Thursday Open Thread

I'm in court all day. Here's a new open thread, all topics welcome.

< GOP Admits eGhazi Political Witchhunt | Mexico's Latest Extraditions >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    I am now in season 4 (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Oct 01, 2015 at 01:46:02 PM EST
    Of The Wire

    And I'm enjoying watching Little Finger run for mayor of Baltimore

    This was maybe my favorite season, (5.00 / 2) (#29)
    by Anne on Thu Oct 01, 2015 at 02:12:17 PM EST
    but also one of the most depressing, because of the way it exposed the dysfunction of the school system - a system that my teacher friends tell me was not an exaggeration.

    It's making me want to watch it all over again.


    season 4 (none / 0) (#31)
    by CST on Thu Oct 01, 2015 at 02:14:52 PM EST
    Is the one that will break even the coldest heart.

    When the whole thing was re-released in HD I started down the path of watching it all over again.  But I only got through season 1 before I decided that as good as the show is, it's also not a rabbithole I need to go down repeatedly.  It really does take something out of you.  Or at least it did to me.


    It is relentless in its truth (none / 0) (#117)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Oct 01, 2015 at 08:55:54 PM EST
    But it manages to never present a black and white (no pun intended) story.
    As rotten as they all are, as it all is, it manages to tell a story of people just trying to survive.  Just when you really hate someone you are shown a side if them that makes you feel guilty for it.

    Yeah.  I will watch it again.  But it will be a while.


    Same here (none / 0) (#36)
    by McBain on Thu Oct 01, 2015 at 02:41:31 PM EST
    All the seasons are great but the 4th is probably the best.  I also have a teacher friend who told me it rang true.  

    I know that you work (none / 0) (#83)
    by Zorba on Thu Oct 01, 2015 at 06:30:19 PM EST
    in Baltimore, Anne, and I'm sure you know teachers there who know what's what.
    Son Zorba used to live in Baltimore at about the same time The Wire was first being made, when he was going to college and working.  And he lived in, shall I say, not the best neighborhood, which freaked his father and me out.
    He said at the time that The Wire was a very accurate representation of the way things were in Baltimore.
    A whole heck of a lot of things were, and still are, dysfunctional in Baltimore.  Not just the schools, but a whole lot of everything else.

    I think it's entirely possible (none / 0) (#17)
    by CST on Thu Oct 01, 2015 at 01:48:40 PM EST
    That the Wire made Martin O'Malley's presidential campaign impossible.

    But I'll be quiet now, because you aren't on season 5 yet.

    For me he'll always be Carcetti first.


    Sigh (none / 0) (#23)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Oct 01, 2015 at 01:53:49 PM EST
    You guys just will not stop. I guess I know what I'm doing Sunday.

    I remember when BTD used to rave about The Wire. You guys have now made it impossible for me not to watch all of it now.


    Well it's about dang time! (5.00 / 2) (#28)
    by ruffian on Thu Oct 01, 2015 at 02:09:34 PM EST
    Just settle in for a nice binge...you'll thank yourself.

    I actually like doing it (none / 0) (#37)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Oct 01, 2015 at 02:43:57 PM EST
    On DVD.  it's like it comes in chapters.  Makes deciding when to break a no brainier.

    That is true...when I binge the really good shows (none / 0) (#122)
    by ruffian on Thu Oct 01, 2015 at 09:38:39 PM EST
    I do miss having the few days to savor and appreciate the episode before the next one.

    I'm on the 2 DVDs (none / 0) (#124)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Oct 01, 2015 at 09:45:07 PM EST
    At once plan.  Like 11 bucks a month I think.  The turnaround is quick.  It pretty much always gives me one (3-4 episodes) to work on while the other is in turnaround.

    I do it because I have a sat internet connection so the download is limited.  I save it for other stuff.  Like the occaisional on demand


    Ohhhh (none / 0) (#38)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Oct 01, 2015 at 02:47:36 PM EST
    Also this morning on Mourning Joe they had a guy promoting the new Tivo Bolt.
    I think I may have to get one and replace my DISH DVR.

    really cool stuff like skipping whole commercial breaks with one touch.  And other cool stuff.  Sides I pay 10 or 12 bucks a month for the sh!tty dish toss off version.


    oh man, I have an old TiVo - (none / 0) (#40)
    by ruffian on Thu Oct 01, 2015 at 02:53:51 PM EST
    maybe it is time to replace.

    Funny, my Sony VCR had that whole commercial ff button 20 years ago...wonder why it took the digital world so long to catch up.


    Covet (none / 0) (#42)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Oct 01, 2015 at 03:11:53 PM EST
    but still needs a cable card.... (none / 0) (#43)
    by ruffian on Thu Oct 01, 2015 at 03:14:29 PM EST
    and probably this other signal converter thing i need for some stations form my cable provider...guess I will wait until my current one breaks...except the year of free service might make the new one a good deal...have to do some math.

    DAMN! (none / 0) (#44)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Oct 01, 2015 at 03:15:08 PM EST
    -- but not satellite TV or

    You guys make me feel... (none / 0) (#45)
    by kdog on Thu Oct 01, 2015 at 03:22:14 PM EST
    like such a luddite...up until last year my TV had a built-in VCR!  When that puppy finally blew, I got a HD capable cheapo flatscreen...but I've been too lazy to deal with FIOS and get the HD box, SD it still is.  

    Please don't change. I like knowing there (5.00 / 3) (#49)
    by vml68 on Thu Oct 01, 2015 at 04:59:05 PM EST
    is at least one other person out there like me whose response to Tivo, texting, Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, Snapchat, etc., is......
    Ummm, What??!

    I wouldn't have any of this stuff (none / 0) (#184)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Oct 02, 2015 at 11:19:23 AM EST
    If it wasn't for spouse and Josh. I'd be watching the old bubble screen TV. That was a sales pitch right there, when they got mom to agree to the first flat screen. The switch failed a few years in. So they bought a newer better flatscreen. And then they fixed the broken one and had two flat screens. Very clever there, never admitting to me that the broken TV was easily repaired until after the new flat screen was installed :)

    We do still have... (none / 0) (#191)
    by kdog on Fri Oct 02, 2015 at 11:54:17 AM EST
    one big box tube TV in the house, in the living room.  And long may she run! ;)

    At my moms house she has an old old school tv, small round screen built in to a big fancy oak cabinet, from the 50's I guess?  Had to move it once, when my grandfather died, thing ways a freakin' ton!  Doesn't work obviously, she uses it as furniture to put plants on and what not.  I always wondered if we should bring it to Antique Roadshow, might be worth something.  Not that I'm any rush to move that behemoth again;)


    Back in the day ... (none / 0) (#52)
    by sj on Thu Oct 01, 2015 at 05:07:01 PM EST
    When DVRs came out, I got a ReplayTV rather than Tivo (I went with the Betamax equivalent-- better than Tivo and doomed to fail) and it had Commercial Skip feature. It worked really, really well. In fact it worked so well that network advertising sued them.

    The networks sued ReplayTV for copyright infringement based on another automated commercial-skip feature.  They claimed that viewers were infringing copyright when they skipped ads during playback, that skipping "robs the advertisers," and that ReplayTV should be responsible...

    ...Unfortunately, the cost of the suit drove ReplayTV out of business before the court could rule on the networks' wacky theory.

    I don't know what became of the law suit against Dish TV referenced in that link. I'm not going to look it up either. I'm going to just go to a corner and sulk because I have wasted a LOT of time with FF/RW to skip commercials manually.


    I don't know how people managed to (5.00 / 4) (#39)
    by Anne on Thu Oct 01, 2015 at 02:52:08 PM EST
    wait a week in between episodes when it first aired...

    It really may be the best television ever.


    I have only watched season 1 so far. (none / 0) (#18)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Oct 01, 2015 at 01:49:05 PM EST
    Are you trying to make me binge?

    It so good (none / 0) (#21)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Oct 01, 2015 at 01:50:48 PM EST
    It really is.   But as I was advised, don't skip ahead.

    No Sir (5.00 / 2) (#24)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Oct 01, 2015 at 01:56:06 PM EST
    I have poodles to groom. I'll just set the table up in front of the TV.

    Btw (none / 0) (#25)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Oct 01, 2015 at 01:58:47 PM EST
    On the tv subject

    ruffian or whoever else,  I'm done with PreviouslyTV.

    I don't get it.  It used to be so good.  Help me out, what the hell happened?   New management?

    They now seem thrilled and obsessed with what I consider the worst of TV, Dancing With the freakin Stars and Survivor, and cpmpletely and consistently miss the point with the best of TV.
    They did nothing but trash great stuff like American Horror Story and Outlander and everything else worth seeing.

    The last straw was the latest on Bastard Executioner.

    Screw PTV.   I just deleted my book mark.


    I know I go there less and less (none / 0) (#30)
    by ruffian on Thu Oct 01, 2015 at 02:13:22 PM EST
    and don't listen to their podcast anymore. Too much on the crappy shows and nothing of substance on the good ones. A poor substitute for the old 'televison without pity' site where some of them started out.

    I haven't read their take on the latest episode of Bastard Executioner.  It was a little stabby for me...and I fell asleep in the middle, but that might have been the margarita. Replayed it to the end - I am so afraid of what horrible thing is going to happen to that nice countess and her servant girl that it is making me very uneasy.


    I think she will be good (none / 0) (#33)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Oct 01, 2015 at 02:27:53 PM EST
    The stupid PTV piece was right about ine thing, she is the heart.   The show is brutal.  But it's about brutal times.  I don't think it's gratuitous.  I like it very much.

    ... a TV show was on the 17-hour flight between Atlanta and Johannesburg, when I watched most of Seasons 3 and 4 of Showtime's "The Tudors." There wasn't anything else to do.

    This is Literally in the Subject Line... (5.00 / 2) (#20)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Oct 01, 2015 at 01:50:25 PM EST
    ...of an email I received today.
    Support Breast Cancer Awareness This Week at Malibu Tan!

    Remind your customers about cancer as they are about to sit under UV lights, that should bring them in.

    Speaking of absurd marketing, the Halloween Whopper, brace yourself, it gonna freak you out.


    Heh! Why not? (none / 0) (#50)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Oct 01, 2015 at 04:59:12 PM EST
    The idea that tanning salons somehow provide a "safe" way to bake oneself golden brown is entirely ludicrous, of course, and Malibu Tan's sponsorship of breast cancer awareness is totally illogical from a philosophical standpoint. But savvy business marketing has actually long excelled at hypocrisy.

    It's really no worse than this lede from a corporate press release: "Coca-Cola Joins With Pro Sports Teams to Fight Childhood Obesity."

    Such an initiative is completely consistent with company policy, which also incentivizes its corporate grantmaking to institutions like LSU's Pennington Biomedical Research Center, the lead agency conducting the five-year "International Study of Childhood Obesity, Lifestyle and the Environment." (Coincidentally, the PBS Newshour aired a great story last night about Coca-Cola's funding of such endeavors.)

    Not all that surprisingly, an analysis of such studies recently published in the journal PLOS | Medicine found that those which had been funded by soft drink companies and the U.S. sugar industry were five times more likely to find no link between sugar-sweetened beverages and human weight gain, than were studies whose authors reported no such financial conflicts.

    So, if LSU can find little or no correlation between the consumption of soft drink products and increased rates of obesity, and the New England Patriots can purloin themselves an NFL commissioner with very few people making much if any public fuss over it, then surely Malibu Tan can advertise its support for cancer awareness initiatives.

    As David Hannum, notable critic of the legendary impresario Phineas T. Barnum, once said of that man's legions of fans, "There's a sucker born every minute." After all, it's only cheating to the gullible if one actually gets caught and called out on it, and shameless hucksterism is the American way.

    Caveat emptor, mi amigo. Aloha.


    Donald... (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Oct 01, 2015 at 05:18:52 PM EST
    ...I was speaking more about the ridiculousness of reminding people about cancer as some sort of promo for tanning.

    It's like McDonald's starting a campaign to prove their meat is beef.

    I was commenting more on idiocy of not realizing that everyone who read that email surely thought about cancer and their product.


    ... people actually think about such things and then put two and two together. No doubt, you and most others here at TL would pick up on such incongruous marketing. I saw exactly what you were getting at when I first read your post.

    But it's also been my experience that most Americans would probably not make any such correlations, and would instead likely conclude that the good folks at Malibu Tan were being upstanding members of the local community by supporting a breast cancer awareness initiative.

    It's really no different than fast food companies' active sponsorship of high school sporting events. It's rather insidious, to be sure, but unfortunately such cross-promotional marketing does work because, like I said, most people simply won't bother to put two and two together.

    That's how Phillip Morris USA, the tobacco conglomerate which produces and distributes the Virginia Slims brand of cigarettes, long got away with sponsoring and marketing the women's professional tennis circuit as the "Virginia Slims Tour."



    Whooosh... (none / 0) (#59)
    by sj on Thu Oct 01, 2015 at 05:27:10 PM EST
    Ya think that's ironic... (none / 0) (#105)
    by kdog on Thu Oct 01, 2015 at 07:57:11 PM EST
    The NFL sells brain damage and the general destruction of the human body while supporting breast cancer awareness.

    And the kicker, none of the NFL pink moolah goes to research, just "awareness". I think we're all aware by now, hence it's just another racket.


    I know, I know. (none / 0) (#113)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Oct 01, 2015 at 08:14:29 PM EST
    It's rather annoying to see players on the field, adorned with fluorescent pink shoes, towels, etc. -- all on behalf of the Susan G. Komen Fund for GOP Wingbats Foundation.

    Christinep, I'm responding to your comment (5.00 / 3) (#48)
    by vml68 on Thu Oct 01, 2015 at 04:53:14 PM EST
    here as the Sunday open thread is full.

    Reports today indicate that another meeting was held this year--with no or little national coverage or announcement--when Pope Francis granted a short meeting with a transgendered individual from Spain.  
    Some suggest that the meetings/greetings with all manner of individuals on this earth may show a compassionate & caring pontiff...to all.  I guess that would be confusing for pigeon-holer types.

    Unless, the transgendered person was actively discriminating against other individuals, I honestly don't know how you can conflate the Pope meeting with Kim Davis and with his meeting a transgendered individual.

    IMO, what he did would be akin to meeting with volunteers from the Minuteman Project and telling them to "stay strong", while at the same time preaching compassion for immigrants.

    Charles Pierce over at Esquire.com ... (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Oct 01, 2015 at 05:35:07 PM EST
    ... ripped His Holiness a new one yesterday as word of his audience with Kim Davis was first leaked. But it's apparent that he's since given the matter some more thought and now has a few serious concerns about what really happened.

