Monday Open Thread

Time for a new open thread. All topics welcome.

< Silk Road: DEA and Secret Service Agent Charged With Fraud | ISIS Releases Dabiq Issue #8 >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Listening to NPR, Bernie Sanders said (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Mar 30, 2015 at 12:55:23 PM EST
    That he will not run third party if he runs.  If a strong grass roots campaign takes off he will run and he will not be a "spoiler", he said he will not divide the vote in a way that puts a Republican in the White House.

    I hope he runs (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by MO Blue on Mon Mar 30, 2015 at 01:04:40 PM EST
    IMO, we need him in the debate to move the goalposts and to get a liberal message before the electorate.

    Bernie Sanders (5.00 / 4) (#135)
    by CST on Tue Mar 31, 2015 at 01:32:29 PM EST
    is a national treasure.

    Not much to spoil Bernie... (none / 0) (#3)
    by kdog on Mon Mar 30, 2015 at 01:09:57 PM EST
    if you don't win, the criminal class wins...again.

    O'Malley is getting mentioned (none / 0) (#4)
    by MO Blue on Mon Mar 30, 2015 at 01:32:13 PM EST
    on Democratic blogs after his appearance on Sunday's This Week with George Stephanopoulos.

    Quote getting the most play:

    O'MALLEY: Well, I think that our country always benefits from new leadership and new perspectives. Let's be honest here, the presidency of the United States is not some crown to be passed between two families, it is an awesome and sacred trust that to be earned, and exercised on behalf of the American people. link

    If he does decide to run, I will have to do more research on him. About the only issue related thing I know about him is that he has come out strongly against the Keystone Pipeline in the past.

    I would prefer headlines and comments on what he would do rather than the crown bit but that might be asking too much based on the existing political environment.


    Actually, he has a strike against him (5.00 / 4) (#12)
    by nycstray on Mon Mar 30, 2015 at 03:22:57 PM EST
    for me with that comment. If they were just going to "pass" it to some family member, Hillary should be president right now. But a bigger issue is how that comment totally dismisses her entire resume/experience . . . like she hasn't earned?

    Yes, I agree (5.00 / 2) (#18)
    by MO Blue on Mon Mar 30, 2015 at 03:54:20 PM EST
    That comment did not sit well with me either.

    His wiki page is rather thin . . . (none / 0) (#22)
    by nycstray on Mon Mar 30, 2015 at 04:06:56 PM EST
    Or maybe...he's just expressing the (5.00 / 2) (#88)
    by Anne on Tue Mar 31, 2015 at 07:52:35 AM EST
    frustration that many voters feel about the lack of choices and the difficulty of "outsiders" breaking into the Bush/Clinton/Bush/almostClinton/maybeClinton inner circle that has had a death grip on the presidency.

    I've certainly felt that way, and that isn't a slam on anyone's qualifications or experience (although, if we're talking about GWB's qualifications, I think there's some slamming called for).

    How would you suggest a Democrat message his or her desire to be the alternative to someone who seems to be being branded as an inevitable nominee?  Is damning with faint praise the way to go?  How does someone who hasn't announced he's officially running distinguish himself from someone who hasn't even declared that she's running, and has remained virtually silent and absent on discussions of the issues?

    My general frustration comes from the fact that, here we are, with all kinds of things going on in the country and the world, and I'm not hearing much from anyone who's considering a run.  What are they doing, saving it for later, making a note for a debate?  Figuring out how to leverage it, how to put together something optically pleasing?

    I think it's counterproductive to label anyone as inevitable; I want these people to be challenged.  I want them on the hot seat, not being surrounded by defenders who think it's their job to protect someone's tender feelings.

    I read O'Malley as being frustrated with the state of presidential politics.  There are a lot of good people with great ideas and vision who should be heard, and a lot of voters who want more choices.  A lot of voters who want the opportunity to push candidates in a better direction.  

    For what it's worth, I don't know that O'Malley is different enough from Clinton to be that kind of challenger, but I don't fault him for attempting to chip away at the wall of inevitability that seems to have been built around her.


    Well he could (5.00 / 2) (#90)
    by MO Blue on Tue Mar 31, 2015 at 08:09:37 AM EST
    do what you  want.

    He could get out in front and start talking about the important issues of the day. Where does he stand on the issues? What type of foreign policy does he envision? What actual steps would he take to address income inequality, climate change? The alternative topics he could address are endless.

    The passing the crown talking point doesn't give me any reason to support him. It is just another politician engaging in negative politics rather than addressing the issues.


    Well (none / 0) (#91)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Mar 31, 2015 at 08:16:13 AM EST
    if being related to someone is a huge problem I guess FDR was a mistake since there already had been a Roosevelt in the presidency.

    I agree with you. It's a BS talking point.


    They could all do what I want, (none / 0) (#93)
    by Anne on Tue Mar 31, 2015 at 08:47:26 AM EST
    don't you think?

    Which was kind of my point.  O'Malley's just playing the game the way they're all playing it - being coy, not wanting to get too much out there early, not wanting to create a record of comments that can be thrown back in his face. Toe hovering over the water, finger firmly in the wind, studying the tea leaves.

    I hate it.  No one ever commits to anything, it seems.  I've been waiting for someone resembling a Democratic contender to speak out on the Indiana law, but...[crickets].  What are we waiting for, the bandwagon to have more people on board so it's safe to speak out against it?

    Why isn't our former Secretary of State speaking out on the Iran situation?  There seems to be no shortage of former Bush administration officials yammering about it - is Hillary being quiet so as not to step on anyone's toes in the current administration?  

    Being tired of coronation politics is not a reason to vote FOR anyone - on that we can agree.  But I kind of despair that we're going to get much of substance anytime soon.  From anyone.


    And then there's this guy . . . (5.00 / 3) (#102)
    by nycstray on Tue Mar 31, 2015 at 10:58:09 AM EST
    "I am going to Chicago to support Chuy García and [City Council candidate] Susan Sadlowski Garza," Sen. Bernie Sanders said in a statement. "I support them because we need a political revolution in this country and we need the kind of working-class coalitions that Chuy and Susan are pulling together."



    Ya know... (5.00 / 1) (#106)
    by kdog on Tue Mar 31, 2015 at 11:07:08 AM EST
    I would have to give serious consideration to sullying my good name and registering as a Democrat just to vote for Bernie in the primary...but he'll be out of the race for the nom by the time the NY primary rolls around, so it's a moot point.

    I'd vote for Bernie in a heartbeat. (5.00 / 2) (#107)
    by Anne on Tue Mar 31, 2015 at 11:14:53 AM EST
    I hope he runs - not only would he bring a much-needed liberal perspective, I think he's pretty passionate about questioning authority, which is something we really, really need, as well.

    I'd vote for him also (5.00 / 2) (#113)
    by nycstray on Tue Mar 31, 2015 at 11:46:31 AM EST
    And I like his approach here. Go out and support your ideas/people. Action instead of petty words.

    More of that please. (5.00 / 1) (#127)
    by MO Blue on Tue Mar 31, 2015 at 01:21:13 PM EST
    Run Bernie, run.

    If O'Malley would actually talk about (5.00 / 1) (#121)
    by MO Blue on Tue Mar 31, 2015 at 01:05:11 PM EST
    issues, especially where he disagrees with her record, she might be forced to respond and talk about issues. IMO, she doesn't have to talk issues as long as people like O'Malley rely on talking points like no one deserves to be crowned. That talking point could lose him as much or more support than it garners and I think she is aware of that.

    I don't think that we are necessarily representative of the population at large but not one person, even you who live in his state, has stated reasons we should vote for him other than ABH.

    I had to email my Maryland source and ask why should I vote for him because he sure in the he!! didn't tell me. While, she covered more pros and cons than have been posted here, moving the goal posts left was not included in the pros at all.


    Apparently, no one says what they (5.00 / 1) (#130)
    by Anne on Tue Mar 31, 2015 at 01:29:01 PM EST
    believe or tells you where they stand until they are officially candidates - which bugs me.  A lot.

    But he has been a mayor and he has been a governor, and in both roles, as well as in the more prominent national role he has taken lately, he does have a record.

    Here's a pretty good article that fills in some of the blanks, and an excerpt:

    In his potential White House run, however, O'Malley won't be pursuing the DLC's lurch-to-the-center path. Nor will he be following the liberal orthodoxy. Indeed, it's the Maryland Governor's uniquely post-Clinton, post-Obama positioning that makes him this handicapper's pick to emerge as the dark horse with the most potent stretch kick in the 2016 presidential derby.

    The most compelling reason? As O'Malley demonstrated in the immigration debate, he's the rare progressive to frame his strongly felt policy positions in the language of faith. It's the passionate application of universal moral values by this devout Catholic that has the potential to upend the usual partisan and ideological categories that are choking today's body politic.

    I sat down with O'Malley on July 11, a few hours after he stole the platform at the National Governors' Association annual conference in Nashville and broke with the President by forcefully and emotionally calling for a more compassionate policy on the treatment of Central American children who've recently come to the United States illegally: "It is contrary to everything we stand for to try to summarily send children back to death."


    O'Malley's record as governor of Maryland, and before that mayor of Baltimore, provides plenty of manna to nourish starving progressives.  Long before his immigration comments, the Governor punched through a succession of liberal hot-buttons:  Marriage equality? Check. Gun control? Check. Death penalty repeal? Check. Decriminalizing pot and legalizing medical marijuana? Check and check. Some might argue that he's even been too liberal for solid blue Maryland. In fact, some do, and vociferously: Discontented residents of four western counties have been pushing an initiative for months to secede from the rest of the state.


    Overall, however, O'Malley can point to a fiscal track record that most progressives would embrace: investing record sums in education to produce the nation's top ranked public schools five years in a row and lowest college tuition hikes since 2007; expanding the earned income tax credit and increasing the minimum wage to $10.10 an hour; and recovering all of the jobs lost in the national recession.

    And here's this: O'Malley on the Issues.

    Hope this helps!


    Yep (none / 0) (#134)
    by MO Blue on Tue Mar 31, 2015 at 01:32:19 PM EST
    It does. Thanks.

    He definitely needs to (none / 0) (#146)
    by MO Blue on Tue Mar 31, 2015 at 02:40:38 PM EST
    come out with positions on Foreign Policy sooner rather than later IMO. This will never do.

    O'Malley on the Issues:

    Respect my right to shy away from foreign policy

    On his 8-day trip to Israel, Jordan & the Palestinian territories, O'Malley said, "I'm sure all of you will ask me foreign policy questions. I respect your right to ask them, and I hope you'll respect my right to shy away from answering them."

    On the news of the day--apparent differences between Obama and the Israeli military on whether chemical weapons had been deployed by the Syrian military--O'Malley deferred to the president's judgment. "It's certainly one of the great challenges," he allowed.

    Asked whether the American people, weary from a decade of wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, would be ready to engage in another military operation to stop Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon, O'Malley avoided specifics. "I believe that the president will make that call," he said, "and the president will have the primary responsibility of making that case to the American people and also to Congress."

