Monday Open Thread

I'm busy at work, and in my spare moments, only following news about El Chapo. Here's an open thread, all topics welcome.

< Obama Commmutes 46 Drug Sentences | El Chapo's Crummy Jail Cell >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Secretary Clinton's (5.00 / 2) (#1)
    by KeysDan on Mon Jul 13, 2015 at 03:17:24 PM EST
    economic policy, delivered today at the New School, presented an economic vision of fairness and growth.  Clear-eyed capitalism that addresses needy Americans, which includes, pretty much all but the very top.   More profit sharing, higher wages, training, union support, and  gender-based pay gaps.  Corporate development that goes beyond :the quarterly reports."  

    Unlike Jeb, whose economic vision is to rid ourselves of our tendencies to be too nice to Americans in hardship while requiring American workers to work longer hours, or Walker's ending of weekends, Mrs. Clinton's economic policy is one of nurturing those factors, labor and capital, in partnership, to achieve a better economic life for all.  A transcript at the link.

    The sad part about it is that ... (5.00 / 2) (#16)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Jul 13, 2015 at 04:57:42 PM EST
    ... as far as I could see, CNN and Fox News skipped the event entirely, while MSNBC immediately cut away from the speech after Mrs. Clinton's opening remarks to engage a panel of that network's usual suspec- er, excuse me, contributing analysts.

    I guess that after weeks of telling everyone how superficial and lacking in substance the Clinton campaign has been thus far, the media didn't find it all that important to cover her major policy address on the U.S. economy.

    Instead, they apparently intend to spend more time telling both the country and each other how inherently untrustworthy this woman is because, you know, Benghazipalooza and her husband's wayward penis.

    On the other hand, Donald Trump -- the man whom David Letterman has described as that guy you see in the Titanic's lifeboat with all the women and children -- doubled down on his bigoted remarks about Mexican immigrants at his appallingly racist all-white conclave in Arizona with Sheriff Joe Arpaio and a few thousand of his most stupid and ignorant friends, and that was front and center in the media last week.

    When I was a child, my mother used to make me turn off the TV and go outside, telling me that watching cartoons all day really wasn't good for me. When did the experts at the cable news networks change their mind on that subject?

    My head hurts.


    P.S.: Thank you for the link. (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Jul 13, 2015 at 05:10:15 PM EST
    I just watched her speech in its entirety. Simply put, she knocked it out of the park.

    Better ... and, Donald, more to come (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by christinep on Mon Jul 13, 2015 at 06:12:10 PM EST
    Yes, I'm a long-time, unabashed Hillary Clinton supporter.  A number of reasons: Clearly, she is the most qualified individual on a number of levels ... and, for most of us, a large majority of her demonstrated opinions align with the classic liberal viewpoint; qualified, experienced, capable, and with a specific, doable plan for American progress being set out there for all to see.  On top of all that ... well, the most qualified & experienced person happens to be a woman.  For goodness sake ... a woman! Yes. So many talk about wanting to see a Woman President in Our Lifetime--in the lifetime of the country--and, here is the cream of the crop--not imaginary, not in-the-vague-future; not sometime later; but, NOW.

    She is better at debates (none / 0) (#39)
    by MKS on Mon Jul 13, 2015 at 11:38:01 PM EST
    and small groups than the big convention style speech....

    But she will have much more chances at the former than the latter.


    How could she hit it out of the park? (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by sj on Mon Jul 13, 2015 at 06:24:11 PM EST
    "Paychecks need to grow
    " --- umm... how?

    "advances in technology and expanding global trade [whoa -- TPP anyone?] have created whole new areas of commercial activity [in China] and opened new markets for our exports [which mainly consist of jobs]"
    my editorial comments are bracketed.

    "Meanwhile, many Americans are making extra money renting out a spare room, designing websites, selling products they design themselves at home, or even driving their own car. This "on demand" or so-called "gig economy" is creating exciting opportunities and unleashing innovation but it's also raising hard questions about workplace protections and what a good job will look like in the future.
    Exciting opportunities? Really? Renting out a room, driving (putting mileage on) their own car (without special protections)? Those sound like desperation measures to me.
    And employers have to offer higher wages and better benefits in order to compete with each other to hire new workers and keep the productive ones.
    What do you propose?
    "So let's establish an infrastructure bank that can channel more public and private funds, channel those funds to finance world-class airports, railways, roads, bridges and ports.
    Wait, are we talking about moving more public money into private hands?
    "We also have to go beyond Dodd-Frank.  
    But not, apparently as far as Glass-Steagall.

    Those are the parts that made me want to stop reading. But it's not all sopoforic. Well, maybe it is. I just looked for something in there I could really rally behind and I'm still looking. But there is this:

    "Over the course of this campaign, I will offer plans ...
    Maybe those plans will be more than the platitudes I see here. I'm certain I would have been more impressed if I had listened to the speech instead of reading the transcript. That ability to sell it is another one of her many gifts. But I don't want to be sold to.

    .. not defending a Ph.D dissertation. Perhaps you should indeed listen to it, as you noted, rather than just read its transcript.

    Speaking as someone who's written such policy speeches in the past, the most effective are no more than 15-20 minutes in length. Today's audiences generally don't have the patience to sit for a long time and listen to even the great orators, the way people would in the past. (And that's because a century ago, there was precious little else to do by way of public entertainment.)

    So, you really don't want to bog your speech down in extraneous detail, because you'll then run the risk of your audience either not being able to see the forest for the trees, or tuning out altogether. Instead, you paint with a broad brush and highlight your initiatives, so that they can get the big picture.



    I can't speak for sj, but as someone (5.00 / 3) (#45)
    by Anne on Tue Jul 14, 2015 at 07:00:11 AM EST
    who often reads transcripts instead of listening to speeches, I can tell you that I do it because I want to focus on content, not optics.  I don't want to get swept up in tone or body language, be distracted by applause or crowd reaction: I want to know what is being said, not how it is being said.

    There is a lot to talk about where the economy is concerned, specifically, how to deal with and fix the personal economies are of the majority of the people.  And it may well be impossible to address those needs with any specificity in a speech like the one Clinton gave.

    But what occurs to me is that I would venture to guess that pretty near 100% of the people who listened to, watched, or read the speech already know most of what she said.  I think we're past the point where speeches that would do Captain Obvious proud are going to be enough for people who have been living for years with the conditions and problems she summarized, and have been begging for their elected leaders to address - to pretty much no avail.

    Yes, it's great that Clinton knows what the problems are, but let's just say that I am somewhat skeptical that she will be able to abandon or push back against her ties to the corporate, banking and Wall Street elite who have funded much of her electoral and political efforts.

    I feel like Clinton is playing from behind the curve, that her audience is way ahead of her and isn't going to stick around if it takes her too long to catch up.  If my car is broken down on the side of the road, I don't need the mechanic to come tell me my car is broken, I need him or her to tell me how to fix it.

    We'll see where this all goes, and maybe the debates will be helpful in wringing some specifics out of all of the Democratic candidates.


    Thank you (none / 0) (#71)
    by sj on Tue Jul 14, 2015 at 11:49:39 AM EST
    that says exactly what I am feeling. And "yes" also to the feeling that she is playing from behind the curve.

    wev (5.00 / 1) (#73)
    by sj on Tue Jul 14, 2015 at 11:50:56 AM EST
    Frankly, Bernie Sanders didn't get caught in the trap that you describe. He was quite specific and related it directly to the general. Apparently the "extraneous detail" he provides is not causing his audience to tune him out.

    Then again, he has no need to placate the big money donors.


    Yes, Bernie Sanders is drawing big crowds. (5.00 / 1) (#133)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Jul 14, 2015 at 04:29:01 PM EST
    For that matter, so did Eugene McCarthy, Jesse Jackson, Jerry Brown, Howard Dean and John Edwards, early in their respective presidential campaigns.

    Look, I truly appreciate the fact that both Sens. Sanders and Elizabeth Warren have steered the public discussion in our party back toward the left and away from the squishy and vacillating center-right, because that's where it really needs to be at this point in our country's ongoing story. The fact that Mrs. Clinton now feels free enough to discuss what she talked about in yesterday's speech is conclusive proof of that change in mood and tone.

    But Sanders is not going to win, because in our post-Citizen's United political world, were he to become our nominee and face Jeb! in the general election, we'd likely be staring uphill into the face of an avalanche that would rival the George McGovern wipeout of 1972. And unlike Nixon's '72 landslide, this one would likely have GOP coattails down to the local level in many parts of the country, as well. That would be a disaster, for all the painfully obvious reasons.

    As someone who lists naturally to port himself, I truly wish it were possible that our nation as a whole could be comfortable with and accept the plausibility of an unapologetically leftist candidate as our president. But as is the case in most major western democracies, we're simply not there, nor are we likely to arrive there in the foreseeable future.

    It would take a very serious-to-cataclysmic reverse in this country, along the lines of a vast economic downturn and pervasive national depression, accompanied by a complete public repudiation of the prevailing political status quo, for that to occur. And in that case, we would likely also run a very serious risk of going in the exact opposite direction, that is, turning to a far-right demagogue who both offered us quick and easy answers to all our problems, and knew exactly who to blame for our troubles.

    I will, of course, support the 2016 Democratic nominee to the utmost of my abilities, regardless of who it is. but given what subsequently happened to this country after the 2000 election, my current support for Hillary Clinton is both pragmatic and practical from my personal standpoint and experience.

    It is my considered opinion that Mrs. Clinton alone among the present Democratic candidates has the capacity to effectively counter what is likely to be an extraordinarily well-funded and organized Bush / GOP campaign on many different levels, and the present stakes are such that we simply cannot afford to lose this next election.



    That's a lot of words (3.50 / 2) (#137)
    by sj on Tue Jul 14, 2015 at 05:12:34 PM EST
    to congratulate yourself on your political acumen.

    That's because I wish to leave no doubt ... (none / 0) (#139)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Jul 14, 2015 at 05:43:00 PM EST
    ... whatsoever as to where I stand, and why I hold to that position.

    Wise & Well Said, Donald (none / 0) (#136)
    by christinep on Tue Jul 14, 2015 at 04:45:22 PM EST
    christinep, if you don't mind, (5.00 / 1) (#149)
    by NYShooter on Tue Jul 14, 2015 at 09:07:58 PM EST
    let me jump onto your comment to put my 2 cents in, o.k?

    Secretary Clinton has let it be known that she understands this is going to be a very long campaign, almost a year and a half left to go. Also, she has indicated from the very beginning that she will take control, and responsibility, for the conduct of her campaign, recognizing the mistakes made in her last one. It will be slow, it will be deliberate, and it will be done in a well thought out way so that, by the time its over, everything that should be put out there, will be.

    Now, I haven't studied Hillary's plans and ideas that went into how the campaign will be carried out as much as I should have. But, again, she has let it be known that there is a plan, and it will consist of different phases. The first phase is to simply get out there, reintroduce herself to all the many constituencies that will make up her potential supporters, and voters. That's what she's doing now. She's speaking, and, more importantly, listening, to a wide, and varied, audience, just to get better acquainted, and get a better understanding of people's problems, and, desires. And, so far it's working. (Just as it did, so successfully, in her 2 Senate campaigns in NY) She's letting all the hatred and vitriol that we all knew was coming, get out there for all to see and experience. And, step by step, her narrative is being expressed, while the image that's being forged is that here's a woman who can take the best shot the Neanderthals have to give, but to stay focused on those who have been given the short end of the stick for so long, and will now have a champion who, first of all, knows what those problems are, and second, knows how get them fixed, regardless of all the obstacles that will be thrown in her path.

    You can call it schmaltzy, phony, or anything else you want to, but this is what she said she was going to do, and she's doing it, quite well if you ask me.

    I guess what I'm trying to say is that I think its kind of disingenuous to criticize Hillary Clinton for not stating "specific," when she has said, this not what she's doing right now. There's plenty of time left to go, and, all the specifics will be laid out at the right time and in the right manner. You all may be frustrated by that, it's a free country, but when the Lady says, "I'm not here to talk about specifics at this time," allow me to say that I'm skeptical now that the criticism of Mrs. Clinton I'm hearing is not really about "specifics" at all.


    So...she gets to dictate to the people (5.00 / 3) (#157)
    by Anne on Wed Jul 15, 2015 at 07:31:05 AM EST
    she purports to want to represent the schedule she wishes to maintain for addressing their issues, on her schedule, the way she wants, and what? we just have to wait until she's ready?  

    That is just so much crap, I can't even believe you believe it, much less that you're questioning the motives and agenda of those who feel like the people have waited long enough.

    This is a woman who is, by all accounts, whip smart, someone who takes in and digests more information over breakfast than most people do in a month, remembers it and can extemporaneously deliver a fact-filled policy speech at the drop of a hat, and you would have us believe that she needs to acquaint herself with the issues and the problems people are having - right before you tell us that she knows what the problems are, and knows how to fix them and is uniquely qualified to be the answer to all our prayers because she's so tough from battling the forces of insanity?  

    Sorry, bud - but I don't think it's others who are being disingenuous.

    Let's just be honest here: this is about politics, not policy - and while I get that there's a role for politics, it just seems to me that if you have a plan, you tell people what it is, you tell them how it gets done, how it gets paid for: you sell that to the people, you get them excited about it, you don't tap dance and tease and insult people's intelligence by telling them what the issues are.

    We don't need coy.  We don't need previews of coming attractions.  

    I'm super, super glad that you are Ready for Hillary, that you have found the special Rose Colored Glasses at the bottom of your box of Clinton Cracker Jack, but have the courtesy to understand that if some of us aren't willing to accept "because Hillary said so" as the answer to everything, it has nothing to do with any hidden agenda, and everything to do with accountability.


    Right Anne... (5.00 / 2) (#164)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Jul 15, 2015 at 08:43:14 AM EST
    ...I feel like like some sort of cult belief that Hillary, and only Hillary, is Obama's destined successor.  Those reads were so mind numbingly closed off that I want to puke.

    I am sure 8 years ago, same folks, same words, and they were 100% wrong.  So you will have to excuse me if I don't drink the urine and pretend it's Kool-Aid.

