home

Thursday Afternoon Open Thread

One of the more amusing spectacles I have been following is how American Prospect writers continue to argue against Markos' book "American Taliban" without ever acknowledging that The American Prospect co-editor Robert Kuttner penned an article in the American Prospect titled, yep, "American Taliban."

"Intellectually honest", aren't they?

Open Thread.

< Who Are They Fighting For? | Friday Morning Open Thread >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    The economic effect of (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by Dr Molly on Thu Sep 16, 2010 at 03:01:00 PM EST
    Science Scorned by the U.S. right wing - editorial in the latest issue of Nature.

    Trying this again because last attempt to post failed. Hope it doesn't show up twice.

    this is so disturbing (none / 0) (#34)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Sep 16, 2010 at 03:49:44 PM EST
    and it is a trend.  I posted this yesterday:

    Galileo Was Wrong.  conference and website.
    they are serious.  they think the earth is the center of the universe.  and I found out yesterday that the fact that it is not is esoteric.  to be know only be specialists.

    I need a drink.


    Parent

    On the other hand.. (5.00 / 1) (#65)
    by jondee on Thu Sep 16, 2010 at 04:38:34 PM EST
    for people who believe that the earth's at the center of the universe, they've never seemed all that hepped up on the idea of taking care of it.

    It's a paradox. Another one of those mysteries that passeth all understanding.

    Parent

    why should they (none / 0) (#76)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Sep 16, 2010 at 05:05:38 PM EST
    the Rapture is an hand.

    8-P

    Parent

    I know: (none / 0) (#95)
    by jondee on Thu Sep 16, 2010 at 06:09:51 PM EST
    why be concerned over what happens in the future at all when the Rapture's right around the corner and it's already been foretold that things will degenerate more and more, so that doing anything to stop it might even be interpreted as sacrilegious?

    Except that voices from that same general quarter also like to crow about how stricter environmental policies will harm our ability to compete economically in the future..  

    Parent

    They're beginning to make James G Watt (none / 0) (#162)
    by Harry Saxon on Fri Sep 17, 2010 at 05:36:44 PM EST
    sound sensible by comparison:

    That is the delicate balance the Secretary of the Interior must have: to be steward for the natural resources for this generation as well as future generations. I do not know how many future generations we can count on before the Lord returns; whatever it is we have to manage with a skill to leave the resources needed for future generations.

        * Testimony before the House Interior Committee, February 1981

    Click Me

    Parent

    Ayayayayayay! (none / 0) (#75)
    by Zorba on Thu Sep 16, 2010 at 05:01:07 PM EST
    Pass the bottle, Capt.  How can any sane person possibly believe this????  (I guess I've answered my own question.......)

    Parent
    They're not insane (5.00 / 1) (#107)
    by NYShooter on Thu Sep 16, 2010 at 07:53:12 PM EST
    They are children whose growth on the road towards maturity was stunted, or stopped altogether, by the environment that surrounded them.


    Parent
    An environment of fear... (none / 0) (#112)
    by NealB on Thu Sep 16, 2010 at 09:08:03 PM EST
    created and persisted by the insane.

    Parent
    The Palincentric Model of the Universe (none / 0) (#86)
    by john horse on Thu Sep 16, 2010 at 05:34:26 PM EST
    Due to her extreme narcissism, I think we have  a new model of the universe to take its place next to the Heliocentric and Geocentric.

    I'm talking about the Palincentric Model of the Universe.  At its center is Sarah Palin.  The way she acts I think she actually believes that all our planets and stars revolve around her.

    Parent

    Good cop, bad cop (none / 0) (#91)
    by MKS on Thu Sep 16, 2010 at 05:58:59 PM EST
    After all the delusional fanaticism of Beck and Palin, Romney will seem the apotheosis of Reason.

    If only the Left had such extremists to make the liberal middle more appealing.  More Michael Moores and more to the Left of Moore.

    Romney will still be the most conservative candidate in a long, long time.....

    Parent

    Really? (none / 0) (#96)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Sep 16, 2010 at 06:10:21 PM EST
    More conservative than Bush?

    Romney has the advantage of appearing to be a moderate because he's from MA I would think more so than any comparison to Palin.

    Parent

    Romney has absolutely no core ideology (5.00 / 1) (#121)
    by gyrfalcon on Thu Sep 16, 2010 at 10:57:35 PM EST
    except Romney.  It's funny that Palin gets accused of this by the left, but she actually does have a pretty firm and reasonably consistent ideology.  Romney absolutely does not.  He will adopt whatever gets him elected.

    I will never forget his debate with Teddy Kennedy when he tried to run against him and announced that Kennedy wasn't anywhere near as enthusiastically supportive of gay rights as he was.

    Parent

    I completely agree. (5.00 / 1) (#143)
    by dk on Fri Sep 17, 2010 at 09:22:08 AM EST
    Of course, Obama is cut from the same cloth, IMO.  Gay rights is a good example.  There was a time a while back where Obama's stated position was support for gay marriage, back when he was a state legsislator in a district where it made political sense to hold such a position.  Now, President Obama is fighting (in the courts, actively) to keep marriage between a man a woman, for ths stated reason that there are rational reasons for keeping it that way, and that he personally supports such a position since "god is in the mix."

    Though, I also think they are both committed to keeping most wealth in the hands of large for-profit executives, private equity and hedge fund managers, etc.  I suppose that is an ideology of sorts.

    If Romney is the Republican candidate in 2012, it's going to be a really depressing matchup, that's for sure.  Their rhetoric will differ, of course, since they are trying to fool different bases, but that's just pom pom stuff.

    Parent

    That's (none / 0) (#136)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Sep 17, 2010 at 05:49:43 AM EST
    my impression too. Romney strikes me as someone who will strike a deal on anything. So far he's been pretty good at confusing the GOP base though. They think he's some rabid conservative or rather the evangelical base thinks that. It's very odd. The other GOPer's, at least that I know, can't stand the guy for the very reasons you state.

    Parent
    Romney is (5.00 / 1) (#141)
    by gyrfalcon on Fri Sep 17, 2010 at 08:54:27 AM EST
    the most transparent phony I've ever seen in my 50 years of avidly following politics.  How he bamboozled the ordinarily fairly shrewd Mass. voters is completely beyond me.  True, his opponent was the rather inept Robert Reich, but still.

    My favorite Romney-related anecdote was my visiting sister's throwaway remark when she glanced up and saw his mug on TV, with the sound off and no idea who he was, and mused, "Now, there's a face that invites pie."

    Parent

    Anyone left of Michael Moore ... (none / 0) (#101)
    by cymro on Thu Sep 16, 2010 at 07:03:08 PM EST
    ... would be ignored by the US right-wing media, and there are no left-wing media (MSM that is).

    Parent
    O'Donnell endorsement from Romney (none / 0) (#119)
    by christinep on Thu Sep 16, 2010 at 10:34:04 PM EST
    Came swiftly after her Delaware win. Looks like he is casting that lot early on.

    Parent
    He will endorse whoever (5.00 / 1) (#122)
    by gyrfalcon on Thu Sep 16, 2010 at 10:58:15 PM EST
    appears to be on the ascendency within the GOP.