    How about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict? "All of us hope for peace in the Middle East."

    MOBlue: "He definitely needs to come out with positions on Foreign Policy sooner rather than later IMO. This will never do."

    ... eminently sound judgment in sidestepping reporters' questions on national security right now, and further offering his de facto endorsement of the president's various initiatives in the Middle East. What's to be gained, really, by undercutting Sec. Kerry at such a sensitive moment in the negotiations with Iran?

    If some people are expecting O'Malley to take issue with the president on these and other matters, simply for its own political sake -- that is, to define himself as somehow and some way different from both President Obama and Hillary Clinton -- then I would respectfully suggest that they've probably got the wrong guy. Besides, that position is presently occupied by the near-entirety of the GOP.

    O'Malley proved successful as a progressive Maryland governor precisely he wasn't a diehard firebreather. Rather, he was eminently practical in both the determination of his administration's priorities and its achievement of his goals. He didn't get to where he is at present by being recklessly provocative and mindlessly combative, constantly berating his opponents personally while menacing potential challengers with lines drawn repeatedly in the sand. (Please See Christie, Gov. Chris and Cruz, Sen. Ted) No, this is a pragmatic man who marshals his political capital for those moments when its expenditure is most effective.

    In that regard, we would be wise to also consider the possibility that by declining to comment on the current situation in the Middle East, O'Malley is actually trying to demonstrate to Democrats that he's a team player, despite his earlier public inference about a Clinton "dynasty."

    (That's actually the sort of throwaway remark at which most political veterans -- the sane and competent ones, anyway -- just roll their eyes and smile. It's one of the more unfortunate aspects of politics that in an atmosphere that's largely devoid of any real controversy, the media then tends to troll for it. And I daresay the Clintons have been around the block enough times to know that they mustn't rise to the bait by taking such statements personally.)

    From my perspective, I'd offer that O'Malley's likely taking the long view of his career options, which perhaps includes positioning himself for consideration by the Clinton camp as Hillary's potential running mate.

    While it's obviously way too early to seriously speculate on such matters, were Mrs. Clinton to choose him as her vice presidential candidate, I think they'd present the Republicans with a very formidable challenge. A Clinton-O'Malley ticket would be one that radiates optimism, confidence and most important of all, responsibility, composure and sanity -- particularly when compared to the GOP's clown car of snarling yet clueless pretenders, who would once again take Americans on a hysterical ride down the Highway to Hell.

    That's just my opinion, anyway. Aloha.


    If he decides to actually run, I personally (none / 0) (#172)
    by MO Blue on Tue Mar 31, 2015 at 06:03:29 PM EST
    would expect him to put some time and effort into developing a cohesive foreign policy of his own.

    If you are saying wait until he actually declares he is running, for him to define his positions that is one thing. OTOH if, as you suggest, he is just auditioning for VP and/or plans foreign policy statements on the campaign trail that consists of "What  Obama and Hillary says," I won't take his candidacy seriously.


    I'm sure that if he does, indeed, run, (none / 0) (#147)
    by Anne on Tue Mar 31, 2015 at 02:59:37 PM EST
    he will have positions and a philosophy - and a website!

    His donor list may provide some clues, too.


    Something else I would like to see from (5.00 / 3) (#149)
    by MO Blue on Tue Mar 31, 2015 at 03:21:52 PM EST
    SOME candidate is promoting more interest and  funding for trade schools. While I'm all for education, not all people thrive in college and not all jobs require a college education. I would like to see a presidential candidate talk about the dignity and the earning potential of trade related careers as well as making college more accessible for those who want to go. Too much discussion of how everyone needs to go to college (which I don't believe) and not enough on developing the skills needed to pursue a career that provides earning potential. Too many college educated kids with tons of student loans working at low paying jobs.

    Excellent idea... (5.00 / 2) (#153)
    by kdog on Tue Mar 31, 2015 at 03:31:58 PM EST
    I see it at work everyday...tradespersons are getting old, and not enough kids are getting into it.  We should highlight it as an option.

    It may not be glamorous, and it is hard work...but you can make a mighty fine living as a plumber.  And some trades are recession-proof work that is not at the whim of Wall St. or the next financial meltdown.

    While we're at it...I'd like to see some candidates talking about expanding the ACA to address dental care.  The days of treating teeth as optional and somehow unrelated to overall health and well-being should be history.  Make health insurance companies cover basic non-cosmetic dental under an expanded ACA.


    First... (none / 0) (#157)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Mar 31, 2015 at 03:45:52 PM EST
    ...we need to figure out how to manufacturing jobs here before we start training people for them, IMO.  The decline is probably more to do with the increase demand than the expense.

    Dental care, at least for me isn't much, a plan bought w/o work would be roughly the same as I have.  Dental is a total scam as they have a maximum payout, that is below what you put it.  They can't lose money, ever.

    Vision is the same.  The 'insurance' is more like capitalizing an expense than insuring.


    I wasn't talking about (5.00 / 2) (#160)
    by MO Blue on Tue Mar 31, 2015 at 04:00:23 PM EST
    manufacturing jobs so much as jobs like electricians, pipefitters, plumbers, machinists, welders and carpenters.

    This from Forbes (2013):

    America's Skilled Trades Dilemma: Shortages Loom As Most-In-Demand Group Of Workers Ages  http://tinyurl.com/o7r2rhe


    I meant decrease in demand. (none / 0) (#159)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Mar 31, 2015 at 03:52:36 PM EST
    Yes (5.00 / 1) (#156)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Mar 31, 2015 at 03:45:28 PM EST
    I have checked into this type of thing for my 22 year old son. Apparently there are a lot of these jobs where people are "aging out" so to speak like welding. According to the people I talk to there has been very few people going into welding in the last 30 years and I feel the same way. There is no way my LD ADHD son would ever make it in college but he can work with his hands and make a living. There is a trade school that does this in 16 weeks but it costs 8K. I was thinking how is anyone going to be able to better themselves with those kinds of costs. The tech schools offer it but it takes two years to complete. That's okay for some but not all.

    If He Can Add in Scuba... (none / 0) (#158)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Mar 31, 2015 at 03:50:36 PM EST
    ...to the welding, he can make more than most people with degrees.

    Another option I was seriously considering was the merchant marines.  Hard work, but they get paid, and loads of time off.


    Yes (none / 0) (#163)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Mar 31, 2015 at 04:20:55 PM EST
    so he was told. Apparently underwater welders are paid very well.

    I definitely think there needs to be (5.00 / 1) (#161)
    by Anne on Tue Mar 31, 2015 at 04:03:27 PM EST
    a creative, practical, real-world approach to getting people to work; I know a lot of people who could handle any number of jobs, but who can't get in the door because they don't have the currently requisite education, or the equivalent on-the-job experience.

    Well some of that currently requisite education (none / 0) (#162)
    by MO Blue on Tue Mar 31, 2015 at 04:20:45 PM EST
    Is downright stupid. The corporation I worked for before retirement was wanting to hire CPAs for entry level clerical positions in the accounting department. They did fill those positions with lower ranking new CPAs.  They accepted the job in order to put a Fortune 500 company on their resume but left after a few months rather than perish from boredom. I doubt they accurately described their job duties on their resume since they were so clerical in nature they would not challenge most high school students.

    From a company standpoint, what we basically did was conduct ongoing training secessions for new hires. Stupid.


    My college roommate (none / 0) (#164)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Mar 31, 2015 at 04:23:01 PM EST
    who is an MBA CPA had a job for quite a while that was basically debt collection. When she told me what she did I was quite floored because it sounded like something someone who finished high school could do.

    Believe me a bright high school (none / 0) (#165)
    by MO Blue on Tue Mar 31, 2015 at 04:29:17 PM EST
    kid would have been extremely bored with those clerical jobs. The VP who was establishing the hiring requirements was doing it to enhance his CV since he could write that he had X number of CPAs in his accounting department.

    Yes, my sister did that job (none / 0) (#166)
    by ruffian on Tue Mar 31, 2015 at 04:33:40 PM EST
    with a GED-  missed most of her senior year in high school, no college at all. She did quite well at collections. I know as kids she could always nag me to distraction and get me to do anything, so I guess those skills paid off.

    There are so many jobs that these days require a college degree as the entry to admission when it is really unnecessary for the work. My other sister also never went to college and is doing very well as an office manager for an actuarial firm - someone has to be able to speak non-geek to the outside world! Recently they finally bumped her pay up a couple of grades because they had been penalizing her for years for lack of a degree.


    I think (none / 0) (#129)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Mar 31, 2015 at 01:27:57 PM EST
    you've hit on a salient point with a lot of voters. They want something to vote FOR. It seeems we had Bush who ran on I'm not Gore and I'm not Kerry and then Obama who ran on I'm not McCain and I'm not Romney. I think people are beyond tired of that.

    And that "coronation" BS comes right out of the GOP. It's one of their routine talking points and saying that actually makes me want to not listen to anything else he has to say even if it might be worthwhile.


    I disagree GA... (5.00 / 1) (#139)
    by kdog on Tue Mar 31, 2015 at 02:02:08 PM EST
    people might say they want something to vote for instead of voting against, but the vast majority always vote against when Election Day rolls around.

    In 2012 we had Jill Stein or Gary Johnson to vote for, no one did. Same in '08, '04, '00...the last person anybody voted for and got more than 5% was F*ckin' Perot.


    I think (none / 0) (#140)
    by CST on Tue Mar 31, 2015 at 02:07:37 PM EST
    A lot of people voted for Obama in 2008.

    You might not have been one of them, but I'm not sure it's fair to say no one did.


    True... (none / 0) (#142)
    by kdog on Tue Mar 31, 2015 at 02:27:24 PM EST
    but was that issue based or identity based? Obama probably got alotta identity based vote againsts too.

    Hillary will get a lot of identity based vote fors...not too many issue based, those votes will be against the clown show winner on the other side.

    Not to totally knock identity based votes...whatever floats the voter's boat.  The day a college dropout McArab pothead runs for president, I'm all in;)


    Mostly (none / 0) (#143)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Mar 31, 2015 at 02:32:16 PM EST
    I'm talking about the campaigns. It was all about how the other guy was worse. I'm sure there were some people who voted for Obama and Romney but their campaigns were all about how awful the other guy was it seemed to me.

    I'm talking specifically the 2008 campaign (5.00 / 1) (#144)
    by CST on Tue Mar 31, 2015 at 02:36:38 PM EST
    When a lot of people faulted Obama for not attacking the other guy enough back then.

    And while a lot of the "for" vote was identity based, from younger people it was based on his stance on civil liberties and foreign policy at the time - which is one of the reasons the 2012 campaign was not as effective at getting the "for" vote.


    That sounds every election to me... (none / 0) (#145)
    by kdog on Tue Mar 31, 2015 at 02:37:17 PM EST

    That's basic human nature, kdog. (none / 0) (#170)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Mar 31, 2015 at 05:05:44 PM EST
    We like to think that we will respect the truth when in all actuality, we love it one helluva lot more when people flatter our egos by telling us what we want to hear and believe, even if it's mired in contradiction and nonsense.

