Thursday Morning Open Thread

What's on your mind this today? I'll try to put up a Daily ISIS this afternoon.

I'm glad I'll have some free time later today and over the weekend. Our webmaster Colin says he's spent the past few months building a conversion program so that the TalkLeft posts and comments can be "translated" to wordpress language and moved over to the new server. He thinks everyone will be able to use the same user name and password. He needs a few more weeks to test it and get the bugs out, but it seems like we finally may get to move and get off "Scoop." If you have forgotten what the new site looks like, here it is. There won't be any ads and it will be free. As always, I'll ask for donations 3 times a year or so. Readers here have been quite generous, and I really appreciate it.

Enjoy the weekend.

This is an open thread, all topics welcome.

< Tsarnaev Trial: Change of Venue Request | World Cup Day 8 >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Is it Friday? From your lips to gods ears!!! (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by ruffian on Thu Jun 19, 2014 at 05:44:21 AM EST

    I'm down to replace Thursday... (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by kdog on Thu Jun 19, 2014 at 07:36:50 AM EST
    with Sunturday.

    Thurs. really is the new Fri. (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by oculus on Thu Jun 19, 2014 at 08:14:22 AM EST
    It's always Monday for me. (none / 0) (#15)
    by ZtoA on Thu Jun 19, 2014 at 12:43:01 PM EST
    That's just sad (none / 0) (#62)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Jun 19, 2014 at 06:19:31 PM EST
    Retirement means every day is Saturday (even Sunday since I am areligious)

    Its actually a good thing for me (5.00 / 1) (#74)
    by ZtoA on Thu Jun 19, 2014 at 08:06:41 PM EST
    I LOVE to work. I take a day off from time to time. But many long hours in my studio make me feel balanced. I get a bit 'off' if I can't work for any length of time.

    What will become of your balance if we arrive on (5.00 / 1) (#85)
    by oculus on Thu Jun 19, 2014 at 09:13:52 PM EST
    a pilgrimage?

    I could handle that! and would love to... (5.00 / 2) (#97)
    by ZtoA on Thu Jun 19, 2014 at 10:46:55 PM EST
    I've had to travel for shows twice this year so far and I need to recover from meeting and seeing so many people. I really need to up my learning curve about traveling since it looks like my traveling will be increasing. At least I don't mind public speaking anymore. But visitors to my studio are a treat and I usually have quite a number of them. If you visit I'll make my soon to be perfected Mondrian cake.

    And MT or squeaky could make the fab chocolate (5.00 / 2) (#100)
    by oculus on Thu Jun 19, 2014 at 11:11:19 PM EST
    mousse. I only make tortilla Espanola.

    I bought Ghirardelli (5.00 / 2) (#104)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Jun 20, 2014 at 02:44:14 AM EST
    Bittersweet this afternoon to try this Sunday with a little fresh grated jalapeño in it.  I think I'll just pour a bit of Gran Marnier over the top.

    Check this chocolate chilish recipe out...with tequila cream cheese icing.


    Might make it as well.  It has some garbage in it though :). The recipe squeaky gave me for chocolate mousse is beautiful in simplicity and it lacks so many unhealthy items that most  dessert mousses have in them.


    Driving in Kansas, Especially Interstate (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by Lfrieling on Thu Jun 19, 2014 at 06:45:24 AM EST
    On excellent authority, a young man (over 21) with two friends were delivering a sold car to a Kansas buyer. All legit, no drugs or cash.

    On the interstate, they were stopped SIX TIMES by state troopers.  The young man (right or wrong) permitted several searches.  There was one canine.  Nothing was ever found (because it was not there).

    The reasons for the stops ranged from "taillight too dark" to speeding 78/75 (78 in a 75).  NO tickets were issued, just warnings.  Obviously these pretext stops were looking for drugs and cash.  How do we boycott Kansas? Stop eating corn and other crops from there?  I don't know,  I do a need for extreme caution when I see it  In Kansas the LEGAL ounce of pot bought 1/4 oz at a time in Colorado by someone over 21 becomes a serious and very high risk of a 4-5 year prison term in Kansas.  Lenny

    I got a name... (none / 0) (#4)
    by kdog on Thu Jun 19, 2014 at 07:42:22 AM EST
    for such stops Lenny...attempted robbery and attempted kidnapping.

    Kansas Cops acting criminally? forgive long post (5.00 / 3) (#11)
    by Lfrieling on Thu Jun 19, 2014 at 10:12:33 AM EST
    I wish this was a workable strategy.  I suspect that because of the "reasons" for the stops (any reasonable suspicion that a traffic violation was committed), and the consent to the searches, (there were at least 3 searches including the dog search)  (DO NOT CONSENT TO SEARCHES), criminal accusations against the cops, while satisfying to think about, might prove to be ineffective.  When I was in law school (Rutgers, 1972-1975), the Constitutional Litigation Clinic, working with William Kunstler and Lenny Weinglass (Center for Constitutional Rights) with a little assist from student-me, worked on a lawsuit against the New Jersey State Police for their profiling behavior.  After 15 or more years of litigation, our team won.

    I don't know if that is a viable option under  the current 18 USC 1983 federal lawsuit (civil rights violations), given the current bad state of the law on profiling.  

    Generally, today, if there a traffic reason to justify a stop (again, reasonable suspicion of traffic violation, including 1 mph over the speed limit), the truth that it was a profile stop with the LEO's admission that it was profiling, does not matter.  The LEO's underlying intention does not matter.  I suspect that if the profiling is racially-based, for example "stop all Blacks for DWB," that might be a good federal lawsuit.  In NJ on the Rutgers suit, I recall it being "young people with long hair" who were subjected to profiling, highway stops, and what ensued.  It was during the anti-Vietnam efforts. Drugs were still the target of the cops.  Hassling "hippies" was a bonus for them, which they truly enjoyed at the time.  

    Ironically, Law Enforcement Against Prohibition was started some years later by the former chief of the NJ State Police Undercover Narcotics Unit.  He saw first-hand that prohibition could never work and that the only accomplishment was that lives were ruined by the prohibition.  As a former judge, I am a LEAP speaker, and we find ourselves working together with the best of attitudes and goals.  

     I am preliminarily chatting about this issue with our friend, NORML Legal Committee lawyer  Cal Williams, out of Colby, Kansas.  Lenny


    Sadly it's not just Kansas (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Jun 19, 2014 at 10:25:01 AM EST
    I live in Arkansas, have three cop in my family and can tell you they constantly gloat about their systematic violations of suspects rights.

    What was the trigger (none / 0) (#51)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Jun 19, 2014 at 04:40:05 PM EST
    that caused the 6 stops??

    "reasons" for six stops (none / 0) (#119)
    by Lfrieling on Fri Jun 20, 2014 at 10:33:04 AM EST
    The six stops, all of which resulted in "warnings," some or all in writing,  The reasons included 3 mph  over the highway speed limit, having taillights that were too dark, and other things equally minor.  I have no additional detail on the other 4 stops, except that NO traffic tickets were issued.  My strong suspicion is that the only reason for the stops was the fact that the 3 occupants of the car were young men.  

    Kansas used a trick (NOT on this particular young man) that would be funny if it were not funny.  They put up signs that said "LAST EXIT BEFORE DRUG CHECKPOINT."  Of course, the real drug checkpoint was at the bottom of the EXIT, not ahead on the highway as indicated by the signage.   THEN, they (state troopers) , waiting off the highway, at the bottom of the "last exit" would watch for any excuse, including illegal "U" turns getting back to the highway, as an excuse to search, to obtain consent to search, to do a canine walk-around, and the like.  The twisted reality and common thread is that Kansas is not really protecting Kansas, but is instead taking advantage of mostly the lowest level of taking pot home from Colorado; ounces and not pounds frequently, to raise money for Kansas and to justify their jobs.  

    I suspect they could raise more money by legalizing, taxing and regulating.  Kansas is a wonderful place to continue our most recent foray into the potentials of hemp, domestically grown.  ASIDE:  for the spinners and weavers, the only "fine" hemp fiber for spinning is apparently coming out of Eastern Europe at the moment.  The US has the farmland, skills, and climate, as I understand it, to be growing our own hemp, marijuana, and in the more extreme situation, to grow our own poppies instead of having our heroin addicts buying bullets for the Taliban which are then sent back to us, arriving by delivery from an AK-47 from a Taliban fighter.  

    Of course, that part of the debate is most clearly put forth by LEAP, Law Enforcement Against Prohibition.  I drift <G>  Lenny


    I am thinking that, (5.00 / 1) (#163)
    by Zorba on Fri Jun 20, 2014 at 04:24:42 PM EST
    If they were traveling east on Interstate 70 (which goes across the country), the cops were assuming that they were traveling from Colorado.   So there were three young guys, coming from the west.  As far as the Kansas cops were concerned, given that they were "young guys," they simply must have been bringing mj into Kansas.
    This is why I have been a long-time supporter of the ACLU.
    What the he!! happened to the "presumption of innocence"?

    Good thinking, added fact in support (none / 0) (#188)
    by Lfrieling on Sat Jun 21, 2014 at 08:14:55 AM EST
    You're on the same track I'm on.  Let me add, supporting your thinking and left out of my earlier posts on this thread, the car being sold in Wyoming had Colorado plates.

    I've been told by some clients that they learned (from troopers) that also being targeted were OLDER people, generally couples, 50-70 years old or so, with no kids in the car.  

    and just when I thought I was safe from profiling because of my grey beard!  Lenny


    They must have had... (none / 0) (#96)
    by desertswine on Thu Jun 19, 2014 at 10:45:11 PM EST
    a Darwin fish on the back of the car.

    New positive Colorado Hemp Legislation (5.00 / 3) (#9)
    by Lfrieling on Thu Jun 19, 2014 at 09:15:26 AM EST
    A new Colorado Hemp law means progress.   The new law was signed May 31, 2014.  Colorado is continuing to progress in this VERY important part of the cannabis legalization effort.  The importance of industrial hemp should not be forgotten in the world of medical and recreational.  A good general (and I believe accurate) source of information on industrial hemp is at Colorado NORML on hemp  

    The history of hemp is a mix of folk myth and fact.  The sails on the Columbus three ships were hemp (as were virtually all sails on earth at that time, and until the mid to late 1800s).  The declaration of independence is on parchment, an animal product, and not on hemp.   On the other hand, it appears likely that one of the two drafts of the Declaration of Independence was written on hemp paper.  I believe it is in the Library of Congress or in the National Archives.  "They" have no current plans to examine the draft to determine the truth.  

    American-grown hemp, at the STRONG URGING of the US Government, in fact helped win WWII (and helped avoiding losing WWII because already built battle ships and other naval assets could not be outfitted and launched into service with the loss of our supply source and stock of Manila Hemp.  After helping to win the war, the crops were burned by the Government.  Lenny

    of J's, but most of your comment does not stand up to scrutiny.

    Going to NORML for info on hemp is like going to Daniel Snyder for info on racial sensitivity.

    Hemp is expensive to process and outside of a few specialty markets it has been entirely displaced by better, cheaper materials.

    The bottom line is that hemp has quite legally been produced for centuries in many parts of the world but market demand for it is now very limited and declining.

    iow, like Mick and Kieth wrote, you are perfecting ways of making sealing wax.


    That is a remarkably (none / 0) (#39)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Jun 19, 2014 at 03:54:05 PM EST
    Uninformed comment.  

    Keep drinking the koolaid. (none / 0) (#49)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Jun 19, 2014 at 04:38:36 PM EST
    Novelty item like toe shoes at best.
    Acreage in hemp cultivation worldwide has been mostly flat to decreasing, reported at about 200,000 acres globally in 2011.
    Historically, hemp fiber was used mainly for cordage, but it can also be made into textiles, paper, and composite wood products. Demand for hemp cordage peaked in the late 1800's, and world hemp production has continuously declined since that time, except for brief increases during both World Wars. Hemp fiber has largely been replaced by relatively inexpensive natural and synthetic fibers.