    Parent
    someone also (none / 0) (#39)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Sep 16, 2010 at 03:54:07 PM EST
    posted a link to this recently.

    the Creation Museum

    what sort of a disadvantage is this kind of sh!t going to put kids who are exposed to it when they start competing with educated people who have been taught the scientific truths known since the 16th century.

    Parent

    The geniuses DO know that Museum is (literally) .. (5.00 / 1) (#84)
    by Ellie on Thu Sep 16, 2010 at 05:33:08 PM EST
    ... a temple or shrine to honor the Muses, those infamous ancient hussies of Polytheism, each one capable of knocking out creationist hooey on age alone?

    Parent
    "Honor to you who sit (5.00 / 1) (#97)
    by jondee on Thu Sep 16, 2010 at 06:29:06 PM EST
    Near the well of wit
    And drink your fill of it!

    Glory and worship be
    To you sweet maids, thrice three
    Who still inspire me,

    And teach me how to sing
    Unto the lyric string
    My measures ravishing!

    Then, while I sing your praise,
    My priest-hood crown with bays,
    Green to the end of days!

        Robert Herrick

    Parent

    I think that was me. (none / 0) (#41)
    by Dr Molly on Thu Sep 16, 2010 at 03:55:32 PM EST
    I've actually been there. Horrifying.

    We are a nation in decline.

    Parent

    seemingly (none / 0) (#45)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Sep 16, 2010 at 03:57:47 PM EST
    by choice

    Parent
    OT, the tube was by the door (none / 0) (#78)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Sep 16, 2010 at 05:12:21 PM EST
    when we got home.  You guys really did a nice job on the poster and signing with the metallic ink.  It is going to be a fun poster to mat and frame.  He immediately policed up the shirt before his dad gets home and sees it.  That cracks me up.  Nobody but him is wearing the shirt, pretty funny.  His room needs a new piece of artwork.  He has a framed print from Dinotopia and a nudity free Michael Parkes.  I think he is outgrowing Dinotopia though, and I can hang it in the spare room where the girls stay.  They should be about ready for Dinotopia, too bad the Creation Museum makes me worried about hanging Dinotopia around little kids who could come to think it is fact based artwork around the WRONG people.

    Parent
    excellent (none / 0) (#142)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Sep 17, 2010 at 09:09:44 AM EST
    I was beginning to worry.  I have zero faith in the US mail.  and its great because this will likely be my last day on the project.  being one of the more experienced lighters I am being rolled off to go on to the other in house tent pole project, Saints Row.  before going onto the BIG SURPRISE that I cant talk about yet.

    curious if you allow Josh to be into Saints Row.  it is essentially Grand Theft Auto with a wicked sense of humor.  for example you can play as a 400 pound transvestite if you so choose.  
    Saints Row is always on the list of the games ruining our youth but its actually really fun and I dont think he will be harmed by the ability to attack police with a sh!t cannon.

    I am glad he was pleased.


    Parent

    Oh No...Saints Row :) (none / 0) (#151)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Sep 17, 2010 at 10:43:10 AM EST
    I have one rule about the video games, you can't bring Grand Theft Auto anything into my house.  Unfortunately in doing that now Grand Theft Auto has now become a precious unowned jewel.  All it takes is for someone to say Grand Theft Auto and he is instantly wistful.  I allowed Red Dead Redemption so I'm not completely against games with tales from streets storylines.  

    Parent
    well (none / 0) (#153)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Sep 17, 2010 at 11:18:20 AM EST
    the thing about Saints Row is that unlike GTA it does not take itself seriously at all.  a review:

    When people see Saints Row 2  they'll instantly think of Grand Theft Auto IV. It's inevitable. It moves similarly, the scenes have the same saturated lighting and there are several parallels that can be drawn between the gameplay of the two. Heck, the text is even color coded in a similar way for mission objectives. But, be warned, Saints Row 2 is most certainly not GTA.

    Thankfully this is one imitator that turns out to be much more than a straight carbon copy. In fact, Saints Row 2 takes GTA's gameplay, turns it on its side and sends it rolling down a mountain filled with land mines, roving monster trucks and ninjas. Lots and lots of ninjas.

    What does that translate to in terms of quality? A crazy good time.

    ---

    It's in that ridiculous nature that Saints Row 2 really finds its niche. Driving down the highway on a flaming ATV, exploding cars to extend your timer or throwing your limp body into oncoming traffic to rack up a medical bill are things that you just don't see in other videogames. SR2's activities are more outlandish than in the first game, but they're also more varied.

    three promises to be more outlandish yet.


    Parent

    That does seem to override (none / 0) (#163)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Sep 17, 2010 at 06:43:26 PM EST
    What my real dislike of GTA is.  I hate how life like it is and the pretend choice making it leads to.  GTA is so lifelike.  I makes me grind my teeth.  Fighting off packs of roaming ninjas does change that a lot.

    Parent
    This is for you from Cracked.com (none / 0) (#164)
    by Harry Saxon on Fri Sep 17, 2010 at 06:53:00 PM EST
    NSFW, needless to say.

    Click Me

    Parent

    Political effect of Feingold's opponent (none / 0) (#44)
    by Cream City on Thu Sep 16, 2010 at 03:57:32 PM EST
    would be interesting as well, as Feingold's opponent publicly keeps professing stuff such as climate change theories putting the blame on . . . sunspots.

    And this is the stuff of front-page news in my state.  I am so ready to get past November.

    Parent

    In other news (5.00 / 3) (#16)
    by CST on Thu Sep 16, 2010 at 03:13:02 PM EST
    pope compares atheists to nazis.  I guess he would know.

    "Even in our own lifetimes we can recall how Britain and her leaders stood against a Nazi tyranny that wished to eradicate God from society and denied our common humanity to many, especially the Jews, who were thought unfit to live.

    As we reflect on the sobering lessons of atheist extremism of the 20th century, let us never forget how the exclusion of God, religion and virtue from public life leads ultimately to a truncated vision of man and of society and thus a reductive vision of a person and his destiny."

    Personally, I find the Catholic church, and particularly this pope to hold a highly "truncated vision of man and of society".  In the face of all the religious tension today, the idea that "athiest extremism" is the problem the world is facing right now is just laughable.

    Although really, I think the most telling part of the whole piece is:

    "He would later be a leading campaigner against liberation theology, the movement to involve the Church in social activism, which for him was too close to Marxism."

    How very Christian of him.

    At least he isn't dissing Islam, eh? (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by oculus on Thu Sep 16, 2010 at 03:18:52 PM EST
    yea (none / 0) (#20)
    by CST on Thu Sep 16, 2010 at 03:22:45 PM EST
    I somehow doubt all the athiest extremists out there will cause too many problems.

    watch out though, we might try to teach sex ed to your daughters.

    constant vigilance.

    Parent

    I really wish the Pope would confine his (5.00 / 4) (#25)
    by oculus on Thu Sep 16, 2010 at 03:32:32 PM EST
    attention to his own realm.   Get rid of the pedophilic priests.  Take an honest look at requiring celibacy, banning birth control, abortion, women priests, etc.

