climate really works but can coddle together an explanation of why there's been a pause.

    This just makes my skepticism grow.   They are no longer looking for an answer but instead justification for political action.   They are no longer interested in the total science of our climate, just the part that backs up their theory.

    ... the reasons provided by actual climatologists, it means they're not basing their conclusions on the data and their scientific expertise, but just "coddling together" a reason for political reasons.  97% of the experts are drawing their conclusions for political reasons, while the other 3% are looking at the data.

    ... because you say so.

    Heh.

    Parent

    Ah the 97% line (none / 0) (#78)
    by Slado on Sat Mar 08, 2014 at 04:12:29 PM EST
    That line of BS is just that

    Have 97% of anyone ever agreed on anything?  Come on Yman your better then that.

    What is most frustrating for skeptics like myself is that even if you are right you don't have a solution.  

    What's the plan?  Turn off all the lights?  Park all the cars?  Ground all the airplanes?

    The great thing about this problem for proponents is it's truly unsolvable.   We could go back to the 19th century in terms of how we live but we all know we won't.  

    There is  no end to the meaningless legislation that can be derived from it without making as much as a dent in the "problem".

    I ask you.  If it's really a problem what are you prepared to do about it?

    Parent

    "BS" - heh (none / 0) (#86)
    by Yman on Sat Mar 08, 2014 at 04:57:55 PM EST
    Because a wingnut website says so.

    You're funny.

    BTW - What I would do is follow the recommendations of the IGPCC - as opposed to your silly, straw recommendations.  Or the plan of you deniers, ...

    ... which is to do nothing.

    Parent

    And their recommendations would do what? (none / 0) (#98)
    by Slado on Sat Mar 08, 2014 at 06:31:19 PM EST
    Nothing.

    Are you arguing they would cut CO2 as much as they say we need?

    Since neither India nor China or any other developing country would agree to them.

    Since our senate voted 98-0 to not adopt similar recommendations.  That's a 98 number you can believe in.   Not the made up one your quoting and I notice you once again attacked the source not the conclusion.

    And yes I recommend doing nothing if it means we use the money to actually help people rather then try and solve the impossible.

    The only good that comes from all this silliness is some residual reduction in other harmful pollutants but like most fantasies it costs way more then it should.

    Parent

    I "attacked the source" ... (none / 0) (#100)
    by Yman on Sat Mar 08, 2014 at 08:00:18 PM EST
    ... because it's a ridiculous source.  Their denial of a basic fact doesn't change that fact.  If you want to disprove that fact, you'll need to do better than some wingnut blog.  here, I'll show you how it's done:

    A 2010 paper for the National Academy of Sciences of the United States reviewed publication and citation data for 1,372 climate researchers and drew the following two conclusions:

        (i) 97-98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field support the tenets of ACC (Anthropogenic Climate Change) outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and (ii) the relative climate expertise and scientific prominence of the researchers unconvinced of ACC are substantially below that of the convinced researchers.

    See?  That would be the National Academy of Sciences, as opposed to some wingnut website.  Interestingly enough, that would be the same percentage of scientific papers that endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming (97.1%).

    The rest of your "facts" are just as ridiculous.  no links to support your silly claims ... as usual.  I know you deniers get easily confused by facts and evidence, but simply repeating your opinions as though their fact isn't going to convince anyone.

    Parent

    If you really want to Geek out (none / 0) (#34)
    by Slado on Sat Mar 08, 2014 at 04:37:39 AM EST
    Good news in IPCC report

    Long article about facts in IPCC report showing the warming effect of Greenhouse gases on climate is half of what we thought it was.

    For some reason the IPCC report chose not to draw this conclusion only mention it.

    Parent

    "For some reason" (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by Yman on Sat Mar 08, 2014 at 07:24:40 AM EST
    Probably because they use studies from actual climatologists, as opposed to an "independent climatologist" and a journalist.

    Parent
    Well.. (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by jondee on Sat Mar 08, 2014 at 01:16:45 PM EST
    you guys on the right seem to be making some progress: in years I haven't been able to get Jim to admit that man-made greenhouse gases even exist.

    Parent
    I am not skeptical (5.00 / 1) (#80)
    by Slado on Sat Mar 08, 2014 at 04:22:15 PM EST
    That with every passing day we pollute this earth more and more.

