Friday Open Thread

Update: I'm really excited -- My friend M. is at the Peloton store in Denver right now -- after hearing me rave on and on about it -- and she just texted me she bought it. I was on the phone with her 3 hours ago and we were both stuck in traffic -- she was on her way to an appointment. I thought she was going to go to Peloton over the weekend. That might be a record -- 2 hours to test it out and say "I'm in." She's in really good shape and about a decade younger than me so I knew she would love it, but 2 hours is really something. It took me 3 separate visits and hours of research to commit. I just got done riding with my 46th ride.

Original Post

It's a jail day for me, which means an open thread day for you.

All topics welcome, but please be civil.

< Donald Trump is No "Teflon Don" | White House Confirms Steve Bannon is Out >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Thanks to their own braggadocio, ... (5.00 / 3) (#7)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri Aug 18, 2017 at 02:49:40 PM EST
    Baltimore Sun | August 18, 2017
    Op-Ed: Torch-lit Charlottesville images, Vice News report ignited a moral fire - "It's been almost a week since the torch-lit white supremacists rally at the University of Virginia in Charlottesville, but the images of those Tiki flames illuminating hate-filled, white faces are still very much with me. They are permanently burned into my memory -- and, I suspect, much of the nation's shared consciousness. And that's a good thing. I believe these images triggered a moral awakening in some white viewers, which led to moral outrage when President Donald Trump refused to categorically denounce the people carrying those torches and the violence they generated that turned deadly."

    ... arrest warrants have apparently been issued for several of those unapologetic white nationalists who were featured so prominently in Elle Reeve's riveting -- and frightening -- Vice News documentary "Charlottesville: Race and Terror," which was produced by Vice News and aired Monday night on HBO. Good.

    And congratulations to Ms. Reeve and her Vice News crew, whose Pulitzer Prize-worthy journalistic coup is garnering the sort of mainstream public attention and praise that they truly deserve. Maybe they didn't fully realize it at the time they were filming, but given what happened, it's pretty evident that they undertook significant personal risk to tell this story. If you haven't yet seen "Charlottesville: Race and Terror," it's now posted on YouTube.


    Organizing conversations (none / 0) (#30)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Aug 19, 2017 at 04:52:13 AM EST
    Have now been leaked? hacked? from the Jason Kessler server too. Not exactly a non-violent protest plan.

    From our "Divine Opulence" file: (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri Aug 18, 2017 at 07:14:44 PM EST
    Texas may rank at or near bottom in per capita spending on public education, but dammit if the state doesn't have the best high school football stadiums in the country.

    I remember an article in the Star-Telegram (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by Chuck0 on Fri Aug 18, 2017 at 08:40:11 PM EST
    from my days in Ft Worth about how the highest paid person in the Arlington ISD was a football coach.

    Makes sense (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by FlJoe on Sat Aug 19, 2017 at 05:54:42 AM EST
    Football>Brain damage>Texas.

    We spent the day at Polin Museum of History (5.00 / 3) (#47)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Aug 19, 2017 at 08:44:25 PM EST
    Of Polish Jews. The museum is only a year old. I will always be glad that I went in spite of how heartbreaking it is. This museum spends a great deal of itself on of course World War II, but also the extensive history of European Jews, evolution of their faith, evolution of their citizenship, and even the evolution of some of their political parties they had between WWII and Stalin.

    It was nice to read tweets that Boston proudly stood her ground and easily overcame.

    Some history we cannot afford to repeat.

    We will wait a few days before going to the Museum of Warsaw Uprising. Our friends here suggest we give our hearts a rest first. It can be too much they say. This museum unlike today's is dedicated to only 40 days in Warsaw's history.

    We ran into US soldiers here from 4th ID Fort Carson, part of showing Putin we can get here dude. It seems fitting. Quite a few refugees from the Ukraine here trying to start over.

    Bring back the 35 hour week (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by Lora on Sat Aug 19, 2017 at 10:52:31 PM EST
    Seriously, does working 40 hours-plus a week and having to eat at your desk, or having to stay at work 9 hours a day with an enforced unpaid lunch hour do anyone any real good or make us any more productive?

    Pay a decent wage, then pay for 35 hours, so that an hour lunch is an actual restorative and opportunity to act like a human being with other human beings, and not a financial or time burden on the American worker. I would predict productivity would go up.

    Had a 35 hour work week back in the day.  Worked just fine.

    Dick Gregory, RIP (5.00 / 3) (#50)
    by Peter G on Sat Aug 19, 2017 at 11:28:56 PM EST
    Sorry to learn of the death of the great comedian and activist, Dick Gregory, 1932-2017.

    I also want to mention Dick Gregory (5.00 / 2) (#137)
    by Peter G on Tue Aug 22, 2017 at 10:03:21 PM EST
    as civil rights activist and First Amendment hero, whose case at the Supreme Court in 1969 -- which Chief Justice Warren called "easy" -- established that peaceful demonstrators cannot lawfully be arrested for "failure to disperse," where the police directive to end the demonstration is based on concern that the demonstrators' opponents are threatening or trying to instigate violence against them.

    And RIP, Jerry Lewis (1926-2017), ... (none / 0) (#65)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sun Aug 20, 2017 at 03:46:28 PM EST
    ... who died this morning in Las Vegas at age 91. To be honest, I was never a fan of Lewis, having found his personality to be caustic and prickly, and I never really understood the affinity of the French for his style of humor. But there is no denying that he was a giant in the entertainment industry during his heyday, and his generous philanthropy -- particularly his 50-plus years of work on behalf of children with muscular dystrophy -- was equally legendary. He'll be missed.

    I hope I am not violating our host's rules (none / 0) (#76)
    by Peter G on Sun Aug 20, 2017 at 07:33:57 PM EST
    about comments concerning the recently deceased, if I mention that I was a big Jerry Lewis fan in the years when I was 8 to 12 years old, and not since. FWIW.  And a big Dick Gregory fan beginning when I was 18 or so, and ever since (with allowances for some semi-crack-pot conspiracy-mongering on his part).

    I don't think you have to like someone ... (none / 0) (#88)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Aug 21, 2017 at 04:26:52 AM EST
    ... in order to show respect for him or her. I'll prefer to remember Jerry Lewis for his generosity of spirit, particularly with the Muscular Dystrophy Association, for which he raised over $2 billion.

    We had a billionaire out here in Honolulu, the late Harry Weinberg, of whom the best which could be said about his personality was that he was difficult and curmudgeonly -- and that was the opinion of his friends. But in philanthropy, he was an extraordinarily kind and generous man, particularly when it came to helping poor communities and children, for whom he had a real soft spot thanks to his own impoverished upbringing in Baltimore.

    When he died, he left the balance of his very ample fortune to charity, endowing the Harry & Jeanette Weinberg Foundation, so that his money would be used specifically to help the poor and needy in Honolulu, where he lived, and in Baltimore, his old hometown where he was born and raised.

    I can't help but admire people like Lewis and Weinberg, self-made men who were generous with their time and money, and who never forgot where they came from even as fortune smiled upon them.



    I thought Dean Martin and Jerry (none / 0) (#138)
    by oculus on Wed Aug 23, 2017 at 02:46:27 AM EST
    Lewis were the funniest when I was 8-12 yrs. old.  Now I question my taste.  

    Don't be so modest (5.00 / 1) (#98)
    by Yman on Mon Aug 21, 2017 at 09:34:00 AM EST
    You completely forgot the part where you talked about how she was a millionaire who was tall, rich, thin and "looked great!", so much that you'd love to go to a wine bar with her.  Amy Schumer (an actual comedian, feminist and liberal). OTOH?

    "Not so much".

    Linea...take a breath, please. (5.00 / 1) (#107)
    by Anne on Mon Aug 21, 2017 at 10:19:48 AM EST
    If you learn nothing else reading/commenting here, I hope it will be that as congenial and humorous and friendly the overall atmosphere is most of the time, this community doesn't have much tolerance for slipshod reasoning and conflation of fact and opinion.

    And if you're in the middle of a serious comment thread, throwing in something that would be more appropriate at open-mic night at the local karaoke bar isn't just jarring, it's distracting and leaves people wondering how serious the rest of your comment can be.

    At the same time, I'm sure you feel like you are under a microscope and no matter what you say, someone is calling you out on it.  I get that.  Don't know if it makes you feel better, but it happens to all of us.  

    As hard as it is sometimes to set aside your indignation and feelings of persecution, it's worth working on, not least because it will make you a better debater.  And being able to debate people here means being better armed for making your arguments on the outside, with friends and co-workers and others you encounter.  

    And, most importantly, (5.00 / 1) (#116)
    by NYShooter on Mon Aug 21, 2017 at 03:05:48 PM EST
    there's no rule that I know of requiring a response to a comment made to you. That's what that little thingy on the right of your keyboard is for.....the scroll bar.

    Like that famous saying, "the best revenge is living well," the best response to foolish, disingenuous comments is....ignore them.

    Trust me, that would make a much better, and more effective, response than anything you've been answering with here lately.


    Calling PeterG: would really like your take (5.00 / 1) (#110)
    by Anne on Mon Aug 21, 2017 at 10:40:41 AM EST
    on this article in Vox, addressing the "adjustment" to the ACLU's position on free speech.

    From the article (which is long, and I haven't read all the way through):

    Civil libertarians see a bright line in terms of law -- they have to protect a particular legal principle unconditionally, because otherwise the principle will disappear. Meanwhile, their critics see a bright line in terms of power. To many progressives, the question of who needs to be protected is much more important than the ideas being used to justify it -- and they feel it's simply not all that difficult to step in when a principle is being used to benefit the powerless, and step back when it's used to benefit the powerful.

    Seems to me that that article (none / 0) (#115)
    by Peter G on Mon Aug 21, 2017 at 02:59:58 PM EST
    articulates the issue very well. Very thorough and fair. The ACLU's position is entirely correct -- legally, morally and politically -- and its recent critics are short-sighted and ill-informed. Particularly that NYT op-ed.

    "legally, morally and politically" (5.00 / 1) (#117)
    by NYShooter on Mon Aug 21, 2017 at 05:09:19 PM EST
    Yes, yes, and, yes again!

    I was surprised, no, disgusted, that virtually all the "reporting" on the Charlottesville fiasco was designed purely for its emotional, eyeball, effect. I think I read and watched as much coverage as anyone else, and, I was waiting (in vain) for some discussion/debate on the 1'st amendment issue and, also, some reference to the Skokie, Il. event of 1977 for reference.

    The 1'st amendment part of the discussion would have stated that "freedom of speech" is guaranteed in the Constitution, but, like many other laws, it is not absolute. Thoughtful, safety related, common sense parameters can be set. You can say, "I hate Jews, Blacks, foreigners, that's your right. But, you can't say, "go out and beat/kill Jews, Blacks, foreigners."

    The 1977 Skokie event should have been brought out simply to inform/remind the public that demonstrations like the one planned for Charlottesville were not unique in our history. But, to me personally, the fact that it was a Jewish lawyer that took the Neo-Nazis case to the Supreme Court (and winning) after the ACLU thought the case was over by winning the case earlier (denying the permit) that made me understand just how special America was, and, how valuable our Constitution was/is.


    Just to clarify what happened in (5.00 / 1) (#135)
    by Peter G on Tue Aug 22, 2017 at 09:26:55 PM EST
    the Skokie litigation. This sentence:
    it was a Jewish lawyer that took the Neo-Nazis case to the Supreme Court (and winning) after the ACLU thought the case was over by winning the case earlier (denying the permit)
    is pretty confusing. The ACLU never abandoned the case, as your comment implies. The "Jewish lawyer[s]" who took the case to the Supreme Court were the ACLU lawyers who had been on the case from the beginning (plus other ACLU lawyers). Among them was David Goldberger, then the young legal director of the ACLU of Illinois and to this day a professor at the law school of Ohio State. As for "winning the case earlier (denying the permit)," I'm not sure what you're trying to say. The ACLU went to the Supreme Court of the U.S. after the Supreme Court of Illinois refused to expedite the ACLU's appeal or to issue a stay of the state trial court's issuance of an injunction against the neo-Nazis' proposed demonstration. The U.S. Supreme Court took the case and summarily (without even requiring full briefs) reversed the state supreme court's refusal to protect the First Amendment rights of unpopular speakers. (A bare majority of 5 concluded at the US Supreme Court had jurisdiction to intervene at that point in the case, but 3 of the 4 dissenters went out of their way to say they agreed with the majority on the First Amendment issue.) In parallel litigation in federal court, the ACLU won a civil rights case declaring unconstitutional three ordinances that Skokie had hastily passed in an effort to block the demonstration, even though those ordinances were closely modeled on the Illinois law upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1952 in the Beauharnais case (but which the state had subsequently repealed).

    Surprising how seldom Skokie (5.00 / 1) (#139)
    by oculus on Wed Aug 23, 2017 at 02:49:47 AM EST
    decision is mentioned re Charlottesville.

    Not good for ratings... (5.00 / 1) (#141)
    by kdog on Wed Aug 23, 2017 at 07:11:16 AM EST
    to spoil the kick the nazi party with inconvenient truths.

    Disgraceful how the media passed (4.00 / 1) (#161)
    by NYShooter on Wed Aug 23, 2017 at 01:43:50 PM EST
    on this obvious "teaching moment."

    Disgusting speech is protected.
    Threatening behavior is not.

    The counter demonstrators are hailed as heroes,
    not for protecting the public, but,
    for "shutting them down."

    I doubt the general public understands the difference.

    The media surely won't tell them.
    Speech is boring,
    Violent melees get clicks & eyeballs.

    CBS CEO, Leslie Moonves on why they gave  24/7 (free) coverage for Donald Trump in the Primaries:

    "It may not be good for America, but it's damn good for CBS."


    i agree with you. (none / 0) (#164)
    by linea on Wed Aug 23, 2017 at 08:25:10 PM EST
    Back to criminal justice.... (5.00 / 1) (#136)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Tue Aug 22, 2017 at 09:47:44 PM EST
    We had a long dinner last night (5.00 / 2) (#140)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Aug 23, 2017 at 02:50:49 AM EST
    With our friends here. Discussing what has recently happened in Poland. At least educated Poland is aware that Russia is directly involved in this dismantling of their democracy. And they are in a scary place because they have lost their national press to powers and nothing but tortured propaganda pours from it. They are protesting like we are, they have antifa fighting like we do. Nationalists are fracturing the skulls of German speaking professors on buses. The existing government is successful blaming and jailing antifa though while the Nationalists beat everyone and then go home.

