Monday Open Thread

Busy work day. Here's an open thread, all topics welcome.

< How to Get a Gold Star From the DEA | Mexico : U.S. Can Have El Chapo in About 300 Years >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    About Ernie Banks. (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by caseyOR on Mon Jan 26, 2015 at 01:42:30 PM EST
    I was too late to the last open thread to post about Ernie. As has been said, he was a great guy and just about the best goodwill ambassador MLB and the Cubs ever had. Oh, and he loved the Cubs. Just like the rest of us fools.

    One of my favorite personal facts as a kid was that Ernie Banks, Jackie Robinson and I all shared the same birthday. What am I saying "as a kid", hah, that is still a favorite personal fact.

    ruffian, I know that it feels like a Cubs World Series will not mean much with Ernie and your dad gone, but, if they do get there in the next few years, i bet we all get pretty excited, perhaps unbearably so. I understand your feelings on this. My mom is 86 and my uncle 89. I so hope the Cubs get it together while they are still alive. The only member of my family that I knew, who got to cheer a Cubs victory in a WS, was my late grandpa who was 8 years old at the time of the last win.

    Pitchers and catchers for the Cubs report to spring training on Feb. 19. Just 24 days to go.

    Hope springs eternal! (none / 0) (#164)
    by ruffian on Tue Jan 27, 2015 at 11:18:47 AM EST
    I will try to channel Ernie and get excited this year. I know I will be also unbearably excited when/if they do go far. Trying to forget the old heartbreaks!

    There was a nice letter to the editor this morning from a guy who happened to be starting off a solo round of golf on a Saturday in 1975, and Ernie was alone too and asked this man to join him in the round. He said they had the best time, and Ernie was just as fun and charming as we all can imagine. Ernie asked him to play with him again the next Saturday.

    Really one of a kind. Can you imagine that happening with any of today's athletes?


    Strange happenings in the Boston blizzard (5.00 / 1) (#204)
    by MO Blue on Tue Jan 27, 2015 at 03:11:00 PM EST
    What better time to break out the old yeti costume and take to the streets than during the #Blizzardof2015?

    A person dressed as a yeti roamed Somerville, Mass., on Monday evening and was live tweeting the ordeal from the Twitter account @BostonYeti2015.

    At 10:15 p.m. Monday night, the yeti felt the effects of the travel ban as it tweeted about trying to "hail cab on McGrath Highway" in Somerville, a Boston suburb.

    First real blizzard (none / 0) (#1)
    by CST on Mon Jan 26, 2015 at 12:08:06 PM EST
    Of the year for the east coast and it's supposed to be a doozy.

    They've officially cancelled the MBTA for tomorrow and are instituting a travel ban at midnight.

    All stocked up, can't wait for an adult snow day, although I will be bringing some work home with me.

    I am so jealous...we're supposed to (none / 0) (#3)
    by Anne on Mon Jan 26, 2015 at 12:18:16 PM EST
    eke out around 3 - 6 inches here in MD, but that's just nuisance snow, not enough to keep people home.

    So, I'm here at work, and will probably be here again tomorrow...sigh.  I just hate these events where you don't know what to do - do you stay home and feel bad if it doesn't amount to anything?  Do you go and hope it doesn't crank up and it takes you hours to get home?  Argh...

    Certainly aware that blizzards can be deadly, and don't wish harm to anyone - and I know there are people who won't have the luxury of having work or school canceled - I just wanted a guilt-free day off!

    Our other offices will probably be closed tomorrow - Philly, Pittsburgh, Princeton, Boston - but the rest of us will likely be plodding in to work.

    Oh, and did I mention I'm getting a cold?  Really swell way to start the week.

    Yes, I'm feeling sorry for myself.

    Be safe and report in when you can!


    We are only predicted to get (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by Zorba on Mon Jan 26, 2015 at 02:58:31 PM EST
    One to two inches, but it's supposed to be worse east of here (which is unusual).  The Washington County schools opened two hours late today, but really, the roads were fine early this morning, and they probably could have safely opened on time.  An abundance of caution, I'm sure, and I would hate to be the person that decides whether to open, close, or delay the schools.  They catch flack no matter what they do.
    I'm much more worried about Daughter Zorba in New York City.  They are supposed to get it much, much worse than Maryland.
    Philly, New Jersey, New York, and points north of that.
    May they all be safe.

    NYC is fun in a blizzard (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by nycstray on Mon Jan 26, 2015 at 03:14:03 PM EST
    as long as you are all stocked up. I used to go out and romp with the Dot before the snowplows came through (but there was some good accumulation) and then we would go in and hunker down for some stress free quiet time. When it was over, we would go back out and do some snow drift diving :P LL's take care of all the shoveling (and I lived across the street from a school, so that was always kept cleared too), so it was a relatively painless unless you slipped on ice a few days later ;)

    I just spoke to Daughter Zorba (5.00 / 2) (#43)
    by Zorba on Mon Jan 26, 2015 at 03:39:59 PM EST
    She was getting ready to leave Manhattan, where she works, and stock up and go back home to Brooklyn, where she lives.
    She said that she is taking work home with her, and expects to work from home tomorrow, which fortunately, she is able to do, assuming the grid is still working and she has phone and Internet service.
    And if it's so bad that she even loses those services (which is very doubtful), she will still have lots of paperwork to catch up on.  And they do have candles and such.
    As well as plenty of food.  And booze.   ;-)

    My friends there are well stocked (5.00 / 2) (#70)
    by nycstray on Mon Jan 26, 2015 at 06:24:10 PM EST
    on booze, lol!~ Sounds like they aren't going anywhere until well after the storm.

    Power usually holds up during winter storms. Summer heat waves are another story. I never worried about power in the winter, but some days in the summer, I did a bit of praying as the power would take dips . . .If the power goes out, heat/hot water/gas stoves are still there. (pretty sure the heat is still there if it's radiators . . . )


    What is Shocking to Me... (none / 0) (#34)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Jan 26, 2015 at 03:11:19 PM EST
    ...is that 30 inches is a record.  That I think 22 inches was the old one, WTF, as someone who grew up in Wisconsin that is a good sized storm, but not the stuff of records.  I had no idea New York didn't get snow like Milwaukee or Chicago.

    30 inches (none / 0) (#36)
    by CST on Mon Jan 26, 2015 at 03:19:48 PM EST
    would be a record in Boston where it's currently 27.something from the blizzard of 78.  I've been here for a few 2+ feet of snow but that's definitely a big storm.

    We don't get anything bigger than that.  I'm not sure if Chicago is anything like Pittsburgh, but one thing I noticed living there was that it would snow for like a week straight.  You'd only get an inch a day but still.  That doesn't really happen here.  We get one big storm, and then it will probably be sunny until the next weather event.  But you almost never see a full week of any kind of weather.  Not really sure why that is.

    I know everyplace has the saying "if you don't like the weather wait a minute" - and in a way it was true in that you could have 80 degree weather one week and 40 the next - but it wasn't the same in that it was constantly changing.

    This is considered a slow moving storm around here - which is why we'll get so much snow.  But it should still be over by Wednesday morning.


    The notorious "Lake Effect," ... (none / 0) (#59)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Jan 26, 2015 at 05:20:59 PM EST
    ... in which the Great Lakes act as a heat sink during wintertime to draw cold Arctic air in a southward rush, sometimes creating massive snow-producing clouds in the process that then move onshore, tends to exacerbate the effects of winter weather throughout the region.

    Further, according to some meteorologists, cities like Chicago, Milwaukee and Duluth MN / Superior, WI -- all of which front the shores of the Great Lakes -- are particularly prone to some rather outsized snowfalls because like the Lakes themselves, as urban industrial areas they're warmer than the surrounding land.

    While inhabitants of Midwestern cities and towns located further inland may be subject to even colder temperatures than their lakeshore brethren, they also generally tend to receive less snow.



    We call it being "cooler near the lake" (none / 0) (#93)
    by Towanda on Mon Jan 26, 2015 at 09:17:34 PM EST
    -- also the name of a famed local jazz group -- in other seasons.  But now is when we get the "Canadian clipper," drawn down our lovely Great Lakes.  Indeed, right now, we're enjoying one of those, with the light snow -- albeit several inches of it -- compared to the heavy, wet stuff that comes from the west and causes heart attacks for shovelers.

    The "lake effect" -- also the name of a popular local radio show, so yes, these phrases are part of our everyday parlance -- can mean that those of us near the Great Lakes' shores get a couple of feet of snow, when only a few inches fall just a few miles inland.

    The "lake effect" is not just in winter but is year-round, by the way. Gardening maps give us along the lakeshores our own "zone," as our temps also can differ a lot from those of our inlanders in the burbs of the same city. We're actually warmer near the lake in winters but "cooler near the lake" in the seasons that cannot come too soon.


    It sounds almost like fun (none / 0) (#85)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Jan 26, 2015 at 08:40:16 PM EST
    Almost because it will inevitably endanger someone.  I have zero chance of getting snowed in.  I used to watch Gone with the Wind and the Godfather trilogy when snowed in.  If Netflix holds out, the binging possibilities are boggling.

    I know exactly what you mean (none / 0) (#5)
    by CST on Mon Jan 26, 2015 at 12:33:53 PM EST
    Nothing worse than a few inches of snow - enough to be annoying but not enough for any of the perks.

    Although looking at the radar right now we're gonna get hit with the worst of it.  They're talking 30 inches or so - which would be 2-3 inches more than we've ever had on record.  That being said - we're used to 2 feet, you just stock up, stay inside, and ride it out.  Hopefully without losing power.  Most of all - stay off the road!

    When they shut down public transit and institute a travel ban even the most overzealous of employers has to back down.  Obviously emergency personnel will be working but hospital workers are being told to get there tonight and bring an overnight bag.


    When I was attending college in Seattle, ... (none / 0) (#31)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Jan 26, 2015 at 03:04:05 PM EST
    ... it snowed exactly four times during the five years I was there. Two of those times, the snow didn't last a day. But the other two were blizzards that shut down the city for several days, until they could dig us out and / or the snow finally melted.

    One of those times occurred during finals week in December, which played havoc on everyone's plans -- from professors and instructors who were trying to wrap up the quarter, to students such as myself who were going home for the holidays.

    And then, about a quarter century later in December 2008, when I was in south Seattle to conduct a marketing and feasibility study for a client, there was what local residents still refer to as "Snowpocalypse!" (The similarly abnormal and heavy snowfalls they endured only three years later in January 2012 were collectively labeled "Snowmageddon!" Go figure. What'll they call the next one -- "Blitzenkreig"?)

    Granted, I live in Hawaii and grew up in SoCal, two places where it only snows at upper elevations, but I've still been around. And personally, I've never seen it snow so relentlessly like that anywhere as I did in Seattle that December, except perhaps the year prior in Chicago, and that was only two days' duration.

    For about five days, right up until Christmas Eve, heavy snowfalls repeatedly inundated the entirety of western Washington state, which pretty much wiped out any opportunity I had to survey and interview project stakeholders as part of that study. I had to reschedule all my interviews for a return trip two months hence, which in turn delayed my report by about a month.

    While everyone else were apparently enjoying their pre-Christmas week off, I was basically snowbound at the Southcenter Doubletree Inn by Sea-Tac Airport for the better part of three days. Thank Gawd the Southcenter Mall was open and right next door, so at least I could escape there and watch movies at the octoplex. And when I finally left Seattle, that was the only time I've ever been on a plane which had to be de-iced twice prior to departure.

    (One thing I've noticed is that King County, WA is almost never prepared for such blizzards. Such events are relatively rare phenomena in Seattle, and almost all the snowplows are invariably deployed in the Cascade foothills in the eastern part of the county, where it snows all the time.)

    Good luck. We'll be thinking of you.


    One December Day in 1978... (none / 0) (#55)
    by Dadler on Mon Jan 26, 2015 at 04:50:48 PM EST
    ...when I was visiting my best friend, who had moved to Alta Loma/Rancho Cucamonga, it snowed enough to leave about three or four inches on everyone's lawn and back yard. We went wild as only SoCal kids could under such miraculous conditions. That was my ONLY snow day as a kid in the metro L.A. area, granted far east and in San Bernardino County, but still. And he didn't live up in the higher parts there, just on the edge of the "flatlands," knowing that the flatlands out there aren't exactly North Hollywood level.Will remember that day forever. Had no mittens, so we put sock on our hands.

    My mother remembers several days ... (none / 0) (#62)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Jan 26, 2015 at 05:40:05 PM EST
    ... in January 1949 during which the San Gabriel Valley received a thick white coat of snow, while the rest of the L.A. basin received snowfall in lesser amounts. I'm sure your parents would likely remember that particular event as well, if they were living in the region at the time. She has some great B/W photos from that time, in which you can see my grandparents' house and all the neighbors' houses just covered in snow, along with all the pine trees and surrounding foliage.

    She said the weather paralyzed much of the city for obvious reasons, so they had no school for two whole days. And apparently, the farmers in the San Fernando Valley, which received over a foot of snow, were hit particularly hard. The Los Angeles Times also has a photo essay of the snows of '49.

    It's never happened again since.


    That's about what it looked like that day in '78 (none / 0) (#155)
    by Dadler on Tue Jan 27, 2015 at 10:02:58 AM EST
    We made huge snowmen and had an entire day of legitimate snow fun. About three or four other times I remember it hailing in the more western parts of the San Gabriel Valley where I lived for several years, that was about it for the ice or snow.

    Ah memories.


    Yeah, Those Days... (none / 0) (#16)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Jan 26, 2015 at 02:06:02 PM EST
    ...where you are right before the break point really sucks.