    Everyday of my working life I actually try and convince building owners, contractors and engineers that they should heat and cool their buildings more efficiently.  If you guys had the opportunity to see me in action you'd be amazed.  I can talk life cycle, KW/Ton, building envelope etc, etc...

    All day long every day I convince people to live more efficiently and have probably single handily kept tons of CO2 and other actually harmful gases from being spewed into the atmosphere.   I live in coal country.   Here it makes a difference to be more efficient even though every is cheep.

    But what I don't believe is that we human beings are capable of changing the weather of this planet in such a way that we could actually make much of a difference.   And even if we could there is no way we will ever have the political will as a species to do a damn thing about it.

    AGW is a first world problem that is completely unsolvable because the rest and majority of the world simply isn't going to do anything to stop the production of CO2 to meet the demands of the believers.

    I invite the believers to mark off a worry from your list.

    Join me in my skepticism and stop wasting another minute worrying about an unsolvable problem.  

    Parent

    BTW - The humor is appreciated (none / 0) (#37)
    by Yman on Sat Mar 08, 2014 at 07:45:11 AM EST
    More specifically, your complaints that the vast majority of climatologists are basing their conclusions on political motivations rather than science, while citing a "paper"" by the Global Warming Policy Foundation.  Even the person who wrote the foreward for the "paper" (Judith Curry - an actual climatologist) says:

    I did think twice about writing a foreword for a GWPF publication.  I try to stay away from organizations with political perspectives on global warming.

    Wow.

    Parent

    Link (none / 0) (#38)
    by Yman on Sat Mar 08, 2014 at 07:46:01 AM EST
    AN AXE LENGTH AWAY, vol. 296 (none / 0) (#39)
    by Dadler on Sat Mar 08, 2014 at 08:48:23 AM EST
    Reality blocks home plate better than any catcher. (link)

    v. 295
    v. 294
    v. 293

    Enjoy your weekends, y'all. I need to meditate and kick the phuck out of a few demons that come back to "visit" now and then. Such is life. Peace.

    P.S.) Very cool rock-n-roll clip here (link): Jack White, The Edge and Jimmy Page talking about and riffing on White's "Seven Nation Army" tune. Very badass.

    Politics has poisoned serious discussion of climat (none / 0) (#40)
    by Mikado Cat on Sat Mar 08, 2014 at 08:49:31 AM EST
    Before the world spends trillions in the war against "global warming", it would be prudent to spend a few billion figuring out what is actually going on by doing a LOT more monitoring points.

    You're absolutely right (5.00 / 4) (#41)
    by Yman on Sat Mar 08, 2014 at 09:04:09 AM EST
    Deniers are using politics rather than science.

    Parent
    Some climate change deniers (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Mar 08, 2014 at 10:29:01 AM EST
    In our fam just bought a really nice house in Colorado Springs and are relocating there.  Colorado Springs is located in a high plains desert.  With each passing year now, when summer hits with the extra heat so do the out of control fires.  I wonder how long they will stay deniers now?

    Parent
    Here in central.. (5.00 / 5) (#45)
    by desertswine on Sat Mar 08, 2014 at 11:37:09 AM EST
    New Mexico, we have not really had a winter. No snow, not much cold. The allergy season started in February this year, it used to begin, for me, in April. Each year it started a little sooner.
    A few years ago, I watched in horror as all the pinon forests browned and went dead, almost overnight it seemed. It was a disaster of epic proportions, as many animals depended on their seeds for food, and yet it seemed to pass un-noticed as no media to covered it.

    Parent
    I love Silver City (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by MKS on Sat Mar 08, 2014 at 01:04:14 PM EST
    and Gila....are you near there?

    Parent
    Maybe the next TL meetup (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Mar 08, 2014 at 01:10:44 PM EST
    Needs to be in New Mexico

    Parent
    I'll second that! (5.00 / 2) (#61)
    by christinep on Sat Mar 08, 2014 at 01:55:43 PM EST
    Beauty, great food and music, galleries galore, intriguing and magical walks/hikes.  Yes to New Mexico!  

    For oculus: Check into the Pro Musica programs, the Desert Chorale, summer chamber music, and--of course--the July & August Santa Fe opera schedule.  For kdog: Much au naturel relaxing whether at 10,000 Waves, Ojo Caliente to the north, & healing remedies abounding.  For MT: A fiesta atmosphere at stated and unstated times in each season ... Zozobra's burning in September, the balloons in October, refreshing margaritas throughout the year after a "hard day" of exploring (make that a superb martini for me at the Pink Adobe.)