    Parent
    Yes (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by jbindc on Thu Sep 16, 2010 at 03:38:10 PM EST
    But of course, he is also the head of state of a country, besides being the rigious leader of 800 million people worldwide.  While I, as a Catholic, may not agree with some if the Church's positions, should he not have a right (or duty, depending on your point of view) to speak out on things?

    Parent
    On the other hand... (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by Dr Molly on Thu Sep 16, 2010 at 03:52:12 PM EST
    shouldn't the Pope, as a role model, obey the commandments when he speaks out - particularly the one about not lying?

    Because comparing atheism to naziism is kind of a whopper, no? Same for stating that atheism reduces humanity and society....

    Parent

    Does that fall under: don't bear false (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by oculus on Thu Sep 16, 2010 at 04:15:12 PM EST
    witness against your neighbor?

    Parent
    what it reduces (none / 0) (#48)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Sep 16, 2010 at 04:01:42 PM EST
    is their box office

    Parent
    The state he rules over (5.00 / 2) (#61)
    by Harry Saxon on Thu Sep 16, 2010 at 04:27:55 PM EST
    is a little over 1/6th of an acre.

    Perhaps he's avoiding the Catholic Church's latest elephant in the room:

    .The report, which will air tonight on Britain's Channel 4, is the result of an investigation into public records and court documents detailing 37 crimes involving child molesting priests in England and Wales. Besides the rampant sex abuse by members of the clergy, recommendations made by a judge that offending priests be "laicised," or dismissed from the priesthood were ignored by the church. Of 22 priests who have served a year or more in jail for child molestation, 14 are still priests and 10 of them appeared in the latest edition of the Catholic Directory. But hey, they've been punished! And they're probably very remorseful.



    Parent
    I think a lot of times (5.00 / 1) (#67)
    by CST on Thu Sep 16, 2010 at 04:42:41 PM EST
    this gets brushed over with the "priests don't abuse more than anyone else" meme.

    But frankly that's entirely missing the point. In some areas of the world, this was not a problem.  However, in places where it was a problem, it was absolutely a systemic problem.

    For example 7% of all priests in the Boston archdiocese between 1950 and 2002? (can't remember exact numbers) were accused of pedophilia.  7%!!!!!  Now, just because 0% of all priests in Kalamazoo and Timbuktoo had this issue, and it averages out, does not mean it wasn't specifically a Catholic Church systemic issue in Boston, or in these other places where the problems are coming to light.

    Parent

    He was in the Nazi party as a youth. (none / 0) (#53)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Sep 16, 2010 at 04:10:12 PM EST
    His teenaged Down's Syndrome cousin was "euthanized" by the Nazis. Maybe he is too close to the subject.

    Parent
    Spouse once asked: (none / 0) (#100)
    by the capstan on Thu Sep 16, 2010 at 06:59:14 PM EST
    'I wonder if I would have withstood the pressure to join the Nazi party?'  Later that night came the answer: 'Of course, I would have refused to join, having a Down's daughter I love dearly.'

    Parent
    That would do it huh? (5.00 / 1) (#105)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Sep 16, 2010 at 07:30:18 PM EST
    They would have killed my son too.  I almost can't endure thinking about it at all.

    Parent
    LIke the Prince of Liechtenstein? (none / 0) (#68)
    by oculus on Thu Sep 16, 2010 at 04:46:48 PM EST
    25,000 subjects.  Independent constitutional monarchy.

    Vatican city, population estim. 800.

    Parent

    So only leaders of big countries (none / 0) (#139)
    by jbindc on Fri Sep 17, 2010 at 08:42:35 AM EST
    Can comment?

    And the problems of pedophilia in the Church is a completely different topic than his comment about atheism.

    Look, I don't care for the guy, but to say he is not allowed to ever speak out on anything else is ridiculous.  If that's the case, no one in power should ever speak out about anything.  How many crimes have been carried out (with nothing being done) during the Obama administration?  Bush?  Clinton?  Guess these people should all be mute.

    Parent

    If you think his attack on atheism (5.00 / 1) (#147)
    by Harry Saxon on Fri Sep 17, 2010 at 10:19:35 AM EST
    wasn't connected to the report about child abusing priests allowed to continue their vocation in the church that broke on the eve of his arrival, then you're pretty naive.

    I don't think anyone has said here that he should shut up, just that he shouldn't be pointing out the mote of atheism=Nazis when his own beam is that the organization he supposedly heads isn't cleaned of child molesters and those who protected them(Cardinal Law /close subliminal tag)


    Parent

    I think, like us, the Pope has freedom (5.00 / 1) (#152)
    by oculus on Fri Sep 17, 2010 at 10:57:27 AM EST
    of speech.  I was just razzing you about your theory he is obligated to speak out because is the ruler of a principality.  Can't remember hearing any pronouncements of the monarch of Liechtenstein,  but maybe I just haven't been paying attention.

    Parent
    I have many feelings (5.00 / 4) (#29)
    by CST on Thu Sep 16, 2010 at 03:40:42 PM EST
    about this particular pope, which I don't think would be appropriate to state on this blog.

    Starting with his trip to Africa declaring that condoms help spread AIDS.

    Parent

    wow, before I google, (none / 0) (#33)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Sep 16, 2010 at 03:48:36 PM EST
    did he really say condoms helps spread AIDS?

    Parent
    here you go (none / 0) (#47)
    by CST on Thu Sep 16, 2010 at 03:58:33 PM EST
    "It (AIDS) cannot be overcome by the distribution of condoms. On the contrary, they increase the problem"

    Link


    Parent

    Abstinance and chastity only.. (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by jondee on Thu Sep 16, 2010 at 04:03:37 PM EST
    that's worked out real well..

    So many tasteless jokes so little time..

    Parent

    Well, to be fair, (none / 0) (#64)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Sep 16, 2010 at 04:37:32 PM EST
    condoms do not seem to be working out so well either.

    Parent
    What? (none / 0) (#124)
    by gyrfalcon on Thu Sep 16, 2010 at 11:02:57 PM EST
    Everything I've read says they've made a huge difference in AIDS transmission rates in the countries that have really pushed for their use.

    Parent
    22 million have the disease in Africa. (none / 0) (#145)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Sep 17, 2010 at 09:46:12 AM EST
    22 million.

    Parent
    it has been a challenge (none / 0) (#146)
    by CST on Fri Sep 17, 2010 at 10:12:48 AM EST
    But that is not evidence that condoms don't work.

    In the late 90s early 2000s there were less than 5 condoms available per year per man in subsaharan africa (I am not sure what it is today, I imagine it's significantly higher than that now).  Not to mention the fact that there is a lot of misinformation out there and a cultural shift that had to take place in order to convince people to use them.  But frankly, many people just didn't have access for a really long time.  It's not like you could just go to the nearest CVS and buy them whenever you want.

    In any event, right now, subsaharan africa's new infection rate is dropping rapidly.  Although in fairness, it really had no where to go but down.

