home

Monday Night Open Thread

The LA Times has a roundup of legal analysis on the Sotmayor hearings (We, of course, have BTD, just scroll down through today's posts.)

Marcy Wheeler was on Shuster's MSNBC program tonight and used the word "bl*wjob". Here's the video. Please don't use the word in comments without asterisks as the censor software at law firms will block us. Howard Kurtz thinks she should have used another word. Go, Marcy!

President Obama's telemprompter crashed to floor and broke today during a speech. He finished using his notes and the remaining prompter.

I'm going to put these weighty topics aside for a while as I watch The Bachelorette go from three to two in Maui and Weeds.

Happy 7th Blogiversary to Skippy.

This is an open thread, all topics welcome.

< Judge Sotomayor's Opening Statement | Advice And Consent: Constitutional Interpretation And Judicial Activism >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    I watched the Marcy Wheeler video (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by Anne on Mon Jul 13, 2009 at 07:32:42 PM EST
    earlier tonight, and all I could think was, "who is that obnoxious blowhard, who's delivering his lame arguments with a big smile on his face?"  I mean, could the guy have sounded any more stupid?  I decided he must have thought David Shuster's first name might be "Yeahbut," because when Shuster countered all the weak arguments with, "well, that's not true, what about...?" the guy kept countering with "Yeah, but..."

    I love Marcy - give her something like the torture memos or an IG report, and she will pick at it until it all unravels - but she is so detail-oriented that she is wasted on a 4-minute segment on MSNBC where all she gets is maybe 2 minutes to address the issue.

    But, seriously, I LOVED that she mentioned the 5-year investigation of Clinton's bl*wjob as a counter to that dimwit's arguments for why it would be such a bad idea to investigate torture and illegal CIA programs...frankly, I find torture to be much less family-friendly than a one-word slang term for oral se-you-know-what.  

    Swine Flu (5.00 / 2) (#12)
    by CoralGables on Mon Jul 13, 2009 at 08:37:49 PM EST
    appears to be making an extended stay. Five deaths in Florida last week; Twelve current cases at the Air Force Academy; and closer to home ... my nephew was diagnosed with it this morning.

    Thinking of you and your family. (5.00 / 2) (#14)
    by oculus on Mon Jul 13, 2009 at 08:39:36 PM EST
    Whoa (none / 0) (#29)
    by Spamlet on Mon Jul 13, 2009 at 11:33:32 PM EST
    Here's hoping your nephew makes a quick recovery.

    Parent
    He's looking forward (none / 0) (#31)
    by CoralGables on Tue Jul 14, 2009 at 12:39:34 AM EST
    to watching tomorrow night's All Star Game so it doesn't look like a bad case yet.

    I misspoke on the Air Force Academy though. They now have 67 confirmed cases with 121 under quarantine.

    Parent

    A friend who used to work (none / 0) (#37)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Jul 14, 2009 at 06:39:25 AM EST
    for the CDC has said that it may come back stronger and more deadly this fall or winter and become a full blown pandemic. He said you should be stocking up on canned foods because you won't be able to leave your house etc.

    Parent
    Sending healing thoughts your way (none / 0) (#46)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Jul 14, 2009 at 08:19:22 AM EST
    I don't get it (5.00 / 2) (#15)
    by CMike on Mon Jul 13, 2009 at 08:54:02 PM EST
    I think the term "bl*wjob" is a euphemism.

    If I lived in Arizona (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by andgarden on Mon Jul 13, 2009 at 10:00:48 PM EST
    I would be pretty pissed at Janet Napolitano. She abandoned her state [to this http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2009/07/13/us/AP-US-Arizona-Abortion-Bill.html[.

    Well, we wouldn't want to (1.00 / 2) (#22)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jul 13, 2009 at 10:18:21 PM EST
    provide information to someone considering a medical procedure, eh??

    Do you also tell your Doctor to shut and do what you tell her to??