    Parent

    I love the Pink Adobe (5.00 / 4) (#62)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Mar 08, 2014 at 02:00:51 PM EST
    That is how I knew that my husband was fer sure The One, he took me to the Pink Adobe.  I would love to go again...

    Parent
    I am addicted to Santa Fe Opera and Santa Fe (5.00 / 1) (#93)
    by oculus on Sat Mar 08, 2014 at 05:38:03 PM EST
    Chamber Music Festival and 10,000 Waves and Casa Sena. Going mid-July.

    Parent
    Casa Sena (5.00 / 1) (#102)
    by christinep on Sat Mar 08, 2014 at 08:18:50 PM EST
    Good food and sweet music.  Husband & I spent New Years Eve there once ....

    Parent
    I am near... (5.00 / 1) (#68)
    by desertswine on Sat Mar 08, 2014 at 02:28:59 PM EST
    Albuquerque, although I have hiked the Gila Wilderness, as I have throughout most of the state.  I've been to Silver City, and on one outrageous Billy the Kid weekend, visited his mother's gravesite in SC.

    Parent
    Our allergy season started Feb also (none / 0) (#47)
    by nycstray on Sat Mar 08, 2014 at 12:09:19 PM EST
     The end of Jan beginning of Feb to be exact. We had a hard frost for about a week-10days in mid-late Dec, which finally prompted my trees etc to drop their leaves, then it got warm a couple weeks later and everything started busting out again . . .

    We are finally getting some rain, but it won't be enough. I have started hearing rumblings about el nino next winter, which the west can really use. Here's hoping the fires aren't too horrendous this summer . . .

    Parent

    How awful, I had not heard about (none / 0) (#50)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Mar 08, 2014 at 12:56:37 PM EST
    The pinion forests, I am so sorry.  My grandparents used to vacation at Ojo Caliente about twice a year.  And once a year they used to bring pinion nuts home.  My grandmother loved them.  How sad

    Parent
    Denver media had extensive coverage (none / 0) (#63)
    by christinep on Sat Mar 08, 2014 at 02:05:10 PM EST
    The fires in New Mexico have been sad, indeed.  Driving from Denver these past two years  following the northern NM fires, the acrid smoke dominated and betrayed the splendor of your land. From the top of Raton, the burnt trees were stark reminders.

    Parent
    Even if they want to deny climate change (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by nycstray on Sat Mar 08, 2014 at 12:04:35 PM EST
    How can they be okay with the polluting of our land/water/air? Do they want to live in China?

    Parent
    No (none / 0) (#82)
    by Slado on Sat Mar 08, 2014 at 04:32:05 PM EST
    See my other post.

    I am a skeptical conservationist.

    There are literally a hundred things we could do for our environment that are more important then AGW.

    What I ask the believers is how can you justify spending billions if not trillions on an unsolvable problem when there are many things we could actually do with that money that could help people and our environment?

    You say I'm the unscientific one?  Yes the proponents have convinced themselves through interdependent groupthink but have you ever heard a solution?  A solution that meets the hype or demands?

    No you haven't.   For two decades we've been fed the hype but no one is actually ever proposed a real solution.   Because that solution will not be accepted by the species.   We will not turn off the lights.

    Not even the believers will support the real solution.

    Why would we skeptics ever support it?

    Parent

    They'll simply blame it on the ... (none / 0) (#76)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sat Mar 08, 2014 at 03:34:11 PM EST
    ... reintroduction of wolves in the region, because the wolves are eating so many deer that there aren't enough to keep the forest from becoming overgrown. That why they believe that rich white guys should be allowed to shoot wolves with machine guns from helicopters.

    Parent
    BTW - Monitoring stations (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by Yman on Sat Mar 08, 2014 at 09:34:00 AM EST
    You suggest that "a LOT more monitoring points" are necessary in order to conclude that MMGW is actually occuring:

    1.  What is this claim based on,

    2.  How many monitoring points would be sufficient, and

    3.  The skeptics already ignore the hee-YOOOOGE  majority of studies and data that conclude that MMGW is occurring.  Why would they be convinced by more monitoring points?