    When Trump was here the government power bussed in rural people hundreds of miles from Warsaw to be his "crowd". They chanted Trump and screamed like he was a rock star. It was not Warsaw that welcomed Donald though.

    They don't know anyone who voted for their President. It was all rural more uneducated voters. But the propaganda is working. Polling showed the existing government has a 60% approval rating.

    Their past President Tusk is who is to blame current President claims...for everything. Tusk now heads the EU, Poland was the only country in the EU to not vote for him this last election because the propaganda is working.

    History is being "rewritten". Lech Walesa is now a criminal who colloborated with communists.

    This is just a bit of what is going on here.

    So similar to the US though in many ways. Just greater degree of success. It's almost as if Putin has been holding seminars for potential leaders on how to upend democratic principles and become your own King.

    After watching as much as I could stand (5.00 / 2) (#145)
    by Anne on Wed Aug 23, 2017 at 07:56:46 AM EST
    of Trump's Phoenix rally, and now, reading your post, I'm sensing more than ever that what we are looking at is a looming test of and fight for democracy.  

    One gets the sense, listening to Trump, that he would like nothing more than to be the Supreme Leader, someone who reigns rather than governs, declares rather than leads, dictates rather than consults.  He ignores and derides those who oppose him, happily throws wrenches into formerly well-oiled machinery, uses his admirers for the ego boost they give him, but limits his reward for their devotion to the rhetorical.

    I also think Republicans and other defenders of this man need to think very seriously about which side of history they want to be on: the one where they risked their own success to rise to the defense of democracy, or the one where they were complicit in its demise.

    His defenders sound a lot like women who have been beaten and abused by their men: if there is a day or a moment where Trump seems normal, it revives hope that he isn't really "that bad," and allows them to put off making the choice to leave.

    Trump, I truly believe, is mentally unfit for office.  Pence, on the other hand, is an oily enabler who can barely conceal his hope that continuing to show both loyalty and reason will see him one day soon sitting on the president's side of the Oval Office desk.  He is monstrous in his own way, determined to unilaterally impose his extremist religious views on the country.

    Whether Trump stays or is marched out of the WH in restraints that color-coordinate with his hair and makeup, the damage he has done will last a long, long time.  As will the damage the GOP stood on the sidelines and watched happen.  Recovery will not come soon, or easily, especially with a Mike Pence in the WH.  

    Fasten your seat belts; it's going to be a bumpy flight.  And the oxygen masks have already dropped.


    Saying goodbye to Poland this morning (none / 0) (#166)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Aug 24, 2017 at 02:03:25 AM EST
    I love it here. We have been visiting Slavic places and spaces in the past 2yrs #1 Because the EU makes that so easy now #2 My husband has 2 grandparents who are Slavic immigrants. But it was like they got out of here and then nobody could even visit after that. So we've done the whole mess of us to Poland and Czech Republic. I'm predominantly German. Everyone experienced Germany easily and swiftly at the start of my brother-in-laws NATO military stationing.

    Last night at dinner we were all dying laughing at that crying Nazi in the US Cernovich that Captain Howdy and Vice introduced me to. In the US we already know he's Slav, so how can he not know he's 2nd in line for extermination after dirty Jews and filthy Gypsies? Add to that his last name is derived from "being of female deer". A wide eyed doe, deer in the headlights. We were dying laughing.


    "But Her Emails." (3.50 / 2) (#130)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Aug 21, 2017 at 08:37:22 PM EST
    Mother Jones' Kevin Frum nails it, when he rightly questions the MSM's (understandable) reluctance to forthrightly confront their own shortcomings and pratfalls in covering the 2016 campaign:

    "This question isn't important because it's worthwhile to relitigate 2016 forever, but because it matters for the future. The press got badly played on the Clinton Foundation story, which was almost completely baseless, and they got played only slightly less on the email story, which was kept alive by a calculated campaign to drip information to the press every week--mostly from sources that should have set alarm bells ringing instead.

    "Pointing out the failures of Hillary Clinton's campaign is fine but nonresponsive. The question isn't whether there were lots of things that decided the 2016 race -- there were -- or whether Clinton's emails should have been covered at all--of course they should have been. The question is about editorial judgment in an era of widespread media manipulation. If we don't want 2020 to be like 2016, political reporters should be willing to ask some hard questions about how and why Hillary Clinton's emails got such massively outsized attention." (Emphasis is mine.)

    It's a good post.

    Oops - forgot. (none / 0) (#131)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Aug 21, 2017 at 08:38:24 PM EST
    LINK. Sorry.

    Steve Bannon (none / 0) (#1)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Aug 18, 2017 at 11:57:57 AM EST
    appears to have been fired or quit. Either way good news. Now only how many more Nazis to get rid of?

    Yes, reporting (none / 0) (#2)
    by KeysDan on Fri Aug 18, 2017 at 12:27:04 PM EST
    is that Steve Bannon will be out by the end of the day; apparently returning to his home base of Breitbart. No word yet on Stephen Miller or Seb Gorka.

    To find out about the details, I guess we will have to wait for the insider scoop, or, maybe, two scoops:  after Trump worked so hard this week to gain the good will of Nazis, did he give Bannon the boot as one of those periodic pivots so as to save his presidency, or was Trump just angry about the weird interview Bannon gave to "The American Prospect," where he maligned the white supremacists, some of whom are very fine people, "a collection of clowns."

    My theory would be (5.00 / 3) (#3)
    by Peter G on Fri Aug 18, 2017 at 12:46:30 PM EST
    the latter. Bannon contradicted Tr*mp and dissed a significant part of his dwindling base. Much greater sin than the reasons any of us would want him fired.

    According to Twitter (5.00 / 2) (#32)
    by Nemi on Sat Aug 19, 2017 at 07:23:57 AM EST
    people had started posting pictures of the frontpage of Joshua Green's new book "Devil's Bargain" onto Tr*mp's Twitter-account, which, according to the grapevine, made him absolutely furious. So there's that. :)

    Also on Twitter, from yesterday, this made be quite literally laugh out loud (h/t @jameshamblin):

    This concludes infrastructure week.

    I'm not sure Bannon's ouster will help matters (5.00 / 2) (#4)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri Aug 18, 2017 at 01:59:17 PM EST
    At this point, the full extent of the public relations damage that Trump has inflicted upon himself in the immediate wake of Charlottesville has yet to be realized.

    His hardcore base appears to be standing by their man -- at least for now, anyway. But most everyone else has been genuinely repulsed by Trump's public equivocation over the Nazified radical white right, and his adamant refusal to denounce them outright.

    I mean, c'mon! How can anyone who's otherwise a fundamentally decent human being NOT denounce Nazis and the Ku Klux Klan? Presented with this golden opportunity to do so, any other president could've belted this ball out of the park with his eyes closed.

    Without question, this was the mother of all unforced political errors. And of course, Trump being Trump, there's always serious potential for him to again double down and thus further compound his debacle.

    About one-third of Republicans presently look like deer in the headlights, and a good number of them have already bolted for the hills as fast as they can. Meanwhile, whatever support Trump had formerly enjoyed from independents who've heretofore given him the benefit of the doubt is now likely cratering.

    As for us Democrats, aside from issuing some standard boiler-plate statements of outrage, we're generally heeding Napoleon's admonition about never interfering with your opponent when he's committing a major mistake, and we're making another batch of popcorn.



    I think you are right. (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by Chuck0 on Fri Aug 18, 2017 at 02:01:24 PM EST
    I doubt Bannon's departure will matter in any way so far Cheeto's behavior, twits, or policy. Just another day of chaos.

    Happy Friday... (5.00 / 3) (#6)
    by kdog on Fri Aug 18, 2017 at 02:04:52 PM EST
    Another day of chaos is another day of no radical conservative legislation being signed into law...I'll drink to that!

    F&ckin' Trump...he reviles and embarrasses, yet he saves!  Go figure.


    Friday (none / 0) (#9)
    by KeysDan on Fri Aug 18, 2017 at 04:07:49 PM EST
    News Dump...literally.

    Bannon was suspected (none / 0) (#10)
    by KeysDan on Fri Aug 18, 2017 at 04:24:02 PM EST
    of being a leaker, and by sending him to the (much needed) showers, leaks indicate that this step was intended to end it.

    Anyone have pet insurance? (none / 0) (#8)
    by McBain on Fri Aug 18, 2017 at 03:10:15 PM EST
    I recently adopted a dog and I'm trying to prepare for unforeseen vet bills as well as regular check ups.  Any opinions.... is it worth it?  depends on the dog?  Mine is a small, neutered one year old mix who appears to be in good health.

    Almost certainly not worth it (5.00 / 2) (#11)
    by Peter G on Fri Aug 18, 2017 at 05:13:33 PM EST
    unless you are the sort of pet owner who would spend a lot of money on medical procedures for your dog, if the circumstances arose, rather than just put the dog down and adopt another. If you are the sort of pet owner who would go the expensive treatment route (not judging here, one way or the other), and in the unlucky event that you confront that situation -- and only then -- you will be glad to bought the insurance.

    Our vet bills for two cats, ... (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri Aug 18, 2017 at 06:52:26 PM EST
    ... one fourteen years old and the other not quite two, run less than two hundred dollars a year, and that's for check-ups and vaccinations. And they're indoor cats. Our biggest single expense incurred was for the older one, when she suffered a broken tooth at age seven, and that set us back about $400 for the surgery to remove it, which included her two-night stay at the animal hospital.

    I still don't know how she broke it, but we were clued in that something was wrong when she withdrew from interacting with the girls and stopped eating. The best advice I can offer is to always be in tune with your pet's general behavior and disposition. Deviations from their normal activity can be a warning sign of their distress.

    The most common cause of significant pet injuries requiring veterinary care are hostile encounters with other animals. If your dog is going to be outside a lot and you live in a neighborhood where the wild animal population is fairly significant, or your dog is going to be interacting regularly with other dogs, then just be aware of its situation and surroundings in case you need to intervene.

    (One good way to minimize your dog's chance encounters with wild animals is to always feed it inside your house, and not outside on the patio or porch. Raccoons in particular are opportunistic feeders, and they love dog food. Sure, they're cute, but they can be aggressive with a small or medium-sized dog if they see a free meal, and they can inflict a very nasty bite.)

    Otherwise, I think your dog will be fine, as long as you take it to the vet for regular check-ups and then follow his or her advice with regard to its care. So, I agree with Peter. Don't waste your money on pet insurance.



    Diet (none / 0) (#46)
    by BackFromOhio on Sat Aug 19, 2017 at 08:20:15 PM EST
    is also a very important factor. ALthough many dog owners like to reward their dogs by giving them 'people' food with sugars and fats, I believe it is not healthy for the dogs. My last dog lived a healthy 16 years - and managed to survive not being given any junk food!

    Pet insurance can be very expensive. (none / 0) (#12)
    by Chuck0 on Fri Aug 18, 2017 at 05:20:00 PM EST
    For routine health issues and shots, you are better off just paying out of pocket.

    I already paid for his shots and altering (none / 0) (#17)
    by McBain on Fri Aug 18, 2017 at 07:55:57 PM EST
    with the fee for the rescue organization but I forgot about future shots.  Flea/tick meds add some cost too.  My mom doesn't like to use that stuff on her dog because she says it's toxic.  Anyone else avoid that stuff on their pets?  

    There are flea repellent meds out there ... (none / 0) (#19)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri Aug 18, 2017 at 08:56:34 PM EST
    ... that are quite safe for your pet. Again, ask your vet, who's certainly not going to recommend anything for your dog that's toxic. Your mother is probably concerned about topical treatments that a pet can lick off, and I'd agree with her that those are not good for the animal. But there's one that we got for the cats from the vet that's very good. It costs $75 a bottle, but one drop on the back of the neck does the trick for a whole month, and they can't lick it off back there.

    I think a vet will try to sell him a monthly (none / 0) (#25)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Aug 18, 2017 at 11:59:42 PM EST
    Ingestible combo of heart worm medications and flea killer. I tried. But the Ingestible flea killer that works for 30 days is pretty hard on some dogs. Lots of vomiting. Then I felt like I could never trust they actually ingested enough.

    I found ways even in Alabama to avoid (none / 0) (#24)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Aug 18, 2017 at 11:54:12 PM EST
    Using the very heavy flea treatments except summer. A bath every 2 weeks helps because shampoo breaks down the skeletal structure of fleas.

    I had someone bring me a stranded puppy to deflea. He was covered. I had never seen so many fleas. A pro groomer told me to use dish soap. We did, and it worked for the adult fleas. Then I used 1 wash with a flea shampoo that disrupts the flea eggs because soap won't kill them.

    I always have some Capstar on hand too (purchase from Jeffers pet supply no script needed). It is very safe for dogs and cats as well. Only in their system 24hrs, but kills every flea on them. You can follow with a second dose the next day too if needed, still very safe.

    The Bayer Soresto flea collar is also a good investment. I think it's around $50, but works for six months and it is safer than anything you place on their skin or they ingest.

    I do my own heart worming too with Ivermectin paste. A dog gets the same dose per pound that goats would get. You can purchase that from Jeffers, Farmers Co-op, Tractor Supply.

    You can give your own booster shots too, but that does make boarding your dog more difficult because they like vet shot records.

    Having hard floors is much better than carpeting. Fleas can hide in carpeting. Seeing fleas jumping in carpets in Alabama was a great inspiration for wood floors.

    I had to succomb to Frontline though during July and August.

    I did drive my vet a bit nuts though being mostly unbillable. I used him for vaccinations and physicals.


    Healthy Paws, (none / 0) (#13)
    by KeysDan on Fri Aug 18, 2017 at 05:41:17 PM EST
    at healthypawspetinsurance.com  We have not used it yet, but took out a policy on our little kitty, Claire.  After the large expense involved for the final days of our little Eve,  we thought we would give it a try.  They have different levels of coverage, and, accordingly, premiums.  I when with the more catastrophic, but there are choices.  They get good marks, but as I say, no experience as of yet.

    I tend to agree with Peter and Donald (none / 0) (#16)
    by McBain on Fri Aug 18, 2017 at 07:48:38 PM EST
    but vet bills in the bay area, like everything else, can be ridiculous.  I read a good review of Healthy Paws so I'll consider them.  I might go with Pet Assure.