    I am not ripping on HRC, but the zombies who have already decided what the rest of us are going to do, and are perfectly content backing a candidate before they know where she stands on many issues like the Middle East & ISIS.  If she wants to send in 10,000 troops, doesn't matter, she is the chosen one, they tell us.

    I am gonna wait to see who has the better vision, not who can shuck the most bucks from Corporate America.


    Anne (4.00 / 3) (#162)
    by FlJoe on Wed Jul 15, 2015 at 08:34:38 AM EST
    you are correct when you say
    Let's just be honest here: this is about politics, not policy
    It's more about politics now and it will be more about politics then not until the last vote is cast in 2016. You stamp your feet and demand your policy pony while ignoring the fact that Hillary has to wrestle with the 800 pound gorilla.

    Every politician worth their salt has a game plan, most politicians in Hillary position, sitting on the high stack at the table, would choose to "slow play" their hand. I don't know why Hillary's use of such a common political ploy upsets you so much.

    You appear to be applying one of Charlie's Clinton Rules:

    Clinton Rule No. 2 -- what is business as usual for every politician since Cato is a work of dark magic when practiced by either Clinton

    No, that is not what I'm doing. (5.00 / 2) (#166)
    by Anne on Wed Jul 15, 2015 at 08:56:05 AM EST
    I'm not saying Clinton can't have her own strategy or her own plan, I'm saying please don't impugn my motives or agenda because I found what was billed as a major speech on the economy to be little more than a laundry list.  I'm saying don't lecture me about not being properly deferential to Clinton's brilliance.

    I'm one of those voters she's going to have to win over; I'm not on the Clinton train, or bandwagon, or whatever we're calling it.  I'm interested in what she has to say and what she's prepared to offer, but giving me a list of the issues doesn't help me - I already know what the issues are.

    I'm not naive; I have no illusion that Bernie Sanders is going to win the nomination.  I'm pretty certain it's going to be Clinton.  Since I would never in a million years vote Republican, it's only a matter of whether she can convince me that she's the right one for me to vote for.  

    She should care about me, and the millions of others who have been waiting for a long time to hear what her plan is.  Maybe this is a function of what seems to be non-stop election/campaign mode, resulting in years of selling, and teasing and seducing.  I don't know.

    My objection to Shooter's comment was really more about the hero-worship tone, the tsk-tsking because we weren't trusting that Clinton's got this.  And it's about implying that anyone who couldnt' see that or wasn't buying that must have some sort of dark motive or agenda.

    I'm sure christine, to whom his comment was addressed, ate it up with a spoon; I though it was more deserving of a shovel and some knee-high boots.


    Bernie (none / 0) (#158)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Jul 15, 2015 at 07:57:18 AM EST
    is doing the same thing. He's discussing what he wants when he wants, having rallies where he wants to have them etc. Everybody gets to dictate their own schedule at this point in the game.

    Oh, for heaven's sake. (none / 0) (#159)
    by Anne on Wed Jul 15, 2015 at 08:24:04 AM EST
    This isn't about setting a schedule - everyone has to have a schedule for where and when they're going to appear.  There's a lot of planning involved in making personal appearances during a campaign - I get that.

    He seemed to say that there's some kind of schedule for being specific, which is fine if that's the way she wants to go, but just because she's decided that's her strategy doesn't mean that's going to work for everyone.  

    The issue was the lack of specificity in Clinton's speech, and Shooter's defense of Clinton on the basis that "Clinton Knows Best" makes no sense to me - it's hero worship.  Is that why we're being asked to defer to her?  I thought we'd established that politicians aren't heroes - so why are we being questioned if we don't treat Clinton like she is one?

    And, contrary to your assertions about Sanders being just as vague, no, I don't think that's correct.  sj went to one of his appearances and said:

    It kind of goes like this.

        1. States problem.
        2. Gives context (and/or ramifications) -- such as where the USA stacks up against other first world countries.
        3. States position and proposed solution
        4. States how he would pay for it.

    Seemed pretty specific to her.


    I never (none / 0) (#161)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Jul 15, 2015 at 08:33:08 AM EST
    said Bernie was vague. My comment was in regards to foreign policy probably not helping him later on with voters.

    Hillary is doing what she thinks works for her and Bernie is doing what he thinks works for him. Shooter thinks she knows what works best for her is what I got out of his comment.


    It would be interesting to see those specifics (none / 0) (#167)
    by jbindc on Wed Jul 15, 2015 at 08:56:59 AM EST
    I've seen a few - mostly raise taxes, especially on the wealthy (which, in itself, is not really a specific) but I would like to see some proposals from Sanders that actually would have a chance of getting passed in the real world.  It's fine to talk about things like "free undergraduate tuition" and "Medicare for all", but let's face it, under a President Sanders, who still would have to deal with a (most likely) Republican / divided Congress, he may as well say he wants to colonize Mars in the next two years and move there with his new girlfriend, Angelina Jolie.

    Frankly (5.00 / 1) (#181)
    by sj on Wed Jul 15, 2015 at 11:38:03 AM EST
    I'm tired of pre-negotiating with ourselves and settling for low expectations because ... republicans... reasons. If you want to pre-negotiate with yourself, don't run for president.

    And how insulting is this comment about a very accomplished man? I think you should stop talking now.

    he may as well say he wants to colonize Mars in the next two years and move there with his new girlfriend, Angelina Jolie.
    But I will say, I believe that were you an adult in the 60's you would have made the same sort of comment about Kennedy's desire to put a man on the moon. That was really reaching for the moon, and it happened. Sadly he wasn't here to see it. But compare your comment to Kennedy's:
    We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard, because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one which we intend to win, and the others, too.
    I know you are no orator so that's kind of unfair, but what sad sacks have we become if we don't even try for the very, very best we can do instead of just settling for something. In advance, no less.

    I would imagine (none / 0) (#160)
    by jbindc on Wed Jul 15, 2015 at 08:32:45 AM EST
    A) Putting detailed specifics out now, when really no one is paying attention, would not get the excitement you think it would.

    B) things can drastically change between now and a year from now - why put out details (that most people won't understand or pay attention to anyway) when it makes more sense to gauge the economic situation at that time?  (Notice I'm not saying she and her team shouldn't be thinking about all contingencies, but they don't have to be articulated just yet).

    You are a rare person in this country - one who is ready to digest policy specifics, 16 months out.  Most people are not, so why give the bored political press something to b tear apart for that long?


    Your lack of imagination... (none / 0) (#182)
    by sj on Wed Jul 15, 2015 at 11:39:04 AM EST
    I would imagine (none / 0) (#160)
    by jbindc on Wed Jul 15, 2015 at 07:32:45 AM MDT  

    A) Putting detailed specifics out now, when really no one is paying attention, would not get the excitement you think it would.

    ... should not restrict that of the rest of us.

    No offense but yes (none / 0) (#163)
    by CoralGables on Wed Jul 15, 2015 at 08:35:08 AM EST
    It's her campaign and her schedule. It's rather difficult to run on your schedule when there are about 130 million other voters that would like it on their schedule.

    NYS: A good &patient explanation (none / 0) (#183)
    by christinep on Wed Jul 15, 2015 at 12:05:40 PM EST
    Thanks.  The strategy of phasing & timing definitely undergirds HRC's the methodical roll-out of the long-anticipated campaign.  It makes sense; and--because it avoids the temptation to sate the hungry press early on--it should prove that experience & smarts are a winning combo.

    Excuse me for not responding sooner ... long dog walk this a.m., reading everything available about the stunning & positive accord with Iran, looking again and again at the pictures of Pluto were wonderful.  Plus: I agree with your analysis.  (Remind me to tell Anne that I like the Clinton method of campaigning to date ... but, that is because I am as predictable as she surely has been :) )


    So Sanders is doing policy wonk (none / 0) (#95)
    by nycstray on Tue Jul 14, 2015 at 01:12:25 PM EST
    In his speeches (detailed policy)? I'll have to check it out as all I've heard in my bit of listening has been firery speech and big ideas/little detail.

    Yes -- depending on what you're looking for (5.00 / 1) (#102)
    by sj on Tue Jul 14, 2015 at 02:01:06 PM EST
    It kind of goes like this.
    1. States problem.
    2. Gives context (and/or ramifications) -- such as where the USA stacks up against other first world countries.
    3. States position and proposed solution
    4. States how he would pay for it.

    At the rally I attended he spoke for about an hour -- holding everyone's attention, I should add -- and he didn't talk at all about FP. His comments about immigration were pretty slim as well -- in fact, I can't recall. I think he was leaning open border?

    As for "little detail", that's relative. Way more detail than HRC speeches. Way less than a position paper.


    Thanks. When I say little detail (none / 0) (#135)
    by nycstray on Tue Jul 14, 2015 at 04:39:28 PM EST
    that was the impression I was getting, as what he was saying was more for sound bites, quotes. Perhaps I've been following his FB page for to long, lol!~

    I'm not too worried about FP from him. I'm also mostly concentrating on domestic issues. If the GOP wins, just look for me whimpering under my bed :)


    Clarence Darrow (none / 0) (#40)
    by MKS on Mon Jul 13, 2015 at 11:39:55 PM EST
    reportedly gave 8 hour closing arguments regularly....

    Unthinkable today.


    ... Clarence Darrow defended Grace Bell Fortescue, an heiress to the Bell Telephone fortune; her son-in-law, Navy Lt. Thomas Massie; and two Navy enlisted men, Albert Jones and Edward Lord, all of whom had been charged with murder in the January 1932 lynching of 20-year-old Joseph Kahahawai.

    The victim had earlier been accused with four other local youths -- quite falsely, as it later turned out -- of the Sept. 1931 sexual assault of Thalia Massie, a headstrong and tempetuous socialite who was both the wife of the lieutenant and Mrs. Fortescue's daughter.

    Without using any notes, Darrow gave what was by most all contemporary accounts a masterful and at times emotional 4 hr., 20 min. summation during the trial's closing arguments, which were carried by CBS radio across the country, marking the very first time in U.S. history that even a portion of a criminal trial's official proceedings had been broadcast live.

    Unfortunately for his four clients, Darrow's soaring oratory on their behalf ultimately went for naught, because the evidence of their guilt was frankly overwhelming. Under direct questioning by Darrow in court, Lt. Massie claimed temporary insanity while admitting to having fired the gun that killed the Hawaiian youth. (And with that line of questioning, there is very good reason to believe that Darrow suborned perjury from Massie, because he likely knew that it was actually Albert Jones who had shot Kahahawai, and not the lieutenant.)

    Further, prior to being indicted for Kahahawai's murder, Mrs. Fortescue had given a remarkably intemperate interview to the New York Times, during which she had practically bragged to reporter Russell Owen about how they had allowed the victim to bleed slowly to death because, as Owen later recounted after the trial, "she said that she came from the South, and that in the South they had their own ways of dealing with 'ni&&ers.'"

    Darrow had essentially argued in court that Kahahawai's lynching was justified as an "honor killing" under the "unwritten law," a defense usually used by a husband who kills a man immediately after catching him having relations with his wife or raping her. (Hence Darrow's need to have Lt. Massie claim that he, and not Jones, had shot Kahahawai.)

    But Darrow then made a serious tactical error in putting Thalia Massie on the stand as a defense witness. Because after being gently led by the defense counsel for nearly three hours to recount the story of her alleged rape, she subsequently withered quite badly under a short but devastating 20-min. cross examination by Honolulu prosecutor John Kelley, angrily tearing to pieces before a shocked courtroom a copy of a doctor's report which evidently contradicted her claims.

    So, with increasing suspicion that Mrs. Massie had lied on the witness stand with regard to having supposedly been raped by the victim, Darrow's closing arguments fell on deaf ears. The jury convicted Massie, Fortescue and the two Navy men of felony manslaughter.

    However, due to overwhelming public pressure from mainland whites, the U.S. Navy, Congress and President Herbert Hoover, prompted in large part by appeals from Darrow himself via the mainland media, Hawaii Gov. Lawrence Judd quickly commuted the mandatory 10-year sentence of each defendant to one hour, which ran concurrently in Judd's office while the defendants and Darrow were served tea by the governor's staff.

    Thus, Honolulu's infamous "Massie Affair" sadly concluded on an egregious miscarriage of justice, with the heiress, her son-in-law and their two co-defendants having literally gotten away with murder.

    Clarence Darrow's swan song in an American courtroom proved to be one very long and sour note indeed to most Honolulu residents, and unlike on the U.S. mainland, the celebrated defense attorney is remembered not at all fondly in the islands.



    A very interesting story (5.00 / 1) (#75)
    by BarnBabe on Tue Jul 14, 2015 at 11:53:11 AM EST
    Thank you another interesting piece of history that I was unaware.

    Thank you. (none / 0) (#108)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Jul 14, 2015 at 02:17:55 PM EST
    Most of Clarence Darrow's friends and supporters were frankly baffled by his decision to take on the Massie case, particularly given his own celebrated history as a passionate advocate for civil rights.

    But in this particular instance, the famous attorney forthrightly admitted in his autobiography that the Great Depression had greatly reduced his personal wealth, and so he accepted the case primarily because the Bell family offered him a lot of money to do so. As an aside, he also noted that he and his wife Ruby had never been to Hawaii, and they were excited about the opportunity to see Honolulu.

    Darrow was paid the then-princely sum of $40,000 -- the equivalent today of about $750,000 -- plus an additional $10,000 in projected expenses, by the Bells for what amounted to three months' work. That's why and how this renowned civil libertarian ended up nearly five thousand miles from his Chicago home in far-away Hawaii, defending a well-known heiress and her son-in-law accused of lynch murder.

    As far as seeing Honolulu was concerned, Darrow arrived with the city in a general civic uproar over the Massie Affair. And only two days after the governor's commutation of the defendants' sentences, he was compelled to shepherd all of them and their families out of town on the next available ship, once prosecutor John Kelley publicly aired his suspicions immediately after the trial that Thalia Massie had concocted her story of gang rape for reasons known only to her, and that he further intended to indict her for felony perjury as the instigator of the whole mess.

