home

Monday Open Thread

By Jeralyn, Section Blog Related
Posted on Mon Jun 30, 2014 at 01:13:13 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Here's an open thread, all topics welcome.

< Oscar Pistorius Trial Resumes: Mental Condition Fine | New ISIS Leader Sends Recruitment Message While ISIS Takes Syrian Border Town >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Monday Open Thread | 203 comments (203 topical)
    An excerpt fro NYT (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by oculus on Mon Jun 30, 2014 at 01:37:34 PM EST
    article re todayb's SCOTUS decision in "Hobby Lobby" case:

     

        The companies said they had no objection to other forms of contraception, including condoms, diaphragms, sponges, several kinds of birth control pills and sterilization surgery.
        

    Surprising such a "Christian" corporation is willing to provide coverage for sterilization.

    "Christian Corporation"... (5.00 / 2) (#3)
    by kdog on Mon Jun 30, 2014 at 01:43:24 PM EST
    my nomination for oxymoron of the week.

    Parent
    I haven't posted much recently (4.50 / 6) (#50)
    by lilburro on Mon Jun 30, 2014 at 09:31:57 PM EST
    but I had to check in today to register how speechless I am at the ruling. Justice Alito's mind is a scary place.

    Parent
    The five (none / 0) (#66)
    by christinep on Tue Jul 01, 2014 at 09:59:38 AM EST
    Hi lilburro.  May I add to your concern about the automaton Justice Alito.  That is, remember your reaction when thinking about the future with all Five of the Right on our Supreme Court.

    Now, we can turn again to another major outfall from the infamous Citizens United disposition.  The corporation-bolstering "useful fiction" (per J. Alito) of the corporation as a person is at the root of the Hobby Lobby decision: Expand the position, authority, reach of corporations.  This decision about the rights of corporations, I think, will expand as Justice Ginsberg fears.  The present instance of the intrusion of the closely-held corporation into a matter so intimate for a woman as birth control is only the latest manifestation of the plutocratic view that corporations are people ... first, unregulated campaign $$$$; second, birth control limitations via corporate employer; what next?

    IMO, at the very center of the corporatist protection and expansion game under this court, is the seemingly affable longtime mentor of corporations -- the Chief Justice.  Looking at his historical political and legal evolution, it is quite difficult to escape the conclusion that CJ Roberts is setting his imprint in the expansion of corporate "rights" (read: privileges) in broad areas of American life.

    And, now, for something more obvious:  Elections matter.  They really really do -- for everyone living in this country.  If we want a legislative correction to the "corporations as people" legal fiction, we need especially to think about keeping the majority in the Senate and, eventually, expanding again to that majority in the House (see, e.g., the legislative process leading to the correction of the initial SCt characterization in Lily Ledbetter.)  If we are to stop a predictable slide now into rulings resembling the early-twentieth century harsh results, we need to remember--passionately--that the next President of the U.S. will make the difference.  This time, it couldn't be more obvious: Five to Four .... the next President will make the difference.

    Parent

    Here's the next big case to watch for (none / 0) (#67)
    by jbindc on Tue Jul 01, 2014 at 10:20:21 AM EST
    Expected any day from the US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit.

    Halbig v. Burwell

    The Halbig case challenges the massive federal subsidies in the form of tax credits made available to people with financial need who enroll in the program. In crafting the act, Congress created incentives for states to set up health insurance exchanges and disincentives for them to opt out. The law, for example, made the subsidies available only to those enrolled in insurance plans through exchanges "established by the state."

    But despite that carrot -- and to the great surprise of the administration -- some 34 states opted not to establish their own exchanges, leaving it to the federal government to do so. This left the White House with a dilemma: If only those enrollees in states that created exchanges were eligible for subsidies, a huge pool of people would be unable to afford coverage, and the entire program would be in danger of collapse.

    Indeed, the Halbig plaintiffs -- individuals and small businesses in six states that didn't establish state exchanges -- objected that, without the tax credits, they could have claimed exemption from the individual mandate penalty because they would be deemed unable to pay for the coverage. If the courts agree with them, the costs would go up in all 34 states that didn't establish state exchanges, and the resulting exemptions could lead to a mass exodus from Obamacare.

    What's at stake?

    The D.C. Circuit Court is expected to rule any day now on the Halbig case, and supporters of the Affordable Care Act are growing nervous. In January, an Obamacare advocate described the Halbig case to a reporter for the Hill as "probably the most significant existential threat to the Affordable Care Act. All the other lawsuits that have been filed really don't go to the heart of the ACA, and this one would have." And in a fraught oral argument before the D.C. Circuit Court, the administration seemed to struggle to defend its interpretation.

    If the ruling goes against the White House, it's hard to overstate the impact. Without subsidies, consumers in 34 states would face huge additional costs and, because of those costs, potential exemptions from the law. And voters -- a substantial percentage of whom have never liked Obamacare -- would be further alienated from the Democratic Party just in time for midterm elections.

    Moreover, a ruling against the administration would mean that Obama has been responsible for ordering what could amount to billions of dollars to be paid from the federal Treasury without authority. And it would mean the administration has committed yet another violation of the separation of powers.



    Parent
    Perhaps (none / 0) (#81)
    by christinep on Tue Jul 01, 2014 at 11:22:18 AM EST
    But, I tend to think that the areas to watch as the "corporation person" unfolds are (1) erosion of unions in all spheres now, and the corresponding erosion o related worker-protections, and (2) creation of new corporate rights in area related to environmental and safety legislation (i.e., inspection programs and neutral searches related thereto.)

    As for the ACA as a total program: The paragraphs cited above are interesting, but there is growing evidence that more insurance companies want to enter the game.  So ... at least from any analysis related to corporate growth, I'm guessing that is not so threatening.  Like it or not, the ACA is now quickly becoming a significant part of the American healthcare & regulatory landscape.  And, after all, it was CJ Roberts who green-lighted the general package.  Definitely, tho, legal arguments seeking to probe and weaken the ACA have not fully abated ... all the more reason for the Dems to maintain a strong Senate hand as our experience with the ACA strengthens it.

    Parent

    If a state says.... (none / 0) (#100)
    by magster on Tue Jul 01, 2014 at 12:10:32 PM EST
    "let's adopt the federal exchange" then that becomes that state's exchange.

    Parent
    'Been reading a bit more about Halbig (none / 0) (#195)
    by christinep on Wed Jul 02, 2014 at 06:06:16 PM EST
    If political persuasion plays a significant part in the disposition--shocking thought :)--then the make-up of the DC Circuit 3-judge panel could be predictive.  Two of the judges were appointed by Bush and one judge was appointed by Obama.  OTOH, that situation is a bit different should en banc be granted: 7 appointed by a Democrat & 4 appointed by a Republican.  

    I hate to be so crass, but politics does seem to have entered or re-entered overall federal Court decision-making process ... in a noticeably pronounced way. Recent decisions at the highest level lend support to skepticism.

    Parent

    They just oppose (4.00 / 3) (#2)
    by jbindc on Mon Jun 30, 2014 at 01:41:38 PM EST
    some IUD's and two morning after pills becasue they claim they are "abortiofacients". (They aren't, but it makes for good PR to the right-wing).

    Of course, Hobby Lobby's owners aren't so opposed to making money off "abortiofacients" - as evidenced by what 75% of their investment funds are holding.

    Parent

    I guess it's too much to ask that (4.25 / 4) (#31)
    by Anne on Mon Jun 30, 2014 at 05:53:44 PM EST
    these rulings be based in science.

    Or that those bringing these kinds of cases be required to demonstrate that their business practices - across the board - are consistent with their position on birth control.

    It's being described as a narrow ruling, but as near as I can tell, once the door opens, all bets are off.

    "Dear Employees:

    We at Hobby Lobby are committed to making money.  Lots of it.  Gobs of it.  And thanks to some earlier decisions by the Supreme Court, we've found a way - thanks, lawyers! - to argue that our corporation can adopt our religious objection to birth control, and we don't have even have to offer you an insurance plan that contains coverage for it.  So - yay! - more money for us!  Just know this: whatever the issue, you can count on Hobby Lobby to make the decisions that put more money in our pockets.  That's how we justify buying and manufacturing in China, because it's so cheap, even though their one-child policies result in many, many abortions.  We don't care about them, we just care about us.  Us and our money. Fck you, and please have a blessed day!"

    Ugh.  I will never set foot in a Hobby Lobby store.  Ever.

    Parent

    Science? (2.00 / 1) (#40)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Jun 30, 2014 at 07:10:19 PM EST
    Why do ya wanna go and learn yerself that fancy-schmantzy perfesser stuff for, anyways? Why can'tcha just read the Bible an' trust in the good Lord to provide, like real Muricans?

    Parent
    It's a little hard to imagine (none / 0) (#32)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Jun 30, 2014 at 05:56:57 PM EST
    Their business won't suffer at least a bit from this.  

    Parent
    Wrong (2.00 / 3) (#52)
    by Synthesist on Tue Jul 01, 2014 at 12:58:17 AM EST
    "They just oppose some IUD's and two morning after pills becasue they claim they are "abortiofacients". (They aren't, but it makes for good PR to the right-wing)."

    It is not only just "they" that define "abortiofacients" as terminating the life of a living fetus; my Webster's Unabridged Dictionary defines abortifacients as causing an abortion (presumably of a living fetus)...

    Parent

    That's probably true (4.40 / 5) (#55)
    by jbindc on Tue Jul 01, 2014 at 07:13:44 AM EST
    Except IUD's and the "morning after pills" don't cause abortion.  Technically.  Legally. Or medically.  Basically, by any definition.

    Morning-After Pills Don't Cause Abortion, Studies Say

    For years, scientists knew the pills, particularly Plan B, were highly effective in preventing pregnancy after unprotected sex but weren't exactly sure how they managed that. "It wasn't really clear whether it worked before ovulation or after ovulation," says Wood.

    Scientists did know the drug worked primarily by preventing ovulation. It stops an egg from being released from a woman's ovary and thus prevents any chance of fertilization and pregnancy. But they also thought the drug might make it more difficult for a fertilized egg to implant in a woman's uterus.

    Technically, that's not an abortion, says Wood.

    "We know that about half of fertilized eggs never stick around. They just pass out of the woman's body," she says. "An abortifacient is something that interrupts an established pregnancy."

    But people like Rudd worry that even if what the drugs do is not technically abortion, it's still objectionable if it happens after fertilization.

    But it turns out, at least when it comes to Plan B, there is now fairly definitive research that shows the only way it works is by preventing ovulation, and therefore, fertilization.



    Parent
    Regarding abortifacients (none / 0) (#139)
    by Synthesist on Tue Jul 01, 2014 at 10:37:00 PM EST
    please see my posts #125 and #138.

    Parent
    The problem isn't with the definition of (4.40 / 5) (#56)
    by Anne on Tue Jul 01, 2014 at 07:21:44 AM EST
    "abortifacient," it is with labeling as abortifacient the morning after pill and the IUD, which are not abortifacients, but are contraceptives.

    See here, here, and here.

    While someone may believe that a woman is pregnant from the moment of conception, the medical community - you know, science - does not consider a female to be  pregnant until the fertilized egg implants in the uterus.

    People believe all kinds of things, whether they are true or proven or totally nonsensical.  And they are free to do that, to believe what they want, and to allow those beliefs to control their lives.  What they don't have the right to do, either as individuals or business owners - Supreme Court notwithstanding - is to control the decisions I want to make about my life, including my health.

    That's what the Supreme Court said closely-held business owners can do now - impose their religious beliefs about birth control on their employees, and they can do it not just by ignoring the science, but by misrepresenting it.   And they can do it while engaging in business practices that are in total contravention to what they say they believe.

    This is wrong on so many levels it's criminal.

    Parent

    Wow (2.00 / 1) (#125)
    by Synthesist on Tue Jul 01, 2014 at 05:21:50 PM EST
    " ...  The problem isn't with the definition of "abortifacient," it is with labeling as abortifacient the morning after pill and the IUD, which are not abortifacients, but are contraceptives... "
    If this is settled science, the supposed mislabeling was not even mentioned in the ruling, neither in the majority's opinion, nor in the dissent. And if HHS believed that these methods were merely contraceptives (which only prevent fertilization), then they most likely would never have granted the exemption to the non-profit organizations which objected to providing these methods on religious grounds.

    " ... People believe all kinds of things, whether they are true or proven or totally nonsensical.  And they are free to do that, to believe what they want, and to allow those beliefs to control their lives.  What they don't have the right to do, either as individuals or business owners - Supreme Court notwithstanding - is to control the decisions I want to make about my life, including my health.

    That's what the Supreme Court said closely-held business owners can do now - impose their religious beliefs about birth control on their employees, and they can do it not just by ignoring the science, but by misrepresenting it... "

    SCOTUS did NO such thing. The majority merely stopped HHS from forcing these business owners to violate their religious beliefs by mandating the provision of abortifacient insurance coverage. And the majority instructed HHS to grant the same exemption to for-profits as they had already granted to non-profits regarding this matter. They further suggested that since HHS had already provided abortifacient services for exempted non-profit employees that they should do the same for exempted for-profit employees also.

    So, no employees are having any religious beliefs "imposed" on them against their will, and no employees are having their lives and health care decisions interfered with in any form or fashion by this ruling.


    Parent

    Have you discussed with your (3.50 / 2) (#128)
    by nycstray on Tue Jul 01, 2014 at 05:37:33 PM EST
    gynecologist how this ruling could possibly effect your health care choices?

    And it seems today that the ruling was clarified that it covered ALL birth control options, not just the 4 HL objected to.