    For $99/year you get a 25% discount on all in house services for network providers.  I'm pretty sure the "reasonably" priced vet near me is in their network. I'll post an update if I go with them, or anyone else, and use it.

    Thanks for the responses!



    We just prefer to pay for everything out of pocket. And that's fine, because we have healthy cats. That's why I'm now a cat person, because I like their relatively low maintenance. Dogs need a lot more attention than cats, and you have to invest a lot of time in them, which I'm not willing to do.

    The last dog I had was "Darby," a year-old cocker spaniel that I inherited from a roommate. This was after I had just moved out here, and the roomie went back to Ohio for a visit and never returned, leaving me his dog to do with as I wished. Now, I didn't really want a dog, but Darby was a good-natured little fellow and I also didn't have the heart to take him to the pound. And so there we were, co-existing.

    Shortly thereafter, I started dating a woman with a 7-year-old daughter, who absolutely adored Darby, and the feeling was mutual because he had an actual playmate. It was all good because he got the attention that I certainly wasn't giving him otherwise, and he loved it. They were like two peas in a pod.

    Then after about 18 months, my girlfriend got an awesome job offer in Las Vegas, and we split amicably on that note. But her daughter was very upset and unhappy about the prospect, so I came up with what I thought was an ingenious solution to help her with the move and transition -- with her mother's approval and agreement, of course. I gave Darby to her daughter, asking only that she promise to take care of him for me, to which she happily agreed.

    So it all worked out, although I must admit that I found myself missing Darby's presence for a little while. But hey, he ended up in a good home with loving and attentive owners, and he had a great life in Vegas, eventually passing on 12 years later at age 15. And that was a lot more than he likely would've ever gotten here, had he stayed with me. When I visited them up there, he recognized me and was friendly, but it was clear that he was no longer my dog.



    FYI (none / 0) (#20)
    by linea on Fri Aug 18, 2017 at 09:41:14 PM EST
    if you select Your Preferences > Interface Comments

    and set to Ignore ratings the posts will remain in order rather than shift in the thread based on ratings.

    Good to know (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by Lora on Sat Aug 19, 2017 at 09:49:38 AM EST
    Thanks, Linea

    did it.

    Also, if you set "Rate?" to "No" the multi-options of ratings won't show up under every/any comment, and you'll get at least 2x as many comments will fit on your screen.

    Makes it a lot easier to go through the comments, imo...


    Ok just set my "Rate?" to Yes (none / 0) (#123)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon Aug 21, 2017 at 06:17:36 PM EST
    and ratings are now displayed horizontally so it really doesn't take up that much space.

    I swear it was vertical, back in the day, when I set my settings, and took up a lot of space...


    ... Hawaii State Rep. Beth Fukumoto resigned her membership in the GOP this spring to join the Democrats, a letter she received this week ought to dispel them of any notion that her reason was anything other than the open hostility of white nationalists, whose toxic presence in the Republican Party they continue to tolerate:

    "Dear B*tch:

    1) your poor grand parents got put into a concentration camp by the USA? Boo hoo hoo--you J@ps murdered thousands of servicemen at Pearl Harbor--did you forget that detail.

    2) you know how many refugees got accepted by Japan last year? 27 total. But....America should open their doors to millions of parasites.

    Pull you head out of your a$$ loser. We Trump people hate illegals, black thugs, Muslims and bombs, and gays who do nothing but b*tch 24 hours a day--and bleeding heart traitor morons like you who 'condone' it--Go to Hell.

    Now everyone knows what Rep. Fukumoto has been dealing with on an almost daily basis, ever since the now-former House Minority Leader became one of the very few Republican elected officials in the entire country to join the Women's March last January 21. Another was her Hawaii colleague, 83-year-old State Rep. Cynthia Thielen.

    Fukumoto was formally censured by the RNC the following week for her public remarks from the podium that day, in which she denounced Trump by name as "a bully" for his hatred, racism and sexism, and she was removed from her leadership post over Thielen's vociferous objections on the State House floor.


    this is important (none / 0) (#22)
    by linea on Fri Aug 18, 2017 at 10:27:18 PM EST
    Arkansas Can Block Medicaid Funding to Planned Parenthood, Court Rules

    as i understand it:
    PP accepts medicaid. this 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals court ruling permits arkansas to refuse to pay medicaid clams to PP for services rendered.

    feministing.com (none / 0) (#23)
    by linea on Fri Aug 18, 2017 at 11:23:51 PM EST
    Sorry, tried to read it but (5.00 / 2) (#28)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Aug 19, 2017 at 03:46:37 AM EST
    First she says we can't call her alt left or a Bernie bro, then she went on to describe Hillary Clinton as what again? Oh hell no! Sorry feministing, today you are alt left and Bernie Bro. Call me when you can dump the Hillary is complicit in destroying the world. Bernie Sanders is no paragon of left wing virtue, that doesn't exist. Until she gets to some reality eff off.

    Agreed. (5.00 / 5) (#37)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sat Aug 19, 2017 at 04:19:01 PM EST
    I'm so tired of the newly politically converted and fervent -- usually people in their 20s, but not always -- presuming to define the parameters of the debate for the rest of us, which includes the terms by which we will call or address them. They often have little or no sense of self-awareness, or even any idea how easily they can self-marginalize with such overly strident personal behavior.

    One tack I've been using in our local Democratic Party with increasing success is a variation of Ted Kennedy's "The Dream Shall Never Die" riff from the 1980 Democratic Convention, in getting the young Berniesistas to refocus their energies on the issues they actually care about, rather than the candidates themselves.

    "Don't make politics so personal that you can only be disappointed," I tell them. "Perfect is the enemy of the good, and no single candidate is ever perfect. Whether in victory or defeat, their candidacies must always come to an end. But the causes they espouse tend to endure."

    To be successful in politics, you have to develop and retain the capacity to build relationships, find areas of mutual agreement and make common cause, all with an understanding that "compromise" is not necessarily a four-letter word. This is how you can eventually come to argue your case in the arena of ideas from a position of actual strength.

    Conversely, your insistence that it's either "my way or the highway," especially when you don't have the votes, inevitably leads to you being shown the door and told to hit the road. To be perfectly blunt, it's terribly difficult to throw your weight around when for all practical purposes, you're really nothing but a puffed-up bag of feathers.

    And this is a basic concept of politics that often eludes so many people on both the far left (like feministing) and the far right, because their own personal vanity precludes them from ever effectively grasping it long enough to let it permeate their consciousness.

    Instead, they've fixed their position on an untenable hillside with a determination to sacrifice both themselves and their cause upon the altar of political ego, rather than live to fight another day. Granted, it's makes for grand theatre to proclaim to all that you'd rather die on your feet than exist on your knees. But when the smoke clears, you're still dead.

    Far better to be that person who patiently works his or her way inside to be seated at the table of discussion, than to be the loudmouth on the outside with the bullhorn, who's forever banging on the door demanding entry with little or no hope of ever gaining such -- because after all, nobody really likes a self-righteous a$$hole.



    Have a marriage (5.00 / 2) (#38)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Aug 19, 2017 at 04:36:35 PM EST
    Have children

    Live happily in a neighborhood

    And then get back to me on how well it's all about me and my ideas works. That's what frustrates me. There is an element of common effing sense involved under the big tent.


    Indeed (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by jondee on Sat Aug 19, 2017 at 05:29:57 PM EST
    Those of us of a certain age (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by Anne on Sun Aug 20, 2017 at 09:49:28 AM EST
    absolutely can look back to who we were when we were 40 years younger and see how much we didn't know then.

    I will say this, though: don't those with life and wisdom under their belts have a responsibility to figure out how to channel the optimism and enthusiasm and drive of this younger generation into ways to get them where they want to go - without killing it or turning them cynical and dismissive and condescending?

    There are ways to teach someone the ways of the world, but there are also ways to learn how to get around the roadblocks of the status quo.


    ... which young supporters of Bernie Sanders brought to the political arena. My biggest concern was always how they would handle the inevitable disappointment that most always accompanies defeat, once the Sanders campaign came up short at the end.

    My experience here in Hawaii, California and Nevada (the states where I've been active) was that for the most part, about 90% of Sanders supporters actually handled it very well, and a little over half of them continued to stay active in the Democratic Party beyond the primaries and convention. And that's been good for the party, because new blood is always invigorating.

    But there is always that loud little handful of caustic and unrepentant bitter-enders, who take such matters way too personally. And to be honest, we had a few of those in the 2008 Clinton campaign, the self-styled PUMAs who carried Hillary's banner long after the rest of us had put it down and committed ourselves to support the Democratic ticket led by Barack Obama.

    Speaking for myself only as both a political activist and a historian, I find that it really serves no useful purpose to re-litigate events of the past to the point of alternative endings, because you run considerable risk of becoming self-captivated by your own warped revisionist narrative. (Not unlike a certain former poster here at TL, who displayed a rather remarkable penchant for actively re-writing history on the fly to his own liking, and would quite often hoist himself on his own petard as a result.)

    Much as it pains "Bernie bros" like feministing to hear it, Bernie Sanders lost the race for the 2016 Democratic nomination because he simply did not gain the number of votes necessary to win it. The primaries weren't rigged, the process wasn't skewed, and there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that Sanders would've somehow performed any better than Hillary Clinton in the general election against Donald Trump.

    Hypothetical scenarios are not fact, no matter how much Bernie bros (or others) might desire otherwise. And for all their condescending online soliloquies about themselves being the only ones who are both engaged in realism and looking ahead to the future, this continued sniping at Mrs. Clinton instead suggests a very unhealthy pre-occupation on their part with a 2016 political campaign which has long since concluded.



    One question that enters my mind (5.00 / 1) (#69)
    by jondee on Sun Aug 20, 2017 at 05:29:58 PM EST
    on occasion, though it's probably a waste of energy, is which contingent is actually more bitter in reality? The bitter "Bernie Bros", or certain folks in some nearby precincts who, for the life of them, can't seem to let go of very bitterly denouncing the bitterness of the Bernie Bros (why can't they just get over it?).

    After a while it all feels like the People's Front of Judea and the Judean People's Front in The Life of Brian sniping back and forth at each other. Wankers.


    Personally, I'd prefer to not pay them ... (5.00 / 1) (#73)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sun Aug 20, 2017 at 07:04:23 PM EST
    ... any further mind. I've got far better things to do for the Democratic Party with my time. These self-absorbed play-actors at socio-political activism seek only to indulge their quadrennial quest for the latest starry-eyed Messiah who'll first appropriately blame all the usual suspects for complex and often intractable problems, and who'll then promise everyone deceptively simple solutions to those very same problems.

    Otherwise, these poseurs bring little or nothing of substance to the public discussion, save for their own egos and personal grudges. If you seek change, then you must become an active vessel for the change that you seek. True activism requires dedication and commitment, persistence and perseverance. It means putting your money where your mouth is.

    And it certainly involves far more than merely agreeing to show up for the occasional political rally that's been organized, staffed and provisioned by somebody else, and then reconvening afterward with friends at a local coffee bar to critique the performance over a double espresso Frappuccino. Going to Soldier Field to cheer on the Bears doesn't make you a football player.

    Dogs bark and the caravan passes.


    Looking back (4.50 / 2) (#53)
    by Lora on Sun Aug 20, 2017 at 11:03:47 AM EST
    Remember what we thought of the "Establishment"?

    Were we really that wrong?

    I don't think so.

    Now, we ARE the Establishment.  We need to take a hard look at ourselves and not be too quick to categorically dismiss (marginalize, laugh indulgently at, condescend to, conveniently ignore, scold, label) strong criticism from the left, be they young or old.


    Nope (5.00 / 2) (#54)
    by Yman on Sun Aug 20, 2017 at 11:28:19 AM EST
    "Criticism" isn't the problem.  Take the referenced blog article as an example.  When the "critics" are millenials who have no sense of context or history other than what they read on a blog ... when they falsely smear actual Democrats who have been in the fight for decades before they were born ... when they condescendingly pretend to label those of us who actually lived through and participated in the battles they've discovered in the past couple of years ... when they smear(and continue to smear)  actual Democrats because they didn't get the candidate they wanted ...

    ... they deserve every bit of criticism they get.


    What is false? (none / 0) (#62)
    by Lora on Sun Aug 20, 2017 at 02:16:57 PM EST
    when they falsely smear actual Democrats who have been in the fight for decades before they were born ...

    In the referenced article alone ... (none / 0) (#78)
    by Yman on Sun Aug 20, 2017 at 07:37:42 PM EST
    1.  To erase the existence of these vast and prominent swaths of people, especially after their turnout at Charlottesville, and their continuous activism in the aftermath -- in favour of Kamala Harris's "K-Hive" or "YAS QUEEN" Hillary Clinton (two politicians that have literally made careers out of the mass incarceration of people of color) is abhorrent.

    2.   It lives in a fantasy where asking for universal health care and free education is as bad as  asking for the genocide of entire ethnic groups; where it is only milquetoast centrist politicians like Chelsea Clinton and Kamala Harris that can deliver us from evil; where the only morally righteous position is so firmly lodged in the center you may as well not be taking a position at all.

    3.  ... the popularization of the idea that leftists and progressives can be as toxic as Nazis came mostly from liberal and centrist commentators

    4.  We have lost countless people of color, activists, and white allies this year to not roll our sleeves up and shed the cowardice of the center for the courage of taking a stand.

    5.  Let Charlottesville and Heather Heyer be a wake-up call to stop kidding yourself, to ditch the false allies of the white suburbs, J.K. Rowling, big businesses and clueless and immoral politicians, and join hands with your local grassroots leftist movement who speak truth to power.

    6.  And notably, those marching in Charlottesville were the very "Bernie Bros" whose tactics white liberals and centrist Democrats have smeared since the 2016 campaign.

    7.  White liberals and centrists however, are eager to erase young POC and dismiss substantive leftist critique so that they can shield themselves from their complicity in the problem. It is profoundly absurd to call this group "Bernie Bros" -- a term that has now come to mean anyone who doesn't support the Wall Street funded, prosecutor- and mass-incarceration-loving Democrat center, and it is incredibly misogynistic to the swaths of leftist women and leftist women of color.

    Good lord. (5.00 / 2) (#79)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Aug 20, 2017 at 07:52:28 PM EST
    I did not read the article but what a screed. Honestly they sound like they'd be more at home at a Trump rally than mainstream politics.

