home

Tuesday Morning Open Thread

DEA prosecutions were down in 2011. Mexican prison guards at Apodaca Prison have admitted being paid for their involvement in the Zetas jailbreak that killed 44 Gulf Cartel members.

Bruce Springsteen has released the second song from Wrecking Ball, Shackled and Drawn.

This is an open thread, all topics welcome.

< Occupy Prisons Day | Appeals Court Affirms Dismissal of Suit Over Guantanamo Suicides >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Here we go again? (5.00 / 5) (#1)
    by lentinel on Tue Feb 21, 2012 at 04:38:36 AM EST
    The headline in the NY Times states:

    Watchdog Won't See Nuclear Sites in Iran
    LONDON -- Iran said on Tuesday that a team of United Nations nuclear officials visiting the country for the second time in three weeks would not inspect nuclear sites.

    The implication from the headline is clearly that Iran was refusing to cooperate with the UN inspectors.

    Then, in the text of the article, we read:

    On Monday, The A.P. said, Iranian radio said the inspectors had asked to visit a military complex outside Tehran that is a suspected secret weapons-making location. It was not clear whether the Iranian authorities had specifically turned down the reported request. I.A.E.A. officials did not immediately return calls seeking clarification.

    And, near the bottom of the two page article, this appears:

    Last week, in a letter to the European Union, Iran called for new talks "at the earliest possibility" with the group of six powers that have negotiated with Iran in the past on the nuclear issue: the United States, Russia, China, France, Britain and Germany.

    This is what we're up against once again.
    The drum beat - the hysteria - the confusion.

    I think we are ALL being prepped (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Feb 21, 2012 at 09:51:53 AM EST
    Israel is going to hit the Iran nuclear facilities with our bunker busters before the April elections make that more complicated to do.

    Parent
    Oil futures (none / 0) (#11)
    by Edger on Tue Feb 21, 2012 at 10:21:15 AM EST
    WSJ, February 21, 2012

    SINGAPORE (Dow Jones)--U.S. crude-oil futures rose sharply Tuesday...


    Parent
    Well it will make oil prices go up (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Feb 21, 2012 at 10:43:07 AM EST
    due to speculators.  I think they really want to hit Iran to set back their possible nuclear capabilities though.  They (the magic they who work very hard behind the scenes but also work to be hidden and unnamed) will be pushing hard to bring about regime change I think if they do hit the facilities.

    It is still up in the air when the Likud will have the early primaries that have been proposed, but when that happens it could expose party weakness as Israel faces war head on.  We could also find out though that a majority of the nation of Israel supports trying to destroy Iran's nuclear capabilities too.  Nobody seems to know how that will swing.

    From what I understand though, April is the most likely time if they do it.

    Parent

    Going to be messy (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by Edger on Tue Feb 21, 2012 at 10:49:06 AM EST

    Who may suffer, other than Iranians?  In the long run, the shaky economies of Italy, Greece, and Spain, long dependent on Iranian oil, potentially raising further problems for an already roiling Eurozone.  And don't forget the U.S. economy, or your own pocketbook, if gas prices go up, or even President Obama, if his bet on oil sanctions turns out to be an economic disaster in an election year. 

    In other words, once again Washington's (and Tel Aviv's) carefully calculated plans for Iran may  go seriously, painfully awry.  Now, in all honesty, wouldn't you call  that Kafkaesque? 

    -- No Exit In The Persian Gulf?

    Parent

    I'm just trying to understand (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Feb 21, 2012 at 10:55:56 AM EST
    Israeli government today.  I've been trying for some time, but it works very differently from ours......not bad, not better, just very different.

    Parent
    To the (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by lentinel on Tue Feb 21, 2012 at 12:35:09 PM EST
    extent that they might be considering a bombing campaign in order to influence an election... they might not be all that different from the American model.

    Parent
    We might be modeling together (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Feb 21, 2012 at 12:42:29 PM EST
    Rolling out a new season :)  Cue the beat

    I really am trying not to over read things, but the Erin Burnett thing left a weird taste in my mouth.