    Parent

    Update (none / 0) (#138)
    by Synthesist on Tue Jul 01, 2014 at 10:26:28 PM EST
    Even HHS acknowledged to the court that the birth control methods in question may act as abortifacients. From page 32 of the ruling we find the following paragraph:

    " ...As we have noted, the Hahns and Greens have a sincere religious belief that life begins at conception. They therefore object on religious grounds to providing health insurance that covers methods of birth control that, as HHS acknowledges, see Brief for HHS in No. 13-354, at 9, n. 4,may result in the destruction of an embryo. By requiringthe Hahns and Greens and their companies to arrange for such coverage, the HHS mandate demands that theyengage in conduct that seriously violates their religiousbeliefs... "


    Parent
    No, that is not what HHS is saying at all. (5.00 / 3) (#140)
    by Anne on Wed Jul 02, 2014 at 07:58:55 AM EST
    The IUD and the morning after pill act on the fertilized egg prior to its implantation in the uterus.  By definition - the scientific one - pregnancy does not occur until the egg implants in the uterus.

    Further, the medical definition of "abortifacient" is "a medication or substance that causes pregnancy to end prematurely."

    No implantation, no pregnancy.  No pregnancy, no "abortion."

    More:

    Although widespread, definitions that seek to establish fertilization as the beginning of pregnancy go against the long-standing view of the medical profession and decades of federal policy, articulated as recently as during the Bush administration. In fact, medical experts--notably the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG)--agree that the establishment of a pregnancy takes several days and is not completed until a fertilized egg is implanted in the lining of the woman's uterus. (In fact, according to ACOG, the term "conception" properly means implantation.) A pregnancy is considered to be established only when the process of implantation is complete (see box, page 8).

    The danger in the Court's accepting of Hobby Lobby's arguments is less the religious aspect and more in the definitional aspect.  The more accepting the courts are of the "life begins at conception" argument, the more likely women's access to all forms of birth control will be restricted and/or denied.

    My argument is and always has been this: people who don't believe in birth control shouldn't use it.  People who don't believe in abortion shouldn't have one.  No one has the right to impose their beliefs - however well-meaning and sincere they are - on others.  Whether to have or not to have children is a personal, private decision.

    Birth control is a medical decision.  Medical.  Personal.  Individual.

    You make yours; I will make mine.  You deal with your God your way, and do me the courtesy and afford me the respect to allow me to deal with my decisions my way.

    Parent

    Then what did HSS say? (none / 0) (#162)
    by Synthesist on Wed Jul 02, 2014 at 12:11:35 PM EST
    The definition of abortion in Webster's dictionary does not mention fertilized egg implantation or the state of pregnancy as a precondition or qualifier.

    The definition of contraceptive is a birth control method that prevents fertilization. Therefore, any birth control method that may work after fertilization and destroy an embryo (as HHS acknowledged) cannot by definition be a contraceptive. If the MAP and IUD cannot be labeled as contraceptives, then what are they? The plaintiffs argued that they believe these are abortifacients. It appears that HHS did not make much of an argument against that. If they did, doesn't seem to have made an impression on the justices, because as I have mentioned already, there is no reference to any controversy over the labeling discussed in the ruling.

    I'm sincerely curious about exactly what HSS had to say about this labeling issue. If anyone can point me to the oral argument transcript and/or the HSS brief where this subject is addressed, I would appreciate that.  

    The plaintiffs never argued that they should not pay for contraceptive insurance coverage, in fact both companies had provided this coverage long before the ACA was signed into law. They are not stopping anyone from getting an abortion either. They just objected on religious grounds to directly paying for insurance that provides abortifacients. At least five justices agreed and ruled in their favor. The employees will not be denied access to any birth control method they choose unless HHS fails to provide it as they are already doing for exempted non-profit employees.

    In my opinion, HSS had lost this case before it even started. They painted themselves into a corner by granting the exemption to religious non-profits. It was just next to impossible to argue that they should not do the same for for-profits.  


    Parent

    I beg to differ, on so many points. (5.00 / 2) (#175)
    by Anne on Wed Jul 02, 2014 at 01:35:44 PM EST
    I don't know where Mr. Webster went to medical school, or how many years he spent in the fields of obstetrics and gynecology, so I'm just going to stick with the accepted medical and scientific definitions of these terms and reiterate that the reason the morning after pill and IUDs are not classified as abortifacients is because fertilization does not a pregnancy make - implantation is what makes a pregnancy.  

    I don't want the religious interpretation or belief in what constitutes any of these terms to become hard-wired into legal rulings.  Once you cross the Rubicon and legally have accepted someone's sincere religious belief that life begins at conception, you are on a path to restricting or eliminating access to most forms of birth control.  

    I don't care what these employers are still willing to cover, and I especially don't like that somehow we and they are supposed to be grateful that their sincere religious beliefs are allowing their employees to make medical and life decisions they approve of.

    Add onto all of this the blatant hypocrisy of a company's owners bleating about their religious beliefs vis-a-vis what their employees can and cannot do, while simultaneously doing business with countries whose policies should certainly be in violation of their sincere religious beliefs.

    Yes, the Catholic majority blessed Hobby Lobby's selective assertion of their sincere religious beliefs, which have now been imposed on people who may or may not share those beliefs.

    This should be unacceptable - by anyone's definition.

    Parent

    What's really unacceptable (none / 0) (#186)
    by Synthesist on Wed Jul 02, 2014 at 04:48:21 PM EST
    is unelected executive bureaucrats illegally trying to force anyone to violate their religious beliefs.

    You keep reading more into this ruling than is actually there.

    And I reiterate what I posted in my comment #125.

    And I will add that contrary to your assertion that this ruling is now going result in new restrictions on the birth control methods available to the affected employees, the list will now actually be increased to include the abortifacients that their employer had never paid coverage for previously (now to be provided by the government instead).

    " ...I don't want the religious interpretation or belief in what constitutes any of these terms to become hard-wired into legal rulings... "

    Well, if anything like that happened here, I think the blame for that should lie at the feet of the bungling unelected and unaccountable bureaucrats at HHS and the lazy elected representatives who allowed them pick winners and losers by granting exemptions and exceptions in an unequal, and in this case, an illegal way. This whole mess is the direct result lazy representatives writing an incomplete law and then directing bureaucrats to fill in the blanks as they see fit. Only elected representatives should write laws and regulation guidelines. Then the only job of the executive bureaucrats is to apply and enforce these laws and regulations to the best of their ability.    


    Parent
    You can keep citing your comment #125 (5.00 / 1) (#187)
    by jbindc on Wed Jul 02, 2014 at 05:07:31 PM EST
    But that doesn't make it correct.

    The devices at issue were methods of contraception that are NOT abortiofacients, no matter how much you'd like to say they are.

    Parent

    The Supreme Court has (5.00 / 1) (#193)
    by KeysDan on Wed Jul 02, 2014 at 05:51:56 PM EST
    clarified that extending religious freedom rights to "closely held corporations" applies broadly to the contraceptive coverage requirements in ACA.  All 20 not just the four of concern to Hobby Lobby.  Abortifacient is moot.

    It is, as if, the Supreme Court thought Hobby Lobby objected to providing coverage for all birth control rather than coverage for abortion (as untenable as the Hobby Lobby science is.)  

     This is not the narrow decision claimed by Alito, but is typical for the Roberts Court--to portion things out, or to minimize their impact (e.g. Citizens United was nothing, just free speech).   The "post-release" clarification of the ruling is probably to be presented as being in relation to all cases on the way to the Supreme Court.  Justice Ginsberg tried to warn them: a minefield.

    Parent

    It's not just me saying it (none / 0) (#189)
    by Synthesist on Wed Jul 02, 2014 at 05:34:36 PM EST
    The business owners believed they are abortifacients, the majority at SCOTUS agreed and ruled in their favor, HHS lawyers apparently did not dispute it (at least enough to make a difference), and nowhere in the ruling including the dissent was there any objection raised.

    Parent
    I guess it's a good thing they weren't (5.00 / 1) (#194)
    by Anne on Wed Jul 02, 2014 at 05:52:11 PM EST
    arguing that the earth is flat, huh?

    You've been pointed to factual information from the medical and scientific community, and yet you're going to keep ignoring it.

    Maybe the next time you have a medical problem, you should see whether Sam Alito is available to diagnose your condition, or better yet, maybe you can go to the nearest Hobby Lobby and see if someone in the executive offices can tell you what's wrong. I'm sure you'll accept whatever it is they tell you they "believe" is your problem.

    Parent

    Ya know, Synth has a point and none of you (none / 0) (#197)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Jul 02, 2014 at 06:24:15 PM EST
    even try to address it, which makes all of your responses suspect.

    (Assuming Synth is correct that the subject was not addressed in/by the court.)

    If the definitions you all quote are the be-all and end-all, slam-dunk, knock it out of the park reasonings that you all think they are, why didn't the gvt bring it up? And why did none of SCOTUS address it, not even the dissenting judges?

    Are you all simply that much better legal-eagles than SCOTUS or any of the other attorneys involved in this case?

    Parent

    Thank you! (none / 0) (#200)
    by Synthesist on Wed Jul 02, 2014 at 07:22:40 PM EST
    I was beginning to think that no one else here would realize this very important point.

    From the other comments, it seems that the highly paid government lawyers for HHS were maybe just totally incompetent and even the minority in dissent of this SCOTUS ruling were just asleep at the wheel!

    Anyway, all of this just makes me believe that this supposed mislabeling of abortifacients is not settled science.  


    Parent

    I really hate to bring this to your attention (3.50 / 2) (#191)
    by nycstray on Wed Jul 02, 2014 at 05:38:52 PM EST
    Not one of those is a medical doctor in the field of reproductive health. I'm guessing you aren't either based on your sources . . .

    Parent
    You might want to read this (5.00 / 1) (#190)
    by nycstray on Wed Jul 02, 2014 at 05:36:18 PM EST
    Wider impact of HL ruling

    And exactly how will the government, aka taxpayers, be paying for our health care? Wasn't that just a tossed out suggestion by an activist judge?

    By the way, have you placed a call to your health care provider yet to find out how this could effect your healthcare decisions? Maybe they can explain to you that you may need to be treated for a condition and require something that falls under the "birth control" category? Or which method of birth control will work best for your body/you and your husband. Have you researched how much more out of pocket medical costs you may have monthly/yearly when your insurance no longer covers it and the Republicans in congress have been blocking any and all bills for government funding of birth control? Don't forget that they will all be screaming about government funded abortions at this point, but as a woman I'm sure you are used to that.

    Parent

    And you NEED to read the ruling (none / 0) (#199)
    by Synthesist on Wed Jul 02, 2014 at 06:49:42 PM EST
    " ... And exactly how will the government, aka taxpayers, be paying for our health care? Wasn't that just a tossed out suggestion by an activist judge?..."

    No it wasn't. If you had read the ruling, you would know that HHS had already granted an exemption to religious non-profits and are now providing for the healthcare services that were exempted. No need for an "activist judge" to pull this idea out of thin air. All the majority ruling is saying is that HHS do the same thing for the for-profit employees in this case.


    Parent
    You're elevating the religious beliefs (1.00 / 1) (#192)
    by Anne on Wed Jul 02, 2014 at 05:44:13 PM EST
    of one group to the detriment of others; that is not religious freedom, it's discrimination.

    And to put blinders on and pretend that this decision is going to be the end of the efforts to further restrict women's access to reproductive health care is stunningly ignorant, especially when you consider this:

    Some imagine closely held corporations as family-run small business. Actually, closely held corporations make up more than 90 percent of the businesses in this country. They employ 52 percent of the labor force, and the 224 largest closely held corporations had combined revenues of $1.6 trillion in 2013. Some of these companies include Dell, Toys `R' Us, Heinz, Dole Foods, Petco, Stater Bros and yes, even Koch Industries. Under today's decision, employees (and their dependents) at all of those corporations may lose their insurance coverage of birth control if their employers choose to deny it.

    [snip]

     Opponents of reproductive rights are trying to limit access to comprehensive women's health care from all directions. At the federal level, they have attempted to defund Title X, which provides funding for family planning for our poorest sisters in community clinics. At the state level, in Texas for example, there are attacks on government money for contraception and clinics that offer abortion care. There is a movement to prohibit government support not only for abortion services--which, with a few exceptions, has existed for three decades--but also for emergency contraception and certain forms of birth control. Even a woman's ability to pay for her own coverage is under attack: Some states' exchanges and the federal exchange are prohibited from providing insurance that covers abortion care.

    In sum, the anti-choice movement wants to limit not just affordable access, but all access to abortion and birth control, whether it is backed by the government, by employers, or purchased by private citizens. It is an attack at all levels, and today's decision is just another success in these efforts.

    I don't know your gender, but I know one thing: you don't know your a$$ from a hole in the ground.  

    Parent

    No I'm not (none / 0) (#196)
    by Synthesist on Wed Jul 02, 2014 at 06:06:20 PM EST
    elevating anything to the detriment of others.

    But you appear to be elevating the power of unelected executive bureaucrats to illegally force people to violate their religious beliefs.

    Although the plaintiffs won, it was NOT to the detriment of others (except for maybe the unelected executive bureaucrats).

    I will admit that there will most likely be more litigation about the ACA, but this very narrow ruling is not likely to be the sole reason. No blinders here.

    Your personal attack against me is totally unnecessary.  


    Parent

    You keep citing (3.50 / 2) (#170)
    by Zorba on Wed Jul 02, 2014 at 12:38:07 PM EST
    Webster's dictionary as the definitive authority on what constitutes abortion.  
    As opposed to, you know, actually physicians and scientists.  
    LOL!

    Parent
    I'm thinking I'll just go see (4.40 / 5) (#178)
    by nycstray on Wed Jul 02, 2014 at 01:44:27 PM EST
    Dr Webster the next time my lady parts need some doctoring . . .