    In poll after poll, year after year, voters will constantly express a desire for politicians who will level with them. Then they'll prove otherwise at the ballot box, and punish those candidates who had the temerity to take them at their word and dare to do so. At least, that's certainly how it worked during last year's gubernatorial races in Wisconsin, Illinois, Kansas, Texas and Florida.

    (And sorry, kdog, but anyone who voted for Ross Perot in 1992 and / or '96 -- especially in the wake of his bizarre public accusation that George H.W. Bush plotted to sabotage his daughter's wedding -- really should've instead encouraged their kids to hide the car keys from them, rather than be allowed to indulge that billionaire crackpot's delusions of grandeur. Perot would've been a f--king disaster in the White House, likely resigning his office abruptly in a fit of pique with Congress, and saddling us with President William Stockdale. "Who am I? Why am I here?")



    Not for lack of trying (none / 0) (#68)
    by Politalkix on Mon Mar 30, 2015 at 11:01:53 PM EST
    but because we are not Argentina yet.
    Even the Bushes were not able to "pass" the Presidency directly within the clan and the Republican Party had to nominate Dole, McCain and Romney.

    So you are saying what? (5.00 / 2) (#73)
    by nycstray on Mon Mar 30, 2015 at 11:50:29 PM EST
    Hillary is a candidate only because she was married to Bill? Cause it looks that way. . . And that makes you . . . (I don't want to get deleted here, so I will be good) . . . pretty obvious, for lack of a better, more obvious term.

    Ofcourse (none / 0) (#76)
    by Politalkix on Tue Mar 31, 2015 at 06:37:31 AM EST
    she is where she is because of President Clinton. Otherwise she would have just been in the position of any other Senator in the party. You are in denial of a very obvious fact.

    She has also become the glass ceiling for all woman Democrats.


    "Glass ceiling for women Democrats" (5.00 / 3) (#78)
    by Yman on Tue Mar 31, 2015 at 07:02:03 AM EST
    So funny.

    Sure, why not their that into the CDS stew.


    Just like Sarah Palin (none / 0) (#81)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Tue Mar 31, 2015 at 07:11:35 AM EST
    represents the glass ceiling for women grifters in the political arena

    Did you ever consider the possibility ... (5.00 / 11) (#119)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Mar 31, 2015 at 12:52:42 PM EST
    Politalkix: "Of course she is where she is because of President Clinton. Otherwise she would have just been in the position of any other Senator in the party. You are in denial of a very obvious fact."

    ... that perhaps Bill Clinton first gained the presidency in 1992 because Hillary was by his side, serving as his primary political advisor? It was common knowledge in Little Rock that he would probably have never regained the office of Arkansas governor in 1982 -- after first losing it in 1980 -- were it not for her very strenuous public efforts on his behalf. And most longtime Arkansans credit her own political skills and judgment with having kept him in the executive mansion over the next decade.

    So, suffice to say that Hillary Clinton is not exactly the reincarnation of Lurleen Burns Wallace, the dutiful political wife who agreed to front for her husband George in the 1966 Alabama governor's race because the state constitution at the time prohibited incumbents from succeeding themselves. Further, I'd note that one of the longstanding GOP criticisms of Mrs. Clinton is that she's the Lady MacBeth in a wholly unscrupulous political power couple.

    While I would take issue with that particular negative characterization of her prominent and likely decisive role in her husband's rise to power, even the Republicans nevertheless recognize what you seem incapable of acknowledging for whatever your reasons, which is that -- like Eleanor Roosevelt before her in the mid-20th century -- Hillary Rodham Clinton is a dynamic political force in her own right, by virtue of her own demonstrable abilities.

    Your political musings, such as they are, aren't nearly as insightful you would seem to believe, and your constant denigration of Mrs. Clinton has long been a rather tedious point of contention around here. Please give your condescension a rest, already. You epitomize the very definition of arrogance whenever it's on display.



    Those of us who knew them in law school (5.00 / 6) (#136)
    by Peter G on Tue Mar 31, 2015 at 01:35:25 PM EST
    in the 1970s, knew the couple as superstar Hillary Rodham and her handsome, ambitious, but less brilliant (very smart, that is, but not brilliant like she was) boyfriend, Bill Clinton.  

    unrelated (5.00 / 1) (#138)
    by CST on Tue Mar 31, 2015 at 01:43:32 PM EST
    but my mom went to school with Pinky Bhutto (Benazir).  Another glass ceiling breaker with "family connections".

    And now I'm sad.


    Oh, yes (none / 0) (#141)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Mar 31, 2015 at 02:25:37 PM EST
    sad I would say.

    Really, Donald! (2.00 / 1) (#201)
    by Politalkix on Tue Mar 31, 2015 at 08:59:00 PM EST
    Quite amused about the straw you had to create using Lurleen Wallace (but avoid all examples that I had actually provided) to be able to pretend that you were countering my "political musings".

    "your constant denigration of Mrs. Clinton has long been a rather tedious point of contention around here"

    I am so hurt that my comments are seen as breaking traditions of the royal court. But "denigratiom" is in the eye of the courtier.



    And (none / 0) (#77)
    by Politalkix on Tue Mar 31, 2015 at 06:57:07 AM EST
    if she becomes the President, she will not break the glass ceiling for women in a way that Angela Merkel, Margaret Thatcher, Tarja Halonen or Golda Meir did in their countries. She will do it in a way that Isabel Peron, Cristina Kirchner and many other wives and daughters of heads of state break glass ceilings in non-first world countries (not that all these wives and daughters are unqualified for the job or never had any role in successes of their husbands and fathers).  

    Hehehe (5.00 / 5) (#80)
    by Yman on Tue Mar 31, 2015 at 07:09:09 AM EST
      She's not even running yet and your already making ridiculous attempts to minimize her legacy.

    Too funny.

    The best part of her bring elected will be watching the CDSers just explode.


    While being related (5.00 / 3) (#137)
    by NYShooter on Tue Mar 31, 2015 at 01:39:22 PM EST
    to a previous office-holder should not, automatically, give the candidate an unearned advantage over other office seekers, reality is that name recognition is a proven "plus" for candidates vs unknowns.

    And, like it, or not, candidates who have lived near positions of power gain valuable insights and experience over those who have not.
    The best example of a candidate who rejected such experience as being "unnecessary," and, whose tragic failures during his embarrassing primer days resulted in untold damage to millions of people, would be our very own, current President, Barack Obama. Having taken six years to learn his opponent's tactics, knowledge that Hillary Clinton already knew, and would have utilized to our advantage from Day 1, was a lesson that "knee-jerk" stereotyping of candidates is generally a bad - bad idea.

    For FDR, it worked very well; For the Bush Team, it was an abject failure.


    The only thing I know about O'Malley (none / 0) (#14)
    by CST on Mon Mar 30, 2015 at 03:32:08 PM EST
    Is that a certain character from "The Wire" was based off him.

    The white mayor.

    In the "evidence that propaganda works" file - that makes me immediately skeptical of him.


    Ahhh, yes, Tommy Carcetti... (none / 0) (#16)
    by Anne on Mon Mar 30, 2015 at 03:48:46 PM EST
    maybe it's been long enough that Carcetti won't dog him, lol.

    O'Malley is nobody's fool - he's a very well-connected, politically savvy guy who probably knows where all the bodies are buried.  Whether that's plus or a minus is anyone's guess.

    But he does have an Irish band - O'Malley's March; is that like being able to play the saxaphone?


    I have requested the DVD (none / 0) (#17)
    by MO Blue on Mon Mar 30, 2015 at 03:53:02 PM EST
    for season 2 of The Wire from the library. When I get it, I will have to take more notice of the white mayor based on your comment.

    I doubt he has any real chance for the nomination. Also, my Maryland trusted source has just told me that she does not believe that he will move the goalposts the way that I would like. Bummer. I definitely want those goalposts moved quite a bit.


    Maybe (none / 0) (#19)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Mar 30, 2015 at 04:00:49 PM EST
    Sanders will run and do that.

    I hope he runs (none / 0) (#21)
    by MO Blue on Mon Mar 30, 2015 at 04:03:51 PM EST
    I think he first shows up (none / 0) (#24)
    by CST on Mon Mar 30, 2015 at 04:12:36 PM EST
    in season 3.  And I apologize because in retrospect that first post was a bit of a spoiler.

    No need to apologize (none / 0) (#26)
    by MO Blue on Mon Mar 30, 2015 at 04:20:59 PM EST
    At this point, I don't think I know enough about the series for that tidbit of info to be a spoiler.

    Also, by the time I get to season 3, I probably forget about it anyway.


    all you really need to know (none / 0) (#27)
    by CST on Mon Mar 30, 2015 at 04:23:31 PM EST
    and what you've probably figured out - is that anyone who plays a politician on that show is probably up to no good ;)

    Oh yah (none / 0) (#31)
    by MO Blue on Mon Mar 30, 2015 at 04:55:57 PM EST
    That part I did figure out. ;o)

    A wise sounding statement (none / 0) (#38)
    by Babel 17 on Mon Mar 30, 2015 at 05:35:48 PM EST
    Right off the bat he clears away any grounds for naysayers who speak of him as basically not a candidate a Democrat can support, that supporting him is supporting a third party.

    And in related news, ... (none / 0) (#174)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Mar 31, 2015 at 06:12:28 PM EST
    ... Elizabeth Warren said for the umpteenth time that she's not running for president, thereby prompting a spokesperson for the Ready for Warren PAC to strongly urge voters to "please don't listen to this obviously demented woman, who obviously has no idea what she's saying."

    Well, okay, I made that last part up. But Sen. Warren was on "The Today Show" this morning, where she once again said she was not a candidate. Will some people now take a hint and finally get a clue?



    Why don't they throw their (5.00 / 1) (#178)
    by nycstray on Tue Mar 31, 2015 at 07:00:41 PM EST
    energy over to drafting Sanders, who said he would prob run if he had support? Leave Warren to do what she does and give Bernie a chance to make some conversations we would love to hear . . .

    I just don't get it. They are acting like jilted stalkers, the poor woman!


    Whether they move on is entirely up to them. (5.00 / 1) (#193)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Mar 31, 2015 at 08:08:43 PM EST
    I'm on the local organizing committee for Hillary Clinton out here (we're actually hosting our first event tonight downtown), so I obviously have my own biases regarding other potential candidates. And I've already disclosed that support here at TL on several occasions, so I don't think what I'm saying is to anyone's real surprise.

    But I do agree with those who've expressed their desire to see Mrs. Clinton adopt a more populist stance on certain issues affecting middle and working class Americans, which would require her to accept the prevailing POV of the left. I happen to think it's good mainstream politics right now.

    Personally, I simply choose to work from within the Democratic Party, rather than apply pressure from the outside. But quite honestly, it's not an either / or proposition. Winning politics will really require us to do both simultaneously.