    Parent

    It would be horrible to find out someday (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Feb 21, 2012 at 10:57:17 AM EST
    that they were "shocking" us all trying to "shock" us into a better economic unreality.

    Parent
    I think oil is secondary (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by Edger on Tue Feb 21, 2012 at 11:11:32 AM EST
    and that it's just all about global balance of power and money, and maintaining the US empire.

    Once Iran becomes un-attackable control of the middle east (and the oil) shifts to Iran-Russia-China.

    They are not suicidal. Israel has 2 or 3 hundred nuclear bombs.

    Parent

    That's (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by cal1942 on Tue Feb 21, 2012 at 12:24:47 PM EST
    hitting the nail on the head.

    Parent
    I keep reflecting back on Oliver Stone's (none / 0) (#30)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Feb 21, 2012 at 11:24:53 AM EST
    documentary 'South of the Border', and how Bush argued with the President of Argentina about what "revitalizes" an economy.  Bush insisted that war revitalizes economies.  He's not smart enough to come up with that idea all by himself.  I think that is an idea that many economists "consider" when they look for ways to inject energy and incentive and confidence into a population.  I also think it is unethical as hell.  But we have evidence that shocking economies was something attempted by Milton Friedman, and it just makes me wonder and gives me great pause.

    Isn't it odd that a huge initial push to war with Iran came out of that Goldman Sachs flunky Erin Burnett?  I couldn't stand her even before this though, there is just something broken in her.  I don't want to read too much into things.  It's just that stuff does seem to be really weird about all this.  It doesn't really seem to all add up, and there is a big undercurrent pushing this.  Who?  Erin Burnett doesn't roll something out like that all by her little self.  Why?  I'm not sure the surface adds up to what is going on under the surface.

    Parent

    If it (5.00 / 3) (#42)
    by lentinel on Tue Feb 21, 2012 at 12:33:45 PM EST
    were true that war revitalizes an economy, we should have had a perpetually vitalized economy by now.

    Parent
    Well, we have a "jobs" program (5.00 / 3) (#48)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Feb 21, 2012 at 12:51:20 PM EST
    due to the wars we have now.  Downsizing the military is going to be very challenging in this economy.  I don't see us going into the Iran though.  They do have a stockpile of soldiers sitting in Kuwait though.  I know someone who was just deployed there last month to go sit and wait.

    But war shocks all of us,  we just sit there and stare.  During the first Gulf War I was tending bar at a hotel.  I was used to customers coming in and having two drinks, looking over their paperwork in the quiet and then going to their rooms.  They didn't really talk to each other much, and many of them would come and get a couple of beers and take them to their room and be alone.  When we were bombing Baghdad I suddenly had a full bar.  Nobody went to their rooms, nobody wanted to be alone.  We were a room full of strangers afraid to be alone. I think in the emotional shock of war we are easier to manipulate.  And wartime Presidents....we don't change horses when we are afraid.  Many people are very afraid of an Iran/Israel square off.

    Parent

    Awesome (none / 0) (#82)
    by lentinel on Tue Feb 21, 2012 at 03:44:11 PM EST
    and chilling observation, MT.

    Parent
    Imagine... (none / 0) (#32)
    by Edger on Tue Feb 21, 2012 at 11:31:54 AM EST
    Real cowards go to Tehran

    Imagine the classic United States neo-conservative wet dream; staring at Iran on a map and salivating about the crossroads between Europe and Asia, between the Arab world and the Indian subcontinent, between the Arabian Sea and Central Asia, with 10% of the world's proven oil reserves (over 150 billion barrels) and 15% of proven gas reserves - an energy complex bigger than Saudi Arabia and arbiter of the energy routes from the Persian Gulf to the West and Asia via the Strait of Hormuz.

    It's like a pudgy armchair action man mesmerized by a nimble lap dancer. I'm gonna make you mine, honey. It's regime change time, gotta snuff out the owner of this joint.
    [snip]
    The funds Tehran is losing because of the sanctions - in terms of less exports to Europe - are being largely compensated by the oil-price spike caused by the neo-con-driven warmongering.
    [snip]
    Tehran is enriching uranium to a paltry 3.5%; a nuclear bomb needs 95% - and that would be immediately detected by the International Atomic Energy Agency.
    If that happens - and that's a major if - there's no way regime change from the outside may be imposed.