    Parent

    You're really on a roll tonight, eh? (none / 0) (#26)
    by shoephone on Mon Jul 13, 2009 at 10:39:28 PM EST
    Very entertaining.

    Parent
    Dark Avenger asks (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jul 14, 2009 at 08:06:11 AM EST
    How is a 24 hour delay the same as the doctor not providing all the information....

    Well, in this case the bill has a 24 hour delay and:

    One of the bill's provisions is a requirement that those who visit an abortion provider wait 24 hours before getting an abortion. The visit would have to include disclosures by doctors in person about the procedure, risks and alternatives, and the fetus' probable characteristics

    I see you read the link provided as well as you did Olbemann's incomplete quote of Alito.

    BTW - As you know DA, and in the interest of transparency for others, I have long commented that I believe in a woman's right to choose. I also think abortion, outside of protecting the mother's life, is wrong and believe we should try and make sure the woman has all the facts and all the options.

    Parent

    If you believe in a woman's right (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by Anne on Tue Jul 14, 2009 at 08:40:11 AM EST
    to choose, you don't establish laws that "make sure" the woman has all the information and is aware of all the options - if it's her choice, you leave it to her to do that on her own; that's kind of an essential element of the concept of choice.  It's her choice, her way, not her choice that you have to be comfortable with before she can proceed.

    You may not have considered that in some areas, doctors who can perform abortions may only be in a clinic once a week or even once a month; requiring that a woman wait 24 hours and further requiring her to get this information only from a doctor means that by the time some women can see the doctor for that required second visit they will have gone past the cut-off date for an early-term procedure and may not be able to have the abortion.

    This is a consequence that - trust me - is not lost on those who write this kind of legislation, and may, in fact, be the intended consequence.

    Parent

    Yes I do and (1.00 / 0) (#62)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jul 14, 2009 at 10:27:47 AM EST
    The medical profession is required to fully explain to the patient the known and possible effects of all procedures. If it is not required by law, and it should be, it is at least required by ethics.

    Do they always do it? What do you think all those papers you sign before a procedure are about?

    Basically you argue that the unavailability, and you show no proof, overcomes the commonsense fact that the patient should be fully informed and have ample time to consider something regarding their health.

    I agree that some may hope that a time to understand all the issues may lead some to not having an abortion.

    But isn't Democracy about the free flow of information and citizens acting on it?

    Parent

    I don't take issue with anyone being (5.00 / 0) (#68)
    by Anne on Tue Jul 14, 2009 at 11:04:51 AM EST
    fully informed about medical and surgical procedures; that's known as informed consent.  What I object to is characterizing yourself as pro-choice when you profess support for legislation on the basis that the woman needs to make sure she is making the right decision.  I think that's up to her to decide and know, not you or me or anyone else.

    And one hardly needs proof that this kind of requirement can affect access to abortion, assuming you are acquainted with basic math.  If you live in a rural or remote area, have to travel some distance to an abortion provider who is only available once a week or once a month, you will not be able to have an initial visit and 24 hours later have the procedure.  You may not be able to afford to make that trip twice, or stay over for a week or even three days.  You may not be able to take that much time off from work.  

    This kind of legislation is designed for one purpose only: to discourage women from exercising their right to an abortion.  

    Parent

    Being pro choice (none / 0) (#75)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jul 14, 2009 at 01:03:11 PM EST
    and reserving the right to say that the woman should be fully informed and have time to digest the information are not mutually exclusive positions. Neither forbids the other.

    Your position seems to be that you are frightened that the woman would decide to have the child. I find that strange.

    Your availability and distance arguments are unsupported and very weak.

    I agree that is the purpose of the legislation. Does the unborn child have any right?

    Parent

    What frightens me is the way in which (none / 0) (#82)
    by Anne on Tue Jul 14, 2009 at 01:44:13 PM EST
    a woman's right to privacy and her right to make her own reproductive choices are being weakened by this kind of legislation.  MY arguments on availability and distance are not unsupported - try being a woman in North or South Dakota who needs an abortion.