    Hemp textile production is based primarily in Asia and central Europe. Korea has a long history of hemp fabric production, primarily for use as domestic clothing (Ree, 1966). In Italy, Hungary, and adjacent countries, water-retted fiber is prepared with great care to produce relatively fine yarns and soft fabrics resembling flax (Montgomery, 1954). These yarns and cloth are quite expensive compared to natural and synthetic fiber blends made from competing fiber sources largely due to the amount of hand labor involved in their production. A small novelty market based on hemp textiles imported from China and Hungary has been developing in western Europe and the United States since the late 1980's.

    Hemp industry sources and some academic studies cite many potential uses for hemp fiber and hurds. However, for these applications to develop or expand, hemp will have to compete with current raw materials and manufacturing practices. The U.S. market for hemp fibers is, and will likely remain, a small, thin market.

    Two of your links are government (none / 0) (#56)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Jun 19, 2014 at 05:39:38 PM EST
    I know how much you love that but forgive the rest of us for giggling.  And apparently you didn't read the other one -


    Industrial hemp production has recently been the subject of increasing study around the world. In the PNW, regional paper and wood products companies are becoming more interested in agricultural fiber sources to meet their raw material needs. Hemp is one among many possible agricultural products that could supplement or replace fiber currently supplied by foreign and domestic wood species. Although production of many products is technically possible using hemp, acceptance of hemp by industry will depend on the specific properties required for particular end products as well as price and availability of hemp as a raw material.

    I not going to argue with you.  The construction link I posted is enough.  Will just add this

    The current demand for hemp fiber is still relatively low, although new uses for it continue to be developed. The energy crisis is shining new light on renewable crops, such as hemp, as a source of energy. The value of the cellulose rich hemp hurds as a source of paper, building materials, fuel and animal bedding is now universally recognized, and the multitude of nutritional benefits contained in the hempseed are manifesting themselves in numerous foods and health care products. However, until hemp can once again operate in the free market it will not even be given the chance to succeed.

    Join us in the new century.  You might like it.


    Talk about giggles. (none / 0) (#61)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Jun 19, 2014 at 06:15:20 PM EST
    Sounds like you really can't/won't understand what this actually means:
    Although production of many products is technically possible using hemp, acceptance of hemp by industry will depend on the specific properties required for particular end products as well as price and availability of hemp as a raw material.

    Put your big boy pants on, maybe you'll get it.


    Btw (none / 0) (#57)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Jun 19, 2014 at 05:40:11 PM EST
    I hate koolaid

    If you like, I can post about (none / 0) (#43)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Jun 19, 2014 at 03:59:53 PM EST
    other avenues for hemp facts (none / 0) (#73)
    by Lfrieling on Thu Jun 19, 2014 at 07:47:42 PM EST
    Instead of the NORML info, I'd encourage doing an independent google on hemp.  There is not much debate in many areas of its purported efficacy.  Hurst (1937) sabotaged hemp because of the invention of a machine to simplify the hemp paper making process, for example.  Hemp has in fact been displaced, but not, IMO, by generally better and cheaper materials.  For example, I believe that bio-fuels produced from hemp are far more efficiently manufactured than from corn, starting with average and water requirements.  The markets are specialty markets because we are just seeing the beginning of the re-examination of hemp applications.  Let's look again in 3 years and see what survives in a free market.  

    The processing is indeed not simple, and is much like processing linen, involving a stage of "rotting," and more. Let's see if the current demand persists or grows or shrinks  in light of better availability and less government interference.  As an aside, the food benefits of hemp and hemp oil is as far as I know not generally disputed.  Much like flax seed oil, with perhaps more benefits.  Lenny


    comment than your first one.

    You can see results from independent google in comment #49.


    I think the reality is (none / 0) (#135)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Jun 20, 2014 at 01:11:22 PM EST
    that there is little real "need" for a new raw material source for much of the stuff you can use hemp for.

    iow, hemp has oily seeds (like thousands of other plants) but many other readily available plants provide much more oil more cheaply (like soy and canola). Also, hemp oil does not have special or remarkable characteristics that would make it truly special to the broad market, so not a lot of demand there for hemp oil.

    Hemp has fibers (again, like thousands of other plants) but there is ready availability of relatively cheap cotton, wool, man-made fibers, etc. And the hemp fibers do not have special or remarkable characteristics that would make them truly special to the broad market, therefor there is little demand for hemp fibers.

    The one market that is massive, important, and also actively looking for positive disruption, as you pointed out, is the energy/fuel market.

    However, hemp biodiesel fuel, made from hemp seed oil, is not plug-and-play; it requires engine modifications in order to be used. And again, many other plants yield much more oil more cheaply.

    Ethanol can be made from the hemp stalks, and this may hold some promise. However the competition from the common, easy to produce, and relatively cheap corn ethanol is pretty steep.

    What makes hemp ethanol so expensive is the production process; making ethanol from hemp (and any other cellulosic materials) is much more complex than from materials like corn.

    Even if an improved cellulosic ethanol production process is developed, hemp would still has a lot of competition from more established cellulosic sources like plain old switchgrass, corn husks - or even yard waste.

    In the US there are currently around 150 Billion pounds of municipal grass clippings, leaves, etc., that are simply wasted every year by being thrown away garbage dumps.

    Think of the energy potential there.


    NSA Playset (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Jun 19, 2014 at 10:01:53 AM EST
    TGIF (5.00 / 2) (#12)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jun 19, 2014 at 10:16:12 AM EST
    J, I fixed the title.

    thanks! (none / 0) (#58)
    by Jeralyn on Thu Jun 19, 2014 at 06:04:44 PM EST
    The president is sending (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by KeysDan on Thu Jun 19, 2014 at 04:40:40 PM EST
    "advisors" to Iraq.  The ostensible purpose is to help train Iraq's military and to assist in gathering intelligence.  Hard to argue with the need:

    (l) train Iraq's military.  The fighting strength of ISIS is estimated at 7,000; the Iraq army consists of about 250, 000 plus armed police. And, of course, we have been training the Iraq army since 2003 so that they could stand up and we could stand down.  The advisors have their work cut out for them, as they not only have been sitting down, but, putting boots on the ground along with  the rest of their uniforms. Clearly, more lessons are required.

     (2) gather intelligence--the one-eyed man is king in the land of the blind.  ISIS  was a big surprise for everyone, but we will be the royal spear-header fort his intelligence gathering.   And, ISIS is not going it alone, this jihadist group is cooperating, if not being used, by re-constituted notions of Saddam's Baath party.  No one noticed that either.

    ISIS, is no longer ISIS either.  It is ISIL--Islamic State of Iraq and Levant. Levant expands to the eastern Mediterranean, depending on definitions, Lebanon, Israel, Palestine, Jordan, Cyprus, and southern Turkey.   Quite an umbrella.

    Boy, a tall order for just 300 American "advisors."'  It is almost as if this is an effort to address the concerns of each  of a multi-sided Iraq as well as Saudi Arabia and Iran.  An even taller order and one that is likely to require more and more "advisors"  (cf. Vietnam), or put us back in the middle of a civil war (cf. Iraq, 2006-2007).    

    This is just an opinion (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Jun 19, 2014 at 04:48:14 PM EST
    Based on what I have been reading but I'm guessin it's a lot more about intell than anything else.  Everything I've read says that is our biggest problem.  Lack of reliable on the ground intell.

    Well the prisoner from Ben Gazi has reached the US (none / 0) (#80)
    by Amiss on Thu Jun 19, 2014 at 08:57:16 PM EST
    The ship is docked here at Mayport.

    I wonder if they have allowed (none / 0) (#84)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Jun 19, 2014 at 09:03:57 PM EST
    Him to see the media coverage of him and his extraction

    I dunno (none / 0) (#133)
    by Amiss on Fri Jun 20, 2014 at 12:48:25 PM EST
    But really thought it weird to be on the local news. Just something of a security nightmare I would think, but what do I know.

    My daughter is visiting from LA this weekend (5.00 / 1) (#105)
    by ZtoA on Fri Jun 20, 2014 at 04:04:34 AM EST
    and it started to sprinkle as she arrived. This is the 'dry' season in Portland so rain is rather unusual. But it made her so happy. She said that living in LA after being raised in Portland made her "rain deprived". She also tried to get my undivided attention by saying "mom, mom, mom, ma, ma, ma, ma, ma! ma!, ma!" like in family guy. But I knew that routine and called her on it much to her delight. She nonetheless calls me "ma", at least it is not "maw".  

    When I lived in LA (5.00 / 1) (#110)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Jun 20, 2014 at 09:02:58 AM EST
    I would sometimes call in sick to work if rain was predicted.   So I could enjoy it fully.  Than 90% of the time it wouldn't.

    Who told me to watch Hannibal? (5.00 / 1) (#106)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Jun 20, 2014 at 05:00:48 AM EST
    Was it Captain Howdy? I already lack enthusiasm to cook.  Now I'm watching luxurious food footage that would rival the food network.  But I feel like retching because God only knows all of Hannibal's ingredients.  Anthony Bourdain goes to the morgue.  

    It was (5.00 / 1) (#109)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Jun 20, 2014 at 09:01:22 AM EST
    And you can thank my friend Sean for badgering me on FB for months.

    I watched a bit but I can only binge one thing at a time.  Doing True Blood right now.  Always nice to have something to look forward to.

    Plus I mays have to join some service, it has limited availability I guess.  Maybe waiting will change that too.


    It was a recent episode (none / 0) (#113)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Jun 20, 2014 at 09:47:41 AM EST
    I only have three recent scenes available to me, though it was adding onto the Hannibal story though so the viewer isn't necessarily lost.

    If I'm gonna do it (none / 0) (#114)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Jun 20, 2014 at 09:55:28 AM EST
    I gotta start from the beginning.  And I'm definitely gonna do it before the new season.

    The first season (none / 0) (#115)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Jun 20, 2014 at 09:57:12 AM EST
    Is available free on Amazon premium or prime or whatever it's called.  Expect the second to be available soon.

    Do you have Prime? (none / 0) (#124)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Jun 20, 2014 at 11:10:47 AM EST
    Not yet (none / 0) (#129)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Jun 20, 2014 at 11:56:02 AM EST
    I will probably get it just long enough to binge.  And I will wait to see if they show up on ondemand or something

    I'm having a nice bowl (none / 0) (#131)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Jun 20, 2014 at 12:17:48 PM EST
    Of cereal for lunch :)

    Well, this is depressing... (5.00 / 1) (#111)
    by Anne on Fri Jun 20, 2014 at 09:04:14 AM EST
    [Bold is mine]
    The Energy and Natural Resources Committee voted 12-10 today for legislation that would let Calgary-based TransCanada Corp. build then operate the $5.4 billion Canada-to-U.S. oil pipeline that has been snagged in disputes for more than five years. Democrats Joe Manchin of West Virginia and Chairman Mary Landrieu of Louisiana, who helped write the bill, joined all the Republicans in backing the legislation. "This is about what our future energy policy should look like," said Landrieu, pointing to the need to boost construction employment and expand oil imports from Canada and also Mexico, both long-time allies. The measure's prospects aren't good, however. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, who sets the agenda for chamber action, hasn't agreed to bring the issue up for a vote. Obama could veto it if it did pass.


    Charlie Pierce weighs in:

    There are a couple of things to remember here. First of all, TransCanada, the foreign grifters who want to build this thing, has a permit to build the South Dakota pipeline that expires on June 20. So, forgive my cynicism, but I'm wondering if the company didn't have a bit of a role in gaining a perceived "victory" in the Senate to give the overall impression that this thing is a done deal, which it clearly is not. The second thing is that, if Harry Reid is clumsy enough to bring this dead fish to a vote, and the Senate passes it, the president would have to veto it, not just because the project is an environmental catastrophe waiting to happen, but also to send a message to Democrats like Landrieu and Manchin that they better get with the program on climate change or get rolled on it. This is two Democratic senators setting themselves up to undermine a Democratic president's declared policy position, and a policy position that literally is life and death. (They're also fcking with the heartbeats of Democratic candidates elsewhere; for example, this cosmetic exercise isn't going to help Mark Udall in Colorado at all.) They need a serious slapping down.