    Today, Pierce is making a rather compelling case that Pope Francis may have been punked by the notoriously conservative Archbishop Carlo Vigano, papal nuncio to the U.S. who was appointed by ex-Pope Benedict XVI, and who's apparently none too happy that the more liberal Francis was chosen as his mentor's successor. Pierce concludes that "Ratzinger's fingerprints are all over this story":

    "Vigano is a Benedict loyalist. Robert Moynihan, whose newsletter, Inside The Vatican, got the story first, is an actual lifelong Ratzinger protégé. And the Vatican press office acted just the way I'd want it to act, if I were the guy setting this up. First, it issues a silly non-denial denial, and then it merely confirms that the meeting occurred. At which point, the office clams up, leaving the story festering out there in the news cycle, and leaving the pope out there in the American culture war to twist in the wind. And, if this scenario is in any way accurate, it had its desired effect. The impact of what the pope actually said and did in America has been fairly well ratfcked.

    "Of course, this speculation depends vitally on the proposition that Papa Francesco didn't know who Kim Davis was, or anything about her current public display of faith-based goldbricking. I don't find that so very hard to believe; for all the attention it's gotten over here, it's not an international story of any consequence. (Whether he should have known about it, or have been briefed about it beforehand, is another matter entirely, as Dan Savage pointed out on Chris Hayes's program Wednesday night.)  And, it can be argued, I guess, that I'm engaging in apologetics here. But the whole thing is just a little too hinky, and I know too well how these birds operate. They've had millennia to get really good at it."



    So in other words (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by sj on Thu Oct 01, 2015 at 05:47:36 PM EST
    the Pope didn't really do what he did. Apparently it takes a lot of words to hold on so tightly to those preconceptions, and to convince oneself that ones lying eyes are at fault.

    We don't really know for how long, although it was likely not more than 10-15 minutes at most. And we really don't know what was said, because for his part Pope Francis isn't talking, while Davis's attorneys are chattering away about it for reasons that are quite obvious.

    We also don't know who arranged this meeting, why it was even scheduled, or whether the pope was in fact ever fully and truthfully briefed about the controversy surrounding this this woman prior to the papal audience. But what we do know, and should not necessarily dismiss out of hand, is the following:

    • The Vatican has a very long and often sordid history of palace intrigue that would do the Byzantines, the Borgias and even the Windsors proud; and

    • There are many arch-conservatives within the Roman Catholic Church itself who are not at all happy with the choice of the more liberal Cardinal Jorge Mario Bergoglio, S.J., of Buenos Aires to succeed the former pope, Benedict XVI, as Pope Francis;

    • One of those aforementioned unhappy arch-conservatives is Archbishop Carlo Vigano, the papal nuncio to the United States appointed by Benedict XVI, at whose residence Pope Francis stayed during his time in Washington, and which is where the short audience with Ms. Davis took place; and

    • The story about the Davis audience was first leaked by someone to the newsletter Inside the Vatican, which is run and edited by a longtime Benedict protégé, Robert Moynihan.

    Now, and speaking as a practicing Catholic, while I'm not at all happy with the fact that the meeting between His Holiness and Kim Davis even took place, I'm not going to presume to know what exactly happened here, and I'm not going to speculate any further about it in the absence of more detailed information.

    All I did was post and link Charles Pierce's own two respective takes on the matter, and even he noted that "it can be argued, I guess, that I'm engaging in apologetics here."



    We Have a Source... (none / 0) (#171)
    by ScottW714 on Fri Oct 02, 2015 at 10:30:18 AM EST
    ...to what was said, you do not, so who is making assumptions ?

    Again, who is to blame for having a meeting with an untrustworthy scoundrel, no anyone here...


    Unbelievable (1.00 / 1) (#66)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Oct 01, 2015 at 05:53:08 PM EST
    Seriously.  Tom Cruise would be proud

    No, it means that (none / 0) (#74)
    by christinep on Thu Oct 01, 2015 at 06:06:58 PM EST
    anyone can believe another ... and be given an impression/information about a purpose/meeting that is less than accurate.  We all know that; and, we all know that we really do not know anything about what preceded this meeting.  We speculate from our own positions: If we want to give a benefit of the doubt, we do ... likewise, if we don't want to give a matter a benefit of the doubt, we don't.

    The "benefit of the doubt" (3.50 / 2) (#197)
    by sj on Fri Oct 02, 2015 at 12:11:18 PM EST
    is a concept that should be applied liberally but not without discretion and awareness. TL user McBain uses it to withhold judgment on the actions of anyone in "authority". It seems to me that you are doing a similar thing in this instance.

    Rather than view your (our, really) religious leader through any sort of lens that provides critical analysis, your first and final step is to not only give the "benefit of the doubt" from you personally (which is perfectly understandable and acceptable IMO) but to also use lots and lots of verbiage to become an apologist for a deeply questionable act (my opinion).

    Critical analysis of this pope yields much that is good and positive and refreshing. But actions speak to me much louder than words. I was moved by his humility and kindness in the  washing of prisoners' feet. That is an act that made a deep impression on me.

    This act -- the meeting with Kim Davis and his refusal to meet with the mayor of Rome -- also made a deep impression. I will not excuse it. I condemn it. And I will not give that act the benefit of the doubt. It has spoken for itself.


    I Miss the Days... (5.00 / 2) (#201)
    by ScottW714 on Fri Oct 02, 2015 at 12:33:39 PM EST
    ...when religious leaders were condemned for meeting with KD.

    I would love to hear why the Pope met with a person only known for her religious discrimination.  Maybe he needed advise on how to obtain a marriage license in Kentucky, or what printer to use for official documents.

    The idea that we are guessing is really starting to grate on me, no one is guessing, one of the participants has actually released what was said.  

    At this point christinep & donald need to prove she lied, rather than assume she did, which both keep claiming is a bad thing to do.  

    As much as I dislike KD, the idea that someone whose goes to jail over her religion is going to lie about a meeting with the Pope seems like a huge stretch, especially since it's so easily disprovable.  That would make her a fraud, but what would it make the Pope for meeting with her ?


    This is bullsh!t (3.67 / 3) (#65)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Oct 01, 2015 at 05:52:10 PM EST
    This pope is no dummy.  He knew exactly who she was no matter who arranged the meeting.  He is very well informed.   Are we actually going to try to say he's just some confused old coot.  Bullsh!t.
    And in my opinion It's not the first time Pierce is FOS.

    The Pope told her to stay strong.  To keep using her govt job to selectively discriminate.  He called her a contentious objector.   What utter bullsh!t.  A contentious objector quits the job.  
    I've been seeing this all day and it pi$$es me off more than the meeting.  
    How fu@king stupid do you think we are.


    Now (none / 0) (#72)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Oct 01, 2015 at 06:02:42 PM EST
    Making the "secret" meeting public?  That could we'll have been ratf@cking.

    Boo hoo


    Saying again (none / 0) (#77)
    by christinep on Thu Oct 01, 2015 at 06:10:12 PM EST
    We do not know exactly what the Pope said other than providing some form of comfort that he appears to provide to all kinds of individuals ... saints & sinners alike.  

    Of course, anyone--especially the kindest & trusting--can be misled (if that is the case) by deputies, cardinals, etc.  That happens in government; and, it does happen in the Church.

    We will continue to believe what we believe.  No need to smash & bash, Howdy.


    With all due respect (1.00 / 1) (#82)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Oct 01, 2015 at 06:27:18 PM EST
    If the Church decided it once again needed to burn witches you would find a way to justify it to yourself and to try to others.

    This is a rotten thing to say ... and you know it. (none / 0) (#90)
    by christinep on Thu Oct 01, 2015 at 06:59:46 PM EST
    Perhaps, you and I have exhausted discussion on religion.  Whatever your history with religion, please do not impute it to me.  We should respect each other.  

    CaptHowdy: "This pope is no dummy. He knew exactly who she was no matter who arranged the meeting. He is very well informed. [...] The Pope told her to stay strong. To keep using her govt job to selectively discriminate. He called her a contentious objector."

    Were you a fly on the wall in D.C.? You're making some awfully big assumptions here about what Pope Francis knew and / or didn't know about the particulars of Kim Davis's case, and regarding what he said to her in a private meeting. Further, those assumptions rest almost entirely upon two things:

    • Your own perfectly understandable but still painfully obvious biases concerning organized religion in general, and Roman Catholicism in particular; and

    • Your apparent willingness to accept the word of Ms. Davis and her attorney at face value.

    Think about that for a moment. Charles Pierce "is FOS," but yet Davis & Co. aren't? Is that perhaps because your mind is already closed regarding this particular matter, and of Pierce and Davis, only one of them is freely validating your own worst fears about the Roman Catholic Church and its admittedly odious treatment of the LGBT community?

    Speaking for myself only, I believe that Pope Francis probably should have known about the U.S. domestic controversy around Ms. Davis. But again, that knowledge would likely have depended upon the willingness of his D.C. host and his aides to brief him truthfully. prior to the meeting in question. I'm not going to simply presume that His Holiness spends a lot of time online, perusing U.S. media sources on a near-daily basis.

    Now, all that said, I'm also of the opinion that Kim Davis's fifteen minutes are just about up, and that two years from now, she'll barely be worthy of a footnote to an addendum in the epilog of the struggle for marriage equality and LGBT civil rights in this country.

    In that regard, while you're no doubt entitled to your opinions, yours is certainly not the final word on this subject. I believe that you're being emotionally self-indulgent about this incident, to the point where you've now become verbally abusive to those whom you perceive as being in disagreement with you.

    Therefore, you and I will simply have to agree to disagree as to its actual overall long-term importance. And that's the last I'm going to say about this matter.



    To That I Reply... (5.00 / 1) (#170)
    by ScottW714 on Fri Oct 02, 2015 at 10:27:59 AM EST
    Were you a fly on the wall in D.C.? You're making some awfully big assumptions here about what Pope Francis knew and / or didn't know about the particulars of Kim Davis's case, and regarding what he said to her in a private meeting.

    You are making the same assumptions, and since the only source is the very person your holiness invited, if you don't think her word is worth a damn, take it up with the GD pope for meeting with such un untrustworthy scoundrel.

    I would agree about KD, but then again I wouldn't meet with her in secret and let her be source of what what said.  There is only one party to blame and it ain't sj or KD.

    What is the saying, "If you dance with the Devil..." ?


    Thank you so very much, Donald (none / 0) (#91)
    by christinep on Thu Oct 01, 2015 at 07:03:16 PM EST
    I didn't know where to go with this anymore.  It hit some very personal nerves with me ... the incoming intense anger, that is.

    That has been where I'm coming from (none / 0) (#68)
    by christinep on Thu Oct 01, 2015 at 05:56:42 PM EST
    The inside operation of the Vatican defies a labyrinth.  That is why we could see the positive intent of this Pope when he chose to forego the Papal apartments and live in Hotel Marta ... in government bureaucracies and in the Vatican, the deputies (or Cardinals) have their own version of the truth and goings-on that they whisper in the ear.  He knew that; and, his decision, to reorganize the bank, some of the curia offices, etc. were essential if anything other than words would be accomplished during his pontificate.

    So, thanks Donald for your experienced perception in the ways of Church hierarchy.  As your excerpt alludes to, there are significant hardliners at work in the background.  That is real; and, even on the local front, I can't believe the almost outright animosity I've heard from a few conservative Catholics who thought they long enjoyed the lock on truth.  (At least one of them remarked to me, in all earnestness, that he hoped that the Pope's reign would be short.)  That is why I've asked--among my friends and to myself--who arranged this meeting.  As I said to my skeptical husband: I doubt that the Pope was reading US papers and said, with no prompting or urging or a big push, that he wanted to meet with this person ... because, said I, that would be a very US-news-and-civil actions are the center of the universe kind of thing.  One US bishop link that keeps crossing my old mind is the former Archbishop of our Denver Archdiocese ... noted during Bishops meetings as a leader of the conservative faction ... and, guess what... he is the current Archbishop of Philadelphia.  


    Liberal Catholic E.J. Dionne (none / 0) (#176)
    by MKS on Fri Oct 02, 2015 at 10:41:46 AM EST
    has said the same thing....

    Read the AP report (none / 0) (#194)
    by christinep on Fri Oct 02, 2015 at 11:59:39 AM EST
    Your approach has been proven out ... Vigano does seem to have been involved to a great degree.  The latest AP report goes into some detail about Vigano's background, including his role in the area of "religious liberty" in the US.

    Great perception, Donald.


    This is For christinep (5.00 / 3) (#71)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Oct 01, 2015 at 06:00:23 PM EST
    What I started typing in the closed thread:

    He pigeon holed himself when he decided a religious zeolot who uses her job to discriminate was worthy of his time.  Stop putting this on everyone else.

    The fact that you think a TG and KD are one in the same, on different sides of the coin only shows how blinded you are by your religion.  Hint, one is oppressing others because of their personal beliefs, the other is just being.  


    Tolerance on all sides would be welcome (none / 0) (#80)
    by christinep on Thu Oct 01, 2015 at 06:18:17 PM EST
    What is not welcome, for me anyway, is the old-fashioned anti-Catholic hostility that some seem to express.  It is almost as bad as the Sunday would-be Christian's disdain for Atheists.  That is at rock bottom for me ... I don't recall knocking or impugning your position.  That is not being blinded; it simply means--for the reasons stated--that I have a different read and understanding of the scanty real info that we have to date -- so, my speculation leads in a very different direction than yours.  For me, a few minutes of blessing from a Pope does not take away from the total persona of this man or any man.  We do get to believe what we believe in this country ... all the way around.

    It's not anti-Catholic IMO (5.00 / 2) (#110)
    by Dadler on Thu Oct 01, 2015 at 08:04:22 PM EST
    It's anti-organized irrationality that has harmed people for centuries. I feel the same way about any religious "leader" who is a fraud. Francis is the most insidious kind of fraud there is, to me anyway, because he seems so nice and says things, depending on his audience, designed to make that audience think, "Gee, this guy really is about change and, gasp, evolving the church." But really, let's be honest, you simply cannot be taken seriously as concerned for the poor in, say, Latin America, when you deny them birth control. His is a moral criminal on that issue alone, even more so that he is now yapping "progressively" and "taking on" global capitalism. Wake me when it's over. Peace.