    They also sound like Republicans in the sense that people who are losing talk like that. They know they are losing or have lost whatever they might have had and know it. Just today on Facebook massive amounts of Republicans are blaming Democrats for the confederate statues but then are turning around and defending them staying.


    Thank you. Let's look. (5.00 / 1) (#84)
    by Lora on Sun Aug 20, 2017 at 10:29:47 PM EST
    1. I presume you are referring to refs to Harris and Clinton making careers out of mass incarceration of people of color as "false?"

    Somewhat true and somewhat false: Implies that they deliberately wanted to mass-incarcerate people of color, but follow the links and you will find they pursued policies that caused more people to be locked up; and we know that people of color are disproportionately locked up.

    1. Neither true nor false.  Pure opinion.

    2. Could be true: Supporting paragraph from same article, complete with links (in the actual article):

    Consider the New York Times Op-Ed published earlier this week, which opens with the words "I see both the social justice warrior alt-left and the white supremacist alt-right as two sides of the same coin." Or consider veteran and ex-diplomat Robert Caruso blaming Heyer's murder on the leftists "yammering about Goldman Sachs." Or an editor at the Daily Kos blaming the alt-left for the rise of violence under Trump. Or CAP editor and prominent Hillary supporter Neera Tanden tweeting -- bizarrely -- about the "alt-left who want to join the fascists," a demographic that simply doesn't exist. Or political commentator Mieke Eoyang chiding the so-called Bernie Bros for remaining inactive in the face of the racist violence of Charlottesville. Or prominent liberal Twitter accounts drawing direct comparisons between the mobs at Charlottesville and Bernie Sanders supporters.  Aside from Putin and white `hillbillies`, it seems that the center's favorite scapegoat in response to the white supremacy of Charlottesville is the myth of the so called "alt-left."

    1. True: Hillary wouldn't have lost if we hadn't lost "countless people of color, activists, and white allies this year..." Rest is pure opinion, neither true nor false.

    2. Neither true or false; pure opinion. Although I deduct points for the "truth to power" cliche.  It is so overused.

    3. Somewhat true: They did march.  I expect they weren't the only ones.

    4. I don't know if true or false. I was a Bernie supporter but never considered myself a "Bernie Bro," yet there didn't seem to be any other category out there.  The description of what "Bernie Bros" has come to mean appears accurate to me.  Whether or not "white liberals and centrists...are eager to erase young POC and dismiss substantive leftist critique so that they can shield themselves from their complicity" is true or not, I don't know.  I, for one, have witnessed the dismissal of substantive leftist critique, so that part I would say is often true.

    Yes, the whole tone of the article is exaggerated and inflammatory.  But to simply discount it and label it false is both inaccurate and tends to support its hypothesis.

    also Lora (5.00 / 1) (#87)
    by linea on Sun Aug 20, 2017 at 11:53:36 PM EST
    Neither true nor false.  Pure opinion.

    i know it was a lot of work putting that excellent analysis together. thank you.


    To label it false (5.00 / 2) (#97)
    by Yman on Mon Aug 21, 2017 at 09:16:22 AM EST
    ... is entirely accurate.  Much like a Trump speech, it's full of exaggeration, hyperbole and strawmen:

    1.  ..

    .Kamala Harris's "K-Hive" or "YAS QUEEN" Hillary Clinton (two politicians that have literally made careers out of the mass incarceration of people of color) is abhorrent

    Laughably false.

    2.  It lives in a fantasy where asking for universal health care and free education is as bad as  asking for the genocide of entire ethnic groups;

    Ridiculous strawman.  Who the he// is making that ridiculous claim?  We won't even touch the fact that the author can't even tell the difference between Hillary and Chelsea Clinton.  Someone should let this millennial know only one is a politician and she named the wrong one.

    3. ... the popularization of the idea that leftists and progressives can be as toxic as Nazis came mostly from liberal and centrist commentators ...

    Another laughable strawman.  What "popularization"?  


    Let Charlottesville and Heather Heyer be a wake-up call to stop kidding yourself, to ditch the false allies of the white suburbs, J.K. Rowling, big businesses and clueless and immoral politicians, and join hands with your local grassroots leftist movement who speak truth to power.

    Who the he// does she think she is to call those of us who have been in the fight for decades "false allies", simply because we're white or live in the suburbs.  

    F her and her hubris.

    5.  And notably, those marching in Charlottesville were the very "Bernie Bros" whose tactics white liberals and centrist Democrats have smeared since the 2016 campaign.

    You "expect" there were others?  Heh.  That's as laughable as her claim that those matching were "Bernie Bros".  Her evidence?  ONE person supported Sanders (which does not make them a Bernie Bros.).  Far more Democrats supported Clinton, but she tries to claim that the ones marching were Sanders supporters.  Of course some were, just as many were Clinton supporters.  Claiming the marchers were "Bernie Bros" without the obvious acknowledgement that many were Clinton supporters is a false claim.

    6.  White liberals and centrists however, are eager to erase young POC and dismiss substantive leftist critique so that they can shield themselves from their complicity in the problem.

    Silly opinions are one thing.  Don't pretend to put words in my mouth.  Of you do and those words are inaccurate, she should expect to get called or on it.  Her words are a lie.

    It is profoundly absurd to call this group "Bernie Bros" -- a term that has now come to mean anyone who doesn't support the Wall Street funded, prosecutor- and mass-incarceration-loving Democrat center, and it is incredibly misogynistic to the swaths of leftist women and leftist women of color.

    Where?  Where does "Bernie Bros." mean that?  Who is using the term like that?  Name them and provide cites.  It's yet another, ridiculous strawman argument.  

    I couldn't care less whether the author is a woman or a person of color.  She doesn't speak for those groups, both of which overwhelmingly supported the candidate she mocks over her candidate.  


    Harris (5.00 / 1) (#120)
    by Lora on Mon Aug 21, 2017 at 06:03:54 PM EST
    1. Not "laughably false."

    Kamala Harris:

    for example:

    It should matter to us that Harris, the ardent criminal justice reformer, not only did little to enact this reform during her years as a prosecutor but backed harsh, punitive policies that undermined her own progressive rhetoric on the issue. It should matter that she at times did so needlessly, taking a harsher stance than her right-wing opponents. It should matter that she repeatedly attempted to keep an innocent man locked up in prison and attempted to defend a falsified confession.

    Also from your source article: (5.00 / 1) (#125)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Aug 21, 2017 at 07:20:15 PM EST
    "To that end, Harris supported reforming California's three-strikes law, refrained from seeking life sentences for criminals who committed nonviolent "third strikes," and in 2004 instituted the Back on Track program, which put first-time offenders between ages eighteen and twenty-four into eighteen-month-long city college apprentice programs, which contributed to the city's recidivism rates dropping from 54 percent to 10 percent in six years. She would later order parole officers not to enforce residency restrictions against sex offenders.

    "Over her time as DA and, later, as California attorney general, she took a number of progressive stances. She opposed the anti-gay Proposition 8, helped defend Obamacare in court, supported an undocumented immigrant's bid for a law license, sponsored legislation that increased transparency around websites' data collection, opposed California's despicable 'shoot the gays' ballot initiative, and filed a brief in the Supreme Court encouraging it to allow public universities to consider race in admissions. Under her direction, the state's justice department adopted body cameras, California police were made to undergo implicit racial bias training, and her office received an award for accelerating the testing of rape kits.

    "Harris also had a respectable record of standing up to corporate malfeasance. She filed a friend-of-the-court brief signed by thirty-one other state attorneys general in 2011 in a Supreme Court case looking to end the practice of drug companies paying competitors to keep generic versions of their drugs off the market. In 2012, she set up a privacy enforcement protection unit in the attorney general's office, which at one point fined a company for surreptitiously installing spyware on its customers' computers.

    "In 2011, she brought the largest fraud settlement in decades against a company that had spent fifteen years overcharging the state's insurance program for the poor and disabled. She reached a $6.5 million settlement with two former Countrywide executives over predatory lending and called for a Homeowners' Bill of Rights, which led foreclosures to plummet in the state and Daily Kos to declare her 'a bankster's worst nightmare.'

    "Harris also has a strong history of going after polluters. As district attorney, she created San Francisco's first Environmental Justice Unit and went after cases involving illegal dumping and air pollution. As attorney general, she went after companies including BP, Chevron, Comcast, Cosco Busan, ExxonMobil, and South California Gas Company, with Cosco Busan agreeing to the largest settlement of its kind for its 2007 spill in the San Francisco Bay.

    "With Trump in office, Harris has become even more outspoken. She's come out in support of single-payer health care and free college tuition for families earning less than $140,000 a year. She's a frequent critic of Trump's policies. In her short time in the Senate, she's put forward bills to end the pay gap for black women and clarify the rights of people detained at US ports of entry, and cosponsored bills to raise the federal minimum wage, close tax loopholes for Big Oil, ban agricultural use of dangerous pesticides, and stop new oil and gas leases as well as the renewal of old ones in the Arctic Ocean."

    Cherry-picking the not-so-flattering stuff about Sen. Harris from an otherwise even-handed article is misleading, at best. Again, Lora, perfect is the enemy of the good, and none of us are perfect. But by continuing to seek perfection where none is ever going to exist, the quadrennial Messiah seekers on the left are becoming a major part of the problem that currently afflicts our country, particularly in the face of a unified right that falls behind their candidates, regardless of doubts.



    Not the purpose of the post (none / 0) (#132)
    by Lora on Mon Aug 21, 2017 at 10:25:43 PM EST
    Yes, the article was about the two faces of Kamala Harris, and presented, fairly it appeared, both the "good" and the "bad."

    My quote was in reply to Yman part 1.  Although I would certainly not characterize Harris and Clinton as extremely and harshly as the Feministing article does, I was looking to see if there was "truth" amid the rhetoric.  I had asked Yman what was false, and he kindly replied.  I am investigating his claims.

    I understand there is being practical vs. being idealistic.  I have advocated for caution and circumspection for Democrats but I am beginning to think that it hasn't gotten them anywhere and I am tending toward a farther left approach. I don't think I can get behind unity above all, at least not this early in the political cycle.  Time to seriously hash out ideas and not stifle creative thought, especially from those who have been marginalized and have been left out of the political dialogue.


    This tidbit of info (none / 0) (#122)
    by Chuck0 on Mon Aug 21, 2017 at 06:16:28 PM EST
    is why I don't like to support former prosecutors for higher office. Even if they are Democrats. Good examples was Martha Coakley in Mass. She was a horrible candidate (she lost to Scott Brown) and IMHO a terrible person by her record as a prosecutor. She went after false preschool sex abuse cases and prosecuted Louise Woodward. She should NEVER had been nominated for Ted Kennedy's Senate set.

    I totally agree (5.00 / 1) (#133)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Aug 22, 2017 at 01:06:19 AM EST
    the prosecution of Louise Woodward was awful and she never should have been made attorney general or nominated for the Senate.

    I also generally don't support prosecutors for political office -- and especially for judgeships. I have made a few exceptions over the years for those I personally know and believe to be fair.

    I can't remember what Kamala Harris did, and it was before this election, but she took a very unfavorable position on something that ticked me off and I haven't been a fan since. Maybe I wrote about it or saved it.


    Laughably false (none / 0) (#124)
    by Yman on Mon Aug 21, 2017 at 07:14:18 PM EST
    Kamala Harris's "K-Hive" or "YAS QUEEN" Hillary Clinton (two politicians that have literally made careers out of the mass incarceration of people of color) is abhorrent.

    Of course, seeing as how the millenial author can't even tell the difference between Hillary and Chelsea, she's probably used to conflating people.  Might even be unintentional.


    Still not. (5.00 / 1) (#165)
    by Lora on Wed Aug 23, 2017 at 10:45:55 PM EST
    I was getting to Hillary.

    Don't get me wrong; I voted for her.  But that doesn't stop me from recognizing her flaws.

    Clinton has been hammered by Black Lives Matter protesters and African American writers over her advocacy for the 1994 crime bill, which is widely considered to have exacerbated mass incarceration by creating harsh sentences. In pushing the legislation, she invoked the racially-charged myth of "superpredators," or the idea that young black people needed to be locked up because they were irrevocably violent and immoral.

    OK, so she said it was a mistake.  Well, she voted for the Iraq war, too, and said THAT was a mistake.  That was a big one.

    She is politically expedient.


    Still (5.00 / 1) (#167)
    by Yman on Thu Aug 24, 2017 at 11:15:09 AM EST
    You were "getting to" Hillary ... and that's the best you could do after 2 days???  An accusation from BLM and an article from another Berner that didn't even support the author's claim?


    Furthermore, some states adopted TIS laws before the 1994 Crime Bill, said Bernadette Rabuy, a senior policy analyst at the Prison Policy Initiative, a nonpartisan research group that supports reducing the prison population.[23]

    "It's a stretch to say the 1994 bill was a primary cause [of mass incarceration]," stated Rabuy; instead, the bill "was probably most harmful for its rhetoric [...] and the cultural impact. After the 1994 bill, being tough on crime was a truly bipartisan effort."[23]

    So if the 1994 crime bill did not cause mass incarceration, the question becomes: What did
    influence the increase in prison populations?


    In recent months, both Bill and Hillary Clinton have faced criticism from Black Lives Matter activists over the 1994 Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act, with many claiming that the bill ushered in an era of mass incarceration of African American men.[1][2]

    While the bill did contain several "tough-on-crime" measures--such as expanding mandatory minimum sentences and establishing a federal "three-strikes" law--the rise in federal and state prison populations--both in total and for African American males--was already underway more than 20 years before President Clinton signed the bill


    The Clintons Aren't to Blame for Mass Incarceration
    The 1994 crime bill was wrongheaded and draconian. But it didn't cause the explosion in the prison population.

    Of course, in 1994 crime was the most important issue to 37 percent of all Americans and the 1994 crime bill was supported by the CBC and a majority of Americans (including POC), a fact either unknown or ignored by the millennial author.  She also failed to mention the work Clinton did as a Senator advocating for All of which is irrelevant, since Clinton's speech in support of the bill doesn't even support the author's claim:

    "...(two politicians that have literally made careers out of the mass incarceration of people of color)."

    Unless, of course, the author wants to claim that her career was. "literally made" by this speech ... which would also be laughable.  I wonder if Ms. Sri even knows about the work Clinton did as a Senator to reduce disparate sentencing for POC and fight criminal sentencing for nonviolent crimes, both of which greatly affect POC.