    I have two children, thank you, who were wanted and planned and were healthy and normal and are now normal and healthy 20-somethings.  I know what it means to be pregnant - there's a lot that goes into that - and I don't know that I could have made the choice to abort.

    But I would never presume to weigh in on what any other woman might choose for herself, and I do not understand why some people find it necessary to craft legislation and preach from atop their moral platforms about something that is so personal and so just none of their business.

    And no, the unborn "child" does not have any right, sorry; for one thing a fetus is not a child, and use of the term "child" is a typical rhetorical tactic used by those who oppose abortion to conjure up a pink-cheeked Gerber baby, instead of dealing with the reality of what a weeks-old embryo really is.

    I'm assuming that you are not female, so for whom exactly are you opposed to abortion?  Not yourself, I guess - so for whom is abortion wrong?  Other people?  And what business is it of yours what other people - women you don't know and have no connection to - decide to do when they are pregnant?  

    Or is it "the child" for whom you believe abortion is wrong?

    If you are someone who wants to give personhood to fetal cells, you are not pro-choice, because your desire to protect the embryo/fetus puts you in conflict with the rights of the woman who is pregnant and it becomes not so fine that she chooses abortion.

    You can oppose abortion - like I said, I'm not sure I could have chosen it for myself - but at least be honest enough to admit that your interests lie not with the woman but the contents of her uterus.

    The sad thing is, from reading your comments here and on other threads, it doesn't appear that intellectual honesty is something you are particularly familiar with, so I'm sure we can expect more O'Reilly-esque rhetorical tactics on this and many other subjects.

    Parent

    No leaving the reservation allowed (none / 0) (#84)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jul 14, 2009 at 05:37:52 PM EST
    The sad thing is that you, like DA, turn into a Leftie and hide behind a personal attack.

    Your comment about ND SD brings into question your elitism quotient. I bet they have TV out there. And I bet that a woman out there who needs an abortion can get one.

    My question re the rights of the unborn child was merely to note that like Obama I am unsure when conception occurs. It is probably the only thing I do agree with him on.

    So the gist of your argument is that you will brook no wandering from the straight and narrow.

    And that is no surprise.


    Parent

    heh (2.00 / 0) (#57)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jul 14, 2009 at 10:15:12 AM EST
    DA writes:

    how is a 24 hour delay of benefit to a woman who want to have an abortion?

    It gives her ample to consider an action that often causes long term serious mental problems for the woman.

    If you want to do the same for other surgery, suits me. Actually, of course, it is done at the time the surgery is scheduled. They ask all kinds of questions as to allergies, explain the recovery time, possible side effects, etc, etc.

    You then return at the appointed time and they cut away.

    And yes, catching you accepting Olbermann's faulty quotation is pleasurable to us old men.

    Parent

    How about (5.00 / 1) (#67)
    by jbindc on Tue Jul 14, 2009 at 10:59:55 AM EST
    24 hour waiting periods beofre prescribing Viagra?  That, and a consultation with the wife or girlfriend of such man getting Viagra to make sure she's okay with it as well?

    Parent
    I see no problem with that as it might (none / 0) (#74)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jul 14, 2009 at 12:56:52 PM EST
    cause problems for both parties.

    Parent
    I see that you have decided (none / 0) (#73)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jul 14, 2009 at 12:55:30 PM EST
    to go for the personal attack by claiming I am drunk because I disagree. How Leftie of you.

    I personally have known women who had problems after an abortion so don't waste bandwidth on that argument.

    You make my point re waiting periods for elective surgery. Works for me. And their are many elective procedures that do not require a general.. so??

    And while there may be no mandated waiting period, as a practical matter there is a time frame between the explanation, scheduling and the actual surgery your continued denial of this reflects poorly on your real world experience.

    Your inability to admit that you didn't vet Olbermann's incomplete and inaccurate comments by Alito was, as we all know, driven because it said what you wanted to hear and could be used to defend Sotomayor. Olberman baited the trap and I sprung it.