    Not a damn thing wrong with wanting a guilt free day off of work.  We get it with the torrential downpours.  Houston used to be a sea floor so it's flat as a board, so a half inch stops the city.

    I will say this, they cancelled work once time before a huge storm was coming in, it missed us and since that time, no more cancelling before hand.  We have to call in to see at 7am, and that sucks, not knowing the night before, just sitting there praying enough rain will hit to cancel work, but not too much as to flood homes.

    I remember as a kid, maybe school was cancelled one day a year because of snow, never because of the cold weather and in Wisconsin, that included the entire month of January, which back then rarely got above zero.  Now cold weather, which is actually warmer, is cause for cancellation. And as I write this I realize I was starting to sound like my dad in regards to how easy these kids got it...  But it's true !


    Thank goodness for laptops (none / 0) (#77)
    by Chuck0 on Mon Jan 26, 2015 at 08:09:27 PM EST
    and VPN. Up here in PA (near York), we got a fair amount and is snowing again right now pretty heavily. I worked from home today and probably will again tomorrow. I walk with a cane and don't fair well on slippery ground.

    I refuse to feel sorry for myself... (none / 0) (#124)
    by unitron on Tue Jan 27, 2015 at 06:59:01 AM EST
    ...unless no one else steps forward to do so, in which case I feel obligated to give it my best effort.

    : - )


    Did anybody (none / 0) (#2)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Jan 26, 2015 at 12:18:07 PM EST
    read about the GOP freak show that went on in Iowa this past weekend? It sounds like we're going to get a repeat of 2012 with the GOP flying their full freak flag.

    Good to see so many candidates. (5.00 / 2) (#78)
    by Chuck0 on Mon Jan 26, 2015 at 08:11:40 PM EST
    Hopefully they will all try to outcrazy the other guy to the point that the general electorate won't touch any of them come November 2016.

    Did you read also that the Koch bros (none / 0) (#4)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Jan 26, 2015 at 12:33:15 PM EST
    Snubbed Romney?  They invited Jeb to their affair, snubbed Romney

    Have decided that Romney's way too (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by Anne on Mon Jan 26, 2015 at 12:51:14 PM EST
    desperate and needy - and there's something about all that groveling and a$$-kissing that's just so off-putting.

    No, Mitt, we don't like you; we really, really don't like you.

    [do you think the Koch brothers arrived at the meeting in the capitalists' version of the Pope-mobile?]


    Nah (none / 0) (#10)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Jan 26, 2015 at 12:57:52 PM EST
    Murikan Snipers Luv them :)

    No (none / 0) (#6)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Jan 26, 2015 at 12:38:07 PM EST
    did not know that but then in all honesty why would they? Romney has already lost one time.

    Iowa Freedom Summit (none / 0) (#9)
    by Jim in St Louis on Mon Jan 26, 2015 at 12:56:33 PM EST
    Very attractive  Deep Bench was my thought.   Quite a wide variety of candidates and speakers, all with different backgrounds and different skills. Lots of new ideas and proposals.  Was nice to see several speakers challenged or even heckled. Good for politicians to have to face the party activists and be accountable. Will be interesting to see what direction the party goes.

    Seems more `democratic' to have lots of candidates rather than one designated person anointed by the party super-genius delegates that shall be unchallenged if you know what is good for you Bub.


    If all you have (5.00 / 3) (#12)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Jan 26, 2015 at 01:26:37 PM EST
    is a bunch of freaks running then you're going to get a freak for a nominee. I wouldn't think that's a good thing but then I don't care what the GOP does. One of their freaks is probably going to lose and that's a good thing for the country.

    I Saw Clips... (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Jan 26, 2015 at 02:20:39 PM EST
    ...who was it, I want to say Paul, but not 100%.  Anyways he was saying something about HRC being the 'architect of Obama's foreign policy'.  And yes, the part in quotes was the actual words.

    Christ, that statement is so many times wrong, that I can't begin to understand what it meant.  Does that mean Kerry is now the architect of US foreign policy, and what the hell was wrong with foreign policy during those years, we didn't bomb a country that had nothing to do with 9/11 just because we could.

    I'm guessing it meant:

    Benghazi, Benghazi, Benghazi, you are getting sleeping, Benghazi, Benghazi, Benghazi, now don't think about anything but how Obama and HRC killed people purposely, and how outraged you are, Benghazi, Benghazi, Benghazi...

    Is it just a coincident that Jim seems like an identical protege of the other Jim ?


    If you can't be bothered... (2.00 / 1) (#27)
    by Jim in St Louis on Mon Jan 26, 2015 at 02:46:44 PM EST
     So some guy who you can't be bothered to figure out said that Hillary! is the 'architect of Obama's foreign policy'.

    Hillary! was SOS for the whole first term and into the second. What is so many times wrong with saying that?



    So Secretary fo State... (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Jan 26, 2015 at 03:08:17 PM EST
    ...set the President's foreign policy ?

    Thanks for making my point, the right is bananas, but I am guessing the same is not true for GWB, or did Condi set foreign policy.  I would say that would explain a lot, but she and GWB are brothers of other mothers, so to speak.

    It didn't feel like showering, but since you care so much, it was Rubio, "Hillary Clinton is the chief architect of the failed Obama foreign policy."

    And then there is Paul Ryan:

    "I think she's clearly very much to the left of her husband, and she's a liberal-progressive who was the architect of a catastrophically weak foreign policy," he added.

    The quote is worse than my recollection and thanks to your proding, I realize that this is a mem 'artchitect of foreign policy'.

    No comment on how Obama policy was a failure during the HRC years ?  This is news to me, and news to a whole lot of folks I would think, but please explain how FP during HRC was a failure and how that is her FP, and not Obama's.


    Well...yes I think that is true. (2.00 / 1) (#38)
    by Jim in St Louis on Mon Jan 26, 2015 at 03:25:07 PM EST
    I'm not getting your point here.  The SOS is responsible for setting the administration's foreign policy; and that is subject to the President's approval.  (Its also subject to the Senate's advice and consent- at least treaties and ambassadors are- but lets not confuse a cat)

    I think that Hillary! is going to have to get used to defending her record as SOS. If you think that she can just say "Oh that was not me- that was just my boss"  I don't think it will sell at all.  Is that what you are saying?

    I can tell that you have a clever and sharply timed come-back insult if you can only goad me into saying Benghazi.   OK go ahead- shatter me with your wit.  


    Well As Far As I Know... (5.00 / 2) (#50)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Jan 26, 2015 at 04:10:37 PM EST
    ...the right's only FP issue during Clinton was Benghazi which isn't a FP.

    I won't repeat, but Anne covered it below.  It's the President's Foreign Policy, not Clinton's, which seems to be what the right is implying or straight up stating this week.  Last week, last year, since GWB, it was Obama's and I would imagine it would only be Kerry's if he decided to run, because to date I have never heard anyone call current FP Kerry's FP, or that Kerry is the architect of current FP.  But like magic, the right has realized they were wrong, it's actually Clinton's FP, imagine that.

    Which is precisely my original point, the right is bananas with this stuff.  Beyond the ridiculous claim, neither mentioned, nor have you mentioned what the issue was if we are to believe it was actually HRC's FP.

    What is the problem with it ?


    Then why have a SOS at all? (2.00 / 1) (#120)
    by Jim in St Louis on Tue Jan 27, 2015 at 05:37:45 AM EST
    Yeah sure, sure-- Obama is the President and of course he is in charge, but its really weird that you seek to put that much distance between HRC and BHO.  To suggest that I (or any of the GOP hopefuls) should never examine her record at State with a critical eye, seems like letting her off the hook for what I think was her role.  

    I'm not the first to suggest that Hillary! has a more hawkish worldview than her former boss, and I don't know how she will be able to sell herself as independent of the Obama years.

    Is there anything for which Hillary! is responsible?


    Examine Away... (5.00 / 1) (#157)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Jan 27, 2015 at 10:06:40 AM EST
    ...but is the GOP really incapable of distinguishing between her job and the President's policies ?

    There are more options than making up stuff or looking away.

    So lay it on us, this is the 4th time I have asked, what problems does the GOP, or you, have with Hillary's tenure as Secretary of State ?

    I would love a link that shows Hillary designed Obama's foreign policy, then another with the actual items that make it horrendously bad.


    Dude, I'm trying - but the goal posts (none / 0) (#160)
    by Jim in St Louis on Tue Jan 27, 2015 at 11:00:07 AM EST
    You want a list of problems with Hillary's tenure as SOS- but you have already stated that you will not accept any critique of her as SOS because Obama was in charge?  So she just gets a pass on anything?  Great for her- so off the top of my head:

    Our capitulation (or flexibility if you prefer)  to Russian expansion and now Ukraine is ½ Russian.

    Our disengagement in SE Asia  emboldened China to make territorial claims all over the Pacific, and our allies are seeing that they have to face the bullies of the world alone.

    Mismanagement of the Arab Spring- a dozen nations all throwing off dictators, and we congratulate the Muslim Brotherhood on their election?

    The withdrawal from Iraq knowing it would collapse- I know your feelings on the war, but failing to come up with a forces agreement is all on Hillary and that vacuum  has put these Isis/Isil nuts to actually being taken seriously (except in the white house which still calls them JV)

    Oh by the way I would post a link- but you have such a high standard- apparently ABC News now counts as `right-wing talking points"  Really?  ABC News?  


    In Other Words... (5.00 / 1) (#196)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Jan 27, 2015 at 01:40:21 PM EST
    ...it's my fault you can't produce a legitimate source to back your claims.

    Got it.


    BTW - ABC News (none / 0) (#174)
    by Yman on Tue Jan 27, 2015 at 11:58:41 AM EST
    Not a wingnut source.  Of course, the article you linked to doesn't establish your claims.  Not the silly claim about Benghazi and certainly not your latest, specious claims.  

    You may want to read more about how ABC via Jonathan Karl got burned by citing this anonymous Congressional source that turned out to be completely wrong.  He was even forced to apologize and point out that his "source" told him that the State Department was named in the email, when the release of the email showed that was false.  Even Fox News reported the "source" that burned him was Congressional Republican(s), that the State Department requested that Al Quada not be named to avoid damaging the investigation and that there is no evidence the White House was behind the changes.

    More details on your debunked conspiracy theory here.


    OLD News and included in the link (none / 0) (#179)
    by Jim in St Louis on Tue Jan 27, 2015 at 12:16:29 PM EST
    Yeah, the link I provided notes all that, and includes the editors note post-corrections. ABC stands by its story.  

     The WH was polishing a turd and you are admiring your reflection in it.


    The only thing that's a"turd' ... (none / 0) (#182)
    by Yman on Tue Jan 27, 2015 at 12:26:26 PM EST
    .. is your lack of evidence to support your silly, conspiracy theories ... save your reliance on a debunked piece from Karl where he managed to get burned by Republicans feeding him false information.

    But I guess if that's all you've got ...


    "If that's all you got" (none / 0) (#184)
    by Jim in St Louis on Tue Jan 27, 2015 at 12:37:10 PM EST
    I think that phrase should be shortened to:ITAYG  

    When people would ask 'well what does ITAYG mean?'
    It means I just lost an argument and want to withdraw. I've never seen it used in any other context.


    Heh - falsely claiming victory (5.00 / 1) (#192)
    by Yman on Tue Jan 27, 2015 at 01:04:52 PM EST
    One of the few things the wingnuts have mastered.

    BTW - Which part is the "old news"?  The part where:

    1.  Karl's citation of a WH email turned out to be just a Republican feeding him false information?

    2.  The part where he said the talking points were edited because of the State Department (also false)?

    3.  The part where ABC News (through it's other reporter - Tapper) pointed out this evidence was fabricated?

    4.  The part where Karl suggested that this "confusion" could be cleared up by a release of the email chain which, when done a few days later, provided no more evidence to back these silly claims.

    5.  The part where Karl was shredded by factcheckers and journalism experts for this completey inaccurate/shoody reporting, or

    6. that you would push his debunked article without pointing out any of the above, because it's the only thing you've got?

    Oops!  Keep trying, though!  Like I said, the wingers don't like to cite evidence, because their "evidence" is so easy to shred.  But D- for effort!

    Hillary has a good record as Secretary of State (5.00 / 1) (#79)
    by MKS on Mon Jan 26, 2015 at 08:19:50 PM EST
    The Republicans can scream all they want, but it is true....Even the House Republican issued a report absolving the current administration of all the strange conspiracy theories regarding Benghazi.

    Except for the horrible lies (2.00 / 1) (#122)
    by Jim in St Louis on Tue Jan 27, 2015 at 06:00:31 AM EST
    Lets not succumb to the distraction that Hillary! presented with her "At this point what difference does it make?"

    Truth always matters- and the truth is that the admin knew very soon after that this was a coordinated planned attack by alqueda allies. It was in fact a terrorist operation that had nothing to do with a you tube video. So why the big deception (that Hillary! participated in) to blame it on a video?  Why the lies that it was a spontaneous protest that just got out of hand?

     But please let me be clear- the attack itself is not the fault of HRC or BHO. And the long response time, and if their could have been a rescue or any of the tactical decisions, even if there was a stand down order- all are not a  question in my mind. The CIC makes the calls and that is as it should be.

    But Hillary! meeting with the families and telling them "We are going to get that youtube guy"  is more than just a little white lie. It is a deception of the highest order. And then sending out Rice to spread that lie to every network is really disgusting.