    Now, wondering whether it makes sense to focus resources on condom distribution in light of the challenges of making them pervasive enough to be effective - is a very different thing from saying condoms are part of the problem.  Statements like that from a respected religious leader make it harder for them to be effective. People will hear that and believe they are counterproductive, thus making the decision not to use them even if they are available.

    Parent

    Ya, of course condoms help (none / 0) (#154)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Sep 17, 2010 at 11:36:22 AM EST
    in preventing the spread of AIDS, my point was that AIDS is a problem of such magnitude in Africa that it's not something you can just tap your heels together and say "condoms" three times and then be able to cross the problem off your list of things to do.

    Latex condoms have been mass-produced since the 1930's. Africa has been home to AIDS epidemics for almost a half-century. Absent a vaccination breakthrough, I'm not confident that AIDS won't still be a huge problem in Africa a half-century from today.

    Parent

    Honestly (none / 0) (#155)
    by CST on Fri Sep 17, 2010 at 12:02:12 PM EST
    I find the magnitude argument troubling.  It's the same way my dad gets when talking about climate change.  I think it breeds discouragement more than urgency.

    The fact is, every person who doesn't contract it, is one less person who can spread it as well.  And while condoms have been mass-produced since the 30's they have not been widely distributed in Africa until very recently.  It doesn't make a difference in Africa if everyone in America can buy condoms.

    As for the future... I think you're partly right.  But progress is being made.  I don't think we should rest on our laurels or discount that progress because we can't eliminate the problem (not that that's what you're saying).  AIDS has been around a while, that's true.  But for decades no one was really paying attention or doing anything about it.  Attempts to actually do something about it are relatively recent in the grand scheme of things.  And it makes sense that it will take time to change the psyche of a continent.

    Parent

    may help stem the tide, but vaccination is the 800lb gorilla. There have been some pretty exciting discoveries in recent months of AIDS antibodies.

    Parent
    agree (none / 0) (#157)
    by CST on Fri Sep 17, 2010 at 12:23:17 PM EST
    science is a beautiful thing.

    Parent
    hey (none / 0) (#158)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Sep 17, 2010 at 12:23:36 PM EST
    on a different subject I think I remember you saying you were in or close to the entertainment industry in LA.  is it a bleak as it seems from listening to my friends out there?

    sounds pretty bleak.


    Parent

    Very bleak. Wanna buy my biz? (none / 0) (#160)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Sep 17, 2010 at 12:38:06 PM EST
    thank you Jaesus (none / 0) (#161)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Sep 17, 2010 at 01:12:00 PM EST
    for giving the the luck, um, I mean foresight to get into the game industry three years ago.
    I have never regretted it.  they treat us the way we were treated in the film industry in the early 90s.  maybe I can retire before the "next thing"

    I have talked to no less than three people who are losing their houses unless they get work very soon.


    Parent

    Thanks. (none / 0) (#62)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Sep 16, 2010 at 04:32:57 PM EST
    Just wait (none / 0) (#123)
    by gyrfalcon on Thu Sep 16, 2010 at 11:00:11 PM EST
    The Devil probably does wear Prada (5.00 / 3) (#90)
    by Ellie on Thu Sep 16, 2010 at 05:58:32 PM EST
    But Il Papa does not!

    Just thought that should be mentioned during these holiest of high Judeo-Christian holidays (ie, Fashion Week, or Schmatta-Fest if you like.)

    Parent

    ROTFL! (none / 0) (#130)
    by gyrfalcon on Thu Sep 16, 2010 at 11:09:13 PM EST
    The Pope compares atheists to nazis, (5.00 / 1) (#109)
    by KeysDan on Thu Sep 16, 2010 at 08:24:32 PM EST
    but neglects to recall that Herr Nazi, Adolph Hitler, was a Catholic and that the Catholic Church never excommunicated him.

    Parent
    Some interesting stuff comes up (none / 0) (#111)
    by jondee on Thu Sep 16, 2010 at 08:43:24 PM EST
    as well, if you google: Croatian Nazis - Vatican Bank - WWII..

    Parent
    Yes, if wise, (5.00 / 1) (#113)
    by KeysDan on Thu Sep 16, 2010 at 09:11:37 PM EST
    given the "altar boy and nazi era problems", the Catholic Church would not speak on matters of morality for at least another hundred years.

    Parent
    Hitler (none / 0) (#140)
    by jbindc on Fri Sep 17, 2010 at 08:45:33 AM EST
    Was also Jewish.  Guess we should blame some rabbis for not setting his family straight, huh?

    Parent
    The Churchs' hands aren't clean regarding (5.00 / 1) (#148)
    by Harry Saxon on Fri Sep 17, 2010 at 10:23:46 AM EST
    the Nazi era, and this has nothing to do with the current Pope, but history:

    The evidence shows that:

    A) The Catholic church hierarchy, acting under Vatican orders, played the decisive role in making Hitler the dictator of Germany.

    B) Subsequently, the Catholic hierarchy was active in Nazi movements outside Germany, for example in the Balkans, where the church was the institutional base of the Nazi puppet State of Croatia.

    C) Although at Yad Vashem, in the year 2000, Pope John Paul II described the Nazis as having "a Godless ideology," in 1933, when it mattered, the Vatican ordered German Catholics to love, honor, obey and protect the Nazis.

    During the 1920s, the church-controlled Centre party (Zentrum) did clash with the Nazis. As Hitler wrote (see quote below) their quarrel was over politics, not Catholic religious teachings. The Nazis themselves claimed they were fighting against atheism, specifically Bolshevist atheism, which they depicted as a Jewish-created movement.  In attacking the Jews, the Nazis routinely employed Christian symbolism and traditional Christian antisemitic arguments, with which Europeans were already indoctrinated, making it an easy sale.  

    On March 23, 1933, the Nazi government put forward the Enabling act, giving Hitler the authority to create new laws without parliamentary approval, thus making him the dictator of Germany.  This was after the Nazi-staged Reichstag fire; after the banning of the huge Communist party and subsequent arrest and murder of thousands of communists and other anti-Nazis; and amidst a campaign of violent antisemitism. To become law, the Enabling act needed a 2/3 parliamentary vote. Before the vote, Hitler addressed the Reichstag (parliament) saying the Nazis were fighting for Christianity:

            "While the Government is determined to carry through the political and moral purging of our public life, it is creating and insuring prerequisites for a truly religious life. The Government sees in both [Catholic and Protestant] Christian confessions the most important factors for the maintenance of our folkdom. It will respect agreements concluded between them and the States. However, it expects that its work will meet with a similar appreciation. The Government will treat all other denominations with equal objective justice. It can never condone, though, that belonging to a certain denomination or to a certain race might be regarded as a license to commit or tolerate crimes. The Government will devote its care to the sincere living together of Church and State."

            [My emphasis - Jared Israel]
            -- http://tinyurl.com/g8gh3

    To their credit, the Social Democrats for once took a strong stand, opposing the Enabling act. Hitler needed a 2/3 majority, so the balance lay with Zentrum, the Catholic Centre party. If Zentrum voted no or even abstained, Hitler would have been defeated.