    Shorter Dadler: (3.00 / 2) (#116)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Oct 01, 2015 at 08:37:02 PM EST
    "I'm not anti-Catholic, I just think that the entire Church is criminally fraudulent, and that the Catholic faithful are completely delusional."

    I'm really at a loss as to what's actually worse -- the outright hatred of Catholicism as expressed by some of the more vociferous evangelical Christianistas, or your own condescending, patronizing and ultimately dismissive attitude toward Catholics and other people of faith, as though your agnosticism somehow renders us all your moral and intellectual inferiors.

    You often come across as so above it all, that some people would doubtless be forgiven for thinking that you're phoning it in from your vacation residence in the Sea of Tranquility on the Moon.



    Yes, who are we to expect (5.00 / 2) (#121)
    by jondee on Thu Oct 01, 2015 at 09:32:36 PM EST
    "vicars of christ" to adhere to a higher spiritual-moral standard?

    dadler's been taking it easy..

    between the preistly pederasty rings and hush money and coverups, the Vatican Bank's vile WW2 money laundering and it's later connections to Italy's P2 scandal and it's subsequent arrogant, intelligence-insulting coverups, one could write a bill of indictment that would take up an entire thread by itself -- or the average length of one of Donald's posts..


    (Sigh!) Just as there are none so blind ... (none / 0) (#127)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Oct 01, 2015 at 10:15:32 PM EST
    ... as those who refuse to see, there are none so ignorant as those who believe they already have it all figured out, and that therefore there's really no need on their part to listen any further.

    Nobody here is denying that the Roman Catholic Church is in very serious need of some real and genuine reform, jondee. But honestly, there are some here who are taking their self-righteous anger at the Church to a level that approaches the pathological.

    If your desire is to take this matter so personally that you feel compelled to make it personal in turn, well, that's your own conscious choice and thus your own problem. Whatever may be your issues with the Church, they are exactly that -- your issues, and nobody else's.

    And as such, all your ranting, raving and gasket blowing about pederasty and money laundering will never solve a damned thing, because you're contributing nothing to the general discussion but vitriol.

    Have a nice evening.


    Gee and here I thought you were (none / 0) (#129)
    by jondee on Thu Oct 01, 2015 at 10:33:33 PM EST
    interested in history, donald.

    Not as much as you're interested in acquiescent silence and holy obedience, apparently.


    Gee, thanks for proving my point, jondee. (none / 0) (#131)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Oct 01, 2015 at 11:20:19 PM EST
    I rest my case.

    No skin thinner... (5.00 / 2) (#123)
    by kdog on Thu Oct 01, 2015 at 09:41:23 PM EST
    than a person of faiths when their institution is criticized. Striking a chord maybe?

    Don't take it personal Catholics...if your faith gives you peace, comfort, joy, whatever that's all that should matter to ya...not what some non-believer says or does.

    I guess it's human nature though...the old "I can talk sh#t about my brother but you can't talk sh#t about my brother thing". I guess I'm just as guilty of it when people rag on my sacrament or strongly held beliefs...though I do catch myself and say "self, what does that assh#le know, pay no mind."


    That's pretty much it, kdog. (5.00 / 1) (#130)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Oct 01, 2015 at 11:19:02 PM EST
    Those non-Catholics or former Catholics who have issues with either Catholicism in general or the Catholic Church itself are going to continue venting their spleens, regardless of whoever's the Pope and in charge.

    In most all matters spiritual, even as a practicing Catholic, my preference is to keep my own counsel. There are significant issues upon which I'm compelled to part company with Church leadership, like a woman's inherent right to reproductive choice and freedom, and basic civil rights such as marriage equality and child custody / adoption for our LGBT brothers and sisters.

    But as a student history, I'm also very much aware that we're really not all that far removed from a time when overt expressions of anti-Catholic sentiment were the norm in this country, rather than the exception, and were actually considered an acceptable part of public discourse.

    (And the sad part about that history is that when confronted with such prejudice, Catholics just as often either reciprocated that bigotry in kind toward Protestants, or else sought to deflect it upon others who were non-Christian, as when the odious Fr. Charles Coughlin would regularly vilify Jews on his nationally syndicated radio program in the 1930s.)

    I am fully aware that my Church has some very serious institutional problems that have heretofore gone egregiously unaddressed for far too long. I can accept and agree with criticism of those matters when it is just, fair and warranted -- because frankly, quite often it is.

    But honestly, and this is strictly my perspective, I've felt that some of the opinions offered here of late by non-Catholics go well beyond mere criticism or even expressions of concern, and crowd the frontiers of religious bigotry. And while I can't speak for Christine, I have a feeling that she likely feels similarly.

    Just as some of those same people will take justifiable issue with statements posted here previously that have sought to paint all Muslims, African-Americans, Latino immigrants, etc., with a broad brush, they need to pause and consider what they're actually about to say, before picking up that very same brush to paint Catholics or anyone else of faith as the naïve tools of some nefarious agenda.

    Bottom line here is that spirituality and religion are often an intensely personal matters, and it's really all about maintenance of mutual respect and due regard for each other's feelings and concerns, i.e., if you can't say something nice, &etc. That's why when I tended bar, I expressly prohibited comments and discussions about religion by patrons when I was within earshot -- and as I would warn them, I have very acute hearing.

    Speaking of which, let's change the subject. How'd the Mets do tonight? ;-D



    It's true Donald (5.00 / 3) (#135)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Oct 02, 2015 at 08:03:00 AM EST
    I have a hard time "saying something nice" about giving moral support to a bigot who's goal in life is to deny me my constitutional rights or for being an apologist (not my words but the abused) for sex crimes
    So afaiac you can climb down from the cross.  I never criticized Catholic believers.  In fact I have specifically taken care in this thread to omit them from criticism and even praise them.
    My problem is with management.  And apologists for management.  That said I certainly understand the criticism of others for past and current actions of the church.

    I got heated in my comments yesterday. This hit very close to home for me.   I suspect just as close as it does for you.  Since my constitutional rights are in question and yours is not. Reading back over them today perhaps I should have chosen words more carefully.  But I stand by them.

    I just have one question.  If it was as innocent as we would be led to believe with Davis, why was it secret?  And why will, as you pointed out, the Pope not clarify it.  since as Pierce correctly noted, it has very effectively ratfked every positive thing he said here.  If as you excitedly assume Davis is mischaracterizing it, why not just tell the truth?


    Btw (none / 0) (#138)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Oct 02, 2015 at 08:21:09 AM EST
    The Vatican's attempt at spin is posted below.  Don't bother.

    I See the Right... (5.00 / 2) (#152)
    by ScottW714 on Fri Oct 02, 2015 at 09:52:09 AM EST
    ...it's the only ones to hop up on the crucifixion cross when given an opportunity.

    Anti-Catholic, where in F did that come from ?

    The Pope is full of S, much like Swaggart, Roberts, Phelps, Huckabee, Jeffs, every Pope in all of history, and a hundred thousand others who claim to to worship some benevolent being but given the opportunity, they prove time and time again, that their benevolent being is some hateful dick who always wants what they want.

    The better question is what religious leader is full of S ?

    The idea that it took the Vatican two days to say the Pope met with someone who he didn't really know much about, isn't even laughable it's so sad.

    But it is rather amusing to see people who detested religious leaders meeting with KD two weeks ago, all of a sudden realize that it ain't so bad.


    There are always two sides (none / 0) (#164)
    by christinep on Fri Oct 02, 2015 at 10:11:06 AM EST
    to things. Jumping to conclusions at the first opportunity suggests a problem with the person who so jumps.  Take a look at the actual fact that--as in, see the news this a.m.--what first appears to some to be so may not be that way at all.

    Donald notes the anti-Catholic strain that existed in our lifetime in the US.  And, it wasn't just about JFK and what was required of him to disabuse who thought that the papacy would be in charge.  I grew up with a strong awareness of the anti-Catholic bigotry that was out there ... ask any Catholic over 50 (and ask any number of those living in the deep South even in recent years.)  For further background, Scott, may I suggest reading about the background and reason for creating the Masons & really take a look at the ugly history of the KKK (anti-black, anti-Semitic, and--explicitly--very anti-Catholic.)

    There still exist sensitivities on both sides.  Donald describes honestly how many of us perceive much of the background.  I'm not whining, mind you; but, I am saying that the past few days have shown me more than give & take and discourse on a disagreement.  In a few instances here, what I have seen are some responses that tip the anger scale into an almost spitting venom. That has an effect; and, it is far from a good, productive effect. It hurts...and, the shrill words lobbed at this Pope on the basis of a brief, disputed situation--on the basis of jumping to heated conclusions--is felt by many members of the Catholic Church such as myself.  We need to dial it back; we need to respect each other.


    Read the Vatican's response (none / 0) (#156)
    by christinep on Fri Oct 02, 2015 at 09:55:45 AM EST
    I understand the hurt you feel.  But, I ask you sincerely to take a step back ... let it settle and don't be so quick to judge, as you would not like to be judged.  Empathy and patience helps everyone.

    As for the "secrecy' aspect, for those familiar with Vatican practice, this has no aspect of secrecy.  It really is common practice.  Most important for today, please consider that the official spokesman Signor Lombardi has issued a Vatican communique stating that the brief greeting in DC was part of "dozens" right before the Pope left for NYC AND that it does not indicate support for Ms. Davis' position, noting especially the "complicated" legal matter.  

    People will believe what they want even with that explanation ... but, know that the Vatican was under no urgency nor obligation to issue anything (and usually never does.) I view the latest as giving support to Donald's previous speculation that the Papal Nuncio's office may have initiated the greeting ... for whatever reason it had in mind apart from what the Pope's position has been. And now, the previously discredited attorney for Davis is disputing the Vatican (see TPM.)  Growing evidence that the contact may not have been what it has been portrayed to be.

    We all are influenced by our past...and wounds remain a long time.  But, we BOTH seem to have different kinds of wounds.  The question is going to eventually be whether the wounds always approach how we evaluate things or whether we will always be prisoner to our wounds.


    Look christine (5.00 / 1) (#166)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Oct 02, 2015 at 10:23:06 AM EST
    I don't have wounds.  Beyond the ones the church, and religion in general, has inflicted on me and those like me for centuries.  I hardly take them personally do I don't even know what you are talking about.

    As far as secret.  Please.  Take a stroll back yourself and listen to eat you are saying.

    I will quote our very own jbindc from the day the news broke

    So why would the Vatican (none / 0) (#184)
    by jbindc on Wed Sep 30, 2015 at 09:43:29 AM EST
    Take pictures of a SECRET meeting, one they obviously would not anyone to find out about??
    I find it hard to believe that and her husband were snuck into the Apostolic Nunciature with NOT ONE person seeing.  Do you fully appreciate just how many people were there with cameras at all times???  Do you realize how visible the Nunciature is to the street???

    I admit it does sound a little crazy.   But you know what?  It happened.  

    I'm done discussing this with you because frankly it make me want to punch something.   You believe what ever you like.

    It's a free country


    We believe different things, Howdy (none / 0) (#190)
    by christinep on Fri Oct 02, 2015 at 11:52:15 AM EST
    Continue to think that a papal encounter is "secret" if you must.  As you say, it is a free country.  As litigant Davis' attorney claims: It was "secret" -- so?

    Let's move forward, ok....


    Why do you make these assumptions? (5.00 / 5) (#177)
    by vml68 on Fri Oct 02, 2015 at 10:41:51 AM EST
    we BOTH seem to have different kinds of wounds.  The question is going to eventually be whether the wounds always approach how we evaluate things or whether we will always be prisoner to our wounds.

    Why do Donald and you also assume that we are all anti-Catholic bigots? Have you considered that there are no wounds, that some of us might be critical about the Catholic Church in particular because having been raised Catholic that is what we are knowledgeable about.


    Thank you (5.00 / 2) (#185)
    by MO Blue on Fri Oct 02, 2015 at 11:24:35 AM EST
    for stating this fact so clearly.

    A beautiful ritual that has man made polices that many cradle Catholics can not in good conscience continue to support.


    Neither Donald nor I said (none / 0) (#188)
    by christinep on Fri Oct 02, 2015 at 11:47:53 AM EST
    nor assumed that.  I have seen here, tho, a few (read "few") examples of antipathy and unrestrained name-calling toward the Pope (based upon a briefly reported matter of a brief receiving-line type encounter) based upon references to previous anger with the Church and its past. It is difficult not to see that the predisposition of anger or extreme distrust (under the previous circumstances, undoubtedly quite legitimate cause for such feeling) led to massive assumption and over-the-top explosive reaction.  The discussion veered a bit into the history of anti-Catholicism in this country in terms of explanation only ... to provide info as the sensitivities all the way around.

    I really do think that we are all predisposed to believe or not believe things ... whether about those closest (or the opposite) or political figures or--particularly--very personal belief systems that comprise organized religion.  For me, it clearly hit a nerve--and, I actually couldn't believe how many posts here written by me on this subject--a nerve that goes back to a broader issue about jumping to strong conclusions fueled directly by the strongest emotions of hate or love.  

    That is how I experienced this whole matter swirling tempest seemingly begun by the not-so-responsible news media making its own assumption without any fact-checking. Example: One would think that major news outlets reporting a tidbit shopped by a very interested party (a litigant's attorney in a controversial matter potentially involving religion and politics would do some fact-checking before setting it up to be chipped away at almost as soon as it was written. Just a bit of research from the news before hypring something that would clearly play to strong emotions???

    Vml: You have been courteous and above-board in this matter. Like you, my criticisms of the Church's  outright obstinate (and hurtful) attitudes have been there too.  But, that is nowhere near the case with a Pope like Francis who--by all the evidence that I have seen--is passionately, yet methodically threading through and bringing us from the institutional errors and sins of the past.  What I also want to say: SHOUT OUT TO DONALD! That exclamation point is real and deserved by Donald for his deduction--prior to the updated report in the news now--as to the probability of what might have happened.  The lengthy report from AP after 10:00 am (MDT) points toward the office of the Papal Nuncio and staff in DC very clearly--and, that report has some illuminating language about the background and position of Nuncio Vigano on this politicized matter.  It is worth reading.

    Peace (and I mean that)  Chris


    Phillies swept the Mets (none / 0) (#202)
    by Peter G on Fri Oct 02, 2015 at 01:13:52 PM EST
    I do believe.