    Parent
    Bad Idea (5.00 / 4) (#179)
    by squeaky on Wed Jul 02, 2014 at 02:23:29 PM EST
    When looking up both lady parts and lady-parts:

    lady-parts
    The word you've entered isn't in the dictionary. Click on a spelling suggestion below or try again using the search bar above.


    Parent
    that is just great... (none / 0) (#10)
    by ruffian on Mon Jun 30, 2014 at 02:42:13 PM EST
    Dear employees, not only are we not going to allow your insurance to cover these things, but in so doing we are going to decrease the value of the stocks in your 401k by making it harder for you and other employees of like-minded companies to buy these products. Have a great day. Now, get back to work.

    Parent
    More like (none / 0) (#12)
    by Slado on Mon Jun 30, 2014 at 03:06:38 PM EST
    Dear employees...

    "We at Hobby Lobby provide health benefits but those health benefits do not include certain forms of birth control.   You have to buy those for yourself because we do not approve of all the forms of birth control.  We appreciate you being part of the Hobby Lobby team but if you find this unacceptable there are 100 people just as qualified as you who'd love to have your job even without the free birth control".  

    That about sums it up.

    Parent

    If ya wanna get technical... (5.00 / 5) (#13)
    by kdog on Mon Jun 30, 2014 at 03:17:36 PM EST
    Hobby Lobby is not providing health benefits...the employees are providing themselves health benefits by the sweat of their brow.  It's part of the compensation package with their wages, paid days off, etc.

    So one could argue Hobby Lobby is telling their employees how to spend their own money in Hobby Lobby's "moral" image.  What gall! Is gall a sin?

    Parent

    But why don't they write (5.00 / 5) (#15)
    by jbindc on Mon Jun 30, 2014 at 03:18:30 PM EST
    Dear employees,

    We at Hobby Lobby are huge hypocrites who while we support making money off of said misnamed "Abortiofacients", we want to put out that we are good religious people and think we shouldn't pay for certain forms of birth control (even though we actually have no idea what "abortiofacients" really are). We will, however, have no problem paying for our old geezer employees to get erections and for vasectomies.  If you find this unacceptable, too bad, as we have found 5 justices who are as big of idealoguges as we are."

    Parent

    Dear Hobby Lobby Employees, (5.00 / 6) (#17)
    by KeysDan on Mon Jun 30, 2014 at 03:56:53 PM EST
    As your employer, our religious interests to assure the uterine implantation of our employee's blastocysts is more important that anything--government interests or your health, be that preventative or therapeutic.

    If you don't like it, quit, we have binders of women who want a job selling our foreign-made, non-union goods.   And, don't whine about costs--you people can always go to your favorite Congressperson (or congress-corporation, ha, ha, we are just joking,) and let the government pay, just like those so called non-profit religious organizations can do.

     Just because we are a for-profit, "closely held" corporation, does not mean that we are not up to our ears in Holiness here in the front office.  Or, you can just pay for those devil-pills (Plan B, Ella, and 2 IUDs, please check our closely held corporate drug formulary for further information) and satanic devices out of your own pocket.

    Even your pal, Justice Ginsberg says they will only cost you the equivalent of one month's pay owing to our generous minimum wage--at least for now.  We are checking with our preacher on that one and you will hear more in our next newsletter-- to be read on your own time, please.  

    We have been asked if our employees will continue to be provided coverage for immunizations, and this, we can say, is a definite YES. certainly prevention of measles, does not trump anyone's religious beliefs, and they have a greater government interest than, say, prevention of pregnancy with one of those medications that are not faith-based and, hence, we will not include in your insurance coverage.

     We regret those instances where pregnancies, such as in severe pre-clampsia or other life-threatening conditions,  that may result in mortality or morbidity.  We continue to offer assistance to survivors with filing any social security death benefits claims.  It is a big part of our belief system.    Thank you all, now let's get back to work, this is a business, not a charity, after all.   Yours in Christ, the closely held corporate management.

    Parent

    Not even close. Here, ley me try: (5.00 / 4) (#19)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Jun 30, 2014 at 04:23:19 PM EST
    Dear employees:

    You know, we never would've had to run to the Supreme Court in the first place, had you cheap and trashy slutpuppies simply learned to keep your panties on and your zippers up, and emulate the sterling Christian example set by your Assembly of God-fearing employers here at Hobby Lobby.

    Never mind the fact that Hobby Lobby itself was never paying directly out of pocket for contraceptive coverage, and that the insurers themselves had agreed to pick up the tab because such coverage is actually far cheaper than having to shell out for an unplanned pregnancy. Now that we won, I can freely admit that our objections are rooted not in biblical teachings, but in my own unfounded yet terminal psychological hang-ups about the nature of human sexuality in general.

    You see, Mother always warned me to never let anybody play dirty with me, much like our dear old Grandmama -- may that old battleaxe rest in peace -- did for her a generation prior. And in that regard, I'm simply sharing with you a longstanding family tradition of ours. You may not appreciate what we're doing for you now, but I guarantee that soon, you'll see our reasoning exactly for what it is.

    So, the next time you feel the urge to do the horizontal mambo, I would suggest that you instead say the Lord's Prayer -- and a handful of Hail Marys, too, if you so happen to be a Papist rather than a real Christian -- and focus on the virtues of traditional family life, which you'll all have plenty of time to do all day and evening on Thanksgiving, as you prepare for the Christmas shopping onslaught when our doors open later on at midnight.

    I can assure you, my brothers and sisters in Christ, that my wife Barbara and I will certainly be thinking of you, as we fly off that same evening for an extended holiday weekend in Paris on the luxurious corporate B-757 jet we'll soon be purchasing, thanks in large part to our ability to leverage the company's employee pension fund.

    Sincerely yours,

    DAVID GREEN
    Chief Executive Officer
    Hobby Lobby

    Parent

    I can be more succinct (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by Molly Bloom on Mon Jun 30, 2014 at 09:26:28 PM EST
    Dear Employees:

    Go forth, be fruitful and multiply. With yourself!

    David Green

    Parent

    PS: (5.00 / 3) (#104)
    by magster on Tue Jul 01, 2014 at 12:17:57 PM EST
    Also, please kindly ignore that we buy 99% of our products from a country that implements a one child per family policy. God granted us a profit exemption from our sincerely held religious belief.

    Parent
    Not even close, Slado. Here, let me try: (5.00 / 2) (#20)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Jun 30, 2014 at 04:25:46 PM EST
    Dear employees:

    You know, we never would've had to run to the Supreme Court in the first place, had you cheap and trashy slutpuppies simply learned to keep your panties on and your zippers up, and emulate the sterling Christian example set by your Assembly of God-fearing employers here at Hobby Lobby.

    Never mind the fact that Hobby Lobby itself was never paying directly out of pocket for contraceptive coverage, and that the insurers themselves had agreed to pick up the tab because such coverage is actually far cheaper than having to shell out for an unplanned pregnancy. Now that we won, I can freely admit that our objections are rooted not in biblical teachings, but in my own unfounded yet terminal psychological hang-ups about the nature of human sexuality in general.

    You see, Mother always warned me to never let anybody play dirty with me, much like our dear old Grandmama -- may that old battleaxe rest in peace -- did for her a generation prior. And in that regard, I'm simply sharing with you a longstanding family tradition of ours. You may not appreciate what we're doing for you now, but I guarantee that soon, you'll see our reasoning exactly for what it is.

    So, the next time you feel the urge to do the horizontal mambo, I would suggest that you instead say the Lord's Prayer -- and a handful of Hail Marys, too, if you so happen to be a Papist rather than a real Christian -- and focus on the virtues of traditional family life, which you'll all have plenty of time to do all day and evening on Thanksgiving, as you prepare for the Christmas shopping onslaught when our doors open later on at midnight.

    I can assure you, my brothers and sisters in Christ, that my wife Barbara and I will certainly be thinking of you, as we fly off that same evening for an extended holiday weekend in Paris on the luxurious corporate B-757 jet we'll soon be purchasing, thanks in large part to our ability to leverage the company's employee pension fund.

    Sincerely yours,

    DAVID GREEN
    Chief Executive Officer
    Hobby Lobby

    Parent

    Dear Employees, (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by ZtoA on Mon Jun 30, 2014 at 04:59:12 PM EST
    We have converted to Christian Science. Henceforth all health care insurance will cease immediately. In god we trust, Owners.

    Parent
    It seems like such an unbelievable (5.00 / 2) (#25)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Jun 30, 2014 at 05:15:17 PM EST
    Can of worms.  What defines a family company?  What defines closely held beliefs?  Lots of people no longer believe in vaccinations now, what about that?  Sure I no the talking point would be that it was narrowly written.  The women on the court didn't really buy that and neither do I.

    The most amazing thing I have been seeing and reading so called conservatives saying today is, what does it matter? the government will pay for it.
    Excuse me, the government that you wake up every day trying to dismantle?  That government?  
    The government will pay for birth controll.  The government will pay for food for half the employees of the largest employer in the country because they don't want to pay a living wage.
    WTF?

    You know, if there is a possible silver lining I think that this might possibly hasten the move to single payer healthcare.

    Parent

    So (none / 0) (#37)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Jun 30, 2014 at 06:39:17 PM EST
    I see the actual wording of Alitos opinion says that 'should not be understood to hold that mandates for vaccinations or blood transfusions must necessarily fall if they conflict with an employers religious beliefs.

    So
    They might.  Clearly.

    Parent

    oh lovely (5.00 / 2) (#54)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Jul 01, 2014 at 06:21:55 AM EST
    It's only applicable to women. Color me shocked. For all their screaming about Hillary they are working hard everyday to make her president

    Parent
    Dear Employees: (none / 0) (#41)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Jun 30, 2014 at 07:15:35 PM EST
    Our dear daughter was called home unexpectedly by the Lord during recent childbirth. While we are heartbroken, we trust in the Lord absolutely, and believe that it is His will that she be at His right-hand side. That said, who knew that a breach birth could have been so complicated?

    Parent
    Two word explain this (none / 0) (#39)
    by coast on Mon Jun 30, 2014 at 06:46:56 PM EST
    Fiduciary responsibility.  It's required by ERISA of any trustee overseeing a plan and the exact reason why they can not limit the investment options of the plan to the mutual funds noted by Mr. Ungar.  If they did, they would be sued in a nano second.  In addition, the 75% figure stated by Mr. Ungar is so misleading its laughable.  Each company noted could be only fractionally held by the fund and his statement would be true but would be meaningless.  In other words, it's impossible to tell from the information, or lack thereof, if the participants in the plan are making any meaningful return from the specific company holding in the fund.

    Parent
    Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi (none / 0) (#27)
    by KeysDan on Mon Jun 30, 2014 at 05:21:54 PM EST
    have their work cut out for them.  This ruling is an interpretation of a federal statute, the Religious Freedom Reformation Act, 1983), not about the Constitution.  The RFRA is a law saying that religious persons are entitled to avoid laws that burden their beliefs (stemming from the Smith case, Indian peyote etc.)

    And, for Hobby Lobby, the question was do corporations have a religious belief within the meaning of the RFRA?  Without that, Hobby Lobby has no protection. The Court thinks, or want us to think, that  it has presented a limited holding to "closely held corporations"--according to the IRS, more than 50 percent of the value of its outstanding stock is owned (directly or indirectly) by five or fewer individuals during the last half of the tax year.  Closely held corporations can be traded occasionally but not regularly.

     But aside from the Court wedging, once again, Obamacare, they may well find that they have fostered very busy District Courts dealing with individualized cases and their claims.  Of course, the Republicans will not entertain any legislative correction, but Democrats should try, and then, try again.  

    Parent

    If corporations don't have to pay (5.00 / 1) (#130)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Jul 01, 2014 at 06:00:14 PM EST
    For birth controll if it's against their religion does that mean we don't have to pay for war if it's against our religion?
    Or at the very least corporations should not have to pay taxes to support war if it's against their religion.

    How does this not make sense?

    Parent

    I think I read that taxes had already been ruled (5.00 / 1) (#132)
    by ruffian on Tue Jul 01, 2014 at 06:35:30 PM EST
    impervious to such claims.

    Logical or not

    Parent

    Surprise! (none / 0) (#133)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Jul 01, 2014 at 06:41:55 PM EST


    Parent
    New Cronenberg short film (none / 0) (#134)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Jul 01, 2014 at 07:07:17 PM EST
    The Nest

    We were talking about recent Cronenberg movies the other day.  Don't know if you are a fan of the older ones. I am.  If you are you will like this.  If you are not you probably won't.
    Echoes of the Brood. NSFW.  Very strange.  Very creepy.  Very Cronenberg.


    Parent

    The next step will be using the ruling to legalize (none / 0) (#182)
    by Farmboy on Wed Jul 02, 2014 at 04:09:22 PM EST
    discrimination in the workplace. Gay? You're gone. Black? Mark of Cain, bye. A Woman? Get thee to a nunnery. Etc.

    Parent
    Very busy district courts (none / 0) (#29)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Jun 30, 2014 at 05:32:54 PM EST
    Seems to be the one thing everyone agrees on

    Parent
    James Risen reports on Blackwater: (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by oculus on Mon Jun 30, 2014 at 01:49:37 PM EST
    NYT

    1st half Review of Germany/Algeria (5.00 / 2) (#16)
    by CoralGables on Mon Jun 30, 2014 at 03:49:33 PM EST
    Germany = NY Philharmonic
    Algeria = Meat Loaf/Bat Out of Hell

    Score 0-0

    RatDog must not have a dog (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by oculus on Mon Jun 30, 2014 at 04:59:49 PM EST
    in this fight.

    Parent
    Little known fact (none / 0) (#44)
    by CoralGables on Mon Jun 30, 2014 at 08:46:14 PM EST
    The NY Philharmonic can be heard on the Bat Out of Hell album. In this case though, Algeria was missing full orchestration in the second half.