    But enough with you. Having better things to do I will give you last word.

    Parent

    I said I would give you the last word (none / 0) (#85)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jul 14, 2009 at 05:39:29 PM EST
    not the last 10,000 words.

    ;-)

    Parent

    DA: This comment... (none / 0) (#54)
    by sj on Tue Jul 14, 2009 at 09:52:30 AM EST
    ...isn't troll worthy.  Stopped clock and all that...

    Parent
    Is it that you believe in the right (1.00 / 0) (#63)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jul 14, 2009 at 10:30:03 AM EST
    to choose, but not in the right to be informed?

    Parent
    However, THIS comment (none / 0) (#69)
    by sj on Tue Jul 14, 2009 at 11:13:34 AM EST
    is approaching troll worthy.

    Parent
    What in the world are you popping off about? (none / 0) (#33)
    by shoephone on Tue Jul 14, 2009 at 12:53:47 AM EST
    If you were actually responding to me, your comment reeks of confusion and/or substances.

    Parent
    Obama's CIA Chief terminates program to capture (1.00 / 0) (#16)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jul 13, 2009 at 09:45:13 PM EST
    and kill al Qaeda operatives.

    The New York Times reported on Sunday that the CIA, under the direction of Cheney, developed a secret counterterrorism program and then was directed by the vice president to conceal it from Congress.

    The Wall Street Journal first reported that the program was a classified initiative to kill or capture al Qaeda operatives. Cheney has not commented on the media reports.

    Members of both the House and the Senate Intelligence committees learned about the program last week, when CIA Director Leon Panetta told them in classified hearings that he had just learned about the program and had ordered it terminated.

    Link

    There is no word as to the rumor that Panetta terminated the program with extreme prejudice.

    I look forward to the Congressional Democrats explaining on the 5 o'clock news that killing and capturing the people who attacked us on 9/11 is a bad thing.

    Should be worth 10 House seats and 3 Senate seats in 2010 all by itself.

    You are impressive (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by Steve M on Mon Jul 13, 2009 at 09:51:43 PM EST
    with your ability to evaluate the credibility of completely anonymous sources, just like that.

    Parent
    Thank you. (1.00 / 0) (#20)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jul 13, 2009 at 10:14:44 PM EST
    I had no idea that the NY Times and the WSJ were anonymous sources...

    Now, if you want to claim that you disregard all such sources I will at least get a sorely needed chuckle...

    Parent

    Wow. Better wingers please. (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by Steve M on Mon Jul 13, 2009 at 10:26:08 PM EST
    I'm pretty sure you do understand that (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by Anne on Mon Jul 13, 2009 at 10:27:45 PM EST
    a story being printed in the NYT or the WSJ is not the same as those papers being the actual sources for the stories they print.

    But, then again, maybe you don't understand that.

    Parent

    Gee, that doesn't seem to bother many on the (1.00 / 0) (#38)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jul 14, 2009 at 07:42:54 AM EST
    Left in the past. Is this change we can believe in?

    Parent
    Seems to me that if the founders (5.00 / 3) (#19)
    by Anne on Mon Jul 13, 2009 at 10:05:35 PM EST
    had subsribed to your theories of government, they would have dispensed with the entire Constitution and just had Betsy Ross sew up a spiffy banner that said, "Whatever It Takes."

    Your banner would just say, "OOOOH...9/11, 9/11!"

    Parent

    Unfortunately... (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by EL seattle on Mon Jul 13, 2009 at 11:26:19 PM EST
    ...in cases like this I'm not sure that the actions of the founding fathers would have had necessarily matched the ideals the of their Constitution.  

    Consider the way the indiginous peoples of America were treated around the time of the revolution. Sadly, I don't think that the Chickamauga wars, for instance, were always handled in a manner worthy of the Constitution.