    Zentrum leader Monsignor Ludwig Kaas, a close friend and advisor to Eugenio Pacelli, the future Pope Pius XII, addressed the Reichstag. Far from attacking the Enabling act and disputing Hitler's claim that Nazi measures were "prerequisites for a truly religious life," Kaas endorsed the Enabling act. Zentrum and smaller allied parties voted `yes,' and the act became law.

    According to National Catholic Reporter correspondent John Allen, a liberal Catholic and student of Vatican history (he wrote a biography of Joseph Ratzinger), on March 28, 1933, four days after Zentrum voted to make Hitler the dictator of Germany:

        [Excerpt from John Allen's Telegraph article starts here]

        "the German bishops rescinded their ban on Nazi party membership. On April 1, Cardinal Adolf Bertram of Breslau addressed German Catholics in a letter, warning them "to reject as a matter of principle all illegal or subversive activities". To most Catholics, it looked as if the church wanted a modus vivendi with Hitler. [Yes, I suppose when you vote to make a Nazi maniac dictator of your country it would appear that you want a modus vivendi with said maniac - J.I.]

        The same impression [! - J.I.] was created a few weeks later when Hitler held a plebiscite to endorse his decision to pull Germany out of the League of Nations, which received the endorsement of the Catholic press and of several Catholic bishops."
        http://tinyurl.com/jj2g4



    Parent
    Please permit an historical nuance: (none / 0) (#150)
    by KeysDan on Fri Sep 17, 2010 at 10:42:21 AM EST
     the Church's "hands are not clean", might be, the Church's "hands are dirty."

    Parent
    Hitler was Catholic and, "also Jewish": (none / 0) (#149)
    by KeysDan on Fri Sep 17, 2010 at 10:33:31 AM EST
    Jewish heritage is certainly not conclusive, although in recent times it is posited that Hitler's grandfather was Jewish.  It is is also claimed, in more recent times, that Hitler was homosexual--so maybe, accordingly to my understanding of your comment,  GLBT should share in the blame.  It seems, to me, to be an odd argument to make.   The critical point is that Hitler was acknowledged at the time as being Catholic and that it was important to portray himself as such to a German nation that was "Christian-- about 2/3 Protestant and l/3 Catholic". Indeed,  Albert Speer maintained that Hitler remained a member of the RC Church until his end. Mein Kampf also utilizes wording such as "creator of universe". Atheism was associated with Germany's enemy, communism.

    "Nazi tyranny" as the Pope's example of "the lessons of atheist extremism in the 20th Century", belies the fact that, this tyranny required the appearance of Hitler's Catholicism, and it was critical to him that his Church not deny him that political asset--which is what the Church should have done but was too timid and, in reality, complicit in this deceit.

    Parent

    That's about him firing back (none / 0) (#35)
    by jondee on Thu Sep 16, 2010 at 03:51:04 PM EST
    at Hitchens and Dawkins, who've been taking him to task in print his holiness's less-than-proactive approach to dealing with child abuse 'problems' in the church.

    Politics, and somewhat dirty politics at that, all the way..

    Parent

    over his holiness's.. (none / 0) (#38)
    by jondee on Thu Sep 16, 2010 at 03:53:32 PM EST
    whatever (none / 0) (#40)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Sep 16, 2010 at 03:55:32 PM EST
    the pope probably would not like to hear my list of comparisons for him.

    but ftr I am not the one who belonged to Hilter youth.


    Parent

    thanks for clarify that :) (none / 0) (#42)
    by jondee on Thu Sep 16, 2010 at 03:57:18 PM EST
    clarifying (none / 0) (#46)
    by jondee on Thu Sep 16, 2010 at 03:58:11 PM EST
    that's what I get for being a wise as*..

    Parent
    yea (none / 0) (#49)
    by CST on Thu Sep 16, 2010 at 04:02:13 PM EST
    to be honest, I try not to bring that up much, he was 14 at the time, I doubt he had much of a choice.

    But if he brings them up in a completely obsurd context in relation to something I believe in, I feel at that point it's a moderately valid counter.

    Frankly I wrote that post 3 or 4 times before I finally got rid of all the expletives.  So yea, I left in one dig about the nazi youth.  Sue me.

    Parent

    sort of like (none / 0) (#52)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Sep 16, 2010 at 04:06:08 PM EST
    if they are cruel and loud enough about gays no one will notice all the lavender hiding in the cracks.

    Parent
    Not at all fair, IMO (none / 0) (#126)
    by gyrfalcon on Thu Sep 16, 2010 at 11:05:20 PM EST
    to hold that against anyone.  I know some incredibly decent and wonderful German ex-pats who got sucked into Hitler Youth when they were kids, to their now everlasting shame and guilt.

    One doesn't need to resort to that to despise Ratzinger.  What he's done as an adult is plenty.

    Parent

    If I had to guess this pope is the least (none / 0) (#54)
    by Socraticsilence on Thu Sep 16, 2010 at 04:12:46 PM EST
    respected of any since the Borgia's- he's basically seen as the guy who covered up pedophilia and got a promotion out of it (well, and the Nazi Youth thing- which is kind of unfair)- I honestly can't remember a pope in modern post schism-wars history who would have been threatened with arrest in the first world.

    Parent
    including Pius XII? (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by oculus on Thu Sep 16, 2010 at 04:17:22 PM EST
    Darn good point (none / 0) (#129)
    by gyrfalcon on Thu Sep 16, 2010 at 11:08:44 PM EST
    I always here (none / 0) (#56)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Sep 16, 2010 at 04:17:04 PM EST
    the Hitler Youth thing is unfair.  and perhaps it is but I wonder if your average Joe Blow would be given that courtesy or if he would be viewed with suspicion his entire life.

    Parent
    To be fair (5.00 / 1) (#71)
    by Socraticsilence on Thu Sep 16, 2010 at 04:49:51 PM EST
    that's what happened in Germany- if every Wermacht, Lutwaffe and Hitler Youth member had been disgraced for life the state would have basically been destroyed.

    Parent
    According to wiki (none / 0) (#73)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Sep 16, 2010 at 04:53:43 PM EST
    the pope's family was pretty religious, which lends some credence to the claim he wasn't really into being a Nazi.

    He did desert the party/army toward the end of the war, but I imagine so did many others once they figured out the jig was up.

    Parent

    Being religious does not give any (5.00 / 1) (#92)
    by KeysDan on Thu Sep 16, 2010 at 06:01:59 PM EST
    credence at all into not being a Nazi.  One of the greatest facilitators and enablers of Hitler becoming Chancellor was the reactionary, Franz von Papen.  A Knight of Malta, head of the Catholic Centre Party and former Chancellor (1932).  Of course, the deal included funding of Catholic schools and other values for those who were "religious".  

    Parent
    Religion has little to nothing (none / 0) (#127)
    by gyrfalcon on Thu Sep 16, 2010 at 11:08:20 PM EST
    to do with it.  But just like joining the Soviet youth camps, you pretty much had to do it in those days or your whole family came under suspicion.