    I get it that the admin had been bragging on how the terrorists were on the run, and how marvelous the admin's track record was.  And this attack made them look bad. I personally think the blame should be on the terrorists and not on the admin- but the reaction of the admin was to find a way to spin this like is was some silly political point.  

    If a jobs report comes out and its sucks- I'd expect the admin and its proxies to put a little gloss on it- well people have more free time now.  But to take this attack- and to spin it, seems like they are more interested in the political optics.



    Baa waa (5.00 / 3) (#123)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Jan 27, 2015 at 06:56:48 AM EST
    You have fallen for all the garbage the GOP has put out there and if you think you're going to take one sentence out of context and repeat it over and over again and not have people laughing at you then you are not in touch with reality.

    The only "lies" ... (5.00 / 1) (#128)
    by Yman on Tue Jan 27, 2015 at 07:31:41 AM EST
    ... are the rightwing talking points you're repeating.  The statements about the video were based on the CIA assessment and talking points they prepared and were the best information available at the time.  There has been and is no evidence to support your silly conspiracy theory of "lies" with a political coverup.  Not to mention your silly allusions to an imaginary "standdown order" and "long response time", all of which have been thoroughly debunked by military leaders in numerous hearings.  Which, of course, is why you present no evidence.  It would be too easy to refute.  Then again, specious, wingnut, conspiracy theories are even easier - you just deny them.

    If that's the best you've guys have got, I feel much better about the 2016 election.


    Not so fast. (2.00 / 1) (#133)
    by Jim in St Louis on Tue Jan 27, 2015 at 08:02:00 AM EST

    http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2013/05/exclusive-benghazi-talking-points-underwent-12-revision s-scrubbed-of-terror-references/

    I'm in agreement that some of the charges made that the Pres and Hillary! flubbed the response during the attack are unfair.  The CIC and his team are the authority that makes the call- and some monday morning quaterbacking is not helpful. We were attacked and I have to belive that we responded in the best way we knew how.  Which is exactly what I said above- if you would have bothered to read it before slamming down on the keyboard with your anger.

    But the politicaly crafted response came more from the PR types in the WH than from State or CIA or FBI or Pentagon.   The admin was more worried that it would upset the political and superficial -always got to try and look good attitude.

    And that is a damm shame.


    Still no evidence (none / 0) (#152)
    by Yman on Tue Jan 27, 2015 at 10:00:38 AM EST
    But the politicaly crafted response came more from the PR types in the WH than from State or CIA or FBI or Pentagon.   The admin was more worried that it would upset the political and superficial -always got to try and look good attitude.

    This has been hashed and rehashed in numerous hearings and you clowns still have no evidence to support your silly claims.  No one is "slamming down the keyboard in anger" - just laughing at the screen and your silly, specious, evidence-free claims.


    How many people were hurt (none / 0) (#135)
    by FlJoe on Tue Jan 27, 2015 at 08:14:40 AM EST
    by these "terrible lies", what lasting damage was done? Bush lied us into the war and chaos that still ensues. At worst these "lies' partly misled the American people for a few news cycles. Of course the WH and SD wanted to put a non-negative spin on it, that's the nature of the beast. Rice's statements had the usual qualifiers about preliminary reports, to the best of our knowledge yadda, yadda. Remember the "movie motive" was also the preferred narrative of the CIA who were probably the most responsible for the fiasco in the first place so they gladly encouraged the talking points. Sure there was plenty of spin put on this tragedy by various factions within the wh/sd/cia, when is there not ?  Does it rise to the level of massive cya web of lies? Absolutely not.

    Lybia (none / 0) (#41)
    by Slado on Mon Jan 26, 2015 at 03:32:58 PM EST
    That one sits squarely on the shoulders of Hillary along with Susan Rice.

    Obama let them talk him into that one and we see how that turned out without even discussing Benghazi.


    And, Libya is worse now? (none / 0) (#81)
    by MKS on Mon Jan 26, 2015 at 08:21:23 PM EST
    You have to look through a distorted microscope to come up with these ideas.

    What? (5.00 / 1) (#168)
    by Slado on Tue Jan 27, 2015 at 11:32:56 AM EST
    Mother Jones

    Hillary and her supporters of this policy along with the president intervened and overthrew the leader of Libya with our airstrikes.

    New York Times

    Now it is a leaderless state in complete chaos. We had no plan as to what we were going to do to put it back together after we helped break it and now Hillary is long gone but the mess remains.

    The only thing you can say ultimately is that Obama is the most responsible because he approved the mission based on their advice.  But let's not pretend that this was all her idea and that the results have been disastrous.


    Shame on Obama... (5.00 / 1) (#195)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Jan 27, 2015 at 01:38:05 PM EST
    ...for doing a mini-version of what GWB did in Iraq.

    "he approved the mission based on their advice", please source that Obama bombed Libya on HRC's advise.

    Better yet, let's all pretend it was all her doing, because that is actually what you are doing, with not a lick of evidence, just some version of "We all know..."

    This is why I hate arguing with wingnuts, especially ones that claim they aren't.  I am forced to defend someone I don't particularly like, don't want to vote for, and would never me my choice for President.  All because I would rather not have innuendo and opinion being thrown around as indisputable facts.

    Who knew we could blame Iraq on Powell.  GWB just an innocent pawn lead into a war because the SoS gave him bad advise.  Funny, I remember the exact opposite between Powell and GWB & Co, seems like he was the only voice of reason but was arm twisted into pushing the invasion.

    Or does the SoS relationship work differently depending on if an R or D is doing the bombing ?  Right...


    Maybe they're getting ready... (none / 0) (#139)
    by unitron on Tue Jan 27, 2015 at 08:44:04 AM EST
    ...to try to shift the blame from GWB to Sec.State Rice, so that by 2016 Iraq will have been all her fault and not any of someone named Bush.

    Actually, it was Marco Rubio who said it, at (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by Anne on Mon Jan 26, 2015 at 03:21:28 PM EST
    the Koch Brothers' ring-kissing:

    All three jabbed at former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, who is expected to be the dominant contender for the Democratic presidential nomination. Paul referred to "Hillary's war in Libya" as "a disaster." Rubio said it would be "a mistake to elect as president the architect of Obama's foreign policy."


    I get that the move is on to demonize Clinton at every opportunity, but it has been reported that the two did not always agree on strategy or philosophy, with Hillary being to the right of Obama, and much more hawkish.  It seems to me that she was carrying out his approach, not acting on her own.  But if you can give us some examples that show otherwise, that would support your objection to someone taking issue with Rubio's statement, we'd love to see it.

    And, just a suggestion: if you want anyone to take you seriously, you might want to consider losing the exclamation points; they just seem so, I don't know, juvenile.


    Juvenile? (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by Zorba on Mon Jan 26, 2015 at 03:49:20 PM EST
    That's actually giving him more credit than he probably deserves.  I know some "juveniles" who are more mature than that.
    Just saying.   ;-)

    Can Someone Explain... (none / 0) (#51)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Jan 26, 2015 at 04:12:17 PM EST
    ...what this means ?


    It's just a juvenile (5.00 / 2) (#56)
    by sj on Mon Jan 26, 2015 at 04:57:50 PM EST
    attempt at cleverness meaning... something. I don't know. I saw it the first time as an attempt to be clever responding to "Benghazi!" which iss a short cut to refer to the mantra wingnuts like to bring out when discussing HRC.

    IMO it never works out: conservatives shouldn't try for clever. Or funny. Definitely not for funny.

    In this case, I bet he can't see how it's just a baby step from his attempt at cleverness to out-and-out obvious misogyny.


    Clinton's role as SOS (2.00 / 2) (#45)
    by Jim in St Louis on Mon Jan 26, 2015 at 03:44:58 PM EST
    You make up false assertions, and then you demand that your evil opponent's should provide links to counter those assertions. You really have been paying attention during the Obama years since the false charge that was said by no-one never is his favorite trick.  

    I'm not even sure what you lefties are mad about!

      So you want me to say that Hillary! was a tool, and a pawn and a robot? and only Obama is responsible for his foreign policy? Or should I just say she was not acting on her own- just carrying out his approach?

    If you don't know why Hillary! has the exclamation point,  well  then you just are not ready for Hillary!


    Oh my, this is so tedious (5.00 / 4) (#82)
    by MKS on Mon Jan 26, 2015 at 08:24:21 PM EST
    Yes, we know right wingers say stuff like Hillary! and talk in short hand to each other.

    But the problem for you is that a large majority does not care or believe you.


    What false assertion did I make? (5.00 / 2) (#89)
    by Anne on Mon Jan 26, 2015 at 08:55:14 PM EST
    That efforts are being made to demonize Clinton at every opportunity?  How do you figure that's false?

    Or is it false to assert that Clinton and Obama didn't always agree on what the policy should be?

    You're the one who took issue with Scott calling out Rubio for making the "architect" statement; don't you have a basis for believing that was her role, and if so, why can't you - or won't you - provide it?  Or, is this a case of, in your world, it's enough that you say it - nothing further required?

    I don't much care what you say, about anything, but if you don't think you need to be prepared to support what you say, maybe you need to find a blog where no thinking is required and the real fun is just flinging the poo around.  

    A thicker skin would be useful, too, as you simply aren't going to find even limited support for the gaggle of grotesquerie that is the possible GOP presidential field.  Having your opinions called into question for lack of any support other than "because I said so" isn't going to stop no matter how many exclamation points you use.

    Hillary's not my favorite candidate, by any means, but she's not batsh!t loony like most of the possible GOP contenders.  Overcoming that problem is, I believe, going to be a hill too steep for them to climb.  


    Yeah, deep bench alright... (5.00 / 6) (#24)
    by Anne on Mon Jan 26, 2015 at 02:34:58 PM EST
    it is loaded with crazy all the way to the third string level.

    And the practice squad's got some potential in that area, as well.



    Bill Clinton (none / 0) (#21)
    by KeysDan on Mon Jan 26, 2015 at 02:25:54 PM EST
    is reported to have said that Jeb Bush is the real threat and Christie is a sideshow.   Agree, but Jeb needs to get through the primaries and that crowd seems bushed.  And, agree, too, that Christie and all the rest are rightly described as a sideshow, as in Circus.

    The Court's have come to the rescue of the Republican party on same sex marriage, but some (Cruz, Jindal, Huckabee) still see gold in them thar hills.   Cruz and Jindal are calling for resistance with an amendment to the US Constitution; Huckabee takes a less cumbersome tact--urging states to ignore the Court's rulings, just try nullification--as Jackson said to John Marshall: he made his law, now let him enforce it.

    Romney, his close allies say, is ready for his third try as a calling from his Mormon faith. He will, this time, no longer downplay, but rather,  highlight his faith, pointing out his leadership skills as a pastor.  

    This time around, it may be a well-considered idea to close that Swiss bank account. And, hopefully, during the past two years, he has been too busy to file an amended 2011 tax return--the one in which he did not take all his charitable deductions (Mormon Church and his Foundation, primarily), to which he was entitled so as to keep his tax return from falling below a threshold that would betray his assertions that he never paid lower than a 13 percent tax rate in 10-years.

    He overpaid to get to 14.1 percent, otherwise, it would have been 12.2 percent ( $1.95 million on income of $13.7million).   Then there is that car elevator, dressage, binder of women, Michigan trees of the right height, 47 percent--and the dog strapped onto the car's roof.  Had I known Mitt was going for a do -over, I would have devoted more time over the past two years working on making it all look better. But, it  really is a full-time job.



    Jindal (5.00 / 2) (#39)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Jan 26, 2015 at 03:27:02 PM EST
    OMG what an international embarrassment. He went to England and repeated the Fox News lie that there are Sharia courts there and Birmingham is 100% Muslim. So he was on the news saying this and the entire populace of England is now laughing at that moron and he's being skewered in satire.

    Looks like Jindal (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by KeysDan on Mon Jan 26, 2015 at 04:30:23 PM EST
    is trying to elbow his way between Huckabee and Perry in the fashion runway.  At the Hellzapoppin confab, hosted by scary  family values types, in Louisiana last Saturday, the Governor of the State called for a national spiritual revival and urged attendees to proselytize on behalf of their Christian beliefs.

    No mention, however, of exorcism.  In 1994, he penned a piece for the 'New Oxford Review" describing the beating out of a demon--the physical dimensions of spiritual warfare.  Bobby describes his participation in the exorcism of his very close friend, Susan.  This experience should help with the primary crowd, and it something that Perry and Huckabee are unlikely to be able to top.


    Now now, never underestimate (none / 0) (#180)
    by ruffian on Tue Jan 27, 2015 at 12:19:03 PM EST
    Perry and Huckabee!

    It seems (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by lentinel on Mon Jan 26, 2015 at 05:56:52 PM EST
    to me that the press is salivating for a Clinton-Bush "rematch".

    The media have a way of sinking people they don't want to be bothered with.

    Jeb and Hillary!

    That's entertainment!

    Maybe they'll even wind up running together on the same ticket.


    Romney is living in a fantasy world (none / 0) (#33)
    by Slado on Mon Jan 26, 2015 at 03:08:37 PM EST
    Even Republicans aren't dumb enough to pick a three time loser.

    Scott Walker or Jeb Bush will be the nominee.

    As entertaining as all the other kooks are republicans still always nominate a normal person to be their candidate.  All this talk of a Cruz or Huckabee is just nonsense.   Look back at the last 10 nominees.   Nothing to get too excited about.

    I like Walker because he's battle tested three times in the last four years defeating the unions in a blue/purple state.

    No idea how he plays as a northerner in the South with the social conservatives but that is why he showed up last week in Iowas to get a little street cred and then hopefully not have to dive in that water much more.