    Parent
    GM (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by lentinel on Mon Jun 30, 2014 at 05:17:36 PM EST
    has decided to settle with the families of people its defective cars killed.

    That is, I suppose, a good thing. Although, no amount of money would really compensate for that kind of loss.

    But what i can't understand is why there are no criminal penalties for this company and its culpable employees and executives.

    They knew about the defect since 2001, and did nothing about it.

    Knowing that people would die.

    Doesn't that constitute murder? First degree perhaps?

    I don't know why you think this is being ignored (none / 0) (#28)
    by jbindc on Mon Jun 30, 2014 at 05:25:55 PM EST
    The Justice Department (and SEC) are looking into it.

    A report on the internal investigation of G.M. conducted by Anton R. Valukas will be the starting point for the criminal investigation. But its finding that the company was negligent only in handling the recall of its defective vehicles is not necessarily the conclusion prosecutors will draw.

    In the Toyota case, the automaker admitted it made misleading statements about safety issues in its vehicles that defrauded customers, entering into a deferred prosecution agreement to a charge of wire fraud. The core of that case revolved around statements Toyota made about having addressed the "root cause" of the defects when it knew it had not done so, hiding that information from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration and the public.

    The problem at G.M. appears to be almost the exact opposite of Toyota: It had no clear understanding of what was causing the problem, so it left the issue unaddressed in its public disclosures.

    But there's a little thing called "the statute of limitations" that may hinder any criminal prosecution you want to see.

    A crucial player identified in G.M.'s failure to address the flawed ignition switch was Raymond DeGiorgio, the engineer responsible approving the flawed part. According to the Valukas report, he authorized a change in 2006 that fixed the problem but did not record that in the company's records by entering a new part number, one reason why engineers missed the cause of the problem that led to fatal crashes. One hurdle to pursuing a violation would be the 5-year statute of limitations that applies to both criminal and civil actions under this provision.

    SNIP

    Pursuing a criminal case against the lawyers would be difficult unless the Justice Department can find evidence of an effort to cover up information that should have been provided to N.H.T.S.A. or the S.E.C. When the right hand has no idea what the left hand is doing, finding anyone personally responsible becomes almost impossible.

    The Justice Department has options available for pursuing a case against G.M., and the company is unlikely to fight any criminal charge. That means a sizable fine is likely in the company's future, along with the repair costs and dealing with those harmed by the defective cars.

    Whether prosecutors can build a case against any individuals will be much more difficult. Unlike the company, which wants to put this behind it, a G.M. employee accused of a crime is likely to fight the charges.



    Parent
    Thanks (none / 0) (#53)
    by lentinel on Tue Jul 01, 2014 at 06:00:45 AM EST
    for the detailed response.

    There is this nasty piece of business:

    The problem at G.M. appears to be almost the exact opposite of Toyota: It had no clear understanding of what was causing the problem, so it left the issue unaddressed in its public disclosures.

    To me, knowing that there was a "problem", a lethal one, is enough. They didn't have to know the "cause". They sent people to their deaths. That is the simple fact.

    This is similar in my mind to a drug manufacturer knowing that one pill in a shipment of many thousands is poisonous. And they send it out anyway rather than destroy the entire shipment.

    Someone should swing.
    If not literally, at least the people found to be responsible should be publicly identified and tried and humiliated in the media, the way any ordinary minority or indigent felon would be.

    Parent

    Oh, great. I guess the media has its (5.00 / 2) (#34)
    by Anne on Mon Jun 30, 2014 at 06:04:15 PM EST
    marching orders, as Brian Williams tells us in serious tones that the rise of ISIS means worry about attacks at home.

    Jesus, I can't stand these people.

    And now at the end of the news hour, a$$hat Matt Lauer - whom I am still angry at for his gobsmackingly ignorant interview of Mary Barra - is "interviewing" Pippa Middleton.  Do you think ANYONE cares what Pippa did with her "famous" dress?  

    Hey, Matt - how many kid things did you miss jetting off to Merrie Olde England to deliver that hard-hitting interview?

    I think I'm in a terrible mood.  

    Birds of Paradise Project (5.00 / 3) (#35)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Jun 30, 2014 at 06:24:22 PM EST
    Cornell Ornithology Lab

    interesting project.  Excellent video

    Incredible. (none / 0) (#51)
    by desertswine on Mon Jun 30, 2014 at 10:28:53 PM EST


    Parent
    WOW (none / 0) (#86)
    by squeaky on Tue Jul 01, 2014 at 11:42:57 AM EST
    More at the project website...

    Parent
    Justice??? (5.00 / 1) (#65)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Jul 01, 2014 at 09:39:22 AM EST
    Nigeria: Boko Haram Members 'Being Killed by Mystical Bees and Mysterious Snakes Possessed by Ghosts'

    Members of terror group Boko Haram have allegedly been arrested in Nigeria after fleeing a forest to escape deadly bites from "mystical bees" and "mysterious snakes".

    According to Nigerian newspaper Vanguard, the captured insurgents claimed the creatures -- possessed by ghosts -- had killed many Boko Haram members.

    "We were told that the aggrieved people who had suffered from our deadly mission -- including the ghosts of some of those we killed -- are the ones turning into the snake and bees," one militant told Vanguard. "Our leaders fled, too."
    Deja vu: (5.00 / 1) (#69)
    by oculus on Tue Jul 01, 2014 at 10:30:36 AM EST
    Chalabi being considered for prime minister of Iraq

    NYT

    Moktada al-Sadr (none / 0) (#74)
    by squeaky on Tue Jul 01, 2014 at 10:55:16 AM EST
    Looks like he will get the PM slot, imo.

    al-Sadr is the shrewdest of all, IMO.. When Makiki became PM and the troops withdrew in 2011, al-Sadr quit politics.. He saw the future...

    Mr. Chalabi's Iraqi National Congress has  only one seat in the Parliament, his own, and it is a measure of his skills as a political operator that he is even under consideration....

    "Our candidates for prime minister are Adel Abdul Mahdi or Ahmad Chalabi," said Hakim al-Zamili, a prominent leader in the parliamentary bloc of the Shiite cleric Moktada al-Sadr, which in turn is part of the National Alliance, a coalition of all Shiite groups....

    "You know, there is a saying in Arabic that when you have seen death, you don't mind a high fever," said one aide to Mr. Maliki who is among a growing number of Mr. Maliki's own supporters hoping that he will bow out. The aide's point was that almost anything was possible in the contorted state of Iraqi politics....

    Mr. Chalabi stayed in Iraq through all the bad years, and not without risk; one suicide bomber narrowly missed him, killing six of his bodyguards....

    ..Spurned by the Americans, he became an ally of Mr. Sadr, the radical Shiite leader, a friend to Iran and a regular visitor to the Shiite ayatollahs in Najaf.

    Recently (a few days ago) al-Sadr called for an emergency government:

    Muqtada al-Sadr, a powerful Iraqi Shia religious leader, has called for a national emergency government, a day after Nouri al-Maliki, the prime minister, rejected any attempts to challenge his rule.

    Sadr, whose Mahdi army has pledged to battle the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, on Wednesday said the Iraqi government "must fulfil the legitimate demands of the moderate Sunnis and stop excluding them because they have been marginalised".

    al-Sadr renounced politics in February.. which may have been a shrewd ploy to stir up his base..  because a few weeks later he announced he was back in the game..

    Parent

    His renunciation was so brief. (none / 0) (#103)
    by oculus on Tue Jul 01, 2014 at 12:17:26 PM EST
    Surprised anyone noticed.

    Parent
    When al-Sadr Speaks (none / 0) (#107)
    by squeaky on Tue Jul 01, 2014 at 12:24:50 PM EST
    Multitudes listen..

    Mr Sadr has said that he wants to break the grip of sectarianism on Iraq but believes this has lost him some popular support. A Sadrist official said that he believed that his withdrawal from politics at the weekend "was aimed at shocking Iraqis and seeing if there really was a bloc of moderate non-sectarian Iraqis out there".

    and he is quite the moderate.. despite US portraying him as a radical extremist killer...

    Mr Sadr's moderate stance today is in sharp contrast with his reputation in the US and Britain after the invasion of 2003 as a "firebrand" cleric who was leader of the paramilitary Mehdi Army. He resolutely opposed the occupation of Iraq, fighting two battles against US forces in Najaf in 2004 and taking over Basra in opposition to British troops. In 2011 Mr Sadr's anti-occupation stance was crucial in forcing Mr Maliki to seek the exit of all US forces.

    Counterpunch

    Parent

    This in my opinion is buyers (none / 0) (#118)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Jul 01, 2014 at 01:35:10 PM EST
    Remorse squeaky.  He was crazed until the US left.  And then it looks like he thought Shia sanity would come about.  In 2007 though he was a main driver of sectarian violence.

    He strikes me as having the same problem the Bush Administration and our earlier military leaders have, "What do you mean after all the violence and killing, people can't stop being violent or killing?"

    Parent

    We Disagree (none / 0) (#167)
    by squeaky on Wed Jul 02, 2014 at 12:29:49 PM EST
    al-Sadr was always a moderate.. His problem was that he was 100% against the US occupation.

    It is good that he is a is in the game, and has the influence that he has today. His moderate voice may help to bring Iraq much needed stability..

    He has integrity.. and is smart about his politics... we'll see how this plays out.

    Parent

    More like horreur vu (none / 0) (#116)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Jul 01, 2014 at 01:29:32 PM EST


    Parent
    Maybe (none / 0) (#131)
    by lentinel on Tue Jul 01, 2014 at 06:07:46 PM EST
    Bush and Cheney can come back too.

    And Tony Blair.

    Wouldn't that be precious?


    Parent

    Milestone Day in the U.S. Navy: (5.00 / 1) (#122)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Jul 01, 2014 at 03:52:33 PM EST
    Admiral Michelle Howard today became the very first woman to hold that full rank in U.S. Navy history, when she was received her fourth star this morning in a ceremony at Arlington National Cemetery.

    Officially, Howard is now Vice Chief for Naval Operations, which is the No. 2 post in that branch of the service, and she may well be on track to eventually become the first woman to ever serve on the Joint Chiefs of Staff at the Pentagon.

    Congratulations, Admiral Howard.

    I was conflicted about the (over?) (5.00 / 1) (#165)
    by ZtoA on Wed Jul 02, 2014 at 12:24:01 PM EST
    cleaning of the Sistine Chapel, tho from a distance it makes a wonderful experience. But this I don't like. More people, too much lighting.

    Yeah that does not seem appealing at all (none / 0) (#169)
    by ruffian on Wed Jul 02, 2014 at 12:34:55 PM EST


    Parent
    Listening to "Hard Choices" (5.00 / 1) (#171)
    by ruffian on Wed Jul 02, 2014 at 12:38:52 PM EST
    Hillary Clinton's book....definitely reads like a campaign document, or an oral history for the future HRC Presidential Library. For example, she can't describe an old building where she gave a speech without calling it a 'testament to what the American people can do when they work together'.  Only politicians talk like that.

    The information is interesting, I just hope a future biographer can get it across without the politico-speak.

    I think all you soccer fans might be (5.00 / 1) (#180)
    by Anne on Wed Jul 02, 2014 at 03:08:35 PM EST
    able to appreciate this, if you haven't already seen it.

    Made me laugh out loud!

    Tim Howard National Airport. (none / 0) (#184)
    by caseyOR on Wed Jul 02, 2014 at 04:18:58 PM EST
    I like it. I really like it. It has a nice ring to it. And we could finally dump that whole Reagan business.

    Parent
    I like it, too (none / 0) (#185)
    by Zorba on Wed Jul 02, 2014 at 04:40:52 PM EST
    I never use Reagan's name when I refer to that airport.  I only ever call it "National Airport."   I would be happy to call it "Tim Howard National Airport," though.     ;-)

    Parent
    Senior US District Judge, (5.00 / 1) (#181)
    by KeysDan on Wed Jul 02, 2014 at 03:40:30 PM EST
    John H. Heyburn II, an appointee of Daddy Bush on the recommendation of Mitch McConnell, struck down Kentucky's constitutional amendment banning same sex marriage.  The judge put the ruling on hold; the Democratic Governor, Steve Beshear, indicated that the state will appeal.   This case, as with the appeal, will be by private lawyers hired by the state since the state attorney general would not defend the amendment.  

    Judge Heyburn rejected the hired lawyers argument that only opposite sex couples can procreate and maintain the state's birth rate and, hence, the economy, noting that even if the state had a legitimate interest in promoting procreation, the state did not explain how exclusion of gay couples has "any effect whatsoever on procreation by heterosexual spouses."   These arguments, he continued, "are not those of serious people."

    Judge Heyburn's ruling follows his February decision that Kentucky must accept a legal marriage of gay couples performed in other states or countries.  That ruling, too, was placed on hold.

    Corporate Malfeasance... (5.00 / 1) (#188)
    by lentinel on Wed Jul 02, 2014 at 05:08:40 PM EST
    This harpoon by John Oliver expresses some of what I am feeling about General Motors.

    I am glad that this kind of commentary can still be presented on American television.

    LINK

    Concerning the comments above (5.00 / 1) (#201)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Jul 02, 2014 at 08:27:14 PM EST
    Ya know, Synth has a point and none of you (none / 0) (#197)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Jul 02, 2014 at 06:24:15 PM EST
    even try to address it, which makes all of your responses suspect.
    (Assuming Synth is correct that the subject was not addressed in/by the court.)

    If the definitions you all quote are the be-all and end-all, slam-dunk, knock it out of the park reasonings that you all think they are, why didn't the gvt bring it up? And why did none of SCOTUS address it, not even the dissenting judges?

    Are you all simply that much better legal-eagles than SCOTUS or any of the other attorneys involved in this case?