    No conflation, honestly (none / 0) (#61)
    by christinep on Thu Oct 01, 2015 at 05:34:18 PM EST
    My point isn't that I agree with him on this particular matter.  As a lifelong Catholic, I can tell you that things are changing for the good in the Church ... and, so much has to do with this Pope's change of emphasis and direction. Yet, because I am a practicing Catholic and because I am well acquainted with doctrines/practices/dogma from my Church, my expectations in some matters are tempered by time and experience.  Trans: My expectations in so many areas have been surpassed ... so, I'm willing to wait in other matters to see how they actually turn out in the long run.

    I do not want to downplay or minimize what you are suggesting.  But, as sure as I'm here, it is more & more obvious to me that--in addition to holding to a traditional Catholic viewpoint about marriage as an institution--he does not close doors.  His definition of "marriage" may not align with your position, but he has opened doors (at least) in our Church for broader definition of family and acceptance of gay members of society and the Church.  Given where even he started in Argentina on some issues, he has (in the words of the day) definitely evolved.  

    When I was first married, I went away from the Church for almost 13 years over the issue of birth control.  The precipitating event for my return was the sudden death of my beloved Dad who had raised my sister and myself ... at that point, the devastation of that time led to a more forgiving view of everything, including myself and the Church.  (Besides, the reality is that the injunction against contraception hadn't really been observed in years.  That led me--together with so many others--to live with the contradictions in society, Church, and self because my earlier all-or-nothing might have felt good for awhile until the emptiness descended.)

    After a number of my own growing experiences revolving around "it must be this or I'm out of here," I find that most things don't play out that way.  Insofar as Pope Francis is concerned: I love most everything he does. That he met with that clerk--who in my estimation appears both dupe and duper--may appear troubling in a vacuum; but, that is not the sum total of what he is and has done.  This is not a plebiscite; not can I make a singular incident--no matter how it may be perceived in the US--a litmus test.  (And: Remember that while he stresses religious freedom, even in a way that could be upsetting to we who look to the Constitution, the Pope as individual is a foreigner in terms of American jurisprudence.  Our Constitution, thankfully, is unique ... unlike European Civil Code and definitely unlike Canon Law.)

    The Pope's role is different than our role or the role of our leaders.  And, I consider that he has honored that in terms of not injecting specific requests in an overt way ... with the possible exception of directly calling on responsible authorities from time to time not to administer the death penalty.  Finally---recall that Pope Francis does indeed meet with many, many people to offer consolation or hope or strength ... and, we do not know the particulars of what he says in any of them because they are normally deeply personal and not publicized.  He apparently does not consider that he should use his office to go beyond anything other than a personal meeting here.  (I must admit, btw, wondering which bishop promoted this meeting and initiated it.  But, that is just me, in my inside-the-halls curiosity about the process.)


    How the Pope can simply not... (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by Dadler on Thu Oct 01, 2015 at 05:51:07 PM EST
    ...publicly embrace an openly gay person and say "We are all equal to God" is beyond me. Jesus said NOTHING about gay people. Zero. And he also hung out with hookers and crooks and all sorts of "undesirables" back then, not to mention having a "beloved disciple." Winky wink. You know what that means, clearly to me anyway? Everything Francis and the church say and do about gay people is completely and entirely anti-Christ and anti-Christian. They are committing a type of heresy against their own "savior." They are announcing that they do not believe in the real teachings of Jesus. Quite a simple case of blind and inexcusable hatred.

    Let's call it (5.00 / 1) (#69)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Oct 01, 2015 at 05:57:10 PM EST
    This was about money.  It was a politician trying to be on both sides of an issue the he is against but doesn't want to be publicly because discriminating against gay people is suddenly very unpopular and it was costing the church money.

    The Pope also met with the (5.00 / 4) (#75)
    by caseyOR on Thu Oct 01, 2015 at 06:08:41 PM EST
    group of nuns who have sued the government over the contraception requirements in Obamacare. Specifically, these nuns contend that the simple act of filling out a form stating that they will not pay for contraception coverage in the health plan they offer employees is a burden too great to bear, a violtion of their religious liberty rights. Filling out a form is too much for these nuns.

    Pope Francis talks a good game on many issues. None of those issues improve the lot of women or LGBT people in the Church, but, hey, global warming is bad.

    Yes, under Francis the Church may be helpful in persuading some to take action against global climate change, and who doesn't love a good papal talk that criticizes the conmen and grifters who run the global economy. But people need to see this pope with eyes wide open. So far Francis has said and done exactly nothingto change the basic conservative beliefs and practices of the Catholic Church.

    We need to not be suckerd by kindly words.


    Exactly (none / 0) (#78)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Oct 01, 2015 at 06:14:16 PM EST
    At least he was honest enough to make that meeting public.

    As a woman in the Church, (none / 0) (#87)
    by christinep on Thu Oct 01, 2015 at 06:53:33 PM EST
    I see that he has made more open and obvious efforts to heighten and elevate the role of women in the Church than anyone ever has ... and believe me, that is an issue for me.

    A big issue for me also involves migration: This Pope has been the international leader in pushing, pulling, and whatever it takes to get European and then American commitments as to helping out in that international issue.  In the area of the US and our long-suffering undocumented immigrants, he has pushed into the halls of Congress and on the steps of Congress to provide the relief so long delayed.  The concentrated steps, speeches, open exhortation coming from someone like the Pope amount to more than words.  We all understand that.

    I'm not sure about your religious persuasion.  But, I would ask that you consider looking at the Church in the context of its 2000 year old history and about the journey that it has to make under this Pope ... simply put, not only Rome wasn't built in a day.  The Church can be frustratingly convoluted; and, for those of a more libertarian-type inclination, the multiple and layered laws, practices can look and be overwhelming.  For Catholics, we come to terms with it eventually (or go bonkers)...ultimately, it is about the spirituality and the strength of that belief.  

    As for the meeting with the Little Sisters of the Poor ... that is a hard one for those of us who feel a special closeness for the good work that they do (many retired religious themselves.) Many Catholics love the Little Sisters of the Poor in the US .... I'll leave that one to the Courts.


    Cradle Catholic here, educated (5.00 / 3) (#95)
    by caseyOR on Thu Oct 01, 2015 at 07:25:46 PM EST
    by the Benedictines. I am well-versed in the Church's 2,000 year history, the good, the bad and the disgraceful. My opinions are not randomly snatched out of thin air, nor are they based in a non-Catholic's possible misunderstanding of Church history and doctrine.

    As i said, Pope Francis talks a good game on many issues of importance to the more liberal among us. All well and good. And while I do recognize the value of words, where the Church is concrned I am more interested in actions.


    I appreciate your comment, caseyOR (none / 0) (#118)
    by christinep on Thu Oct 01, 2015 at 09:04:06 PM EST
    and also share your desire for ultimate action.  One of the early acts I did like (so much so in the delivery) had to do with how the Pope resolutely move to do away with the indictment-like study of Catholic nuns initiated under his predecessor.  Talk about a potential kangaroo court as it stood ... and what did the Pope do in recent months? With a wave of his hand, he thanked the scrutinizing male overseers ... told them that he appreciated their work, blah, blah... and then proceeded to nullify what was to be a kind of receivership in a subjugation way by praising the nuns and over & over (&over again in NY and at first stop in Philly) expressed thanks and relieved them of all the smothering oversight.

    The point: First, he made his point with the Bishops very strongly (and to the rest of us) and, second, he essentially awarded the American nuns (recall the "nuns on the bus") with a freedom medal.

    Words, yes ... but, these kinds of words are consequential, as you know.  Anyway, I'm still laughing at the "nice" way that he handled it ... for all to see.


    To what significant positions has (5.00 / 2) (#109)
    by Anne on Thu Oct 01, 2015 at 08:03:45 PM EST
    Francis elevated the role of women in the Church, christine?  

    I note that women often hold positions of power and authority in Catholic social services and charitable organizations, but what about in the Church itself?

    Here's the thing, christine: while I respect your faith, and accept that you bring a different perspective to all-things-Catholic, I'm not sure your sensibilities can or should be imposed on those of us who are non-Catholics.  

    I appreciate your efforts to help people understand more through the lens of your Catholicism, but for most of us, I think, how we view, judge, assess, Francis' words, actions, etc., are really much like how we would approach a president, prime minister, king, queen, or other leader of large numbers of people.

    I have no way of knowing what goes on behind the scenes within the papal retinue, who has his ear, how his audiences get scheduled or arranged, but I find it hard to believe that Francis, who seems very much aware of what's going on in the world, did not know more about Kim Davis than you seem to want to entertain the idea that he did.

    While Francis may be tacking to the left in his approach to the flock, he isn't changing doctrine.  He may be trying to shift focus to more humanitarian outreach and vision, but the Church isn't changing its position on homosexuality or abortion.  

    I'd like you to consider that perhaps Francis' real mission is to grow the flock, to interest people who've turned away from the Church to consider coming back, and for those who have no church, to consider coming to Jesus, so to speak.

    And there's nothing wrong with that mission - but let's not be so dazzled by the more liberal aspects of his approach that we fail to see that he may be encouraging people to be nicer to gays and women, but he isn't according gays and women the same footing everyone else stands on.

    We think that's wrong when governments do it, and I think it's okay for us to believe it's wrong when religions do it.  Any religion.

    I understand that you don't have objectivity on this issue - I respect your love of the faith, of the Church, but I think your lack of objectivity is narrowing, not expanding, your vision.

    For what it's worth, none of this is coming from religious antipathy or anti-Catholic bias, it's coming from keeping my eyes and mind open.


    Thank you for your respect of my faith, Anne (none / 0) (#119)
    by christinep on Thu Oct 01, 2015 at 09:23:38 PM EST
    Please know that I am not intending to impose anything on anyone here in terms of belief.  Rather, my remarks are only meant to give my perspective ... because there are different ways to look at matters religious such as these.

    In a few instances, my response touches directly on respect in general.  Sometimes people have been very hurt by past experiences with religious institutions and/or individuals who profess a religious perspective; and, sometimes a few appear to cast that anger indiscriminately as a result.  That is my perspective only.

    I am not keeping track of individual advances of women in the Church.  In my own parish, even in the short time since Francis has been Pope, women are more evident in administrative positions as in finance, etc. instrumental to the day-to-day operation.  Advisory councils nationally (and within certain Vatican Offices) seem to have more feminine names than any time previously.  Understand that there are layers upon layers ... true growth for women in the councils of the Church will take time.  But, you raise a very good question: How to measure the numbers? By category? By diocese? By nation? By Vatican Offices (e.g., multiple office structure)?  From time to time, I've always had a thorn quality -- so, in the coming months, I will start by asking our parish administrator, a woman who supports progress, about collecting statistics in this Archdiocese.

    I do recognize that this will take time ... normally, time in the Church is rather glacial (my incremental inclination would look hurried by any comparison.)  But, there are women now who feel emboldened by this Pope ... these younger women will push & prod ... and that is how it works in this gigantic institution.  That is why powerful & direct words from a Pope mean so much.


    Women are (5.00 / 2) (#155)
    by MO Blue on Fri Oct 02, 2015 at 09:54:00 AM EST
    at best treated as second class citizens by the church and sometimes not even that well.

    Leaving aside the fact that women can not become priests, get back to me on how this Pope has heighten and elevate the role of women when the Pope comes out and condemns actions that kill women because of inhumane religious practices.

    Miscarrying woman denied an abortion dies in Ireland

    Savita Halappanavar's husband, Praveen, said doctors determined that she was miscarrying within hours of her hospitalization for severe pain on Sunday, Oct. 21. He said that over the next three days doctors refused their requests for a termination of her fetus to combat her own surging pain and fading health.

    "Savita was really in agony. She was very upset, but she accepted she was losing the baby," he told The Irish Times in a telephone interview from Belgaum, southwest India.

    "When the consultant came on the ward rounds on Monday morning, Savita asked: 'If they could not save the baby, could they induce to end the pregnancy?' The consultant said: 'As long as there is a fetal heartbeat, we can't do anything.'" link

    Get back to me, when a Catholic Pope declares that it is a sin to kill a woman to save a fetus.

    Catholics, especially Catholic women, coming to terms with the church's treatment of women is IMO part of the problem.


    I understand your concern about (none / 0) (#192)
    by christinep on Fri Oct 02, 2015 at 11:55:02 AM EST
    the Church and the role of women.  A genuine concern that I share.  Yet...I'm a Catholic and I trust in the future via this Pope.  That is really a belief.  

    How far in the future? (5.00 / 3) (#199)
    by MO Blue on Fri Oct 02, 2015 at 12:15:34 PM EST
    Decades, centuries?

    How many more decades are women going to die due to the man made policies of the Catholic Church?

    Death through excessive child birth, death through contacting HIV from promiscuous spouses because condoms are forbidden by many priests in in 3rd World Countries and the Catholic Relief Programs in those countries refuse to include condoms in their programs, deaths due to the fact that it is acceptable to torture and kill a woman rather than abort an unviable fetus.


    No Offense... (3.50 / 2) (#158)
    by ScottW714 on Fri Oct 02, 2015 at 09:57:27 AM EST
    ...but that reads like a female republican defending the the party's stand on women's rights.

    For the record, I don't think "They are better than a thousand years ago" is much of a defense of anything.  How are they today, isn't that what counts ?  

    Stating 2015 Nazis are infinity better than 1944 Nazis doesn't really prove 2015 Nazis are friendly bunch.


    Actually (5.00 / 2) (#79)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Oct 01, 2015 at 06:14:53 PM EST
    I think you are on the right track here but it's not money IMO. He could probably get a ton of money for the church by being rabidly gay and getting some of those millionaires who are anti gay to donate a ton of money. It is however political. He's been preaching a message of love and inclusion but meeting with Davis undercuts that and he knows it. So he's trying to have it both ways which is very disappointing to me because I had hopes that while I didn't expect the Catholic Church to change many of its official stances I kind of did expect him to more or less downplay the conservative social stances of the church and certainly not meet with the likes of Kim Davis. He could have totally passed that one over and no one would have noticed.

    I'm only sort of Catholic myself-- you know the twice the fun half the guilt variety. LOL.


    Correct (5.00 / 1) (#81)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Oct 01, 2015 at 06:25:10 PM EST
    Money is not really wash at I meant.

    Power.  Which is about butts in the seats.  The church is the greatest collection of wealth on earth.  It's not money exactly they need or want it power and influence and they were losing that because homophobia is dying.  Particularly among Catholics who tend to be more progressive than Protestants and evangelicals.  At least the membership if not the ruling class


    You think that; I don't (none / 0) (#70)
    by christinep on Thu Oct 01, 2015 at 05:59:40 PM EST
    Do you belong to any Church, Dadler (none / 0) (#73)
    by christinep on Thu Oct 01, 2015 at 06:02:54 PM EST
    The reason I ask is not to be smarmy or anything.  It is this: Often times, our responses about any Church or religion reflects what we believe in the first place ... and/or what our very personal experiences might have been with that faith.  