    What is wrong with these people?  Yes, it is about our future energy policy, but letting the Landrieus and Manchins dictate that policy and that future is insane.

    Nevertheless, I have the fracking feeling that, in spite of the measure's prospects not being good, somehow Dems won't be able to muster the will to kill this thing.


    Nobody's perfect... (5.00 / 1) (#136)
    by kdog on Fri Jun 20, 2014 at 01:20:40 PM EST
    not even Pope Frank.  Recreational drug wine is the blood of Christ and served in the house of god, yet other recreational drugs should remain criminalized according to the pope.  Allrighty then...lol.

    I really don't think J.H.C. would approve of this message.  Sh*t I'm down with the theory that the healing anointing oils referenced in the bible were probably hash oil, one of the oldest medicines known to humankind.  

    Regardless, god doesn't make mistakes, my sacrament is here for a reason.  Genesis 1:12

    The earth brought forth vegetation, plants yielding seed according to their own kinds, and trees bearing fruit in which is their seed, each according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.

    Hell yeah god...and some are better than others. You broke the mold with cannabis!

    Game of Thrones poster (5.00 / 1) (#168)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Jun 20, 2014 at 07:24:05 PM EST
    Donald....here is Schweitzer on Eric Cantor (none / 0) (#5)
    by CoralGables on Thu Jun 19, 2014 at 08:03:05 AM EST
    It's not easy to lose Dem votes, Republican votes, and Independent votes in one little loose-lipped spiel, but Schweitzer may have pulled off the trifecta.

    "Don't hold this against me, but I'm going to blurt it out. How do I say this ... men in the South, they are a little effeminate. They just have effeminate mannerisms. If you were just a regular person, you turned on the TV, and you saw Eric Cantor talking, I would say--and I'm fine with gay people, that's all right--but my gaydar is 60-70 percent."

    If I was him I would stay away from (5.00 / 3) (#33)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Jun 19, 2014 at 03:27:36 PM EST
    "The south" for a while.  Some effeminate red neck might just kick his silly turquoise string tie wearin butt

    You are killin me (5.00 / 2) (#37)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Jun 19, 2014 at 03:43:23 PM EST
    I was traveling home really late one night, it was like 1:00 am.  I stopped for gas about 70 miles out and there was a Montana rancher in the gas station, he was completely lost and everyone was looking at him like he was an alien.  He had the 3inch stacked heel cowboy boot on.  Long sleeve starched pressed shirt in summer heat down here, and the giant silk scarf looped around his neck which used to keep dust out of your nose and mouth 100 yrs ago..I don't know what its function is now though but it makes ya look dandy!

    When I saw him I thought Northern Wy or Montana.  It was Montana.  His son was graduating from flight school, he flew into Montgomery and rented a car but how to finally get to Fort Rucker is not clearly marked here and requires traveling on a two way road in the Alabama sticks for about 30 miles.  I was happy to have him follow me.

    I had never seen my own kind out of habitat before though, what a hot mess :)


    Silly Schweitzer... (none / 0) (#7)
    by kdog on Thu Jun 19, 2014 at 08:44:58 AM EST
    If you're a pol starting a sentence with "Don't hold this against me...", it's time for a full stop.  Different rules for pols.

    That being said, I think the only votes he'd possibly lose over it are southern homophobe votes.  Stupid pointless thing to say, but I don't think the mere mention of gaydar is an automatic disqualification....we're not that far off the pc deep-end. No reason to think he's a bigot or anything based on that statement alone.


    You know it's going to be bad when (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by Slado on Thu Jun 19, 2014 at 01:31:40 PM EST
    someone says...

    "All I know is..."

    "I'm not a racist, but..."

    "Call me crazy, but...."

    "Some of my best friends are (insert minority group)..."

    I mean really.  It's your brain trying to tell you that you're about to say something stupid and you insert these phrases because you know in the back of your mind it is stupid but you say it anyway.


    I like the (none / 0) (#26)
    by nycstray on Thu Jun 19, 2014 at 02:27:04 PM EST
    "but I'm going to blurt it out" part. Dude . . .

    Check this out: (none / 0) (#28)
    by oculus on Thu Jun 19, 2014 at 02:37:40 PM EST
    Ohhhh . . . (none / 0) (#101)
    by nycstray on Fri Jun 20, 2014 at 12:12:58 AM EST
    Sounds (looks) nice! I'm working and doing community garden duty tomorrow (having first official party/opening on Sat) so I'm stuck on my bay for the day :( Thanks for thinking of me though! I love A&C houses (quite a few in my hood) and some of the furniture looks interesting also . . . How long you up for?

    Flying out of Oskland at 12:30 pm (none / 0) (#102)
    by oculus on Fri Jun 20, 2014 at 12:27:49 AM EST
    Sun.  Concert Fri. night and 3 on Sat. Ojai North.

    I think "gaydar" is one of those (none / 0) (#30)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Jun 19, 2014 at 03:16:53 PM EST
    Inter minority words that come off at best silly and at worst exploitative if used by anyone else.  
    Shorter version - it was a stupid thing to say.  And I don't even disagree.
    Plus Schweitzer is a media wh@re

    My former boss would preface comments with, (none / 0) (#86)
    by oculus on Thu Jun 19, 2014 at 09:19:55 PM EST
    "I'm not __, but,..."

    I don't think the offense is not saying (none / 0) (#14)
    by ZtoA on Thu Jun 19, 2014 at 12:41:58 PM EST
    gaydar. It is saying that all southern men are effeminate. Men and women from all over might not especially like that.

    Yeah... (none / 0) (#17)
    by kdog on Thu Jun 19, 2014 at 12:45:32 PM EST
    I guess I could see why women might be offended.  

    Oops now I've pulled a Schweitzer! Or a Neil Young.


    Check this excerpt from (none / 0) (#20)
    by oculus on Thu Jun 19, 2014 at 01:24:30 PM EST
    the Daily Beast link on Gertrude Bell (courtesy of unitron):

    Lawrence, for example, while respectful of her scholarship, thought that Bell "had no great depth of mind" and politically was a poor judge of people and "changed direction like a weathercock." Sir Mark Sykes, a crusty diplomat who had colluded with the French to give them Damascus, was more defiantly a misogynist. He called her "a silly chattering windbag, an infernal liar, a conceited, gushing, rump-wagging, blethering ass."

    Speaking of sexism.... (none / 0) (#23)
    by kdog on Thu Jun 19, 2014 at 01:38:22 PM EST
    Gertrude Bell was an anti-suffragist, according to Wiki.

    Bell also became honorary secretary of the British Women's Anti-Suffrage League. Her stated reason for her anti-suffrage stand was that as long as women felt that the kitchen and the bedroom were their only domains, they were truly unprepared to take part in deciding how a nation should be ruled.

    Elitist as well.  But solid proof an imperialist white woman can f*ck up the Middle East just as well as an imperialist white man.


    Oh. A good catch, kdog. She managed to escape (none / 0) (#24)
    by oculus on Thu Jun 19, 2014 at 02:07:55 PM EST
    the confines of domesticity though.

    PS. Read the Daily Beast article re her married lover's description of himself.


    Being born into money... (none / 0) (#27)
    by kdog on Thu Jun 19, 2014 at 02:35:45 PM EST
    gives a woman options not available to other women, though still lesser than the options of a turn of the 20th century man...no doubt.  Not cool to sh*t on those not born on third base though...but in her defense we're all a product of our times, I don't mean to judge too harshly.  

    Another hundred years or so even the overly-religious societies will catch up, and poor will be the new black/female/GLBT all rolled into one.


    I think what he seems to be (none / 0) (#18)
    by Anne on Thu Jun 19, 2014 at 01:15:09 PM EST
    saying is that maybe Eric Cantor is gay...I mean, first he says that men in the south are a little effeminate, and then he follows with a specific example:

    "If you were just a regular person, you turned on the TV, and you saw Eric Cantor talking, I would say--and I'm fine with gay people, that's all right-"

    and concludes with

    "but my gaydar is 60-70 percent,"
    I'm left with the impression that he thinks there's a 60-70% chance that Cantor is gay.

    In the words of the inimitable Jerry Seinfeld...not that there's anything wrong with that.

    But why even go there, or even close to there?  If he's "fine with gay people," what's the point?


    Some of his best friends must be .... (none / 0) (#19)
    by oculus on Thu Jun 19, 2014 at 01:17:12 PM EST
    IMO (none / 0) (#31)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Jun 19, 2014 at 03:22:10 PM EST
    More like he wants us to think so

    Meaning I have many straight friends (none / 0) (#32)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Jun 19, 2014 at 03:24:25 PM EST
    And I don't think I have one who should use that word.  

    A thought about the "why" (none / 0) (#35)
    by christinep on Thu Jun 19, 2014 at 03:36:33 PM EST
    No excuses from this end, because Schweitzer has been known to step in things before.  There is a bit of unpredictability about him ... for example, when he first ran for Governor in Montana, he ventured into what some thought would be a chasm between fishermen/hunters and environmentalists; he strode in because he understood his fellow Montanans deeply appreciated the land and the waters of their state, and that addressing that bond had practical & positive political consequences.  He figured correctly.  Schweitzer understood potential alliances in his state that others couldn't fathom.  

    OTOH, Schweitzer can occasionally exhibit an over-the-top boastfulness that may come with being enamored of his own gift for gab and for the usually successful blend of ivy-league education and the old folksy western (and high plains) one of the boys.  Remember that only awhile ago he did a little national positioning about whether he would contemplate a run in 2016 from the left.  Several years ago, I saw him at a few meetings and had a chance conversation with him (c.2006-2008.) and recall a mental image of one who had the potential for national political stage IF he could discipline the sometimes charming/sometimes not so charming tendency to wing it.

    When I read the subject comment last night, my first thought was a semi-yoiks!  Then (and now) I wondered whether the descriptor was meant as a jab to the right in the lingo they understand (and use toward the left so often in past years against Kerry and his duck hunting foray and generally against Al Gore who seemed to feel obliged mid-campaign to share the exceedingly lengthy passionate kiss with his wife on the nomination stage.)  In a weird kind of way, it is a return jab to a special breed of Atwater-inspired electioneering name caller ... IF that is so, Schweitzer delivered a jab in the rough & tumble way that bunch understood as well.  IF that is so, the message is a "don't mess with me"  thing.  

    Whatever the reason, I doubt that the use of the term was an accident or a slip.  


    Unless Colorado State University and (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by Anne on Thu Jun 19, 2014 at 03:55:29 PM EST
    Montana State University are now part of the Ivy League, Schweitzer doesn't have an "ivy league education."

    And no, I don't think his comment was meant as a "jab to the right in the lingo they understand," I think it was someone moving his mouth before engaging his brain.  

    There are any number of things Schweitzer could jab at Cantor and the GOP over, so there's really no excuse for resorting to taking potshots at someone's sexuality; that's not "rough and tumble," it's stupid, insensitive and encourages the kind of stereotyping that we need to be getting away from.  It's clown car stuff.

    When you throw in his pro-fracking position, I'll just say "thanks, but no thanks" to whatever's left of the possibility that Schweitzer will or should take a run at 2016.