    I think it's totally not fair to make an issue of it.  We're getting closer and closer to the time when there's going to be nobody left in Germany who had that experience.  The now elderly folks I know who did have suffered from the memory and (unnecessary, IMO) guilt their entire lives.

    Parent

    tell you what (none / 0) (#144)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Sep 17, 2010 at 09:39:12 AM EST
    when Popesie starts playing fair, so will I.


    Parent
    Here's a disgusting story... (5.00 / 1) (#114)
    by desertswine on Thu Sep 16, 2010 at 09:45:56 PM EST
    from that other, bizarro America.

    The U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs failed to inform 6 million soldiers and their families of an agreement enabling Prudential Financial Inc. to withhold lump-sum payments of life insurance benefits for survivors of fallen service members, according to records made public through a Freedom of Information request.

    The amendment to Prudential's contract is the first document to show how VA officials sanctioned a payment practice that has spurred investigations by lawmakers and regulators. Since 1999, Prudential has used so-called retained-asset accounts, which allow the company to withhold lump-sum payments due to survivors and earn investment income on the money for itself.

    I'm speechless.

    TL's main page is messed up, for me anyway. (none / 0) (#1)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Sep 16, 2010 at 02:24:55 PM EST
    The entire page, except for the "Share This! Digg" box and a few small other boxes, is a weird shade of mauve.

    Been like that since around mid-day yesterday...

    Not for me (none / 0) (#2)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Sep 16, 2010 at 02:25:48 PM EST
    Weird. (none / 0) (#3)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Sep 16, 2010 at 02:30:05 PM EST
    This page looks fine, as do all the pages of the actual threads. It's just the main page that all of a sudden has the problem for me.

    Parent
    Are you in a purple state? (5.00 / 2) (#8)
    by oculus on Thu Sep 16, 2010 at 02:37:05 PM EST
    A state of confusion. (none / 0) (#9)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Sep 16, 2010 at 02:39:25 PM EST
    The "Whose "Idiots" Are Shrewder, Part 2: Preventable Losses?" has kinda the same probs. Only the comments themselves are white, everything else is that mauve-y color.

    Parent
    It's the Diggit Reddit SharedIt Glom Gauntlet (5.00 / 1) (#93)
    by Ellie on Thu Sep 16, 2010 at 06:05:52 PM EST
    ... that's been gumming up my works. (YMMV)

    If anyone's found a work-around, please share that.

    Parent

    Color issue here too. (none / 0) (#10)
    by EL seattle on Thu Sep 16, 2010 at 02:47:27 PM EST
    On my system it almost looks like the BGCOLOR assignment isn't being changed for some TR regions.

    But maybe it's just the weather.

    Parent

    Ya, that's it. (none / 0) (#11)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Sep 16, 2010 at 02:56:40 PM EST
    It looks like that mauve-y TL background color that fills in the spaces between the edges of the TL pages and the edges of my computer screen is bleeding over the whole TL main page and at least one of the threads...

    Parent
    And, just now, the prob has disappeared. (none / 0) (#12)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Sep 16, 2010 at 02:58:26 PM EST
    It's magic!

    Parent
    Watch the bottom left of your browser (5.00 / 2) (#15)
    by BTAL on Thu Sep 16, 2010 at 03:11:51 PM EST
    It appears that the dynamic outside served ads are running slow - preventing the complete page load.

    Parent
    Ah, yes, that explains it. (none / 0) (#17)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Sep 16, 2010 at 03:17:37 PM EST
    The ads are stopping the page from fully loading so the background color never gets to the step where it fits itself into only the background.

    Parent
    I'm having the same problem. (none / 0) (#14)
    by vml68 on Thu Sep 16, 2010 at 03:03:56 PM EST
    n/t

    Parent
    Weird - looks normal to me (none / 0) (#28)
    by ruffian on Thu Sep 16, 2010 at 03:40:23 PM EST
    Running Safari on WinXP

    Parent
    Not having the color problem (none / 0) (#120)
    by gyrfalcon on Thu Sep 16, 2010 at 10:54:13 PM EST
    (Firefox), but loading pages on this site has become so slow, I'm reduced to playing solitaire while I wait.

    Parent
    Sen. Dodd re Elizabeth Warren: (none / 0) (#4)
    by oculus on Thu Sep 16, 2010 at 02:31:55 PM EST
    It sounds like the senate (5.00 / 2) (#21)
    by hairspray on Thu Sep 16, 2010 at 03:25:08 PM EST
    is opposed to the people in this matter.  Dodd has overstayed his welcome.  I don't think he is an independent person who represents anyone but the banking industry.

    Parent
    Who cares? (none / 0) (#6)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Sep 16, 2010 at 02:33:40 PM EST
    Who knows? Just trying to figure (none / 0) (#7)
    by oculus on Thu Sep 16, 2010 at 02:34:52 PM EST
    out if Elizabeth Warren is a "good guy."  

    Parent
    It sounds like the senate (none / 0) (#22)
    by hairspray on Thu Sep 16, 2010 at 03:25:21 PM EST
    is opposed to the people in this matter.  Dodd has overstayed his welcome.  I don't think he is an independent person who represents anyone but the banking industry.

    Parent
    It sounds like the senate (none / 0) (#23)
    by hairspray on Thu Sep 16, 2010 at 03:26:26 PM EST
    is opposed to the people in this matter.  Dodd has overstayed his welcome.  I don't think he is an independent person who represents anyone but the banking industry.

    Parent
    Must I read all the links to find out if (none / 0) (#5)
    by oculus on Thu Sep 16, 2010 at 02:33:33 PM EST
    those condemning Kos's book have read it yet?

    Why would Carter do this? (none / 0) (#19)
    by BTAL on Thu Sep 16, 2010 at 03:22:37 PM EST
    Is he losing it or getting bitter in his old age about his legacy?  Am not a fan of either (even though I voted for Carter), but this is not cricket.

    Jimmy Carter blames Kennedy for blocking healthcare reform

    ...

    "The fact is that we would have had comprehensive healthcare now had it not been for Ted Kennedy's deliberately blocking the legislation that I proposed," Carter said in an interview to air Sunday on "60 Minutes" on CBS. "It was his fault. Ted Kennedy killed the bill."

    ...

    "He did not want to see me have a major success in that realm of life," Carter said.




    This is probably heresy on this (5.00 / 3) (#24)
    by hairspray on Thu Sep 16, 2010 at 03:32:23 PM EST
    site, but I am inclined to believe Carter.  Ted took Carter on in 1980 and did a lot of damage.  Then I watched as Kennedy squeezed Hillary out of the limelight on health care and worked hard to get her off the Democratic ticket.  Yeah!  I believe Carter.

    Parent
    I do too (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by ruffian on Thu Sep 16, 2010 at 03:45:06 PM EST
    Makes perfect sense politically since Ted was planning to primary Carter.

    Parent
    heh (none / 0) (#51)
    by CST on Thu Sep 16, 2010 at 04:03:41 PM EST
    I consider myself a pretty solid Ted fan, but frankly, I could totally see this being legit.