    Can't speak for Dadler but I was raised (5.00 / 4) (#86)
    by vml68 on Thu Oct 01, 2015 at 06:43:55 PM EST
    Catholic. 12 years of Catholic School and a mother who goes to mass everyday and spends another couple of hours everyday praying and saying the rosary.
    Somehow, it failed to blind me or make me an apologist for the Catholic Church or any other religion.

    Often that is the case... that is life (none / 0) (#88)
    by christinep on Thu Oct 01, 2015 at 06:56:38 PM EST
    Papal bull. (5.00 / 4) (#54)
    by KeysDan on Thu Oct 01, 2015 at 05:15:47 PM EST
    Who am I to judge? In addition to the response to a question in the context of issuing licenses to gay couples that was prefaced with the then poorly understood," I can't have in mind all cases that may exist about conscientious objector.." Francis, on the flight home, made news with his terse reference to the mayor of Rome, Ignazio Marino.

     When asked who invited the mayor to the Philadelphia mass, the Pope replied "I didn't invite Mayor Marino. Is that clear?"  And, the Pope added judgmentally, " He is a pretend Catholic."

     The pro-gay marriage mayor showed up for the mass, apparently at the invitation of city officials, wearing his red sash of office.  Mayor Marino repeatedly asked for a meeting with the pope, but was not given one--his schedule being crowded. The Mayor is not popular, but it has caused a Roman stir, especially for cooperation with the declared "Mercy Year," celebration.

    Meanwhile, the bloom is off the rose in some quarters given the coyly arranged rendezvous with the anti-gay fanatic, Clerk Davis and her husband.  The usual political savvy of the Vatican seems to have faltered jeopardizing the good will generated and dashing hopes--not only those unrealistic hopes of real change, but also, those of improved tone. Important, not just for Church members, but also, for its over-sized influence on government.

    After a period of seeming not to know whether to call a synod or a fiat, the Vatican acknowledged the meeting with Clerk Davis, along with a no comment.  Nothing more, so far.  Thereby, allowing Davis and Liberty Counsel to control the message. And, of course, Huckabee.  


    Mayor of Rome (none / 0) (#56)
    by KeysDan on Thu Oct 01, 2015 at 05:21:59 PM EST
    Dan (none / 0) (#57)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Oct 01, 2015 at 05:24:57 PM EST
    You have been my friend through all of this and I am yours.  This clusterf@ck makes me feel worst fir folks like you.  To whom it means so much.  Me? It just pissed me off.  I could be said to Minot have a dog in the fight.  But I know it means a lot more for you.  I respect your integrity in responding to it so much.
    I may think the Pope is a dick.  But that dies not extend to all his flock.

    Thank you, (5.00 / 1) (#67)
    by KeysDan on Thu Oct 01, 2015 at 05:54:52 PM EST
    and GA, for the kind thoughts.  I do have an interest in the Catholic Church, but would keep my thoughts circumscribed and within the realm of Catholic believers.
     But, it is not so simple.  The reach of the Catholic Church, goes beyond that. Often, or most often, to the detriment of civil and human rights. Of course, for a good answer we could look to those Catholics, Rubio and Jeb, who announced that the pope is not infallible, on those issues on which they disagree.  Does not work as well for liberal thinkers.

    The doctrine of infallibility only (none / 0) (#125)
    by christinep on Thu Oct 01, 2015 at 09:49:28 PM EST
    applies to matters declared ex cathedra.  Quite limited, as you might know.

    I'm just not as pessimistic as you about the effects.  The reach is broad as you say and the suffering occasioned by some practices--a number of which are going the way of the horse & buggy at long last--has been a dark mark to reckon with; and yet, the nursing, caretaking, educational services have raised and supported uncounted numbers.  We are all humans, huh ... and, the reflection isn't one-dimensional.

    Donald mentioned--elsewhere--the Borgias.  At least, we are beyond that kind of personal warfare.  Personally, I'd like to see an expansion of the Pope's recent comments at NYC's Madison Square Garden where he spoke about the challenge of and fight against anonymity with its feelings of being lost, invisible, etc. in the vast reaches of a large city.  We are not without our personal warlike demons as well ... and, this Pope seems to have a grasp of that modern challenge.  


    And there is this (none / 0) (#126)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Oct 01, 2015 at 09:58:28 PM EST
    Church sex abuse survivors furious with Pope for praising bishops

    Pope Francis has angered people who suffered sexual abuse by the clergy by praising American bishops for their "generous commitment" to helping victims.
    Advocates hit back, saying the bishops acted only under the threat of hundreds of lawsuits.

    Not a good link (none / 0) (#128)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Oct 01, 2015 at 10:16:41 PM EST
    Could my typing skills (none / 0) (#58)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Oct 01, 2015 at 05:26:49 PM EST
    Suck more

    Are you (none / 0) (#60)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Oct 01, 2015 at 05:28:26 PM EST
    Catholic, Dan?

    I tired of talking about (5.00 / 1) (#84)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Oct 01, 2015 at 06:30:20 PM EST
    The f@cking Pope.  I've been doing it all day.  If I get that wretched Pierce article again....

    The president was very good talking about the shooting.  Very good.  Countdown till we hear he is politicizing it.  
    Actually he said that himself.  He was good.  I was proud of him.

    Howdy, you sound exactly like (5.00 / 1) (#182)
    by fishcamp on Fri Oct 02, 2015 at 11:11:18 AM EST
    Hunter.  Good job.

    HA! (none / 0) (#186)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Oct 02, 2015 at 11:28:03 AM EST
    Even if you are snarking I am truly humbled to me mentioned in the same sentence with The Great One.

    So time to admit I've used up my comments for this thread (and the next one) accept my point has been made stfu and take a nap.


    Nothing fills a thread... (5.00 / 4) (#193)
    by kdog on Fri Oct 02, 2015 at 11:55:52 AM EST
    like a little holy war.  

    You know (none / 0) (#85)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Oct 01, 2015 at 06:39:22 PM EST
    I'm kind of tired of hearing people talk about all this including Obama. I want something done but yet I know nothing positive is going to come out of that freak show called the house. So I just go on and hope that one day the people of this country will rise up against the NRA and their agenda. The sad thing is I don't know how many more deaths are going to have to happen before enough is enough.

    What exactly (none / 0) (#92)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Oct 01, 2015 at 07:05:17 PM EST
    Would you like Obama to do?

    He (5.00 / 1) (#96)
    by FlJoe on Thu Oct 01, 2015 at 07:27:18 PM EST
    needs to pound the bully pulpit and not let it fade into the background like every other time. Profound and powerful words may resonate for a few news cycle but then they are forgotten..... until the next time....rinse and repeat.

    He should pound away at the gun lobby and their enablers constantly from now until the end of his term. He might not get anything done given the political landscape but shining a bright and constant light on these merchants of death will eventually drive them out of power and hopefully sooner rather then later enable sensible gun laws to be enacted.


    I don't disagree (none / 0) (#98)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Oct 01, 2015 at 07:35:35 PM EST
    Basically.   But it's kind of busy in the world.  And he does in fact have a lot on this plate.

    I actually think you may see him talk more about it.  He hinted today that might happen.

    There's one thing people who don't know a lot of Bible Belt conservatives probably can't appreciate.  That's just how rabid the "Obama is coming to take our guns" movement is.   It's beyond all reason and logic.  
    Now, I suppose it could be argued that if this is what they think he might as well do it.   But there is an election coming and you would be surprised how many people will vote on that one issue.  But I bet he would not, and I bet Hilkary would not.  And as Bubba used to say, you can't do anything good if you don't win.
    Sucks, I'm just sayin.


    OMG (5.00 / 1) (#100)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Oct 01, 2015 at 07:49:17 PM EST
    I cannot believe how many people believe that lie about him coming to take your guns. This is the kind of thing we need to come up with an effective strategy to counter. As long as these people believe this the NRA is going to remain all powerful over these people. My stepfather even believes this lie along with a few cousins and some aunts. Talk about a lie going halfway around the world before the truth even gets its pants on.

    Well (none / 0) (#93)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Oct 01, 2015 at 07:13:22 PM EST
    that's kind of my point. He can talk but there's nothing that is going to happen. He can't do anything but talk and that's pretty much it for anybody who is upset about this---you can talk and talk and talk and that's as far as it goes.

    We need some sort of strategy for fighting the NRA.


    Well (5.00 / 1) (#94)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Oct 01, 2015 at 07:17:14 PM EST
    He's the president.  It's a national tragedy.  He could hardly not "talk about it".

    I thought he did very well.  It was as real as I have ever seen him.


    It's just (none / 0) (#102)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Oct 01, 2015 at 07:50:35 PM EST
    frustrating to me is all we get is talk. Yes, I'm sure he was asked about and therefore needed to comment like every other president. I'm also quite aware that this is going to be an uphill battle.

    No (none / 0) (#104)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Oct 01, 2015 at 07:54:56 PM EST
    Not asked.  He came out and made a long and thoughtful and quite powerful statement about it.  And said he would keep talking about it as long as he was president.  

    Well (none / 0) (#114)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Oct 01, 2015 at 08:16:58 PM EST
    at least if he keeps talking about it it will hopefully stay in the forefront but I'm not hopeful.

    We (5.00 / 1) (#101)
    by FlJoe on Thu Oct 01, 2015 at 07:50:13 PM EST
    need to take a page from the forced birth crowd and demonize the likes of Wayne LaPierre and his political allies.

     I am talking about full scale demagoguery here. Point and scream  bloody murderer as loudly and often as needed, from the West Wing to the halls of congress, on the gas bag shows and the editorial pages never fail to point out the blood on their hands.


    Good idea. (none / 0) (#103)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Oct 01, 2015 at 07:53:24 PM EST
    Every time one of these shootings happen talk about how the NRA is the one that wants these murders to have guns.

    Marching (none / 0) (#106)
    by FlJoe on Thu Oct 01, 2015 at 07:59:31 PM EST
    in the streets chanting " hey, hey killer Lapierre, ten kids died today and you don't care".

    Oh he cares... (none / 0) (#108)
    by kdog on Thu Oct 01, 2015 at 08:02:50 PM EST
    That's 10 people who can never buy a gun from one of his gun manufacturer pimps.

    Lapierre is just a whore.


    Correct (none / 0) (#112)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Oct 01, 2015 at 08:10:07 PM EST
    You want to know what the first and most intense reaction to any sustained campaign to pass even the most lame and toothless of gun laws would be?

    Gun sales would go through the roof.


    Come to think of it... (none / 0) (#115)
    by kdog on Thu Oct 01, 2015 at 08:31:13 PM EST
    It wouldn't surprise me to learn that gun manufacturers fund the gun control lobby. If they don't, they should...it would be good bidness. On the sly of course.

    As for Lapierre, if it wasn't guns it would be detergent. Whoever cuts the check...

    And am I any better, cashing the check from the guy doing cartwheels at the thought of flooded out homes.


    I've been thinking about (none / 0) (#107)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Oct 01, 2015 at 08:01:44 PM EST
    A piece of fiction about an accomplished ex military sniper who's child is killed in a mass shooting and starts hunting and taking out the leadership of the NRA.

    Think any publisher would touch it even if it was brilliant?
    Hell no.


    And some sort of strategy... (none / 0) (#97)
    by kdog on Thu Oct 01, 2015 at 07:34:08 PM EST
    in changing our society that is producing so many mass murderers. And so much hate.

    Guns are half the issue, maybe less than half. The more important issue, imho, is the village raising some seriously disturbed individuals. We could ban the manufacture of all guns and bullets tomorrow, and even if an effective prohibition, there will still be enough guns and bullets floating around to kill each other for 500 years.

    Unless Trump is gonna go house to house to gather the arms while gathering immigrants without papers in order.


    Kim Davis (5.00 / 5) (#132)
    by Michael Masinter on Fri Oct 02, 2015 at 07:42:18 AM EST
    My post on Kim Davis is up at the Berkeley Center's Religious Freedom Project, entitled "L'etat c'est moi is not a religious accommodation."  

    About (none / 0) (#137)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Oct 02, 2015 at 08:16:39 AM EST
    The Religious Freedom Project (RFP) at Georgetown University's Berkley Center for Religion, Peace and World Affairs is the nation's only university-based program devoted exclusively to the analysis of religious freedom, a basic human right restricted in many parts of the world. Under the leadership of Director Thomas Farr and Associate Director Timothy Shah, the RFP engages a team of international scholars to examine and debate the meaning and value of religious liberty; its importance for democracy; and its role in social and economic development, international diplomacy, and the struggle against violent religious extremism.

    Very interesting (none / 0) (#142)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Oct 02, 2015 at 08:32:15 AM EST
    By the way

    Thanks (5.00 / 1) (#160)
    by Michael Masinter on Fri Oct 02, 2015 at 10:01:38 AM EST
    I appreciate the kind words. The drumbeat of support for Ms. Davis from the right can drown out the radical character of her claim.

    Per the Vatican (5.00 / 1) (#133)
    by CoralGables on Fri Oct 02, 2015 at 07:47:56 AM EST
    The meeting with Kim Davis wasn't as it's being portrayed. More like a walkthru where rosaries are handed out to people invited by Vatican diplomats in DC

    "Pope Francis met with several dozen persons who had been invited by the Nunciature to greet him as he prepared to leave Washington for New York City. Such brief greetings occur on all papal visits and are due to the Pope's characteristic kindness and availability. The only real audience granted by the Pope at the Nunciature was with one of his former students and his family."

    Not really surprising as the info about a "meeting" was sent to the media by the same person that claimed 100,000 were at a prayer rally in Peru for Davis (turned out to be a phony photo when no rally whatsoever took place).

    Took them long enough (5.00 / 2) (#136)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Oct 02, 2015 at 08:14:08 AM EST
    I don't see how this changes a thing.  Why was she there?  Clearly this is to make it easier to say he didn't know who she was which is laughable afaiac.  Why was she sneaked in why was it secret  
    And you are wrong about the photo of the rally.  That was not put out by a Catholic publication

    The fake photo from Peru was put out (none / 0) (#139)
    by CoralGables on Fri Oct 02, 2015 at 08:21:33 AM EST
    by her lawyer.