    Parent
    Ten (none / 0) (#29)
    by Edger on Tue Feb 21, 2012 at 11:17:36 AM EST
    Truly (5.00 / 1) (#85)
    by fishcamp on Tue Feb 21, 2012 at 04:15:31 PM EST
    worthwhile and powerful Edger...Thank you.

    Parent
    Thanks, fishcamp (none / 0) (#97)
    by Edger on Tue Feb 21, 2012 at 07:13:12 PM EST
    And in about 4 weeks Iran will start undercutting petrodollars and start trading their oil in other currencies, which is why the US wants SWIFT war on Iran

    If the Washington/Tel Aviv-promoted hysteria is already at fever pitch, wait for March 20, when the Iranian oil bourse will start trading oil in other currencies apart from the US dollar, heralding the arrival of a new oil marker to be denominated in euro, yen, yuan, rupee or a basket of currencies.

    That would suit Asian clients - from BRICS members India and China to US allies Japan and South Korea, not to mention NATO member Turkey. But that would also suit European clients, to pay for oil in their own currency. Tehran - as well as many key players in the developing world - does want to sink the petrodollar. That may be the straw to break the American camel's back.



    Parent
    Confusion? (none / 0) (#64)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Feb 21, 2012 at 02:12:22 PM EST
    About what? It is plain that Iran is playing the IEA and the "six powers" for fools.

    Parent
    If we armed Iraq to the teeth for the (none / 0) (#91)
    by Wile ECoyote on Tue Feb 21, 2012 at 05:01:39 PM EST
    Iran Iraq war as you say, can you list the arms we evil Americans provided.  I ask you as someone over there getting shot at during that war.

    Parent
    An itemized list of weapons? (none / 0) (#93)
    by Yman on Tue Feb 21, 2012 at 06:44:59 PM EST
    You think that would be declassified?

    The Reagan admin provided a great deal of military assistance to Iraq, including weapons.  Are you really suggesting they didn't?

    Parent

    lets see a link. (none / 0) (#96)
    by Wile ECoyote on Tue Feb 21, 2012 at 07:07:43 PM EST
    Of the arming.

    Parent
    Here's a link for you. (5.00 / 1) (#99)
    by caseyOR on Tue Feb 21, 2012 at 07:30:30 PM EST
    Reagan was quite helpful to Sadam during the Iraq-Iran war.

    Here is a list of Reagan administration efforts to arm and aid Iraq.

    That the u.S. provided munitions to Iraq is quite well-known. It seems odd that you don't know this.

    Parent

    From the Iran (none / 0) (#114)
    by Wile ECoyote on Wed Feb 22, 2012 at 04:51:38 AM EST
    Chamber society?

    Parent
    Hey, you can google. (5.00 / 1) (#122)
    by caseyOR on Wed Feb 22, 2012 at 01:34:37 PM EST
    Before you discount the information, check it out. My link gave you specific dates and specific actions taken by Reagan. If you don't like my source, find your own.

    And, seriously, your claim of ignorance on this rings, well, false. Anyone who has been paying the least bit of attention since the first Gulf war knows that we armed Sadam in his fight with Iran. Further, it is well-documented that we, the uNited States, supplied Sadam with the deadly gas he then turned against his own people.

    Parent

    nothing'll ever put a dent in the faith (5.00 / 1) (#126)
    by jondee on Wed Feb 22, 2012 at 03:50:01 PM EST
    of a true believer in the essential, red-white-and-blue virtue of the Reagan administration and it's policies..

    Not the actual historical record, not nothin'..

    What you all call facts is nothin' but Eye-ranian propaganda.

    Parent

    Not an answer (5.00 / 1) (#104)
    by Yman on Tue Feb 21, 2012 at 08:26:40 PM EST
    Of course, I understand why you wouldn't want to answer.

    Here's a general overview of US support for Iraq during the Iran-Iraq War.