    Parent
    What I read said that Ted (5.00 / 2) (#102)
    by the capstan on Thu Sep 16, 2010 at 07:03:25 PM EST
    remarked that his opposition to Carter's health plan was his biggest regret.

    Parent
    Ted said (none / 0) (#128)
    by christinep on Thu Sep 16, 2010 at 11:08:29 PM EST
    that he should have compromised earlier with Nixon (and later, I believe, with Reagan) on healthcare. Senator Kennedy, as he fought the good healthcare battle, grew to regret that he had passed up earlier opportunities to compromise. That may be why his widow, Vicky, was overwhelmed with emotion when HCR did finally pass.

    Parent
    Neither could or would compromise (none / 0) (#125)
    by christinep on Thu Sep 16, 2010 at 11:04:58 PM EST
    Two strong Democrats who spent years in direct public service...both proud, not giving ground. One is dead; the other is still fighting. So, at this stage, who will ever know who was "right or wrong."

    Parent
    Those are some really nasty comments. (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by oculus on Thu Sep 16, 2010 at 03:40:56 PM EST
    With all the current weirdness (5.00 / 1) (#80)
    by MKS on Thu Sep 16, 2010 at 05:23:26 PM EST
    within the GOP, no need to go back to 30 year old disputes to bash Democrats....

    Parent
    RIF, was not bashing Ds (5.00 / 1) (#83)
    by BTAL on Thu Sep 16, 2010 at 05:32:45 PM EST
    I find it uncouth for any former POTUS to be yapping, especially about someone who is not able to defend themselves.  Carter has a bad habit of injecting himself into too many areas where he has no business.  IMHO, all he is doing is trying a bit of revisionist history writing for his legacy's benefit.

    Parent
    Well, Jimmy has his new book (5.00 / 2) (#89)
    by brodie on Thu Sep 16, 2010 at 05:52:31 PM EST
    coming out -- White House Diary or some such.  Supposedly kept it as events unfolded (that part I can believe, and that all the words are actually his and not ghosted).

    I suppose too it would be asking too much for 60M to practice a little journalism and try to get a Kennedy camp response to give the other side of this one.  Very tough charge for an ex prez to make against such a famous senator known most for that one issue.  Makes Teddy out as the worst sort of selfish, spiteful pol putting personal interest ahead of the country's.

    Well, folks are seeing the nasty side of Carter he's largely kept hidden in his post-presidency yrs as he's polished his image with soft poetry and home building -- but it was this darker aspect of the Carter personality which led to the initial rift with Ted in 1976.  

    Parent

    Then there's this: (none / 0) (#94)
    by oculus on Thu Sep 16, 2010 at 06:06:29 PM EST
    Ah, those were the gool ol' days (none / 0) (#116)
    by Cream City on Thu Sep 16, 2010 at 10:19:26 PM EST
    when Dems listened to labor and held firm for single-payer, huh?

    Bygones.

    Parent

    Bravo again (none / 0) (#133)
    by gyrfalcon on Thu Sep 16, 2010 at 11:15:36 PM EST
    BTW, it was Carter going back 30 years (none / 0) (#85)
    by BTAL on Thu Sep 16, 2010 at 05:33:44 PM EST
    The 60-minutes episode is current.

    Parent
    Well (none / 0) (#32)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Sep 16, 2010 at 03:45:59 PM EST
    I think that he and Kennedy were mortal enemies for some reason even before the 1980 primaries.

    Parent
    Again, iirc, (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by brodie on Thu Sep 16, 2010 at 04:36:57 PM EST
    I believe JC may had made some snarky comments about Ted in 1976 that got printed, as he was about to all but wrap up the nomination -- "I'm glad I didn't have to kiss Ted Kennedy's a$$."  Similarly I seem to recall (but have no cite for) a quote just after Carter had won the Nov election in '76 -- "And I won it w/o having to kiss Teddy's a$$."

    In any case, when Carter assumed office he began to want to show both Speaker Tip and Teddy who was really boss in town and who would have to come begging for handouts -- personal slights in making them wait to see Carter, in serving up cheap food and drinks for traditional breakfast/lunch get-togethers with the president, lousy inaugural ball tickets, and the like. (as gov of Georgia, he'd exhibited similar brutal and stupid management displays against state lege leaders)  

    This went on for a while against both Tip and Ted (and Byrd) until Tip finally got through to Carter's people, using some crude language, that if the president ever wanted to get anything done in this town, he'd gee-dee better well start treating people with respect.

    Parent

    Thanks (5.00 / 1) (#69)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Sep 16, 2010 at 04:48:57 PM EST
    I knew that Carter treated a lot of people in DC pretty shabbily but didn't know the whole story.

    Parent
    Not at all a nice man (none / 0) (#131)
    by gyrfalcon on Thu Sep 16, 2010 at 11:12:09 PM EST
    despite the saintly pose.

    Teddy loathed him, and for good reason.  He would not, however, deliberately sabotage health care reform or any other important issue because of it.  That's just so false, it takes the breath away.  Teddy was probably the least vindictive pol we've ever had on the national stage.

    Parent

    It wasn't (none / 0) (#137)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Sep 17, 2010 at 05:51:32 AM EST
    just Teddy that loathed him as I understand. Bill Clinton had no love for him either and there are probably others.

    Parent
    Lots about their relationship on Wikipedia (none / 0) (#36)
    by ruffian on Thu Sep 16, 2010 at 03:51:16 PM EST
    Carter has pretty much said that before, as early as 1982:
    Carter and Kennedy could not agree on a health care reform plan for the country. Kennedy wanted an ambitious, mixed private-government plan with comprehensive coverage, while Carter thought such a plan far too expensive given the troubled economic times, and instead proposed an incremental plan to be phased in over five to ten years.[77][82][83] Neither plan gained any traction in Congress,[82][83] and the failure to come to agreement represented the final political breach between the two.[84] (Carter wrote in 1982 that Kennedy's disagreements with Carter's proposed approach "ironically" thwarted Carter's efforts to provide a comprehensive health-care system for the country.[85] In turn, Kennedy wrote in 2009 that his relationship with Carter was "unhealthy" and that "Clearly President Carter was a difficult man to convince - of anything."[86])


    Parent
    As I recall reading (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by brodie on Thu Sep 16, 2010 at 04:17:56 PM EST
    somewhere long ago, Ted thought he'd had a firm commitment from Carter early on to push for a comprehensive bill more along the bold lines TK was recommending, and when Carter then came back later with what Ted considered a half-hearted approach, there was considerable disappointment and probably more.  By that time, given also the personal slights TK had experienced at the hands of Pres Carter when he first took office, Ted must have thought he was not being dealt with honestly.

    Classy though for Carter to come out with this personal slam against TK now that Ted is conveniently no longer around to defend himself.

    Parent

    Yeah, the personal aspect of these comments (5.00 / 1) (#70)
    by ruffian on Thu Sep 16, 2010 at 04:49:00 PM EST
    is uncool, even though the substance of them is what he has said before.

    Clearly no love lost on either side.