    "50 years ago, in March 1965, ..." (5.00 / 2) (#20)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Mar 30, 2015 at 04:00:58 PM EST
    "... 3,500 U.S. Marines landed in South Vietnam. They were the first American combat troops on the ground in a conflict that had been building for decades. The communist government of North Vietnam (backed by the Soviet Union and China) was locked in a battle with South Vietnam (supported by the United States) in a Cold War proxy fight. [...] This photo essay, part one of a three-part series, looks at the earlier stages of U.S. involvement in the Vietnam War, as well as the growing protest movement, between the years 1962 and 1967. Tomorrow, a look at the later years as the war wound down. Warning: Several of these photographs are graphic in nature." Thanks to the Atlantic Monthly.

    I don't have time (none / 0) (#32)
    by sj on Mon Mar 30, 2015 at 04:59:06 PM EST
    to look at them all, but those photographs are amazing.

    The 6th one, the one of the monk who self-immolated is (as a photograph) extraordinary in the microsecond in time that is captured. It is also (as a statement) so very tragic.


    ... remains one of the most iconic and indelible images of the Vietnam War. Its worldwide dissemination via the media caused a freefall in official public support in our country for the corrupt regime of President Ngo Dinh Diem, which led to both that regime's subsequent overthrow in a U.S.-sponsored military coup on Nov. 2, 1963, and Pres. Diem's summary assassination that same day at the hands of South Vietnamese Marines formerly under his command.

    Trevor Noah (5.00 / 2) (#28)
    by CST on Mon Mar 30, 2015 at 04:26:47 PM EST
    taking over for Jon Stewart at the daily show.

    Honestly - I think they were smart with this pick.  You can't out-Jon Jon, you gotta be your own thing.  And he definitely is.

    Looking forward to it.

    Yes, I think it was a good choice (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by ruffian on Mon Mar 30, 2015 at 04:33:25 PM EST
    I was thinking it would be pretty tired if it was someone we have already seen for years on that show. He has been really funny in the few segments he has done, and I have read he hosted a comedy show in South Africa, so he is not new to that aspect of the performance. Looking forward to the change.

    Never heard of him. (none / 0) (#33)
    by Reconstructionist on Mon Mar 30, 2015 at 05:05:51 PM EST
     so I googled and got his first appearance on the DS.

      His delivery leaves a lot to be desired there. Maybe he is nervous, maybe he is delivering others' material  and maybe he isn't used to Teleprompters, but he seems very forced and wooden.

      To carry a show like that night after night isn't easy.


    I would think (none / 0) (#35)
    by CST on Mon Mar 30, 2015 at 05:09:18 PM EST
    After some practice you'd hit a groove.  I haven't seen it but if it was his first appearance I imagine he was pretty nervous.  I've heard good things about his appearances in general so maybe it was just the one?

    I haven't actually seen him on the show, but I do enjoy his stand-up.


    I watched that DS program (none / 0) (#37)
    by MO Blue on Mon Mar 30, 2015 at 05:34:36 PM EST
    My critical skill might not be as well developed as Recon's but I thought he did fine. His timing and delivery seemed pretty much parr with Samatha Bee and John Oliver once he got into the skit.

    Here is a link  http://tinyurl.com/otspkf9 to  that show and a couple of his stand up routines for anyone who is interested.


    yea I finally watched it (none / 0) (#43)
    by CST on Mon Mar 30, 2015 at 06:13:28 PM EST
    Honestly it didn't seem wooden at all to me.  I think that could also be a bit of a projection from his accent, because it does sounds formal in a way, so it will be interesting to see how audiences respond to that.  But I thought his delivery was solid, no awkwardness, timing was good, and to open with a bad dad joke that you can make both relevant and funny is solid.

    Personally, I um... love the South African accent.

    I also liked this bit from the Apollo (in London).  He does solid impressions, so that will be interesting/different.  And he has a way of cheerfully talking about horrible things, which I think will be a good change of pace.  Not that anger isn't warranted, but it can get tired night after night.  And he does so in such a way where it's still extremely poignant.


    Good observation (none / 0) (#46)
    by MO Blue on Mon Mar 30, 2015 at 06:42:29 PM EST
    about the accent. I really enjoy most accents so it didn't register as formal, just interesting and kinda pleasant.

    He has a great smile and wonderful dimples so that's a plus as well. Hope he does well. It will be quite a challenge when the DS has been tied in with Jon Stewart for so many years.


    And, of course, (none / 0) (#95)
    by Reconstructionist on Tue Mar 31, 2015 at 09:48:25 AM EST
      the stupid tweets surface.

      I'm reminded of Jerry Seinfeld saying:

     I'm not offended as Jew. I'm offended as a comedian.


    Yes, as a political satire and (none / 0) (#36)
    by KeysDan on Mon Mar 30, 2015 at 05:21:06 PM EST
    parody show, it will be interesting is observe how a comic from South Africa will fare.   But, then, de Tocqueville's assessment of America and its democracy would be hard to beat--despite the march of time.  And, of course, John Oliver did a great job filling in while Jon Stewart was working on "Rosewater."    (Oliver is good but uneven in his 'Last Week Tonight").  

    Yes, (none / 0) (#41)
    by MO Blue on Mon Mar 30, 2015 at 05:50:26 PM EST
    It will be interesting to see how he will fare.

    I was (none / 0) (#57)
    by lentinel on Mon Mar 30, 2015 at 09:16:35 PM EST
    hoping for Samantha Bee.

    Very funny.

    Never heard or heard of Noah.


    Yes, I love Samantha Bee. (none / 0) (#60)
    by KeysDan on Mon Mar 30, 2015 at 09:47:18 PM EST
    Her husband and comedic colleague, Jason Jones, announced that last Thursday's show would be his last.  No word on Samantha, or either's next professional step.

    Both Bee and Jones are (5.00 / 1) (#67)
    by caseyOR on Mon Mar 30, 2015 at 10:16:15 PM EST
    going to TBS. Bee will be hosting a show that she and Jones will executive produce. Additionally, they will create and produce another show for TBS.

    Both Bee and Jones are (none / 0) (#66)
    by caseyOR on Mon Mar 30, 2015 at 10:16:10 PM EST
    going to TBS. Bee will be hosting a show that she and Jones will executive produce. Additionally, they will create and produce another show for TBS.

    Thanks, Casey (none / 0) (#103)
    by KeysDan on Tue Mar 31, 2015 at 10:59:03 AM EST
    Glad to hear they are headed to TBS.  They will, I am confident do very well.

    Just heard (5.00 / 10) (#96)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Mar 31, 2015 at 10:01:23 AM EST
    my sister is going to come home from the hospital today.  Good lesson on counting people out.  Just about everyone was counting her out thinking she was gone or at the best might end up in an extended care facility .  
    I'm sure all the good thoughts helped.  Thanks for that.
    Yesterday I delivered some of my famous oatmeal cookies.  I'm thinkin that's what put her over the top.

    Happy your family got (5.00 / 1) (#99)
    by Reconstructionist on Tue Mar 31, 2015 at 10:22:21 AM EST
     such good news.

    Captain, Happy for (5.00 / 1) (#105)
    by KeysDan on Tue Mar 31, 2015 at 11:02:04 AM EST
    your sister and family.   Your famous oatmeal cookies sound like really good convalescent medicine.

    Such good news, Capt. (5.00 / 2) (#117)
    by caseyOR on Tue Mar 31, 2015 at 12:14:56 PM EST
    You just might be right about about the oatmeal cookies. Maybe once she is home you should try to seal the deal with your tasty pot roast.

    That's wonderful news. (5.00 / 3) (#120)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Mar 31, 2015 at 12:58:34 PM EST
    I hope that your sister continues to regain her health and eventually recovers fully.



    How great! So glad for you and your family (5.00 / 2) (#122)
    by ruffian on Tue Mar 31, 2015 at 01:05:59 PM EST
    Never doubt the power of the oatmeal cookie!

    That's fantastic (5.00 / 2) (#124)
    by sj on Tue Mar 31, 2015 at 01:13:09 PM EST
    How wonderful for  your family.

    Wow! (5.00 / 1) (#125)
    by MO Blue on Tue Mar 31, 2015 at 01:18:14 PM EST
    Great news. I'm sure that your oatmeal cookies did the trick.

    We will have to start a movement to replace chicken soup with the Capt's oatmeal cookies.

    I'm so happy for you and your family.


    That is wonderful news, Capt - (5.00 / 2) (#133)
    by Anne on Tue Mar 31, 2015 at 01:32:07 PM EST
    so happy to hear this!

    What a relief this must be for you and your family; hope all continues to go well.


    So happy for this news, Capt (5.00 / 2) (#148)
    by Zorba on Tue Mar 31, 2015 at 03:03:49 PM EST
    Your whole family must be so relieved.
    May your sister continue to do well.  {{Hugs}}

    Great to hear, must be a huge load off (5.00 / 1) (#154)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Mar 31, 2015 at 03:34:43 PM EST
    your mind.

    btw, as I was driving to work this AM (5.00 / 1) (#155)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Mar 31, 2015 at 03:40:47 PM EST
    the car in front of me heading in a Disneyish direction on the 101 had a license plate that read "IDRA2NS."

    I think that wasn't exactly what you did, but it made me think of you nonetheless that you'd appreciate the license plate.


    That took a minute (none / 0) (#179)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Mar 31, 2015 at 07:01:37 PM EST
    took me several... (none / 0) (#200)
    by sj on Tue Mar 31, 2015 at 08:55:02 PM EST
    As I predicted on March 18 (5.00 / 7) (#104)
    by Peter G on Tue Mar 31, 2015 at 11:00:43 AM EST
    the same-sex marriage lawyers have reached an agreement to have one lawyer per issue argue all the cases.  First up will be Mary Bonauto, of Portland, Maine, a MacArthur Foundation "genius grant" winner, who argued and won the pioneering Massachusetts Goodridge case.

    Some new business expansions (5.00 / 2) (#132)
    by MO Blue on Tue Mar 31, 2015 at 01:31:17 PM EST
    are sweeter than others.

    Sweet on St. Louis: A peek inside Bissinger's new chocolate factory on the riverfront

    The door swings open to the production floor of Bissinger's new candy factory on the St. Louis riverfront, and . . . oh, my . .
    Owens, who is also known officially as the vice president of taste, is leading this tour through the confectioner's new digs in a renovated railroad freight depot at 1600 N. Broadway, near the foot of the Stan Musial Memorial Veterans Bridge. The St. Louis landmark, which has been crafting high-end confections in the city since 1927, moved its operations here last fall from its longtime facility on Gratiot Street.

    The new manufacturing area is sprawling, with a clean, open-air feel in an industrial space that's more than a century old. That historic feel was preserved during the renovation work. New windows on the building's exterior match the originals. Turnbuckles that once helped move railcars of "the Katy " -- the old Missouri-Kansas-Texas Railroad -- are still in the ceiling above the production floor.