    Parent

    So I will put you down as (1.00 / 0) (#21)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jul 13, 2009 at 10:16:04 PM EST
    against killing and capturing our enemies????

    Well, whatever flicks your bic and all that stuff.

    Parent

    If we don't have the rule of law, (5.00 / 4) (#23)
    by Anne on Mon Jul 13, 2009 at 10:25:36 PM EST
    we're no better than they are; the more you break down the wall between the law and lawlessness, the greater the risk to all of us.  And without the rule of law, there's absolutely nothing to prevent you from being deemed the next threat to national security.  

    But I don't expect you to get that.

    Parent

    what rule of law are you speaklng of? (1.00 / 0) (#39)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jul 14, 2009 at 07:50:02 AM EST
    The Executive branch is charged with running the military and also runs the CIA. Cheney's CIA's plan was to capture and kill people who are attacking us.

    What's your problem? That he didn't tell Congress the details... said Congress could then tell the NYTimes who could then leak it... of course no one here would have believed it.... just like they didn't believe we were following the money... trying to tap terrorists telephone/data sources..

    That's risible. I mean I don't know whether to laugh or cry.

    Parent

    We dont' really know (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Jul 14, 2009 at 08:15:58 AM EST
    what Dick Cheney's top secret plans are now do we?  And he has so many of them, at this point I have to wonder if Cheney didn't suffer from some sort of paranoia.  He could be just cold blooded power hungry or anything like that.  Also, the executive branch doesn't get to run the military or anything else without oversight.  This is a democratic republic, not a dictactorship :)!

    Parent
    No we don't (1.00 / 0) (#55)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jul 14, 2009 at 10:06:34 AM EST
    I based by comment om the stories that says plans were to capture and/or kill al Qaeda. Since that seems to be a perfectly reasonable and normal function of our military and the CIA I see no reason for Congress to have been briefed on every secret plan that doesn't violate the constitution. i.e. Congress knew we were taking actions against al Qaeda. Of course that made some of them angry....

    So what is your complaint?

    Parent

    My complaint (5.00 / 0) (#58)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Jul 14, 2009 at 10:19:58 AM EST
    and I will type slow so my thoughts match my fingers :)

    If his plans are top secret with no oversight how do you know what his plans are?  You know what his plans are/were because he has said so?  Is this overwhelming honesty some sort of affliction that attacks you when you become Vice President?  Because Cheney has lied before and we have it on record.  Even if he says his plans are for this or that...without oversight he's free to make anything up he wants to justify whatever he does.  He can torture or wiretap anyone also, and make six degree of separation arguments when it happens to the completely innocent when someone gets upset about it?  It is all completely ridiculous.

    Parent

    It is my understanding it was a "plan." (none / 0) (#71)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jul 14, 2009 at 12:37:59 PM EST
    That means it was never implemented so your complaint is moot. Do you think the Congress is briefed on every war plan we have? No, you know they are not.

    I know, Cheney lied and (insert names)died.

    In the meantime, show me proof that he did.

    Of course the kicker is, and the one that will hurt the Demos, is that Obama's man Panetta has stopped the program even though Congress now knows about it.

    I still look forward to the Democrats explaining why they have quit attacking and trying to capture al Qaeda members.... Especially with Afghanistan and Iraq on going.

    MT, as old opponents let's not mince words. You are a member of the Cindy Sheehan branch of the party which is to say you are anti--war and a pacifist. That means you aren't philosophically wired to understand that some people want to destroy our culture, kill those who oppose them and impose their laws and religions on us.

    That doesn't make you a bad person. Just one who doesn't understand and who is terribly wrong.

    Have a nice day.

    Parent

    Interesting comment (none / 0) (#77)
    by Inspector Gadget on Tue Jul 14, 2009 at 01:07:44 PM EST
    MT, as old opponents let's not mince words. You are a member of the Cindy Sheehan branch of the party which is to say you are anti--war and a pacifist. That means you aren't philosophically wired to understand that some people want to destroy our culture, kill those who oppose them and impose their laws and religions on us.