    Hillary Walker would to me at least be an interesting campaign.  Can't label a guy who's won 3 elections in Wisconsin as a right wing crazy.

    So much depends on the next two years.

    Does the ME continue a spiral into despair?

    Does the economy finally turn around or are we in for another Summer decline?

    How does the final roll out of Obamacare go as the individual mandate goes into affect and the pricing starts to become real?

    Does Obama flip the script the next two years and become the obstructionist president?    

    And by the way which does Hillary want?   Obama gumming up government to protect progressive principals or him working to get a few things passed or even something big?


    Walker not a right-wing crazy? (5.00 / 8) (#96)
    by Towanda on Mon Jan 26, 2015 at 09:31:42 PM EST
    That's deluded.  

    I'm from Wisconsin, and I ought to know. Indeed, before he was governor, he was my county executive, and his policies literally killed people.  We-the-taxpayers in the county still are  paying for multimillion-dollar court cases lost, from his years here.  And before that, I watched him as a state legislator.  There is a reason that his home county has voted against him, repeatedly, in his gubernatorial races.

    You need to know more about Walker's stances on issues.  For starters, he's an extremist on social conservative issues:  No abortions even in cases of rape or incest.  

    And he's an uneducated lout, a college dropout (or forced out, owing to unethical campaigning even for student government, according to those in the know at that campus), who wins only because the Koch Bros. whomped the state with massive amounts of funding, and the largest media outlet in the state was bought, too.  

    His gubernatorial campaigns also were conducted so unethically that five of his aides and a donor landed in prison from an investigation of his first gubernatorial campaign, and an investigation of his next campaign continues.

    Oh, and he also has plunged the state into a  multibillion-dollar deficit, and his policies have made Wisconsin last in the Midwest for recovery from the recession aka new jobs.

    You want him?  He's yours.  Take our governor, please. . . .  


    No, take ours (Christie) N/T (5.00 / 1) (#129)
    by Yman on Tue Jan 27, 2015 at 07:32:55 AM EST
    History (none / 0) (#40)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Jan 26, 2015 at 03:31:59 PM EST
    has been that they nominate a normal person but the problem is that the GOP primary turns even a normal person into a freak. By the time someone like Scott Walker gets out of the primaries he'll sound just like Ted Cruz because you have to sign onto all the ideas.

    And the first thing Scott Walker did was pull a Karen Handel after this past election and crank up the war on women. He's doing a lot to show the far right he's their guy. Never fear though I'm sure Hillary has all his crackpottery on tape to play in a general election.

    That is at least where Jeb Bush seems to be smarter by staying away from those kinds of events that encourage crazy remarks.


    Not sure the war on women (none / 0) (#42)
    by Slado on Mon Jan 26, 2015 at 03:38:29 PM EST
    has the same traction it did last time around but we'll see.

    Also Jeb wipes away one of the only talking point advantages republicans have against Hillary which is that she's old news and a legacy.

    Jeb is not only a legacy but a legacy to a more unpopular president.

    No matter who they nominate the dems will load up with the same talking points about women and taxing and all the rest so I'd rather have a candidate who isn't a retread and a legacy going up against Hillary and who again has just recently won elections where everything but the kitchen sink was thrown at him.



    I'm guessing (5.00 / 3) (#57)
    by sj on Mon Jan 26, 2015 at 05:00:49 PM EST
    you would have greater insight into the traction the war on women has if you were, you know, a woman.
    Not sure the war on women (none / 0) (#42)
    by Slado on Mon Jan 26, 2015 at 02:38:29 PM MDT

    has the same traction it did last time around but we'll see.

    But then again rightwing males are always convinced they know what's best for the little lady.

    sj (none / 0) (#63)
    by Slado on Mon Jan 26, 2015 at 05:45:45 PM EST
    I am a lover of women and not approving of the democratic position on abortion (totally because I'm not against in all cases) and free birth control doesn't mean I'm waging a war on women.

    Some women like my wife agree with me.  Is she waging a war on women? Am I waging a war on her?  Do all women think the same?  It's just confusing for us right wing males.

    My comment was in reference that this issue did not help dems in last election.   That's all I meant.


    Slado, the "war" isn't about (5.00 / 4) (#71)
    by Anne on Mon Jan 26, 2015 at 06:37:29 PM EST
    the fact that people disagree about the issue, it's about the imposition of restrictive and even punitive beliefs on all women of childbearing age.

    What the anti-choice people don't seem to be able to grasp is that allowing women to make the choices that are best for them does not force any woman to take any one particular path.  If abortion and contraception are legal, accessible and affordable, it does not mean that any woman will be forced to have an abortion or use birth control.

    Don't believe in abortion?  Don't have one.  Don't believe in contraception?  Don't use it, abstain from sex, or pray - whatever works.

    Please don't make the mistake of thinking your beliefs are so much better or moral than mine that they should be forced on all women.  But also, don't assume that those who support the right of women to choose when and whether to have children would themselves choose abortion.

    I am a mother who chose not to have amnio because we knew that perfect genes did not guarantee a perfect life and we would have our baby regardless.  But who am I to tell anyone that she cannot choose differently?

    These are personal and private decisions that should be allowed to remain entirely within the control of each woman.  Period.


    And please don't think I'm judging you (none / 0) (#101)
    by Slado on Mon Jan 26, 2015 at 10:58:12 PM EST
    The issue for me is not that you shouldn't be able to do whatever you want with your body but what level of women's healthcare, specifically access to contraception, is the responsibility of the taxpayer.  

    As for abortion that is a much harder issue and one that I struggle with as both a Catholic and a libertarian.  I choose to break with my faith by recognizing that not all abortions are wrong but at the same time believe that many abortions are avoidable and should never happen.   Then the libertarian in me says it's none of my business.  

    So the last thing I'm ever doing is judging anyone for their views on this issue.   Other then the extremes on the right who murder doctors.

    But just as you ask not to have me stake out the moral highground I find the "War on Women" and the politics of that phrase doing exactly that.   The issue is far to complicated to be boiled down to a political catch phrase.


    Contraception as part of standard (5.00 / 3) (#105)
    by MO Blue on Mon Jan 26, 2015 at 11:44:30 PM EST
    insurance provisions.

    I guess I am confused on why aspects of women's health care should not be included in standard insurance policies as preventative medicine. Because that is really what we are talking about when we are talking about access to contraception.

    You stated that you believe:

    at the same time believe that many abortions are avoidable and should never happen

    And yet, you do not support insurance policies covering contraception as preventative medicine. I guess I really have trouble understanding the logic behind your position.


    Here's the thing, Slado: I don't care if (5.00 / 4) (#126)
    by Anne on Tue Jan 27, 2015 at 07:22:53 AM EST
    you judge.  You can judge until the cows come home - this isn't about thought crimes.

    So, judge away - but don't impose or imprint your judgment such that all women are required to live by it.

    You also seem to be saying that the other part of this problem is that the government is imposing on you the obligation to pay for something you oppose, or insurance companies are imposing on you the obligation to pay for  coverage you don't need.  

    But how far should we take this?  My taxes paid and continue to pay to fund things I would rather not be done in my name.  I've helped pay for wars and torture and spying.  I've helped pay for police brutality and discrimination.  I've helped pay for the enforcement of terrible drug laws and to put people to death.  I've contributed to the cost of drones that kill innocent people.

    I help pay the salaries and benefits of some truly despicable people who call themselves members of Congress.

    I help pay for ED medications I don't use, for prescriptions I will never take because I don't have a prostate.

    How affordable would cancer drugs and treatments be if we all weren't helping to pay for them?  

    Do I have to go on?  

    The logic of saying that affordability and accessibility don't work to deny people basic health care escapes me.  By your logic, it would be okay to make prostate medication so expensive and so hard to obtain that huge numbers of men would not be able to avail themselves of it.  Would that be right?

    I mean, we're not talking about someone having a right to own a luxury car or a vacation home, Slado; we're talking about people's health and people's lives.

    So, can we stop having this ridiculous conversation about our tax money paying for things we find morally objectionable?  

    It's just that it feels like a war when women are denied - through high cost or limited availability - the care they need.  And that is extended to food and nutrition programs and prenatal and maternity care.  "We don't want to pay for your birth control or your abortion, but don't come crying to us when you can't afford to feed and care for your baby, either."


    Well, it shouldn't be confusing. (5.00 / 3) (#75)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Jan 26, 2015 at 08:00:21 PM EST
    Slado: "It's just confusing for us right wing males."

    Perhaps you should note the operative word in your sentence, which is "male." Because we're men and we can't get pregnant, we're really in no position to judge women over such a personal decision as to whether or not to have a baby. Simply put, it's neither our bodies nor our business.

    Look at it from the standpoint of your own present health concerns. Were I a state legislator, would you want me -- someone who's otherwise a complete stranger -- to impose my own particular religious beliefs upon your situation and decision making, and use / abuse my position to enact limits upon what you can and cannot choose to do, with regards to treatment and other personal family matters?

    Should you choose hospice care, should I and others be allowed to picket the facility and wantonly interfere with your family's access therein, just because we're of the (grievously mistaken) opinion that you're not respecting life with your choice?

    Well, the issue of reproductive choice and freedom is the same thing. Personally, I find it appalling that some people amongst us would actually believe it's society's duty to require a woman to carry a pregnancy to term, without any due regard for her personal condition and circumstances.

    (Nor does your wife enjoy a right to interfere in another woman's personal decision making regarding pregnancy, just because she's a woman. If she doesn't approve of abortion, then she doesn't have to have one. That's what an individual's right to reproductive freedom is all about.)

    Look, adult women are not children, chattel or personal property, any more than a zygote / fetus is a fully functioning human being outside the womb. Yet the right's oft-stated respect for individual rights is being offered here with a huge caveat, which exempts them from compliance if the individual in question so happens to be a woman who has a functioning uterus that's been implanted with a blastocyst.

    Decisions about pregnancy are best left between a woman and her legally significant other (if in fact she has one), her doctor and her Maker. It's not for you, me or anyone else to take it upon ourselves to impose those decisions upon her without her input or consent. To insist otherwise is just immoral, and I have no problem with that position as a Catholic.

    And if we think otherwise, then we are in fact waging a "war on women," because we're telling women that they are not competent to make personal decisions about what to do with their own bodies when it comes to reproduction.



    Can't agree (none / 0) (#103)
    by Slado on Mon Jan 26, 2015 at 11:32:15 PM EST
    I assume we are debating specifically the birth control mandate.

    If so how is not providing something for free l"limiting" access?

    Is it still available?  Is it illegal to use now?  Is it thst unaffordable?

    The Federalist  Birth Control Mandate

    Do we choose levels of how much housing, food and other human needs are the responsibility of the state to pay for?  Yes.   Doesn't mean we deny people the right to those products or limit access to them.

    As for your comparison to hospice I'm going to chose to ignore it.

    The choices between a women and doctor are personal and should remain private but it is something else to demand all options of contraception be covered by every insurance policy.

    If we're talking Abortion that's a whole other kettle of beans and one I am more sympathetic to the left on in the sense that the right is looking to limit or regulate access to abortion.  


    Contraception is just one of the 63 (5.00 / 1) (#106)
    by MO Blue on Tue Jan 27, 2015 at 12:02:24 AM EST
    preventive services that must be covered without your having to pay a copayment or co-insurance or meet your deductible.

    For example, if Colorectal Cancer screening for adults over 50 was not provided "free of charge," as part of the insurance policies preventative services and the fee had to be paid up front, those who did not have the funds to pay for the screening would be denied the access to this service due to lack of funds.

    People are denied access to a service if there is a charge that exceeds their ability to pay.



    I have never considered (none / 0) (#116)
    by Slado on Tue Jan 27, 2015 at 01:26:19 AM EST
    Contraception as preventative medicine.

    After a few of these posts today from Anne and Don I hit the Internet and discovered that up until about 2010 the health community agreed with me.

    However it appears that times have changed.  As referenced in the link the IOM later reported that contraception is indeed preventative medicine allowing HHS to include it in the health law in the form of the birth-control mandate and in general it appears from research the health community now supports the change.

    So there you have it.  I'll have to think about this one some more but again if I oppose it I don't think it makes me a warrior on woman.  Just another issue were I don't agree with the  policy for fiscal reasons.


    The logic behind not charging for preventative (5.00 / 3) (#127)
    by MO Blue on Tue Jan 27, 2015 at 07:29:32 AM EST
    Medicine services is that they are fiscally less expensive.

    Think about it Slado. If a poor woman gets pregnant, are you going to deny her proper medical treatment during her pregnancy? While some might, I don't think you would. Consider the cost of even a normal pregnancy not to mention the risk to the woman's life. If conplications arise, like a premature birth, the costs are astronomical. For those who have insurance, some or all of the the cost of prenatal medical services and for mother and new born. Consider the safety net services that would need to be provided for the child until maturity, if the mother is unable to rise out of poverty.

    Birth control is relatively inexpensive and much safer than becoming pregnant. Medical care for mother and new born is multiple times more expensive. Then there is the cost of raising a child until maturity.

    From your link:

    According to the poll 48% of women with annual income below $40,000 say cost has made it difficult for them to consistently use birth control; for women 18-34, the figure is 55%. Even Catholic women voters support the move, according to the poll, with 77% saying birth control should be covered at the 100% preventive services rate.

    Also, when an unwanted pregnancy is prevented, the question of abortion is eliminated.