    Parent

    Donald, do you mean (none / 0) (#101)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Feb 21, 2012 at 07:40:43 PM EST
    the involvement in which the US kept Iran from become a satellite of the USSR or our involvement in which we let Iran fall under the control of religious fanatics? The former, of course, was fueled by our understanding that the Soviets wanted a warm water port and a pincher on the West's major oil supply with the ability to control the straits or the latter when a Democrat President became the midwife of the modern Muslim terrorist movement?

    Our actions in '53 were correct. Our actions under Carter were damnably wrong.

    How much we did, or did not do, during the Iraq-Iran war is subject to debate. I would say that since Iraq did not win whatever we did was not enough.

    But that was then and now is now. There is no doubt that Iran is rapidly nearing completion of a nuclear weapon.  Their threats have been loud and specific. The west would be fools to allow Iran to have nuclear war capability.

    Iran does not want to negotiate and has not negotiated in good faith. And I cannot believe you believe that we would not triumph in any armed conflict if we move now.

    I believe that we have a window of opportunity in which we can move to prevent Iran from becoming a nuclear power and thus uncontrollable. This will be somewhat costly but far less than what it will be later.

    The question is, shall we be Churchill or Chamberlain?

    Parent

    "Churchill or Chamberlain? " (none / 0) (#108)
    by NYShooter on Tue Feb 21, 2012 at 09:17:31 PM EST
    Sounds like you'd prefer George W. Bush.

    Parent
    If Chamberlain, as well as the French, (none / 0) (#116)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Feb 22, 2012 at 07:11:22 AM EST
    had had a bit of Bush in them it is possible that WWII could have been avoided.

    Think of that.

    Parent

    If they had a bit of Bush in them... (5.00 / 2) (#118)
    by Dadler on Wed Feb 22, 2012 at 08:10:35 AM EST
    ...they would've invaded Portugal instead.  That's about the ONLY thing you could say.

    Parent
    A very good snark, I tip my hat (none / 0) (#131)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Feb 22, 2012 at 07:58:10 PM EST
    but you have to understand that WWII was enabled by Chamberlain and the reactions of the French to Hitler's troop movements,

    Parent
    It was enabled by many things (none / 0) (#139)
    by jondee on Thu Feb 23, 2012 at 03:05:23 PM EST
    including Hitler's rise being bolstered by tons of investment capital pouring into Germany from the Europe and the U.S (because their shirts may've been brown, but their money was green..)

    And the simplistic, either/or mentality of people like Churchill, who apparently saw Hitler and Nazism as a bulwark against the spread of Soviet Bolshevism..

    This Limbaughian meme about Chamberlin and the French being just like Jimmy Carter - in order to make some idiotic, heavy-handed point about lilly-livered liberals - is just a trashing of history for the purposes of propagandizing.

    Parent

    "Avoided" by STARTING it ... (5.00 / 1) (#119)
    by Yman on Wed Feb 22, 2012 at 08:35:34 AM EST
    ... and invading the wrong country?

    Heh.

    Parent

    Because the Germans (none / 0) (#124)
    by jondee on Wed Feb 22, 2012 at 03:28:41 PM EST
    and their allies were in just the same position to put up a well-armed resistence as Iraq was..

    The end of major hostilities would've come in a few short weeks and FDR coulda' had a big, Mission Accomplished ceremony on a carrier same way Dubya did.

    Parent

    Donald, you just can't seem to grasp that (none / 0) (#115)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Feb 22, 2012 at 07:09:16 AM EST
    when you spout such comments as
    but a laughable crock of right-wing bull$Hi+.

    You neither prove your point or put anyone in mind to respond to you in a reasonable manner. As I have noted before, I wonder if you act such in personal settings. If so you must lead an interesting life. Such outbursts are, shall we say, self limiting in person to person situations, although they may stroke your ego.

    And yes, I am knowledgeable of the situation in Iran in '53 and am quite aware of the Left's attempts to rewrite history because that is one of the ways they can try and hide the terrible foreign policy of Jimmy Carter and all that has came out of it. And much has. Many dead. Freedom lost for millions.