    Don't get me wrong; I voted for her.  But that doesn't stop me from recognizing her flaws.

    It also doesn't stop BBs from imagining flaws.  But congrats on voting for sanity over insanity.

    She is politically expedient.

    Wow.  You mean just like every other person/politician on the face of the earth?  Heh.  You mean like Bernie?
     I wonder if Ms. Sri is even aware of the fact that - between the two of them - Bernie is the only one that voted for the 1994 crime bill.  Do you suppose he "literally made a career" out of incarcerating POC, too?



    Yeah, heh heh yourself (none / 0) (#168)
    by Lora on Fri Aug 25, 2017 at 05:34:41 PM EST
    emphasis added.

    ... and that's the best you could do after 2 days???

    Guess what, I have a life.  Full of time-sucking responsibilities.

    "It's a stretch to say the 1994 bill was a primary cause [of mass incarceration]," stated Rabuy;

    Guess what.  That's not what was said.


    make (a problem, bad situation, or negative feeling) worse.
    "the exorbitant cost of land in urban areas only exacerbated the problem"

    Source: somewhere on first page of google search for the word.

    "The Clintons aren't to blame for mass incarceration."

    Again, not what was said.

    The Atlantic: (Respectable enough for ya?)

    Yes, the crime bill did some good: It put more cops on the street and increased penalties for sex crimes. But it also helped spawn the very "era of mass incarceration" that Hillary now denounces. It's not just that the bill allocated almost $10 billion in federal-prison construction money. It only allocated it to states that adopted "truth-in-sentencing" laws that dramatically increased the amount of time criminals served.

    And, same article... direct support for the premise that Hillary made her career on it:

    Should progressives wish, in retrospect, that Bill and Hillary Clinton had never supported the mass-incarceration policies that candidate Hillary is now denouncing? Sure. But to stay honest, they should also admit that without those policies, Hillary probably wouldn't be a presidential candidate today at all.

    Some are more expedient than others.  Bernie didn't vote for the Iraq War.

    I wonder if Ms. Sri is even aware of the fact that - between the two of them - Bernie is the only one that voted for the 1994 crime bill.

    Hello??? Mr. Non-Millenial??? Hillary was First Lady at the time of the crime bill, so she couldn't vote for it.  And there was only one other Democratic Senator who didn't vote for it.

    Bernie was a congressman at the time, Independent. But for the record, 188 House Democrats voted for the bill.

    Sorry, no imagined flaw here. It was real. And no congratulations needed.  I am not for insanity.


    Still (none / 0) (#171)
    by Yman on Sat Aug 26, 2017 at 09:16:19 PM EST
    ... and that's the best you could do after 2 days???
    Guess what, I have a life.  Full of time-sucking responsibilities

    Guess what.  So does everyone else.  Didn't stop you from addressing only ONE of the two people being smeared by the clueless millennial author.

    "It's a stretch to say the 1994 bill was a primary cause [of mass incarceration]," stated Rabuy;
    Guess what.  That's not what was said.

    make (a problem, bad situation, or negative feeling) worse.
    "the exorbitant cost of land in urban areas only exacerbated the problem

    Guess what.  THAT'S not "what was said".  The claim you were defending was that HC (and Kamala Harris) "literally made careers" out of mass incarceration of POC.  Which is, STILL, laughably false.  But your opinion piece from the Atlantic was also funny.  

    Some are more expedient than others.  Bernie didn't vote for the Iraq War

    Really???  Who knew???  You mean it wasn't political expediency that prompted the Senator from the most liberal state in the country to vote against the AUMF, but that's why the Senator from NY (a state that was actually attacked) voted for the AUMF?  Please provide a cite.  Something other than an opinion piece for a change.  Otherwise, you make it to easy for people to point to Bernie's votes against gun control and to protect gun manufactures.  Guess you're right.  Some ARE "more expedient than others".


    Hello??? Mr. Non-Millenial??? Hillary was First Lady at the time of the crime bill, so she couldn't vote for it.  And there was only one other Democratic Senator who didn't vote for it.

    Bernie was a congressman at the time, Independent. But for the record, 188 House Democrats voted for the bill

    "Hello?".  Uhmmmm, yeah.  No kidding.  I already knew all of that.  None of which changes the fact that Sanders actually voted for the bill that you and Ms. Sri are attacking her for.  She gave a speech.  Sanders actually made it a law.  Does that mean he "literally made a career out of the mass incarceration of POC" too?  



    Specious and ridiculous (none / 0) (#172)
    by Lora on Sun Aug 27, 2017 at 06:52:48 AM EST
    As anyone can see who actually reads the comments.

    i found it (none / 0) (#174)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Aug 27, 2017 at 07:00:01 AM EST
    neither.   i find speaking for myself works best.

    Yeah, go with the old (none / 0) (#175)
    by Yman on Sun Aug 27, 2017 at 07:03:01 AM EST
    ... "as anyone can see".  From trying (and failing) to defend 6-7 of Sri's ridiculous smears to falling back to just one, then failing at that.

    Can't blame you.


    reply (none / 0) (#176)
    by Lora on Sun Aug 27, 2017 at 10:14:57 PM EST
    How much or when or what I choose to respond to is irrelevant to the discussion.

    You have a strained definition of falsehood.

    Bernie did not make the crime bill into law any more than Bernie supporters marched in Charlottesville.  Of course they both did.  Of course they were not the only ones. Neither your statement nor Sri's is "false."  Obviously.

    You were countering the claim that
    Clinton made her career out of mass incarceration, yet your source did not address that claim. It stated the Clinton crime bill and the "Clintons" (which by the way implies that your source thinks Hillary was influential in getting the crime bill passed) were not to "blame" for the "explosion" of mass incarceration. Nothing to do with whether Hillary is where she is today because of it.


    You have a strained definition ... (5.00 / 1) (#178)
    by Yman on Sun Aug 27, 2017 at 10:27:52 PM EST
    ... of opinion as well as reality.  HC didn't "literally make a career" out of the mass incarceration of POC.  She gave one speech in favor of a bill that Bernie Sanders actually voted for.  Ms. Sri is a clueless millenial and a Bitter Berner with silly opinions based on false claims, who suffers under serious delusions - including being unable to tell the difference between Hillary and Chelsea.  Which is, of course, why you backed off defense of her other ridiculous claims and chose one you thought you could win.

    You'll need to try harder.


    Surely you realize (none / 0) (#181)
    by Lora on Wed Aug 30, 2017 at 10:36:26 PM EST
    that the reference to Chelsea Clinton was a typo.  I have no problem with accusing the author of sloppy proofreading, but it would be silly to accuse her of not knowing the difference between the two.

    So you say (none / 0) (#177)
    by Lora on Sun Aug 27, 2017 at 10:21:05 PM EST
    Doesn't make it so.

    Yep (4.00 / 1) (#179)
    by Yman on Sun Aug 27, 2017 at 10:29:25 PM EST
    Just like your laughable claims about HC.

    Keep stewing Bitter Berner.  Maybe you'll win something eventually.

    Probably not.


    Well you are entertaining (none / 0) (#180)
    by Lora on Wed Aug 30, 2017 at 10:33:45 PM EST
    in your various misconceptions and name-calling.

    After further reading about Hillary's career, I have absorbed the following generally accepted information:

    The 1994 crime bill (which exacerbatedmass incarceration), promoted by Hillary as well as Bill, was a feather in Bill Clinton's cap at the time.  It gave him a significant boost toward re-election in 1996. Hillary's status as First Lady gave her a significant boost in the 2000 Senate race against Rudy Giuliani. Her successful Senate career surely helped her become Secretary of State and candidate for president.

    So... As I said in a previous post, the claim that Hillary built her career on mass incarceration of people of color is an exaggeration.  However, the crime bill, which increased those numbers considerably, did indirectly help propel Hillary to an extremely successful post First-Lady career.

    Probably more accurate to say Hillary's post-First Lady career received a significant boost from the passage of the 1994 crime bill, which she heartily and effectively promoted, and which had the effect of increasing mass incarceration of people of color.


    That's the nice thing about ... (none / 0) (#182)
    by Yman on Thu Aug 31, 2017 at 02:07:08 PM EST
    ... "rephrasing" someone's laughable claim you're defending.  When you change it completely, it's a whole, different argument.

    Using your logic, I guess Bernie's career received a "significant boost" when he voted for the 1994 crime bill, asking with the majority of the CBC.  Probably when he voted to protect gun manufacturers, too.

    So "politically expedient".



    silly rabbit (none / 0) (#183)
    by Lora on Thu Aug 31, 2017 at 09:37:51 PM EST
    Your quote and words:

    The claim you were defending was that HC (and Kamala Harris) "literally made careers" out of mass incarceration of POC.

    My words, i.e. paraphrase emphasis added.

    the claim that Hillary built her career on mass incarceration of people

    Yup, that's a fine paraphrase. The word "literally" really doesn't affect the meaning. It really has no meaning at all in this context except for some sort of weird emphasis.

    And Bernie was neither a president seeking re-election nor a First Lady with aspirations to a political career.  Those are two completely different situations from Bernie, who was one of a couple hundred members of Congress who voted for the bill.  Maybe it helped him, too, I don't know. I'm not going to spend a whole lot of time trying to find out.

    I never said Bernie was not politically expedient.  I just don't think he can hold a candle to Hillary in that regard. First, he defended his vote in favor of protecting gun manufacturers, then finally claimed to change his mind somewhat, but didn't really distance himself from his previous stance at all.  Not so very expedient.

    If you think I am mounting an actual "defense" of any of the points you mentioned, you are misreading what I write.

    Anyway, that's all the time I have for now.  If we are still above the fold next time an opportunity presents itself, I'll move on to #2.

    See you later, Alligator.


    whoops (none / 0) (#184)
    by Lora on Thu Aug 31, 2017 at 09:39:08 PM EST
    I was gonna emphasize built her career

    Tricks are for kids (none / 0) (#185)
    by Yman on Fri Sep 01, 2017 at 08:11:39 AM EST
    Actually, your words in which you entirely rephrased the original, laughable claim were right above:

    So... As I said in a previous post, the claim that Hillary built her career on mass incarceration of people of color is an exaggeration.  However, the crime bill, which increased those numbers considerably, did indirectly help propel Hillary to an extremely successful post First-Lady career.

    Probably more accurate to say Hillary's post-First Lady career received a significant boost from the passage of the 1994 crime bill, which she heartily and effectively promoted, and which had the effect of increasing mass incarceration of people of color.

      Night and day from Ms. Sri's original claim you were defending, where she claimed Hillary "literally made a career out of the mass incarceration of POC."  But you already knew that ...

    The hypocritical, double standard with Bernie is not surprising ... SOP for Berners.


    Not for rabbits (none / 0) (#186)
    by Lora on Sun Sep 03, 2017 at 10:55:19 PM EST
    I refer you to my previous post:

    If you think I am mounting an actual "defense" of any of the points you mentioned, you are misreading what I write.


    Probably more accurate to say Hillary's post-First Lady career received a significant boost from the passage of the 1994 crime bill, which she heartily and effectively promoted, and which had the effect of increasing mass incarceration of people of color.

    I have never denied that Sri exaggerated.  I will also give you that Sri's wording seemed to  imply (but only implied) that Hillary deliberately promoted mass incarceration of POC in order to build her career, and I believe that particular implication is false. I don't believe that either Hillary or Bill or many of the House or Senate members who voted for it did so deliberately to incarcerate large numbers of POC.

    What is true, however, is that Hillary enthusiastically promoted a crime bill that had draconian provisions within it which led to increased incarceration of POC.  Furthermore, the passage of that bill increased her husband's chances of re-election, which increased her shot at building a political career for herself. I would not be surprised if she was looking ahead to a political career and figured it might boost her chances.  Maybe she was, maybe she wasn't. But I would not be at all surprised if she was.

    This is not a "defense", nor did I rephrase Sri's words. Sri said it like she said it, not like I said it.  I think my version is more accurate, and it is mine, not hers.  I'm trying to get the history straight.

    On expediency: I am not defending or criticizing political expediency.  I don't trust Hillary to be honest about what she says she believes in. She has been passionate about causes, then reversed and been convincingly passionate about the opposite cause. I think Bernie badly stumbled over the gun manufacturer protection bill, in that he clumsily figured out that what he had voted for is currently extremely unpopular among the left wing, and tried to backtrack in a lame sort of way. I was just making the observation that Hillary is much better at these reversals than he is.

    OK, on to number 2:

    It lives in a fantasy where asking for universal health care and free education is as bad as  asking for the genocide of entire ethnic groups;
     Sri is making the point that there was a lot of false comparison by the left between the alt-right and the so-called alt-left.


    It reminds me of a few decades ago when the Left accepted the Right's definition of feminism, when feminism became a dirty word.  I can't tell you how many left wing female friends would start a thought or conversation with "I'm not a feminist, but..."

    Oh no, they couldn't claim to support bona fide feminist causes.  Kiss of death. Very similar.


    Sri is using exagerration, hyperbole ... (none / 0) (#187)
    by Yman on Mon Sep 04, 2017 at 06:40:06 AM EST
    ... and outright lies to continue to attack HC because she's bitter about her candidate losing.  You defended her claims.  Can't blame you for trying to backpedal now, but your words are directly above,



    i agree (none / 0) (#86)
    by linea on Sun Aug 20, 2017 at 11:13:49 PM EST
    it's an interesting article and a unique perspective.

    Thank you. Let's look. (5.00 / 1) (#84)
    by Lora

    i was interested in the article because it calls out the specious 'alt-left - bernie bro' nexus.

    the author, Meg Sri is a woman of color and is writing an opinion piece from a very progressive political viewpoint. there are things in her article that i disagree with (the 'fetishization of non-violence' specifically) but there are other topics that i would not presume to lecture her on as they are both her perspective and her experience as a woman of color. i certainly would not condescendingly dismiss her opinions and politcal viewpoints as "the silly musings of a clueless millenial" as a few have.

    Meg is a law student in California. She's interested in law and politics, intersectional feminism, criminal justice, human rights, freedom of the press, the law and feminism, and the politics of South Asia.

    I (4.00 / 1) (#55)
    by FlJoe on Sun Aug 20, 2017 at 11:54:29 AM EST
    certainly remember the idealism and the thirst for instant instant gratification. Hopefully the idealism will always be strong, but if anything the thirst for instant gratification seems stronger than ever.