    The final IOM report on contraception as (5.00 / 1) (#131)
    by MO Blue on Tue Jan 27, 2015 at 07:55:08 AM EST
    preventative medicine:

    The Institute of Medicine has released its highly anticipated report on preventive services for women -- and it has recommended all FDA-approved birth control methods and emergency contraception be covered by insurance companies with no cost-sharing.

    The main and ongoing objection from the conservative community to including birth control has not been based on fiscal policy but on religion and bad science.

    But abortion opponent groups argue the recommendations go too far and will violate the "conscience" of those providers, who for religious beliefs, oppose artificial forms of birth control. They argue consumers who do not wish to have their insurance plans include birth control, and emergency contraceptives will not have the choice to opt out. Finally, they say certain forms of emergency contraceptives have "chemically abortive properties."



    Some but not all (2.00 / 1) (#173)
    by Slado on Tue Jan 27, 2015 at 11:53:31 AM EST
    Most of the complaints are people have to carry this coverage even though they might be 65-year-old men because it's required to pay for it.

    This and many other reasons is why Obamacare is still not popular. To provide all these things that you and others feel are necessary the cost had to be spread around and the ability to carry a policy suited specifically to you was taken away.

    We will see if all these preventative measures equal lower costs.  Doesn't seem to always work that way.


    The example of the sixty-five year IMO presents a (5.00 / 2) (#191)
    by MO Blue on Tue Jan 27, 2015 at 01:02:30 PM EST
    false premise. I pay for many preventative services and actual treatments for illnesses that I will never have. That is just how insurance works. My premiums help pay to diagnosis and treat  prostrate cancer even though I will never suffer from that disease. My premiums help pay for preventative medicine and treatment for high chorlestral and high blood pressure. Genetically my family does not suffer from those conditions. We all can list areas where our premiums pay for medical services and procedures that we will never experience during our life time.

    As far as preventative diagnosis and treatment is concerned,  some save money and some don't.  It is true that not all preventative services prevent an occurrence of a particular condition or illness.

    OTOH, contraceptives used properly are highly effective in preventing pregnancy. They are an example of the type of preventative medicine that works as it is intended.link


    And again, ... (5.00 / 1) (#107)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Jan 27, 2015 at 12:09:36 AM EST
    ... at what point is a woman's right to contraception or abortion any business of yours? Why can't you just leave people alone to their own respective decisions and choices?

    A right is not denied (none / 0) (#113)
    by Slado on Tue Jan 27, 2015 at 12:58:09 AM EST
    If it's not required to be provided by a third party but is still available.  What is so hard to understand about that?

    I don't see this as a moral argument but a fiscal one.  Especially when you consider people want policies that don't include this feature because they don't need it. This for me is where the moral argument breaks down.

    The mandate is there requiring all policies to cover this so that there is enough money to do so.  Again, a fiscal position in my eyes.

    Let's circle back shall we. My original comment had nothing to do with my position on the birth control mandate. All I was  saying was the talking point of the war on women was probably not going to be as effective going forward in future elections. A debatable point that others chose to say I was wrong.

    But because this is a sensitive issue we then got into a debate on the merits of the birth-control mandate.

    And yet again I am sympathetic to the complaints about kooky Republicans and their opposition in some cases to abortion even though I have questions  about the issue from a moral and political perspective.

    If a warrior on woman that makes me so be it.


    The "war on women" refers to a fundamental mindset that sees women as irresponsible people who are wholly incapable of making their own reproductive choices for themselves. You can't file concepts like contraception and the "war on women" in individual silos, as though they're unrelated to one another.

    And I'm telling you, man to man, that the personal choices women may make during their childbearing years regarding reproduction are none of your concern. Because if you think and believe otherwise, then you're doing nothing more than seeking to impose your will upon these women, for no other reason I can see than your own ego.

    And then further, you seem to resent it when some women such as Anne tell you that you need to mind your own business when it comes to their personal choices regarding reproduction. It's as though you hold them responsible for fostering your continued resentment toward them, rather than seeing that resentment as your own personal choice.

    In an earlier comment above, you referred to yourself as a "lover of women." Perhaps you should ask yourself, in all honesty, what that phrase actually means to you, really, when you describe yourself that way.

    Do you love women for who they truly are, as fellow travelers and human beings on this planet who happen to have an extra X rather than a Y chromosome? Or are you objectifying them for purposes of veneration, not necessarily sexual, holding them to some lofty standard and then expressing your disappointment if their choices and behavior somehow fail to meet your approval?

    If it's the latter, maybe you should stop being a "lover of women" in an objective sense, in perpetual pursuit of a perfect maternal or Madonna-like figurine whom you can hold and admire as one might a small sculpture that captures one's fancy. Instead, you might really and truly work on respecting women first as human beings, real people who also harbor feelings, needs, desires and dreams, not unlike your own.

    Because I'll tell you right now from my own perspective, I don't believe that your problem here is with women per se. Rather, it's actually with your own self, in particular your own doubts. And let's face it, you've been through a lot in recent months which has certainly given you due cause for reflection and reconsideration about what you might value and hold dear. Perhaps some things which you may have once considered important, now don't appear so vital when measured in the overarching scheme of the universe.

    I think you need to give yourself permission to let go of the past, which in part also means setting aside long-held but increasingly anachronistic notions about women and their proper place in this world. To be sure, change is sometimes very unsettling and uncomfortable initially but once it occurs, it can also be quite liberating.

    So, allow yourself the chance to grow as a person, and to embrace new and exciting concepts that serve to nurture your dreams for a better world for your children and grandchildren. Cast aside the hobgoblins that would otherwise stoke your fears, to the point where you would seek temporary comfort in your own self-imposed limitations.

    Above all, don't question life; instead, just live it like you truly deserve it. If you can do so, you'll soon find yourself according to others the very same opportunity.

    Aloha, and may peace be with you.


    Enough already (none / 0) (#172)
    by Slado on Tue Jan 27, 2015 at 11:45:44 AM EST
    This is not a personal debate.  Please stop.

    I have explained clearly what my position is. If you don't like it then just say you disagree. I don't need a psycho analyst delving into my personal issues to persuade me that I'm not seeing things clearly.  

    To you i would say the abortion issue is too personal and does not allow you to see other people's point of views clearly.

    We are talking about condoms and birth-control pills and who should pay for them.   Nobody is saying that anyone should not have access to them.  Everyone has access to birth control. It's just a matter of if they can pay for it.



    Well, you're NOT paying for it. (5.00 / 1) (#175)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Jan 27, 2015 at 12:07:21 PM EST
    I'm sorry, but I was the guy who wrote the first such law in 1999, when we got insurance companies to agree to pay for the coverage themselves, so that those who objected such as the Catholic Church would be cut out of the loop and have no standing to continue interfering in a perfectly legal personal decision when they had no right to do so.

    So, again, what's it to you? Why is what goes on in another woman's uterus any of your concern? It's like an obsession with you,, when it's really none of your business. And if you don't like the pushback, then cease and desist yourself, shut up about it, back off and leave women alone.



    Ugghhh (5.00 / 2) (#188)
    by sj on Tue Jan 27, 2015 at 12:49:14 PM EST
    You still don't get it.
    Everyone has access to birth control. It's just a matter of if they can pay for it.

    Let's look at that, shall we? And apply that concept to a few other things.

    Everyone has access to cancer drugs. It's just a matter of if they can pay for it. It's just they have cancer and they can't pay for it, they might die.

    Everyone has access to asthma drugs. It's just a matter of if they can pay for it. It's just that if they have as serious asthma attack can't pay for it, they might end up in the emergency room or even die.

    Everyone has access to antibiotics. It's just a matter of if they can pay for it. It's just that if they have a serious infection and they can't pay for it, they might die. Oh, and incidentally, take someone else with them.

    Everyone has access to birth control. It's just a matter of if they can pay for it.
    And naturally if "they" (you know: women) can't afford pay for it, they can surely much better afford to pay for the child that might result. What the he!! kind of logic is that?

    The whole point of the health insurance model is sharing the costs so that those "unaffordable" things become affordable. Otherwise, what is the freaking point?


    Last election (5.00 / 1) (#83)
    by MKS on Mon Jan 26, 2015 at 08:33:12 PM EST
    You do know the difference between a mid term electorate and a Presidential electorate?  Romney didn't, and that is why he and most of you guys were absolutely sure Romney was going to win in 2012 in spite of the data showing the opposite.

    Slado, you revealed you are anti-choice.  That is a conservative position.

    Most anti-choice people are religious. Not sure if that applies to you.  But if you know if someone is anti-choice, that will tell you where they stand on a lot of issues.  The anti-choicers are typically the ones yelling "Benghazi!" incomprehensibly.


    I am religious but not anti choice (none / 0) (#177)
    by Slado on Tue Jan 27, 2015 at 12:11:16 PM EST
    I can never believe that an abortion is wrong in all cases.

    The obvious situations like rape, health of the mother, a baby that has down syndrome or another life altering disease, and even women that do not need another baby in extreme circumstances are all reasons to keep abortion legal and safe.

    All that said I believe there are too many abortions occurring in our country and it is a product our sexual culture among young people and in society as a whole.

    This position makes having a policy position difficult. Because once you open the door that abortion should occur then you need things like Planned Parenthood and people that are responsible to do it.   See Philadelphia for proof of that.

    I agree that Republicans do a terrible job putting forth their opposition to abortion because they focus on religion too much and instead should be focusing on regulating and trying to limit the amount of abortions instead of getting rid of them altogether.    Because even if we outlawed them they are still going to occur and that is even worse.


    Wouldn't contraception (5.00 / 1) (#183)
    by jbindc on Tue Jan 27, 2015 at 12:35:59 PM EST
    Reduce the too-many-abortions problem?

    And you do realize, don't you, that birth control pills are prescribed for issues other than just contraception, right?  Seems to me this is much more important than some 65+ year old man being able to get an erection.

    And speaking of 65 year old men - do you really want to go down the road of "Why does a 65 year old man have to pay for __?". I'm thinking that 65 year old man is hurting MY insurance rates a helluva lot more than I hurt his.


    Well (none / 0) (#47)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Jan 26, 2015 at 03:51:28 PM EST
    frankly the people in congress are doing a great job of running women off. Scott Walker is doing the same. You don't even have to use the "war on women" thing just show what they actually have done and said.

    Hillary doesn't represent the past though. The GOP can't talk about anything but the past and wanting to return America to the past. Nobody even remember the 1950's unless they're at least 65 years old. Lots of people remember the 90's though and remember it as the last time we had a good economy.

    Besides that we're not far enough away from the GOP having complete control of the country and the disaster they wreaked on all of us for voters to let the GOP have control of the country again. We see that the GOP only answers to the far right 20% of the country. We see it today in congress and we saw it with George W. Bush. There's a reason why Obama's ratings are climbing. It has nothing to do with what he's done or hasn't done so much as he's the only one keeping crazy at bay now.

    You can nominate Scott Walker but he's going to be shopping the same old tired ideas that the GOP has been bringing to every election for the last 1/3 of a century. And polls show him not even carrying his own state which shouldn't surprise anyone since Paul Ryan didn't even carry his own congressional district.

    To win the GOP needs to completely revamp the entire party but they are not going to do that so they are going to lose.


    A rare honest LOL (2.00 / 1) (#49)
    by Jim in St Louis on Mon Jan 26, 2015 at 04:08:54 PM EST
    People always use lol- but that one got me.  The young new vibrant democratic party with their standard bearer:  67 year old Hillary! Clinton.

    But if Hillary! is too stogey and old fashioned for you there is always waiting in the wings that upstart, whipper-snapper rebel...Elizabeth Warren at 65 years old.

    Bernie Sanders as a blushing and budding 73 is a distant third and Joe Biden at a boyish 72 to round out the pack.

    Dems as the party of youth? Not a chance- those who are politicaly active will give their allegience to the Green Party or Occupy or something like that. Go read Kos- none of them are voting for the Dems.


    Hate to break it to you (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by Yman on Mon Jan 26, 2015 at 04:49:06 PM EST
    ... but if you're using Kos to determine who the youth vote will choose, you're going to be greatly disappointed.  Not to mention the fact that you don't need to be under a certain age to be the choice of younger voters.  Care to place a bet on the number of young voters gathered by the Democratic nominee vs. all of the third parties combined?

    Yeah, ... didn't think so.


    Please, oh please (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by christinep on Mon Jan 26, 2015 at 04:49:29 PM EST
    keep repeating the age attack.  Please keep concentrating on the top contender among both sides of the field  the experienced and well-known and most-admired woman, Hillary Clinton.

    My old self & similar-aged friends were trying to recall (with our old, addled brains) how old that Republican idol, Ronald Reagan, was as he entered into his first term? Was it 70?  Ah yes, the inquiring Baby Boomers want to know.

    That age attack will work like a charm ... for us Democrats.  Thanks.


    Yes, ageism (5.00 / 3) (#58)
    by KeysDan on Mon Jan 26, 2015 at 05:20:41 PM EST
    sounds like a real winning strategy.   Doubt, though, if it will be part of the campaigns of Jeb (age 62), Romney (age 67), Perry (65), Huckabee (60), Lindsey (60), or Trump (68).  And, it may be the first time McCain (age 78--72 when a candidate) will not go on the Sunday talk shows.  

    Dems might have (none / 0) (#61)
    by FlJoe on Mon Jan 26, 2015 at 05:39:58 PM EST
    elderly candidates, but their policies always appeal to the young voters. The GOP has had a deep bench of young "rising stars" with limited shelf life over the last decade. Jindahl, Bachman, Ryan, Palin just to name a few who end up either marginalized,embarrassing,on Fox or all of the above.  