    The Massie Affair remains one of the most darkly controversial cases in the history of 20th century American jurisprudence. The two separate decisions of two different Honolulu juries to first refuse to convict Joseph Kahahawai and his four friends in the alleged gang rape of Thalia Massie, and then to hold responsible Thalia's mother and husband for Kahahawai's lynching, prompted a huge political backlash against Hawaii on the U.S. mainland, and likely set back the cause of island statehood by 20-25 years.

    But to their infinite credit, those two juries got it right and further, they did so despite being under enormous public pressure from mainland and military interests to find otherwise in both instances. As we now know, it was mainland public opinion in this sorry matter, profoundly underscored by the often virulent racism of the times, which proved to be so very wrong.



    Looking at Fortescue's... (none / 0) (#111)
    by unitron on Tue Jul 14, 2015 at 02:28:15 PM EST
    ...family tree doesn't seem to show a whole lot of "Southern" except for growing up in Washington, D.C.

    All her "people" seem to be from the Boston or New York areas.


    That's for sure. (none / 0) (#138)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Jul 14, 2015 at 05:23:02 PM EST
    For someone who claimed to Russel Own to be from stout Southern stock, Grace Hubbard Bell Fortescue certainly had a remarkable amount of eastern blueblood in her. She socialized in very exclusive circles in D.C., New York and Newport, RI. And she knew all the so-called "right people," who dutifully rallied to her side when she got into trouble in Honolulu.

    Grace and her family were all welcomed with open arms and even parades by the white community when they returned to the mainland after their very public ordeal in the islands, which was often the lead story in most prominent national daily newspapers during both the Kahahawai and Massie trials. But once the initial hoopla died down and the celebrity tours were over, life proved to be very difficult and sad for both Thomas and Thalia Massie.

    Two years after the Kahahawai / Massie trials had concluded, Lt. Massie filed for divorce from his wife, citing irreconcilable differences with his wife. For her part, Thalia Massie traveled to Reno, NV and did the same, citing in her own petition extreme mental cruelty and spousal abandonment on the part of her husband. That divorce was granted in August 1934.

    In 1940, Lt. Massie suffered a complete nervous and emotional breakdown while aboard his ship in San Diego, which subsequently required his lengthy hospitalization, and he was discharged from the Navy against his wishes as a result. He later remarried and lived a very low-key life, passing away on January 8, 1987 -- coincidentally, 55 years to the day after Joseph Kahahawai's tragic lynching.

    Following her divorce, Thalia Massie fled to Europe, where she was briefly hospitalized in Italy after what was reported to be a failed suicide attempt. She seemed to have had a pretty serious lifelong problem with alcoholism and substance abuse, and was supported financially by her mother and father for the remainder of her days.

    Thalia was very briefly remarried in the early 1950s to a man who was nearly two decades her junior, but it didn't last. She died of a barbiturate overdose in Palm Beach, FL in 1963, just down the block from her mother's house. It was never determined whether that overdose was accidental or intentional.

    Whatever really happened to Thalia Massie that long-ago night in Honolulu 32 years earlier, when she had stormed out of Waikiki's Ala Wai Inn nightclub in a furious huff after an argument with one of her husband's fellow naval officers, she took with her to her grave.

    Now to be clear, there's absolutely no doubt that she had obviously been beaten badly by someone later that evening, because her jaw had been broken in two places. But the available evidence also just as clearly precludes any possibility whatsoever that Joseph Kahahawai and his friends could have assaulted Thalia that night, never mind gang raping her.

    Most likely, from various eyewitnesses who saw Thalia Massie walking down Waikiki's Ena Road that same night with another white man who was not her husband, she had probably run afoul of that particular person, who may have been a former lover, since she was known to have kept the company of other men while her husband was at sea.

    For her part, Grace Bell Fortescue lived to the ripe old age of 97, having inherited her family's fortune in the 1940s. She lived the high life with husband Rolly, and they resided in a Palm Beach mansion which she had curiously decorated with a boldly Hawaiian motif. She had always expressed a fondness for Honolulu to her friends, and often expressed to them her desire to return to Hawaii one day. But for obvious reasons she never did, having decidedly worn out her welcome in the islands decades earlier.



    She is absolutely one of the best public speakers (5.00 / 2) (#25)
    by Peter G on Mon Jul 13, 2015 at 07:53:15 PM EST
    I have ever seen.  Saw her speak on Bill's behalf to a crowd of students and faculty at Yale in 1992; she was just fabulous. Spoke 30 or 40 min with nothing but a few notes on one card, as far as I could tell. Coherent, smart, accessible, and personable.  

    Yes, she really is (5.00 / 1) (#78)
    by sj on Tue Jul 14, 2015 at 11:57:46 AM EST
    IMO she's even better at public speaking than Bill, and that is saying a lot.

    She is actually (none / 0) (#28)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Jul 13, 2015 at 08:09:47 PM EST
    much better speaking off the cuff than doing a prepared speech.  IMO.

    She is far too corporate far too much (3.50 / 4) (#8)
    by Dadler on Mon Jul 13, 2015 at 04:04:56 PM EST
    The Clintons have helped destroy a once decent party. I simply do not respect them any longer. She is running a cowardly and imaginatively vacant campaign. Comparing her to Jeb I don't really get as useful. He's a silver spoon moron. We should be comparing her to what we actually want from a party that is SUPPOSED to be marginally progressive. Just my opinion. Peace.

    I gather that she is unredeemable in (1.00 / 1) (#27)
    by oculus on Mon Jul 13, 2015 at 08:06:13 PM EST
    your opinion.

    Nobody is unredeemable... (5.00 / 1) (#66)
    by kdog on Tue Jul 14, 2015 at 11:21:31 AM EST
    but one cannot be redeemed on the campaign trail, that's for damn sure.  

    As someone who shares Dadler view, I will be happy to revisit the opinion after the first term, if she can beat Bernie "Head of Steam" Sanders that is.



    I really wish I felt differently (5.00 / 2) (#92)
    by jondee on Tue Jul 14, 2015 at 12:50:51 PM EST
    but when it comes to Hillary, I tend to be on board with Dadler and El Doggerino.

    And, to characterize all vigorous critiques of the Clinton's politics as "hate" and "derangement" is itself a form of derangement, and, or, just another garden variety smear tactic.  

    Which doesn't mean that some of us, in a pinch, I might not hold our noses and vote for her.

    As Warren Beatty's Bulworth said, "what are you gonna do? vote for the Republican?!  


    Obscenity? Obscenity? (5.00 / 1) (#94)
    by kdog on Tue Jul 14, 2015 at 01:09:21 PM EST
    If Clinton went full Bulworth on the trail, that might qualify for early parole from unredeemable jondee.  And I mean full Bulworth, with shades and skully and awkward white rapping.

    "Lloyd Blankfein he paid me lots,
    but now he'll know it feels
    to see his stock drop.
    And Jamie Dimon thinks he got the in,
    I'm a chop him up
    like a derivative.
    Citibank your check has cleared,
    Double-Cross B*tch
    I'm the Dem you used to fear!
    People first y'all
    imagine that,
    Now's the time,
    GOP that whack."


    Not all critiques (none / 0) (#143)
    by Yman on Tue Jul 14, 2015 at 06:01:10 PM EST
    But a bunch of them?



    I Have a Feeling... (none / 0) (#84)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Jul 14, 2015 at 12:05:14 PM EST
    ...when HRC start discussing foreign policy, Bernie is going to get a huge bump.  The fawning right now, and I may be part of it, is because she is pushing traditional democrat party ideals, even going so far as to call so of them progressive.

    But once the Middle East is part of the discussion, the fawning by many, and I may be in that group, will come to an abrupt end IMO.

    But who knows for sure, she was made remarks on the Middle East, but nothing since announcing her run for president.


    Would she be pushing them if (5.00 / 2) (#90)
    by Anne on Tue Jul 14, 2015 at 12:23:54 PM EST
    she were the only one in the Democratic field, do you think?  

    And if you think she would, do you think it would be from as much to the left as she appears to be pushing, or just enough to set her apart from the GOP?  

    I mean, as nuts as these Republicans are, any position to the left of them, even if that didn't get her to the center, would do that trick, so my question is, how much of this is Hillary being true to herself, and how much of this is Hillary believing she can't capture the voters Sanders is attracting unless her message sounds similar to his?

    And, should she get the nomination, how much of this populist message will retreat to the right as she tries to capture whatever moderate Republican and centrist Democratic votes are out there?

    I'm glad she's getting the leftward push, I'm just not so sure it's going to last.


    IMO She is Moving Left... (none / 0) (#97)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Jul 14, 2015 at 01:41:41 PM EST
    ...not only because of the competition, but I think with the SCOTUS cases and just a general sense that people are, at least temporarily, very open to progressive ideas.  I don't think Obama would be making certain statements and implementing certain programs if the ideas were not popular.  I think, but obviously don't know, that HRC will continue to run with them.  IMO Obama is far better now than when he was trying to be the grand negotiator.

    IOW, it's easy to be a progressive when progressive ideas are popular.  And if the right keep pushing non-sense like walls and defying the SCOTUS, progressive ideas will continue to remain popular.

    I think Romney proved that you can't be one thing in the primaries and then reset and be another for the election.  Granted HRC's shift wouldn't be nearly as far, but I get the feeling that she is being very genuine.  I hope she is, I hope we as D's are not ready to follow the R playbook, promise and never deliver because no one has the fortitude to be honest about realistic expectations.

    That is why I fear when foreign policy hits the mix.  When the options are either rejuvenate the Iraqi War or dedicate a lot of Troops to Iraq, the likelihood we will go back seems pretty obvious.  

    I would love for her to say, we will help, but we will not take the lead, and will not commit soldiers for the front line.  There are 10 countries who have a more vested interest in defeating ISIS than the US, let them figure it out, and when they do, let us know how we can help.  We started it, but we sure as hell can't end it.  Without a doubt, we can stop making the same dumb mistakes in the ME.


    I actually (none / 0) (#96)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Jul 14, 2015 at 01:22:13 PM EST
    think the reverse. I think unless Bernie has a more fleshed out policy than he has already when the discussion turns to foreign policy that is what is going to hurt him. So far the economic discussion plays to some of his strengths. The people that are obsessed with the Iraq War vote are already with Bernie.

    wev (5.00 / 1) (#100)
    by sj on Tue Jul 14, 2015 at 01:50:04 PM EST
    Foreign policy discussions won't hurt him with me. I never like the foreign policy of any president nor do I ever expect to.

    Funny, I just said that to a colleague and it started a hallway conversation. Three out of the four people talking were like me -- interested in domestic policy and writing off FP.

    The fourth cares deeply about FP. But then she is also a recovering Republican.


    Yes (none / 0) (#104)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Jul 14, 2015 at 02:10:16 PM EST
    I'm sure there are a good many where it's not going to make a difference. I'm thinking more about the fence sitters that people who already are all in like I said above.

    sidebar:: (none / 0) (#123)
    by sj on Tue Jul 14, 2015 at 03:41:41 PM EST
    That little conversation sparked a couple of other little conversations. Now there are more who care about FP than our local little DINO.

    Just stated in the interest of fairness. :)


    I think they will be so similar (5.00 / 1) (#113)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Jul 14, 2015 at 02:28:40 PM EST
    It will be hard to tell them apart outside of one or two very specific issues. I'm always surprised when I read Liberals perceiving Sanders to be dovish.  Clinton is only slightly more hawkish, and as you and I have discussed, it was Sanders support of the F-35 that ended the left wing fight against the program.

    He's well versed. I think he'll hold his own debating Clinton on foreign policy.  Their differences in opinions on the whole though I think will be negligible.


    My thoughts exactly (5.00 / 1) (#114)
    by CST on Tue Jul 14, 2015 at 02:35:01 PM EST
    I feel like a lot of people are projecting their own foreign policy opinions onto Sanders because he represents what they like on domestic affairs.

    I don't see a big gap there as well.

    Honestly, I love Bernie, but I'm a bit surprised by all the animosity toward Clinton.  I think she'll probably be a great president.  And this shift to the left on domestic policy has more to do with where the country is and what's possible right now.  I feel like we have two good options running against a clown car of crazies.  Not a bad place to be.


    Me too (none / 0) (#117)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Jul 14, 2015 at 03:02:02 PM EST
    I'm delighted to have these two. God forbid something would happen to either one but it could.  And foreign policy militarily speaking one of them must be our next President or we are back to crazytown and having the Dick Cheney crew as foreign policy advisors.

    A clown car of crazies that (none / 0) (#119)
    by Anne on Tue Jul 14, 2015 at 03:14:14 PM EST
    close to half the country will support, and whose views are pretty much mainstream within the Congress.

    A clown car of crazies the media seems to be doing its damnedest to provide legitimacy and credibility to for, I can't decide what - their own entertainment?  In service to the elite they like to think they are members of?  Who the hell knows?

    For the life of me, I will never, ever understand it.  But I guess when one's life just isn't really affected by the kinds of things you and I and most of the people I know are working hard to deal with, it's just words, abstractions, the way they get and keep the power they've become accustomed to.  It's a mutual benefit society most of us will never be part of or share in.

    Yes, the clown car is packed as tight with crazies as a tin of sardines, but I have no doubt that those crazies, the people who back them and support them, and the stenographic media, will do everything in their/its power to ensure that there will be no easy path to the WH for whoever the Democratic nominee is, whether it's Clinton or Sanders.


    I just keep repeating after BTD (none / 0) (#124)
    by CST on Tue Jul 14, 2015 at 03:41:51 PM EST
    Demographics is destiny.

    Helps me sleep better at night.

    And I try not to think too hard about what happens to that if Rubio or Jeb wins the nomination.


    More clowns in the race... (none / 0) (#153)
    by Mr Natural on Tue Jul 14, 2015 at 10:29:47 PM EST
    means more advertising dollars.

    To Be Clear... (none / 0) (#165)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Jul 15, 2015 at 08:52:15 AM EST
    ...my comment was about Hillary.