    I think that most people do understand that, Jim. But, it does beg the question of what we are doing in Iraq if not trying to destroy their culture, kill those who oppose us, and impose our laws, banks, political structure, etc on them.


    Parent

    One problem old pal... (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by kdog on Tue Jul 14, 2009 at 08:20:00 AM EST
    is that Dick and his CIA cronies would have no qualms about capturing and killing scores of non-terrorists, and trampling the inalienable rights of untold human beings.  I'm guessing thats why he didn't wanna tell Congress...there might be a congress-critter with a shred of a conscience left to foil his plan.

    Parent
    The problem is just that (1.00 / 0) (#56)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jul 14, 2009 at 10:08:43 AM EST
    you are guessing...

    And yes, killing and capturing al Qaeda operatives might just harm them.

    Kdog. This is not a criminal justice situation. It is war. Big difference.

    Parent

    Who's guessing around here? (5.00 / 0) (#60)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Jul 14, 2009 at 10:20:53 AM EST
    So are you... (5.00 / 0) (#61)
    by kdog on Tue Jul 14, 2009 at 10:26:48 AM EST
    you're guessing the program kills and captures terrorists, I'm guessing it kills and captures poor slobs...my guess is as good as yours.  Thats the problem with "top secret".

    I ain't at war with anybody...thats Dick's and Osama's bag.  I accept there are mass-muderers in the world and try to get on with my relatively free life without advocating adding more misery and murder.  I've told ya before, when the shores are stormed I'll be there ready to defend our home....until then, if this is a war I'm an astronaut.

    Parent

    Well, keep your visor closed (none / 0) (#72)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jul 14, 2009 at 12:41:36 PM EST
    the war is being fought mostly outside the country.

    All I am saying is let Cheney and Obama alone as along as they are using the CIA outside the country.

    Unfortunately the Left wants to put lawyers on the battlefield....

    BTW - How's cards?

    Parent

    Outside my country... (none / 0) (#78)
    by kdog on Tue Jul 14, 2009 at 01:09:39 PM EST
    then it ain't my war...but we've been here and done this.

    Played Sunday, the streak of cold cards and poor impatient play continues...I can't remember my last good run, so it must be due...you?

    Parent

    Hot as can be (none / 0) (#80)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jul 14, 2009 at 01:17:09 PM EST
    Too bad personal issues have kept me out of LV. This could've been my year!

    Parent
    Glad somebody is raking in... (none / 0) (#81)
    by kdog on Tue Jul 14, 2009 at 01:18:47 PM EST
    some big pots...playing down to 27 in the M.E. today I believe.

    Parent
    family illlness keeping me close (none / 0) (#88)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jul 14, 2009 at 09:07:19 PM EST
    to the ICU.

    Parent
    Sorry to hear that Jim... (none / 0) (#89)
    by kdog on Wed Jul 15, 2009 at 10:20:35 AM EST
    thoughts and good wishes to you and yours.

    Parent
    They already did! (none / 0) (#59)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Jul 14, 2009 at 10:20:22 AM EST
    Who is watching the home run derby? (none / 0) (#1)
    by oculus on Mon Jul 13, 2009 at 07:19:02 PM EST


    Not I (none / 0) (#2)
    by Steve M on Mon Jul 13, 2009 at 07:21:29 PM EST
    but I have two players with Detroit connections to root for - Brandon Inge and Prince Fielder.  I'm spending the time working out with my Wii instead.

    Parent
    I am. (none / 0) (#4)
    by Maryb2004 on Mon Jul 13, 2009 at 07:33:45 PM EST
    But mostly to see how my city looks in the background.

    Parent
    It looks great. I was at two games (none / 0) (#5)
    by oculus on Mon Jul 13, 2009 at 07:36:01 PM EST
    there in May and especially enjoyed seeing Pujois put out the "I," which I see has been replaced.  Great view from third base side of ballpark.