    Yep (5.00 / 3) (#69)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Jan 26, 2015 at 06:12:39 PM EST
    they don't get it. It's not the age of the candidate but the age of the policies and their policies are old and tired and outdated.

    And young doesn't appeal to anybody if it's crazy.


    Quite right...and I withdraw the statement (none / 0) (#118)
    by Jim in St Louis on Tue Jan 27, 2015 at 05:19:47 AM EST
    I phrased that inelegantly.  You are all quite right, the age of the candidate should not be an issue. It just struck me as hillaryarious that anyone would suggest that the Dems will run a new and fresh campaign of ideals to appeal to youth.  Already its just war on women, tax the rich, lots of unfunded mandates and won't someone please think of the children.  

    As opposed to your Republcans (none / 0) (#130)
    by Yman on Tue Jan 27, 2015 at 07:37:26 AM EST
    ... with their slash taxes, deficit spending, eliminate social programs, close the borders and ("thinking of the "children") war on the unborn.



    So (none / 0) (#68)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Jan 26, 2015 at 06:11:25 PM EST
    you're going to do the age thing when most of the people who vote Republican are over the age of 65? You guys never cease to amaze with your ability to drive people off.

    And I wasn't talking about her age. I was talking about ideas. All the GOP is offering up is theocracy, plantation economics and the culture war. The same thing they've been talking about for oh, 1/3 of a century.

    Kos does not represent much I hate to tell you. And it has nothing to do with age with them anyway. They are for Elizabeth Warren who is older than Hillary.


    I figure by the time the general (5.00 / 1) (#73)
    by nycstray on Mon Jan 26, 2015 at 06:45:47 PM EST
    campaign is over, the GOP will have p!ssed off quite a bit of the female population . . .   between ageism and sexism, oy, how low will they go . . .

    I am betting on Walker (none / 0) (#65)
    by FlJoe on Mon Jan 26, 2015 at 06:00:35 PM EST
     Koch Bros Bro, Corporate friendly, union busting,hippie punching hero of the TP. Definitely battle tested, enough of a culture warrior  from  "real America" to be palatable to the southern evangelicals. Some ethics and corruption baggage, don't they all, and his name ain't Bush

    Walker would have to earn his spurs first (none / 0) (#84)
    by MKS on Mon Jan 26, 2015 at 08:38:52 PM EST
    Run and lose this time and then run next time to win the nomination.

    Also, Republicans do not really understand the phenomenon of a blue state electing a Republican as Governor. California, New York and Massachusetts do this regularly.  (Some) Dems can vote for a Republican for governor but refuse to vote for that person for President.  It is one thing to vote for a cheap SOB to run the state; an entirely different thing to vote for that person to control the military and nominate judges.....


    Wisconsin is not and was not a blue state (5.00 / 2) (#98)
    by Towanda on Mon Jan 26, 2015 at 09:37:37 PM EST
    It's a myth, like much that is made up about Wisconsin.  Only Milwaukee and Madison are blue, and sometimes LaCrosse (aka Might as Well Be Minnesota).  As Milwaukee's population has decreased -- owing to Republican governors' policies for many years now -- the rest of Wisconsin, always red red red, has increased its influence.

    Ignore the presidential elections, which bring out the vote in Milwaukee and Madison.  Otherwise, most of the governors have been Republicans, half of the Senators, most of the Congresspersons, etc.  

    And the state legislature sometimes splits, for a form of checks and balances -- but it now is red red red in both houses.  And it will stay that way, as will the state in most races, because of redistricting.  (And because the state Dems have been in disarray for a decade now, at least.)


    We can't forget that infamous con-man (none / 0) (#186)
    by christinep on Tue Jan 27, 2015 at 12:41:45 PM EST
    Joseph McCarthy.  When I space that out in thinking about winning political strategies with a focus on the Midwest, my political-science husband reminds me about that part of Wisconsin history.

    A question for you, Towanda: From early on, your observations about the dynamics with Scott Walker and his confrontational approach to Unions--as well as the Machiavellian pitting of public & private employees against each other--have been very accurate.  So ... How far does this original stalking horse for the Kochs  go now and How does he do it and What are his vulnerabilities? (Yes, multiple questions in the guise of one.) Your analysis would be helpful.  (If I could sneak in another little bitty ? ...What kind of relationship does he seem to have had with Paul Ryan??)


    And our GOP govs (none / 0) (#97)
    by nycstray on Mon Jan 26, 2015 at 09:37:37 PM EST
    aren't quite the whack jobs as a red state Rep gov.

    I do think it will be awhile before we see another one in CA though. The D's have pretty solidly locked the state up . . .


    All statewide offices (none / 0) (#102)
    by MKS on Mon Jan 26, 2015 at 11:22:30 PM EST
    are held by Democrats.  And we have a lot of statewide offices:  auditor, controller, treasurer (I think), Secretary of State, Insurance Commissioner.

    No Republican will be elected to state wide office for at least a generation.

    This dominance goes back to Prop 187 that targeted Latinos.  California used to be a toss up state.


    I don't think I was here for 187 (none / 0) (#114)
    by nycstray on Tue Jan 27, 2015 at 01:08:38 AM EST
    but I'll take a generation of the GOP being shut out  :D

    1994 (none / 0) (#197)
    by MKS on Tue Jan 27, 2015 at 01:50:14 PM EST
    When Gingrich took over Congress.  DiFi won by a few thousand votes....

    For Walker, (none / 0) (#170)
    by KeysDan on Tue Jan 27, 2015 at 11:36:16 AM EST
    I like the "....run and lose.." part.

    Romney wants to run by highlighting (none / 0) (#134)
    by MO Blue on Tue Jan 27, 2015 at 08:12:19 AM EST
    his Mormon faith?

    Does he not realize that many Evangelical Christians consider the Mormon religion a heathen religion or a cult? While they might normally be a reliable R vote, many will not vote for someone who is a Mormon.  


    A pretty scathing critique of American Sniper (none / 0) (#7)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Jan 26, 2015 at 12:44:31 PM EST
    In book and movie form

    I have one beef, the declaration made that the Iraq War was illegal.  BTD covered that ground over and over again because so many on the Left wouldn't stop wasting energy and time.  It was not illegal.  It may have been immoral but that doesn't equal illegal.

    More Chris Kyle's claims from the book though that are very disturbing if found to be true.  This critic claims that in the book Kyle says that he and other SEALs did not observe the rules of engagement.  And Kyle claimed in the book he simply killed every male between certain ages ( wonder how he knew their age, did he check their ID first?).  That would be a war crime for starters, and murder, and well...illegal.  He places other SEALs on the chopping block with him too.

    own opinions, but I took a quick look at your link and this particular sentence intrigued me:
    On an appearance on Conan O'Brien's show he laughs about accidentally shooting an Iraqi insurgent.

    so I watched the Conan interview that the sentence linked to.

    The sentence is completely not accurate.

    Kyle did not at all laugh "about accidentally shooting an Iraqi insurgent." He and Conan, somewhat modestly, joked that an insurgent Kyle shot - from over a mile away - was simply a lucky accident, that he dropped the gun and it went off and that's how the guy got shot.

    That's the only claim your article makes that interested me, so that's the only one I looked up, and I found it to be false.


    Sorry (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by sj on Mon Jan 26, 2015 at 02:30:08 PM EST
    I don't see a material difference between this
    On an appearance on Conan O'Brien's show he laughs about accidentally shooting an Iraqi insurgent.
    And your more long-winded explanation about how he and Conan O'Brian came to be joking about accidentally shooting an Iraqi insurgent.

    If a comment of mine is too "long-winded" for you, please feel free not to read it.

    To Me... (none / 0) (#29)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Jan 26, 2015 at 02:50:39 PM EST
    ...one is inferring he was laughing at shooting someone he did not want to shoot, accidentally.  When in fact he was laughing about the gun going off accidentally and shooting an intended target.

    It distorted what happened and and made Kyle seem to be flippant about shooting shooting someone he didn't mean to shoot, when he wasn't.  There was obvious bias with that set of circumstances, so you have to assume that same biased was applied throughout the article.

    It's a valid point IMO.


    Holy crapoly. Scott, et al, (none / 0) (#108)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Jan 27, 2015 at 12:36:11 AM EST
    after reading all these comments, I think many (perhaps most?) commenters here are completely in the dark about what occurred, both w/respect to Kyle and the insurgent, and Kyle and Conan.

    Please, all, let me try to make this simple.

    Kyle did not accidentally shoot this insurgent that he and Conan were discussing, despite the website MT linked to saying that he did.

    He also didn't then go on Conan and joke about his accidental shooting of this, or any, insurgent that we're aware of.

    'Cuz he didn't accidentally shoot this or any insurgent that we're aware of.

    His gun did not accidentally go off.

    Kyle deliberately and carefully shot an insurgent from, and this is the point, 1.2 freaking miles away.

    1.2 miles! That's insanely far.

    Conan, discussing this particular insane shot, then kidded Kyle saying the shot was lucky or an accident or something.

    And Kyle appreciated the kidding, and said something like "Yeah, I dropped the gun and it went off" or something similar.

    That's it.

    Maybe kidding each other in this way is just a guy thing...


    I don't think your explanation is helping. (5.00 / 2) (#150)
    by Anne on Tue Jan 27, 2015 at 09:46:47 AM EST
    Finding out that he meant to shoot and kill the guy doesn't make it any funnier than if it was an accident.

    Maybe Conan was "joking" with Kyle because when all else fails, we joke.  When we get too close to uncomfortable truths, we joke.  Maybe it was a case of he either makes a joke of it, or he has to confront the reality that what this guy was doing in his government's name, we put people in prison for when they do it in their own name.

    We joke when we're afraid.

    And now we have Nicholas Irving, aka "the Reaper."

    Are we celebrating these people now?  I don't get that.


    Or maybe when a guy plans and executes (2.00 / 1) (#169)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Jan 27, 2015 at 11:35:59 AM EST
    a skillful and amazing shot on, say, a pool table, or basketball court, or a 1.2 mile rifle shot in Iraq, or whatever, and another guy, impressed, recognizes the accomplishment by kidding the first guy by saying "lucky shot," or something along those lines, thereby tacitly complimenting the guy who made the shot, and the guy who made the shot then smiles and responds, "yeah, pure luck," or something similar.

    I'm not sure if the two guys care if anyone else "gets" their exchange.


    An amazing shot on the pool table, or (5.00 / 1) (#178)
    by Anne on Tue Jan 27, 2015 at 12:14:09 PM EST
    the basketball court, or the golf course doesn't kill anyone.

    I guess I just don't understand the glory and adulation that's pouring down on this man who was a professional killer.  

    Does this mean we should bring back the firing squad?

    Even the hunters I know - and I have a few in my family - understand the concept of celebrating the skill without making a joke out of what they really did: take a life.

    "Oh, you're so lucky - you killed someone from a mile away!"

    Yeah, that's just hilarious...


    have ever recognized and complimented each other on a good shot that killed an animal, I would say the hunters in your family are like no others in history.

    And with that I think this discussion has officially jumped the shark...


    They don't joke about it. (5.00 / 1) (#189)
    by Anne on Tue Jan 27, 2015 at 01:01:31 PM EST
    They admire the skill involved in bringing an animal down, and there's definitely some male bonding going on, but there aren't any killing jokes.  

    I thought I explained that, but maybe you don't read too well.


    Conan admired the skill involved in a 1.2 mile shot and kidded/male-bonded with Kyle about that shot, and that there weren't any "killing jokes," as much as you keep trying to make it so.

    Nicholas Irving (none / 0) (#202)
    by KeysDan on Tue Jan 27, 2015 at 02:07:43 PM EST
    was a guest panelist on Comedy Central's new Nightly Show, with Larry Wilmore.  The topic of discussion was the movie, "American Sniper."  Panelist Paul Reickhoff, CEO of Iraq and Afghan Veterans claimed Sniper was a success because it was a good movie.

    Reickhoff has long been an opponent of the Iraq war, offering a scathing criticism of the war and Bush in his book, "Changing Ghosts."  However, his take on the movie was that it brings needed attention to the needs of veterans and that was almost good enough.

    Matt Taibbi, the investigative reporter, whose written review of Sniper in Rolling Stone opined that the film was politically idiotic and "almost too dumb to criticize," presented a much milder criticism as a panelist, saying that his beef was the historical omissions and lack of context of  Iraq as the wrong war against the wrong country.  Matt seems almost apologetic in the presence of veterans, saying that did not mean to criticize our soldiers.

    Nicolas Irving, the Reaper, was yet another panelist, who although suffering apparently from PTSD (he said he had gone through a period of drinking starting at 6 am) was unnerving.  The casual, rolling off a log, description of being a sniper who killed at least 33 human beings and acknowledging that he did not (and does not) bother himself with reasons for the war, one way or another, was jarring.  Probably a coping mechanism for a needy patient rather than for contribution as a panelist on a late-night comedy show. But, unsettling all the same.  

    Perhaps, Larry Wilmore saved the night, with his comic relief: Bradley Cooper, he felt, was the "new R-rated Jesus," and the best line in response to Sniper being a box office smash bringing in $200 million was that amount of money was spent in about 40 seconds of the war in Iraq.


    If accurate, your comment (none / 0) (#146)
    by oculus on Tue Jan 27, 2015 at 09:25:06 AM EST
    is helpful, though lengthy.

    Ha! (none / 0) (#163)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Jan 27, 2015 at 11:15:54 AM EST
    Look, I could see how someone (none / 0) (#13)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Jan 26, 2015 at 01:30:09 PM EST
    Would feel disgusted by joking about killing another human being.  He did joke about the shot, and the it was an accident that he killed the guy, and he laughed.