    Parent
    As early as the 1970s (5.00 / 1) (#70)
    by christinep on Sat Mar 08, 2014 at 02:35:54 PM EST
    Mountainous terrain with their tranquil small lakes were studied--monitored & measured--for acid deposition and drift.  As taller stacks then dispersed pollution, rather than reduced it, the evidence even then showed substantial acid deposition.  

    In terms of the world's great forests, such as the notable and life-sustaining Brazilian rain forest, there exist numerous studies documenting the defoliation and damage stemming directly from dispersed pollutants.

    Deniers don't just deny.  IMO, they do not read.

    Parent

    Thousands of studies (5.00 / 1) (#72)
    by Yman on Sat Mar 08, 2014 at 02:46:14 PM EST
    But the deniers don't like the results, so they label them "politically motivated" and cite "studies" (usually not actual, peer-reviewed studies) by people who aren't climatologists.  Then they (falsely) claim a lack of scientific consensus and it needs to be studied.

    Deny, dissemble, distort, delay ...

    Predictable ... although Mikado's suggestion for more monitoring sites is one I haven't seen before.

    Parent

    The believers have no solution (none / 0) (#83)
    by Slado on Sat Mar 08, 2014 at 04:34:39 PM EST
    That's what I love about this debate.

    It's a debate about the existence of a problem.

    Not a debate on how to actually solve it.

    You come up with a solution and I'll listen.  Till then why bother?

    Parent

    The solutions have been ... (5.00 / 2) (#89)
    by Yman on Sat Mar 08, 2014 at 05:02:13 PM EST
    ... spoken of ad nauseum, by people with far more expertise than your simple pronunciation that there is nothing to be done.  Emphasis on simple.

    It's not my job to educate you - particularly on an issue where you've already made up your mind based on whatever you've read on a winger website, as opposed to the conclusions of actual climatologists.

    Parent

    I'm well aware of the proposals (5.00 / 1) (#106)
    by Slado on Sat Mar 08, 2014 at 11:42:26 PM EST
    They are solutions that can't be implemented.

    So how do they qualify as solutions?

    If this is an academic debate then fine.  Fake problem with real solutions.

    Problem is at no time will anyone do what would be necessary to solve the problem if the settled science is to be believed.

    Hence the quandary you refuse to acknowledge.  For two decades we've been told that an imminent threat of global proportions is upon us and yet we've done nothing to stop it.  Why?  Because no one believes in it enough to give up their energy.   It's fine in the abstract and it will poll well but not even the true believers will do what it takes to fix it.

    When the believers start giving up their carbon then I'll give them some credit but they won't even do that.   Instead more papers are written, a few tax breaks given here and there and the CO2 just keeps on rising.  

    Funny thing is the temp isn't rising with it.   Problem solved?

    Parent

    Love these unsupported pronouncements (5.00 / 1) (#109)
    by Yman on Sun Mar 09, 2014 at 08:39:41 AM EST
    I'm well aware of the proposals.  They are solutions that can't be implemented.

    "Can't be implemented" according to you?  Now you're just trying to be funny.

    For two decades we've been told that an imminent threat of global proportions is upon us and yet we've done nothing to stop it.  Why?  Because no one believes in it enough to give up their energy.

    No - the reason we haven't been able to get legislation passed is because of deniers (supported by money from the oil industry and conservative media) muddy the waters by forming a few think tanks to produce a few (typically non-peer-reviewed) "studies" by non-climatologists, which get promoted by conservatives.  The average person doesn't realize the hee-YOOOGE scientific consensus on this issue (including 97.1% of all studies), but simply sees one "study" from a "Dr." (or a petition of meteorologists/engineers/chemists, etc.) being used to challenge the consensus and thinks the issue isn't settled.  The oil companies keep the money flowing, including to the conservative politicians they support.

    Great job.

    When the believers start giving up their carbon then I'll give them some credit but they won't even do that.

    No one is saying they have to "give up" carbon.  But many can (and are) trying to do everything they can in their own lives to minimize their carbon footprint - energy efficient appliances, led lighting, solar, hybrid or high MPG cars, etc.  But they also realize that this isn't enough, and that carbon controls and promotion of renewable resources is necessary across the board.  the problem is (to date) getting legislation passed when you deniers deny the science/data because you don't want to believe it.