    Why was the "visit" secret? Do you know any of the other people that walked though the line to be given a rosary? The rest weren't attempting to pull a political ploy as was the Davis lawyer. It always leads back to him, former dean of Liberty University law school and now money grubbing publicity whore.


    Right (none / 0) (#140)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Oct 02, 2015 at 08:27:12 AM EST
    And the meeting was made public by a Catholic publication.   He lawyer could not and no doubt would not have arranged a secret meeting.  It's pretty clear secret was the last thing the wanted.   The secret meeting was arranged by these around the Pope.  They were taken to avoid eyes by people around the Pope.

    Outsiders don't arrange a secret meeting with the Pope


    No (5.00 / 1) (#143)
    by CoralGables on Fri Oct 02, 2015 at 08:32:52 AM EST
    the meeting was made known by her lawyer. The photo was put out by her lawyer.

    Put aside your hatred and try to follow the bouncing ball...or in a nod to Hagrid, follow the spiders. (for the record I'm agnostic after surviving 13 years of Catholic education, and defending the church feels a little dirty to me)


    While her lawyers may have put out the (5.00 / 2) (#180)
    by MO Blue on Fri Oct 02, 2015 at 11:02:45 AM EST
    photo, according to media reports this anti-gay marriage propaganda was in fact first reported by the conservative magazine Inside the Vatican So maybe, you might want to start following the bouncing ball from when it began bouncing.

    From Rome, NPR's Sylvia Poggioli reports:

    "News of the 15-minute-long meeting was first reported by the conservative magazine Inside the Vatican. Kim Davis told the editor Pope Francis thanked her for her courage, hugged her and told her, 'Stay strong.' link

    I would suggest you read the articles published by Inside the Vatican see what is being published about the meeting.


    BTW. the meeting and (5.00 / 3) (#189)
    by MO Blue on Fri Oct 02, 2015 at 11:50:05 AM EST
    invitation was arranged by the office of Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò, the papal nuncio*, or envoy, in Washington, according to the Vatican spokesman, Rev. Thomas Rosica.

    High ranking members of the church were involved in staging this meeting to further an anti-gay agenda.

    *A papal nuncio (officially known as an Apostolic nuncio) is a permanent diplomatic representative (head of diplomatic mission) of the Holy See


    Wrong again (none / 0) (#145)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Oct 02, 2015 at 08:48:54 AM EST
    The story was first reported by a conservative Catholic magazine.

    After fielding repeated late-night inquiries form reporters, the Vatican announced Wednesday morning that they could neither confirm nor deny the alleged meeting happening, saying they wouldn't comment further. ThinkProgress received a similar response from the Apostolic Nunciature of the Holy See: "The embassy does not deny that the meeting took place, but will not make any further comments on the subject."

    Both Kim and her husband Joe Davis were present for the meeting. According to her account to Moynihan, Pope Francis spoke in English with no interpreter, they hugged, and he gave them both rosaries that he had blessed. They promised each other that they'd pray for each other. "Thank you for your courage," he allegedly said. "Stay strong." That was all that happened.

    If true, the reports call into question the pope's own comments about the Kim Davis case.
    During his flight back to the Holy See from the United States earlier this week, Francis was directly asked by an ABC News reporter about the Kim Davis situation. The reporter did not mention Davis by name, but asked the pontiff whether he supports government officials who marriage licenses to same-sex couples.
    Francis responded by saying "I can't have in mind all the cases that can exist about conscientious objection," before launching into a general defense of religious liberty and conscientious objection. Some viewed the comments as a tacit defense of Davis, but others noted his unwillingness to address her specific case -- presumably because he was unaware of it.
    But if Francis did, in fact, meet with Davis ahead of time in a meeting organized by Vatican officials, it would cast doubt on the suggestion that he is unaware of her situation.

    From ThinkProgress


    Btw (none / 0) (#148)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Oct 02, 2015 at 08:52:09 AM EST
    That last part is what KesDan was talking about.  That after the meeting he flat out lied about it.   Unless you are prepared to suggest that he didn't know who she was even after secretly meeting her, telling her to stay strong and giving her and her hick husband rosaries.

    Your discussions on this topic (none / 0) (#151)
    by CoralGables on Fri Oct 02, 2015 at 09:45:33 AM EST
    remind me of McBain/Jim and others on other topics. Lots of blather without much knowledge.

    But if it makes you feel better and gets you though your day, please continue.


    The difference is (5.00 / 3) (#153)
    by CST on Fri Oct 02, 2015 at 09:52:37 AM EST
    It's personal.  I may not agree with everything Howdy is saying but I recognize where it's coming from.  And it's a place of knowledge of the other side.

    I do think the whole thing seems like contrived spin by someone using Kim Davis (possibly herself), especially as the Vatican has now come out and explicitly said they don't endorse her case just because they met.

    That being said - there is a lot of historical baggage.  And whether it was contrived spin or not - it's going to be propped up and used to restrict people's rights.


    Thank you (none / 0) (#161)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Oct 02, 2015 at 10:06:17 AM EST
    I have not seen and did not turn up in a quick search a "specific denial of support for her". Only vague statements that any meeting doesn't not connote support.

    This is not confrontational  but do you have a link?

    I just go back to the original questions.  Why was she there at all?  Why was it secret?  And it clearly was by the no confirmation responses to questions from the press until it was clear that was not going to work.  Do we really seriously, do you seriously, believe that he did not know who she was?  Or that that evasive answer on the plane was exactly that?

    Look.  I don't really give a rats ass who he meets with.  I, like you never expected much else.   What I do hate is being lied to and manipulated.   As I said before don't pi$$ on my leg and tell me it's raining.   That's the best way to get a rise out if me.


    This is what I'm referring to (none / 0) (#167)
    by CST on Fri Oct 02, 2015 at 10:24:10 AM EST

    I do think it's plausible that a foreign politician whose English is frankly not that great did not fully appreciate the spectacle that is Kim Davis.  That being said, someone in that room certainly did.


    Thanks (none / 0) (#174)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Oct 02, 2015 at 10:37:59 AM EST
    How the hell did Mr Google miss that.

    Well, if you say so-

    "The pope did not enter into the details of the situation of Mrs. Davis, and his meeting with her should not be considered a form of support of her position in all of its particular and complex aspects," the Rev. Federico Lombardi, the Vatican spokesman, said in a statement released on Friday morning.

    Irreverent dodge (none / 0) (#157)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Oct 02, 2015 at 09:55:51 AM EST
    When presented with facts.

    Whatever.   I don't need your permission or approval.


    Strange (none / 0) (#159)
    by jbindc on Fri Oct 02, 2015 at 09:57:49 AM EST
    To accept rosaries from the Pope, as Davis and her husband are very much ANTI-PAPIST.  And no translator?  Hmmm, I bet there was a translator when he met with the President, but none for Mr. and Mrs. Davis?

    Yep, sure sounds like the Pope himself. plotted this just to give a wink and a nod to the Rowan County Clerk.


    If the Pope is this clueless... (4.50 / 2) (#165)
    by Dadler on Fri Oct 02, 2015 at 10:14:53 AM EST
    ...then he is even more of a wretch for wanting the power he has. The simple fact that he rails against capitalism, but never against monotheism (which is nothing but capitalism's monotheistic religious twin), renders him a completely unserious human. I'll say it again, you cannot be considered a decent or serious person when you ask every other secular institution to reform, but NEVER ask your own church to end its useless, senseless hatred of "the other."

    No sh!t (5.00 / 1) (#173)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Oct 02, 2015 at 10:34:12 AM EST
    If he is that clueless who cares what he says about climate change or anything else.

    The Pope is a wretch... (5.00 / 1) (#181)
    by fishcamp on Fri Oct 02, 2015 at 11:08:24 AM EST
    That's good stuff Sadler.  Well spell check did that, but I like it.

    Unless you want people to read (none / 0) (#163)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Oct 02, 2015 at 10:07:44 AM EST
    Your initial reactions to this I would stay out of it.

    My initial reactions? (5.00 / 2) (#169)
    by jbindc on Fri Oct 02, 2015 at 10:24:34 AM EST
    You mean, where I said this?

    I'll wait for the proof, first(none / 0) (#171)
    by jbindc on Wed Sep 30, 2015 at 08:58:12 AM EST
    You know, the pictures her lawyers say exist.
    Maybe they do, but I'm skeptical

    So we have proof that they were in the same room.  Shrug. As opposed to your initial reaction that OH MY GOD, THE POPE IS REALLY A MONSTER!!

    Yeah it looks like I was right about  no secret special meeting.

    I think maybe it's you who needs to take a time out on the subject.


    You? (none / 0) (#172)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Oct 02, 2015 at 10:32:24 AM EST
    Were right?

    My god you really are delusional.  It's not just an act.   Well, I just quoted one of you "dead on" comments up thread.   The feast are in the last open.  That's before you embarrassed yourself and slunk away until now.   Most people already read them

    I don't need to use bandwidth arguing with you.  
    Feel free to have the last word..  


    job news (5.00 / 2) (#150)
    by CST on Fri Oct 02, 2015 at 09:22:33 AM EST

    "US employers cut back sharply on hiring in September and added fewer jobs in July and August than previously thought"

    Article in a nut shell, there's a global recession, and we aren't isolated.

    "hiring in education and health fell to its lowest level in nearly a year"

    If only there were some centralized entity that could help with this...

    Guns (5.00 / 3) (#183)
    by ScottW714 on Fri Oct 02, 2015 at 11:12:39 AM EST
    "We spend over 1 trillion dollars and pass countless laws and devote entire agencies to preventing terrorist attacks on our soil, and rightfully so," Obama said after the deadly attack at Umpqua Community College. "And yet we have a Congress that explicitly blocks us from collecting data on how we could potentially reduce gun deaths. How can that be?"

    Consider that a good portion of the country is ready to go to war in the ME, we like killing regardless of how many candlelight vigils we have.  A good start would be handguns, something, but that isn't even half the issue, there is a reason people love guns, and that needs to be addressed, as well as this view of killing as something tragic, but not tragic enough to do anything about it, or even to think twice about getting in another war we can't possibly win.

    The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates that 153,144 people were killed by homicide in which firearms were used between 2001 and 2013, the last year that data are available (that number excludes deaths by "legal intervention").

    The Global Terrorism Database -- which uses a criteria to determine terrorist attacks but also includes acts of violence that are more ambiguous in goal -- estimates that 3,046 people in the U.S. died in terrorist or possible terrorist attacks between 2001 and 2014.

    The top number doesn't even include suicides and legal police killings (which boost the number to 394,912). Still, just counting homicides alone, 11,780 Americans were killed by guns a year on average, in that time period, while 219 on average were per year killed by terrorism -- although of course the 9/11 attacks are the bulk of the deaths. LINK

    That is 50:1 people killed by guns to terrorist, yet here we are ready to go 10,000 miles away to fight the terrorist and not do a GD thing here.

    It proves to me how much influence the gun lobby and the military industrial complex have in establishing policy/law.

    As I mentioned in another post, we need to fix problems right here before we start fixing other people's problems.  I would say a death count of 50:1, the 50 needs addressing far more than the 1.  

    This goes back to my original statement about guns only being part of the problem.  This notion that being killed by a someone else, a terrorist, is infinity worse than being killed by an American citizen, has got to stop.  We changed the Constitution to keep us safe from terrorist, but we can't change it deal with a problem that is 50 times worse, that is insane to me.  Not that I think changing the Constitution is the answer only that we took extremely drastic measures to keep us safe from terrorist, but we ain't doing a GD thing to keep us safe from gun owners, of which I am one.

    And lastly, stating the obvious:

    "When Americans are killed in mine disasters, we work to make mines safer," the president noted. "When Americans are killed in floods and hurricanes, we make communities safer. When roads are unsafe, we fix them, to reduce auto fatalities. We have seat-belt laws because we know it saves lives.

    "The notion that gun violence is somehow different -- that our freedom and our Constitution prohibits any modest regulation of how we use a deadly weapon when there are law-abiding gun owners all across the country who could hunt and do everything they do under such regulations -- it doesn't make sense."

    Monday (5.00 / 1) (#200)
    by jbindc on Fri Oct 02, 2015 at 12:23:37 PM EST
    Starts the new term at the Supreme Court.  Here's a list of the cases set to be argued.

    Poor met with gay couple (5.00 / 1) (#207)
    by jbindc on Fri Oct 02, 2015 at 02:37:51 PM EST
    For Howdy, who thinks anyine who disagrees with him is delusional and irrational. Ooh!  The Pope was trying to pull a fast one on us!  (Speaking of delusional....)

    The day before Pope Francis met anti-gay county clerk Kim Davis in Washington last week, he held a private meeting with a longtime friend from Argentina who has been in a same-sex relationship for 19 years.
    Yayo Grassi, an openly gay man, brought his partner, Iwan Bagus, as well several other friends to the Vatican Embassy on September 23 for a brief visit with the Pope. A video of the meeting shows Grassi and Francis greeting each other with a warm hug.

    In an exclusive interview with CNN, Grassi declined to disclose details about the short visit, but said it was arranged personally with the Pope via email in the weeks ahead of Francis' highly anticipated visit to the United States.

    "Three weeks before the trip, he called me on the phone and said he would love to give me a hug," Grassi said.

    So I Don't Know... (5.00 / 1) (#209)
    by ScottW714 on Fri Oct 02, 2015 at 04:17:35 PM EST
    ...what Anne thinks, fair enough, but in the same GD breathe you claim to know her true desire.

    What is super funny, that isn't even the dumbest thing in that post:

    But I'm not concerned with what other nations do.
    True, so long as you don't go back one thread and read what you wrote about going to war in the ME.  All you do is write about what other countries are doing, I even remember reading 'the world is getting smaller' from you yesterday.

    You don't have try so hard to be hack, trust me we all get it.

    @ CaptHowdy: (5.00 / 1) (#218)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri Oct 02, 2015 at 05:28:51 PM EST
    CaptHowdy: "I got heated in my comments yesterday. This hit very close to home for me.  I suspect just as close as it does for you. Since my constitutional rights are in question and yours is not."

    I would suggest that you take a deep breath and get a grip. Your constitutional rights as a gay man are no longer in question by the majority of Americans. Marriage equality is a fact, and that was the big nut which needed cracking here. Now that it's been achieved, opponents have no leg to stand on because the courts ruled that as a matter of course, they have no legal standing to offer a challenge in such matters. (Pun intended.)

    But for some reason and further of your own choice, you're giving undue regard to a bombastic but nevertheless rapidly dwindling number of zealots, bigots and blowhards on the right, who've already lost this particular battle rather decisively, even if they're too stupid to realize it yet.