    Preaching realism is always a downer for the starry eyed, but it always remains real. Sugarcoating the political truisms will not help anyone.


    Realism.. (none / 0) (#70)
    by jondee on Sun Aug 20, 2017 at 05:37:46 PM EST
    Which realism is the question.

    The social darwinist libertarian crowd and the neocons constantly evoke "realism" too.

    They even make what appear on the surface to be strong arguments on occasion.

    Wanting Trump out of there sooner rather than later: is that an example of a starry-eyed thirst for instant gratification?


    I would (none / 0) (#71)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Aug 20, 2017 at 06:24:39 PM EST
    say the demands that Trump be gone tomorrow with no realization of the process it takes to remove him and then having a temper tantrum about him not being gone tomorrow would fall under the category of starry eyed.

    The lack of the knowledge of the process seems to create a lot of problems for the starry eyed.


    A primary rul of realpolitik is that ... (none / 0) (#75)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sun Aug 20, 2017 at 07:20:11 PM EST
    ... one should not issue demands and ultimatums when one does not yet possess the sufficient standing to do so.

    Therefore, I'd suggest that Trump's removal from office is far more realistic and achievable as a stated political goal, than it is as a stated political demand.

    A goal is something for which you're willing to work diligently to achieve, whereas a demand implies that you already possess sufficient weight and strength to impose such compliance, if need be.



    my opinion (none / 0) (#56)
    by linea on Sun Aug 20, 2017 at 11:59:36 AM EST
    supporters of senator bernie sanders policies (aka 'bitter berners' as used by a few here) are not college freshmen espousing unrealistic utopianist ideals. policies such as Medicare-for-All garners support from a majority of americans.

    Democrats Against Single Payer
    Democrats' attempts to quell their base's clamoring for a comprehensive, public health-care system isn't new. What is new is the open, public disparagement of such a goal -- not just by Democratic leaders, but by leading liberal commentators, too.

    Sorry, Republicans, but most people support single-payer health care | The Washington Post > opinions > 2017/04/17

    Apr 17, 2017 - A recent survey from the Economist/YouGov found that a majority of Americans support "expanding ... poll found that 40 percent of Trump voters support expanding Medicare to all Americans.

    Support for single-payer health insurance grows in U.S. | Pew Research Center > 2017/06/23

    Jun 23, 2017 - A majority of Americans say it is the federal government's responsibility to make sure all ... now supports a "single payer" approach to health insurance, according to a new national survey by ...

    More strawmen (5.00 / 2) (#58)
    by Yman on Sun Aug 20, 2017 at 12:47:12 PM EST
    No.  "Bitter Berners" does not refer to supporters of policies supported by Bernie Sanders (they are not "Bernie Sander's policies" - they existed long before him and are supported by many who support other candidates).  "Bitter Berners are those who continue to smear actual Democrats because they're angry their candidate lost..  "Bitter Berners" does not refer to supporters of policies supported by Bernie Sanders (they are not "Bernie Sander's policies" - they existed long before him and are supported by many who support other candidates).  "Bitter Berners are those who continue to smear actual Democrats because they're angry their candidate lost.

    But you already knew that.


    got a ref for that? (5.00 / 1) (#60)
    by Lora on Sun Aug 20, 2017 at 02:12:44 PM EST
    Or is that your own term and definition?

    Bitter Berners



    Oddly enough (5.00 / 2) (#66)
    by Yman on Sun Aug 20, 2017 at 04:03:34 PM EST
     ... it's not in Oxford or Miriam Webster, but a little common sense (and context) can help.  Someone who supports Sanders would simply be a Sanders supporter.  A "Bitter Berner" is someone who's still andry (aka "bitter").  But if you or Linea can name an example of someone using that term to refer to Sanders supporters in general, ... feel free to cite it.  I know when I've used the term, it refers to that which I've stated.

    we have different perspectives (none / 0) (#59)
    by linea on Sun Aug 20, 2017 at 01:54:02 PM EST
    i dont see this as 'bitter berners' vs. 'actual Demorats.' i see this as the progressive wing of the democratic party criticizing centrists and fighting to pull the party left.

    yes, indeed, linea (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by Lora on Sun Aug 20, 2017 at 02:14:46 PM EST
    I agree.

    Nope (5.00 / 3) (#67)
    by Yman on Sun Aug 20, 2017 at 04:08:38 PM EST
    There have been several Bitter Berner attacks on actual Democrats just in the past couple of days - and you yourself have done it numerous times by complaining about the 2016 primary - which has absolutely nothing to do with policy.

    But feek free to continue to try to lecture actual Democrats about how much more progressive you are while gushing about how "posh" Ivanka is, or how you'd much prefer to "have a glass of wine" with Ann Coulter (a rightwing crackpot) rather than Amy Schumer - an actual progressive.  Ann is so much thinner, after all ...


    Huh? (5.00 / 1) (#72)
    by Lora on Sun Aug 20, 2017 at 06:49:59 PM EST
    Who are you answering?

    Doesn't seem to be anyone here.


    I was responding (none / 0) (#74)
    by Yman on Sun Aug 20, 2017 at 07:20:01 PM EST
    ... to Linea.  Which part are you having trouble with?

    Please stop your shtick that (5.00 / 2) (#85)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Aug 20, 2017 at 10:56:50 PM EST
    The big tent and winning the Dem/Lib/Progressive vote is your goal and mission. Because you tear that tent down daily. So much so, many of us have now said, "Nope, this tent is not for you, come back one year!"

    nope (none / 0) (#100)
    by linea on Mon Aug 21, 2017 at 09:35:04 AM EST
    Please stop your shtick that (#85)
    by Militarytracy
    The big tent and winning the Dem/Lib/Progressive vote is your goal and mission. Because you tear that tent down daily. So much so, many of us have now said, "Nope, this tent is not for you, come back one year!"

    sorry. your post appears to be directed toward me but i can't make any sense of it. who is supposed to "come back one year"[sic]? Meg Sri? progressives?

    let me explain the conversation. i posted a link to a political opinion article by Meg Sri. one poster repeatedly ranted about 'real Democrats.' in response, i posted:

    we have different perspectives (#59)
    by linea
    i dont see this as 'bitter berners' vs. 'actual Demorats.' i see this as the progressive wing of the democratic party criticizing centrists and fighting to pull the party left.

    Re: progressive wing.. fighting to pull (none / 0) (#118)
    by vicndabx on Mon Aug 21, 2017 at 05:15:15 PM EST
    Isn't the Dem party already.... left?

    On some issues there's debate over approach. On that, shouldn't history be our guide?

    In other words, Dems have NEVER won on a hard left platform.


    Have Dems ever tried... (none / 0) (#142)
    by kdog on Wed Aug 23, 2017 at 07:16:50 AM EST
    to run on a hard left platform?

    I guess you could call the FDR era Dems kinda hard left, by American standards, and they won bigly. Since then, by Western democracy standards, they'd be the conservative party in most any other country.


    Yes, many times, and we've lost (5.00 / 1) (#144)
    by vicndabx on Wed Aug 23, 2017 at 07:29:31 AM EST
    How we compare to other countries is an indicator of how your fellow citizens vote/think.  Parties reflect that. Denying this reality is what causes us to continue to lose, and you to continue to see policies that move further away from where you want them to be.


    From the link highlighted in the post:

    Those voters never really looked back. The theory that they would have had the Party offered up truly economically progressive candidates has to contend with the failed candidacies of George McGovern in 1972, whom Nixon trounced with 70 percent of the white working class vote and the staunchly pro-labor and union-backed Walter Mondale, whom neoliberal archdaemon Ronald Reagan trounced with 65 percent of their vote in 1984. Since 1968, two Democratic presidential candidates have done well with the white working class: Jimmy Carter, who dramatically outperformed George McGovern in the demographic by running as a conservative Democrat against Ford in 1976, and the DLC-anointed bubba neoliberal Bill Clinton. Ross Perot's insurgent populism and his warning that NAFTA would produce a "giant sucking sound" as blue-collar jobs were lost to Mexico failed, ultimately, to prevent the man who backed and signed NAFTA from winning narrow pluralities of the white working class vote in 1992 and 1996.

    At what point does the failure of (none / 0) (#147)
    by Anne on Wed Aug 23, 2017 at 08:19:35 AM EST
    conservative policies work in favor of more progressive ones?

    I think the health system debate is an example of this, where the prospect of millions of people losing their insurance, or not being able to afford either insurance or actual care, under any of the proposed GOP plans, has people thinking and talking about how to improve the less-successful parts of the ACA and strengthen/improve the parts that are working.  This has already had people realizing that the improvements would bring us closer to a Medicare-for-All-type system - which suddenly, doesn't look as scary as the idea of having no safety net at all under the GOP.  I don't expect to get there in one fell swoop, but I think there's an opportunity to get closer.

    How long will it take to see the negative impact of Trump's rollback of regulations across a wide spectrum?  

    We're going to start seeing how the GOP's plan for tax "reform" is going to hurt more people than it will help - this will be another scoop of crap in the sh!t-cone the GOP is trying to pass off as chocolate ice cream - and I don't even want to know what the "sprinkles" will be - but the point is, Dems need to come up with a plan that contrasts with the GOP so people can decide which plan is going to improve the quality of their lives.

    At some point, we can't just be "anti"-everything; we have to be "for" something with actual form and substance.


    Part of the problem (none / 0) (#148)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Aug 23, 2017 at 09:00:42 AM EST
    is the press that never discusses policy and actual consequences to the voter. It's all fun and games to them. A presidential election is a high school popularity contest to them. Who do you want to have a beer with or who do you want to go to a barbecue with? And playing that game plays right into the hands of the GOP because nobody likes their policies and they are the masters of character assassination.

    At (none / 0) (#150)
    by FlJoe on Wed Aug 23, 2017 at 09:23:52 AM EST
    what point does the electorate regain their sanity? At what point do our institutions heal themselves? When if ever have conservatives been forced to accept the consequences for the failure of their policies?

    If history is any guide, any blowback the Repubs do get is  relatively minor and/or temporary. Conservatism cannot fail, it can only be failed.

    Mark my words, tRump will soon enough be labeled as no true conservative and his failures will be laid at the feet of liberals, and plenty of people will buy it.


    In other words (none / 0) (#151)
    by vicndabx on Wed Aug 23, 2017 at 09:49:51 AM EST
    let it get worse so people will rise up. Hmmm I wonder where I've heard that before?  "Opportunity to get closer..."  Many of us were saying this before, but alas, water under the bridge now.

    has people thinking and talking about how to improve the less-successful parts of the ACA and strengthen/improve the parts that are working.  This has already had people realizing that the improvements would bring us closer to a Medicare-for-All-type system

    We already had those same proposals before the election, remember Universal Healthcare? Wasn't good enough then.

    It's also a load of bull and tiresome to hear smart people talk about the Democrats being anti only and not for something.  Look how easy it was for me to find the democratic party platform, 2-5 seconds of internet searching.

    At a time of massive income and wealth inequality, we believe the wealthiest Americans and largest corporations must pay their fair share of taxes. Democrats will claw back tax breaks for companies that ship jobs overseas, eliminate tax breaks for big oil and gas companies, and crack down on inversions and other methods companies use to dodge their tax responsibilities. We will make sure that our tax code rewards businesses that make investments and provide good-paying jobs here in the United States, not businesses that walk out on America. We will end deferrals so that American corporations pay United States taxes immediately on foreign profits and can no longer escape paying their fair share of U.S. taxes by stashing profits abroad. We will then use the revenue raised from fixing the corporate tax code to reinvest in rebuilding America and ensuring economic growth that will lead to millions of good-paying jobs.

    We will ensure those at the top contribute to our country's future by establishing a multimillionaire surtax to ensure millionaires and billionaires pay their fair share. In addition, we will shut down the "private tax system" for those at the top, immediately close egregious loopholes like those enjoyed by hedge fund managers, restore fair taxation on multimillion dollar estates, and ensure millionaires can no longer pay a lower rate than their secretaries. At a time of near-record corporate profits, slow wage growth, and rising costs, we need to offer tax relief to middle-class families--not those at the top.

    Democrats believe that no one should be able avoid paying their fair share by hiding money abroad, and that corrupt leaders and terrorists should not be able to use the system of international finance to their advantage. We will work to crack down on tax evasion and promote transparency to fight corruption and terrorism. And we will make sure that law-abiding Americans living abroad are not unfairly penalized by finding the right solutions for them to the requirements under the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act (FATCA) and Report of Foreign Bank and Financial Accounts (FBAR).

    We will offer tax relief to hard working, middle-class families for the cost squeeze they have faced for years from rising health care, childcare, education, and other expenses. Donald Trump and the Republican Party would do the opposite and provide trillions in tax cuts for millionaires, billionaires, and corporations at the expense of working families, seniors, and the health of our economy.

    This meme that Dems have no proposals is EXACTLY the attitude the leads to the apathy that causes us to lose.

    What the heck good is a plan if you have no control to push it through?

    I'm not trying to attack you personally.  I just wish more would realize there's a war going on that will decide what type of country we are- on many different levels.  Many tried to warn natural allies, but too many of them are caught up w/idealized feel good notions to realize one MUST choose a side once and for all and stick with that side come h@ll or high-water.  The GOP has already done it. Inaction or short-sighted action has real consequences for people.


    I think you've come to a (none / 0) (#157)
    by Anne on Wed Aug 23, 2017 at 10:48:46 AM EST
    conclusion I wasn't pushing, so let me try again...

    No, I'm not saying to "let" anything get worse, since, other than all the executive orders Trump has signed, there's no actual major legislation that's been passed and signed into law; the ACA is still the law of the land, the tax code is intact, and so on.

    But what has been taking place is a lot of conversation and media coverage of what the Republican plans for both hold for the majority of the country.  At the moment, Medicaid hasn't been gutted, people still have their insurance, but they have been forced to consider what it will mean for them if the Republicans take it away.

    Ditto with tax reform: there are a lot of people out there under the impression that the GOP is going to ride to their rescue and enact meaningful reform that will lift a considerable burden off  their backs, and the conversation and analysis about to happen is going to disabuse them of that belief.

    I'm aware that the Dems DO have plans, but when's the last time you saw, heard or read substantive coverage of them that you didn't have to go looking for?  Your average person, who's watching a little national news, or watching Fox, who doesn't read newspapers, isn't getting any information that would lead them to believe the Democrats have anything to offer in the alternative.