    Thank you (none / 0) (#42)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Jun 19, 2014 at 03:58:24 PM EST
    Anne: Agree generally (none / 0) (#46)
    by christinep on Thu Jun 19, 2014 at 04:28:51 PM EST
    As I indicated, the "why" analysis above was a lot of guesswork based upon his past behaviors.  As I also indicated, my first reaction to his remark involved "yoiks!"  Schweitzer can surprise from all sides ... that is why I was so surprised at the start of the year when he seemed to be jabbing at Hillary from the left because he is more accurately characterized, politically, as a Montana populist.  BTW, a Montana populist takes a lot of tight-rope walking and balancing ... so who knows what the heck he was trying out here (and, for what reason.)

    Also: Thanks for correcting me on the "ivy league" error.  For some reason, I associate him with Yale ... perhaps as a one-time lecturer or special seminar student.  Anyway, my error.  I do know that -- similar to Pennsylvania's former Governor Rendell--Schweitzer hues to key economic concerns of his state.  For Montana, that would be energy-production (primarily in the form of coal production.)  So, as Donald also notes, the brief flirtation some progressives have had with Schweitzer in winter didn't look at the realities of his home state.

    And, of course:  I am an ardent Hillary Clinton supporter.


    You might be interested in this (none / 0) (#70)
    by Anne on Thu Jun 19, 2014 at 07:05:47 PM EST
    National Journal article, if you haven't already read it:

    A Unified Theory of Hillary



    On the PBS radio show Q (none / 0) (#71)
    by ZtoA on Thu Jun 19, 2014 at 07:39:29 PM EST
    Suzanne Goldenberg (journalist) says that Clinton is not woman enough for the presidency. She says Clinton is trying to be 'gender neutral' and not emphasizing that she is a woman and not advocating for women's rights loudly enough.  Link  

    The eye of the beholder, maybe (5.00 / 3) (#78)
    by christinep on Thu Jun 19, 2014 at 08:34:02 PM EST
    These days, I see Hillary Clinton as exceptionally relaxed. She exudes a sense of peace with herself.  

    Whether the sense of wholeness--which I feel from her via TV, commentary, and her recent lengthy appearance about women of distinction which I was fortunate to attend--is really real, only she knows that.  It sure feels genuine; the laughter sure feels real; her movements and facial expressions sure look unmanufactured.  

    Should she play up her woman-ness?  The funny thing--from my point of view--is that she does so by not doing so.  It is so obvious that she (she, she, she) may be our first WOMAN president.  We all understand her work, nationally & internationally, in the interests of young girls and women.  I believe--at all levels--that she will retain, develop even more her efforts toward the betterment of women's status ... no matter what happens.  She has done that always.  

    In the schema of political calculation:  Hillary Clinton gains most by eschewing the bait to do the obvious "I'm a woman" variation.  She doesn't have to.  In fact, the irresistible temptation to Repubs & naysayers is to use every device to point that out (probably in hyper-negative ways) ... and, given how well she is already known, accepted, and defined, those negative attempts may well backfire.


    Yes and yes and yes (none / 0) (#128)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Jun 20, 2014 at 11:50:53 AM EST
    And yes yes yes

    I am so tired of the anti-Hillary already (5.00 / 1) (#127)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Jun 20, 2014 at 11:48:48 AM EST
    It has gobsmacked me.  Oculus knew it was coming, and she knew it was going to be vile but it is very early and some of it is already very ugly.  I want to be cool headed and analytical about it.  I want to be focused on the solutions, not part of Hillary Hate Noise in any way.  I have no support where I live though.  This whole state hates Hillary Clinton.  I think I need a support group or something going into this :)

    I just (5.00 / 1) (#141)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Jun 20, 2014 at 01:56:36 PM EST
    tell them that she does not care what they think. And i'm sure she does not. Why should she care about the low hanging fruit for the GOP? It's not like they'd ever vote for her. So they can screech and rant and rave all they want to their hearts content. I think they are like a bunch of children who think that if they have enough temper tantrums the voters are going to give them Ted Cruz or someone as president. Apparently they're not bright enough to realize that the more they act this way, the more people they run off. They seem to be able to convert no one to their side. Even Frank Luntz admits this kind of garbage does not work anymore.

    Will you be my sponsor? (none / 0) (#148)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Jun 20, 2014 at 02:50:07 PM EST
    Sure! (5.00 / 1) (#153)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Jun 20, 2014 at 03:17:00 PM EST
    Even though there are way too many tea partiers here  so far the Hillary stuff has not been over the top. I'm sure though once she announces it will go into overdrive.

    And realize too that fundamentalists don't think women should have leadership roles.


    Of... (none / 0) (#125)
    by sj on Fri Jun 20, 2014 at 11:33:12 AM EST
    ...all the observations that could be made about Hillary Clinton, this one could not be more dishonest.
    not advocating for women's rights loudly enough

    Thank you for the link, Anne (none / 0) (#75)
    by christinep on Thu Jun 19, 2014 at 08:16:57 PM EST
    "interesting" is a good word. The theories about Hillary Clinton grow by the day ... and will, undoubtedly, continue to do so.

    One aspect of the NJ article stands out: Healthcare.  On consideration, the question that I would raise has to do with the journey all the principal proponents & supporters of healthcare reform through those frustrating years <leading up to the ACA> had to take.  The late Senator Kennedy moved from his earlier position to bring about actual change, and so did Hillary Clinton ... they were both quite perceptive about the flexibility needed to bring about needed change.

    In so many ways, what I admire about Hillary Clinton is her evolution, her expansiveness now, her sense of one with herself.  Reflecting on all that she has traversed, she truly has prevailed.  I think we all go through that growth in one way or another ... but, the hothouse of politics offers special challenges, it seems.


    As long as you're in the mood... (none / 0) (#99)
    by unitron on Thu Jun 19, 2014 at 10:57:01 PM EST
    ...to be thankful for(or at least accepting of) correction, I believe the word you wanted was "hews" and not "hues".

    Perhaps she was ... (none / 0) (#126)
    by sj on Fri Jun 20, 2014 at 11:38:03 AM EST
    ... acknowledging that her opinion is colored by her support of Hillary Clinton :)
    I believe the word you wanted was "hews" and not "hues".

    More from Schweitzer (none / 0) (#69)
    by christinep on Thu Jun 19, 2014 at 06:57:13 PM EST
    A republican congressman in Colorado has called Brian Schweitzer a "sexist scumbag" for a comment he made about Senator Diane Feinstein ... in the same interview where the "effeminate" remark was made.  Mike Coffman, from the 4th congressional district which is a district considered very vulnerable to a Democratic challenge from the former state house leader Democratic Andrew Romanoff, has spoken against what he considers an inappropriate comment by Schweitzer impugning Feinstein for being concerned now about NSA.  Apparently, in that interview, Schweitzer used scurrilous description to question Feinstein's new-found support for reining in NSA, etc.  

    Ah well ... Schweitzer seems to be on a roll today of offending everyone.  


    When he's right he's right though... (5.00 / 1) (#130)
    by kdog on Fri Jun 20, 2014 at 11:56:45 AM EST
    the "sexist" comment in question...

    "She was the woman who was standing under the streetlight with her dress pulled all the way up over her knees, and now she says, `I'm a nun,' when it comes to this spying!"

    Object to his colorful language/choice of words if you will...but it doesn't make him sexist, and he's spot on about Feinstein's sudden faux concern about domestic spying.  She's long been a Brand D authoritarian bootlicker.


    The point: The descriptions used (none / 0) (#132)
    by christinep on Fri Jun 20, 2014 at 12:30:00 PM EST
    by Schweitzer were out-of-line & inappropriate in both cases.  Whether one agrees with the substance or not, that cannot make the usage of inappropriate language appropriate.

    As I've said about former Governor Schweitzer: He can surprise.


    It's the substance that matters though... (5.00 / 1) (#134)
    by kdog on Fri Jun 20, 2014 at 12:50:40 PM EST
    no?  What matters is that Dianne Feinstein is a fraud on privacy and civil liberties issues....that's the point.  

    Focusing on the choice of words is missing the forest for the trees.


    Not for nuthin' (5.00 / 1) (#137)
    by kdog on Fri Jun 20, 2014 at 01:32:21 PM EST
    Feinstein's retort displays a chauvinistic attitude..."You better keep him away from my husband."

    If we're gonna put words under a microscope, that could be perceived as a threat that Mr. Feinstein is gonna kick some Schweitzer arse, in defense of the honor of his poor helpless wife.  A rather unenlightened attitude about women and their ability to fight their own battles in the workplace, if you ask me.  


    Words can & do matter (none / 0) (#139)
    by christinep on Fri Jun 20, 2014 at 01:51:24 PM EST
    Not speaking for anyone but me; and, for me, words flung at women matter a lot. For women, the longtime tactic of "keep her in her place," relies first and foremost on word choice and characterization ... in so many ways.

    Style: The Schweitzer word-fluffs initiated the set of comments.  The words--in both instances--are offensive.

    Substance: Yes, Senator Feinstein has been an almost over-the-top cheerleader for many secretive past practices used by NSA.  A criticism for that, especially when contrasted with her now abrupt change should be made.  But, that doesn't support a classic sexist put-down by the former governor ... anymore than the hypocrisy of a Lindsey Graham or other southern macho-talk right-wingers justified the other classic homophobic reference that Schweitzer made during the same interview.  


    Fair enough... (none / 0) (#144)
    by kdog on Fri Jun 20, 2014 at 02:07:52 PM EST
    I hear no gender-based putdown myself...I heard a substance based putdown of her hypocrisy.  The Cantor/Effeminate Southern Men comment was more sensitivity suspect.

    Any gender-issues based thoughts on Feinstein's retort?  


    She was mocking him (none / 0) (#161)
    by christinep on Fri Jun 20, 2014 at 04:01:52 PM EST
    Trans: Little me--left with little but to be a good girl or stand under lampposts doing a bad girl hustle ... well now, I'll just tell my big strong hubby to let you know whats what.  

    She was mocking him (because, of course, she is strong enough to do that in her own right) ... jiving him in the stereotypical lingo he might understand.


    Maybe the choice of words should not matter (5.00 / 1) (#140)
    by ZtoA on Fri Jun 20, 2014 at 01:53:15 PM EST
    but it does to many people. Implying someone is gay, or that all southern men are kinda gay because they are womanish is insulting to a rather large segment of people. Comparing a woman's actions to a prostitute is not good communication to many women. If he has said she is a fraud on those issues he could have made his point much more effectively.  Saying those obviously insulting things in such a public way is a bit stupid, unless the insult is intended. If so, to insult large numbers of people is also stupid.

    Like I said yesterday... (5.00 / 1) (#145)
    by kdog on Fri Jun 20, 2014 at 02:15:15 PM EST
    definitely stupid for a pol to speak so freely...the unwritten rules do not allow them to speak as you or I might speak, the pc police are always on the beat lookin' for collars regardless of substance or intent.  Everything must be vetted and teleprompted...which is how pols can say 10,000 words without actually saying anything. It's an art really.

    otoh If he had sanitarily said Feinstein is a fraud and Cantor lost because he doesn't appeal to southern voters, we wouldn't be talking about his opinions.


    You may be on to something, kdog (none / 0) (#103)
    by NYShooter on Fri Jun 20, 2014 at 12:56:16 AM EST
    Let me try this from a different perspective, "devil's advocate" so-to-speak.

    But, first, a caveat: I don't know much about this guy, Schweitzer, and, didn't read/see the remarks in question. So, strictly, from the point of view of giving the guy the benefit of doubt......

    Is it possible that he was talking about Cantor from a, strictly, political point of view? I mean the down, `n dirty, nitty gritty, nuts `n bolts aspect of political "optics?"

    Let's face it, looks/appearance matter in elections. Political advisors probably spend more time debating the color of a candidate's tie, or, skirt length than they do his/her views on foreign affairs. So, as a political constituency, Southerners probably do want their Leaders to appear tough, gun toting, death penalty drooling, Chuck Norris types. And, that description surely doesn't describe Eric Cantor.

    So, if Schweitzer was discussing Eric Cantor's loss in terms of political strategy, and, not necessarily basic, moral convictions you might consider cutting him some slack.