    Parent

    Thanks, Brodie (none / 0) (#132)
    by gyrfalcon on Thu Sep 16, 2010 at 11:14:23 PM EST
    There seem to be an awful lot of people willing to trash Teddy's entire life because of a really stupid error of sentimentality and self-delusion he made towards the end of it.

    I have no doubt whatsoever that he's rolling over in his grave after what's happened the last two years.

    Parent

    DKos and the BP Oil Spill, legal query... (none / 0) (#27)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Thu Sep 16, 2010 at 03:39:38 PM EST
    Daily Kos has an ongoing, 24/7, Gulf Watchers Diary series that mostly focuses on the live underwater feeds from the blown-out well.

    Legally speaking, the prevailing wisdom thereabouts is that the government's power over BP is strictly limited by existing law, nay the Constitution. The definitive diary on the subject was written a few weeks ago by a non-lawyer and no legal feedback is given in any of the attendant comments. FYI, here it is, Authority and the Limits Thereof:

    While I understand the well-meaning emotion behind this ardent desire, born no doubt of frustration and helplessness, behind the emotion, there is the rule of law, and ultimately the Constitution, which binds the actions (or lack thereof) of our federal officials, the Coast Guard, and the President.

    Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer...


    Given the early date of that particular diary, I imagine the current Daily Kos Gulf Watchers ROV #380 thread would be a better place to provide feedback. FWIW, I am not a lawyer either.


    So what's your query? (none / 0) (#134)
    by gyrfalcon on Thu Sep 16, 2010 at 11:18:08 PM EST
    I don't find a question in your post.

    As for the government's legal authority over BP, however far it extends, it's nowhwere near the whole story.  BP is trying desperately to minimize both criminal and civil liability.  Doing what the government tells them to do gives them cover and somebody else to blame if it seems to have gone wrong.

    Have you discovered theolddrum.com?  I'd go there for far more definitive discussion of BP than Kos.

    Parent

    Putting the (none / 0) (#43)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Sep 16, 2010 at 03:57:25 PM EST
    intellectual honesty beside, I don't understand why the Prospect is so upset about title "American Taliban"

    Latent Broderism? (none / 0) (#135)
    by gyrfalcon on Thu Sep 16, 2010 at 11:18:43 PM EST
    High (none / 0) (#138)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Sep 17, 2010 at 05:52:54 AM EST
    broderism is going to be the downfall of this country. Sometimes I think why don't we just go ahead and announce that David Broder is President and be done with it since what ever he says goes.

    Parent
    The Informant! (none / 0) (#59)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Sep 16, 2010 at 04:22:46 PM EST
    seen this?  what a strange movie.  dont know exactly what to think about it.

    but it was very interesting.  particularly since it mostly happened in my current neighborhood.

    Saw it, - thought it was an interesting (none / 0) (#72)
    by ruffian on Thu Sep 16, 2010 at 04:50:59 PM EST
    take ont he story - brought out the absurdity very well.

    Did you read the book? One of my favorites. The movie was actually quite close to the truth of the story - which is even stranger as I recall.

    Parent

    not read the book (none / 0) (#74)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Sep 16, 2010 at 04:57:54 PM EST
    but now I am interested.  it left me with a very strange uneasy feeling.  for all the upbeat happy music and editing.


    Parent
    The tone of the book is definitely more (none / 0) (#110)
    by ruffian on Thu Sep 16, 2010 at 08:36:38 PM EST
    wry, dry humor, when humor was appropriate. Mostly gallows humor because it is essentially a sad story. ADM got away with a lot, and Whitacre, who was unstable to begin with, went off the deep end. I can't imagine the pressure of trying to pull off something so dishonest in very direction. I thought Matt Damon captured that very well.  

    Parent
    Interesting indeed... (none / 0) (#88)
    by kdog on Thu Sep 16, 2010 at 05:39:16 PM EST
    Mark Whitacre, a great personification of a world gone sting/informant/scamming/scheming/greedy/shady
    mad.  A true 20th century man.

    I don't know what to make of that whole deal either, I just want no part of it.

    Parent

    I have the same response to the (none / 0) (#98)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Sep 16, 2010 at 06:29:55 PM EST
    movie, I don't get it....or I don't understand what the guy was really doing.  Perhaps the movie is about how the FBI will take a stab at anything if it looks like a high profile bust could be made.  I remember one scene where he was just pulling anything memorable that they could use against ADM out of his noggin.  And then it got super crazy when I found out that he made up his parents dying in an accident and he was adopted by persons of wealth.  It was really bizarre.  I can't figure out what motivated him, and maybe that is the point made.

    Parent
    I think that is the point. He's spent so much time (none / 0) (#106)
    by tigercourse on Thu Sep 16, 2010 at 07:39:27 PM EST
    lying about so many different things that neither he nor anyone around him can tell what the truth is at all. I loved how the amount of dirty money he'd gotten kept getting bumped up every time it was mentioned.

    Parent
    Baseball players channel Uta Hagen (none / 0) (#60)
    by Dadler on Thu Sep 16, 2010 at 04:26:03 PM EST
    Shocked, shocked, I tell you, and (none / 0) (#79)
    by oculus on Thu Sep 16, 2010 at 05:22:14 PM EST
    disappointed Derek Jeter faked being hit by a pitch.  What next?  Armstrong took drugs?

    Parent
    Jeter's been watching too much soccer. (none / 0) (#81)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Sep 16, 2010 at 05:23:37 PM EST
    You know, the Chivas USA v. Chivas GL (none / 0) (#82)
    by oculus on Thu Sep 16, 2010 at 05:30:05 PM EST
    game Tues. at Petco Park include much flopping that I noticed.  Maybe because I also didn't notice any penalties being handed out.  Fun to just let the game roll along.

    Parent
    gallup (none / 0) (#66)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Sep 16, 2010 at 04:40:43 PM EST
    PRINCETON, NJ -- Nearly two years into his presidency, 51% of Americans say President Barack Obama bears little to no blame for U.S. economic problems, while 48% assign him a great deal or moderate amount of blame. More Americans now blame Obama than did so a year ago, but a substantially higher percentage, 71%, blame former President George W. Bush.


    But the question really is (5.00 / 2) (#77)
    by Cream City on Thu Sep 16, 2010 at 05:06:17 PM EST
    whether they will be motivated to vote and whether they will vote based on who to blame for causing it or who to blame for not fixing it. . . .

    Parent
    I think it was (none / 0) (#99)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Sep 16, 2010 at 06:42:47 PM EST
    a CBS poll that had 58% of the country disapproves of Democrats and 68% of the country disapproves of Republicans. Total anarchy may reign in November.

    Parent
    Unfortunately ... (5.00 / 1) (#104)
    by Erehwon on Thu Sep 16, 2010 at 07:17:22 PM EST
    a smaller percentage of the 42% (that don't disapprove of Democrats) will turn out to vote in November than of the 32% (who approve of the Republicans) ...

    Parent
    Probably (none / 0) (#108)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Sep 16, 2010 at 08:20:49 PM EST
    true.

    Parent
    Now I read that the president whose (none / 0) (#103)
    by the capstan on Thu Sep 16, 2010 at 07:12:02 PM EST
    plan Ted was discussing was Nixon....