    Parent |  1  2  3  4  5

    Thank you! (none / 0) (#200)
    by Synthesist on Wed Jul 02, 2014 at 07:22:40 PM EST
    I was beginning to think that no one else here would realize this very important point.
    From the other comments, it seems that the highly paid government lawyers for HHS were maybe just totally incompetent and even the minority in dissent of this SCOTUS ruling were just asleep at the wheel!

    Anyway, all of this just makes me believe that this supposed mislabeling of abortifacients is not settled science.  

    Parent |  1  2  3  4  5

    It was addressed,  if you can call it that.

    Justice Alito angrily dismisses the notion that there can be a "binding national answer to this religious and philosophical question." Thus, if the Hahns and Greens say that it's so, it's so.
    And Ginsgerg (5.00 / 2) (#202)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Jul 02, 2014 at 08:30:24 PM EST
    Of course, the beliefs in Hobby Lobby were ones with which Justice Alito is himself personally familiar. These plaintiffs are complaining about contraception--and when that didn't fly politically, they recast it as a complaint about "abortofacients." So they may have seemed reasonable enough to him. But as Justice Ginsberg pointed out in dissent, their causal nexus is so thin as to be basically nonexistent. I can be responsible for anything.

    Thus, as Justice Ginsberg also writes, in holding that Hobby Lobby is entitled to its own factual universe, in which contraceptives cause abortion and providing insurance is the same as using it, the Court has opened the door to any number of wild religious claims.
    And Ginsberg was right (5.00 / 2) (#203)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Jul 02, 2014 at 08:57:21 PM EST
    Thus, as Justice Ginsberg also writes, in holding that Hobby Lobby is entitled to its own factual universe, in which contraceptives cause abortion and providing insurance is the same as using it, the Court has opened the door to any number of wild religious claims.

    FAITH LEADERS WANT GAY EXEMPTION

    "And another thing Gift Horse!... (none / 0) (#5)
    by kdog on Mon Jun 30, 2014 at 01:52:47 PM EST
    Not only am I looking you in the mouth, I'm calling the cops and telling your boss too!"

    Shame on you lady.

    she did nothing wrong (none / 0) (#7)
    by nyjets on Mon Jun 30, 2014 at 02:05:30 PM EST
    The person who gave her the bag of marijuana did.


    Parent
    It was an accident... (none / 0) (#8)
    by kdog on Mon Jun 30, 2014 at 02:27:50 PM EST
    if the mother would get over herself, there would be no reason to waste taxpayer resources with a police investigation or cost some poor slob there job over a simple mistake.

    Damn right she did wrong.

    Parent

    it was more than a mistake (none / 0) (#9)
    by nyjets on Mon Jun 30, 2014 at 02:38:20 PM EST
    It was a little bit more of a mistake.
    never mind the fact it is a little illegal (yes I know drug use should be decriminalized. I accept that. ), giving someone drugs over the counter is more than just being a little bit rude.
    The employee in question did a major screw up and should loose his job.
    There are just some things you do not do at work. Taking drugs AND giving it out (regardless if it is accidental) are things you do not do at work.
    She had kids in her car. Heck, a cop could of pulled her over. Things could of gotten a lot worse for her.
    She did absolutely nothing wrong.

    Parent
    All she had to do... (none / 0) (#11)
    by kdog on Mon Jun 30, 2014 at 02:52:44 PM EST
    was throw it in the garbage...case closed.

    For most people, such an incident would be like hitting the sweepstakes.  Because even if one doesn't enjoy the sacrament, they know somebody who does.

    And sh*t we're talking about Sonic here...it was probably the healthiest in the value meal.

    Parent

    Dog, I have to disagree (5.00 / 2) (#24)
    by Zorba on Mon Jun 30, 2014 at 05:11:11 PM EST
    with you on this one.
    Her kids were 8 and 6.  What if the kids had ingested it before Mom knew about it?  What are the results of young children ingesting marijuana?  Can you guarantee that this amount of mj would have had no medical effects whatsoever on these young children?  
    And yes, I know that there is a push for some medical marijuana use in children with certain conditions.  But this would be regulated use, with known strains of marijuana, under a doctor's supervision.  And that's okay with me.
    But how do you or I know how much THC and other substances are in this baggie of mj?
    As a mother, all I know is, if that had happened to me and my kids, I would have been taking apart that Sonic brick by brick.  And yes, I would have called the police.
    The employee was just plain stupid.  And I would have been just as angry if it was an amount of perfectly legal OTC drugs like Tylenol, or ibuprofen, or anything else like that.

    Parent
    What if it was a marble? (none / 0) (#57)
    by kdog on Tue Jul 01, 2014 at 09:02:52 AM EST
    what if it was rat poison?  what if, what if, what if?

    It was an accident...sh*t happens, nobody was hurt.  Only a strange human being with no life would make a federal case out of this.  I mean I can guarantee nobody working minimum wage at Sonic can afford to give away their reefer, so it could not have been intentional.  Ac-ci-dent, and no harm done.  To err is human, to forgive and/or forget is divine.

    I was half-kidding of course, but now you guys are scaring me with the pearl clutching.
    I don't know about you guys and your kids...but even at age 6 I damn well knew not to put plastic baggies in my mouth.  The kids were never in any danger, outside of the ingredients of the Sonic hotdog or whatever they were eating.  

    Parent

    It WASN'T an accident (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by jbindc on Tue Jul 01, 2014 at 09:15:21 AM EST
    If the employee would've left his stash at home, none of this would have happened. He had no reason to have it there, let alone where it could get into a customer's order.

    This is completely his fault, so it's hard to have any sympathy for this guy.

    Parent

    Not hard for me... (none / 0) (#62)
    by kdog on Tue Jul 01, 2014 at 09:21:33 AM EST
    Agreed, putting in the apron pocket was a mistake, but maybe they had no other pockets.  

    Would the employee had been fired if they dropped a quarter in the food?  I think not, which begs the question why not?  

    Tough crowd...I tell ya.  

    Parent

    You mean a quarter pound (none / 0) (#80)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Jul 01, 2014 at 11:13:37 AM EST
    :)
    You are reaching

    Parent
    I meant an actual quarter... (none / 0) (#90)
    by kdog on Tue Jul 01, 2014 at 11:48:58 AM EST
    aka 25 cents.  You could choke!

    Should have clarified.

    Parent

    In any case (none / 0) (#94)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Jul 01, 2014 at 11:53:04 AM EST
    The business there will probably see an uptick.  Just in case it happens again.

    Parent
    Whatever (none / 0) (#79)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Jul 01, 2014 at 11:12:26 AM EST


    Parent
    I don't even know where to start with this, (5.00 / 2) (#68)
    by Anne on Tue Jul 01, 2014 at 10:23:11 AM EST
    and I probably shouldn't waste my time, because I don't think you're ever going to see this - or even try to see this - from any perspective other than "if it involves pot, it's all good."

    But I'll try.

    It was fortunate that the mother made the discovery before she handed over the bag of food to her kids.  And chances are, had she just handed them over the seat to the kids, one of them might have pulled it out and asked his mother, "Mom, what's this doing in here?"  

    That it played out the way it did is pure luck.

    Who makes a big deal out of this is a mother with the responsibility to safeguard and protect her children; if that's a "person with no life," I guess there are a lot of them out there.  I can tell you that as someone who once had young children, and who now has a young grandchild, had I found that pot in my drive-through order, after I got finished being grateful my kid didn't eat the stuff, I'd be wondering what else could end up in my kids' meals from that place.  Would "accidentally" spilling coke or meth or crushed-up oxy on the food - anyone's food - be okay with you?  

    It isn't that mother's job to protect the job of the person whose pot "fell into" the bag; it's her job to protect her kids.  The doofus whose pot it was has to take responsibility for what happened, regardless of there being no harm this time.  Going to management was the absolute right thing to do - believe it or not, management actually has in interest in knowing whether the employees are putting the customers at risk - accidentally or not.

    And if it were me, and I thought nothing else was going to be done, I'd have probably wanted to speak to law enforcement, too.  It's not the customer's job to protect the employee from the consequences of his or her actions, whatever those might be.

    Nothing happened to this mother, or these kids, but as a mother - as a human being, for God's sake - I could not in good conscience just walk or drive away and never say or do anything about it.

    You know, there are times when I find your cavalier, laid-back, whatever, dude attitude sort of endearing, but this is one of those times that I find your logic and reasoning twisted, and your attitude irresponsible, offensive and insulting.

    "Pearl clutching?"  Really?  

    Parent

    The TL reaction... (5.00 / 1) (#70)
    by kdog on Tue Jul 01, 2014 at 10:45:24 AM EST
    gets stranger and stranger.

    Why stop at the local PD?  Alert the FDA, the Health Inspector, the Surgeon General!

    Now if the overworked and underpaid worker was intentionally f*cking with people's food, then yes they should be terminated post haste.  But there is no indication that is the case...mountain out of a molehill.  

    Anytime I found a foreign object in food, I either removed the foreign object and finished my meal, or if gross enough ditched the meal and found another restaurant...I'd never in a million years file a report and jam somebody up over a simple minor mistake.    

    Parent

    Perhaps when you see that everyone is ... (5.00 / 2) (#119)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Jul 01, 2014 at 02:54:40 PM EST
    kdog: "The TL reaction gets stranger and stranger."

    ... marching uniformly out of step save for you, perhaps its best that you consider doing a skip-step yourself and getting back in rhythm with the program. For it is arguments such as the one you're presently offering on this subject, which brings home the realization to me that you've never been a parent or a custodial guardian of a young child.

    Given children's general inquisitive natures, exposing little kids to pot is not only not cool, it's potentially dangerous because THC poses a clear health risk to those under age 12 if ingested. I never smoked pot in front of my daughters when they were little. Nor did I ever left any weed, pipes or bongs out and within their reach, for the exact same reason that I would never leave prescription medication lying about where they might otherwise get their hands on it.

    So, not for nothing do those of us who are parents find inexplicable both your cavalier "schitt happens / no harm, no foul" attitude about this matter and your inability (or unwillingness) to empathize with parental concerns. And frankly, that you would further blame that mother for reporting the incident and accuse her of not having a life is something that I personally find rather appalling, because I'd really like to believe you're much better than that.

    The notion of mutual respect is actually an unspoken reciprocal agreement. For other people to tolerate and accept your laissez faire position on matters of personal behavior, you must also be willing to offer the same regarding the personal views and positions expressed by others. And that's an aspect which you've kept hidden from display during this particular discussion over the last two days.

    Aloha.

    Parent

    Spare me Don... (5.00 / 1) (#141)
    by kdog on Wed Jul 02, 2014 at 08:29:42 AM EST
    you know damn well you wouldn't call the police if something innocuous as this happened to you...because you are a reasonable man.  99% percent of the TL community would not call the cops if this happened to them. The mother is whacked imo.

    Not being a pearl-clutching bedwetter has nothing to do with me being childless...I've had and do have children in my care on occasion, but that's irrelevant.  

    Parent

    I probably wouldn't call the police (none / 0) (#142)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Jul 02, 2014 at 09:23:12 AM EST
    But I'd be freaked out.  I would pretend I saw nothing and it would go in the trash along with food trash.  Only because it was pot though and I refuse to consider pot a high crime.

    You and I have strong personalities though kdog, those who consider being law abiding first and foremost would freak and then call the authorities.  I would freak quietly, no child would have known what else was in the bag....and then it would have just gone away :)

    I have the intestinal fortitude to consider all laws not equal, but I also think that is a rare person.

    Parent

    For me, it isn't the illegality that (5.00 / 1) (#157)
    by Anne on Wed Jul 02, 2014 at 11:16:51 AM EST
    freaks me out at all - there's legal stuff that could have ended up in that bag that would have given me the willies, too.  Would I have called the cops?  Probably not, and if the manager I spoke to seemed indifferent, I'd likely have suggested that as the next step to see if that made a difference in what the manager did next.  

    But as someone who spent many a time in the car with kids, and many times when I handed over bags of food into the back seat without doing more than just making sure this one had the burger and that one had the nuggets, that's what freaks me out.  Who knows what a kid thinks when he or she sees something they're not expecting?  Who knows if they ask Mom, "hey, what's this - am I supposed to put this on my fries?"

    In this case, the pot never made its way into the hands of the kids, but so what?  Not too long ago, I was driving home - was almost home - and there was a truck a couple hundred feet ahead of me that couldn't seem to stay on its side of the road.  Not just drifting over into the oncoming lane, but more or less driving in it.  And then swerving.  I laid on the horn, flashed my lights - nothing.  I suppose I could have taken the position that it was no big deal because nothing bad happened to me - but I called the cops because this guy was going to kill someone.  I never heard any more about it, no one ever followed up with me, so I have no idea if the guy ever made it to where he was going.

    Yesterday, some idiot in a Safelite Auto truck passed me going about 60 on a double-yellow line on a curving country road in a spot where he could not have known whether there was another car coming around the curve.  It happened so fast that I couldn't get the truck number, or i'd have called the company to report it.  Pearl-clutching again, I guess.  But the people I love drive these same roads.

    I don't think this makes me a pearl-clutching bed-wetter, just a mom who - like many other moms I know - has an unlimited ability to imagine the possible horrors that could befall my children and the people I love in the blink of an eye.

    With all due respect to kdog, no drug, no drink, has ever been more important to me than my kids, and now my grandkids.  If I have to choose between a fast-food worker losing her job, and my kids, I'm choosing my kids.

    It's not the illegality that bothers me - it's the attitude of "the only thing that matters to me is doing what I want, when I want" and the disregard for the risks to which others are exposed in achieving those personal satisfactions.

    Watching other people's children isn't the same as being a parent, and I make no apologies for believing that.