    There's an opportunity to get the Dems' proposals out there and part of the conversation, as part of opposing the dreck on offer from the GOP.

    At the moment, the media is latched on tight to the Daily Donald, and is failing the electorate - again - by not putting focus on policy, so the all-important perception is that Dems are little more than the new party-of-no.

    As for your comments re: the ACA and the health system, what do you think the chances would be that if Dems were in control of all three branches of government, we'd be having these discussions about improving the ACA and getting closer to a universal system?  I think they would be slim, because the threat to make it all go away wouldn't be there.  

    Some of us, at the time the ACA was being crafted, said that if the plan was going to be that good, why delay implementation? Why not give people more time to see and experience the positive effects it was being advertised that it was going to have?  We all know that nothing succeeds like success, and to some of us, delaying the implementation seemed like a lost opportunity to gain some very important ground.


    I understand your point perfectly (none / 0) (#158)
    by vicndabx on Wed Aug 23, 2017 at 11:58:15 AM EST
    GOP proposal gets coverage, proposal sucks, backlash, Dem proposal or other reasonable alternative gets coverage instead.

    I think; to use your example of the recent ACA debate, that it is wishful thinking to believe alternative proposals would get coverage, let alone sufficient coverage to reach "the average person....who...isn't getting any information."  

    To illustrate my point - here's a proposal from Dems in the house, heard anything about it?  Any questions to Paul Ryan at his recent televised town hall?  No.  Here's another article discussing ideas in the Senate.  Heard anything about these?

    Again, we must get control of at least one house first to get any traction on our ideas. We cannot count on the media to do it's job.  The media understands one thing only - power.  In its DNA is a desire to bring down or expose those in power.  It's what makes them talk about the things that those in power propose, and sell any backlash to those proposals.  When you have no power, you don't really matter to them.  In lieu of that, what is required is we citizens inform our friends & family wherever possible and not buy into or perpetuate narratives that denigrate the best possible choice we have currently.  

    I disagree with your idea Dems would do nothing, and again lament the dispiriting language you continue to push about what is now the opposition party to full blown lunacy.  The fact we're even discussing potential improvements to the ACA is precisely because Dems did something the last time they held the majority.


    So, we will have to once again agree to (none / 0) (#159)
    by Anne on Wed Aug 23, 2017 at 12:27:59 PM EST

    I think you may have forgotten how terribly incremental the Dems were when they had the majority, and how, over and over again, they were the ones who did all the compromising with the GOP in the interest of "working together."  Once the GOP had extracted pretty much all they wanted from so-called Democratic legislation, they then allowed the bills to pass without any GOP votes.

    What is your reasoning behind thinking that would be any different now, had they managed a clean sweep of all three branches of government in 2016?  Do you think Republicans would have been more inclined to "work with" Dems in any way other than they always have?  You think they'd have been more inclined to give Hillary Clinton any legislative successes?  If so, I'll have a double-shot of whatever you're drinking...:-)

    The ACA was essentially a warmed-over Republican bill, crafted by industry insiders; there's no question there would be some Democrats interested in improving it, but I don't see Pelosi or Schumer allowing it to get very far.


    Terribly incremental (none / 0) (#160)
    by vicndabx on Wed Aug 23, 2017 at 12:53:37 PM EST
    Is how our politics works, that's not the fault of either party.  That is a feature not a bug of Democracy.

    I'm sure all the millions who gained healthcare are grateful for "terribly incremental." I'm sure all the families that were able to stay together because of DACA were just fine with terribly incremental. I'm sure people that were able to stay in their homes or avoid bankruptcy were OK with terribly incremental.

    I don't blame Dem leadership for incremental progress because it is nonetheless progress.

    There are too many fair weather friends who tepidly support them (and thus by their actions) discourage bold initiatives. Look what happens when they do attempt something bold, disparaged by the right and primaried by the left.

    Say what you will but these people have families just like you or I.  Not everyone has the prestige, power and income of a Harry Reid or a Nancy Pelosi to risk political death.    


    George McGovern? (none / 0) (#146)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Aug 23, 2017 at 08:12:09 AM EST
    I would think that is the most recent example.

    Take a look (none / 0) (#152)
    by MKS on Wed Aug 23, 2017 at 09:56:53 AM EST
    at 1965....domestically.  Medicare. Civil Rights.  You don't count that?

    dag nabbit!! (none / 0) (#51)
    by linea on Sun Aug 20, 2017 at 01:02:17 AM EST
    Read it (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by Lora on Sat Aug 19, 2017 at 10:13:49 AM EST
    Agree with Feministing -- Points made and taken.

    The article is pointing out yet another false equivalency aggressively promoted by the right and wimpily accepted by the left.  There is no equivalency between alt-right and alt-left.

    And the article is also correctly pointing out that leftists that stray too far from the center are demonized and marginalized by Democratic leaders.

    And...yeah, Hillary has some serious clay feet.


    Good for a morning chuckle (5.00 / 2) (#36)
    by Yman on Sat Aug 19, 2017 at 11:05:29 AM EST
    The silly musings of a clueless millenial.  Particularly funny were her claims about the fantasies of others, when her entire article is a fantasy.

    Court rejects latest request (none / 0) (#26)
    by oculus on Sat Aug 19, 2017 at 03:13:55 AM EST
    to dismiss Polanski criminal case.  [The Guardian.]

    Polanski's attorney, Braun, also asked the court to unseal the initial sentencing hrg. transcript.  Court declined. But I've read this transcript on line.

    BBC News (none / 0) (#35)
    by linea on Sat Aug 19, 2017 at 10:29:30 AM EST
    Finland killings: Knifeman 'targeted women in Turku terror attack'

    Police in Finland say a knifeman who killed two people in the south-western city of Turku on Friday appeared to choose women as targets. They are treating the attack as a terrorist incident.

    The suspect, arrested after being shot by police, is an 18-year-old Moroccan. Four other Moroccans have been held.

    The two women stabbed to death were both Finnish. Eight people were also injured, among them a Briton, a Swede and an Italian. ...

    At a later press briefing, they said the suspect had arrived in Finland in 2016 and had "been part of the asylum process".

    USS Indianapolis found (none / 0) (#40)
    by McBain on Sat Aug 19, 2017 at 05:46:40 PM EST
    According to this article
    Friday, a team of civilian researchers led by Microsoft co-founder Paul Allen discovered the cruiser's wreckage on the floor of the North Pacific Ocean, 18,000 feet below the surface. The discovery brings a measure of closure to one of most tragic maritime disasters in US naval history.

    This was the ship that delivered parts of the first atomic bomb (Little Boy) used in combat on Heroshima.  The loss of life from it's sinking was talked about in that great seen in the movie Jaws.  

    This was the ship whose sos signals (none / 0) (#41)
    by jondee on Sat Aug 19, 2017 at 06:18:17 PM EST
    were either ignored or miscommunicated for several crucial hours, while the many crewmen who survived the sinking were left in the water to fend off the swarming sharks, and the delirium and weakness brought on by shock, over-exposure, and dehydration.

    I believe the Navy, in a monumental act of ruthless ass-covering, tried to hang the entire responsibility for the disaster around the neck of the ship's captain, whose name wasn't completely cleared until years later.


    In Jaws, the Robert Shaw character (none / 0) (#42)
    by McBain on Sat Aug 19, 2017 at 06:30:47 PM EST
    made it sound like most of the crew died from shark attacks but I head it's more likely most died from exposure and dehydration.  It was a good story to explain why he doesn't wear a life jacket anymore.

    Apparently there were a lot of sharks.. (none / 0) (#43)
    by jondee on Sat Aug 19, 2017 at 06:44:09 PM EST
    but even ten swarming sharks probably seems like a terrifying onslaught when you're that vulnerable.

    That was a great touch on Peter Benchley's part to make the Indianapolis part of the Quint character's backstory; adding an Ahabian obsession aspect to the story.


    Postscript Captain Charles McVay (none / 0) (#44)
    by jondee on Sat Aug 19, 2017 at 07:06:49 PM EST
    was court martialed for not taking enough evasive action in enemy waters, even after the testimony of the Japanese submarine commander who testified that it wouldn't have made a damn bit of difference whether the ship had zig-zagged more or not.

    Captain McVay died by his own hand in 1968. Suffice it to say the Pentagon can continue to go f*ck themselves on into the future.


    ... who was a prominent local fixture in the entertainment / hospitality industry as general manager of the world-renowned Duke Kahanamokou's nightclub in Waikiki, where singer Don Ho once held court and which attracted all sorts of celebrities from around the world during the club's heyday.

    Kimo McVay worked tirelessly to vindicate his father's reputation and clear his name, and his efforts finally came to fruition in October 2000 when Congress passed a resolution absolving Capt. McVay of any blame for the USS Indianapolis's sinking.

    Sadly, Kimo passed away in June 2001, three weeks before Navy Secretary Gordon R. England ordered that a memorandum reflecting the Oct. 2000 Congressional resolution be placed in Capt. McVay's personnel file, which effectively purged that file of the Navy's earlier findings at the officer's 1946 court-martial, and thus formally concluded the matter.

    In his book Abandon Ship, author Richard F. Newcomb suggested that Capt. McVay's court-martial may well have been the result of a longstanding grudge which the U.S. Navy's Chief of Naval Operations, Adm. Ernest King, held toward the captain's father, Admiral Charles B. McVay, Jr.

    Apparently, some 30 years prior, the elder McVay had once issued a formal letter of reprimand to King for having snuck some women aboard his ship, back in the day when King served under McVay's command.

    Adm. McVay reportedly never forgave King for countermanding Adm. Nimitz's recommendation and instead ordering that Capt. Charles McVay III be subject to court-martial, and openly accused King of using the USS Indianapolis tragedy to retaliate against him personally for that letter of reprimand in his own personnel file.



    Peter G, more info on WWll statues. (none / 0) (#45)
    by fishcamp on Sat Aug 19, 2017 at 07:22:57 PM EST
    An old German charter boat captain friend stopped by today, so I asked him about the Nazi statues in Germany.  He knew all about it.  The U.S. Armed forces confiscated all they could find and took them away.  His story sounded true to me.

    Then he said years later as the Berlin Wall was coming down the Russians took all the statues in East Berlin and melted down the copper and brass to use for medals for uniforms.  There were no more Nazi statues to take, but there were WWl and others honoring famous German artists, musicians, and folklore heroes.   He said the Russians looted much of East Berlin as they departed.  Maybe Donald or one of the other history scholars knows more about this.

    My question was not really about (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by Peter G on Sat Aug 19, 2017 at 08:46:02 PM EST
    any statues the Nazis may have erected to themselves, but more about whether the Germans had found a way in later years (the '50s or '60s perhaps) to honor their war dead (as a solace to ordinary families) without glorifying the evil cause for which they had fought, however willingly or otherwise. I think the answer is basically not in the public square, so to speak, but only on former battlefields and in cemeteries. Which is just fine with me.

    as part of (none / 0) (#57)
    by linea on Sun Aug 20, 2017 at 12:26:44 PM EST
    the larger discussion on the removal of confederal monuments in the previous open thread, my opinion is:

    • remove all confederate monuments and all statues of confederate generals. cities should rename streets (etc.) when requested.
    • do not remove historical monuments to u.s. presidents who were slave holders.

    and (none / 0) (#63)
    by linea on Sun Aug 20, 2017 at 02:35:17 PM EST
    super-sized statues of columbus can go too (in my opinion). he isn't a national historic figure.

    Demonstrators rally at City Hall to bring down Christopher Columbus statue


    And Ponce de Leon... (none / 0) (#81)
    by desertswine on Sun Aug 20, 2017 at 09:12:10 PM EST
    whom I understand is residing in a retirement community in Boca Raton.

    ... are targeting the statue of President William McKinley on the grounds of McKinley High School. McKinley, of course, presided over the Spanish-American War, of which one by-product was the Aug. 1898 annexation of the Hawaiian Islands.

    Near Espanola... (none / 0) (#111)
    by desertswine on Mon Aug 21, 2017 at 11:12:25 AM EST
    there is a statue of Juan de Onate, an early conquistador and governor.  Someone hacked off his right foot in payback to an atrocity he committed against the Acoma people in 1598 and left a note saying "fair is fair."

    An estimated 800-1000 Acoma died in the siege of the pueblo, and the 500 survivors were put on trial and sentenced by Oñate. All men and women older than 12 were to be enslaved for 20 years. In addition, men older than 25 (24 individuals) had one foot amputated.

    The foot was repaired but the seam is still visible.


    wow thought they already did this (none / 0) (#80)
    by ragebot on Sun Aug 20, 2017 at 08:24:24 PM EST
    US Navy destroyer collision with merchant ship.

    USS John MCcain sustains damage to port aft quarter

    Another destroyer from the (none / 0) (#82)
    by caseyOR on Sun Aug 20, 2017 at 09:56:01 PM EST
    7th Fleet collides with a cargo ship. What is going on?

    How many coincidences? (none / 0) (#91)
    by Lora on Mon Aug 21, 2017 at 07:04:05 AM EST
    You have to wonder.

    Have to wonder about the (none / 0) (#105)
    by ragebot on Mon Aug 21, 2017 at 10:11:50 AM EST
    South China Sea.  My small (compared to Navy ships) 42 foot catamaran has an AIS system.  While some sailors claim not every ship uses AIS as required I have been impressed with it's results. A lot of folks who sail in my neck of the woods use AIS, especially if they often single hand or are short handed sailing in the Florida Straights, Windward Passage, or close by areas.

    But both of these incidents were in the South China Sea which has been in the news for a while since China has been making contested claims and building military bases.  I am still wondering if there is not more to these accidents than what we know.

    Even on my boat I keep a good watch schedule (as required by law) with minimum crew available.  On a military ship is should be trivial to have guys on radar, sonar, AIS, simple visual observation on deck, and what ever else the military has.  Not to mention the traffic intel the military should be monitoring at central or regional command.  Too many folks are/should be keeping track of what is going on for this to be just a simple mistake.  


    10 crewmebers of the USS McCain are ... (none / 0) (#90)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Aug 21, 2017 at 04:48:24 AM EST
    ... presently missing and unaccounted for in the wake of the collision.

    McCain lost steering (none / 0) (#109)
    by ragebot on Mon Aug 21, 2017 at 10:22:33 AM EST
    according to several recent reports.  This could be a simple failure to maintain issue.

    The US Navy has been claiming for a long time they don't have the funds to keep ships properly maintained.