    Parent

    Amazing (none / 0) (#117)
    by Edger on Wed Feb 22, 2012 at 07:47:53 AM EST
    Where did you learn all this, Jim?

    Parent
    Well, Edger, I read and read some more (none / 0) (#129)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Feb 22, 2012 at 07:50:51 PM EST
    and went in with an open mind.

    Try it sometime.

    I also had a friend from Iran who came to this country in 1980. I first met him in a business relationship. He did quite well in business and managed to get his parents and sisters out.

    I think the most interesting thing he said was that the Shah was not as good as some people thought or as bad as some people thought.

    But the theocracy that replaced him was terrible beyond most people's ability to understand.

    Parent

    Sure (none / 0) (#125)
    by jondee on Wed Feb 22, 2012 at 03:36:20 PM EST
    all Carter had to do was get a post-Vietnam America to back an invasion and long-term occupation of a well-armed country, of militant temper, twice the size of Vietnam, with mountainous terrain, and an easily established supply line to-and-from the SU..

    THAT woulda' made up fer Vietnam (in the fevered, delusional imaginations of some..)

    Parent

    Actually all Carter had to do was support (none / 0) (#130)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Feb 22, 2012 at 07:55:07 PM EST
    the Shah and manage the situation to prevent the take over of the country.

    You know. One pound of prevention is worth ten pounds of cure.

    Pretty straightforward stuff that anyone in business understands.

    Parent

    Support the shah and prevent the takeover? (none / 0) (#132)
    by Edger on Wed Feb 22, 2012 at 08:05:06 PM EST
    You mean continue paying the Shah's rent in Italy, or maybe somewhere like Virginia - Langley for instance, maybe? - and call off the CIA overthrow of a democratically elected government?

    Carter was not in office in 1953, although I suppose if he had been the '79 hostage crisis probably never would have happened.

    You know. One pound of prevention is worth ten pounds of cure.

    Pretty straightforward stuff that anyone in business understands.

    Parent

    I see you cannot answer. (none / 0) (#133)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Feb 23, 2012 at 07:15:08 AM EST
    I think he just did (5.00 / 1) (#134)
    by Yman on Thu Feb 23, 2012 at 07:41:39 AM EST
    I see you cannot understand.

    BTW - Isn't your evidence that you are an "independent" voter the fact/claim that you supported Carter 26 years ago?

    Heh.

    Parent

    Support the Shah.. (none / 0) (#140)
    by jondee on Thu Feb 23, 2012 at 03:10:38 PM EST
    Occam's primitive battle axe again.

    This is what Fox and Talk radio do: instill the habit of substituting bumperstickers for actual analysis.

    And what would've been entailed in Carter "supporting the shah" in order to curtail the revolution?

    Parent

    If BP said the oil field (none / 0) (#123)
    by jondee on Wed Feb 22, 2012 at 03:21:29 PM EST
    nationalizing Iran was going to be "a Soviet Satellite", and if United Fruit said the same about Gautamala, who's a military-idustrial-complex tool like Jim to argue the point?

    If you're claiming Mossedegh was a communist, cough up some actual evidence, Jim.

    Or maybe do the more sensible thing and stop blathering Gen Jack D. Ripper bullsh*t with nothing to augment it but your desperate need to revise history.

    Parent

    My husband said when he came home (none / 0) (#107)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Feb 21, 2012 at 09:17:09 PM EST
    that Israel doesn't have anything that flies that is large enough to deliver a MOP, and they need a MOP to knock out the really hardened in facilities.  They would need a B-2 to deliver a MOP and he says we haven't shared B-2 with anyone.  The smaller bunker busters that we sent them that they can deliver will not dig in deep enough.

    Parent
    Do they (none / 0) (#113)
    by Edger on Wed Feb 22, 2012 at 03:52:59 AM EST
    have a MOP?