    What you're doing here is lowering yourself to the base level of those adversaries, who are morons and idiots. And in the process, you're alienating liberal Catholics such as myself and Christine who are LGBT allies, because you've chosen to attack the spiritual leader of our church over a matter so appallingly trivial that it would be laughable, were your words not so offensive, ignorant and hurtful.

    CaptHowdy: "I just have one question. If it was as innocent as we would be led to believe with Davis, why was it secret?  And why will, as you pointed out, the Pope not clarify it."

    I can't speak for His Holiness, and can only speculate that perhaps he didn't want to dignify the remarks of Kim Davis and her attorney publicly, and thus get pulled into the muck of a local legal dispute that's presently being handled by the federal court, albeit in front of the entire country. But apparently, he's since reconsidered his initial decision to ignore the controversy.

    Through his spokesperson, Pope Francis has now not only categorically denied that he met with Ms. Davis privately, he has also disputed the contention that she was even invited to meet him personally. Rather, he noted that she had managed to include herself as part of a larger group that included the person the Vatican DID invite, His Holiness's former student from Buenos Aires, Yayo Grassi, who also happens to be gay:

    "Vatican assistant spokesman Rev. Thomas Rosica said Friday that Francis had not invited Davis to a gathering that included dozens of people and suggested that the meeting may have been manipulated by her and her lawyer. Asked if she had exploited the encounter to promote her beliefs, he replied, 'One could say that.'" (Emphasis is mine.)

    I would respectfully suggest that in the future, you first think long and hard about what you want to say, and consider carefully beforehand whether you might in fact be jumping to a premature conclusion, rather than just typing furiously away on your keyboard and then hitting "Post."

    You know, and speaking here as a political activist, I've been in this particular struggle for LGBT rights for quite a while myself, because the State of Hawaii was where the fight for marriage equality was first joined in 1993 with our State Supreme Court's ruling in Baehr v. Lewin (Miike).

    There were a small number of us who stood up to the right-wing Christian political backlash when the State Supreme Court initially ruled for the plaintiffs, and I have the tire tread marks on my front side to prove it.

    It's not something I enjoy talking about even today because it was a very stressful and painful time for me, and we ultimately took it on the chin politically. Do you remember a right-wing whackjob named Randall Terry, founder of Operation Rescue and the Society for Truth and Justice? Well, he came to the Hawaii Legislature during our 1996 session to denounce gay marriage, and he literally spit in my face when I refused to allow him entry into my boss's office.

    I even lost my job as a legislative staffer in Nov. 1996 when my boss, who openly opposed the then-proposed constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, was defeated for re-election by a homophobic Republican preacher by a mere 87 votes. (Granted, I was quickly hired by the House Majority Leader, but still ...)

    So your stated assumption that the effects and ramifications of this issue were somehow exclusive only to you and other LGBT persons, and not to me as a straight person, is simply bullschitt.

    While I'll admit that at the time, gay marriage was not necessarily the issue over which I'd have drawn a line in the sand were it up to me, nevertheless I was out there on the front lines once that issue was forced upon us by others. I stood up to be counted and worked very hard to stop what was happening back then, even though we ultimately lost the Amendment 2 vote in 1998 by over a 2-1 margin, 70-30%.

    For that matter, what exactly were you doing back in 1996-98 when liberal Democrats were under assault over this matter, not only in Hawaii but all across the country, and when elected officials like my boss proved willing to fall on their swords and lose an election over what they considered a matter of human rights and fundamental principle? Where were you?

    There was a time when I would agree that the LGBT community were freely victimized and regularly scapegoated by larger elements of our society in misguided response to our own shortcomings as heterosexuals. Well, we've obviously turned a corner and those times are rapidly changing, even if we haven't quite arrived at our destination and likely still have a ways to go.

    Nevertheless, those who persist in indulging their own irrational homophobia in public now run a serious risk of becoming social pariahs themselves. That should not mean that as a gay man, you are now free to avenge yourself upon others for any past slights and injuries you may have suffered at the hands of straight people -- which includes lashing out mindlessly at anyone you perceive to be standing in your way, as you did in this thread yesterday.

    You only empower misguided jackwagons like Kim Davis when you react emotionally like that, because when you gauge your own statements and actions in response to whatever it is that they're doing at the time, you are effectively letting them jerk your chain at will.

    I'm sure you've heard me oft-quote my favorite Persian proverb, "Dogs bark, and the caravan passes." Well, in your case, it's entirely appropriate. Let the dogs bark, Cap'n, lest the caravan moves on and passes YOU by, as well.


    I hope you didn't expect me to read that (5.00 / 1) (#219)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Oct 02, 2015 at 05:45:45 PM EST

    is Snowden a wingnut too? (4.00 / 3) (#2)
    by thomas rogan on Thu Oct 01, 2015 at 01:05:10 PM EST
    Really? (5.00 / 4) (#5)
    by CST on Thu Oct 01, 2015 at 01:10:15 PM EST
    Snowden doesn't think Clinton's e-mails were completely secure so that means Bernie is the only logical president?

    Wishfull thinking.

    BTW, I think most people assume nothing is completely secure.  Certainly not a government server.  Oh and John Kerry the current SOS is actively using a private email server.  But I guess no one cares about that?


    Russia has my husband's fingerprints (5.00 / 3) (#16)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Oct 01, 2015 at 01:47:53 PM EST
    And probably knows my mother's maiden name. That wasn't on Hillary's server. That was hacked from .gov servers :)

    Well, the Chinese (5.00 / 3) (#120)
    by Zorba on Thu Oct 01, 2015 at 09:30:18 PM EST
    appear to have acquired the personal information, including Social Security numbers, of federal employees, past and present, as well as a certain proportion of federal contractors and even applicants for federal jobs.  All from government servers.
    Nothing is secure nowadays.  Nothing.

    Worse... (5.00 / 1) (#175)
    by ScottW714 on Fri Oct 02, 2015 at 10:39:50 AM EST
    ...the US Government probably knows more about me that I do, and since they can't keep that information secure...

    Who knows who has it or who will have it at some future date.

    The good news, as exciting as my life is, I doubt of all the information they have, I am anywhere near read worthy.  Sure they can run analytics on it, but to actually know anything interesting about me would require a human being reading it, and in those regards, my life just is not that interesting, not even close when you realize exactly how much data they have.


    I know I'm on a list somewhere (5.00 / 2) (#179)
    by CST on Fri Oct 02, 2015 at 10:47:48 AM EST
    I once was in the same room as the president, standing about 2 feet away from him, and was never searched or asked a single question.

    In other words, they already knew every d@mn thing about me before I got there.


    Thomas, you need to use the hyperlink tab. (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Oct 01, 2015 at 01:40:28 PM EST
    LINK. Otherwise, Jeralyn will delete your comment.

    And FYI, Edward Snowden didn't write this article. Rather, the author is H.A. Goodman, a longtime Hillary-basher who's already on record as supporting Rand Paul.



    The wingnut (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Oct 01, 2015 at 01:42:24 PM EST
    welfare crowd is never going to learn to use hyperlinks tab it seems and actually get facts before posting.

    How long has that person been (5.00 / 2) (#14)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Oct 01, 2015 at 01:43:35 PM EST
    Posting here?
    Sand doesn't even bother with the lame tiny URL.

    Oh well, got himself a 5 from uncle chip.


    Btw (none / 0) (#19)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Oct 01, 2015 at 01:49:20 PM EST
    Not everyone here gives a rats ass what Edward Snowden thinks

    And, what pray tell (none / 0) (#41)
    by christinep on Thu Oct 01, 2015 at 03:08:04 PM EST
    does the "influential" Mr. Putin think?  Trans: I wonder if he knows about this ... or maybe old Putin doesn't want to go toe-to-toe with Hillary Clinton in future?  Whatever....

    I Would Imagine... (none / 0) (#178)
    by ScottW714 on Fri Oct 02, 2015 at 10:47:15 AM EST
    ...Edward Snowden will support the person most likely to allow him to return to the United States without spending the rest of his life in a deep, dark, hole.

    IOW, if there is someone with an agenda, it's Edward Snowden, not that I blame him, but my voting will not be based on the wants and needs of Edward Snowden.  

    I respect what he did and I think we should offer him what the Constitution dictates, a legitimate trail, not a some makeshift secret tribunal in which the outcome is predetermined, and allow him to be fairly judged by American citizens.  And if they determine he committed crimes, he should be punished accordingly, if they do not he should be a free man.


    et al (1.00 / 2) (#208)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Oct 02, 2015 at 04:00:38 PM EST
    pitachips, the operative word is "most." Some allow long guns to be owned if the owner is a member of a "club" and store the weapons at the club.

    But I'm not concerned with what other nations do. If If I remember correctly many did not and many could not oppose either the Nazis or the Soviets... And then they don't have our constitution.

    Scott, yes your comment is. And "many" is neither instructive or demonstrative.

    And yes, the goal is taking away all guns. If you think otherwise then look in the mirror and repeat your insult.

    And no. You do not know what Anne may say at a later date. I merely noted what her true desire is.

    So what Pope meets with same sex couple (1.00 / 2) (#210)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Oct 02, 2015 at 04:26:53 PM EST
    So what.  It was pointed out earlier he met with a transgendered person.
    This question was asked before (vml I believe )

    What exact point are you making.  I don't think it was answered before but answer it or stfu.

    Are you suggesting that a random LGBT person is the equivalent of a person who is the figurehead for bigotry in this country?  That a person who was sent to jail and likely will be again for actively working to deny the constitutional rights of others is the literal equal of me or any other LGBT person?Really?

    Cause if that's your point, f&ck you very much.  Your bigotry is showing.

    But you got a five from christine (1.00 / 1) (#211)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Oct 02, 2015 at 04:29:50 PM EST
    Who posted the original equivalency.

    Of course

    Baby steps (none / 0) (#1)
    by CST on Thu Oct 01, 2015 at 01:04:43 PM EST
    "bipartisan group of influential senators on Thursday proposed a far-reaching plan to cut mandatory prison sentences for nonviolent offenders and promote more early release from federal prisons in what they described as the most important criminal justice reform effort in a generation."


    It doesn't sound particularly far reaching when you get into the details, and "most important in a generation" sounds like PR direct from the senators, that's why I said baby steps.  But it is a very good sign for things to come that it's bi-partisan.

    Far (none / 0) (#7)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Oct 01, 2015 at 01:15:37 PM EST
    reaching I'm guessing is the words of the NYT. Since it is the NYT then it shouldn't be a surprise those are the words they use.

    Sentencing Overhaul Proposed in Senate (none / 0) (#3)
    by Mr Natural on Thu Oct 01, 2015 at 01:05:17 PM EST
    with bipartisan backing.  - New York Times

    [caution: autoplay video of Grassley]

    A bipartisan group of influential senators on Thursday proposed a far-reaching plan to cut mandatory prison sentences for nonviolent offenders and promote more early release from federal prisons in what they described as the most important criminal justice reform effort in a generation.

    "This is truly landmark legislation," said Senator Charles E. Grassley, the Iowa Republican who leads the Judiciary Committee. Mr. Grassley's support was essential to advancing a measure its sponsors hope will reduce the financial and societal costs of mass incarceration, which has hit minority communities particularly hard.

    The measure has benefited from an unusual convergence of interests in an otherwise polarized Washington and has become a singular issue that usually warring groups have rallied around. Progressive advocacy groups have embraced the possibility of less jail time and better preparation for offenders when they are released; conservatives have championed the potential savings in reducing prison populations and spending on the strained criminal justice system. President Obama is also a strong advocate of criminal justice reform and would like to see legislation enacted before he leaves office.

    jinx (none / 0) (#4)
    by CST on Thu Oct 01, 2015 at 01:06:24 PM EST
    you owe me a coke

    34 seconds (none / 0) (#6)
    by Mr Natural on Thu Oct 01, 2015 at 01:12:58 PM EST
    Shooting at Oregon College (none / 0) (#8)
    by vml68 on Thu Oct 01, 2015 at 01:33:01 PM EST
    Umpqua CC in Roseburg, Oregon. (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by fishcamp on Thu Oct 01, 2015 at 03:29:10 PM EST
    A very tidy community of 20'000 folks.  Very sad.

    ... 13 people were killed and perhaps 20 others injured in the attack, which occurred at Umpqua Community College in the southern Oregon town of Roseburg. The shooter is now "down" and in police custody.

    Update (3:00 p.m. PDT): (none / 0) (#53)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Oct 01, 2015 at 05:09:18 PM EST
    The gunman is dead.

    Unrelated... (none / 0) (#51)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Oct 01, 2015 at 05:05:26 PM EST
    ...but Washington state dad whose kid who killed 4 students, was found guilty of six counts of unlawful possession of a firearm.  LINK

    Raymond Fryberg was convicted Tuesday of six counts of unlawful possession of a firearm. He was the subject of a 2002 domestic violence protection order that prohibited from having firearms.

    The Three Young Men... (none / 0) (#9)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Oct 01, 2015 at 01:33:39 PM EST
    ... climbing into the pickup truck close to the Oregon border cheerfully acknowledged they were about to break federal law. But they won't be doing it for much longer.

    Anthony, Daniel and Chris bustled out of a marijuana shop in Vancouver, Washington, clutching bags of weed as they headed home a short drive over the bridge to Portland, Oregon.

    Crossing state lines with drugs is a federal offence but that has not discouraged the steady stream of customers from Portland taking advantage of Washington's legalisation of recreational marijuana sales last year.

    But starting on Thursday, Oregon joins Washington in permitting the sale of marijuana for recreational use to anyone over the age of 21.


    News to me and good for Oregon.

    The open sale of recreational marijuana has come more swiftly to Portland than many expected. Legalisation was only approved in a ballot measure last November whereas Washington state took 18 months to open its first shops.

    To speed up the process, Oregon has approved recreational sales through existing medical marijuana dispensaries, bypassing lengthy background checks which have slowed the roll-out across the state line.

    But it caught off-guard many of the dispensary owners who did not expect open sales to begin until the middle of next year.

    My possible (none / 0) (#12)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Oct 01, 2015 at 01:41:10 PM EST
    Relocation destinations grow by 50%

    It's so Dumb... (none / 0) (#26)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Oct 01, 2015 at 02:00:00 PM EST
    ...legal weed is flooding the market, not cashing in because of reaganaphobia (unfounded fear of marijuana) is really dumb.  All this talk of taxes and here we are, most states just letting weed transactions go untaxed.