    The co-pilot of the doomed Germanwings flight repeatedly suggested that the captain leave the cockpit, then locked him out and stymied his desperate efforts to return, according to data recorder transcripts reported Sunday.


    The transcript in Bild, translated by London's Daily Mail, describes a tranquil cockpit after takeoff where Lubitz suggested Sondheimer go to the toilet, noting that Sondheimer had not done so in Barcelona. About 20 minutes later, Lubitz says, "You can go now."

    Two minutes later the pilot says, "You can take over," and apparently leaves the cockpit. The plane begins its descent almost immediately at 10:29 am local time.

    Within minutes, Bild describes a loud bang as someone attempts to enter the cockpit, then Sondheimer yells, "For God's sake, open the door!" Passengers are heard screaming.

    At 10:35 am, more banging, and less than two minutes later the pilot is heard yelling, "Open the goddam door!"

    At 10:40 am, the right wing of the jet clips a mountain and the last sounds are those of passengers screaming, Bild reports.

    Did anyone see HBO's Scientology documentary (none / 0) (#6)
    by McBain on Mon Mar 30, 2015 at 02:02:15 PM EST
    "Going Clear" last night?  I have no idea how accurate it was but I thought it was fascinating.  I loved that part where they "assign" Tom Cruise a new girlfriend.  

    Was that last night? I'll have to see (none / 0) (#8)
    by Anne on Mon Mar 30, 2015 at 02:22:35 PM EST
    if there are other showings, because I had meant to watch it.  Just set the DVR to record it late tonight.

    Tonight, tomorrow and Wednesday nights, PBS is showing a Ken Burns documentary called "Cancer: the Emperor of All Maladies" that is supposed to be exceedingly well done.  Much of it was filmed here in Baltimore, at Hopkins, which was also the subject of an ABC series, "Hopkins 24/7."


    Right after Going Clear (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Mar 30, 2015 at 05:46:58 PM EST
    there was a pretty Amazng episode of Vice (I think) on the subject of a new viral based cancer treatment.  They are calling it a cure.  It was pretty amazing.

    On the other it was pretty unbelievable.  I have not followed the stories about Scientology over the last few years because I just don't care but it was really pretty unbelievable.  
    Back in the 70s I knew people who were very into this.  At the time I just considered them stupid and annoying I never considered it for a second.  But watching that all I wanted to do was find a time machine so I could go back and beat the crap of them.
    It was stunning in many ways.  I compliment the people who were involved who are now speaking out but I have very mixed feelings about them.  They did terrible things to people.  IMO you don't just get to confess and say "sorry".  IMO some of them should perhaps be prosecuted for what they did.  
    The thing is while I was listening to them dish on the church it was so easy to imagine them as mindless robots spreading the word.
    One bit particularly when a woman was describing her reaction when she reached level OTwhat the fvck ever and got the backstory about the Galactic Overlord and the cryogenicly preserved being dropped into volcanos 75 million years ago.  She say " I knew this couldn't be true because I know geography and I know those volcanoes did not exist 75 million years ago!"
    Really?  THATS why you know it's and load of crap?   Seriously?


    Here (none / 0) (#40)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Mar 30, 2015 at 05:48:49 PM EST
    They had a space around the (none / 0) (#42)
    by nycstray on Mon Mar 30, 2015 at 06:08:52 PM EST
    corner from my college. They used to approach us all the time, since the bus stop was right there. We always countered with, 'we are happy, we are at peace, we have art!' or something along those lines :) Other times, just a good stare down was fun . . . until 'oh look! the bus!' Yes, we were kinda bratty :P

    I read Clear and at least one other around the same time. It sort of fascinated me that people buy/bought into this sh!t. But then how different is it from some of the other 'religions' that way too many people turn their lives (and brains)over to . . .


    Well (none / 0) (#44)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Mar 30, 2015 at 06:24:47 PM EST
    my feelings about organized religion in general are pretty well know but this....
    One guy made a very good point.  Most religions can tell pretty succinctly what the tenants of their religion are.  Or at least are supposed to be.
    The most amazing parts for me were the bits about Cruise and Travolta.   That they have basically been captured by the church with the information from their sessions.
    For those who don't know you go thru sessions where you are goaded to reveal the worst things you have ever done as part of your "therapy".  Every word is assiduously recorded and kept.  Then used later against the person if they try to leave or speak out.
    This is not a fluke its a basic tenet handed down from LRH, as the call him.
    That said, no sympathy for them.  Personally I'll never pay to see another film with either of them.  I believe there should be an organized boycott actually. I would start a petition website but I don't  want my house burned or my dogs poisoned.

    As an aside (none / 0) (#45)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Mar 30, 2015 at 06:30:39 PM EST
    they consider homosexuality a sickness and were big sponsors of Prop 8.  Fair amount was about that and its implications.

    I think it is on all week (none / 0) (#23)
    by nycstray on Mon Mar 30, 2015 at 04:08:45 PM EST
    but you can also 'on demand' it  :)

    I read the book, so I'm very interested to see it.


    Watched the first half... (none / 0) (#9)
    by kdog on Mon Mar 30, 2015 at 02:32:44 PM EST
    then I fell asleep...that L. Ron Hubbard was ahelluva grifter.  Missed his calling, he shoulda worked on Wall St or been a Congressman.

    It's truly amazing to me that anybody would buy into such nonsensical psycho-babble.


    I Read Dianetics... (none / 0) (#11)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Mar 30, 2015 at 02:51:49 PM EST
    ...like 20 years ago, before I knew anything about Scientology.  The book makes a good case until you realize that if people could simply 'fix' themselves they would.

    The premise is beyond stupid, it's basically the republican notion on steroids, that the only barrier for people is themselves.  That life is even for all and the only thing holding most people down is themselves.  That no mental issue can't be overcome by determination and self remedy.

    The people buying into it have to have one thing in common, they all believe they are solely responsible for their own success, aka egomaniacs.  No room for anything but the best and believing that the best is a measure of pure will power.


    If the book... (none / 0) (#13)
    by kdog on Mon Mar 30, 2015 at 03:29:35 PM EST
    resembles any of the babble coming out of L. Ron's and Miscavige's mouth in the doc, kudos to you for even getting through it.

    L. Ron in his skipper hat kinda looked like Alan Hale Jr's creepy little brother.  


    Reaction (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Mar 30, 2015 at 07:15:36 PM EST
    from Hollywood

    Lord Xenu @therealxenu
    Don't believe that new HBO documentary about me. They didn't tell me the mic was on when I was using the bathroom. #GoingClear
    1:43 AM - 30 Mar 2015
    45 RETWEETS  73 FAVORITES ReplyRetweetFavorite

    I couldn't make anything sensical (none / 0) (#84)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Mar 31, 2015 at 07:48:58 AM EST
    Out of Dianetics. I gave up finishing the book, it gave me a headache.

    It doesn't surprise me that much (none / 0) (#30)
    by McBain on Mon Mar 30, 2015 at 04:40:44 PM EST
    It usually feels better to belong to a group, cult or religion than to nothing at all. I don't know much about Scientology but I have witnessed people being drawn into cult like environments with a hierarchy of power. If they didn't have much going on in their lives before joining, the cool aid can taste really good.... at least at first.  

    So they say.... (none / 0) (#48)
    by kdog on Mon Mar 30, 2015 at 07:37:08 PM EST
    must be my loner streak or skeptic streak or anti-authority streak or something...cuz I don't get the appeal of gangs, religions, clubs, etc.

    Never did, never will...I'm cool with unanswered questions and existence being ultimately being meaningless...it can still be fun and fulfilling! ;)


    Or as Vonnegut once put it.... (none / 0) (#49)
    by kdog on Mon Mar 30, 2015 at 07:39:34 PM EST
    "The moral of the story is, is we're here on Earth to fart around."

    I'm in the same boat for the most part (none / 0) (#70)
    by McBain on Mon Mar 30, 2015 at 11:15:06 PM EST
    but I've seen so many people react poorly to personal issues in different ways.  For some it's drugs, for others it's religion/groups.

    Is music a cult? (none / 0) (#74)
    by oculus on Tue Mar 31, 2015 at 04:31:47 AM EST
    Hmmm.... (5.00 / 1) (#75)
    by kdog on Tue Mar 31, 2015 at 05:48:45 AM EST
    Interesting question...I do worship at the altar of music, so to speak. A devout follower, if you will;)

    And some fans do have a cult-like devotion to an artist/genre. "Punk Rock saved my life" as the saying goes...

    But you could say that about any number of hobbies...yoga, sports, knitting.

    But I think a key component to a true "cult" is exploitation/abuse of the believer by the leadership/idol figure. And a total lack of critical thought and doubt by the believer.

    Scientology isn't the only religion that can qualify imo...not to say religion is inherently cultish, I believe one can be religious while maintaining critical thought and doubt.

    Like a lot of things, where you get into trouble is when you take it too seriously and cause harm to yourself and others.


    If you're into Blue Oysters, yes. (5.00 / 1) (#111)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Tue Mar 31, 2015 at 11:42:24 AM EST
    Or these guys (none / 0) (#115)
    by sj on Tue Mar 31, 2015 at 11:52:04 AM EST
    Only opera (5.00 / 1) (#181)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Mar 31, 2015 at 07:06:21 PM EST
    Saw it (none / 0) (#50)
    by Repack Rider on Mon Mar 30, 2015 at 07:51:37 PM EST
    These people are evil on steroids.  As weird as Mormons, but without any sort of ethical underpinning.

    I have a friend who is an attorney.  A former cult member, he goes after phony cuts, including Scientology.

    A member was assigned to monitor his every move, and a website was created to spread unsupported lies about him.

    Do not underestimate the evil capability of a megalomaniac (Miscavage) with billions in the bank.


    I'm not (none / 0) (#61)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Mar 30, 2015 at 09:54:49 PM EST
    sure there's too much that's ethical about Mormons. They will follow people around if they leave much like Scientology though I seriously doubt that they tape anyone. Mormons are like the Amway of religion.

    It's a good parallel. (5.00 / 2) (#191)
    by Repack Rider on Tue Mar 31, 2015 at 07:48:18 PM EST
    Mormons are like the Amway of religion.

    LDS was started by a convicted con artist.  The "gospel" (Book of Mormon) assumes God speaks to humanity in the King James era dialect of English, even to the point of repeating verbatim some of the KJV.

    The story of the plates, the translation, the wife burning the manuscript and challenging JS to just copy it again, the central premise that Joe and other men got to abide with women other than their original wives, including the teenage neighbor of one JS, the list of improbabities goes on and on.  It is a system of overwhelming male dominance over women.

    In order to accept LDS you have to suspend belief in everything we know about history and archaeology.  JS was after all a relatively uneducated upstate New Yorker, whose uninformed tales of movements of various peoples have been soundly refuted.

    Both arising out of con games, LDS and Scientology are parallel entries in the "Modern Religion Established for the Benefit of the Founders" category.