    I didn't feel disgusted.  But think about where I have been hanging since 911 and then think about someone who walked their five year old to school and then watched that while feeding the baby. It's a little unhinged in a nurturing civilized setting.


    Your linked website/the sentence says (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon Jan 26, 2015 at 02:07:02 PM EST
    Kyle killed someone accidentally and then laughed about it.

    That is completely inaccurate. Kyle did not kill someone accidentally.

    He and Conan did joke, in a self-effacing way, that this one shot he did, where he shot a guy from over a mile away, was not a shot that was skillful, but rather, they joked that he dropped his gun and it went off and that's how the shot happened.

    Maybe your author's sentence was inartful, that he/she was unknowingly misleading. Or maybe not, who knows.

    I'm not going to research the rest the author's many claims to see if they are false too.

    It does make me chuckle that the author seems to be shocked that a hollywood movie might take some liberties with actual events in order to create more drama. I wonder if he/she has the same quarrels with "The Imitation Game" or "Selma?"


    I realize that your emphasis here is on (5.00 / 5) (#20)
    by Anne on Mon Jan 26, 2015 at 02:23:50 PM EST
    the facts, and I'm not saying those aren't important, but I find myself thinking that, okay, so let's say the article wasn't accurate as to what Kyle and Conan were joking about, but that it is accurate to say they were joking.

    I can't find the funny part, no matter how hard I try.

    It's funny that the gun went off?  It's funny that Kyle has such a magical sniper touch that even when he drops the gun, he manages to hit a human target? Who dies?

    Sorry - I just don't get it.


    Fair enough, we all have things which may (none / 0) (#26)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon Jan 26, 2015 at 02:46:12 PM EST
    seem funny to us that aren't to others.

    If the subject is someone getting (5.00 / 2) (#86)
    by MKS on Mon Jan 26, 2015 at 08:41:06 PM EST
    killed, it is not funny at all imo.

    Not that I would expect you to find the interview at all entertaining or interesting, but sometimes it does help to know what is being discussed.

    This thread has been helpful (none / 0) (#198)
    by MKS on Tue Jan 27, 2015 at 01:56:16 PM EST
    I decided to read a little more.  Jesse Ventura has won a defamation lawsuit against Kyle's estate based on false statements in Kyle's book.

    Kyle is apparently not the sensitive solider that Bradley Cooper turned him into.


    On this we agree: (none / 0) (#200)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Jan 27, 2015 at 02:02:36 PM EST
    Kyle is apparently not the sensitive solider that Bradley Cooper turned him into.

    But then again, should we ever accept at face value 100% of a hollywood movie's dramatic depiction of a real person?

    I'd say no, but that's just me.


    I think you are searching for any scrap (none / 0) (#19)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Jan 26, 2015 at 02:21:49 PM EST
    Of a reason to not have to look under anymore Chris Kyle rocks or see anything pertaining to this issue that you don't want to see.

    You don't have to.  It's a free country.

    I can ask about someone's claims that he made in a book about his deeds during the Iraq War.  I don't particularly want to feed the monster though, because turns out the proceeds aren't going to soldier charity as he claimed either.  I hope to check the book for free, or perhaps someone here has the book.  Will do so the next visit to the library or Barnes and Noble.  If he bragged about or discussed ignoring rules of engagement though, he bragged about or discussed committing war crimes.


    of a reason to find dirt under Chris Kyle rocks or see anything pertaining to this issue that you don't want to see.

    Whatever that even means.

    Anyway, "If he bragged about or discussed ignoring rules of engagement though, he bragged about or discussed committing war crimes." ?!

    Why try to dirty up the dude with an "If?"

    Why not just find out if he did or did not discuss doing this, and if he did, call him out on it.


    Okay, you made me look (5.00 / 4) (#44)
    by Yman on Mon Jan 26, 2015 at 03:43:32 PM EST
    In his book, Kyle was complaining about Rules of Engagement, argues we shouldn't have them, then says their were "unofficial" ROE i.e. kill every male between 16 and 65.:

    The rules are drawn up by lawyers who are trying to protect the admirals and generals from the politicians; they're not written by people who are worried about the guys on the ground getting shot...

    Our ROEs when the war kicked off were pretty simple: If you see anyone from about sixteen to sixty-five and they're male, shoot 'em. Kill every male you see.  That wasn't the official language, but that was the idea.

    Now, if Kyle did indeed follow those "unofficial" ROEs, that would clearly be a war crime.  He doesn't give any specific examples, so it could be that he's smart enough not to put that in print.  Or, given his penchant for false bravado and just making $hit up, it could just be more BS.

    Who knows.


    Not the framework for a hero though (none / 0) (#74)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Jan 26, 2015 at 07:45:54 PM EST
    Damaged Veteran, sure.  Hero, no.

    Thank you for looking that up for me (none / 0) (#80)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Jan 26, 2015 at 08:20:51 PM EST
    No problem (5.00 / 1) (#92)
    by Yman on Mon Jan 26, 2015 at 09:16:20 PM EST
    I have the book and have seen the movie, but I already knew about the stories he made up before I saw it.  Kind'a ruined it for me.

    Perhaps it is a better way to see (none / 0) (#147)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Jan 27, 2015 at 09:26:27 AM EST
    The film.  I'll watch it knowing that it is completely a fictional work :). The title of the book just put me off, so did not read it.  Don't know if I will in the future.  Awfully hard to want to give any energy to a work that seems to support Special Forces or any military member ignoring the rules of engagement.

    So... "hearts and minds" really meant (none / 0) (#109)
    by Mr Natural on Tue Jan 27, 2015 at 12:37:38 AM EST
    "kill shots" to hearts or minds.

    And George W.?  He's painting doggie pictures.


    I'm thinking it was deliberately phrased (none / 0) (#15)
    by Jim in St Louis on Mon Jan 26, 2015 at 02:05:05 PM EST
     that way and intended to deceive.  

    Good call-out.


    I wasted 9 minutes watching that (none / 0) (#112)
    by McBain on Tue Jan 27, 2015 at 12:57:42 AM EST

    More biased talk about Kyle the person, the war, and other stuff but not much talk about Eastwood's filmmaking.

    My take is that Eastwood didn't get in the way of his film with too many camera tricks.  It seemed straight forward but I'll have to see it again.


    It wasn't a critique of Eastwoods filmmaking (5.00 / 1) (#145)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Jan 27, 2015 at 09:14:50 AM EST
    It seems that many critics are concerned that American Sniper will be considered some kind of documentary instead of a work of fiction.  I think I share that concern too.

    I'm good with making sure people understand the differences between the fictional character Chris Kyle and the man Chris Kyle.


    Rudderless... (none / 0) (#22)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Jan 26, 2015 at 02:28:58 PM EST
    ...saw it this weekend, how is that movie not on the top nomination for everything.

    Fantastically depressing and heart breaking movie, one of the best I have seen over the past year, if not the best.  

    Whomever recommended it here, thank you.

    Is it another film that will never play in (none / 0) (#167)
    by ruffian on Tue Jan 27, 2015 at 11:30:03 AM EST
    Orlando? Still looking for 'Whiplash' and 'Mr. Turner' also.

    I did see 'Boyhood', and liked it more than I expected. Also saw 'Inherent Vice' and am surprised it did not get more nominations.


    Federal District Judge, Callie Granade, (none / 0) (#48)
    by KeysDan on Mon Jan 26, 2015 at 03:54:13 PM EST
    an appointee of President George W. Bush, issued a 14-day stay on Sunday to her Friday ruling that overturned  Alabama's statutory and constitutional ban on same-sex marriage so as to permit Alabama Attorney General, Luther Strange, to appeal to the Eleventh Circuit at Atlanta.  The Judge's stay bolded the section entitled: " The Attorney General has not shown that he is likely to succeed on appeal."  

    Mr. Strange said that the Judge's stay was "a step in the right direction."    The Alabama Probate Association (probate judges in Alabama are responsible for issuing licenses) proclaimed, on Saturday, that probate judges could not issue marriage licenses to same sex couples across the state, since the Federal ruling only applied to the two plaintiffs in the case.   Hopefully, the probate judges will take a two-week crash course in law so that they will not become reprobate judges come February 9.

    The Eleventh Circuit at Atlanta recently refused to grant an extension of a stay requested by Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi.  Marriage become legal for all couples in Florida as of January 5, 2015.

    In what could become a humorous aside to this (5.00 / 2) (#60)
    by CoralGables on Mon Jan 26, 2015 at 05:36:29 PM EST
    Gay Alabama lawmaker threatens to reveal colleagues' affairs

    MONTGOMERY - State Rep. Patricia Todd, D-Birmingham, had a warning for her Statehouse colleagues over the weekend.

    "I will not stand by and allow legislators to talk about `family values' when they have affairs, and I know of many who are and have," Todd, the state's only openly gay lawmaker, said on Facebook over the weekend. "I will call our elected officials who want to hide in the closet out."

    Wow, that is some bold statement (none / 0) (#87)
    by MKS on Mon Jan 26, 2015 at 08:42:50 PM EST
    She is in the South and hitting them hard....It will be interesting to watch.

    Winston accuser appears in a new documentary (none / 0) (#66)
    by Slado on Mon Jan 26, 2015 at 06:01:23 PM EST

    Even though it's meaningless to her I sure am glad they lost that Rose Bowl game to the buckeyes.

    I mean Ducks (none / 0) (#67)
    by Slado on Mon Jan 26, 2015 at 06:02:03 PM EST
    Are you deliberately attempting to bait (none / 0) (#88)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Jan 26, 2015 at 08:46:29 PM EST
    ZtoA? Such a Ducks insult!

    No (none / 0) (#104)
    by Slado on Mon Jan 26, 2015 at 11:36:36 PM EST
    Just typing to fast.

    It looks like a good documentary.  I'll be interested in seeing it.


    Right on time -- (none / 0) (#72)
    by Uncle Chip on Mon Jan 26, 2015 at 06:39:43 PM EST
    As expected the NFL has supposedly found someone to fall on his air pump for the Brady Bunch:

    Looks Like The NFL Will Try To Pin 'Deflategate' On A Locker Room Attendant

    Allegedly, the locker room attendant took the New England Patriots' footballs to "another area" before they made their way onto the field for the AFC Championship Game against the Indianapolis Colts. A video supposedly exists.

    I wonder if Belichick calls him "AC" -- for Atmospheric Conditions

    If so, he holds a world record (5.00 / 1) (#111)
    by Mr Natural on Tue Jan 27, 2015 at 12:41:26 AM EST
    for controlled deflation of footballs:

    The video reportedly shows the attendant taking two bags of footballs -- 12 balls to be used by the Patriots, and 12 by the Colts -- into a bathroom for approximately 90 seconds, according to PFT.

    If you think about it (none / 0) (#117)
    by Slado on Tue Jan 27, 2015 at 04:53:26 AM EST
    It wouldn't really take that long to just take the needle stick it in the little hole and let out a couple puffs of air.

    If we assume, and I think it's a fairly safe assumption, them doing this every game would make you pretty proficient at it.

    Once the balls are set at a certain pressure ballboy would know exactly how many puffs with the needle it takes to get to the inflation level to Tom likes.   You could do all 12 balls in a matter minutes.

    Knowing the patriots it was probably practiced like a NASCAR pit stop.


    Improv won't cut it. (none / 0) (#125)
    by Mr Natural on Tue Jan 27, 2015 at 07:03:18 AM EST
    Personally, I'd engineer a widget which would automatically dump air to a specified (variable) pressure.  A widget you could preset beforehand, then walk down a row of balls, jamming it in the inflation valve, letting it dump air until it stopped, withdrawing and moving to the next ball.  Accuracy and repeatability with no thinking required.  

    Remember, you've got only 90 seconds to get the balls out of the bag, line them up, dump the air pressure in each of twelve balls, return them to the bag, and hustle out the bathroom door.

    Complicating the choice of pressure would be the decreasing pressure in the ball as it cooled, or increasing pressure as it warmed, depending on outside temperature and how the balls are stored.

    I'm amazed at the rapidity with which people have jumped to judgement of this case.


    Why take the balls (none / 0) (#136)
    by Uncle Chip on Tue Jan 27, 2015 at 08:31:51 AM EST
    into the bathroom at all if all you needed to do was  deflate your own bladder. Just leave the bags of balls right outside the door.

    If your bladder is so full that you have to make an emergency stop to the bathroom before delivering the Colt and Patriot balls to the field, then odds are that it would take more than 90 seconds to deflate your bladder.

    On the other hand 90 seconds is plenty of time to dump 12 balls out of a bag, put a needle in 11 of them for a second, and then back into the bag.

    No air gauge is needed -- put the needle in, count to two, take it out and it goes into the bag. If you have done it enough times you know how long to keep the needle in to reduce the air pressure by 16% and how to do it quickly and efficiently.

    It's not nuclear physics and does not require a scientist or a urologist to figure it out.


    Exactly (none / 0) (#137)
    by Slado on Tue Jan 27, 2015 at 08:41:58 AM EST
    And like I said they do this for every game they would practice it on non game days to get the timing down.

    It justifies defies reality that they would just all of the sudden do this the night of the AFC championship game.

    Either this ball boy is a lone wolf or this is just regular procedure for the Patriots.

    As for rush to judgment I don't know what else someone could do but judge.  The NFL had the balls and they were fine. The patriots got the balls and then they weren't.

    It will be interesting to see how this plays out if the Patriots win the Super Bowl and then we find out they have been deflating balls for years.