    More Applied Stupidity from today's TeaGOP (none / 0) (#10)
    by Mr Natural on Thu Oct 01, 2015 at 01:35:07 PM EST
    Blaming Congress for its failure to reauthorize the U.S. Export-Import Bank, an institution that finances sales of U.S. industrial equipment to overseas customers, General Electric Co. says it will stop manufacturing engines in Waukesha and move that work to Canada.

    About 350 jobs will be lost at the Waukesha plant, where GE Power & Water, a division of Fairfield, Conn.-based GE, builds engines used in the petroleum industry.

    The company says it will move the production to a new $265 million engine factory to be built in Canada during the next 20 months.

    GE and other companies have pleaded with Congress to reauthorize the Export-Import Bank, which provides loans, credit guarantees and insurance to aid sales by U.S. companies to customers abroad. But many Republicans say the bank amounts to corporate welfare, benefiting large corporations that don't need government assistance.

    The bank's charter expired June 30 when Republican members of the House blocked a reauthorization vote.

    GE says it is currently bidding on $11 billion in projects that require export financing, and emphasizes that Canada has a strong export bank.

    "We believe in American manufacturing, but our customers in many cases require Export Credit Agencies financing for us to bid on projects. Without it, we cannot compete, and our customers may be forced to select other providers," GE Vice Chairman John Rice said in a statement.

    Soon, Wisconsin will be down to one export:  Scott Walker's overheated blather.

    I am From Wisconsin... (none / 0) (#22)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Oct 01, 2015 at 01:53:23 PM EST
    ...and when I went back and talked to people it seems that they are dead set up surpassing Mississippi in the letting idiot republicans run the place into the ground.

    Ask and ye shall receive.


    Panic at the Ballpark... (none / 0) (#27)
    by kdog on Thu Oct 01, 2015 at 02:03:11 PM EST
    NYC's collective heart skips a beat last night when Yoenis "Marlboro Red" Cespedes takes a pitch off the hand in the top of the 3rd.  

    But we can breathe easy...not busted, just brusied, Terry Collins he should be back for the weekend regular season finale against the Nats.  Praise the baseball gods!!!

    Ugly ugly game...4 hit batters, two ejections, benches clear.  Phillies take it 7-5, Mets up just a half a game on the Dodgers for NLDS homefield.

    The combination of heavy rain that (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by Anne on Thu Oct 01, 2015 at 02:15:46 PM EST
    isn't hurricane-related, together with whatever is coming our way from Joaquin, is going to play havoc with many of the remaining games to be played here on the east coast.

    Not that it matters to teams that have clinched, and teams that are out of it, but I think there's still some wild-card competition trying to happen.


    Don't talk about the weather! (5.00 / 2) (#35)
    by kdog on Thu Oct 01, 2015 at 02:33:33 PM EST
    Sump Pump Armageddon has already begun in earnest...not one, not two, but three emergency shipment trailers on the way to my outfit's NJ warehouse to fill panic-buy demand.

    Million dollars in purchase orders easy have crossed my desk already today and it ain't even raining yet...bong is gonna be puttin' in work tonight!


    Possible 20+ inches (none / 0) (#34)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Oct 01, 2015 at 02:31:20 PM EST
    Of rain in some east coast urban areas.  Like Charslton, I think was one.



    Am I the only one wondering why (none / 0) (#134)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Oct 02, 2015 at 08:02:04 AM EST
    these killers never attack a place where they know other people might have guns??

    I mean they may be crazy, but they aren't dumb.

    Concealed carry on campus (5.00 / 2) (#141)
    by jondee on Fri Oct 02, 2015 at 08:31:11 AM EST
    is legal in Oregon, bright boy.

    It's a little more complicated (5.00 / 1) (#149)
    by ragebot on Fri Oct 02, 2015 at 08:53:14 AM EST
    Here is the link.

    The bottom line is that schools can ban guns from campus even if state laws permit it, something the school in question did.

    Fairly interesting link at AP about how Oregon recently tightened its gun laws.

    One thing the AP blurb mentioned that I did not know was that there were about 32K gun deaths yearly in the US from 2009 to 2013 and of those about 20K were suicides.  So about 2/3 of the yearly gun deaths are by the person's own hand.


    hate crime (1.00 / 2) (#146)
    by thomas rogan on Fri Oct 02, 2015 at 08:49:57 AM EST
    It sure seems that no one was carrying in that class, since the shooter was a slow mover who questioned students as to whether they were Christians and only gunned down the ones who were.  He could have been gunned down early in the attack, albeit by mighty brave student or teacher who only had a glock.  

    When are people going to get it (5.00 / 2) (#154)
    by Anne on Fri Oct 02, 2015 at 09:52:46 AM EST
    through their apparently-thick heads that more guns are not the answer?

    I'll say it again: guns do not make people smarter.  They do not make people more cautious.  They do not help people find other ways to manage their anger, their problems, their impulses.

    This nation is awash in guns, both legally and illegally owned.  I'm not saying there aren't responsible gun owners, rational gun owners - there are.  

    When your or my participation in the nation's well-regulated militia requires or permits us to own weapons, fine.  But this cockeyed, upside-down, nonsensical interpretation of the 2nd Amendment that each and every one of us has the right to bear arms needs to go.  It's time the rights of what I believe is the majority of the population to not have to constantly fear that some nut with an obsession or a grievance will decide on some random day to start killing people, get and are accorded at least as much consideration as the LaPierre crowd keeps using its money to prevent.

    The answer to the proliferation of gun violence in this country isn't for more people to own and carry guns.  


    I live at the edge of town on acreage (none / 0) (#168)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Oct 02, 2015 at 10:24:31 AM EST
    with lots of trees, a curving driveway and privacy shrubs and green belt.

    A few years ago I was setting in my home office which fronts the front yard and drive. It was around two o'clock. As I sat there I watched an older Buick come down the drive very rapidly. The male driver jumped out and walked rapidly to the front door, rang the bell and stood there.

    I was cheered by the thought that if he kicked the door in my 20 guage pump was a few feet away loaded and ready. I called out to him through the open window. He explained that he was on his way to Memphis to see his sick mother and need to borrow some money as he was broke and out of gas.

    Since he had driven by about 12 homes and a church , all with high visibility yards/entrances, I was not impressed. I told him to leave and try the church. He hesitated for a few minutes and then left.

    I spoke with the police and they agreed he was hoping an elderly person or someone he thought he could handle would open the door and he would attack/rob at the best. Rape/kill at the worst.

    Now I don't have a pistol because I am a lousy shot.

    But if you get your way, anne, my shotgun will also be taken.



    If I remember correctly (none / 0) (#187)
    by pitachips on Fri Oct 02, 2015 at 11:44:25 AM EST
    Most nations with stringent gun control laws still permit ownership of shotguns.

    Dumb... (none / 0) (#196)
    by ScottW714 on Fri Oct 02, 2015 at 12:06:49 PM EST
    ...in that you didn't actually need it, but for the record, many of us gun owners want stricter gun laws while still being able to protect ourselves.

    Only an idiot believes gun control means taking away all guns, even home defense weapons.

    You claim you never lie:

    But if you get your way, anne, my shotgun will also be taken.

    I am positive Anne has never, and will never say that.  It is a lie.


    Ann did you see the links (none / 0) (#195)
    by ragebot on Fri Oct 02, 2015 at 12:02:16 PM EST
    in my post below.

    It is important to be aware of the absolute numbers of gun deaths and how they break down.  Around 2/3 of gun deaths are suicide, something I was not aware of until I read the AP blurb.  A lot of gun deaths are related to what I will call street crime, especially things like drive by shootings often times gang (and often drug) related.

    In the big picture very few deaths are related to a crazy person shooting up a crowd for unexplained reasons to anyone but the crazy person.

    In the Oregon case the guy was a mixed race loner who had rather strange ideas.  There are not a lot of conservatives who are anti Christian and support the Irish Republican Army.  If some of the reports are true he was very out of the main stream in a lot of his ideas.

    Bottom line for me is when someone is dealing with as many personal demons as this guy was there will not be a happy ending.


    Save it, From, Above (none / 0) (#198)
    by ScottW714 on Fri Oct 02, 2015 at 12:14:01 PM EST
    The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates that 153,144 people were killed by homicide in which firearms were used between 2001 and 2013, the last year that data are available (that number excludes deaths by "legal intervention").

    The Global Terrorism Database -- which uses a criteria to determine terrorist attacks but also includes acts of violence that are more ambiguous in goal -- estimates that 3,046 people in the U.S. died in terrorist or possible terrorist attacks between 2001 and 2014.

    The top number doesn't even include suicides and legal police killings (which boost the number to 394,912). Still, just counting homicides alone, 11,780 Americans were killed by guns a year on average, in that time period, while 219 on average were per year killed by terrorism -- although of course the 9/11 attacks are the bulk of the deaths. LINK

    It would be nice if the right would bother to over analyze terrorism and stop taking us into war to make us safer from terrorism, then we could have saved ourselves a couple trillion dollars, endless headaches at the airport, and the government tracking it's own citizens.

    You can rationalize gun deaths, but try and rationalize terrorism deaths and why we are not focused on a problem that is 50 times worse than terrorism.


    Umpqua Community College (1.00 / 1) (#162)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Oct 02, 2015 at 10:07:06 AM EST
    is a posted gun free zone. But allows CC.

    BTW - All the casinos in Tunica, MS are posted gun free... But MS has, as many states are, a conceal carry law.

    So my point stands. Schools, theaters, shopping centers, churches...all are "soft" targets...

    The church I attend has three members who have CC permits plus one deputy who attends in uniform. We don't want to be one....

    On August 2 Breitbart News reported that eight attacks with firearms in gun free zones in the last eight years resulted in the lost of 105 lives and the wounding of 150 others. Those attacks were on the Lafayette Grand Theater (July 23), Chattanooga (July 16), Fort Hood (April 2, 2014), DC Navy Yard (September 16, 2013), Sandy Hook Elementary (December 14, 2012), Aurora movie theater (July 12, 2012), Fort Hood (November 5, 2009), and Virginia Tech (April 16, 2007



    It's only been 20 hours (none / 0) (#144)
    by CoralGables on Fri Oct 02, 2015 at 08:36:49 AM EST
    how would you expect him to google. He's glued to Fake Fox.

    Concealed (none / 0) (#147)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Oct 02, 2015 at 08:51:46 AM EST
    carry is an abysmal failure.

    Pope Had Private Meeting with same sex U.S.couple (none / 0) (#203)
    by Mr Natural on Fri Oct 02, 2015 at 01:42:07 PM EST
    The day before Pope Francis met anti-gay county clerk Kim Davis in Washington last week, he held a private meeting with a longtime friend from Argentina who has been in a same-sex relationship for 19 years.

    Yayo Grassi, an openly gay man, brought his partner, Iwan Bagus, as well several other friends to the Vatican Embassy on September 23 for a brief visit with the Pope. A video of the meeting shows Grassi and Francis greeting each other with a warm hug.

    Sorry, that was obviously not a U.S. couple. (none / 0) (#204)
    by Mr Natural on Fri Oct 02, 2015 at 01:44:32 PM EST
    But his friend is an atheist.  

    Students had concealed handguns at UCC (none / 0) (#205)
    by MO Blue on Fri Oct 02, 2015 at 02:05:16 PM EST
    But not only was UCC not a gun free zone by law, there were also people who brought guns onto campus at the time of the massacre.

    John Parker Jr., a veteran and student at UCC, spoke with MSNBC and revealed that he was in a campus building with a concealed handgun when the shooting started. He suggested other students with him at the time were also carrying concealed handguns.
    Parker's interview revealed the practical difficulties of armed civilians trying to stop a mass shooting. By the time he became aware of the shooting, a SWAT team had already responded. He was concerned that police would view him as a "bad guy" and target him, so he quickly retreated into the classroom. link

    Where does this (none / 0) (#206)
    by jondee on Fri Oct 02, 2015 at 02:21:05 PM EST
    "UCC is a posted gun free zone" story come from?

    The land of "let's fling a big handful of horse sh*t and hope some of it sticks" apparently..

    Crazed killers with easy access to guns and ammo are going to succeed in killing people 99% of the time because they know what they're going to do and no one else does. Hence, they always have the drop on everyone.

    You have to be willfully, irrevocably blind and stupid not to see that.  

    Requested (none / 0) (#212)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Oct 02, 2015 at 04:37:08 PM EST
    Don't rate those last 2 comments.

    I would like them to stay and the bottom.

    Ha (none / 0) (#213)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Oct 02, 2015 at 04:38:53 PM EST
    Thank you Christine

    For coming out

    Since I have your attention christine (none / 0) (#214)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Oct 02, 2015 at 04:41:25 PM EST
    Answer the question.

    What is your point.   I don't expect it from the other one but you love to hear yourself talk

    Please explain your reasoning to us

    Howdy: sometimes it is wise to listen (none / 0) (#215)
    by christinep on Fri Oct 02, 2015 at 04:47:00 PM EST
    a bit ... at this point, since you seem to be spewing epithets and computer-variations of curses in recent responses to jbindc and others, it seems as if you are stuck in your original storyline & position without regard to the full story. It seems that you really don't want to hear anything but an echo chamber.

     At this point, your words evidence someone having leaped to conclusions too soon and getting further & further invested in the original story ... without the ability to reflect on anything but grasping your original leap and storming back with invective at anyone who disagrees. Please let it go.  Some of us have very different positions and beliefs about what happened.  Please have the good will to respect that.

    Yes, Howdy, I'm contesting with (none / 0) (#216)
    by christinep on Fri Oct 02, 2015 at 04:50:18 PM EST
    your usual number of posts, ok:)  

    At this point, we both are in a crouch defending our beliefs.  Disagreements about religion don't end well UNLESS people agree to back off.  We know each other's position.

    Answer. The. Question. (none / 0) (#217)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Oct 02, 2015 at 04:56:23 PM EST
    Why is a random LGBT person equal to Kim Daivs.

    Scott, you need to keep the context (none / 0) (#220)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Oct 03, 2015 at 10:18:39 AM EST
    in  mind.

    My reference was to gun control. I don't pay much attention to what they do. They aren't us and they don't have our constitution,

    And I don't pay attention to what they did/didn't do in respect to the Nazis/Soviets. They either didn't want to or couldn't. We had to respond ourselves. And all that is history.

    However, when it comes to the ME we have a real time threat to which we need to pay close attention.

    And I will give you I don't "know" that Anne would support seizing all weapons. But based on her stated political positions I believe she would.