    My point was that I have a feeling that when Hillary starts talking Middle East she is going to lose some support.

    I honestly have no idea where Sanders sits on foreign policy and shouldn't have used his name as getting a bump.  That is what I meant.


    I don't understand why you think she'll (none / 0) (#169)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Jul 15, 2015 at 09:32:31 AM EST
    Lose support when discussing the Middle East. She's one of the most successful SoS during chaotic turbulent times.  She can discuss the issues in their very many layers and nuance.

    I think Sanders may have some trouble keeping up with her there.  I think he will do fine in basic substance though.


    Agreed... (none / 0) (#173)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Jul 15, 2015 at 10:01:12 AM EST
    ...but I think liberals in general want nothing to do with the Middle East.  And maybe that is my opinion being cast upon others, but right now she is saying everything I, and most liberals love.

    I will say this, yesterday she did throw her support behind the Iranian deal.  Which I found odd, not the support, but that she actually took a stand so quick.  I also liked her simple line "Under my watch, Iran will not get nuclear weapons" or something similar.

    Obviously, I would like to know what that means, does it mean troops if they break from the deal, sanctions, what exactly will be done to ensure Iran doesn't get a bomb.  Because to me, it's not 'if' its 'when'.  We have never successfully kept anyone from getting the bomb.  Hopefully the when is way off, maybe when that entire region isn't in complete chaos.  Either way, I would like to know how far she is willing to go.

    I like HRC and I like what she is saying, I hope my tone isn't coming off as anti-HRC.  But I think I am going to have issues when ISIS/ME comes into the discussion, and I also believe I am not alone in those sentiments.

    And for the record, I want absolutely nothing to do with the ME.  We have proven that our presence only makes it worse.  I am all for letting people who actually have skin in the game figure it out and offer them support so long as it doesn't include front-line troops.


    Well (5.00 / 1) (#175)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Jul 15, 2015 at 10:45:20 AM EST
    Hillary backing up the Iran deal actually probably will help it a lot. This is one of those subjective things and not objective things because Hillary is seen as "strong leader". The GOP can scream "appeasement" at her and none of it is going to stick whereas some of it will stick to Obama.

    We watched talk of the deal with interest (none / 0) (#178)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Jul 15, 2015 at 11:02:09 AM EST
    Yesterday.  It's mostly foolproof. If we suspect the Iranians are jerking us around it gives us a leg to stand to argue for a return of sanctions and UN debate and support in the International community to bunker bust their sites. Combine that with finally economic improvement for Iranians that will end up spurring a desire for continued improved global relations. This is a great agreement, far superior to the road all parties are leaving now. She's safe supporting it.

    Now that business about how we can all forget about talking Glass-Steagall with her....uh...she's got some splainin to do there.


    I'm still trying to figure out........ (2.00 / 1) (#33)
    by NYShooter on Mon Jul 13, 2015 at 09:31:26 PM EST
    was it a question?....a statement?

    Anyway, she hasn't distributed eternal health, wealth, and wisdom to everyone yet. Isn't that why we're supposed to be voting for her?

    And, what she hasn't done, she hasn't done imaginatively, either.

    But, wait a minute, Jeb sucks too.

    Ooh, now I don't know what to do.


    This criticism does (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by MKS on Mon Jul 13, 2015 at 11:33:13 PM EST
    surprise me.

    Hillary is not without substance, if that is the criticism.   She was lampooned in 2008 for having a policy for everything.  One political cartoon had her running a snow blower clearing a voter's sidewalk....

    There is and will be plenty of substance...


    Some of these comments (none / 0) (#36)
    by MKS on Mon Jul 13, 2015 at 11:26:24 PM EST
    put me into a surreal place.

    As an Obama supporter in 2008, I was opposed to Hillary.  Now, I am surprised at the level of hostility to her across the board.

    I heard some talking head say today that Hillary was screeching in her speech today.  Not, no even close. In 2008, I was listening to one of her one-on-one debates with Obama on the radio.  Her voice was pleasing, intelligent and clear.  It scared me because Obama had one of his bouts with the stutters....

    It is not just Fox, but the Press and many on the Left are really out to get her....


    I'm kind of surprised (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by NYShooter on Tue Jul 14, 2015 at 12:31:59 AM EST
     that you seem kind of surprised at the Hillary Hatred being displayed.

    It's been around a long time, and most of us have been bracing ourselves for what we knew would be a quantum leap upward in these personal, venomous attacks.  

    Volumes have been written about the (CDS) phenomenon, "Clinton Derangement Syndrome." And, now, some 25 years after the non-stop, mostly Right Wing conspiracy to crush Bill Clinton began, all the forces have been marshalled to organize, coordinate, and implement the "ultimate solution" The greatest barrage of money and venom ever assembled for the single, express, laser-like, purpose of annihilating a political figure, Hillary Rodham Clinton.

    I could go on all night about why it happened, how it came about, and what's coming down the Pike. But, this is enough for tonight.


    However, that shouldn't mean that we have to like it or tolerate it. As I said in an earlier thread, the relentless pursuit of Bill and Hillary Clinton has been the equivalent of a 24-year-long snipe hunt.

    What we've gotten as a result has been a media which often comes across as remarkably churlish and juvenile whenever the discussion turns to the Clintons. Journalists and pundits alike appear far more prone to resorting to personal invectives, than in providing thoughtful coverage and articulate analysis.



    Oh Pleaze... (5.00 / 3) (#168)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Jul 15, 2015 at 09:01:39 AM EST
    ...criticism equals some sort of syndrome ?

    Dadler's comment in no way is CDS and as of this comment, the people with CDS have not weighed in.  One can actually not like Hillary without being put into some idiotic Fox News Viewer category.

    For the record, I do like HRC, and I loved Bill, but if there is any kind of syndrome going around her, its the fawning over Hillary without knowing a good deal about where she stands on many issues.  The assumption that she is going where people want her to is, IMO, just as silly as CDS.  The idea that she is the chosen one no matter what happens is probably worse than any Fox News propagandist could ever muster.


    I don't (3.00 / 3) (#172)
    by FlJoe on Wed Jul 15, 2015 at 09:54:57 AM EST
    know Scott but this does sound a bit deranged
    I feel like  some sort of cult belief that Hillary, and only Hillary, is Obama's destined successor.  Those reads were so mind numbingly closed off that I want to puke.
    labeling the millions of supporters of an accomplished, extremely electable, and mostly mainstream democratic  candidate as "cultists" is a likely sign that you are suffering from the syndrome. Your nausea problem seems to confirm it.

    Good Point... (5.00 / 2) (#174)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Jul 15, 2015 at 10:27:01 AM EST
    ...if you don't read the rest of the post or any of my others in this thread.  Pulling out two lines and acting like that in any way represents what I have been saying is odd.  It certainly wasn't directed at millions, just the handful here who thinks HRC walks on water.

    This is in the same post:

    I am not ripping on HRC, but the zombies who have already decided what the rest of us are going to do, and are perfectly content backing a candidate before they know where she stands on many issues like the Middle East & ISIS

    I believe, but don't know that CDS actually requires you be anti-HRC.  Jesus, there is like an 85% chance I am going to vote for her and I am getting tossed into the Fox News viewer brigade because I want more information.

    If you feel like addressing my point, please do.  And the point was valid criticism is being labeled as CDS.


    For almost 25 years (5.00 / 1) (#193)
    by christinep on Wed Jul 15, 2015 at 03:01:49 PM EST
    I have read about, become interested in, become a supporter of Hillary Clinton.  That growing, honest admiration on my part--developed over the course of 25 years during which she served capably in multiple roles as an accomplished attorney, First Lady in Arkansas followed by two-term First Lady of the US (and during a time when the unusual challenges she deftly faced--from drummed up Whitewater to her work publicly sponsoring a universal/single-payer healthcare system in the early stages to the attempt openly made by the press at humiliating HRC during her husband's impeachment process), then to a two-term US Senator from New York, next a primary run in 2008 that gained more than 18 million votes, followed by a gracious closing-of-ranks with the winner President Obama by accepting and serving with smarts & honor as his Secretary of State--is a genuine respect on my part.  

    I respect Hillary Clinton for all the work she has so ably done, for the experience that she has gained & demonstrated time and again.  My support is not abetted by cultism, nor slogans, nor idolization.  I have had ample opportunity to consider all contenders to date, to appreciate the work that she has done, to deduce from her record the progressive deeds that she is capable of achieving.  She is neither god nor goddess ... like all who run for office at any level (aka "politician") she has good and bad points ... all humans do.  Weigh them.  And, as an added bonus for many Americans: HRC is both exceptionally qualified and a woman & feminist who will make an important historical imprint as the first woman president.

    Yes, there are many reasons for me to support her without any need for a cult or any other trope.  


    Well said C (none / 0) (#196)
    by FlJoe on Wed Jul 15, 2015 at 03:55:18 PM EST
    with no appearances of starry-(rose color enhanced)eyed, cracker jack eating zombie cultists. No quack diagnoses of CDS either(that's my job, thank you).

     Again, well said, you are Hillary's base, clear eyed realists for the most part, and they are legion.


    I can't speak for Scott, who (5.00 / 2) (#177)
    by Anne on Wed Jul 15, 2015 at 10:51:46 AM EST
    has stated in other comments in this thread that he likes what he is hearing from Clinton, but what he seems to be reacting and responding to is the same thing that got my attention: a sort of fawning, starry-eyed, how-dare-you-question defense of Clinton's lack of specificity in her most recent major speech.

    If we've already reached the point where wanting more, when asking questions, is considered proof that someone is terminally afflicted with CDS, we're in trouble.  We'll be going back to the days where people acted like mother bears protecting their cubs, or guard dogs chained to the porch, whenever anyone dared to question Obama and what he was saying/doing.  

    These politicians are not heroes.  They are not movie stars.  We are not supposed to fall in love with them.  They are the people who will largely be responsible for where the country goes and what kind of country this is going to be.  They are the people with the power to improve the quality of life of millions of people - or make life harder for them - the power to wage war, the responsibility to uphold and defend a Constitution that has gotten more than a little tattered over the last 20 years or so.  

    So, when someone says that when people act as if Clinton can't be questioned, and say that that feels a little cult-like, it probably isn't because they're deranged, it's probably because we've seen what happens when people close their eyes, stick their fingers in their ears and engage in magical thinking to defend a candidate and protect them from being accountable.

    Casually flinging the CDS accusation at anyone who says anything remotely negative about Clinton or her most avid supporters, is as insulting to your own intellect and intelligence as it is to the intellect and intelligence of those at whom you fling it.


    I (2.00 / 1) (#185)
    by FlJoe on Wed Jul 15, 2015 at 12:33:40 PM EST
    am not questioning the questioning, I am questioning the demanding tone that often accompanies it. It's six months before the elections so it is really no surprise that there is a lack of specificity from her at the moment. There is nothing particularly right or wrong about it, it's just politics.

    Realistically and politically, Hillary has all the time in the world to fully flesh her policy stances. It's the demanding, accusatory tone from some who want it right here, right now that seems more "deranged" and "cult like" then people who point out that it just politics as usual.

    For the record I am no fan of politics as usual, but I accept the fact that's the state of the game in the good old USA. Maybe there will come a time when there will be a candidate who can change the game and win. Hillary is not that person and neither is Sanders(in my opinion. Maybe there will be a day when the media will emphasize substance over style. Maybe some day we will all get our pony.

    When I observe Clinton supporters I see mostly clear headed pragmatic, politically reasonable people. I just do not see the starry eyed cultists that you speak of. Seems like you are "flinging" some stuff yourself.


    Nor was I addressing any opinions offered by people here. Rather, I was talking about the media. Please re-read my comment.

    I Did and Have (5.00 / 1) (#188)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Jul 15, 2015 at 01:28:38 PM EST
    I don't think I was the only one to associate that comment to the criticism in the same thread.  You didn't address the media till near the end of the post and I read that as a separate complaint.

    I apologize.  

    Either way I am glad that we aren't calling criticism CDS.


    It's been the media that's been ... (none / 0) (#194)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Jul 15, 2015 at 03:35:50 PM EST
    ... on the relentless prowl for that magic story that brings down the Clintons, not the general public. Personally, I believe that certain segments of the public have come to distrust the Clintons in large part because of the hostility, innuendo and misinformation that's been disseminated about that couple by that media.

    I have a friend in Honolulu who tends to lean conservative, although he's certainly not wedded to the right and will go his own way if he disagrees with them. (He ended up voting for Barack Obama in both '08 and '12) We were discussing Hillary Clinton about two months ago over lunch, and he brought up the subject of her honesty and trustworthiness, and referred specifically to the State Dept. e-mail kerfuffle.

    I then put him on the spot and asked him to explain that controversy to me as best he could. After initially trying, he finally had to say that he couldn't do it, and that it was really all just based upon a vague feeling he had about her.

    "So, in other words," I replied, "you don't quite know exactly what she's alleged to have done here, but whatever it is, it's probably bad and therefore she's guilty of it. Does that make any sense to you, and is that really fair to her?"

    He agreed that it didn't, and that it wasn't. I then pressed him to ponder how and why he had come around to his conclusion about her honesty, and he admitted that he watched a lot of cable TV news shows in the evening, and that his opinion was likely due to their chatter.

    While that's admittedly anecdotal, nevertheless it does underscore the fact that even though we'd like to believe otherwise, our human subconscious is hardly impervious to suggestion by others, especially when those suggestions are repeated over and again.

    We tend to run into trouble when, due to such repetition, we eventually come to conflate and confuse suggestions and opinions with actual facts and evidence, when they really aren't one and the same at all.



    "screech" often was a label (5.00 / 1) (#99)
    by christinep on Tue Jul 14, 2015 at 01:47:26 PM EST
    applied to a woman's voice.  I don't hear the "screech," but I do discern a sexist tone in that word.  

    BTW, unfortunately, I believe that tone will pick up as the campaign moves into high gear in 2016.  Repubs have patented that kind of anti-Hillary treatment.  (But, let's not be surprised if a few who call themselves Democrats play around with the same kind of language.)  In the long run, tho, the more modern attempt to copy sexism isn't going to work against such a strong, known, experienced candidate as Clinton has become.