    Parent
    I can't believe you were here (none / 0) (#6)
    by Maryb2004 on Mon Jul 13, 2009 at 07:54:21 PM EST
    and we didn't meet.  I wish we had. It would have been fun.

    It's a nice ball park but it doesn't feel like "home" to me like the old Busch Stadium did.  I guess I'll eventually get used to it.  I haven't had a seat yet with a bad view.  Although there is a problem that people keep falling from the upper decks ...

    Parent

    IIt was a family event--my niece's (none / 0) (#8)
    by oculus on Mon Jul 13, 2009 at 07:57:15 PM EST
    b-day celebration, including a "party box" (Mark McGuire's) at the Royals game on Sat.  Next time I would enjoy meeting you.  

    Parent
    Family first. :) (none / 0) (#10)
    by Maryb2004 on Mon Jul 13, 2009 at 08:07:36 PM EST
    Next time you and I and C3 can get together.  I have an e-mail address in my DKos profile.  Be sure to let me know.

    Parent
    Actually, I'll be in St. Louis in Sept. (none / 0) (#11)
    by oculus on Mon Jul 13, 2009 at 08:34:50 PM EST
    ne route to my high school class reunion in SE Iowa.  I'll e mail you.  CCCM has my e mail.

    Parent
    ok (none / 0) (#13)
    by Maryb2004 on Mon Jul 13, 2009 at 08:38:58 PM EST
    I think the live-action statues and plaques (none / 0) (#9)
    by oculus on Mon Jul 13, 2009 at 07:58:59 PM EST
    outside are wonderful.

    Parent
    Great. Heath Bell taking a picture (none / 0) (#7)
    by oculus on Mon Jul 13, 2009 at 07:54:44 PM EST
    of Adrian Gonzalez during Adrian's first round at the plate.  

    Parent
    WingNuttia aka WaPo (none / 0) (#27)
    by squeaky on Mon Jul 13, 2009 at 10:54:09 PM EST
    Sarah Palin replacing Froomkin. lol

    We can safely drill for U.S. oil offshore and in a tiny, 2,000-acre corner of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge if ever given the go-ahead by Washington bureaucrats.

    Of course, Alaska is not the sole source of American energy. Many states have abundant coal.....      

             

    WaPo via TPM

    Yes, they do and thet have oils shale (1.00 / 0) (#42)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jul 14, 2009 at 08:07:07 AM EST
    Too bad Obamie is shutting down both.

    Parent
    Palin PAC (none / 0) (#32)
    by squeaky on Tue Jul 14, 2009 at 12:51:51 AM EST
    Wonder if this little bit of WaPo advertising for the Coal and Oil industries is going to bring in some big bucks to her PAC.

    So far, Palin has donated to just two candidates: $5,000 to her 2008 running mate, Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., and another $5,000 to Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska.

    McClatchy

    Parent

    Yoo Lawyers Up (none / 0) (#34)
    by squeaky on Tue Jul 14, 2009 at 01:06:15 AM EST
    President Obama's Justice Department, which represented Yoo in unsuccessfully seeking dismissal of the suit, filed a notice saying he would ask the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco to intervene in the case. Department attorneys also said they were dropping out of the case and that Yoo was now represented by a private lawyer, not identified in the court document.

    emptywheel

    Third world governments (1.00 / 0) (#40)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jul 14, 2009 at 07:53:32 AM EST
    are well known to arrest and try the previous government members. Yoo needs all the help he can get,

    Parent
    Oh perish the thought! (5.00 / 3) (#43)
    by lilburro on Tue Jul 14, 2009 at 08:12:50 AM EST
    that someone in the government might break the law and NOT get away with it!  In a first-world country of all places!

    Parent
    At the risk of (5.00 / 0) (#45)
    by jbindc on Tue Jul 14, 2009 at 08:18:10 AM EST
    feeding trolls...