    I can just imagine some of the discussions in the Lee Atwater, George (Poppy) Bush political strategy sessions when they were devising their gut-wrenching, "Willie Horton" ads.

    So, maybe Sweitzer wasn't displaying his homophobic "real self." Maybe he was just expressing some depressing, but, mostly realistic, Southern political views.

    Then again, maybe not.


    Thank you for the follow-up, CG. (none / 0) (#34)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Jun 19, 2014 at 03:36:11 PM EST
    While I've long understood and supported the rationale for running the type of purplish Democrat like Brian Schwietzer in a state such as Montana, I've always done so without harboring any corresponding illusions that the guy is somehow presidential material. He's not, as that outrageous statement proves.

    Personally, I don't care for soon-to-be former Congressman Eric Cantor, either. But I don't call him a "f@g" due to my dislike of him, which is basically what Schweitzer has done here without actually using that pejorative.

    Maybe he believes that the decades-past experience of his own eighth grade P.E. class serves as an appropriate present-day metaphor for modern American society. I really don't care to know what he was thinking, nor do I believe that his motivation for saying what he said is in any way relevant to the present political discussion regarding the overall direction of our country.

    Rather, and I'm speaking for myself only as a Democrat, I'd offer that this is exactly why immature remarks like Schweitzer's -- coming as they are from the popular former governor of the state -- continue to constitute an active direct threat to his own state's LGBT population. Such disparaging references to gay men as nothing more than a collective bunch of effeminate swishes serve to rob an entire subclass of citizens of their humanity, by suggesting that they somehow constitute open season for our continued public ridicule -- if not worse.

    Jeez, this is 2014, not 1974. Not to imply that such offensive remarks were somehow more acceptable forty years ago than they should be today, because they were not. I distinctly remember cracking wise like that about certain fellow classmates back then. Frankly, I'm ashamed of myself today for having ever done so. Such grotesque personal stereotyping is mutually hurtful and corrosive, to both victim and tormentor alike.

    I'd really like to believe that I've since evolved positively as a person, emotionally and spiritually, with respect to my own feelings and attitudes about my LGBT brothers and sisters. Schweitzer represents a disturbing retrospective of an earlier and more intolerant era, one which now seriously needs to be relegated to the dustbins of history.

    As a Democrat, I expect my fellow party officials to set an appropriate example for the public regarding our respect, tolerance and acceptance of our LGBT community as a positive and actively contributing subsection of our greater American society. And on that count, Brian Schweitzer failed both spectacularly and miserably.



    Well said (5.00 / 2) (#38)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Jun 19, 2014 at 03:49:22 PM EST
    I would add it was ignorant of reality.  In apparently attempting to be cool he just revealed how ignorant he is.  I can hardly believe the idea that because a man is effeminate he gay is still alive.  It's like a zombie stereotype that idiots like Swisher keep alive.  I can tell you from vast experience it's complete BS.   Did this moron ever hear the term "meterosexual".  Foppishness is back.  It bigger in the hipster world than the gay world.

    Plus the guy wears string ties!

    Sorry, that's gay in a bad way.


    Now, THIS is "gay in a bad way" -- but definitely in a classy and sophisticated sort of bad way, I think.

    Aloha. ;-D


    Thanks (none / 0) (#60)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Jun 19, 2014 at 06:14:06 PM EST
    That made my day.  She had me at the accordion

    Now they've gone too far damnit! (none / 0) (#8)
    by kdog on Thu Jun 19, 2014 at 08:53:37 AM EST
    ISIS has gone Bloomberg, wasting a mountain of perfectly good cigarettes.  

    Permission granted to bomb the bastards Obama! This aggression cannot stand man! (j/k)

    I thought Allah was down with tobacco and hash...just booze and pork were big no-no's.  And surely the big man is down with "waste not, want not" right?  So hard to keep up with the laws of the imaginary friends...

    With all due respect, kdog, ... (none / 0) (#44)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Jun 19, 2014 at 04:01:49 PM EST
    ... there are really no such things as "perfectly good cigarettes."

    ISIS's behavior represents the active hostility and intolerance by religious zealots of all types for various forms of personal behavior and choices, which is clearly antithetical to our notion of a free and open society.

    But while I do respect fully your right to choose to smoke cigarettes, it does not necessarily follow that cigarettes are therefore and somehow perfectly good for you. They're not.

    And speaking as someone who's presently having to undergo chemotherapy for cancer, albeit non-tobacco related, it is my earnest hope and wish that you might one day soon exercise another personal choice, which is to quit smoking tobacco products for the sake of your own health.

    Because I can assure you that for all their many variations, cancer is still cancer and chemo is still chemo, and what I'm presently enduring cannot in any way be described accurately as a very pleasant personal experience. I would not wish this on my worst enemy.

    Peace, brother.


    Agree to disagree... (5.00 / 1) (#122)
    by kdog on Fri Jun 20, 2014 at 10:35:41 AM EST
    My comment was tongue in cheek of course, but in all seriousness cigarettes are perfectly good...for me.  And I say that with full awareness of the health risks.  My personal cost benefit/analysis, if you will.  I derive great pleasure from smoking yesterday and today...tomorrow I don't know yet.  

    And should I develop inoperable lung cancer, my tentative plan is to take up heroin in lieu of chemo.  

    As Jimi once said..."I'm the one that's got to die when it's time for me to die, so let me live my life the way I want to."  To which you agree...all good brother.

    But thanks for your concern, and as always good luck with your treatmen & recovery...I hope to read your comments for many years to come.  


    J, I like the look of the new site (none / 0) (#16)
    by ZtoA on Thu Jun 19, 2014 at 12:44:11 PM EST
    Glad you kept your banner head. The site looks very clean which is one thing I very much like about TL.

    Just a reminder (none / 0) (#22)
    by Slado on Thu Jun 19, 2014 at 01:33:46 PM EST
    Not this again. (5.00 / 3) (#29)
    by Anne on Thu Jun 19, 2014 at 03:14:32 PM EST

    This argument is nothing more than a stick that people like Pete Peterson and Alan Simpson and their pals get out in hope of being able to beat people into believing or accepting that we "have no choice" but to eliminate as much of the social safety net as they can.

    Crocodile tears and transparent fear tactics based on an agenda, not the facts.

    Republicans/conservatives have NO problem spending godawful amounts of money on military wars and drug wars and corporate tax breaks and corporate welfare and "national security." They don't give a flying fig about the oceans of debt we incur spending in service to their agenda, and only ever seem to cry these crocodile tears over debt when it comes to spending money on the old, the poor and the sick.  

    Just stop.  

    The US budget is not "just like" a household budget - being sovereign in our own currency means that it doesn't need to be.  We truly do have the ability to spend as much as we need to, and time and again, none of the horrors conservatives always predict will happen when we spend actually come to pass.

    Please go peddle that nonsense somewhere else.


    Yeah and Social Security (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by jondee on Thu Jun 19, 2014 at 04:38:48 PM EST
    will be insolvent soon..the IRS targeted only conservatives..it's too late to do anything about environmental degradation..

    Why not go for the uber-conservative, by-the-numbers trifecta and get it all out in one post? You're on a roll, Slado.


    Here we go. (none / 0) (#36)
    by lentinel on Thu Jun 19, 2014 at 03:42:32 PM EST
    "We will be prepared to take targeted and precise military action," President Obama said on Thursday.

    Targeted and precise - except for those dang collateral damagees that keep getting in the way.

    Everything was ok until they moved on the oil refinery.

    That's a no no.

    "Just when we thought we was out, they pull us back in! "

    Guns don't kill people (none / 0) (#41)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Jun 19, 2014 at 03:56:58 PM EST
    Oh, wait.  They do actually.

    A new father is dead after what appeared to be a bizarre, accidental shooting Tuesday night.

    Steven Justin Ayers, 33, and his wife had gathered family members to celebrate the homecoming of their 3-day-old baby -- born on Father's Day. But the celebration at 2502 Michigan Court ended shortly after 6 p.m. when a stray bullet entered the home from more than 200 feet away, struck Ayers in the back of the head and killed him instantly.

    Moments earlier, Charles Edward Shisler, 62, had picked up a loaded 9mm pistol in his residence, adjacent to the Ayers' home, and the gun discharged. Shisler was in his backyard at 3708 W. 25th St. by the time Bay County Sheriff's Office deputies arrived minutes after the shooting, according to arrest reports.

    On the other hand (none / 0) (#54)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Jun 19, 2014 at 04:59:42 PM EST
    That's just a stupid argument. (none / 0) (#63)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Jun 19, 2014 at 06:21:50 PM EST
    More guns lead to more firearms-related violence and accidents, not less. That is a fact which is beyond argument and dispute.

    Hawaii has arguably long had the strictest gun laws in the nation, and as a result, the islands have also consistently had the lowest firearms mortality rates in the country. And guess what, Jim? We're no less free than you are.

    But we sure are a whole lot safer.


    Arguably, indeed. (none / 0) (#67)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Jun 19, 2014 at 06:43:45 PM EST
    Strictest gun laws by state:

    4. NEW YORK
    6. HAWAII

    DC, arguably of course, has the strictest gun laws in the US and yet has the highest firearm mortality rate.


    Apples to oranges (none / 0) (#77)
    by Yman on Thu Jun 19, 2014 at 08:31:43 PM EST
    Comparing gun violence rates in a city to those of entire states is pretty silly.

    OTOH ...


    I have no idea how the Brady Campaign ... (none / 0) (#88)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Jun 19, 2014 at 09:22:48 PM EST
    ... determined that rating, given that its own hyperlink to "Legal Community Against Violence," the organization from which it says it obtained its data, instead forwards us to a clearly expired website.

    But hey, I can live with No. 6 out of 50. It sure as hell still beats No. 36 and 46.

    And if you want to compare cities, I'd note that for the year 2011, the City & County of Honolulu -- which at 986,000 residents is almost 50% larger than Washington, D.C., in terms of population -- had only 15 murders, of which only one was committed by firearm.

    I rest my case.


    And I mine. (none / 0) (#90)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Jun 19, 2014 at 09:30:50 PM EST
    Your braggadocio and ego has once again proven you wrong.

    I am far from the first person to point this out to you on TL.

    Will you never learn?


    You first. (none / 0) (#92)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Jun 19, 2014 at 09:35:25 PM EST
    You're the one who always seems to want to start arguments over petty distinctions. I'm through here. You want to fight, go outside and kick your dog.

    Oh, and P.S.: (none / 0) (#93)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Jun 19, 2014 at 09:44:06 PM EST
    Why don't you take a good look at the list of firearms mortality rates which you yourself provided, check out where Hawaii is on that list, and then explain to everybody here how I erred in stating that my state has the lowest such rate in the country.

    Sometimes, you're so interested in starting fights that you don't even bother to examine the information you provide in your own links.

    Just stop it already. It's petty, juvenile and demeaning.


    HI does not, despite your prideful instance, have the strictest gun laws on the nation. Not at all.

    How could you not know that that little slice of DfH puffery would be so easily shown to be completely untrue.

    And then, like you do every time someone points out your painfully obvious falsities, you cry that you are a victim of that other person's nit-picking.



    Don't pull anything ... (5.00 / 1) (#107)
    by Yman on Fri Jun 20, 2014 at 06:33:47 AM EST
    ... straining so hard to find an "obvious falsity".  We can't really tell what criteria the Brady campaign used in ranking the states (since your link is broken), or how large/small the difference is between 1 and 6, but Hawaii's gun control laws are clearly amongst the strictest in the country.  But good to know you accept the Brady Center as the arbiter/final say in gun-related matters.

    I do like the attempt to compare states to a city, when a state-by-state comparison shows results you don't like - namely, that strong gun laws are clearly associated with lower gun violence rates and weak gun laws with higher rates.  A fact established by numerous studies, as well as the Brady Center.