    Another NYT news article (5.00 / 1) (#115)
    by KeysDan on Tue Jul 14, 2015 at 02:45:03 PM EST
    on Mrs. Clinton's "Fairness Economy' speech by Amy Chozick (July 14) that can't just provide fairness journalism.

     For example, it is reported her speech was given at "the liberal New School in Greenwich Village in New York,"  "considerable handwringing went into deciding how forcefully to speak about criminalizing financial industry executives before an audience made up largely of her Wall Street donors."

    Got it:a liberal site for the speech, but before Wall street donors.  Any thing else to, er.  confuse, or undermine?  

     Well, in the end, it must be reported-- that Mrs. Clinton did forcefully denounce fraud in the financial sector and that there could be no justification or tolerance for this kind of criminal behavior.  

    Also, later in the reporting, Dr. Joseph Stiglitz, Nobel laureate in economics who has written about inequality is an advisor to Mrs. Clinton, and said of her speech .."showed a clear understanding that our economy is not working for most Americans."   To that end, Mrs. Clinton called for closing corporate loopholes, eliminating carried interest, expanding the Dodd-Frank financial regulations.

    Beyond that Mrs. Clinton outlined raising the minimum wage, expanding overtime benefits, and equal pay for men/women. Of course, these were discounted as "a laundry list of standard Democratic proposals."  

    These old hat items also included, helping women in the work force (fair scheduling, paid leave/sick days, better access to early childhood education and addressing rising health casts.)   Just women's issues, not family values issues so no need to laud them.  the speech was too wonky, it was not specific, it was too specific it was..not  the "fiery populism of Bernie Sanders,"

     It was well-thought out policy architecture  with very important building blocks as well as some finishes in progress--such as addressing shadow banking and encouraging profit sharing by employees.  Not fiery, but hot stuff.

    Now on for a discussion of another candidate's plan: Scot Walker:  "I love America,"     And then, following NYT journalistic lead,  a laundry list of wingnut proposals so as to top Rubio, Huckabee, Carson et. al. and regain lost momentum while busy destroying Wisconsin< .......Iran deal is the worst in the history of the cosmos, better to bomb; boots on every ground, cut everyone's benefits, constitution amendment to protect bakers of wedding cakes, work longer and harder, no weekends.   blah, blah. blah.  I love America.  the end.   A NYTimes page one spread on Scott.


    No pleasing (5.00 / 2) (#131)
    by christinep on Tue Jul 14, 2015 at 04:13:09 PM EST
    Yep, you got it, KeysDan.  I'm finally getting around to acknowledging that there is "no pleasing" a large portion of the press.  Nor   can there be any satisfying those who won't learn what they don't want to learn or see.  For awhile, I thought that there was something that could be done with regard to the general press obvious cynical attitude toward Hillary Clinton.  There really isn't.

    As others have concluded, certain media regard themselves as opinion-leaders, decision-makers, and all that ... because reporting on events and/or analysis of statements (rather than editorial surmise posing as news) must somehow be beneath the new press.  In so many ways, that press seems to be it's own worst enemy in that the manipulative methods of the papers during this age of accessible news via the Internet have led to lack of customers ... the papers shrink (see Denver Post, e.g.) and the search for $$$$$ intensifies.

      Ergo, build up sensationalist stories in all areas --especially, in the big political contests like the 2016 Presidential race--build interest in the competition, personalities, and whatever sells papers ... enter the essential "close contest." Oh, if it would not be close on its own, make it that way ... put press finger on the scale to even it out.  For example: Hey, when Jebbie messes up about advising Americans to work longer hours, help him find an explanation (part-time, is it) without question or challenge.  Even up that upcoming race, by golly. The search for readers and ad-revenue almost guarantees a "close contest."

    Don't you get the feeling, tho, that both Clintons figured out the media/press game long ago ... and, most important, that Clinton smiles and speaks and elucidates her positions on the issues ... and plays her own hand in any event.


    It is clear (none / 0) (#141)
    by FlJoe on Tue Jul 14, 2015 at 05:44:57 PM EST
     that the Clinton Rules are a true force of nature in political journalism. 5 unspoken rules for covering Hillary
    The Clinton rules are driven by reporters' and editors' desire to score the ultimate prize in contemporary journalism: the scoop that brings down Hillary Clinton and her family's political empire.

     Like some kind of modern day Melville tale with a whole fleet of Pequods with no shortage of hacks to take the helm :
    As a reporter, I get sucked into playing by the Clinton rules. This is what I've seen in my colleagues, and in myself.

    My apologies to Hillary for casting her as the great white whale and I really wish this was fiction, sadly it is not.

    Of course Charlie says it best  

    Clinton Rule No. 2 -- what is business as usual for every politician since Cato is a work of dark magic when practiced by either Clinton

    KeysDan, I think (none / 0) (#121)
    by fishcamp on Tue Jul 14, 2015 at 03:31:53 PM EST
    You should conduct the forthcoming debates that will be televised.  You could be from the Conch Republic, to further confuse them.

    Conch Confusion (none / 0) (#126)
    by KeysDan on Tue Jul 14, 2015 at 03:47:53 PM EST
    is me.   Glad to help out.

    Dan (none / 0) (#179)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Jul 15, 2015 at 11:04:29 AM EST
    we are having Florida weather.  All the rain and now all the heat is causing heat indexes 20 or mor degrees above the actual temp which is supposed to be 95 today.

    At least I have hills.


    Been under a heat advisory (none / 0) (#180)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Jul 15, 2015 at 11:06:43 AM EST
    for several days.  I still had to cut the grass today.  DAMN.

    And speaking of the media and politics, ... (none / 0) (#146)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Jul 14, 2015 at 06:52:30 PM EST
    ... here's your daily helping of stupid, courtesy of NBC's Li'l Luke Russert and WaPo's Chris Cillizza, who are taking Beltway dipschittery to places where very few mortals -- at least, the ones who are sober -- have ever gone before.

    Amazing (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Jul 13, 2015 at 03:39:05 PM EST
    A dred Scott decision. Walker is in: (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by KeysDan on Mon Jul 13, 2015 at 05:01:01 PM EST
    Plenty of room in the clown car rumble seat.  Just, hope he can withstand Trump's cologne and other odors.    Iowa is his nirvana, but he will be in renewed competition for the winger/Evangelical crowd by Cruz, Carson, Perry and Rubio--sort of yesteryear's Santorums or today's Huckabee congregants.  

     Perhaps a slogan derived from his WI budget, "education is un-American" will out-shine the above named miscreants.  And, his union crippling "achievements" will be frosting on the cake.  A confection baked by Christian bakers.

     His foreign policy credentials have been honed by intensive lessons--Lesson #1, mix up words as a strategy, Lesson #2, punt, Lesson #3. use your union busting skills--like, I can deal with ISIS because I am a union buster.  Threats to slash ISIS pensions is a winner.

    And, mentioning Reagan with reverence more often and coming up with something imaginative, like a promise for re-intermnet on the WH South Lawn during a Walker Administration.   Ignore all that advice to finish college first and before climbing that big Koch Brothers mountain to the Oval Office.  


    .... look at the bright side. By cutting salaries and benefits for all those selfish and indolent Wisconsin state employees, Walker and the GOP-led state legislature found $250 million in public financing to help pay for that new arena for the NBA's Milwaukee Bucks.

    In a barrel of rotten apples... (5.00 / 2) (#32)
    by desertswine on Mon Jul 13, 2015 at 09:13:56 PM EST
    Walker may be the rottenest.

    Eric Holder, the arrogantly corrupt AG (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by Dadler on Mon Jul 13, 2015 at 03:54:01 PM EST
    Obama's (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by FlJoe on Mon Jul 13, 2015 at 06:37:36 PM EST
    Biggest failure, but then again the Democrats sold out to wall street a long time ago.

    In D.C. with my son (5.00 / 4) (#11)
    by Dadler on Mon Jul 13, 2015 at 04:23:19 PM EST
    Ten pounds lighter from sweating in the humidity, which is probably nothing for locals right now, and limping hard on my bum foot. But it's worth it. Today Eli got to see his ancestor's signiature, William Williams of Connecticut, on the Declaration of Independence at The National Archives. That was pretty cool for him. Peace, y'all.

    Wave as you walk by (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by jbindc on Tue Jul 14, 2015 at 10:50:17 AM EST
    I work downtown, not too far off th Mall.

    You can spend hours exploring... (5.00 / 2) (#38)
    by desertswine on Mon Jul 13, 2015 at 11:36:28 PM EST
    this website.  British Pathe.
    "British Pathe, the world's leading multimedia resource with a history stretching back over a century. The finest and most comprehensive archive of fabulous footage and stunning stills."  

    I'm sure everyone knew about it but me. I just spent an hour looking at old video from the Boer War.  It's got some fascinating stuff on it.  Just for funs.

    That's a really great site. (none / 0) (#144)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Jul 14, 2015 at 06:09:00 PM EST
    I can get lost in British Pathe for hours, as well. But if we must waste our time, far better than we do so there in pursuit of personal knowledge and a better understanding of the world around us, than by watching the self-congratulating 24/7 circle jerks that pass for cable TV news networks nowadays.

    Bebe (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Jul 14, 2015 at 09:20:15 AM EST
    is losing his sh!t over the Iran deal.

    Personally that means I assume it is, to some extent, good.

    Bebe (none / 0) (#53)
    by FlJoe on Tue Jul 14, 2015 at 09:32:57 AM EST
    would probably lose his $hit over giving a Palestinian child a bottle of milk, so his bowel movements are probably not a good metric to use.

    The Domestic Political Fallout (none / 0) (#85)
    by RickyJim on Tue Jul 14, 2015 at 12:05:46 PM EST
    will make this a juicy topic here and everywhere else online for quite a while, for example,
    Former United Nations Ambassador John Bolton, a conservative critic who served under President George W. Bush, told Boston Herald Radio he thinks Congress will reject the deal overwhelmingly  -- but that may not matter.

    "It would not stop Europe from lifting its sanctions, nor would it stop Russia, China, or other countries around the world from lifting theirs, unfreezing assets, beginning trade and investment and supplying weapons, even nuclear materials," Bolton said.

    Bolton has been a vocal critic of the proposals in the deal throughout the negotiations.

    "This is a defeat of historic proportions for the United States," he said.

    Agreed (5.00 / 2) (#86)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Jul 14, 2015 at 12:10:47 PM EST
    particularly with the republican primary in full swing.

    Prediction-after much gnashing of teeth it will be accepted.   From what I can tell it's a good deal.  


    Well If Captain Crunch Says... (5.00 / 1) (#89)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Jul 14, 2015 at 12:17:15 PM EST
    ...it must be true.

    No need to post what Graham, McCain, & Co think, they, like Bolton, think the only solution is bombing Iran.

    Here is Bolton on Cuba.

    In short, Obama and Castro are one in the same, and given the chance, Obama will give Cuba Guantanamo.


    John Bolton deserves (5.00 / 3) (#118)
    by KeysDan on Tue Jul 14, 2015 at 03:07:30 PM EST
    no heed on anything he says. If anything, he deserves the citizens' arrest attempted in the UK.  Bolton was one of the architects/spinners for invasion and occupation of Iraq.  Former Congressman Henry Waxman claimed Bolton was mainly responsible for the lie that evidence existed that Iraq obtained yellow cake --the infamous lie that appeared in Bush's state of the union.

     A guy who became UN Ambassador after saying that if 10 of the floors of the 38 story UN building were lost it would not make any difference, ...and that the UN is great when it suits our interests and when we can bet other to go along.. Otherwise forget it.  

    The super right-wing hawkness goes back a long way for him--he was an advocate for the Vietnam War but wrote that he got out of serving (joined the MD national guard) because he had no desire to die in a SE Asian rice paddy.  


    I Am Funny Aware... (none / 0) (#127)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Jul 14, 2015 at 03:53:22 PM EST
    ...thought the mocking of his Cuban article made that apparent.

    Scott, (5.00 / 1) (#128)
    by KeysDan on Tue Jul 14, 2015 at 04:01:01 PM EST
    sorry, you did made that clear.   Only, attempting to amplify your comment.  Bolton has never seen a war he didn't like, or like to make.  For some one else to fight, of course.  I, like you, find it  maddening that those who have a track record of being wrong in all things are not just home soaking their heads rather than using the mouth part to cause more damage.  

    Yeah... (5.00 / 1) (#130)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Jul 14, 2015 at 04:11:11 PM EST
    ...and in regards to this thread, Bolton would love nothing more than to nuke Iran IMO.

    Absolutely. (none / 0) (#132)
    by KeysDan on Tue Jul 14, 2015 at 04:23:16 PM EST
    It's the wingers goal.   The best news about Bolton came last May 15, when he announced that he was putting his bid for Republican presidential nomination to bed.   But, Bolton would surely wind up in a Republican Administration, probably as Secretary of State.

    Why It is a Win Win (none / 0) (#91)
    by RickyJim on Tue Jul 14, 2015 at 12:42:06 PM EST
    If Iran doesn't develop nuclear weapons as a result of the agreement, fine.  If they do, then with more than one country in the region having the bomb, there will be great incentive to make the middle east a nuclear free zone.  Here is a shocker, 64% of Israel's Jewish population supports a NFZ.

    Little Sisters of the Poor (5.00 / 2) (#125)
    by KeysDan on Tue Jul 14, 2015 at 03:46:35 PM EST
    Home for the Aged et al. v Burwell. A federal appeals court (10th Circuit in Denver) ruled that federal health law doesn't infringe on the religious freedom of those non-profit, faith-based organizations that object to covering birth control in an employee health plan.

    The three-judge panel noted that such groups are exempt from covering employees.  The Little Sisters argued that the exemptions did not go far enough because they had to sign away coverage to another party.   However, it was ruled that the exemption provided does not substantially burden the exercise of religion.