    Funny thing is the temp isn't rising with it.   Problem solved?

    Your last two sentences are even more ridiculous (and unsupported - as always) than the rest of your claims.

    Parent

    98-0 (none / 0) (#119)
    by Slado on Mon Mar 10, 2014 at 10:22:13 PM EST
    That was a bipartisan vote against Kyoto.

    Why?  Because while they like the issue they like the economy more.

    Sure they'll pass out some tax subsidies to green energy, they'll pass some regulations to make energy cost a bit more but when the rubber meets the road they're not prepared to do a damn thing about it.

    What makes it even more comical is the all nigter they pulled to make the believers happy.   If I was a believer I wouldn't waste time playing the blame game I'd know who to blame.   This president and his buddies in congress that like nothing more then slow rolling this "problem" so they'll always have a way to raise money.    

    Here's another link for you to Snark at.   The founder of Greenpeace says it way better then me.

    The Fight against AGW is a waste of time.

    You do realize you are arguing for a scientific hypothesis that the IPCC calls itself "extremely likely".   Do you know what that means in science?  

    Unproven.  

    When you prove it get back to me.   Till then keep working on it.

    Parent

    More false claims (none / 0) (#125)
    by Yman on Tue Mar 11, 2014 at 07:08:44 PM EST
    That was a bipartisan vote against Kyoto.

    No - it wasn't, which is precisely why (as usual) you don't provide links to support your claims.  The Senate never voted on Kyoto.  What you're conflating it with is the Ensign Amendment, which was an amendment preventing tax increases on the "middle class" to pay for cap and trade.

    Here's another link for you to Snark at.   The founder of Greenpeace says it way better then me.

    The Fight against AGW is a waste of time.

    "Snark"?  Naaaahhhhh ... Patrick Moore deserves much Moore than a simple snark, but let's just stick to the facts:

    1.  It's the opinion of a single person
    2.  who is not even a climatologist
    3.  who is not even a "co-founder of Greenpeace"
    4.  who's entire career is working for mining, energy, forestry, aquaculture, biotechnology, pharmaceuticals and manufacturing industries.


     You do realize you are arguing for a scientific hypothesis that the IPCC calls itself "extremely likely".   Do you know what that means in science?  

    Unproven.  

    When you prove it get back to me.   Till then keep working on it.

    "Extremely likely" = "unproven"?

    Heh.

    So if 97% of medical specialists tell someone they need a particular course of treatment or they will die, the patient should just ignore them because it's "unproven"?

    That's some interesting logic ...

    Parent

    Science isn't a diagnosis (none / 0) (#126)
    by Slado on Tue Mar 11, 2014 at 10:44:52 PM EST
    Science requires proof.  Proof that can be repeated.   Climate Change has a consensus and no proof.   Hence it is not scientific law but merely a pretty week hypothesis IMHO.

    As for the 95% number it was plucked out of thin air with no formula or theory to back it up.

    Who knows how certain they really are?   I guess one could credit them for acknowledging there's been enough counter evidence that even they couldn't claim to be 100% certain.

    Oh and I heard this one today.   Since the Dems took over the Senate in 2006 they haven't brought up a single bill to fight Climate Change.   And that is with two years controlling all branches of government.  Such a serious issue global .... I mean climate change is.

    But they could have an all night pizza party with half  their senators showing because the other half or too scared to show up.

    I just can't figure it out.   It's either the most important issue of our time or it's not.   The rhetoric is there.   But the action is not.   One could become a little (insert snark here) skeptical could one not?

    Parent

    You've "heard" a lot of things (none / 0) (#127)
    by Yman on Wed Mar 12, 2014 at 06:43:09 AM EST
    ... and you post a lot of opinion, with nothing to back it up ... save for the occasional, selective (often false) "fact" - i.e. your 98-0 "Kyoto" vote.

    The fact that you - a completely biased, non-expert - think it's a "pretty weak hypothesis" is even less relevant than the opinions of the non-expert, non-founder of Greenpeace.  And the conclusion of 97% of the experts (not a "plucked from thin air number") is real, and based on thousands of scientific studies, published in hundreds of scientific journals.

    Parent

    "Denier" how is that dehumanizing name (none / 0) (#87)
    by Mikado Cat on Sat Mar 08, 2014 at 04:58:36 PM EST
    different from the name calling of other bigots?