    And the realtive easy availability (none / 0) (#151)
    by jondee on Fri Jun 20, 2014 at 03:00:43 PM EST
    of guns for the violent is due to the efforts of the folks who champion stricter regulations?

    Yes, the people saved, as detailed (none / 0) (#81)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Jun 19, 2014 at 09:00:04 PM EST
    in the link, are a whole lot safer.

    Stupid argument?? Do you ever look in the mirror??


    The people "saved"? (none / 0) (#89)
    by Yman on Thu Jun 19, 2014 at 09:24:27 PM EST
    From the guy who had no more ammo?


    Want to compare your imaginary victims against the thousands who die due to gun violence every year?


    Yeah, Jim, it's a stupid argument. (none / 0) (#91)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Jun 19, 2014 at 09:32:56 PM EST
    And as stupid arguments go, I daresay most people here would probably agree with me that nobody at TL offers them more consistently or vehemently than you.

    Nor does anyone else here double down on such stupid arguments more often with childish ad hominem attacks and fact-free vitriole, than do you.

    Adios, muchacho.


    Tell us more about HI gun laws (none / 0) (#118)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Jun 20, 2014 at 10:26:16 AM EST

    OTOH (none / 0) (#64)
    by Yman on Thu Jun 19, 2014 at 06:33:55 PM EST
    Do Armed Civilians Stop Mass Shooters? Actually, No.

    Appalachian School of Law shooting in Grundy, Virginia

    Gun rights die-hards frequently credit the end of a rampage at the law school in 2002 to armed "students" who intervened. They conveniently ignore that those students also happened to be current and former law enforcement officers, and that the killer, according to police investigators, was out of ammunition by the time they got to him.

    Of course they didn't know that (none / 0) (#82)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Jun 19, 2014 at 09:01:13 PM EST
    Got any more BS comments?

    The truth hurts, huh, Jim (none / 0) (#87)
    by Yman on Thu Jun 19, 2014 at 09:21:05 PM EST
    But I have plenty of actual studies to back up the premise that more guns mean more violence and murders, as opposed to say ... your failed attempts to use anecdotal evidence.

    Want to compare evidence?


    Ah yes, studies (none / 0) (#117)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Jun 20, 2014 at 10:18:17 AM EST
    The Left always wants studies... mostly done by people with their agenda... So here's one you might not like:

    "Today I swung my front door wide open and placed my Remington 30.06 right in my doorway.  I left 6 shells beside it, then left it alone and went about my business. While I was gone, the mailman delivered my mail, the neighbor boy across the street mowed the yard, a girl walked her dog down the street, and quite a few cars stopped at the stop sign near the front of our house.

    After about an hour, I checked on the gun. It was still sitting there, right where I had left it.  

    It hadn't moved itself outside. It certainly hadn't killed anyone, even with the numerous opportunities it had been presented to do so. In fact, it hadn't even loaded itself. Well you can imagine my surprise, with all the media hype about how dangerous guns are and how they kill people.

    Either the media is wrong or I'm in possession of the laziest gun in the world.

    The United States is 3rd in Murders throughout the World.

    But if you take out Chicago, Detroit, Washington DC and New Orleans, the United States is 4th from the bottom for Murders. These 4 Cities also have
    the toughest Gun Control Laws in the United States.

    All 4 are controlled by Democrats.

    It would be absurd to draw any conclusions from this data - right?

    Well, I'm off to check on my spoons.

    I hear they're making people fat."

    Hat tip to an old Internet bud.


    No cities "controlled" by Repubs (none / 0) (#143)
    by jondee on Fri Jun 20, 2014 at 02:03:50 PM EST
    have abnormally high gun homicide rates? You listed the top four, Rush, what about five, six, seven etc? Is there that staggering a difference between the top four and the next four? Or, are the statistics are only significant when it's a city is "controlled by Democrats"?

    Uh, Jim ... that's NOT a study (none / 0) (#164)
    by Yman on Fri Jun 20, 2014 at 05:30:38 PM EST
    I know they can be a little confusing with all their facts, data and peer-reviewed conclusions, but emails from internet buddies are not studies.  In fact, like most of your posts, this one is simply another lie.

    The US is 9th in murders, not 3rd - a total of 14,173 murders.  The total number of murders in those four cities in 2011 was 1,083.  If you omit those murders, the total number of murders 13,090.  That would move us to 12th in murders, as opposed to your silly claim.

    Precisely why your claims are always so laughable ... they're based on myths, half-truth and emails from internet postings, rather than actual facts, data or studies.


    BTW - To make it easier for you (none / 0) (#166)
    by Yman on Fri Jun 20, 2014 at 06:00:38 PM EST
    ... eliminating those 4 cities would move us down only three spots and would make us "207th from the bottom" - as opposed to your "4th from the bottom" lie.

    And... (none / 0) (#120)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Jun 20, 2014 at 10:33:14 AM EST
    another prime example of the good armed citizens do.

    GRIFFIN, Ga. -- A 43-year-old Griffin police officer was shot and killed while off-duty early Saturday morning and the man who police say fired the gun is in critical but stable condition after being shot by the officer's brother.

    Jordan was attempting to arrest Mixon when one of the men, Michael Bowman, fired at the officer's back, Richardson said. Police believe Jordan was shot five times. At least one bullet penetrated the bulletproof vest Jordan was wearing, Richardson said.

    Jordan's brother, Raymond Jordan, had come to the restaurant to visit and fired his weapon, striking Bowman, Richardson said. Raymond Jordan has a valid permit in Georgia, he said. It is not known how many times Bowman was hit or whether he has an attorney



    And... (none / 0) (#121)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Jun 20, 2014 at 10:33:35 AM EST
    another prime example of the good armed citizens do.

    GRIFFIN, Ga. -- A 43-year-old Griffin police officer was shot and killed while off-duty early Saturday morning and the man who police say fired the gun is in critical but stable condition after being shot by the officer's brother.

    Jordan was attempting to arrest Mixon when one of the men, Michael Bowman, fired at the officer's back, Richardson said. Police believe Jordan was shot five times. At least one bullet penetrated the bulletproof vest Jordan was wearing, Richardson said.

    Jordan's brother, Raymond Jordan, had come to the restaurant to visit and fired his weapon, striking Bowman, Richardson said. Raymond Jordan has a valid permit in Georgia, he said. It is not known how many times Bowman was hit or whether he has an attorney



    And.. (none / 0) (#138)
    by jondee on Fri Jun 20, 2014 at 01:46:42 PM EST
    the off-duty officer is still dead -- at the hands another armed citizen.

    The moral here being what? You gotta take the good with the bad?


    And...this happened in a restaurant, (none / 0) (#147)
    by Anne on Fri Jun 20, 2014 at 02:41:46 PM EST
    where presumably a bad shot - no matter how well-intentioned - could have injured or killed an innocent person.

    Guns do not make people smarter.


    or more um..virile (none / 0) (#152)
    by jondee on Fri Jun 20, 2014 at 03:08:07 PM EST
    and neither will showing up at a Clive Bundy rally.

    Someone needs to nip those urban legends in the bud right now.

    So the easy availability of guns means two more people were shot who otherwise might not have been.

    What was your point again, Jim?


    Uh jondee (none / 0) (#156)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Jun 20, 2014 at 03:24:44 PM EST
    now you are telling me the Associated Press is an "Urban Legend?"


    And what, do tell, has Clive Bundy to do with this???

    Jondee, if you can't keep up stay out of the game.


    it was a joke (none / 0) (#158)
    by jondee on Fri Jun 20, 2014 at 03:27:08 PM EST
    that you not surprisingly didn't get.

    Really Anne read the link (none / 0) (#154)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Jun 20, 2014 at 03:21:43 PM EST
    before commenting.

    It happened in the parking lot.

    Your claim re "bad shot" is a joke. Neither of us know the qualifications involved.


    except that folks like you (none / 0) (#157)
    by jondee on Fri Jun 20, 2014 at 03:25:14 PM EST
    are working overtime to make it easier for people -- including children and bystanders -- to get shot in this country.

    Well, I think you need to hide under (none / 0) (#159)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Jun 20, 2014 at 03:28:41 PM EST
    your bed wearing a combat helmet and body armor. You'll be much safer.

    if I was in your neighborhood I would (none / 0) (#160)
    by jondee on Fri Jun 20, 2014 at 03:30:55 PM EST
    along with getting rid of any apparel that might look too Middle Eastern.

    If you lived in my neighborhood I would move (none / 0) (#171)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Jun 20, 2014 at 07:29:58 PM EST
    Oh, so nothing bad ever happened (none / 0) (#167)
    by Anne on Fri Jun 20, 2014 at 06:51:03 PM EST
    when people started firing their weapons in a parking lot, right?  Because no one was coming or going, or walking on the street, or getting in or out of their car, so no way there was any danger from "stray" bullets.

    Why not get to work on finding a way to fire the bullets directly out if your d!ck, since this all just seems so yeah, baby, I'm a MAN, and this here gun proves it!



    Anne, face it (none / 0) (#172)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Jun 20, 2014 at 08:06:50 PM EST
    You did not read the link and made a comment based on what you assumed.

    As for your tasteless comment about a penis... do you really want to start such back and forth or will you will you scream if I respond in a similar fashion?

    The facts in this instance are simple. A brother dropped by to see his brother. His brother was trying to break up a fight.

    A criminal,who did not, has never and never will pay attention to any of your precious gun laws shot and killed a policeman and was shot in return by a person who had ever legal right to carry.

    Do you not understand that if the killer had not been shot we have ever reason to believe he would have shot the person he was fighting with?? And who knows what he would have done next.

    You insane fear and irrational comments about guns is laughable. That's the best I can say for it. Gun laws do not work. See Chicago, Detroit, Memphis, etc. for the results.

    And try to accept the fact accidents do happen and people do kill and that is the cost of a free society. Or at least that is the concept when ever the Left discusses what they see as over reaction by government searching for terrorists.

    As to your suggestion as to how I should use my weaponry please be advised that I currently do not use pistols. My arsenal consists of a 21" short barrel 20 gauge pump. I assure you I am not equipped to respond in the manner suggested.


    GA man shoots off his penis (none / 0) (#182)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Jun 20, 2014 at 10:36:46 PM EST
    as long as we are on the subject

    According to WMAZ Channel 13, the man was parked at a gas station and was attempting to put away the .45 caliber pistol when it discharged, striking him in the groin.

    The man immediately drove to a friend's house. According to police, the victim dropped his pants to find that he had shot himself in the penis and that the bullet had exited his body through the buttocks. As he disrobed, the spent round fell to the floor.


    Maher (5.00 / 1) (#183)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Jun 20, 2014 at 10:55:02 PM EST
    "If only the penis had a gun it would have ended differently"

    I like Bill a lot but more d!cks with guns is where we part ways.


    On the other hand (none / 0) (#184)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Jun 20, 2014 at 11:15:06 PM EST
    Maybe there IS a sort of Darwinian silver lining -

    Death and Taxes reported in January of 2013 that at least five American men have shot off their penises since 2010.

    Paul Rieckhoff and Greenwald sure got into it :) (none / 0) (#185)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Jun 21, 2014 at 12:13:40 AM EST
    Funny, I thought Rieckhoff was 100% right about Iraq and the VA but oddly 100% wrong about Snowden coming home "to face the music".  There is no oversight with what the watchers have been doing, and they will throw away the key so quick on Snowden we won't dare to hope for or pray for transparency again.

    Aside from (5.00 / 1) (#192)
    by KeysDan on Sat Jun 21, 2014 at 10:01:53 AM EST
    the exchange on Edward Snowden with Rieckhoff, Glenn Greenwald seemed subdued.   Perhaps, Greenwald wanted to retain his focus.  I have purchased his book and look forward to reading it--although it will be awhile, until I finish Thomas Piketty's "Capital."   Not an easy read.