    Have you spent a lot of time among LDS? (none / 0) (#63)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon Mar 30, 2015 at 09:58:57 PM EST
    Well, I certainly have (5.00 / 1) (#169)
    by Zorba on Tue Mar 31, 2015 at 04:48:44 PM EST
    We lived in Salt Lake City for several years.  I worked with and had friends who were both Mormons and Jack Mormons (ex-Mormons).
    I learned a whole heck of a lot about Mormons, especially from the ex-Mormons.
    The face that they present to the general public and to potential converts is a lot more benign, even, I would say, much rosier, than a lot of what they really believe and practice.

    stints in smaller, almost 100% LDS, towns farther north in Utah and Idaho.

    I never came into contact with anything approaching some of the stories that have been told here, not that I doubt them, perhaps I just got lucky.


    How would you know (5.00 / 1) (#177)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Mar 31, 2015 at 06:57:49 PM EST
    about, for instance, the story I told unless you know someone involved who is willing to talk about it.  It's not like someone is going to tell you in casual conversation that tey had their 17 yo son shipped of to a reeducation camp.  I'm sure the are very nice people socially but that, I know for a fact, is not an unusual story.
    They had 6 kids.  Three of them went to camps where they were not allowed to communicate with their grandmother, my aunt.  I know this because I'm quite close with that particular aunt we talked about it often.  She was, as you might imagine, quite hurt and angry about it.  And still is.

    Btw, the reeducation worked.  They were all broken and stayed.  Another thing my aunt was upset about.  She said the 17 yo was never the same after.


    See (none / 0) (#182)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Mar 31, 2015 at 07:09:41 PM EST
    that's the rub. At least going by the ones that I know albeit probably not representative they are very nice to be around socially. And if you keep to that it is all going to be fine.

    My college roommate had big problems with it. She chafed against a lot of the stuff but that's no unusual for a 20 year old of any belief. I have to say the stuff she told me made Mormonism sound really weird and her stories were nothing compared to the ones that you have.

    Oddly I have a friend's mother who grew up in Arkansas in a Mormom family and she ran away from home at 16 because of it and lived in a tent under a bridge. The daughter and her daughter have very little to do with their mother/grandmother because of the Mormonism. Sad that religion can divide a family like that but I guess it can.

    My neighbors that are LDS are all over facebook with the mission stuff. I guess that's a sense of pride for the parents. Believe it or not this particular family is divorced. I'm surprised the mother has not been excommunicated because of that fact.


    Fro the record (none / 0) (#185)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Mar 31, 2015 at 07:12:29 PM EST
    the story I told happened in California.  Not arkansas.  I have relatives all over.

    Not suprised (none / 0) (#187)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Mar 31, 2015 at 07:25:32 PM EST
    to hear that. Friends that like in CA have said there were a lot of Mormons there and at one time the Suburbans were the most popular cars because they had so many kids.

    I was frankly more suprised to hear about my friend's grandmother in Arkansas.


    Yes, they were all (none / 0) (#186)
    by Zorba on Tue Mar 31, 2015 at 07:22:13 PM EST
    quite nice socially.
    But how many ex-Mormons did you know?
    We knew quite a few, and the stories they told painted quite a different picture of the LDS church.

    A couple (none / 0) (#188)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Mar 31, 2015 at 07:32:20 PM EST
    not relatives.  But good stories.

    I have some pretty good stories (none / 0) (#64)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Mar 30, 2015 at 10:02:40 PM EST
    My nephew was kidnapped at the break of dawn from his grandmothers (my aunts) house and taken to a reeducation camp where she was not allowed to see or speak to him for more than a year.  She is not of the faith.  His parents are.  He was trying to get out and away from it.

    Sorry (none / 0) (#65)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Mar 30, 2015 at 10:04:18 PM EST
    not my nephew.  He would be my second cousin?

    Fair enough. (none / 0) (#150)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Mar 31, 2015 at 03:26:10 PM EST
    the entire religion with that brush.

    Actually (none / 0) (#82)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Mar 31, 2015 at 07:11:47 AM EST
    I have. I had a college roommate that was LDS. And I found a lot of the stuff she told me very strange and unlike a lot of other religions when you leave you are shunned and followed sometimes. If you leave your family is not supposed to have any contact with you. She also said that you have to go to the temple to get married. Which to me was really strange.

    And I have neighbors that are LDS. I have a ward down the road from my house. As far as neighbors they are fine. I'm the kind of person if they want to be in a cult that really doesn't hurt anybody fine. I do have a huge problem with LDS attitudes with regards to women. Women are more or less brood mares.


    They also get into certain (none / 0) (#83)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Tue Mar 31, 2015 at 07:19:12 AM EST
    occupations and try to dominate them, as well as getting into local and regional governments on the civil service side as well.  Look at the Mormon support for Prop 8 in California if you want an egregious example.

    True (none / 0) (#87)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Mar 31, 2015 at 07:51:30 AM EST
    but you don't see that so much here in GA. The people who want to run everybody's lives down here are the evangelicals which behave a lot like the LDS in that respect.

    In Texas (none / 0) (#92)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Tue Mar 31, 2015 at 08:36:10 AM EST
    they also exist, and are known as Baptists.  Where I live, the Nazarenes fill that bill, you might say.

    We Got LDS... (none / 0) (#118)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Mar 31, 2015 at 12:48:17 PM EST
    ...remember the YFZ Ranch & Warren Jeffs ?

    West Texas is no mans land and that is where the nut jobs locate, places where they won't be bothered by societies rules.


    Fair enough. (none / 0) (#152)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Mar 31, 2015 at 03:29:17 PM EST
    service dogs and hotels (MT) (none / 0) (#7)
    by the capstan on Mon Mar 30, 2015 at 02:08:01 PM EST
    Any thing I need to know about a self-trained medical alert dog which has never stayed at a hotel (much less one that does not accept pets)?

    Also, future move by plane to Oregon from south planned with on-board help from son. (If I were allowed to buy a seat for a compact cattledog, I would.)

    Thanks to all others for putting up with personal affair!

    Have you checked the ADA site? (5.00 / 2) (#10)
    by nycstray on Mon Mar 30, 2015 at 02:50:48 PM EST
    They should have info for you including the flying part. I do know that even if your dog is service dog, they cannot be a nuisance (excessive barking etc), so you need to make sure your pup would be comfortable with hotel sounds. There are a lot more dog friendly hotels than there used to be, so you may want to check them out also when looking for a place to stay. The staff will be better 'trained' about pets in rooms etc.

    You may want to print out your 'rights' with a service dog to carry with you in case you get challenged. Many folks are using emotional support dogs (and many dogs that aren't even that) to bring their 'babies' where they don't belong and they are creating a problem for legit service animals. Rules are different for service/emotional/therapy dogs, so know where you stand :)


    Cattle dogs are usually very (none / 0) (#51)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Mar 30, 2015 at 08:10:08 PM EST
    Self possessed.  A good candidate for a flying service dog.  I am not current on the existing flying service dog situation but friends with a professional Florida trainer.  Does the doggy have any certifications?  Even a canine good citizen certification?

    I will contact her and get a complete rundown of what you need to make your air travels smooth.  Delilah has a CGC and a basic obedience title and her therapy dog certification.  And she has her vest that identifies her and asks that she be treated as working, not a pet. We have not flown with her yet.


    reply: mycstray and MT (5.00 / 2) (#54)
    by the capstan on Mon Mar 30, 2015 at 08:55:25 PM EST
    My country dog never went to 'school.'  As a cattledog, he is very observant: rewarded with tiny treats whenever he helped me.  My main fear is he will be labeled as a 'psychiatric assistant': they are sometimes faked.  He is in charge of my meds, but he does not intuit the need: he listens for my pill minder and bugs me until he sees me take the pills.  Also, always reacts if I do not hear the minder, the phone, the door, etc.  But worst are my eyes: I see blurs or double if my meds are not taken on schedule, which he insures.  Perhaps either the vet or my neurologist will give me a statement.  He is well-known in town and many stores as a service dog (has his vests and tags) and an old newspaper picture explains his first job carrying phone, etc., after an accident.  No certification in our state--only from 'schools.'  His behavior is excellent, and I will have son to help with restroom for me OR dog.

    Many thanks:  I looked up ADA site in addition to airline site.  (I am fearful of cargo with his age; came to US at 8 weeks with 2 other pups in the crate or I would have refused to import.)


    I'd ask your Dr for a note/whatever they give (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by nycstray on Mon Mar 30, 2015 at 09:56:36 PM EST
    and your dog will have requirements needed from the vet for health reasons. I flew with my dog (she in cargo at approx 12yo) a couple years ago, and there's a standard form the vet fills out and he will need to be UTD on Rabies. And the vet thing has to be done within 10-14 days or some time frame like that, before the flight. It expires.

    Your dog sounds like my girl that has passed. She would alert me to all kinds of things because she was so tuned into me. My current one, not  so tuned in unless it's about her, lol!~ But she's still a young party girl :) I used to try and figure out how my old girl knew certain things, like what was I doing that made her know . . . never did though . . . They (airline and any other person in charge of an establishment)can ask what tasks your dog performs for you, but I don't think they can ask you specifically what your disability is. You just need to tell them she alerts you to your meds/helps steady you for dizziness/eyesight. Nothing more personal. Privacy and all that :) You more than likely will not have a problem as long as you have your ducks in order in advance. It's the folks that show up and 'need their baby' with them that are the problem. And if you have a helper along . . . .


    What a wonderful service dog (none / 0) (#56)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Mar 30, 2015 at 09:05:26 PM EST
    We have a doctor's note for Delilah too.  Nobody has ever asked for it though.  I'm not sure I know where it is off the top of my head right now. I would think that with a questioning airline, a doctors note would suffice.

    Most of society seems to be taking the PTSD service dogs easily in stride too.  

    I got some training certifications for Delilah just to make things smoother, to reassure hotels and stores that she does know how to be an appropriate citizen, but it isn't a necessity.


    many thanks to you both (about service dog) (none / 0) (#69)
    by the capstan on Mon Mar 30, 2015 at 11:04:13 PM EST
    Yes, I am trying to get my ducks in a row--especially since otherwise Son must drive across country in winter.  I remembered Delilah and her importance, so I asked!  My dog came as a companion when my GSD died.  But what I got was major help with ailments and age.  He's a wonder!

    Is she therapy or service? (none / 0) (#52)
    by nycstray on Mon Mar 30, 2015 at 08:20:55 PM EST
    There's a big difference and as far as I know, you cannot fly with one (therapy). A therapy dog is a visiting dog (hospitals/senior centers/etc) and does not have the same access to places that a service dog does. A service dog provides a 'service'/task to the individual. Emotional support animals are a third category, and, iirc, they also do not enjoy the full access of a service animal. Now, there are some that are dual purpose service/esa, but that puts them in the 'service' category.