    One of the three judges, also ruled in the Hobby Lobby case, but found distinctions.  The religious non-profits have an exemption process not available to Hobby Lobby.  The Sisters just have to file; Hobby had to pay a fine.  And, the accommodation relieves the Sisters from complying with the mandate, assures they do not have to provide or pay for contraceptive coverage.

    New (5.00 / 1) (#145)
    by FlJoe on Tue Jul 14, 2015 at 06:38:55 PM EST
    National poll Trump 17 bush 14. Christie hangs in top 10. Got to love it.

    OK, How About Some Fun ? (5.00 / 2) (#187)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Jul 15, 2015 at 01:17:32 PM EST
    #TrumpYourCat is the new thing where you take a furball from your cat, flatten it out, and put it back on the cat like a Trump hairpiece.

    It's funny and oddly similar to Trumps real hair.

    That is a total hoot (5.00 / 1) (#197)
    by sj on Wed Jul 15, 2015 at 04:59:07 PM EST
    But don't you think Hair By Donald actually looks better on the cat?

    Now we know why Antarctica's west ice (none / 0) (#2)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jul 13, 2015 at 03:20:47 PM EST
    sheet is melting.

    High geothermal heat flux measured below the West Antarctic Ice Sheet"

    But they still can't figured out how all the CO2 seeped down thousands of feet and trapped the heat.


    what you think is funny (none / 0) (#4)
    by sj on Mon Jul 13, 2015 at 03:45:31 PM EST
    is so very, very odd. Also, I found it impossible to believe that you even read, much less understood, that very technical article.


    Almost forgot.



    It's an alarming story (none / 0) (#7)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Jul 13, 2015 at 04:01:26 PM EST
    The collapse of the Thwaites Glacier would cause an increase of global sea level of between 1 and 2 meters, with the potential for more than twice that from the entire West Antarctic Ice Sheet.

    That of course has squat to do with climate change or it effects.

    Pretty sure that would eliminate lots of south Florida.


    No problemo. (none / 0) (#12)
    by Mr Natural on Mon Jul 13, 2015 at 04:31:02 PM EST
    I see a big future market for floating La-Z-Boys.  Floating Wide-Screens.  Beer cans pre-styrofoamed so they stay cool - And float.

    Everything's under control.


    As long as they don't move to Arkansas (none / 0) (#14)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Jul 13, 2015 at 04:33:34 PM EST
    except of course or Floridian commenters.  They are welcome.

    Other than that we have enough old people.


    You calling me old? (none / 0) (#29)
    by CoralGables on Mon Jul 13, 2015 at 08:32:47 PM EST
    Maybe he means (none / 0) (#30)
    by Zorba on Mon Jul 13, 2015 at 08:58:18 PM EST
    fishcamp and KeysDan.  ;-)

    No! (none / 0) (#31)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Jul 13, 2015 at 09:06:25 PM EST
    are you?  I am.

    I was speaking of the population more generally.   That bit I quoted reminded me of something I read once, I can't remember who or where, that said the average elevation of south Florida was about 6 feet.

    Is that true?


    I believe (none / 0) (#34)
    by CoralGables on Mon Jul 13, 2015 at 10:05:28 PM EST
    the average elevation of Miami-Dade County is about 6 feet. I'm probably close to ten. I'd bet fishcamp is closer to 2 feet.

    4' CG (none / 0) (#35)
    by fishcamp on Mon Jul 13, 2015 at 10:11:46 PM EST
    Hard for a hillbilly to imagine (none / 0) (#47)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Jul 14, 2015 at 08:18:41 AM EST
    the only time I ever lived in a flat place, central Illinois, I hated it.   I expected to.  I remember the night I arrived from the airport for the interview the next day and went up to my hotel room and looked out it was like looking at the surface of a calm ocean for as far as you could see in every direction.
    I thought, man, I gonna hate this.  But I hated it more than I even expected.  It took living in a flat place to realize I'm am somehow genetically predisposed to mountains.  I need them.

    Well Howdy, (none / 0) (#49)
    by fishcamp on Tue Jul 14, 2015 at 08:32:43 AM EST
    while we are flat down here, we do have the ocean for excitement.  You probably would not be good on a night dive.  Don't think I would anymore either.

    I would love that part (none / 0) (#50)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Jul 14, 2015 at 08:46:26 AM EST
    i love water.  Especially living next to it.  

    Honestly it's not like hills are exciting.  It's hard to explain.  


    Btw (none / 0) (#9)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Jul 13, 2015 at 04:06:38 PM EST
    That link is an intimidatingly long and technical report.   But if you google that title you will see hundreds of links to science sites that put the information in much more digestible form.  I had already seen the story.

    No doubt (none / 0) (#13)
    by sj on Mon Jul 13, 2015 at 04:33:05 PM EST
    But if you google that title you will see hundreds of links to science sites that put the information in much more digestible form.
    But those are not the links that our little friend put in his drive by comment.
    At least it is my hope that it is merely a drive by comment and not a successful blog clog. D@mn me -- I was the first to feed it.

    It's (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by FlJoe on Mon Jul 13, 2015 at 05:38:43 PM EST
    like shooting skeet, he posts and it's like yelling pull and the sky is filled with fat, straw filled, slow moving clay pigeons. If you happen to be sitting around locked and it's fun taking out a pigeon or two. The trick is to stop and let the resulting straw-storm dissipate on the idiot wind.

    You're not shooting skeet (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by CoralGables on Tue Jul 14, 2015 at 10:21:53 AM EST
    You're under the assumption he cares about the truth. Jim on the other hand is shooting fish in a barrel. His only goal is getting a response...and the gullble fish keep swimming to the surface.

    He (none / 0) (#61)
    by FlJoe on Tue Jul 14, 2015 at 10:45:18 AM EST
    obviously would not know the truth if it was an 8 foot Sturgeon slapping him in the face. He might be aiming at the fish in the barrel but he invariably ends up shooting himself in the foot, excuse me for having some fun pointing that out.

    Joe, he was a (none / 0) (#63)
    by fishcamp on Tue Jul 14, 2015 at 11:02:02 AM EST
    Naval Airman so he was around the ocean, where the big fish live.  He was trained for something.

    Correction (5.00 / 2) (#88)
    by CoralGables on Tue Jul 14, 2015 at 12:16:52 PM EST
    He claims he "worked" in naval aviation. He's never used the word Airman nor to the best of my knowledge claimed to have been in the Navy.

    Naval (none / 0) (#83)
    by FlJoe on Tue Jul 14, 2015 at 12:04:20 PM EST
    Airhead you say, well that explains a lot. Did he serve in the first or second Sharknado campaign ?

    Brilliant Scientific (none / 0) (#15)
    by FlJoe on Mon Jul 13, 2015 at 04:44:22 PM EST
    analysis Jim. So much better then this guy
    Lead author Andrew Fisher, professor of Earth and planetary sciences at UC Santa Cruz, emphasized that the geothermal heating reported in this study does not explain the alarming loss of ice from West Antarctica that has been documented by other researchers. "The ice sheet developed and evolved with the geothermal heat flux coming up from below--it's part of the system. But this could help explain why the ice sheet is so unstable. When you add the effects of global warming, things can start to change quickly," he said.  

    et al (none / 0) (#26)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jul 13, 2015 at 08:00:55 PM EST
    Thanks, sj.

    Howdy, I suggest water wings.

    sj, it's an Open Thread. I was hopeful for some intelligent discussion. I guess that's too much for you.

    FLJoe - Actually I am unsure just how the professor knows how long the geothermal heating has been taking place. From what I can tell the west side melt is a fairly recent occurrence.

    And if MMGW is involved, then why is the east side ice setting new records for ice cover??

    Antarctic ice at ALL TIME RECORD HIGH: We have more to learn, says boffin
    Four-deviations-above-average figs bust climate models

    Meanwhile at the other end of the planet the Arctic sea ice has covered lesser areas in recent times. The lowest Arctic area seen in the era of satellite measurements was in 2012, but the three consecutive record-high Antarctic maxima of 2012, 2013 and now 2014 have resulted in global sea ice levels this year and last year coming out pretty much normal.



    .Jim (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by FlJoe on Tue Jul 14, 2015 at 06:25:25 AM EST
    you are once again projecting your ignorance onto expert scientists.
    Actually I am unsure just how the professor knows how long the geothermal heating has been taking place. From what I can tell the west side melt is a fairly recent occurrence.
    You are "unsure" about the science so you assume it's probably wrong and your view is valid.

    Anybody with a passing knowledge of science would realize that the ambient temperature of the continents vary only over the course of eon's, not the decades long time frame regarding climate change. Your theory that the rapid melt is caused by a rapid unexplained and unprecedented warming of the continent would get laughed out of sixth grade science class.


    Jim is trying his usual word games (none / 0) (#46)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Tue Jul 14, 2015 at 08:05:05 AM EST
    to "prove" that  global warming  is some sort of scientific hoax.

    Never mind that he doesn't understand the concept of falsifiability, or how a geophysicist determines how long ago a given process or event took place in geological history.

    If ignorance is bliss, then Jim is the happiest commentator on this thread.


    Can we please not get jim started? (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by Anne on Tue Jul 14, 2015 at 08:27:53 AM EST
    Once he chimes in, it becomes a 40-comment pi$$ing contest that ends where it starts: jim rejecting any notion that climate change is real, or that humans have anything to do with it.

    Let him.  He's not setting policy, or drafting regulations or legislation.  If he wants to stew in his own juice, while wrapped in a Confederate flag - sort of a southern style enchilada - let him.  Maybe his bigotry, his myopia on science, his hare-brained ideas will stand out for the garbage they are if not bracketed by reason and fact.

    If jim gets bored enough, maybe he will find himself a nice iceberg to live on and report back once in a while on how his new home is faring.


    Come on (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by FlJoe on Tue Jul 14, 2015 at 08:55:54 AM EST
    Anne, we all know it's futile but it's so fun. Some people get their jollies from seemingly endless discussions about boring(to me at least)TV shows, I happen to find enjoyment in slapping around intellectual lightweights. Too each his own I guess, but please remember to enjoy in moderation, of course.

    It may be fun for you (5.00 / 2) (#81)
    by sj on Tue Jul 14, 2015 at 12:02:20 PM EST
    Come on  (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by FlJoe on Tue Jul 14, 2015 at 07:55:54 AM MDT

    Anne, we all know it's futile but it's so fun

    ...but it is no fun at all for a lot of the rest of us. It's just a bunch of blog clogging when instead there could actually be something interesting to read.

    I (none / 0) (#98)
    by FlJoe on Tue Jul 14, 2015 at 01:43:48 PM EST
    see, it's fun for thee but not for me. Personally I find over half the posts around here bore me to death, do you hear me complaining, no, I just man up and ignore them, try it some time.

    There is a difference (none / 0) (#103)
    by sj on Tue Jul 14, 2015 at 02:08:59 PM EST
    between boring and offensive.
    I (none / 0) (#98)
    by FlJoe on Tue Jul 14, 2015 at 12:43:48 PM MDT

    see, it's fun for thee but not for me. Personally I find over half the posts around here bore me to death, do you hear me complaining, no, I just man up and ignore them, try it some time.

    I "man up" and ignore boring.

    Offensive is offensive no matter what.

    And jim caters to the offensive, and manages to make others offensive as well. For example, I am responding to an offensive comment, with a potentially offensive comment of my own.



    I understand your point (none / 0) (#110)
    by FlJoe on Tue Jul 14, 2015 at 02:28:00 PM EST
    I should have skipped the "man up" part because it is mildly offensive, it's easy to get sucked into the vortex created by several posters around here. Heck we seem to be sucked into one right now, but you know what they say about discussing politics and religion........... cheers.

    And, there is a difference between (5.00 / 3) (#150)
    by NYShooter on Tue Jul 14, 2015 at 09:50:26 PM EST
    what your criticism is, "half the topics are boring," and the one sj (and, I) is/are expressing.

    Yes, I find many topics uninteresting here, but, in all fairness, most here would find many of my topics uninteresting, also. I've stated it many times here, the one ingredient that I wish wasn't missing, but is, is, simple courtesy. If you don't like a topic that's being introduced, it's really not necessary to waste many valuable comments to tell the poster your feelings, not when scrolling by is so easy.

    What sj and I are complaining about is that the commenter in question is a two-trick pony:

    1. Obama ruined everything,
    2. Global warming is a hoax.

    I'm going to let you in on a little secret of mine now. I did something the other day you're not supposed to do here. I went back and did some counting regarding Mr. X, and the effect it has on our, too few, comments availability. After a particularly frustrating string of threads being clogged up by Mr. X, and his most undisciplined responder, I, shouldn't have been, but was, stunned at the results:

    Mr. X posted 43 comments.
    Mr. (you know) had 34 responses.
    what made things infinitely worse
    83 comments posted by various others who just couldn't resist getting into the food fight instigated by those two numb-nuts.

    I mean, come on, Jeralyn doesn't have time to monitor these comments 24/7. But, she has spoken out, over and over again, about this abuse. And, just like a couple of 3'd graders, they wait a day, or so, and, right back at it.

    Talk Left, where courtesy is checked at the door.

    My friends, it doesn't have to be this way.


    And it didn't used to be this way. (5.00 / 3) (#151)
    by oculus on Tue Jul 14, 2015 at 10:00:37 PM EST
    Rapid deterioration.

    Medice, (1.50 / 2) (#156)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Wed Jul 15, 2015 at 05:29:38 AM EST
    cura te ipsum.

    et al and good morning (none / 0) (#54)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jul 14, 2015 at 10:01:07 AM EST
    Anne - Nope, I have never said that climate isn't changing. It has been changing since Day 1. In fact, once upon a time, back around 1000-1100, it changed so much the the climate was so warm they could grow grapes in North England and Greenland was actually green and colonized...It's called the Medieval warming period and Chinese scientist have conformed that it was truly global, not local....Strange though, there were no cars around to cause it... Then it changed again and a mini ice age happened and it was so cold the Thames froze.

    So the question is what causes the changes?? You are a true believer in what some scientists say. I am not and have noted that the MMGW theory does not meet the requirements to be a Scientific Theory but must be accepted as a matter of faith...just as all religions must be.