    Yeah, his views on Snowden are pretty conventional (none / 0) (#194)
    by ruffian on Sat Jun 21, 2014 at 11:27:28 AM EST
    national security apparatus views. He does not seem to be well versed on anything other than veterans issues, which is ok, but then he should not get so obstreperous with those who are. I thought he was way off base yelling about things he cannot prove.

    He smarted off about Greenwald's (none / 0) (#196)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Jun 21, 2014 at 11:46:41 AM EST
    Piece about being droned via your cell phone signal.  I think he sees Greenwald as a propagandist, therefore an untrustworthy loose cannon who will hurt American soldiers.  And it does hurt American soldiers when individuals do have some facts...just enough to have a credibility card, and publish make believe like Greenwald did about drone policy.  Rieckhoff is super pissed about that, but so are plenty of Independent voting soldiers.  One in this house included.

     I blame what happened on Greenwald's  relationship with Scahill.  I hope he does no more pieces like that thing he did with Scahill, Greenwald made some stuff up or at least put his name on some made up stuff and Rieckhoff knows it.

    Josh being young and fresh told Greenwald through the television, "You had us at hello!"


    Why only anecdotal evidence? (none / 0) (#165)
    by Yman on Fri Jun 20, 2014 at 05:51:08 PM EST
    Is it because it's all you've got?  Or you're particularly impressed by these stories?  Because it's extremely easy to find stories to counter them:

    1.  15 year-old boy shoots 15 year-old girl

    2.  Soldier kills another visiting soldier in his home - accidental shooting being investigated

    3.  Palm Beach man accidentally shoots himself

    4. Cheerleader shot in neck by stray bullet

    5.  3-year-old shot by stray bullet

    6.  Six-year-old shot in the back

    ... and so on, and so on ...

    Again and again your fear of guns (none / 0) (#173)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Jun 20, 2014 at 08:18:15 PM EST
    reaches the phobia stage. As I noted to Anne, you are not willing to accept what many see as government overreach in terrorist searching but are more than willing to see all guns confiscated.

    And please do not deny that. We all know that is your end game.

    There are numerous anecdotal instances of people with weapons stopping killers. We both know that. And I will give you that we have instances in which bystanders and others have been shot and killed.

    "Drive by" became a noun based on the actions of drug dealers and gangsters in Chicago, Detroit, LA and other cities.

    If you want to stop the problem legalize the drugs and/or get the killers off the street by whatever means necessary.

    And quit whining every time an accident happens.


    So much straw (none / 0) (#179)
    by Yman on Fri Jun 20, 2014 at 10:04:22 PM EST
    As I noted to Anne, you are not willing to accept what many see as government overreach in terrorist searching but are more than willing to see all guns confiscated.

    And please do not deny that. We all know that is your end game.

    Is it because the only way you can succeed in making an argument is to put imaginary words in the mouths of others?  To make it appear as though they're making an argument you feel you are able to counter, as opposed to what they're actually saying?

    That's so pathetic.

    BTW - I'm a gun owner.  Two guns, in fact.

    There are numerous anecdotal instances of people with weapons stopping killers. We both know that. And I will give you that we have instances in which bystanders and others have been shot and killed.

    Define "numerous".  Tell me how many.  Because I guarantee you for every anecdotal instance you find I can find 10 instances of people getting accidentally shot and/or killed by "law abiding" gun owners.  That was my point - which you chose to ignore because you know it's true.

    So much for your anecdotal stories.

    BTW - The silly attempt to marginalize gun violence as a problem in cities is equally pathetic and untrue.  I know you get confused by facts and scientific studies, but here's another one for you.  Children living in urban and rural areas in the United States are equally likely to die from gunfire.

    And another ...

    After controlling for various social, demographic, and economic factors, we found that firearm death is as pervasive a public health problem in rural counties as it is in urban counties in the United States...

    Although the problem of firearm mortality in large US cities should not be minimized, the perception that firearm mortality is a significantly greater problem in urban as opposed to nonurban communities is mistaken.


    Oh, no! (5.00 / 1) (#186)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sat Jun 21, 2014 at 01:50:01 AM EST
    You can control all you want (none / 0) (#189)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Jun 21, 2014 at 09:03:48 AM EST
    Deaths were analyzed according to a modified rural-urban continuum code (based on population size and proximity to metropolitan areas) assigned to each county (3141 counties).

    And you want to use suicides as a study. Well, since rural homes are more likely to have weapons, especially shot guns and rifles, than the "burbs it follows that you will have more.

    Of course the way to prevent that is take all the guns, which is obviously your desire.

    In the meantime a lot of children are being killed in Chicago and the other (mostly) Democratic controlled cities despite having very strict gun control laws.

    Studies that seek to make that look okay should be an embarrassment to any Democrat.


    Uh, ... yeah (none / 0) (#190)
    by Yman on Sat Jun 21, 2014 at 09:24:01 AM EST
    And you want to use suicides as a study. Well, since rural homes are more likely to have weapons, especially shot guns and rifles, than the "burbs it follows that you will have more.

    Sure ... because suicides are also deaths, and suicide attempts using guns are faaaar more likely to succeed.  Interesting, though ... you now say that rural homes "obviously" have more gun suicides because they have more guns.  Previously, you claimed they were just inanimate objects that just sat there until someone used them (an obvious truism that no one is arguing against).  Guess it turns out that guns don't kill people ... they just make it much easier for people to kill people, including themselves.


    Of course the way to prevent that is take all the guns, which is obviously your desire.

    You keep making up words to put in others mouths.  Let me know if you ever manage to win an argument with yourself.

    In the meantime a lot of children are being killed in Chicago and the other (mostly) Democratic controlled cities despite having very strict gun control laws.

    A lot of children are being killed everywhere, and yahoos who try to minimize that fact by calling it an urban problem (with no facts to back up their silly claims) should be embarrassed.

    Studies that seek to make that look okay should be an embarrassment to any Democrat.

    Good thing no studies are doing that.  The people who study this for a living and know what they're talking about are merely pointing out what the facts show.  Gun violence is not just an urban problem, and just as many kids die from gun violence in rural areas as do in urban areas.

    But when you can't deal with the facts, just make something up, huh, Jim?


    Here's a link to the (5.00 / 1) (#191)
    by Anne on Sat Jun 21, 2014 at 09:40:17 AM EST
    Johns Hopkins School of Public Health's Center for Gun Policy and Research.

    There's a lot of information there - I don't expect jim to accept any of it, but others may find it informative.

    And because I'm aware that this is the JH Bloomberg School of Public Health, here's more (bold is mine):

    Investigation into the cause and prevention of gun injuries and fatalities began at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health more than twenty years ago as part of an overall injury prevention research effort. Over the past decade, Center Director Daniel Webster, ScD, MPH and Center Co-Director Jon Vernick, JD, MPH have gained national reputations as experts in gun policy and gun violence prevention research. The Center was formally established in 1995.  Stephen Teret, JD, MPH is the Center's founding director and remains a faculty member. Center faculty members Shannon Frattaroli, PhD, MPH, and Katherine Vittes, PhD, MPH, are leading researchers studying policies to prevent firearm-related domestic violence.  Emma (Beth) McGinty, a rising scholar in mental health, focuses on how public policies affect mental health, substance abuse, and gun violence.  Dr. Colleen Barry brings a wealth of expertise in public opinion research, including examining public attitudes about gun policy and mental illness.  Recently, Shelly Greenberg was welcomed to the Gun Center; faculty draw upon his many years of experience in law enforcement in their ongoing efforts to study the enforcement of gun policies.

    Past and present funders of the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Policy and Research include: The Annie E. Casey Foundation, The David Bohnett Foundation, The David and Lucile Packard Foundation, The Funders' Collaborative for Gun Violence Prevention, The John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation, The Joyce Foundation, The Overbrook Foundation, and The Richard and Rhoda Goldman Fund, Bloomberg Philanthropies and The Harold Simmons Foundation.

    All faculty members of the Johns Hopkins School of Public Health are required to follow the highest standards of responsible conduct of research, per School and University policy.  Among these is the principle of academic freedom, which stipulates that the design, conduct, and reporting of research must be independent of potential influence or biases from the funding source.  All research by the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Policy and Research is conducted entirely independent of influence from funding source.

    I really don't play a lot of attention to (none / 0) (#193)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Jun 21, 2014 at 11:21:15 AM EST
    studies when the issue is SOCIAL change. And gun control is exactly that.  Here is one reason why.

    "The review identified costs totaling $753 million from 1990 to today that were paid by the state of Tennessee. According to their analysis, however, tax receipts from refugees, mostly from the state sales tax, totaled $1.3 billion since 1990. For most of the media, the main finding was that refugees contribute "nearly twice as much" in state taxes as they take out in state-funded public services.

    Now, for the fine print. The study considered only the cost of English Language Learning (ELL) and TennCare, but new arrivals were credited with paying 100 percent of the taxes the average Tennessean pays. Further, it assumed refugees were exactly like the average Tennessean with regard to income, TennCare use and tax remittances. Are these assumptions logical?

    According to the latest data available -- a federal study of refugees who have been in the country five years or less as of 2010 -- the unemployment rate for refugees was 21 percent, compared with 9 percent for overall U.S. population. Twenty-six percent were dependent on cash assistance, 63 percent were in the food stamp program and 48 percent were in Medicaid (TennCare) or short-term federal refugee medical assistance. Those refugees who were placed in employment in Tennessee after arrival earned an average wage of $8.79 per hour in 2010, according to the study.

    The federal welfare program SSI is a good indicator of long-term welfare dependency rates. It is generally a lifetime entitlement and usually includes Medicaid and other social services. The federal study of arrivals over the previous five years found an 11.6 percent rate of usage -- about 2.5 times the national average.


    Common sense tells you that immigrants, as a group, don't pay their share. That may or may not be acceptable but it is a fact.

    Same with the suicide rate with guns. You are  more apt to have a gun in a rural home than in the 'burbs. Result, more gun related suicides. Of course if a gun wasn't available, we have the always reliable wrist slitting in a tub of eater, a noose over a door, etc.

    That's just common sense.

    I go back to my point. People on the Left, such as Anne, Yman and MKS want all guns confiscated.

    That's their position. So they will rant and rave anytime anyone disagrees with them and points out that gun laws don't work.

    And no, Yman. I don't believe the studies. Doctors  lie all the time in politics.


    "All guns" (5.00 / 1) (#198)
    by jondee on Sat Jun 21, 2014 at 12:19:57 PM EST
    What bullsh*t and you know it. Rush.

    "Their position": link to anyone here EVER saying all guns should be confiscated.

    Put up or shut up.


    Been binging on (none / 0) (#45)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Jun 19, 2014 at 04:27:36 PM EST
    True Blood.  To hot to go outside. They are rerunning the entire first six seasons in the Ryu

    Stupid iPad (none / 0) (#47)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Jun 19, 2014 at 04:31:17 PM EST
    In the run up to he 7th season premier.

    It's excellent.  It really is.


    The death of Godric (none / 0) (#65)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Jun 19, 2014 at 06:35:02 PM EST
    I just watched this episode.  Watch this scene.  It just might make you want to watch the series.  Godric is the oldest vampire in the series so far.  He just tried to sacrifice himself to a bunch of crazy tea party like vampire haters in the hope of making some larger peace.  He was rescued and decides 2000+ years is long enough.  Many great moments in this story.  This is one of the best

    PS (none / 0) (#68)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Jun 19, 2014 at 06:51:46 PM EST
    How great is it that she is wearing a sun dress?

    I thought maybe the Ryu was some new (none / 0) (#72)
    by ruffian on Thu Jun 19, 2014 at 07:45:04 PM EST
    sreaming device I had not heard of.

    I'm finally watching Penny Dreadful. Only on episode 2. Good so far. Iwasnt sure I would like the supernatural stuff, but it sure is good escapism . Really good casting too. I never would have thought of Timothy Dalton for a period role like that, but he is perfect.