    Obviously capstan ' s dog is a service dog (none / 0) (#53)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Mar 30, 2015 at 08:35:16 PM EST
    My traner friend said that SouthWest is very cooperative and she advises choosing them if that is a possible option.  Outside of that, if your dog possesses adequate socialization there is no reason why your service animal shouldn't be able to fly with you. She recommends Googling, downloading, and printing out the DOJ laws regarding service animals.  I have never had issues with Delilah not being readily accepted wherever she goes.  We just haven't flown with her.

    Southwest-- (none / 0) (#55)
    by the capstan on Mon Mar 30, 2015 at 09:04:15 PM EST
    Thanks so much for info!  Will pass word to son, who will fly here and pick us up.  Heading to Portland, OR, so direct flight will be iffy from Atlanta.

    If you fly Southwest from ATL to PDX, ... (none / 0) (#175)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Mar 31, 2015 at 06:31:20 PM EST
    ... you'll likely have to make at least one stop and change planes at Chicago-Midway, Phoenix or Denver. Personally, I'm not big on making stops and changing planes if I don't have to. Since Delta flies nonstop between Atlanta and practically everywhere on the entire planet, they probably offer several daily flights to and from Portland.

    Yes, it does sound like the dog is (none / 0) (#59)
    by nycstray on Mon Mar 30, 2015 at 09:38:52 PM EST
    But it is important to use the right terms, because you'd have a hard time to get a "therapy" dog on the plane. In cargo, no problem, but in the cabin, no go. And if you don't have an obvious disability, it is getting a bit harder, because there are so many abusing the system now. Anyone can claim their dog is a service dog, just order a vest on the internet! And sadly, their feelings of entitlement seem to be all that matters. People with legit dogs do generally know the rules, and when asked what task the dog does for them, can give the appropriate answer (and the dog is usually acting like a service dog vs the family pet). And a dog needs to possess MORE than adequate socialization to fly (and stay in no pet hotels etc). Yours sounds like it with CGC/ob training, oh yeah, and certified. Mine, otoh, is not there yet. Plane maybe, no pet hotel, too much of an alert barker still . . . BUT, she is more than adequately socialized.

    I don't know anyone abusing the system (none / 0) (#89)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Mar 31, 2015 at 08:01:07 AM EST
    I did see a woman in the Atlanta airport with two chihuahuas that were supposed to be service dogs.  I did wonder but I try not to judge based on surface appearances.

    Locally we have had difficulties with some of the PTSD soldier service dogs.  Service dogs are generally purebred because purebred puppies have more predictable personality and intelligence traits, but a few of the dogs being chosen for PTSD training are mixed breed, and this is causing some individuals to believe that the soldier is lying about the dog or something.  Some of the Vets are very sensitive to judgement when they develop PTSD.


    According to Psychology Today: (none / 0) (#176)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Mar 31, 2015 at 06:38:07 PM EST
    "Plenty of people with medical and psychological disabilities have legitimate needs for service dogs, therapy dogs, or emotional support animals. And having your service dog wear a vest can make things a lot easier when it comes to getting assistance animals into places where pets are not allowed. But the present system governing the status of service animals is rife with abuse. Here's why:

    "Three different sets of federal statues apply to the rights of individuals with disabilities to be accompanied by animals: the American's with Disabilities Act, the Fair Housing Act, and the Air Carrier Access Act. This division of responsibility has resulted in a bewildering array of conflicting and confusing regulations."



    I know a lot of "dog people" (none / 0) (#190)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Mar 31, 2015 at 07:45:05 PM EST
    People who show in conformation and obedience every weekend, people who do rescue, people who professionally train service animals, not one of the individuals I know are abusing the system.  Not a single one.  It is a large responsibility having and traveling with a service animal.  People I know don't take dogs into stores and onto the passenger portions of airplanes just for kicks.  Now granted, I have a low tolerance for BS, but US culture is some of the most intolerant.  Everything must be packaged just so.  It's tiresome.  It's stagnant.  Who has had their leg torn off by a faux service dog?

    It's an issue that, from my perspective ... (none / 0) (#195)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Mar 31, 2015 at 08:30:24 PM EST
    ... as someone who rides the bus to work on a near-daily basis, appears to affect local public transportation more than airports and air carriers. (Since we don't have passenger trains here, I can't speak to that mode of transport.)

    And of late, I'll admit to having seen more and more people attempting to bring their dogs on board the bus, claiming that their canines are service animals when that's quite obviously not the case. Our driver refused entry to someone just last Friday morning when the guy tried to make that claim, and she got flipped the bird by him for her trouble.

    I also fly interisland commercially on Hawaiian Airlines three to five times per month, and I really haven't seen passengers attempting to bring their pets into the main cabin of the aircraft as of yet. (Hawaiian utilizes B-717s, which is the modern equivalent of the DC-9, on interisland flights, with the occasional B-767 deployed during heavy periods of travel to the Big Island and Maui.) The dogs I've seen flying with their masters have been legitimate service animals.



    Indiana (none / 0) (#15)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Mar 30, 2015 at 03:42:03 PM EST
    So now they have a law in Indiana that looks like it will allow business owners to discriminate based on sexual orientation.  

    I mean seriously but wasn't religion designed to guide people act like decent human beings.

    But now we have republicans tripping over themselves to explain that a law that gives people religious freedom isn't actually allowing them to discriminate, when it does.

    What they need is laws telling people that no religion advocates hate, that petty and personal hatred will not be tolerated because you wrap it up in a religious blanket.

    The Indiana law is more (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by KeysDan on Mon Mar 30, 2015 at 05:09:10 PM EST
    broadly written than in those so called religious liberty acts of other states,  providing a path of least resistance to discriminate.  In a sense, it is a stand your ground in  bigotry Act.

    In Section 9 of the law, " a person" is not only an individual , but also, any organization, partnership, LLC, corporation, company, firm, church, religious society, or other entity whose exercise  of religion has been substantially burdened, or is likely to be substantially burdened."  It can be used as a claim or a defense regardless of whether the state or any other governmental entity is a party to the proceeding.  (In Georgia, an amendment to change "person" to "individual" was defeated by the religious supporters.  They wanted a Hobby Lobby plus law.)

    Unlike most other states, where religious liberty laws apply to disputes between a person or entity and a government, Indiana's explicitly applies to disputes between private citizens.   So, it could be a cudgel by a corporation, for example, to justify discrimination against individuals that might otherwise be protected under law.

    And, Section 5 of the Indiana law provides protections to religious practices whether or not compelled by, or central to, a system of religious belief. So, entities can seek to justify discrimination based on religious practices that are fringe to their belief system.

    Moreover, Indiana does not have a law that prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation.  Indiana allows a private citizen who believes their religious freedom is burdened by being forced to provide service to a class of private citizens (gays) to therefore legally deny those individuals services.

    The hapless Indiana Governor, Mike Pence, would not answer repeated questions about its discrimination potential on a Sunday TV talk show, because either he did not know what he signed or was disingenuous. Pence now says that he is up for a "clarification," which should be an interesting legislative process to observe. ( As in Georgia, amendments that "clarified" a similar bill, caused its sponsors to table it, since it only gutted it they said and defeated its intention.)

    In any event, bill supporters gathered around in Pence's private signing ceremony (press/public not allowed) were not only nuns and clergy, but also, anti-gay lobbyists.  The effect of the bill will be greater that the legal aspects.  It gives the impression of government support for private bigotry and may foster hate.

    The bill is, in effect, the "Death-rattle Act of 2015--how to salvage something from un-welcomed human rights progress--"they can get married, but they can't make us bake for them."  


    This, I certainly agree with: (5.00 / 4) (#58)
    by Peter G on Mon Mar 30, 2015 at 09:30:16 PM EST
    "It gives the impression of government support for private bigotry and may foster hate."

    Quite a few states are (5.00 / 4) (#86)
    by MO Blue on Tue Mar 31, 2015 at 07:49:22 AM EST
    Banning business travel, businesses stating no expansion and events are being canceled. This is a good thing.

    IMO those announcements should be accompanied with a demand:

    Repeal not clarify.


    I love it (5.00 / 3) (#109)
    by CST on Tue Mar 31, 2015 at 11:23:02 AM EST
    Republicans being rejected by their vaunted "free market".

    After all the work they do trying to bribe businesses with tax breaks and deregulation - they   still manage to muck it up.

    Welcome to 2015, deal with it.  You either join the future willingly or go down kicking and screaming.  But either way, we're getting there.


    Agreed. No need to (none / 0) (#101)
    by KeysDan on Tue Mar 31, 2015 at 10:55:51 AM EST
    clarify.  It is quite clear.  Nobody is fooled as to the Indiana law's intent and purpose.  Although, the reprobate governor, Mike Pence, thinks he can weasel out of his self-inflicted mess by blaming those who are simply too dense to know what he knows.

    But, of course, he will not fess-up to what he knows. But, he does say:  "..is tolerance a two-way street or not?"   Yes, vulnerable minorities, like gay men and women, have an obligation to tolerate others' intolerance of them.   As the NYTimes scorching editorial notes: " if Pence is genuinely  concerned about why people may be misunderstanding the law, he could start by looking in the mirror."


    Gotta admit... (5.00 / 3) (#108)
    by kdog on Tue Mar 31, 2015 at 11:16:27 AM EST
    it is fun watching Pence squirm and get hot in the collar while performing the 5 D's (Dodge, Dip, Duck, Dive, & Dodge) on the news.  

    You can see the terror in his eyes...but don't forgive him lord, cuz he damn well knows what he's done and should pay the price!


    Yes, poor hapless Pence, (none / 0) (#110)
    by KeysDan on Tue Mar 31, 2015 at 11:35:21 AM EST
    now betwixt and between---as if he stepped on a land mine and can't move off without exploding himself.  His "religious" supporters do not want the bill "clarified."  As the executive director of the American Family Association, and, apparently, an author of the bill, said that clarifying the law that it does not legalize discrimination could destroy the bill.  

    By tomorrow.... (none / 0) (#112)
    by kdog on Tue Mar 31, 2015 at 11:44:31 AM EST
    he'll be hiding behind his secretary or his interviews will start sounding like this.

    More about Gov. Pence's claims (none / 0) (#168)
    by christinep on Tue Mar 31, 2015 at 04:42:17 PM EST
    Adding to my general comment of 3/29 on TL about the deceptive Pence:  ONE: Connecticut Gov. Malloy states it well when he directly points out the dissimilarity between a number of the earlier "religious freedom" provisions in several states ... primarily, that Indiana's legislation would enable discrimination by businesses under cover of religion because the Indiana legislation defines "person" to include corporation, partnership, etc. (ah, shades of the Supremes & Citizens United) AND because Indiana has no separate nor stand alone law establishing, protecting gay rights.  