    Parent

    I'd call the cops if there was (5.00 / 1) (#160)
    by ZtoA on Wed Jul 02, 2014 at 11:31:41 AM EST
    a loaded gun, active bomb, or combat knife in the bag. A long sword would have p!ssed me off too.

    Parent
    Actually, (none / 0) (#163)
    by jbindc on Wed Jul 02, 2014 at 12:20:17 PM EST
    All the "pearl-clutching" going on is by the people who say, "I can't believe she called the cops!"

    No arrests have been made, and oh, by the way - the employer called the cops, too.

    And let's think about if she was pulled over while going home with this in her bag - think the cops would buy the story of "Oh, I found this in my bag," story?  Why should she possibly take the blame for some idiot pothead at Sonic?

    Parent

    Oh, and (none / 0) (#164)
    by jbindc on Wed Jul 02, 2014 at 12:21:55 PM EST
    one of the kids had already started eating stuff out of the bag before she discovered the pot.

    Parent
    If your kid had seen it (none / 0) (#168)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Jul 02, 2014 at 12:34:46 PM EST
    Well, watcha gonna do now?  My kids don't go through the bag first because I'm usually making sure that what we ordered and paid for is in the bag.  And for some reason, I'm the only one that considers that a high priority :)

    Parent
    I figured... (none / 0) (#159)
    by kdog on Wed Jul 02, 2014 at 11:30:22 AM EST
    you'd be in the reasonable 99%, good for you Anne.

    As a parent surely you know that sweating the small stuff is a recipe for early grey hairs and senseless worry, not to mention over-bearing helicopter parenting.  ymmv but this is small stuff as far as risks to children are concerned imo.  A far far cry from your analogy of reckless drivers.  I mean what are the odds something bad could have happened, 1 in a million? I stand by the comment...moms over-reacted big time.

    True I'll never understand the full scope of parenthood, but I think I have a good idea being so close to my siblings who are parents, and being a very involved uncle.  And we've all been parented.  My opinion may not be of equal value to a parents, but I don't think it should be dismissed outright because I never reproduced.

    Parent

    Dangerous roads are always going to be dangerous (5.00 / 2) (#166)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Jul 02, 2014 at 12:24:27 PM EST
    Roads....you could be sleep deprived because you have a newborn and kill a bunch of people on a road.

    This is where this country needs much more mass transit, that is IMO really the only thing that will make travel safer than it currently is.  A person completely law abiding with a deployed husband and having to take pain killers for an oral surgery is far more dangerous IMO than a drug user because they have no tolerance for the drugs.  And running your household is not optional.

    Parent

    Dog, probably time (none / 0) (#183)
    by Zorba on Wed Jul 02, 2014 at 04:12:40 PM EST
    For all of us to sit around a campfire, holding hands, and singing "Kumbaya."
    And don't bogart that joint, my friend.
    ;-)

    Parent
    But would you be... (none / 0) (#144)
    by kdog on Wed Jul 02, 2014 at 09:41:11 AM EST
    more or less freaked out if it was a less stigmatized potentially dangerous (but not really all that dangerous) foreign object in your bag of garbage-food?

    Parent
    If it wasn't illegal (none / 0) (#146)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Jul 02, 2014 at 09:46:09 AM EST
    I wouldn't be freaked out at all.  I might be slightly pissed that weed was in my food stuffs.  I'd probably march in the door waving the baggy and demanding an answer :). Whose G** D*** weed is this?

    The only reason I would be gasping internally freaked out, is because it's illegal.  I don't consider weed much different than a martini though.  There's just a time and place.

    The fact that it is illegal most everywhere changes everything for me, and I would feel less freaked if my kids weren't in the car.  Drugs in your car with children, the next thing that happens in that instance is child services.

    Parent

    And if it happened at Amore Pizzeria... (5.00 / 1) (#149)
    by kdog on Wed Jul 02, 2014 at 09:53:04 AM EST
    I'd stop in your tracks and say "I'll take care of this, give it here pal" ;)

    I must say I'm proud of you, you handled riding and hanging illegal like a pro during your visit.  When you break the law everyday ya kinda forget that illegal is a big deal to some people...to me, it's like breathing.  But if current trends continue I might be an upstanding law-abiding citizen before we know it.

    Parent

    And I would let you take care of that (none / 0) (#153)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Jul 02, 2014 at 10:07:07 AM EST
    And if anything came up, I thought it was extra oregano :). Amazing how I just know how to do this.  Almost as if I had a parent with a horrible head injury, and weed had an amazing calming influence on him and made his life doable :)

    Parent
    Did you notice anything (none / 0) (#155)
    by oculus on Wed Jul 02, 2014 at 10:50:37 AM EST
    unusual about our pizza?  Hotdogs?

    Parent
    They were especially tasty :) (none / 0) (#156)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Jul 02, 2014 at 11:14:40 AM EST


    Parent
    Did you feel the need (none / 0) (#161)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Jul 02, 2014 at 12:10:06 PM EST
    To add green corduroys to your wardrobe?  I know you weren't thinking Chardonnay.  You are the most evolved white wine drinker I've ever met :)

    Parent
    I wouldn't like it but (none / 0) (#158)
    by ZtoA on Wed Jul 02, 2014 at 11:28:09 AM EST
    I'd like it less if it was some prescription drug.

    I don't know what I'd do in that situation. I can certainly see a parent being really p!ssed off! I did once first hand catch my teen daughter smoking weed. I came in the house and the smell wafted thru the house. She was outside behind the big tree and I went out on the deck and called her. Soon her head popped sheepishly out from behind the tree. I asked to see everyone so they all stepped out. OK so this was terribly stereotypical, but there was my beautiful blond (and smart) daughter, the star athlete (smart) who was black, and the super genius (smart smart) who was asian all looking hysterically contrite, tho I did not laugh out loud. They all went to the same school which had a horrible drug policy. They were all such great kids/people!

    I simply told her to be careful because of the neighbors and if they were going to smoke to at least do it on the deck where the smoke had less chance of  traveling to a neighbor's house.  That was early in their junior year, and for the rest of high school and all of college when I saw those boys they would address me in the most respectful, almost fawning, way possible. My daughter told me they were always grateful that I had not busted them and gotten them kicked out of school (where they all thrived). Their super respectful treatment of me always amused me to no end and I had a good snort/laugh later in private. They're all rather successful adults now and I hope to see them again and we can laugh together.

    If I had a car full of tots it would be different. I'd probably just throw it away, tho if it was some dangerous drug, like Oxy I would go back to the store and complain. If it was just pot I hope I would have just said "no, no kids. That one is for mommy".

    Parent

    My daughter who would surely rat on me (none / 0) (#172)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Jul 02, 2014 at 12:53:57 PM EST
    As easily as she breathes, came home stoned once.  She....sigh....gets to have different standards she is judged by because I'm her mom.  She was late getting home though.  My husband knows zero about drug use.  He's charmingly naive.  He came out of her room frustrated, said he just couldn't talk to her, so I went in.  Oddly she kept her face turned away from me until I commented on that, so she looked at me.  Her eyes were crazy red.  No way!  Could the household police force be stoned.  So I stood there and stared stupidly at her until she busted out laughing.  I said, "Oh my God you're stoned!"  Left on the bedroom floor still laughing....with herself.  Returned her to her father's authoritiiii :). Whew, that chewing out was ugly.  We really can't have weed smoking in our house though, if he was ever implicated in some way his career is over.  I left him to sort that out meaningfully with her.

    Parent
    Quick story (5.00 / 1) (#173)
    by ZtoA on Wed Jul 02, 2014 at 01:06:18 PM EST
    In high school my first great boyfriend was a couple of years older than I was and after he graduated he went to college. On a break he came home and said he had a great new experience for us. It was orange barrel acid. So I tried it with him, he taking about 4x the amount that I did, and went to see Joe Cocker and Mountain. Well, that was interesting. I got home and got past the searing eyes of my mother and went to bed where I had the most amazing dreams of sitting in the middle of an orchestra during a symphony.

    In the middle of the night I was awakened by him throwing pebbles at my window, insisting that I need to let him in because he was having a "bad trip". So I did and told him to be extremely quiet. He was loud and I heard my mom get up and slowly walk down the stairs to where we were. I frantically told him to shut up and let me do the talking. Naturally as soon as she came around the corner he said "Hello Mrs. Z we are high on acid". I have never been more sober that at that moment. I actually had to talk both of them down. Naturally I was punished but we did not have to go to the hospital as she had wanted.

    Parent

    Days of youth! (5.00 / 1) (#174)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Jul 02, 2014 at 01:15:36 PM EST
    I burst out laughing reading that.  I would have no idea what to do with a youngster having a bad acid trip...other than call kdog :).   Kids will be kids, I did shrooms once, I ate too many I was told..they were dried though, how could that be too many?  I called everyone I knew that night...all night, I just wanted them to come to breakfast, I was cooking.  What a threat!  Thankfully I was finally asleep when the sun came up.

    Parent
    B3 (Niacin) (5.00 / 1) (#176)
    by squeaky on Wed Jul 02, 2014 at 01:36:11 PM EST
    Vitamin B3 does the trick when you or your loved ones get too greedy with LSD and overdo it..

    Parent
    Link (none / 0) (#177)
    by squeaky on Wed Jul 02, 2014 at 01:38:34 PM EST
    Caution on B3 and info for bad trip..

    Parent
    I used to have to give parenting classes (none / 0) (#151)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Jul 02, 2014 at 10:00:43 AM EST
    When I worked probation.  If you were busted for drugs you ended up in my class.  Imagine if you can a 27 yr old woman with a three year old telling a 45 yr old with three teenagers how to parent.  It was a damn farce.  I knew it too.  I had nothing to tell these people worth spit :). We had to run the drill though.  Every once in awhile a good conversation would develop and a group would really connect and figure out some techniques for a real problem child.  Mostly though it was a farce because I understood exactly three years of baby/toddler parenting, so let's turn to page such and such in our workbooks :)

    Parent
    That's funny... (none / 0) (#154)
    by kdog on Wed Jul 02, 2014 at 10:08:32 AM EST
    on a couple levels.  As if a conviction in a quasi-police state has any bearing whatsoever on parenting ability.  

    Many many ways to raise a good person...the only mandatory is love and lots of it.

    Parent

    I'm trying to imagine (none / 0) (#71)
    by jbindc on Tue Jul 01, 2014 at 10:50:55 AM EST
    How a bag of marijuana "slipped" from an apron into a customer's order?

    Parent
    Ditto (5.00 / 1) (#76)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Jul 01, 2014 at 10:58:58 AM EST
    I have stayed out of this but I will say someone dumb enough to do this deserves to be fired at least.  Will also say I can almost guarantee you it was not intentional.
    Pot is not cheap.  This person, likely working for minimum wage, is not buying bags of pot to slip into someone's lunch for some nefarious reason.
    It was a dumb accident.
    To bad for the employee and the potential customer who would have enjoyed the "happy meal" that it didn't land in someones lunch who would have appreciated it.

    Parent
    Apron pockets are loose... (none / 0) (#73)
    by kdog on Tue Jul 01, 2014 at 10:54:41 AM EST
    I could see it happening fairly easy.

    I say again, any and all minimum wage workers can ill afford to give away free dime bags...that's like 2 hours work after taxes.  A very bad day for this exploited worker, 3 ways to Sunday...lost their weed, lost their job, and gotta deal with the cops.  Luckily we don't flog or use the stacks anymore, but that might be next.

    Parent

    But the whole point is (none / 0) (#77)
    by jbindc on Tue Jul 01, 2014 at 10:59:06 AM EST
    The bag of marijuana shouldn't have been there in the first place, so that's no accident.

    Second, even since the guy was dumb enough to bring his pot to work, why put it in his apron? No accident there.

    Third, apron pockets are not loose enough that a bag of pot is going to jump UP from the waist (or DOWN from a breast pocket) into a bag that is either in a) his hands or b) a waist high counter.

    Lesson:  keep your pot at home.

    Parent

    It could easily pop out... (none / 0) (#84)
    by kdog on Tue Jul 01, 2014 at 11:33:18 AM EST
    if the apron gets caught up with your hands or arms, or if bending over the drive-thru counter to collect payment.  

    But like I said above, not a good place to put it, to be sure.  

    Leaving it at home is not always feasible...if you're going out right after work, or copping on the way to work or lunch hour.  

    Parent

    Then you don't need it (none / 0) (#85)
    by jbindc on Tue Jul 01, 2014 at 11:38:44 AM EST
    What I suspect happened is the worker stashed it in a bag to hide it, and then either forgot it or didn't pay attention when the bag was grabbed to put an order in.

    Too bad.  Lesson learned.

    Parent

    I don't think you under stand (none / 0) (#87)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Jul 01, 2014 at 11:43:52 AM EST
    What actually happened.  When they say a "small Baggie" they mean about the size of your thumb.  That is a common size for small amounts of pot.  He is right.  It was in HD apron or in a pocket and fell in by accident.  
    It's not like it was a big bag that was " grabbed by accident"

    Parent
    I understand completely (none / 0) (#93)
    by jbindc on Tue Jul 01, 2014 at 11:52:05 AM EST
    I don't think you or he understands what the chances of a bag in a standard apron used at fast-food place, would slip out (without notice) and just happen to go into a customer's bag by accident are.

    And again - this was not an accident - it could have been prevented if this moron didn't bring his pot to work (or at least, if he would have left it in a locker or other area than around the food.)

    Parent

    Accident (5.00 / 1) (#96)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Jul 01, 2014 at 11:57:00 AM EST
    ac·ci·dent
    noun
    1.
    an unfortunate incident that happens unexpectedly and unintentionally, typically resulting in damage or injury.

    2.
    an event that happens by chance or that is without apparent or deliberate cause.


    Parent

    If you can prevent it (none / 0) (#102)
    by jbindc on Tue Jul 01, 2014 at 12:16:57 PM EST
    It.Isn't.An.Accident.