    It gets better and better (none / 0) (#76)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Jun 19, 2014 at 08:23:08 PM EST
    Season finale coming soon

    Early start to awards season... (none / 0) (#108)
    by ruffian on Fri Jun 20, 2014 at 07:04:42 AM EST
    Just saw that Fargo, BB Thornton, and Allison Toll all won Critics Choice Awards in the mini-series category .

    My other Allison fave, Allison Janney, won twice- tied with Kate Mulgrew for best supporting actress in a comedy series, and also for Masters of Sex for guest performance.

    And the McConauhey juggernaut continues....


    I think (none / 0) (#112)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Jun 20, 2014 at 09:10:56 AM EST
    It's going to be a Billy Bob year.  That was an amazing performance

    New trailer foe (none / 0) (#155)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Jun 20, 2014 at 03:24:33 PM EST
    I need to get a new binge show (none / 0) (#142)
    by ZtoA on Fri Jun 20, 2014 at 02:01:20 PM EST
    Any suggestions? (not much believable violence) and not too depressing. I am not yet free of my GoT binge since my daughter is home and has only watched the first season and wants to binge watch GoT with me this weekend. She needs a chill weekend.

    She has been dealing with a very distressing neurological condition where she has lost control of her writing hand and cannot write anymore. She can type tho. But she loved writing and did so much writing even as a little kid. She made me books even when she barely could make a letter form (very early) and most were backwards or upside down. There is hope since she finally got a correct diagnosis, but the therapy takes years and years and it never completely goes away.


    ZtoA: A transportive binge (5.00 / 1) (#146)
    by christinep on Fri Jun 20, 2014 at 02:15:45 PM EST
    It sounds as if you both have earned a binge.  Here is wishing you & daughter a weekend of binge that lets mind & spirit travel wherever you want to go ... returning you uniquely relaxed.

    Have you seen any True Blood?n (none / 0) (#149)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Jun 20, 2014 at 02:52:03 PM EST
    There is a fair amount of violence but it's mostly played for laughs.  The series has a wonderful dark sense of humor.  Like putting Sookie in a sundress for Godrics death by the sun.

    I love the Americans.  Not that much violence.  It's the story of Russian spy's in the US in the 70s and 80s.

    I love Banshee and The Red Road.  Both detective like stories.
    True Detective was/is one of the best things ever on tv.

    There are oldies but goodies.  Rome, Carnival, Weeds.  If you have never seen Weeds you should.  It's a comedy.

    You can google for on info on all these.

    Hope that helps.


    Oh (none / 0) (#150)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Jun 20, 2014 at 02:54:42 PM EST
    Top of the Lake.  If you haven't seen it.

    I recommend Six Feet Under i (none / 0) (#169)
    by ruffian on Fri Jun 20, 2014 at 07:27:59 PM EST
    It was Alan Balls series before he did True Blood. It is very well written, not really violent though there is a death at the beginning of every episode, and very spiritually and thought provoking, more so than the more 'thrilling' newer shows.

    Second that (none / 0) (#170)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Jun 20, 2014 at 07:29:43 PM EST
    thanks all (none / 0) (#174)
    by ZtoA on Fri Jun 20, 2014 at 09:01:06 PM EST
    lots to get me started!

    Senator Corker and a CT Democrat (none / 0) (#48)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Jun 19, 2014 at 04:36:36 PM EST
    are co-sponsoring a bill to add 12 cents/gallon gasoline tax.

    And he'll act surprised when the Tea Party folks run someone against him.

    They must not read the papers.... (5.00 / 1) (#123)
    by kdog on Fri Jun 20, 2014 at 10:40:54 AM EST
    with the Iraq situation the speculators are already driving up the price...local papers predict 4 bucks a gallon again in no time.  And these fools think it's a good idea to make it 4.12 while some poor slob had to decide between eating breakfast or buying gas to get to work today.

    If the Highway Trust Fund is truly hurting, raise the taxes on UPS and FedEx and the LTL carriers...they're the ones profiting the most off the highway system. Give the working poor a break for once.


    An army on the move over (none / 0) (#55)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Jun 19, 2014 at 05:13:10 PM EST
    desert terrain isn't that hard to see.

    Check out Google Earth and just think what military technology can do.

    towanda, towanda ... are you out there??? (none / 0) (#66)
    by christinep on Thu Jun 19, 2014 at 06:39:02 PM EST
    You know Wisconsin (and your comments about all the aspects are certainly remembered.)  

    What is going on ... with that governor?  I've read today about the indication that Scott Walker may (officially, as in legal action) be at the center of an illegal scheme to funnel funds illegally.  And, that the scheme involved a national level per documents filed by federal prosecutors?

    What is the story here as you have heard it?

    (I do hope that all is well.  Your comments were educational; and, your approach showed timely empathy.)

    Don't get excited (none / 0) (#79)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Jun 19, 2014 at 08:47:13 PM EST
    I hear all the emails have been lost, the hard drive recycled and the server destroyed...

    Oh.. wait.

    Never mind.

    That's the IRS.


    Documents were unsealed in the case, ... (none / 0) (#94)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Jun 19, 2014 at 10:29:53 PM EST
    ... which was initially dismissed by a federal judge, but is presently under appeal by state prosecutors. Here's the link to today's story in the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel.

    Given what's now on the table, I'd say that the judges who've sided with Gov. Walker and Wisconsin Club for Growth have engaged in some rather creative adjudication. Wisconsin law expressly prohibits the coordination of election-related activities between independent campaign committees and the candidates themselves.

    If they can look at all this, and then still tell everyone with a straight face that there was absolutely no evidence of collusion or coordination between the Walker campaign and Wisconsin Club for Growth, then I've got a couple of bridges spanning the Hudson River which they might be interested in purchasing.

    If there is dispute regarding what that law actually means, then it is generally incumbent upon those judges deciding or overseeing that case to first look to what the legislature's original intent was when it enacted that particular statutory regulation. From all indications, that did not happen here.

    Instead, State Reserve Judge Gregory Peterson apparently decided that there was an additional requirement to that law which heretofore did not exist, by determining that that there must also be an "espress advocacy" on the part of a 501(c)4 independent campaign committee -- that is, Wisconsin Club for Growth's campaign ads had to specifically tell people to either "vote for" one particular candidate, or to "vote against" another -- before it would constitute an illegal coordination of activities under Wisconsin election law. I'd offer that this is not legal interpretation. Rather, it's policy making.

    Under most common sense definitions, the addition or subtraction by a judge of a stated legal requirement to an already-existing law, an action which was neither expressly provided for nor even considered by the state legislature, constitutes an act of judicial activism.

    And in our republican form of government, it should properly be the role of state legislators to determine the actual scope and extent of their state's election policies, and not that of that state's judiciary.



    Are you sure... (none / 0) (#98)
    by unitron on Thu Jun 19, 2014 at 10:56:04 PM EST
    ...those bridges won't be tied up in other court cases for the foreseeable future?

    LOL! (none / 0) (#162)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri Jun 20, 2014 at 04:05:27 PM EST

    But now that you brought it up, it looks like New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie now similarly finds himself in some serious legal weeds as well, despite all his bravado during a recent fundraising trip.

    Esquire magazine reported yesterday that Paul Fishman, the U.S. Attorney for New Jersey, is preparing to indict four members of Christie's inner circle: former NY-NJ Port Authority Chair David Samson, former PA deputy executive director Bill Baroni, former PA executive specialist David Wildstein, and Gov. Christie's former chief counsel Charlie McKenna.

    Per the report, Samson allegedly played a central role in the attempted shakedown of Hoboken, NJ Mayor Dawn Zimmer, in which Christie administration officials allegedly threatened to withhold Hurricane Sandy relief funds from Hoboken if Zimmer didn't sign off on a development agreement with Samson's firm on behalf of her city. So it looks like Mayor Zimmer's allegations had some basis in fact.

    According to Esquire reporters Scott Raab and Lisa Brennan, speculation abounds as to who will be the first to turn on Christie for Fishman, in exchange for leniency. Up until now, apparently, the U.S. Attorney's office has refused to cut any deals with any of the targets presently under investigation in this burgeoning scandal.



    Suffolk poll (none / 0) (#116)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Jun 20, 2014 at 09:57:59 AM EST
    Meanwhile, the Republican GOP presidential sweepstakes is wide open in New Hampshire. Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) and New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie were tied at 11 percent, followed closely by former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush and Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) at 8 percent, former Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman (7 percent) and Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) (5 percent). Six other potential candidates combined for 17 percent, with 32 percent undecided.
    Romney effect
    When Mitt Romney was added into the mix, he dominated the field among likely Republican voters, securing 24 percent while driving all other potential candidates into single digits.

    Huntsman? Hasn't he figured out yet... (none / 0) (#181)
    by unitron on Fri Jun 20, 2014 at 10:26:25 PM EST
    that sanity, or anything in the same neighborhood, doesn't sell in the GOP anymore?

    good news (none / 0) (#175)
    by ZtoA on Fri Jun 20, 2014 at 09:06:00 PM EST
    WASHINGTON -- The House of Representatives late on Thursday voted to bar the National Security Agency from looking for Americans' communications without a warrant within a database of emails and phone calls it gathers while targeting foreigners, a technique critics have labeled a "backdoor search loophole."


    Is there some strange ad thing happening at TL? (none / 0) (#176)
    by ZtoA on Fri Jun 20, 2014 at 09:07:59 PM EST
    several times now the TL page has disappeared and is directed towards some ad and the back page won't work to get away from it. Doesn't do that with other site pages so I'm not sure what is happening.

    Sounds a little like (none / 0) (#177)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Jun 20, 2014 at 09:22:54 PM EST
    A virus or some kind of malware

    I've had no problems (none / 0) (#178)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Jun 20, 2014 at 09:23:26 PM EST
    I just had that happen... (none / 0) (#180)
    by unitron on Fri Jun 20, 2014 at 10:24:11 PM EST
    I'm not sure what was being advertised since I have the Flashblock plugin and Flash videos only play if I specifically tell them to, but, when it was over and I got back to the main page, the "cookie" that logs me in automatically here seems to have timed out or something and I had to enter username and password manually. Don't know if there's any kind of connection, but if so, I'd do it the other way around--get 1st timers to the page right away to get them hooked, and then hit them with ads after they've already signed up and made this place a habit.

    I don't think I have ever Intentionally (none / 0) (#197)
    by ZtoA on Sat Jun 21, 2014 at 12:02:32 PM EST
    signed up for an ad. So I'm not sure how to un-sign up. I've never clicked on a spammer link. I can get away from the page so it's not the end of the world, just confusing and a bit irritating.

    Happened to me once - yesterday (none / 0) (#187)
    by Yman on Sat Jun 21, 2014 at 06:57:51 AM EST
    I thought I mistakenly clicked on something and ended up on the ad page, but I guess not.

    Did that to me too (none / 0) (#199)
    by ruffian on Sat Jun 21, 2014 at 12:55:00 PM EST
    I thought I had accidentally clicked on something, but I guess not. I think the back arrow worked for me though.

    Weird (none / 0) (#200)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Jun 21, 2014 at 12:56:48 PM EST
    No problems at all.  Has anyone encountered this on an iPad?

    Guess we just hit 200 comments (none / 0) (#202)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Jun 21, 2014 at 12:58:00 PM EST
    Reply at the bottom if you want.  I will see it.

    Lots of info on Hobby Lobby: (none / 0) (#195)
    by oculus on Sat Jun 21, 2014 at 11:29:38 AM EST
    A museum with an animatronic William Tyndale (5.00 / 1) (#201)
    by ruffian on Sat Jun 21, 2014 at 12:57:25 PM EST
    Now that will thrill the kiddies.

    Heh (none / 0) (#203)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Jun 21, 2014 at 12:59:40 PM EST
    Had to google.   Sunday school deprived.  Thank god.