    Everyone that doesn't follow your dogma gets ridiculed and called names, while you ignore anything that doesn't fit your politics. Disgusting.

    Politics has poisoned scientific discussion for this very reason, the vetting process is does this fit the political party line.

    What is the solution currently on the table? Total nonsense, where the industrialized nations pay the corrupt leaders of the non industrialized countries to keep their people poor.

    What some seem to fail to understand is that no matter how strongly you believe something you can't always cram it down others throats like Obamacare, you must reach a consensus among all concerned, and that means more and clearly better without political taint information. Certainly until there are accurate predictive models its pointless to shoot in the dark at solutions.

    Oy, your snuggling up with millionaires (5.00 / 2) (#90)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Mar 08, 2014 at 05:05:06 PM EST
    and billionaires in the name of changing nothing evah is likely to kill my grandchildren and even the Pentagon knows this, but YOU are dehumanized at the moment?  Please

    Parent
    Calling someone a denier ... (5.00 / 2) (#101)
    by Yman on Sat Mar 08, 2014 at 08:06:11 PM EST
    ... is bigoted?

    Hehehehehehehehehe ....

    Just when I think you can't top your previous ridiculous statements, you take it up another notch.

    BTW - You never did answer any of the questions, and now you've shifted from claiming that we need more monitoring stations to claiming we need more accurate predictive models.

    Guess there's a reason for that ...

    Parent

    All bigoted name calling (none / 0) (#108)
    by Mikado Cat on Sun Mar 09, 2014 at 04:16:42 AM EST
    boils down to ridicule and exclusion, one them, not one of us.

    Teabagger, denier, whatever, it should be offensive to any thinking person and seen for what it is, refusal to recognize another's humanity. We are all human beings regardless of political opinion.

    Parent

    Of COURSE we're all human (none / 0) (#110)
    by Yman on Sun Mar 09, 2014 at 08:47:08 AM EST
    Teabagger, denier, whatever, it should be offensive to any thinking person and seen for what it is, refusal to recognize another's humanity. We are all human beings regardless of political opinion.

    But the fact that you're offended by a completely accurate description is something I can't help you with.  Or are you now saying that you don't deny that MMGW is real?

    Parent

    Real doesn't make it Religion (none / 0) (#117)
    by Mikado Cat on Sun Mar 09, 2014 at 11:49:03 PM EST
    I know enough to know we don't know enough about what is changing and why, and see no reason to act on faith instead of science.

    By the way I am sure many bigots make the same arguments that you have about the terms they use to demean and ridicule others.

    Parent

    It's not religion (5.00 / 1) (#118)
    by Yman on Mon Mar 10, 2014 at 06:27:12 AM EST
    It's science ... it's data ... it's climatologists.  It's thousands of scientific studies conducted over decades.  Which is precisely the reason you refuse to address your claims on their substance, ... or more accurately, their complete lack thereof.

    The fact that you don't like the use of the completely accurate term to describe deniers is irrelevant.

    Parent

    Blinded by faith (none / 0) (#120)
    by Mikado Cat on Mon Mar 10, 2014 at 10:54:00 PM EST
    knowing a little about weather, forecasting, etc. it seems to me you actually don't know much about it, how weather patterns intertwine and the various large and small forces at work.

    When we lack models that reliably predict the weather as little as a week in advance for most of the world, that should tell you something about how little "climatologists" know what they are talking about.

    Possession of doubt is how you can easily separate scientists from political stooges.

    Parent

    No - the way to separate (none / 0) (#124)
    by Yman on Tue Mar 11, 2014 at 06:37:33 PM EST
    ... scientists from stooges is that the former use data to reach their conclusions and have their research published in peer-reviewed publications.

    The latter make specious claims with no evidence.

    BTW - Climate isn't weather, and your attempt to analagize them is just more ridiculous diversion.  You still haven't answered the questions about your monitoring station claims.

    Guess there's a reason for that...

    Parent

    A mountain much too high to ever climb (none / 0) (#92)
    by MO Blue on Sat Mar 08, 2014 at 05:26:57 PM EST
    CPACer Panel On Women's Issues Panel

    "We cannot have any stupid comments this year. No stupid comments," conservative author Kate Obenshain said Saturday at the Conservative Political Action Conference. "Please think before you make pithy, obnoxious comments."
    ...
    "White men stay behind, let the women talk about this issue. We love white men. We love all the white men," Obenshain said before adding that it's important for women to talk about those issues.