    On NPR, former CIA Director Gen. Mike Hadley was at odds with the NYT report. Hayden said he was not told by Cheney not to brief Congress about a covert program aimed at members of al-Qaida. (sorry for the double negative).

    Judge for yourself.  Personally, I think Hayden, Cheney, Panetta, and the Dems in Congress are lying about this, and the truth is somewhere in the middle and something we shall never know.


    Parent

    I wouldn't believe (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by lilburro on Tue Jul 14, 2009 at 08:57:33 AM EST
    Hayden for a second.  He has nothing to lose and I think there's enough evidence of erratic briefing behaviors (to say the least!) for us not to give him the benefit of the doubt.  For example:

    Hayden:  "at least two tapes" and (NYT)

    In his statement, General Hayden said leaders of Congressional oversight committees had been fully briefed about the existence of the tapes and told in advance of the decision to destroy them. But the two top members of the House Intelligence Committee in 2005 said Thursday that they had not been notified in advance of the decision to destroy the tapes.

    A spokesman for Representative Peter Hoekstra, Republican of Michigan, who was the committee's chairman between 2004 and 2006, said that Mr. Hoekstra was "never briefed or advised that these tapes existed, or that they were going to be destroyed."

    Reality:  92 tapes.

    Parent

    Well, like I said (1.00 / 0) (#53)
    by jbindc on Tue Jul 14, 2009 at 09:00:21 AM EST
    I don't believe the Dems in Congress about this either ("We had NO idea!"  {clutches pearls]).

    I call BS.

    Parent

    I have no problem believing anything (1.00 / 0) (#64)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jul 14, 2009 at 10:34:43 AM EST
    I just think it is nonsense to worry about it. If they were planning to attack al Qaeda that was a good thing and stupid for the Demos to protest.

    At the bottom, I just think it is Demos trying to provide cover for Pelosi claiming she was lied to about water boarding.

    Parent

    Well the question is (5.00 / 1) (#70)
    by lilburro on Tue Jul 14, 2009 at 11:19:19 AM EST
    who is Al-Qaeda?

    Digby:

    Former counter-terrorism officials who retain close links to the intelligence community say that the hidden operation involved plans by the CIA and the military to launch operations, similar to those by Israel's Mossad intelligence service, to hunt down and kill al-Qaida activists abroad without informing the governments concerned, even though some were regarded as friendly if unreliable.

    The CIA apparently did not put the plan in to operation but the US military did, carrying out several assassinations including one in Kenya that proved to be a severe embarrassment and helped lead to the quashing of the programme.

    Look at Guantanamo, as digby says - our track record when it comes to successfully identifying Al-Qaeda operatives over civilians is not great.  That's why we have due process...

    Parent

    Gosh (none / 0) (#76)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jul 14, 2009 at 01:06:55 PM EST
    Killing al Qaeda operatives.  What a concept.

    What's next, having a defense department?

    Parent

    Due process works fine (none / 0) (#79)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jul 14, 2009 at 01:10:24 PM EST
    after the criminal has killed someone...ever think about asking the victim?

    "Do you mind if we let al Qaeda operatives kill you? We promise to try and catch him and put him jail."

    Parent

    The point is (1.00 / 0) (#65)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jul 14, 2009 at 10:36:44 AM EST
    he wasn't breaking the law.

    Parent
    My only comment is (none / 0) (#36)
    by Chuck0 on Tue Jul 14, 2009 at 06:23:32 AM EST
    how can an otherwise seemly intelligent watch such dreck as Bachelorette? Weeds, I'm with you. Mary-Louise Parker is the hottest MILF in television entertainment. Plus it's a really good show.

    I think you ought not to judge (5.00 / 2) (#51)
    by indy in sc on Tue Jul 14, 2009 at 08:42:12 AM EST
    someone else's preferred forms of entertainment.  I'm certain that if we were to examine your viewing habits, you don't switch only between CSPAN and Masterpiece Theatre.

    She likes it (and so do I).  If you don't, don't watch it.

    Parent