    See - another definition of "Accident"

    an unfortunate event resulting especially from carelessness or ignorance


    Parent
    While I agree (none / 0) (#117)
    by sj on Tue Jul 01, 2014 at 01:30:56 PM EST
    with your overall position. This is not at all true.
    If you can prevent it (none / 0) (#102)
    by jbindc on Tue Jul 01, 2014 at 11:16:57 AM MDT

    It.Isn't.An.Accident.

    Lots of accidents are preventable. They are still accidents -- even by the low standards of your own -- very flawed -- definition. Here is the more typical definition:
    an unfortunate incident that happens unexpectedly and unintentionally, typically resulting in damage or injury.


    Parent
    The Moron (none / 0) (#95)
    by squeaky on Tue Jul 01, 2014 at 11:55:08 AM EST
    Your moron was a her..  and more than likely it was being used medically to help pay attention during a very boring job.

    Had she toked up before serving, the likelihood of her making the mistake would have gone down dramatically, imo.

    Parent

    Doubt it (none / 0) (#105)
    by jbindc on Tue Jul 01, 2014 at 12:20:11 PM EST
    and more than likely it was being used medically to help pay attention during a very boring job.

    But that's a good excuse.

    Parent

    What better place to purvey MJ. (none / 0) (#106)
    by oculus on Tue Jul 01, 2014 at 12:23:54 PM EST
    A drive-in restaurant.

    Parent
    You would think they would (none / 0) (#108)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Jul 01, 2014 at 12:27:50 PM EST
    You know charge for it

    Parent
    I used to cop... (none / 0) (#109)
    by kdog on Tue Jul 01, 2014 at 12:31:53 PM EST
    from a guy who worked the overnight shift at a gas station.  

    Perfect set-up, bulletproof little booth and the only employee.  But ya had to buy gas or cigarettes too to make it look good for the cameras.

    Parent

    There was recently (none / 0) (#110)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Jul 01, 2014 at 12:41:16 PM EST
    A bust in a drive thru window some place.  But you had to pay for it.  It wasn't like a promo.

    Parent
    I always got a kick out of... (none / 0) (#111)
    by kdog on Tue Jul 01, 2014 at 12:47:00 PM EST
    the fake storefronts in "old" Bed-Stuy and Bushwick.  The bodega with only a two month old loaf of bread and a couple cans of Dinty Moore in the whole store.  Or the video rental store with 3 videos.

    I'll have stories for when my great-grand nieces and nephews ask me "What was it like when marijuana was illegal?" ;)

    Parent

    Unwritten law (none / 0) (#112)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Jul 01, 2014 at 01:02:14 PM EST
    Pot dealers are always the weirdest flakiest most insufferable people on earth.

    Parent
    And yeah (none / 0) (#113)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Jul 01, 2014 at 01:03:08 PM EST
    I used to go to one of those on the lower east side

    Parent
    Then there was the church (none / 0) (#114)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Jul 01, 2014 at 01:04:30 PM EST
    On Christopher street known as Our Lady Of Loose Joints.

    Parent
    These are the things... (none / 0) (#115)
    by kdog on Tue Jul 01, 2014 at 01:14:36 PM EST
    we will wax nostalgic about...the handcuffs and holding cells with no toilet paper not so much;)

    Parent
    IMO... (5.00 / 1) (#120)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Jul 01, 2014 at 03:00:14 PM EST
    ...had this happened with prescription pills*, the lady more than likely would have talked to the manager and gave the meds back, and the employee would have gotten a scolding.

    Never mind the real dangers of the medication, it would have been viewed for what it was, an accident that could have ended badly, but didn't.

    So yes, I think there was a over-reaction, but it's not like he was fired from NASA or arrested.  Even if the bag fell onto the floor, there are very few places in which weed at work would not result in termination.  Surely people who partake are well aware of this and I think the great majority make sure their dope is secure.

    And FYI, if you start defining accidents in which a lapse in judgement is made as something intentional, you would have close to zero car accidents, they would all be some deliberate acts that could be prevented by simply not getting behind the wheel.

    This was an accident.

    My guess on why it was in such a loose place, he probably just bought it or was showing it off and had to quickly conceal it because the boss man was around and simply went back to work and forgot his weed was unsecured.

    And one has to wonder if weed fell out of a pocket at a family gathering would she have called the cops on a nephew or an aunt, doubtful IMO.

    And lastly, for a woman to claim that she is so concerned about her children's welfare that the cops need to be called because her kids got too close to marijuana, it's a bit odd that she seems to have missed all those warning about the dangerous of fast food and children.

    *Given that the pills were in a correctly marked container belonging to the employee.

    Parent

    There is so much guilting about parenting (none / 0) (#143)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Jul 02, 2014 at 09:34:17 AM EST
    The one thing you never want known is doing something illegal.  If you are blessed with a rebellious teenager you definitely can't have them having any goods on you either.  My daughter was impossible, if she knew I just palmed off some weed .....oh boy, I WOULD HAVE BEEN IN TROUBLE :). Fast food is still not illegal though, and judging by all the cars lined up nobody can find you guilty :)

    You want to fall like a clipped wing angel out of the sky right into the pit of hell, just let a few choice people know you didn't immediately notify law enforcement in this instance.

    Parent

    My pops... (none / 0) (#145)
    by kdog on Wed Jul 02, 2014 at 09:43:26 AM EST
    never guilt-sweated doing something illegal...but he wouldn't have wanted his kids to see him doing something wrong...like sicking the police on some poor fast food worker, he'd never let his kids witness that sh*t.

    Parent
    My daughter would have sicked (none / 0) (#147)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Jul 02, 2014 at 09:49:17 AM EST
    The police on me :). That one thought that if her parents had to know her whereabouts at all times, they had better plan on being pristine.  Thankfully we are the most part :). If I had been anything less though with that child kdog I would have been in a cell :)

    Parent
    She would been your father's hell child :) (none / 0) (#148)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Jul 02, 2014 at 09:50:28 AM EST


    Parent
    I'm appalled... (none / 0) (#150)
    by kdog on Wed Jul 02, 2014 at 09:57:32 AM EST
    I couldn't drop a dime on a total stranger absent a corpse or violent crime victim...never mind family.  That's so wrong...Orwellian Junior Spy sh*t.

    Parent
    She has a personality that exists in the (none / 0) (#152)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Jul 02, 2014 at 10:02:45 AM EST
    Normal spectrum :). It exists on the Myers Briggs :)

    Parent
    There is a picture (none / 0) (#88)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Jul 01, 2014 at 11:45:24 AM EST
    here

    Parent
    I have to disagree, too. (5.00 / 3) (#42)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Jun 30, 2014 at 08:05:55 PM EST
    First of all, although most of your acquaintances might partake, "most people" in general do not smoke pot, so saying that finding some in a fast food order would be like "hitting the sweepstakes" is a wee bit of an overstatement bordering on the hyperbolic.

    While you and I might appreciate it, it's a stretch to think that we're representative of most people. We're not. While roughly 40% of Americans admit to having tried marijuana, the number who admit to smoke it regularly is probably no more than 10% at best. Most of my friends don't smoke.

    Please don't be so hostile and dismissive of that mother's concern. She had every right to be upset because she had two young children, both under age 9, in the car. "No harm, no foul" doesn't cut it here.

    Children that age don't need an advanced education, nor should their mother have been put in the potentially awkward position of possibly having to explain such things to a kindergartner and second grader, which she was. You're blaming the victim here, and rather than that employee whose "accident" was way beyond stupid.

    The responsible aficionado of the herb will respect the rights of others to not partake in its delectable delights, and will further take pains to avoid exposing or influencing young children unnecessarily. It can't always be only about us.

    Aloha.

    Parent

    In my most humble opinion, you (none / 0) (#18)
    by oculus on Mon Jun 30, 2014 at 04:12:40 PM EST
    are completely wrong.

    Parent
    My humbler opinion... (none / 0) (#58)
    by kdog on Tue Jul 01, 2014 at 09:08:18 AM EST
    you guys are nuts.  I mean c'mon, calling the cops?  Getting the wage slave fired?  

    Far worse that Mr. Gates neighbors behavior...where is the peace, love, and understanding?

    Parent

    As someone who supports the legalization of pot (none / 0) (#72)
    by ZtoA on Tue Jul 01, 2014 at 10:54:30 AM EST
    and the de-criminization of all drugs, this is beyond a simple mistake. It is very destructive to the process while boundaries are being set and tested. Sure, the guy was a fool and made a mistake, but -caution- those kinds of mistakes, right now, are very counter-productive.

    Parent
    Now we wanna put the weight... (none / 0) (#75)
    by kdog on Tue Jul 01, 2014 at 10:56:18 AM EST
    of the (hopefully) end of prohibition on this poor soul's shoulders?  

    Parent
    Honestly (5.00 / 1) (#78)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Jul 01, 2014 at 11:01:12 AM EST
    This is a critical time for decriminalization efforts.  We need people to not be stupid.  This was stupid.

    Parent
    Agreed... (5.00 / 1) (#83)
    by kdog on Tue Jul 01, 2014 at 11:30:49 AM EST
    and I guess I'm the only one with any sympathy.

    Maybe it's because I had pity taken on me when I was very stupid and flashed my stash to airport security...pre 9/11, which is probably why the security screener took pity on me and waved me through with a wink and a smile.  Whew!

    I hear you that it would be helpful is our people where on their best behavior at this juncture...but it's an impossible standard really.  People by definition do dumb sh*t, stoners are no exception.  Sh*t look at our pols and banksters doing far worse sh*t all day every day, nobody makes them hold the mantle of representative democracy and free market capitalism on their shoulders.  Major double standards man.

    Parent

    You are ignoring the fact that it was in a fast (none / 0) (#91)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Jul 01, 2014 at 11:51:18 AM EST
    Food take out bag.  With small children in the car.  What do small children think you do with anything you find on a fast food bag.  
    I doubt the screener would have been understanding if you had, accidentally or not, passed it off to a couple of children.  
    It was stupid.  

    Parent
    Choking Hazard? (none / 0) (#97)
    by squeaky on Tue Jul 01, 2014 at 11:57:39 AM EST
    Do you think that the kids would have eaten the plastic baggie and choked..  what about the ketchup or plastic silverware?

    Parent
    I like Sonic (none / 0) (#98)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Jul 01, 2014 at 12:01:13 PM EST
    They always put plastic wrapped candy in the bag

    Parent
    Funny (none / 0) (#101)
    by squeaky on Tue Jul 01, 2014 at 12:12:07 PM EST
    given this particular happy meal..

    wonder if she forgot the candy too... maybe that is what set the mom off... kids screaming for candy..

    Parent

    I've been reading, didn't have time to comment (none / 0) (#123)
    by ruffian on Tue Jul 01, 2014 at 04:14:18 PM EST
    I wish the woman that got the bag had done as someone else suggested and brought it back to the person that gave it to her instead of going straight to management and the cops. But I guess she could have htought it was deliberate and not an accident? I don't know.

    I do now that in today's workplaces, all over the place, you only have to make one major mistake and it is over. I do feel sorry for this wage slave that had to learn that the hard way.

    Parent

    Agree (none / 0) (#82)
    by squeaky on Tue Jul 01, 2014 at 11:27:09 AM EST
    Calling the cops and firing the woman was bad, imo.. a waste of time, money and human resource (worker) ..it will only have a bad end result, imo.

    as for hyperventilating:

    "I think that's why everyone thinks it's so funny, because it's marijuana and it's going to be legalized," she said. "It could have been crack. It could have been cocaine in that little baggie."

    It could have been a bomb!


    Parent

    or worse... (none / 0) (#89)
    by kdog on Tue Jul 01, 2014 at 11:46:10 AM EST
    a booger!

    Parent
    Yuk! (5.00 / 1) (#92)
    by squeaky on Tue Jul 01, 2014 at 11:51:30 AM EST
    Best thing to do, imo, would have been to return the meal to the server and ask for another one because a foreign object was in the meal.

    Parent
    That works... (none / 0) (#99)
    by kdog on Tue Jul 01, 2014 at 12:02:26 PM EST
    but most of all, get over yourself...there are people in this world so hungry they're eating out of garbage cans aka real problems.

    Parent
    I gather you do not think (none / 0) (#135)
    by oculus on Tue Jul 01, 2014 at 07:33:23 PM EST
    t he person who placed the MJ in the bag was a dealer/distributor?

    Parent
    If I were going to bet on a scenario... (none / 0) (#137)
    by Mr Natural on Tue Jul 01, 2014 at 10:19:19 PM EST
    I'd be betting that he'd just bought it from another restaurant employee.

    What this guy really needs now is Oscar Pistorius' defense team.  They're the reigning experts in the "I'm not really bad; I'm just an idiot," defense.  


    Parent

    Zimmerman v NBC Dismissed (none / 0) (#6)
    by Cylinder on Mon Jun 30, 2014 at 02:01:12 PM EST
    Judge dismisses Zimmerman's lawsuit against NBC

    A Florida judge on Monday dismissed the defamation lawsuit filed by George Zimmerman against NBC and three reporters, saying the former neighborhood watch leader failed to show the network acted with malice.

    Judge Debra Nelson said the malice standard was appropriate because Zimmerman became a public figure after he shot 17-year-old Trayvon Martin in Sanford in February 2012, generating a national conversation about race and self-defense laws.

    The order can be downloaded or viewed via Scribd

    How satisfying that this comment didnot (5.00 / 2) (#45)
    by oculus on Mon Jun 30, 2014 at 09:01:23 PM EST
    re-open the TL floodgates.

    Parent
    Hey, CaptHowdy and caseyOR! (none / 0) (#14)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Jun 30, 2014 at 03:18:29 PM EST
    Since you guys talked about the new PBS series "Vicious" in the prior open thread, I decided to give it a go when it came on after "Endeavour" concluded, and now I'd like to share with you what I thought of it.