    The problem (5.00 / 1) (#94)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Mar 08, 2014 at 05:39:27 PM EST
    is these people actually believe what they are saying. Akin actually believed in that crack pot science. So these people do not know it is something stupid until they get out in public and get a reaction.

    The bottom line is the GOP is not going to change any of their stances from 1/3 of a century ago and that is one of their biggest problems.

    Parent

    I just loved the total lack of awareness (5.00 / 1) (#95)
    by MO Blue on Sat Mar 08, 2014 at 05:51:21 PM EST
    During a panel discussion where Ms. Obenshain lectured:

    "We cannot have any stupid comments this year."..."Please think before you make pithy, obnoxious comments."

    She chose to make this comment towards the end of the discussion.

    "White men stay behind, let the women talk about this issue. We love white men. We love all the white men,"


    Parent
    Just not brown men (none / 0) (#104)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Mar 08, 2014 at 08:53:44 PM EST
    We don't love brown men

    What a piece of work.  What a flaming white hot on fire idiot.

    She loves her a white man though, even if his intellect can't compete with a sack of hammers.  Talk about sexual objectification :)

    Parent

    Yep (5.00 / 3) (#105)
    by MO Blue on Sat Mar 08, 2014 at 09:36:21 PM EST
    She is totally unaware that she herself was making a stupid, pithy, obnoxious comment. She could have just as easily said:

    "Republican men stay behind, let the women talk about this issue. We love our men. We love all our Republican men,"

    But as Ga6thDem remarked this what is normal and mirrors the way she and the Republicans think. While stupid, it was a perfectly honest statement on her part.

    Parent

    Wonder if Miss Obershain was (5.00 / 1) (#112)
    by KeysDan on Sun Mar 09, 2014 at 12:14:44 PM EST
    thinking of Akin or that other dopey white man from Indiana, Richard Mourdock, the failed candidate for the US senate?  A hard call.  Mourdock's "pregnancy caused by rape is something that God intended to happen,"  qualifies as both pithy, in that with just a few words he was able to convey his meaning, and obnoxious, in that it is offensive and he is electorally annoying.   I do see  the point of her admonition to her dopey white male  Republican colleagues--leave pithy and obnoxious analysis of this  issue to us dopey white Republican women.  

    Parent
    Yes (none / 0) (#114)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Mar 09, 2014 at 03:02:08 PM EST
    like Michele Bachmann did a whole lot better than they did. She might not have made comments about rape but she sure made plenty of crazy ones herself.

    Parent
    The Republican problem with women (none / 0) (#122)
    by shoephone on Mon Mar 10, 2014 at 11:24:30 PM EST
    is not going away. And Akin has company with his views about women, rape, and pregnancy:

    Sater may believe that women need to be swift in their Plan B procurement, but he also apparently thinks that it should be very difficult for women to procure Plan B. In 2010, Sater sponsored a bill that would allow pharmacies not to stock emergency contraception if they don't want to and prevent women--presumably including rape victims--from suing pharmacies for not doing so. So, rape victims: You're expected to get it together so quickly post-rape that you don't forget to take emergency contraception, even though you're not allowed to expect any pharmacies to actually stock the stuff. (Also, despite his focus on emergency contraception, it appears Sater has no idea that it has a 5-11 percent failure rate, which means that some of those rape victims that he blames for not taking Plan B fast enough did, in fact, do so.)



    Parent
    She just called white men stupid (none / 0) (#103)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Mar 08, 2014 at 08:45:25 PM EST
    Obnoxious, and alluded to them being adolescent.  She's kind of pithy

    Parent
    I didn't waste a minute (none / 0) (#121)
    by Mikado Cat on Mon Mar 10, 2014 at 10:58:52 PM EST
    of my life watching that stuff, but I don't follow the weird spin you are attempting to put on what they said. I see it as women need to step forward and speak out on women's issues, and white men need to step back and let them.

    Parent
    Weird spin (none / 0) (#129)
    by MO Blue on Fri Mar 14, 2014 at 10:21:02 AM EST
    Not at all.

    I doubt that anyone who has read any of your comments would be surprised that you agree with the statement as is. If anyone fits the stereotype of the white Republican male being discussed, it would be you.

    Parent