    By chance, I watched a clip of Governor Malloy on "Morning Joe," and found him to be notably direct. He talked about the background of the Indiana legislation (including the notorious view of three of the businessmen standing next to Pence as he signed the recent law)... and, after pointing out his view as a fellow governor that Pence knew exactly what he intended in signing the legislation ... and, importantly, Governor Malloy stated during that interview that when someone (Pence) is a "bigot," he needs to be "called on it."  <If you can locate the "Morning Joe" clip, I'd advise looking at it. Very powerful.>

    TWO: Senator Chuck Schumer specifically takes to task, disagrees with, and corrects any claim that the 1993 Religious Freedom Restoration Act is at all like the Indiana legislation.  Schumer notes that the widespread rightwing talking point to that effect disregards the fact that the federal legislation is clearly and specifically directed at the government in that religious freedom cannot be impeded by the government without a compelling reason.  There is no justification for any claim that Indiana's law mirrors the federal law unless--as Schumer wryly says--those parroting such a talking point are looking thru fun-house mirrors.

    An interesting footnote about Mike Pence: PoliticalWire has a comparison of the Pence of 2000 on his congressional campaign site where he notes that he is against recognition of defined rights for what he calls the distinctly small category of gay individuals and the Pence today who says that all the potential discrimination that could well was result was not his intent.  <Yet, it is noteworthy that Gov. Pence does not seem to have stated anywhere that he believes in or would support legislation/legal provision for the recognition of gay rights.>


    The Indianapolis Star is running ... (5.00 / 2) (#71)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Mar 30, 2015 at 11:25:23 PM EST
    ... this editorial on its front page, and as the lead story on its website:

    Indianapolis Star | March 30, 2015
    Gov. Pence, fix "religious freedom" law now - "We are at a critical moment in Indiana's history. And much is at stake. Our image. Our reputation as a state that embraces people of diverse backgrounds and makes them feel welcome. And our efforts over many years to retool our economy, to attract workers and thriving businesses, and to improve the quality of life for millions of Hoosiers. All of this is at risk because of a new law, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, that no matter its intent has already done enormous harm to our state and potentially our economic future."

    Well, DUH!! It's really too bad Hoosiers didn't wise up to what these militant wingbats were really all about, before dutifully marching to the polls to support their election and in some cases, their re-election.

    I don't blame the white-wing crackpots who enacted and approved this vile law. After all, they did exactly what they said they'd do if ever they were elected to public office. They promised to party like it's 1899, and they've kept their word.

    Unfortunately for Indiana residents, it's 2015 and not the turn of the 20th century. Our American society has evolved profoundly during the almost twelve decades since Queen Victoria's demise, particularly with regard to civil rights.

    So, whatever the economic fallout -- not to mention the embarrassment, ridicule and shame -- caused the state by this law, Indiana voters brought it all upon themselves. Because when you display your ignorance and stupidity at the ballot box like a peacock in breathtaking full-feathered rut, you fully deserve to reap the consequences thereof.

    Next time, maybe they won't be so dumb as stumps.


    Lying liars (5.00 / 1) (#79)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Tue Mar 31, 2015 at 07:05:39 AM EST
    Jeb Bush and Hugh Hewitt lie about the Indiana law:

    Contrary to Hewitt's and Bush's claims, neither other state RFRAs nor the federal RFRA have the same reach as Indiana's law, which explicitly includes corporations as opposed to only people, and allows religious beliefs to be used as a legal defense against an anti-discrimination claim in civil cases even when the government is not involved.

    Yes, if you want aboard (none / 0) (#114)
    by KeysDan on Tue Mar 31, 2015 at 11:50:15 AM EST
    the Republican primary clown car, you had better love this non-dsicrimination against the gay bill that need some clarification to show that it is not discriminatory. The Mad Men-era bill is just what the Iowa mad men expect.

    Hence, Jeb, "I think Gov. Pence has done the right thing"   And, the others are just as loving.  Cruz, Perry, Jindal, Rubio, and Carson.  Don't know about Huckabee, but what's to wonder about?  Walker had better not be so balanced (we do it differently in Wisconsin) or he will get a Bachman-like reception in Iowa. Of course, Pence and his legislative cohorts are thinking about giving their prize bill some "surgery."   Maybe, Ben Carson can lend his surgical hand to it.  


    Yep (5.00 / 1) (#116)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Mar 31, 2015 at 12:12:00 PM EST
    I figure by the time Jeb makes it out of the primaries if he even does he'll sound like Ted Cruz.

    Having lived under (5.00 / 1) (#126)
    by KeysDan on Tue Mar 31, 2015 at 01:18:16 PM EST
    Jeb's governorship, he is a sheep in wolf's clothing.  He will refuse to be out-nutjobbed.  

    Terry Schiavo- all that needs to (5.00 / 5) (#128)
    by caseyOR on Tue Mar 31, 2015 at 01:26:40 PM EST
    be said about Jeb.

    Interesting trivia (5.00 / 1) (#194)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Mar 31, 2015 at 08:21:44 PM EST
    she was allowed to die 10 years ago today.  Maddow is doing a segment on this.  I had forgotten how outrageous it really was.  If Jeb is the nominee this is going to be hung around his neck like a freakin albatross.

    She is also interviewing Warren.


    This is a great interview (none / 0) (#198)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Mar 31, 2015 at 08:45:19 PM EST
    the best I've seen with Warren.  She is asking all the right questions.  I urge everyone to watch it online if you are not watching it now.

    I'm not (none / 0) (#131)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Mar 31, 2015 at 01:29:13 PM EST
    suprised to hear that. Like Casey says Teri Schaivo says all you need to know about Sharia Bush.

    Definitely (none / 0) (#85)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Mar 31, 2015 at 07:49:13 AM EST
    Maybe because I live in GA that this comes as no surprise but honestly anybody who has been paying attention has to realize that the far right runs the GOP these days.

    What the law allows -- in those few parts of (none / 0) (#25)
    by Peter G on Mon Mar 30, 2015 at 04:12:49 PM EST
    Indiana that have anti-discrimination laws in the first place -- is for someone to claim that complying with those laws burdens their exercise of religion.  If the objector can prove that s/he holds a sincere religious belief that prevents them from refraining from illegal discrimination, then the state has to show that the antidiscrimination law serves a compelling governmental purpose (which it clearly does), that applying it without personalized exceptions also serves a compelling interest(which I would argue it also does), and that refusing to allow the self-righteous to discriminate is the least restrictive means of achieving this governmental objective (which I would also expect a judge to agree that it is). At that point, even under the new "Indiana Religious Freedom Restoration Act," the objector loses. It's not a get-out-of-complying-free, just-because-I-say-I-object  card.

    Groovy unintended consequences... (none / 0) (#100)
    by kdog on Tue Mar 31, 2015 at 10:42:40 AM EST
    This law could possibly be used to free the weed in Indiana...the Secretary of State hands were tied and had to approve the application of The First Church of Cannabis Inc. to be recognized as a religious corporation.  Linkage  Next stop, marijuana as a religious sacrament that must be tolerated on religious grounds.  Which should be the case anyway in all 50, but you know how that goes...

    So if the boycotts don't work to repeal or revise this law, this unintended consequence certainly will...stoners are almost as hated as homosexuals by the State of Indiana.


    The NSA is everywhere... (none / 0) (#94)
    by kdog on Tue Mar 31, 2015 at 09:28:45 AM EST
    you can't even go on a cross-dressing, car-thieving, coke binge anymore without bumping into the NSA.

    What's the world coming to? ;)  

    If true (none / 0) (#97)
    by vicndabx on Tue Mar 31, 2015 at 10:03:07 AM EST
    they were idjits.

    Among things not to do in life - try to barge thru the gates of the NSA.  


    And the unluckiest... (none / 0) (#98)
    by kdog on Tue Mar 31, 2015 at 10:06:33 AM EST
    idiots this side of the Mississippi.  

    LOL (none / 0) (#123)
    by Uncle Chip on Tue Mar 31, 2015 at 01:10:01 PM EST
    you can't even go on a cross-dressing binge anymore without bumping into the NSA.

    I see a gender discrimination lawsuit coming against the NSA claiming that the guards would have let them pass had they not been tagged as cross-dressers.


    That almost goes without saying, kdog. (none / 0) (#171)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Mar 31, 2015 at 05:53:17 PM EST
    Call me a straight-laced prude if you must, but I think it would be much more fun to instead get totally hammered on Crown Royal and then get behind the wheel and coast slowly into a concrete barrier at the White House, because you're too wasted to find the brake pedal and it's just so much easier to instead giggle-slur to your drinking buddy who's riding shotgun, "F--k it, that'sh why they got the friggin' barriers, dude!"

    Oh, those wacky Secret Service personnel! What outrageous thing will they do next? Except, of course, there are further reports that what allegedly happened that night may not have exactly gone down as initially reported, and that the media's initial allegations of agent intoxication were likely rooted in third-party hearsay.

    Regardless, Republicans will still respond by saying it's all Obama's fault, and that's why Crown Royal on the rocks sounds really good right about now. So --

    "Let's drink to Honolulu,
    In the middle of the sea,
    Where an island lass
    And a whiskey glass
    Made a horse's ass of me."

    (Original sailor's toast, circa 1890, that was carved into the men's room concrete wall at O'Toole's Pub in the downtown financial district and has since been preserved for posterity.)



    Boy Pence and his Hoosier buddies (none / 0) (#180)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Mar 31, 2015 at 07:04:28 PM EST
    are backpeddaling so hard on this stupid law I'm afraid they may break something .


    Btw (none / 0) (#183)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Mar 31, 2015 at 07:10:42 PM EST
    arkansas passed a similar law today.

    Wal Mart response (none / 0) (#189)
    by christinep on Tue Mar 31, 2015 at 07:39:03 PM EST
    I see that the large company--HQ'd in Arkansas and a major employer--has urged your governor to veto the discriminatory legislation.

    As this plays out in 2015, I'm getting the feeling that neither Pence nor Hutchinson had any real-world idea about how much life (and our society) has changed.  Their demagogue approach may not work.  It really is a societal turning point, imo.


    The governor has said (none / 0) (#192)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Mar 31, 2015 at 07:51:05 PM EST
    he is going to sign it in spite of WalMarts objections.  No surprise here.  Asa is a wingbat as they come.  Welcome to red government.  
    There will not be as much of an outcry here because a lot fewer important things happen here.
    WalMarts about it and Assa doesn't care.

    Look what else WalMart is up to (5.00 / 1) (#199)
    by nycstray on Tue Mar 31, 2015 at 08:48:32 PM EST
    Yah-HOOOOoooo ...!!! (none / 0) (#197)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Mar 31, 2015 at 08:36:33 PM EST
    Your state is cuckoo for cocoa puffs! -- cuckoo for cocoa puffs! -- cuckoo for cocoa puffs! -- cuckoo for cocoa puffs! ...



    Your (none / 0) (#184)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Mar 31, 2015 at 07:11:02 PM EST
    state just passed a similar law didn't they?

    Question for jb (none / 0) (#196)
    by sj on Tue Mar 31, 2015 at 08:35:55 PM EST
    (although the thread is about to close)

    Will the cherry trees blossom in time for the festival this year?