    You know, when Rex Harrison and Richard Burton played two very nelly and tart-tongued old queens who were also a longtime male couple in Stanley Donen's 1969 comedy "Staircase" -- and I use the term "comedy" loosely in talking about this movie -- both they and the director were justifiably raked over the coals by critics galore for seemingly going out of their way to reinforce a dubious gay stereotype. In his Nov. 1969 review, Roger Ebert described the effort as:

    "[A]n unpleasant exercise in bad taste -- in taste so bad, in fact, you wonder how Donen, who directed 'Singin' in the Rain' and 'Bedazzled' (1968) could have directed it. The fault isn't with the subject matter (the decay of two homosexual hairdressers), but with the style. And style is usually Donen's strong point. [...] We're not asked to watch a movie about homosexuals, but a movie about Harrison and Burton playing homosexuals. They play them with embarrassing clumsiness. I wonder if that was deliberate. Harrison minces about in a parody of homosexual mannerisms -- not that many (or perhaps any) homosexuals ever acted as he portrays them. Maybe he's trying to tell us he's so straight he can't even play a homosexual. But he doesn't even play a character. Neither he nor Burton is believable for more than seconds. [...] We never believe that any relationship, homosexual or otherwise, exists between Harrison and Burton; they carp at each other self-consciously, coasting through roles they obviously don't take seriously in a film they don't respect. The result is hideous."

    So, my question is this: 45 years later, should Ian McKellen and Derek Jacobi be given a pass for essentially doing the same thing in "Vicious," just because in this instance they both happen to be openly gay men? Because like Harrison and Burton of yore, McKellen and Jacobi went through their motions as though they knew innately that the material was dreadfully beneath actors of their skill and caliber, so much so that neither even bothered to mine the high camp potential of such an otherwise questionable enterprise.

    The talents of Frances de la Tour and Iwan Rheon were similarly wasted in their respective supporting roles; de la Tour's "cougar" character was but a thinly-veiled parody of Betty White's man-hungry Sue Ann Nivens from "The Mary Tyler Moore Show" of four decades prior, while Rheon simply phoned it in as the hunky and clue-challenged upstairs neighbor, over whom everyone else is all but drooling in unrequited lust.

    Speaking for myself, I found "Vicious" to be not only very disappointing but actually embarrassing to even watch at several points, because frankly I really expected better than a badly clichéd and kitschy sitcom, given that both lead actors are capable of so much better than this sort of claptrap. I finally turned it off about two-thirds of the way through the show, and I certainly won't be wasting my time on any future episodes.

    Aloha.

    I haven't seen it yet (none / 0) (#23)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Jun 30, 2014 at 05:05:40 PM EST
    I had a busy day and to paraphrase the Electric Prunes 'I had to much to record last night'.
    Now I am curious.  I remember seeing Staircase once and thinking it was stupid and rife with stereotypes which was nothing new at the time.  This was years ago.  I might have a very different reaction now.  I would be very surprised if I came away with the same feeling as you for the very reason that I have so much respect for the two actors.
    The show is called Vicious after all.  I was expecting two b!tchy old queens in full claws out mode.  I will watch and report.

    Parent
    Donald (none / 0) (#30)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Jun 30, 2014 at 05:40:28 PM EST
    I'm sorry.  I thought it was hilarious.  Aside from my general aversion to the British obsession with laugh tracks I couldn't find a single thing to dislike.  

    "Do you suppose he's family?"
    "I don't know.  It's so tricky to tell now.  I thought Graham Norton was straight."
    Priceless.

    Honestly IMO the difference between this and Staircase is that we have two old queens playing two old queens.

    Also I love Frances de la Tour.  And it has Ramsey Snow as the young sex object.  How could you not love that?


    Parent

    I respect your opinion. (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Jun 30, 2014 at 09:03:55 PM EST
    Maybe in my heart of hearts, I really don't care for b!tchy old queens. There are obvious exceptions, of course, and I enjoy witty repartee as much as anyone. But last night's show really rubbed me the wrong way.

    I tried to stick it out in hopes that McKellen's and Jacobi's characters would perhaps grow on me, because I do genuinely like both actors and have the utmost respect for them.

    But toward the end, I finally had to admit to myself that I wasn't liking it at all, and so I turned it off before the conclusion. All I could think about was how awful it would be to have to put up with either one of those two old fussbudgets on a daily basis, never mind together.

    That said, I will admit to really liking one line, early in the show. When Jacobi reminded McKellen how everyone used to mistakenly believe that he was Jacobi's uncle back when they were both much younger, McKellen snarled, "That's because you kept telling everyone that I was your uncle."

    Aloha.

    Parent

    As far as watching (none / 0) (#33)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Jun 30, 2014 at 06:02:23 PM EST
    Other episodes.  I can't say I will be there every week.  I hate laugh tracks.  But part of me is glad it's there. I liked the little insert at the end with the actors talking about it.  They said they would love to do it for a long time.  If that's what they want I hope they get it.  If you turned it off early you probably missed that part.  It did sort of put the silliness in context.

    Parent
    I finally got a chance to watch it (none / 0) (#198)
    by ruffian on Wed Jul 02, 2014 at 06:32:07 PM EST
    and I liked it a lot too. Will definitely keep watching it. I thought Ian Mckellan was especially good. I've never seen him in anything light like this, like a drawing room comedy. His timing is very good.

    Really liked the part where they come out of the kitchen together and find young Ramsey Snow has opened the curtains. That made me laugh.

    Parent

    My take: (none / 0) (#36)
    by KeysDan on Mon Jun 30, 2014 at 06:38:17 PM EST
    All four are/were actors in a performance--that is the commonality.  A critique needs to be based on the acting in their respective roles, and, of course, the script.  Harrison and Burton, according to Ebert, were not up to the roles and, as such, gave a "hideous" performance of whatever it was to be performed.   Not having seen 'Staircase' I will leave it at that.  

    As for 'Vicious' it seemed that the actors were authentic in their portrayals, not so much because of their sexuality, but because they are fine actors who were up to their roles.  In 1969, this show may well have been offensive, with destructive stereotyping (which may account for the Harrison/Burton uneasiness), whereas, in 2014, 'Vicious'  offers constructive stereotyping, in the sense that we can now celebrate with easy laughter the diminishment of earlier oppression.

     McKellan and Jacobi present parodied, but respectful laughs, good comic timing, and, on telling occasions,  tenderness. We can enjoy the performance in the same way we enjoy the viciousness of  "Who's Afraid of Virginia Wolf." No pass for McKellen or Jacobi and 'Vicious' needed.  Harrison and Burton and 'Stairway'  are passe.

    Parent

    I respect your opinion, too. (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Jun 30, 2014 at 09:06:44 PM EST
    Perhaps I was in a lousy mood last night. I'll think about giving it another go.

    ;-D

    Parent

    I thought the little (none / 0) (#48)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Jun 30, 2014 at 09:16:29 PM EST
    Tea party was hysterical.   Don't know if you made it that far.

    Parent
    Well said (none / 0) (#38)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Jun 30, 2014 at 06:46:48 PM EST
    As often happens you say what I mean.   They are the embodiment of past repression.  Which is now easy to mine for humor.  A healthy sign of a maturing movement.

    The guy saying he will tell his mother when the time is right.
    "ITS BEEN 48 YEARS"

    And the line when the hot young neighbor leaves after layer upon layer upon layer on innuendo says, "by the way I'm straight"
    "WELL, that came out of nowhere."


    Parent

    I was wrong (none / 0) (#43)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Jun 30, 2014 at 08:26:01 PM EST
    refreshing

    I haven't been asked to lead any marches at Pride this year and, frankly, I doubt that's ever likely to happen!

    I'm still regarded by many in the gay community as an enemy and I understand that reaction. I have said and written things in the past that, while never intentionally hateful, caused offence and pain. This isn't necessarily relevant, in that truth cannot change according to response, but I could and would not say such things any longer. I was wrong.

    In the past six months I have been parachuted into clouds of new realization and empathy regarding gay issues, largely and ironically because of the angry and hateful responses of some people to my defence of persecuted gay men and women in Africa and Russia. I saw an aspect of the anti-gay movement that shocked me. This wasn't reasonable opposition but a tainted monomania with no understanding of humanity and an obsession with sex rather than love.

    I'm used to threats and abuse, and as someone who has just completed a book about Islam's treatment of Christians and has campaigned for years for beleaguered Christians in the Muslim world, I am immune to verbal attacks and even death threats.

    But this was different. I was accused of betraying my faith. Thing is, I have evolved my position on this issue not in spite of but precisely because of my Catholicism. My belief in God, Christ, the Eucharist, and Christian moral teaching are stronger than ever. Goodness, I am even trying to forgive those "Christians" who are trying to have my speeches cancelled and have devoted pages on their websites and blogs to my apparent disgrace.

    I am not prepared to throw around ugly terms like "sin" and "disordered" as if they were clumsy cudgels, or marginalize people and groups who often lead more moral lives than I do. I am sick and tired of defining the word of God by a single and not even particularly important subject.

    If we live, we grow. The alternative is, of course, death.

    The whole thing is worth a read

    Thought Crime Conviction Overturned (none / 0) (#59)
    by squeaky on Tue Jul 01, 2014 at 09:10:49 AM EST
    In a 118-page decision released Monday night, Manhattan federal judge Paul Gardephe ruled there was insufficient evidence to support the March 2013 conviction against the 28-year-old Gilberto Valle. The case that Mr. Valle planned to kidnap, rape, torture cook alive and even eat several women, including his wife, was built on emails and online postings he made on a fetish website.

    Mr. Valle's lawyers argued at trial and in post-conviction motions to set aside the verdict that Mr. Valle was engaged in fantasy role playing--"dark improv theater"--and there was no evidence he ever intended to commit a crime.

    "Despite the highly disturbing nature of Valle's deviant and depraved sexual interests, his chats and emails about these interests are not sufficient--standing alone--to make out the elements of conspiracy to commit kidnapping," the judge wrote.

    WSJ

    This is a good thing (none / 0) (#64)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Jul 01, 2014 at 09:32:08 AM EST


    Parent
    The trickle up theory. (none / 0) (#60)
    by KeysDan on Tue Jul 01, 2014 at 09:11:08 AM EST
    President Obama announced that 200 more troops will be sent to Iraq, equipped for combat.

    Protection? (none / 0) (#63)
    by squeaky on Tue Jul 01, 2014 at 09:23:28 AM EST
    These and previously announced forces are being sent "for the purpose of protecting U.S. citizens and property, if necessary, and (are) equipped for combat," Obama said in a letter to Congress required under the U.S. War Powers Resolution.

    Earlier this month, Obama announced the deployment of 275 troops to protect the embassy.

    In addition to security, these troops will provide "intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance support," Obama said.

    Well the Embassy is big:

    At 4,700,000 sq ft (440,000 m2), it is the largest and most expensive embassy in the world, and is nearly as large as Vatican City....The embassy complex employs 15,000 people and cost $750 million to build....The embassy formally opened over a year behind schedule in January 2009 with a staff of over 16,000 people, mostly contractors, but including 2,000 diplomats. In February 2012, weeks after the final departure of US Military forces from Iraq, the State Department announced that the staff would be greatly reduced due to budget concerns and a re-evaluation of diplomatic strategy in Iraq, in light of the military withdrawal.[18]...

    and I guess the numbers are not so solid, or the "trickle uo" is moving faster than the normal trickle.:

    WASHINGTON (AP) -- The U.S. is sending another 300 troops to Iraq to beef up security at the U.S. Embassy and elsewhere in the Baghdad area to protect U.S. citizens and property, officials said Monday.

    That raises the total U.S. troop presence in Iraq to approximately 750, the Pentagon said.

    The Blaze

    We'll see...  Hard to imagine that Obama is going to go full out deployment, but stranger things have happened.

    Parent

    Pretty stunning (none / 0) (#121)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Jul 01, 2014 at 03:45:36 PM EST
    Global refugees highest since WWII, pointing to lack of political solutions

    The number of refugees, internally displaced people, and asylum-seekers is at the highest level since World War II, a UN agency said today, in a report that highlights the struggles of the international community to support refugees and find solutions to ongoing global conflicts.

    One of the most shocking findings from the report was that half of the refugee population was made of up children below 18 - the highest figure in a decade. The number of children separated from family and traveling alone leaves them highly vulnerable.
    NNNOOOOOooooooo ... !!! (none / 0) (#124)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Jul 01, 2014 at 05:07:51 PM EST
    Belgium scores in extra time, breaking a scoreless tie with the U.S.A. in World Cup death match.

    NNNOOOOOooooooo ...!!! -- again. (none / 0) (#126)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Jul 01, 2014 at 05:22:31 PM EST
    I'm not actually watching the game, because I've got work to do, but I can hear the crowd moaning collectively downstairs in Ferguson's Pub.

    Belgium 2, U.S.A. 0.

    Parent

    YAAAAAY !!! (none / 0) (#127)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Jul 01, 2014 at 05:23:43 PM EST
    Julian Green scores for America's Team to close the gap.

    Belgium 2, U.S.A. 1.

    Parent

    FINAL: Belgium 2, U.S.A. 1. (none / 0) (#129)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Jul 01, 2014 at 05:41:31 PM EST
    All done.

    Parent
    Interesting factoid. But don't you wonder (none / 0) (#136)
    by oculus on Tue Jul 01, 2014 at 08:44:21 PM EST
    if SCOTUS knew it was not anonymous?

    According to the site's internal data, Scotusblog's single biggest user is the Supreme Court itself.

    [Excerpt from NYT editorial re credentialing Scotusblog.]
    Monday Open Thread | 203 comments (203 topical)