    Of course given that none of the predictions have came true it is hard to understand why anyone would believe.

    Mondriggian - Given that you didn't understand what "homicide" meant it is easy for me to see why you continue to be confused.

    And when you continue to believe that consensus is science you prove a shadow of doubt that you haven't the vaguest concept of what Falsifiability means.

    FLJoe - When I say that I am "unsure," that means that I have read and can't find any mention as to the length in time the warming has been there, or when it started.

    Of course you immediately start making claims about what I did not write. Typical of someone who can't respond with facts.

    Despite its importance,the geothermal heat flux below the WAIS has not previously been measured directly.

    The author further confuses the issue when he decides that C02 in the atmosphere is involved.

    When you add the effects of global warming, things can start to change quickly," he said.  

    Of course, as I previously showed, the ice outside of the western portion is setting new records for growth. That belies that MMGW is contributing.

    But, if you want to worry about something:

    LLANDUDNO, Wales, July 11 (UPI) -- Solar scientists, armed with the best data yet regarding the activities of the sun, say the Earth is headed for a "mini ice age" in just 15 years -- something that hasn't happened for three centuries.

    Button up your overcoats, when the wind blows free. Take good care of yourself, you belong to me

    And please don't lecture Anne. If she feels she needs to be Hall Monitor, let her be. Everybody's gotta be somewhere.....


    Please Do Not Feed the Monkeys... (5.00 / 1) (#60)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Jul 14, 2015 at 10:44:50 AM EST
    ...the more they eat the more feces they have to fling.

    Oh, great, now you've done it... (5.00 / 2) (#64)
    by Anne on Tue Jul 14, 2015 at 11:11:39 AM EST
    you replied to jim that he shouldn't feed the monkeys.

    Someone hand me a banana, I guess.


    I just picked some mangoes. (none / 0) (#152)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Jul 14, 2015 at 10:20:12 PM EST
    Will one of them suffice?

    It's mango season here too, (5.00 / 1) (#170)
    by fishcamp on Wed Jul 15, 2015 at 09:37:56 AM EST
    And tonight I'm having shrimp and mangoe tacos, with a side of Tzatziki.  (-:  

    I've been mango on everything for about a month (none / 0) (#171)
    by CoralGables on Wed Jul 15, 2015 at 09:41:23 AM EST
    I'm voting for president the first person that throws their support behind the seedless mango.

    I love mangoes. (none / 0) (#195)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Jul 15, 2015 at 03:42:50 PM EST
    And our new house in Hilo has a big mango tree in the backyard, and it's loaded with fruit this year. We'll be giving them away by the bushel in about two weeks' time.

    If I could walk to Hilo with a tote bag... (none / 0) (#198)
    by CoralGables on Wed Jul 15, 2015 at 05:35:17 PM EST
    Not just a very, very long walk, (5.00 / 1) (#200)
    by Zorba on Wed Jul 15, 2015 at 08:46:56 PM EST
    But also a very, very long swim, CG.   ;-)

    Jim's posts are like Proust's (5.00 / 1) (#65)
    by jondee on Tue Jul 14, 2015 at 11:18:47 AM EST
    smell of Madelienes..

    They summon distant misty memories of trolling for walleyes and pike on Northern Lakes..


    Proust (none / 0) (#154)
    by MKS on Wed Jul 15, 2015 at 01:34:50 AM EST
    Someday, when I have a spare week or two, I will read....

    Perhaps your local library has the audiobook (none / 0) (#155)
    by oculus on Wed Jul 15, 2015 at 01:41:52 AM EST
    abridged and read by Neville Jason. Truly excellent. Jason has also recorded the unabridged novel--120 discs!

    Jim, I clarified (none / 0) (#58)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Tue Jul 14, 2015 at 10:38:26 AM EST
    my understanding of homicide after making my mistake, when have you even acknowledged making one in the first place?

    But please, feel free to define falsifiability and why it is important in understanding modern science at your leisure, it will be a pleasant change of pace from repeating the latest talking points from blogs funded by the fossil fuels industry and/or Faux News.


    Mostly for Mordiggian but come in if you want (none / 0) (#93)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jul 14, 2015 at 12:55:22 PM EST
    I look forward to your refuting my points.

    Mordiggian, I again direct you to study Popper. And to help you, I again point out that to be considered a valid Scientific Theory, as opposed to a "theory," one of the ways it can it must be capable of being proved via experiment. Another is that it must be predictive. As an example, gravity can be proven by various experiments in which the results are predictable.

    MMGW doesn't meet those requirements and consensus is meaningless.

    And who are these blogs you claim are paid for by the oil people?? I don't know.  But I do know this.

    Jim Hansen, recently retired as head of the Goddard Institute of Space Studies at NASA, won over a million dollars in lucrative green prizes....

    Michael Oppenheimer, of Princeton University, who frequently testifies before Congress in favour of urgent action on climate change, was the Environmental Defense Fund's senior scientist for nineteen years and continues to advise it. The EDF has assets of $209 million and since 2008 has had over $540 million from charitable foundations, plus $2.8 million in federal grants. In that time it has spent $11.3 million on lobbying, and has fifty-five people on thirty-two federal advisory committees. How likely is it that they or Oppenheimer would turn around and say global warming is not likely to be dangerous?

    Why is it acceptable, asks the blogger Donna Laframboise, for the IPCC to "put a man who has spent his career cashing cheques from both the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) and Greenpeace in charge of its latest chapter on the world's oceans?" She's referring to the University of Queensland's Ove Hoegh-Guldberg.

    And this:

    Study co-author Charles Driscoll of Syracuse University told the Buffalo News, "I'm an academic, not a politician. I don't have a dog in this fight......An online search of EPA's web site revealed that Syracuse's Driscoll has previously involved as a principal investigator in studies that received over $3.6 million in research grants from EPA. Co-author Dallas Burtraw, a researcher at the think tank Resources for the Future, had been involved in previous EPA grants totaling almost $2 million. Harvard co-author Jonathan I. Levy had been involved in over $9.5 million worth of grants. Co-author Joel Schwartz, also of Harvard, had been previously involved in over $31 million worth of grants from EPA.

    As for Scott, Anne, Jondee and sj.... I ask, why is it you post a half dozen comments to claim that my 1 is blog clogging??

    And the answer is, you can't debate the facts and are fearful of them. So, you try and censor me. Look, your inadequacy in these matters isn't my fault.


    Anyone who's upset because science teachers (5.00 / 1) (#176)
    by jondee on Wed Jul 15, 2015 at 10:48:59 AM EST
    don't teach that the universe was created in six days and who believes the New Black Panthers influenced the 2012 election outcome has no business accusing others of ignoring "facts".

    Nobody is getting rich (none / 0) (#107)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Tue Jul 14, 2015 at 02:13:14 PM EST
    off of global warming, Jim.

    Popper stressed that unfalsifiable statements are important in science.[4] Contrary to intuition, unfalsifiable statements can be embedded in -- and deductively entailed by -- falsifiable theories. For example, while "all men are mortal" is unfalsifiable, it is a logical consequence of the falsifiable theory that "every man dies before he reaches the age of 150 years".[5] Similarly, the ancient metaphysical and unfalsifiable idea of the existence of atoms has led to corresponding falsifiable modern theories. Popper invented the notion of metaphysical research programs to name such unfalsifiable ideas.[6] In contrast to Positivism, which held that statements are meaningless if they cannot be verified or falsified, Popper claimed that falsifiability is merely a special case of the more general notion of criticizability, even though he admitted that empirical refutation is one of the most effective methods by which theories can be criticized. Criticizability, in contrast to falsifiability, and thus rationality, may be comprehensive (i.e., have no logical limits), though this claim is controversial even among proponents of Popper's philosophy and critical rationalism.

    No charge for the education, Jim.


    Mini ice age? Um, no. (none / 0) (#106)
    by Anne on Tue Jul 14, 2015 at 02:12:18 PM EST
    Though University of Northumbria mathematics professor Valentina Zharkova, who led the sunspot research, did find that the magnetic waves that produce sunspots (which are associated with high levels of solar activity) are expected to counteract one another in an unusual way in the coming years, the press release about her research mentions nothing about how that will affect the Earth's climate. Zharkova never even used the phrase "mini ice age." Meanwhile, several other recent studies of a possible solar minimum have concluded that whatever climate effects the phenomenon may have will be dwarfed by the warming caused by greenhouse gas emissions.


    (It's also worth mentioning that Zharkova's findings have not yet been published in a peer-reviewed journal, so her conclusions haven't been vetted and refined.)

    But those nuances were totally lost as stories about Zharkova's research made the rounds on social media and in the press. Instead, we got 300-year-old engravings of Londoners cavorting on the frozen River Thames accompanied by predictions of food shortages and brutal cold -- plus snarky tweets about not worrying about global warming anymore.

    Link (and my bold)

    See also, here, and here.


    et et all (none / 0) (#129)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jul 14, 2015 at 04:04:58 PM EST

    Finally, if history is a guide, it is safe to say that weak solar activity for a prolonged period of time can have a negative impact on global temperatures in the troposphere which is the bottom-most layer of Earth's atmosphere - and where we all live. There have been two notable historical periods with decades-long episodes of low solar activity. The first period is known as the "Maunder Minimum", named after the solar astronomer Edward Maunder, and it lasted from around 1645 to 1715. The second one is referred to as the "Dalton Minimum", named for the English meteorologist John Dalton, and it lasted from about 1790 to 1830. Both of these historical periods coincided with below-normal global temperatures in an era now referred to by many as the "Little Ice Age". In addition, research studies in just the past couple of decades have found a complicated relationship between solar activity, cosmic rays, and clouds on Earth. This research suggests that in times of low solar activity where solar winds are typically weak; more cosmic rays reach the Earth's atmosphere which, in turn, has been found to lead to an increase in certain types of clouds that can act to cool the Earth.


    The increase flat lined years and years ago and we now have this.

    Lakes Superior and Lake Michigan are currently six degrees colder than last year. If the water continues to remain colder than normal, it could have an impact on Michigan's winter in several ways.

    Mordiggian - Really?? You didn't read?? Here's more:

    Gore and Blood, the former chief of Goldman Sachs Asset Management (GSAM), co-founded London-based GIM in 2004. Between 2008 and 2011 the company had raised profits of nearly $218 million from institutions and wealthy investors. By 2008 Gore was able to put $35 million into hedge funds and private partnerships through the Capricorn Investment Group, a Palo Alto company founded by his Canadian billionaire buddy Jeffrey Skoll, the first president of EBay Inc. It was Skoll's Participant Media that produced Gore's feverishly frightening 2006 horror film, "An Inconvenient Truth".


    And then we have the Feds, and, as Sagan said, billions and billions.....

    And I ask again, what are the names and proof on all these websites living off of big oil????

    And you have no idea as to what you copied. Really. Homicide defined you.

    Popper is also known for his opposition to the classical justificationist account of knowledge which he replaced with critical rationalism, "the first non-justificational philosophy of criticism in the history of philosophy."[10]

    Let me help you:

    Theory of justification is a part of epistemology that attempts to understand the justification of propositions and beliefs. Epistemologists are concerned with various epistemic features of belief, which include the ideas of justification, warrant, rationality, and probability. Of these four terms, the term that has been most widely used and discussed by the early 21st century is "warrant". Loosely speaking, justification is the reason that someone (properly) holds a belief.

    When a claim is in doubt, justification can be used to support the claim and reduce or remove the doubt. Justification can use empiricism (the evidence of the senses), authoritative testimony (the appeal to criteria and authority), or logical deduction.

    Read that last paragraph very carefully.


    Suggests (none / 0) (#140)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Tue Jul 14, 2015 at 05:44:14 PM EST
     This research suggests that in times of low solar activity where solar winds are typically weak;

    Suggests is a lot to hang a hat on. And the research is that the minimum would contribute little to combat global warming:

    In 2013, The Guardian's Dana Nuccitelli cited several studies on the impact a grand solar minimum would have on global temperatures, concluding, "A new grand solar minimum would not trigger another [Little Ice Age]; in fact, the maximum 0.3°C cooling would barely make a dent in the human-caused global warming over the next century." More recently, The Washington Post reported on July 14 that "several other recent studies of a possible solar minimum have concluded that whatever climate effects the phenomenon may have will be dwarfed by the warming caused by greenhouse gas emissions." Similarly, blog posts by Slate's Phil Plait and the website ...and Then There's Physics each cited one of those studies, which was published in Nature Communications and found that "[a]ny reduction in global mean near-surface temperature due to a future decline in solar activity is likely to be a small fraction of projected anthropogenic warming."

    Moreover, Think Progress's Joe Romm has pointed out that that the planet actually faces the opposite of a "mini ice age" in the decades ahead, as recent studies by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory indicate that "[t]he Earth is headed toward an imminent speed-up in global warming" (emphasis original).

    As for this fellow with money, is he going to short fossil fuels or something?

    And I ask again, what are the names and proof on all these websites living off of big oil????

    Here's one of them:  

    A prominent academic and climate change denier's work was funded almost entirely by the energy industry, receiving more than $1.2m from companies, lobby groups and oil billionaires over more than a decade, newly released documents show.

    Over the last 14 years Willie Soon, a researcher at the Harvard-Smithsonian Centre for Astrophysics, received a total of $1.25m from Exxon Mobil, Southern Company, the American Petroleum Institute (API) and a foundation run by the ultra-conservative Koch brothers, the documents obtained by Greenpeace through freedom of information filings show.

    According to the documents, the biggest single funder was Southern Company, one of the country's biggest electricity providers that relies heavily on coal.

    The documents draw new attention to the industry's efforts to block action against climate change - including President Barack Obama's power-plant rules.

    Unlike the vast majority of scientists, Soon does not accept that rising greenhouse gas emissions since the industrial age are causing climate changes. He contends climate change is driven by the sun.


    To Washington insiders he is Dr Evil: the hidden orchestrator of industry campaigns against the Humane Society, Mothers against Drunk Driving, and other seemingly uncontroversial groups.