    The U.S. Pacific Fleet HQ in Honolulu ... (none / 0) (#114)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Aug 21, 2017 at 01:56:25 PM EST
    ... just announced that per the Pentagon's orders, it has temporarily halted all operations pending a full safety review of the ships and units under its command. Seems like a wise and prudent thing to do at this point.

    NYT made (none / 0) (#92)
    by Nemi on Mon Aug 21, 2017 at 07:14:44 AM EST
    an interactive and a list of confederate monuments that have already been removed and monuments that have been proposed removed.

    One that especially caught my eye was the Stone Mountain carving in Georgia. Quite impressive, the motive and symbolism apart, and with an interesting and somewhat hilarious backstory.

    It can't be both removed and preserved and from a purely artistic viewpoint it would be kind of a shame to demolish it. Besides it is protected by law, so I guess that's one of the monuments that will "survive" the purge? Quite a dilemma for Georgians.

    If you've ever (5.00 / 2) (#94)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Aug 21, 2017 at 07:49:04 AM EST
    been to Stone Mountain it certainly does not relive the "glory days". There is a laser show on the mountain every night that tells of the utter defeat of the confederacy and the reason they were fighting for. You would never even know who the carvings were of. It has a few soldiers on horseback and I don't think it even names who they are.

    I've never seen it, so have no frame of (5.00 / 1) (#95)
    by Anne on Mon Aug 21, 2017 at 08:17:19 AM EST
    reference - thanks for that perspective.

    The three soldiers on horseback are Lee, Davis and Jackson.


    And Davis (none / 0) (#99)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Aug 21, 2017 at 09:34:12 AM EST
    never even fought in the civil war only the Mexican American War.

    One of the many stories (5.00 / 1) (#112)
    by Nemi on Mon Aug 21, 2017 at 11:24:06 AM EST
    about the monument features the man who carved Stone Mountain:

    ... and the mantel-crowning painting that shows him giving a Confederate general a nose job with a blowtorch. [snort]

    People around the state of Georgia -- and the country -- debate the merits of the man's work, praise or decry the idea of a colossal carving that commemorates not heritage or hate but both. They call for it to be expanded, or sandblasted away, or counterbalanced by a memorial to Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.

    The article also tells part of the backstory, but doesn't mention how the first sculptor working on the monument, Gutzon Borglum, who later created Mount Rushmore, either destroyed or took with him the sketches and models for the monument when he left after having finished only Lee's head, which was later blasted away -- fittingly one could claim -- or that he in advance was paid an ungodly sum of money which he also took with him.


    Stone Mountain is also considered to be (none / 0) (#93)
    by Anne on Mon Aug 21, 2017 at 07:45:52 AM EST
    the birthplace of the revival of the KKK, so there's that.  I can only imagine what might happen if it were dynamited into oblivion.

    Monument is larger than Mt. Rushmore, and while work on it began in 1925, it wasn't completed until 1970.

    What do you do about something so massive carved into the side of a mountain?  Put up a marker that tells people these men betrayed their country in the name of perpetuating slavery? That they were not American heroes?

    Whatever is decided, it needs to be soon.



    Perhaps someone could commission ... (none / 0) (#126)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Aug 21, 2017 at 07:38:48 PM EST
    ... the artist Christo to cover the entirety of Stone Mountain in a giant shroud.



    Covering it with one big white sheet (none / 0) (#127)
    by jondee on Mon Aug 21, 2017 at 07:46:39 PM EST
    though with eye holes, I think was already suggested decades ago.

    Not (none / 0) (#128)
    by FlJoe on Mon Aug 21, 2017 at 07:54:17 PM EST
    a white hood I hope.

    What are everyone's thoughts on (none / 0) (#96)
    by Anne on Mon Aug 21, 2017 at 09:15:58 AM EST
    Trunp's expected announcement tonight that he is authorizing more troops for Afghanistan?

    This is the strategy his generals have been calling for, and is not the one Bannon favored.  Can't say as it made any sense to me at all to put this in the hands of Erik Prince and his mercenaries.

    The White House appeared to keep a tight hold on the details of what exactly Trump will say, but he is expected to approve sending more troops to Afghanistan, deepening U.S. involvement in the region and indicating a more traditional approach to foreign policy than he promised on the campaign trail.

    The move comes after the dismissal Friday of chief strategist Steve Bannon, who voiced skepticism about an increased military footprint in the region and preferred outsourcing some of the duties to private contractors. Vice President Mike Pence and national security adviser H.R. McMaster were said to have encouraged Trump to accept his commanders' proposals to send more troops, though Pence's office said he remained neutral.

    Trump has refused to commit to a specific strategy for months, causing angst among U.S. and Afghan military commanders who wanted to boost the 8,400 American troops now in the country. The Taliban have grown in strength in Afghanistan, and Al Qaeda and the Islamic State terrorist groups have gained footholds that have caused the military concern.

    What's the over/under on how far into the speech Trump blames Obama for this horrible mess?

    "Pence's office said he remained neutral."  What happened to "standing by my president?"

    I'm not sure (none / 0) (#101)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Aug 21, 2017 at 09:36:58 AM EST
    there are any good options there. Leave and the Taliban expands. Stay and the Taliban gets smaller but never completely goes away.

    I don't know what to expect (none / 0) (#102)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Aug 21, 2017 at 09:41:02 AM EST
    Other than this will be Obama's fault. Exactly what though? We can't occupy the country. I know they fear the ISIS movement will simply become deeply entrenched in the Taliban and Pakistan will feed it.

    This is the only thing I can be grateful to that stubborn vile orange beast for, he didn't let anyone sell him crap on this in February.

    It's a legitimate concern. But we aren't going to go Russian on them and kill everything in the path like what's going down in Iraq and Syria chasing ISIS. At least that hasn't been our way forward thusfar.


    Hey, we didn't have a big sloppy leak (none / 0) (#103)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Aug 21, 2017 at 09:44:35 AM EST
    About it either.......hmmmmm? Anything leaking? I don't have access to much here.

    100% serious (none / 0) (#106)
    by Yman on Mon Aug 21, 2017 at 10:16:38 AM EST
    Just thought it was strange that you only picked out part of my comment and one of yours.  A person's comments can reveal a lot about their judgment and priorities.  Sometimes more than they might want to reveal.  But feel free to pretend the reason you'd prefer to hang out with Coulter rather than Schumer is because you don't like her comedy.  Somebody might even believe it.

    Trump has lamented (none / 0) (#113)
    by KeysDan on Mon Aug 21, 2017 at 01:49:09 PM EST
    the removal of Confederate statues in that it tears apart "our history and culture."  Eric Foner, professor of history, Columbia University, discusses "our" history and culture (NYTimes, August 21, 2017), on the basis of ideas of Americans with shared values, regardless of race, ethnicity and national origin, or on the basis of "blood and soil," as chanted by those very fine people marching as, or with, Nazis.

    Professor Foner notes that before the Civil War, citizenship was largely defined by individual states. Some recognzed blacks born within their boundaries as citizens, but many did not.  National law, as held in the infamous Dred Scott decision of 1857, written by Chief Justice Taney, was that blacks were and would always be aliens in America.

    This was the law of the land when the Civil War broke out and that is the tradition that the Confederacy embodied and sought to preserve. It is this tradition that Trump identifies with by equating the Confederacy with "our history and culture."

    Many Americans rejected this situation at the time and offered a different vision for America. Foremost among them were the abolitionists.  After the Civil War, anybody born in the US was a citizen (birthright citizenship). Not just the end of slavery, but also, the incorporating of the freed people as equal members of American society. These egalitarian views,  were, for the first time, written into laws and the Constitution.

    The idea of a multiracial democracy inspired terrorism by the KKK, antecedents of the "very fine people" who marched in Charlottesville.

    Professor Foner states that when trump identifies statues commemorating Confederate leaders as essential parts of "our" history and culture, he is honoring that dark period. And, the rash of monument erections came years after the end of the Civil War, 1910 and the 1920s--the height of black disenfranchisement, segregation, and lynchings. Statues were part of the legitimation of the racist regimen and of an exclusionary America.

    Professor Foner observes that not all Confederate generals are honored and their legacy celebrated. He cites the example of General James Longstreet, a competent Confederate general and aide to Robert E. Lee.  Longstreet is not a good symbol of white supremacy  and is not commemorated since, after the Civil War,he endorsed black male suffrage and fought against white supremacists.  

    Foner is, of course, excellent -- but (5.00 / 2) (#119)
    by Towanda on Mon Aug 21, 2017 at 05:28:29 PM EST
    he shares the tendency of some historians with a certwin anatomy to forget many of us Americans.  It is not correct that even what I consider to be the best monuments to the Civil War -- the Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth Amendments -- enacted full citizenship for all Americans.

    Not until 1920 did the majority of Americans gain the right to vote, with the Nineteenth Amendment.  And even then, many more rights were dnied for decades . . . and even now, we do not have equal rights under the Constitution.

    And not until 1924 did Native Americans gain citizenship at all, with the Snyder Act. (There had been exceptions, but only for those of the First Nations who took legal action to forsake their heritage -- or those who, after generations of intermarriage, "passed," some of my Metis ancestors among them.)


    Gen. Longstreet actually came very close ... (5.00 / 1) (#129)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Aug 21, 2017 at 08:26:55 PM EST
    KeysDan: "Professor Foner observes that not all Confederate generals are honored and their legacy celebrated. He cites the example of General James Longstreet, a competent Confederate general and aide to Robert E. Lee.  Longstreet is not a good symbol of white supremacy  and is not commemorated since, after the Civil War,he endorsed black male suffrage and fought against white supremacists."

    ... to destroying the entire Union Army of the Cumberland at the Battle of Chickamauga in Georgia (Sept. 18-20, 1863), when his corps -- recently detached from Gen. Lee's Army of Northern Virginia on a temporary basis to Gen. Bragg's Army of Tennessee -- charged right through a nearly mile wide gap in the Union center inexplicably left by Gen. William Rosecrans on the third day of battle, and thus cleaved the Union forces clear in two.

    The Army of the Cumberland was completely routed, and only a heroic stand by Gen. George Thomas' Union XIV Corps, which covered Rosecrans' flight to Chattanooga and earned Thomas the nickname "The Rock of Chickamauga," prevented a complete and utter catastrophe for the Union cause.

    As it was, Rosecrans soon allowed his army to be effectively bottled up in Chattanooga by Confederate forces, and he was so demoralized by what happened at Chickamauga that Gen. Ulysses Grant -- recently appointed by President Lincoln as overall commander in the west -- replaced replaced him with Gen. William Tecumseh Sherman, soon to become the scourge of Georgia.

    I've always argued that Chickamauga represented the last best opportunity of the South to force the Union to sue for peace, particularly in the wake of the recent and appalling bloodletting at Gettysburg only two months prior. For had Rosecrans' Army of the Cumberland been destroyed, the entire Union western front would've been totally ruptured, allowing the Confederates to reconquer Tennessee and likely compelling Grant to evacuate and withdraw from his recently hard-won prize of Vicksburg, MS.

    Chickamauga was the only major battle in the Civil War in which Confederate forces actually outnumbered their Union counterparts, thanks to Lee's reinforcement of Bragg with Longstreet's corps. And after Gettysburg, Chickamauga ranks the second bloodiest single engagement of the entire conflict, with 36,000 combined casualties, or close to one-third of the soldiers in both armies.

    As an aside, Union Gen. George Thomas, the aforementioned "Rock of Chickamauga," was a native Virginian who -- unlike Robert E. Lee -- had remained loyal to the Union, likely at the instigation of his New York-born wife Frances, whom he had met and wed while an instructor at the U.S. Military Academy at West Point. His own Virginia family never forgave him for what they saw as a betrayal.

    Initially regarded with great suspicion due to his birthplace and familial heritage, Gen. Thomas quickly earned the affection of soldiers under his command as well as his own commanders, and he earned a personal reputation during the Civil War as one of the better Union generals. When he died of a stroke in 1870 at age 53, he was buried in his adopted state of New York, and everyone in his immediate family in Virginia refused to attend his funeral.



    I wouldn't call (none / 0) (#134)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Aug 22, 2017 at 07:18:48 AM EST
    Sherman the scourge of GA so much as the entire south. Atlanta was not the only city Sherman burned in the south.

    By family tradition (none / 0) (#156)
    by MKS on Wed Aug 23, 2017 at 10:08:36 AM EST
    Sherman burnt out my ancestors, who then went to Texas.    In the 1920s, the descendants filed a lawsuit for inverse condemnation for the loss of property and countless cotton bales that were burned.

    Interesting history (none / 0) (#155)
    by MKS on Wed Aug 23, 2017 at 10:07:03 AM EST
    Longstreet's history seemingly ends at Picket's Charge and his inability to talk Lee out of it.

    But that is interesting to know two months later he was so effective.....shows the Union should have chased Lee and his Lieutenants after Gettysburg, instead of letting him slip away.


    Shelby Foote liked to say the North (none / 0) (#162)
    by jondee on Wed Aug 23, 2017 at 05:26:46 PM EST
    fought the entire war with one hand tied behind it's back, in terms of available manpower and industry.

    Once it became clear that the Union had the capability to blockade all the major Southern harbors, the hand writing was on the wall.


    The "Lost Cause" (none / 0) (#154)
    by MKS on Wed Aug 23, 2017 at 10:05:00 AM EST
    came to fruition in the 1920s, I believe. The tradition of thinking "what if" the South had done something different and won the War.

    I believe Lee and his Lieutenants   was published about then...which did much to elevate Lee and in some was deify him in the South.


    On the road again... (none / 0) (#143)
    by kdog on Wed Aug 23, 2017 at 07:22:13 AM EST
    down to ol' Virginie to get rockin' at Lockn.

    Weather lookin good, sick f*ckin' bill...life is good Party People. Time to spread and feel the love!

    Dam, dude, that's a heck of a lineup. (none / 0) (#149)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Aug 23, 2017 at 09:22:04 AM EST

    Wednesday, August 23 (none / 0) (#153)
    by linea on Wed Aug 23, 2017 at 10:02:28 AM EST
    European Day of Remembrance for Victims of Stalinism and Nazism

    Jerilyn, you did the research (none / 0) (#163)
    by ruffian on Wed Aug 23, 2017 at 06:32:25 PM EST
    For her! I love having friends like you I can rely on for good recommendations!

    Congrats on gaining a Peloton partner you already know! Should be lots of fun for you both.