    It defies logic that anyone would (5.00 / 1) (#142)
    by Anne on Tue Jan 27, 2015 at 09:05:38 AM EST
    mess with those balls given Brady's comments on Saturday.

    From the presser (bold is mine):

    Brady: I didn't alter the ball in anyway. Our equipment guys do a great job breaking the balls in.

    When I pick those footballs out, at that point to me they're perfect.

    I don't want anyone touching the balls after that. I don't want anyone rubbing them. Putting any air in them, taking any air out. To me those balls are perfect and that's what I expect when I show up on the field.

    I mean, if that's how the QB feels about the footballs, who in his or her right mind is going to go all lone-wolf to try to "help?"


    I'm wondering (none / 0) (#144)
    by Uncle Chip on Tue Jan 27, 2015 at 09:11:19 AM EST
    if besides the video of him going into the bathroom with the bags of balls that they might also have some of his DNA on those balls where it shouldn't be -- like right around the needle hole of 11 of them.

    OMG DNA that's right (none / 0) (#151)
    by CoralGables on Tue Jan 27, 2015 at 09:58:19 AM EST
    They could find it in the urinal.

    Ha! (none / 0) (#171)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Jan 27, 2015 at 11:40:59 AM EST
    Come On... (none / 0) (#143)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Jan 27, 2015 at 09:08:27 AM EST
    ...let a couple puffs out ?

    This was the AFC championship and those balls had to be exact in that low enough to help, yet not enough for it to be obvious.  Fail on the second part.

    They were all the same pressure, some kind of measuring devise had to be used.  I see hand pumps with gauges, the size of a large syringe.

    Anyone could let a couple puffs out on the sidelines, they had to go into the equipment room to get correct pressures.

    What is crazy about this whole thing is they scored ~1.5 x the points after the under-inflated balls were removed at halftime.  Whatever advantage they give, at least in that game, is hardly negligible in regards to points on the board.


    2 TD's in the 1st half with the low pressure ball (none / 0) (#153)
    by CoralGables on Tue Jan 27, 2015 at 10:01:17 AM EST
    4 TD's in the 2nd with the right pressure ball.

    This whole thing has been so bizarre (none / 0) (#110)
    by Slado on Tue Jan 27, 2015 at 12:40:14 AM EST
    It is obvious that the NFL does not want to come to a conclusion before the Super Bowl.

    Now they are focusing on the six minutes between when the NFL let's go of the ball and the team takes it to the field.

    I've heard talk of a forensic investigation as well going through security tapes.

    I am glad Richard Sherman spoke out about the conflict of interest between the commissioner and the patriots owner.

    This is just another sign of how the commissioner can't run this league without screwing up the public image.  I think he is so gun shy after bounty gate that he's terrified to do something before the Super Bowl and get it wrong even though from the outside it all looks obvious.

    It's a shame because this is going to be a great Super Bowl. We should be talking about the players, the coaches and the possibility of Brady becoming the best QB ever instead of him being a cheater or a liar.


    Did you hear about the ex-'hawk, (none / 0) (#115)
    by nycstray on Tue Jan 27, 2015 at 01:13:36 AM EST
    that is now a Pat, that wants to go after injured 'hawk players?

    I will say, I am not surprised it's a no-name that is now a "person of interest". Not like that wasn't predicted and it's not going to help Brady or Beli at all.


    I wonder if the NFL honchos weren't ... (none / 0) (#121)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Jan 27, 2015 at 05:47:33 AM EST
    ... perhaps inspired by a certain SNL opening skit this past weekend.

    Benedict Cumberbatch (none / 0) (#76)
    by lentinel on Mon Jan 26, 2015 at 08:01:24 PM EST
    is on the griddle.

    He said that he thought that "colored actors" had more of an opportunity here in the USA than in Britain.

    He was excoriated for the use of this outdated term.
    He apologized and called himself an idiot.

    Now, if he had said, "actors of color".....

    Leave Benedict alooooone! (5.00 / 1) (#166)
    by ruffian on Tue Jan 27, 2015 at 11:26:13 AM EST
    My Black Friends (5.00 / 1) (#201)
    by Repack Rider on Tue Jan 27, 2015 at 02:02:36 PM EST
    ...refer to Black people as Black people, even if the complexion is barely darker than mine.

    I have never heard the term "African-American" in the actual 'hood.


    There really aren't many good ways to descibe (none / 0) (#94)
    by McBain on Mon Jan 26, 2015 at 09:18:59 PM EST
    someone's race.  "actors of color" might not be offensive but it sounds ridiculous.  Does that mean there are "actors not of color".  Who gets to be referred to as "of color"?

    I think the way it works is whatever terms are acceptable today, will be eventually become offensive if the wrong people use them.


    I was (none / 0) (#99)
    by lentinel on Mon Jan 26, 2015 at 09:39:45 PM EST
    referring to the currently acceptable, "people of color" - as opposed to the currently reviled, "colored people".

    Here is an article in the NYTimes from 1988 that discusses this semantic conundrum: LINK

    By the way, Stanley Crouch, the writer and recipient of the McArthur Genius Grant routinely uses the word "Negro". It is making a comeback in some circles.


    Don't you think (none / 0) (#138)
    by Slado on Tue Jan 27, 2015 at 08:43:58 AM EST
    This also has something to do with the fact that he is not from here?

    In fact what is the term that is acceptable in Great Britain?


    Yes... (none / 0) (#187)
    by lentinel on Tue Jan 27, 2015 at 12:48:21 PM EST
    I was wondering about that.

    The term, "African-American" isn't apt.


    At least I have the satisfaction... (none / 0) (#91)
    by desertswine on Mon Jan 26, 2015 at 09:03:57 PM EST
    of knowing that ex-gov McDonnell of VA is cooling his heels in jail.
    Oh wait a minute...   it's beginning to look like he's going to skate.

    Good for the Fourth Circuit appeals court (none / 0) (#100)
    by Peter G on Mon Jan 26, 2015 at 10:17:53 PM EST
    granting McDonnell bail pending appeal.  Absolutely the correct decision.

    War on Alaska (none / 0) (#95)
    by Politalkix on Mon Jan 26, 2015 at 09:24:37 PM EST
    After declaring a war on Christmas in December, the President has declared war on Alaska in January by seeking federal wilderness protection from oil exploration link .But he still has to contend with Sarah and she won't bend her back.

    Go Sarah! Run for President!

    Why Is Everything to the GOP... (5.00 / 1) (#148)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Jan 27, 2015 at 09:30:23 AM EST
    ...some sort of physical altercation.  The newly un-GOP governor might want look up the word assault in a dictionary.
    The Republican congressional delegation, along with Alaska's new governor, Bill Walker, sent out a joint news release Sunday morning calling the action "an unprecedented assault on Alaska." Walker changed his GOP affiliation to undeclared in running for office last year.

    Really, declaring war now mean keeping oil companies off Federal Lands.

    "They've decided that today was the day that they were going to declare war on Alaska. Well, we are ready to engage," said U.S. Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, and chair of the Senate energy committee.

    I mean seriously, preserving land is not a war or an assault in any sense of the word, those are words better used for what the drillers want to do.

    This is what Palin and Co bring to the table, grunts and groans of a cave dweller, same with the exclamation points and all caps, they don't make any sense other than signifying to simpletons it's bad.

    Every year it's harder not to cry when elections are on the horizon.  I asked Jim in SL what was wrong with Hillary (3 or 4 times), I got "horrible lies".  They are not even bothering to make a case, it's just "Us good, them bad", and exclamation points behind Hillary.  No wonder we keep getting brain dead GOP politicians, the entire voting class is brain dead, who else would they elect.


    apparently (none / 0) (#132)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Jan 27, 2015 at 07:57:21 AM EST
    she's seriously considering a run for president. It's just amazing the bubble that so many Republicans exist in.

    No, she really isn't. (none / 0) (#141)
    by jbindc on Tue Jan 27, 2015 at 08:55:00 AM EST
    Don't think you, or I, or anyone else here (none / 0) (#154)
    by CoralGables on Tue Jan 27, 2015 at 10:02:37 AM EST
    has any idea.

    it's safe to say (none / 0) (#161)
    by jbindc on Tue Jan 27, 2015 at 11:08:11 AM EST
    That Sarah Palin likes stirring people up and getting attention, and she may even fantasize about BEING president, but no, she isn't seriously thinking of starting a grueling campaign in a crowded field.  She would get lost in all that.

    But she does like to tease people and get them all a twitter.  Especially liberals - who have the same Pavlovian response to her as they do with Ann Coulter.


    It's also safe to say (5.00 / 1) (#203)
    by Repack Rider on Tue Jan 27, 2015 at 02:09:16 PM EST
    ...that anyone who respects Ms. Palin is even dumber than she is.  How do adults who own broadcasting networks dignify this moron with air time?

    Funny that liberal laughter at Palin's moronic presentations is interpreted as "fear of Palin" by her supporters.  Defending her would require interpreting her speeches into English, which is difficult.  It's a lot easier to stick out your tongue at liberals than make sense of what she says.

    I guess I was terrified at Bozo the Clown also, although I didn't laugh quite as hard because I knew he was TRYING to be funny.


    I'm sure it also draws contributions (none / 0) (#181)
    by ruffian on Tue Jan 27, 2015 at 12:23:55 PM EST
    to whatever her current scam is. Because 'fiscal conservatives' love throwing money at her idiocies. She is the best con artist we have had on the scene for a long time.

    So how are my TL friends in the blizzard doing? (none / 0) (#140)
    by Slado on Tue Jan 27, 2015 at 08:46:49 AM EST
    Hard to tell how bad it really is from the talking heads on the news this morning.

    Doesn't look too bad from the outside reporters.

    Great (5.00 / 1) (#190)
    by CST on Tue Jan 27, 2015 at 01:02:07 PM EST
    I haven't left the house since last night.  Still coming down hard, 20.8 inches so far but no visible sign of letting up.  Still have power.  I agree it doesn't look that bad coming down, but it just keeps coming, and I couldn't drive down my street if I wanted to despite the fact that it's been plowed multiple times since this started. It's a lot of snow, but it's cold, so it's the light fluffy kind and it doesn't appear to be causing too many power outages.  So as long as you're stocked up (I am) and stay home it's not bad at all.

    We have a new governor and a newish mayor who are both trying to prove they aren't gonna f*ck it up.  So they closed the T, and put in a travel ban in eastern MA, basically forcing most employers to let everyone stay home.


    Looks Like Boston... (none / 0) (#149)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Jan 27, 2015 at 09:30:57 AM EST
    ...got the worst of it.

    yea but (none / 0) (#193)
    by CST on Tue Jan 27, 2015 at 01:10:02 PM EST
    we're probably used to this stuff more than places south of here (NY, NJ, Philly, etc...) so it's not as big a deal.

    Some power outages on the Cape/Islands - they get more wind and less snow.  Everywhere else is holding up fine though so it shouldn't take them too long to fix it once it dies down.


    Pretty much missed New Jersey (none / 0) (#156)
    by Yman on Tue Jan 27, 2015 at 10:06:10 AM EST
    Up until yesterday, they were predicting 18-24 inches, but it pushed out over the ocean @ 75 miles further east than expected and we just got the edge of it - @ 6-7 inches.

    Same with Philadelphia (5.00 / 1) (#162)
    by Peter G on Tue Jan 27, 2015 at 11:12:26 AM EST
    false alarm.  We had about 1-1/2 inches or less of powder. Now the sun is out.

    No Christie/Obama... (none / 0) (#158)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Jan 27, 2015 at 10:24:20 AM EST
    ...kumbaya moment ?

    I was looking forward to the right flipping out over Christie helping people and having the nerve to take a pic with the GD devil.


    Not even sure if he's here (none / 0) (#159)
    by Yman on Tue Jan 27, 2015 at 10:32:53 AM EST
    Lately he's been out of the state more than he's been here ... just the way I like it.

    The conservative wingnuts are going to give him a hard enough time when he throws his hat in, but I'm not feeling the least bit sorry for him.


    I was a huge fan of his at first (none / 0) (#165)
    by Slado on Tue Jan 27, 2015 at 11:24:03 AM EST
    But the more I see him operate the less I like him.

    Also he hasn't very good job at changing anything in his state that should make him anything other then a loud obnoxious Govenor .  Sure he won t some early victories but from then on it's basically been businesses as usual.   He is just too much to win over Republicans.

    Like I said it's Jeb Bush or Scott Walker who will be the nominee.  I hope for Scott Walker just to shake things up but I wouldn't be surprised if Jeb gets serious that he gets the nomination.  Republicans just can't resist the bland establishment candidate.


    He Was on the TV... (none / 0) (#199)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Jan 27, 2015 at 01:57:56 PM EST
    ...in the his 'Everyday Day Man' uniform.  I assume he was doing it from NJ.

    Looks like Boston and the Cape (none / 0) (#176)
    by christinep on Tue Jan 27, 2015 at 12:10:47 PM EST
    got hit with a powerhouse. Right now, I'm waiting to hear from a good friend who lives in the Eastham area. Current pictures from parts of Massachusetts--with the snow heights and covered cars--could almost be from Minnesota.  

    As for NYC & Philly & nearby: Makes one want to do a personal prediction about how many times the media can conjure up and blare premature reports about the Armageddon-magnitude storm ever to hit, etc.  I suppose that the hiatus in big political news, major accidents or murder trials or terror events, or even a CNN missing blonde with blue eyes could be all the reason the info-tainment industry needs.  

    It is always good new, tho, when storms or events are not quite as bad as feared.