    Now Richard Berman, a one-time lobbyist turned industry strategist, has zeroed in on another target: Barack Obama's new power plant rules.

    Over the last year, Berman has secretly routed funding for at least 16 studies and launched at least five front groups attacking Environmental Protection Agency rules cutting carbon dioxide from power plants, the Guardian has learned.

    The rules, the centre-piece of Obama's climate agenda, are due to be finalised in mid-summer. They have come under sustained assault from industry and Republican-controlled Congress - and Berman is right at the heart of it.

    The attacks may be gaining traction. The EPA chief, Gina McCarthy, suggested in a speech this week the rules were likely to change in response to public comment.

    Do some research instead of being an unpaid spokesperson for the fossil fuel industry, Jim.  Better to educate yourself instead of being a shill for others.

    Empirical justification can be as simple as seeing the numbers of glaciers throughout the world retreating at an unprecedented rate.


    Apparently (none / 0) (#5)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Jul 13, 2015 at 03:53:36 PM EST
    there is an Iran deal?   Possible announcement tonight.

    Transgender military ban to be lifted (none / 0) (#10)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Jul 13, 2015 at 04:10:21 PM EST
    WASHINGTON (AP) -- Pentagon leaders are finalizing plans aimed at lifting the ban on transgender individuals in the military, with the goal of formally ending one of the last gender- or sexuality-based barriers to military service, senior U.S. officials told The Associated Press.

    An announcement is expected this week, and the services would have six months to assess the impact of the change and work out the details, the officials said Monday. Military chiefs wanted time to methodically work through the legal, medical and administrative issues and develop training to ease any transition, and senior leaders believed six months would be sufficient.

    Hopefully it will stick (none / 0) (#43)
    by CityLife on Tue Jul 14, 2015 at 06:13:55 AM EST
    But recall how ruthless the actions against Iran have been.
    See video mentioning terrorist attacks against Iran: Iran Deal Reached on Peaceful Nuclear Program

    ruffian (none / 0) (#55)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Jul 14, 2015 at 10:19:43 AM EST
    I receive the final episodes of season 2 of Hannibal this afternoon which I will see tonight.  Then I will get through the episodes I have on the DVR in the next day or so to be ready for the new episode this week.
    Mixed feelings about that.  I expect something like withdrawals when I have to wait a week for my fix.

    There's much talk about a new home for Hannibal.  I think it will find one.

    Wouldn't want to disappoint the TV haters.

    Btw (none / 0) (#57)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Jul 14, 2015 at 10:24:36 AM EST
    are you. Ray Donavonis fan?   There was a great bit in the new episode where Bunchie was trying to use Match.com.  All his profile said was "I like to watch TV and take naps"
    It was explained this is not the way to get a date.

    I thought THATS WHAT IT IS!!


    Poor Bunchy...it is to cringe, (none / 0) (#59)
    by Anne on Tue Jul 14, 2015 at 10:41:52 AM EST
    with a fair amount of pity thrown in.

    I think this is going to be a good season, if the first episode is any indication.

    Was rather amused by Ray having to rescue Bronson Pinchot's character from a rather indelicately-placed zip-tie - but his knocking the rescue price down from $6K to $2K might have been even better.

    And Mickey...just when you think you can hate him, he does something like what he did for that little girl and you realize he's not all bad.  Not great - but not all bad.  Not that Audrey and her mother aren't going to find themselves in a similar situation sooner rather than later, but I guess he did what he could for the moment.

    Ray's still so dark and damaged; I guess that's the hook.  This is so much better than Season 2 of True Detective, which hasn't held my interest.  I've recorded them, and may binge-watch one day - that may work better, seeing them all at once.

    Masters of Sex?  Gettin' a little soapy, but looks like some good plot lines ahead.  Did you notice at the end of the episode the note that the three children were entirely fictional?  I found that kind of a "Hmmm..." moment.


    Haven't seen Masters of Sex yet (none / 0) (#68)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Jul 14, 2015 at 11:45:58 AM EST
    but with you in Ray.

    Ps (none / 0) (#72)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Jul 14, 2015 at 11:50:11 AM EST
    i think Mickey means to take over the business.  And run it "right".
    The pool scene was amazing.

    I agree, on all counts. (none / 0) (#82)
    by Anne on Tue Jul 14, 2015 at 12:03:43 PM EST
    As soon as Mickey started telling the "cowboy" he should run his operation out of Dunkin' Donuts, I knew the wheels in his head had been turning - he's always trying to make money on something, isn't he?

    Of course, pretty much everything Mickey touches eventually turns to sh!t, so it will only be a matter of time before whatever he's cooking up goes bad, too.

    And that dog...yowza!


    Yeah I saw that (none / 0) (#147)
    by ruffian on Tue Jul 14, 2015 at 08:07:58 PM EST
    so...why do we need a plot line about the kids...i really hate plot lines about the kids unless they are as wonderfully played as Sally Draper was. I hope to see less of them in the rest of the season.

    I fear Masters of Sex is getting a tad repetitive.


    LOL - but that is what I want my dates to do (none / 0) (#67)
    by ruffian on Tue Jul 14, 2015 at 11:45:36 AM EST
    with me - watch TV and take naps. It truly is a dilemma!

    I tried watching Ray Donovan a couple of times, but did not like it that much so chose not to get into it. It has to be better than this season of True Detective though. Oy!


    A first I was put off (none / 0) (#69)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Jul 14, 2015 at 11:48:17 AM EST
    by the rather tired gay man in crisis subplot.  But I decided it's worth remembering that it was never about social acceptance for some people.  
    I'm actually liking the season so far more than most I guess.

    The Vince Vaughn subplot is (none / 0) (#74)
    by ruffian on Tue Jul 14, 2015 at 11:52:13 AM EST
    really bad, especially the baby-making stuff. why do we need that? If it were all about the cops and their stories it would be a lot better, IMO.

    I have to admit (none / 0) (#76)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Jul 14, 2015 at 11:56:11 AM EST
    i am already tired of the Vince Vaughn "be afraid" look.

    Plus someone needs to get rid of that (none / 0) (#77)
    by ruffian on Tue Jul 14, 2015 at 11:56:19 AM EST
    horrible singer in the bar. Ugh.

    Omg (none / 0) (#79)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Jul 14, 2015 at 11:58:37 AM EST
    i love her.  That's the T-Bone Burnett influence.  

    I can't enjoy mopey music right now when (5.00 / 1) (#148)
    by ruffian on Tue Jul 14, 2015 at 08:12:44 PM EST
    I have a guilty secret.  He gives me reason to live. A little something we like to call CHARISMA! I am mentally casting Aidan Turner in every show on TV.

    Lera Lynn (none / 0) (#80)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Jul 14, 2015 at 12:02:16 PM EST
    It helps to enjoy that (none / 0) (#116)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Jul 14, 2015 at 02:48:31 PM EST
    if you have the visual.

    A long lost member of the Addams Family skinny and hunched over a long electric guitar on a wooden stool with a single spotlight directly overhead.


    On helluva little thunder storm just rolled through.
    left these in my yard.. Scale is difficult.  They are about as big as my leg.


    For scale (none / 0) (#120)
    by sj on Tue Jul 14, 2015 at 03:20:39 PM EST
    just put a shoe next to it. It won't matter if it's a size 2 or size 12 -- you kind of get the picture. It's not very scientific but one tends to have them available when snapping the photograph.

    Gloves work, too.


    Season 3 is strange, (none / 0) (#70)
    by ruffian on Tue Jul 14, 2015 at 11:49:09 AM EST
    I guess i could say that about the whole series. I read something about the '2nd half' of Season 3 being pretty much a movie of 'Red Dragon'. I do hope it did not mean that there is going to be a break between the 1st half and the 2nd half of season 3, like they did with Breaking Bad and Mad Men. Hate that!

    There is no good reason (none / 0) (#87)
    by CST on Tue Jul 14, 2015 at 12:14:57 PM EST
    We should do business with Saudi Arabia and not Iran.

    There is no good reason we shouldn't do business with Iran period.  If we hadn't royally f*cked with them for years they'd probably be one of our biggest allies in the region.  The fact that they still could be is remarkable, this is not an opportunity to waste.

    what about all (none / 0) (#101)
    by FlJoe on Tue Jul 14, 2015 at 01:55:34 PM EST
    those "Iranians" who attacked us on 9-11?

    they keep dressing up (none / 0) (#112)
    by CST on Tue Jul 14, 2015 at 02:28:20 PM EST
    as Saudis.  It get's confusing.  Good thing all those A-Rabs are the same.

    Yeah (none / 0) (#122)
    by FlJoe on Tue Jul 14, 2015 at 03:37:40 PM EST
    we should just kill em all and let Allah sort them out. Bush and Cheney were such wimps.

    The Consequential President (none / 0) (#105)
    by christinep on Tue Jul 14, 2015 at 02:11:57 PM EST
    In recent weeks alone--along with major legal victories in the Supreme Court again for the ACA/healthcare reform & for same sex marriage--we see advance on all fronts for policies/approaches that this President has initiated & determinedly pursued. Think about: Moving forward on justice system reform (at least, around the edges); opening the military to open transgender acceptance (following the footsteps of LGBT reform under this administration in the civil and military service); diplomatic relations with Cuba--long sought by many--now becomes a reality; and, after 36 years, a real movement forward with Iran as embodied in the historic provisional agreement with Iran.  <To be sure, the labor to get that agreement was long and the international accord is a Biggie ... the importance of that agreement cannot be overstated.>

    Here we have The Consequential President ... President Obama.

    I gotta say (none / 0) (#109)
    by CST on Tue Jul 14, 2015 at 02:24:39 PM EST
    He's by far my favorite lame duck president in my lifetime.  Not that there have been a ton.  Who knows what Clinton could've accomplished without the SCANDAL, but it was what it was.

    If there's one last thing I want to see it's real movement on criminal justice reform.  He has said publicly that that will be his focus from here on out, so let's see what gets done.  I expect a lot more than 46 commutations.


    Excuse me for omitting (none / 0) (#134)
    by christinep on Tue Jul 14, 2015 at 04:29:55 PM EST
    Obama's very recent executive action under the NLRA to raise the overtime cap to $50K (from the ridiculously low and abused $24K), thereby allowing so many hard-working individuals given an empty management-type title to be justly compensated as well via overtime pay.  Many thousands will realize a valuable raise in paychecks as a result of the President's restructure of that overtime parameter.

    Thinking about the list of accomplishments by this President--not simply the list, but the full range and reality of the changes .... Stunning in its positive reach, even at this point.


    President Obama talks to Thomas Friedmen (none / 0) (#184)
    by oculus on Wed Jul 15, 2015 at 12:27:24 PM EST
    in the Oval Office about the deal w/Iran. Our President is wicked smart. No teleprompter.  


    Yes, and the president (5.00 / 1) (#191)
    by KeysDan on Wed Jul 15, 2015 at 02:40:04 PM EST
    did not hesitate to call the mustachioed one on his column of two weeks ago in which he (foresaw/) that we did not use all our leverage or resources in our arsenal--although, in fairness, it was probably a taxi driver who told him what to think.   The cab driver is the guy the president should scold.

    Goodell and the GOP (none / 0) (#189)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Jul 15, 2015 at 01:47:49 PM EST
    There is a feel of inevitability about Hillary Clinton becoming the next President of the United States. We very well could be just 18 months from our first female president.

    But there are two very real problems with this assumption. One, there was a feeling of inevitability about her eight years ago and, if you consider yourself to be up on the happenings in Washington DC, you'll note she is not currently president. And, two, the Republican Party is only now unveiling their secret weapon: NFL commissioner Roger Goodell.

    Yes, the man who earned countless headlines over the past 12 months for his incompetent and tone-deaf corporate leadership - and consider how hard it is to stand out in the crowded incompetent and tone-deaf world of corporate leadership - was to spend this week advising Republican elected officials.


    Good GD gravy if they are desperate why not just ask Trump, he is after all leading the buffoonery.

    Among voters identifying as Republican, or independents who plan to vote in their states' Republican primaries or caucuses, the real-estate mogul picked up 17 percent.

    Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush followed with 14 percent, with Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker at 8 percent, Texas Sen. Ted Cruz at 6 percent, Florida Sen. Marco Rubio at 5 percent, retired neurosurgeon Ben Carson, Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul and former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee at 4 percent, and New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie grabbing 3 percent. Those receiving less than 2 percent: former Texas Gov. Rick Perry, former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum, former HP executive Carly Fiorina, Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal, Ohio Gov. John Kasich, former New York Gov. George Pataki and South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham.

    "Incompetent and tone deaf (5.00 / 2) (#190)
    by Anne on Wed Jul 15, 2015 at 02:33:48 PM EST
    corporate leadership?"

    Seems like a perfect fit to me.

    I can't believe the NFL pays that man over $40 million a year.  


    Why not? (5.00 / 2) (#199)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Jul 15, 2015 at 07:26:09 PM EST
    Hewlett-Packard paid Carly Fiorina a $42 million severance package after she effectively drove that once-respected company into the ditch. The same day she was ousted by the HP board, its stock rose 8% on the NYSE.

    For years now, corporate America has been shelling out obscene amounts of cash and stock options in exchange for mediocrity and ineptitude in the executive suite. Our problem, Anne, is that you and I are simply much too competent to be taken seriously by big boys of high finance.



    Slimy Scott Walker (none / 0) (#192)
    by KeysDan on Wed Jul 15, 2015 at 02:56:50 PM EST
     In his Kick-off, Walker said he was opposed to  the BSA policy that no longer bans gay men from being Scout leaders.   He does so "to protect children and promote scout values."

    In other Republican news, the attorneys for former Speaker of the House, Denny Hastert railed about leaking about "Individual A" and the sexual abuse of a student while a wresting coach.  And, those structured payments heading toward $3.5 million.   Hastert's attorneys are gearing up for trial  and plan a motion to dismiss the indictment under seal.  The next status hearing is set for Oct 29. Hastert was a Scout leader, so maybe this is his cause for concern, or that he is a Republican.