    Parent
    If they do they have nothing to deliver it with (5.00 / 1) (#127)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Feb 22, 2012 at 07:02:50 PM EST
    If a MOP ends up in Iran someplace, it can only be delivered by a B-2 as far as anyone knows at this time.  And we are the only ones with a B-2.  I don't know if anything that Israel flies can be modified to deliver a MOP.  My husband says no.  The only thing they have to deliver a bomb with is an F-117.  He also adds that Israel has never been into force projection.  The only thing they have ever built or acquired have been things used to protect their borders other than their speculated nuclear capabilities.  They have no real Navy, they have no real bombers.

    Parent
    Thanks (none / 0) (#128)
    by Edger on Wed Feb 22, 2012 at 07:15:31 PM EST
    I was wondering - if they have one why, if they can't deliver it.

    I guess their only other option for being able to dig deep enough is a nuclear warhead...........

    Parent

    I don't even want to write it (5.00 / 1) (#135)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Feb 23, 2012 at 07:56:28 AM EST
    cuz it just scares the crap out of everyone, but yeah....other than some kind of attack where Israel gets some special forces inside facilities and then blows them, they either use something nuclear that they may have or they settle for just setting the Iranians back a bit with external fascia type damage.

    That is if they do this by themselves with the smaller bunker busters from us.

    Parent

    A ground burst nuclear attack on Iran (none / 0) (#136)
    by Edger on Thu Feb 23, 2012 at 08:33:50 AM EST
    would be quite a show.... :-(

    Parent
    And have serious economic cosequences. (5.00 / 1) (#137)
    by Edger on Thu Feb 23, 2012 at 08:35:33 AM EST
    Sales of viagra, cialis, etc would plummet among wingnut armchair bound warriors...

    Parent
    Yup (5.00 / 1) (#138)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Feb 23, 2012 at 09:09:11 AM EST
    So here we are.  Are we providing the B-2 or not?  And if we do that, those fingerprints have fingers on them at the time of ignition :)

    Parent
    I wanted to write about so many things (5.00 / 7) (#5)
    by loveed on Tue Feb 21, 2012 at 09:15:25 AM EST
    this month.
     But life always get in the way. I Am preparing for all of my grandchildren to visit. They will arrive thursday. Although I will be so happy to see them, it's a sad occasion.
     Their coming for the funeral, or home going of their great grandmother. My oldest daughter children has lost 3 grand or great grand parent in the last 6 months. In the same time frame 2 young cousin (25 my great nephew, my niece 37). My niece who had such a gentle soul, was buried 2 wks ago.
     When I went to her funeral, I could see the toll this had taken on my first mother-in law. I had never seen her in a wheelchair before.
     No one should have to bury grandchildren or great grandchildren. She was so close to both of theses children.
     She was 91. She was a great dancer. At her 90th birthday party, the line was so long. everyone was  waiting to dance with her. I was tired, she was still dancing.
      One of my favorite memories of her, was on the Nautica Boat, and entertainment cruise ship here in Cleveland.
      My youngest daughter was the lead singer with the band on the boat. My  2 daughters birthdays are two days apart. So we decided to celebrate on the ship.
      My ex-husband son is an extremely talented tap dancer. At the age of 8, he danced on Broadway with Gregory Hines.
      She was about 84. I have always regretted not getting this on video tape. No one could believe her dancing. She took it to the floor. The boat was packed. People was standing on top of the tables to get a better look at this grey haired lady.
       As I sit here with tears in my eyes and a smile on my face.Remembering,her granddaughter was singing, and she was wiping floor with her grandson.
       She was so upset at my 50th birthday party, that she could not dance. She had just had her hip replaced. She would dance again, and with a new hip she was better than ever.
       She loved to play bingo. She played the week before her death. She still could drive. She lived in her own home alone, after the death of her two grandchildren. They lived upstairs.
     Like my mom she lived and died on her own terms.
       I will truly miss her.
      Rest in peace Lady Brown

    this really says it all (5.00 / 3) (#35)
    by The Addams Family on Tue Feb 21, 2012 at 12:09:30 PM EST
    about losing the ones we really love:

    I sit here with tears in my eyes and a smile on my face.

    time & again, i have seen how surprising it is for people, the first time they attend a funeral that really matters, to discover that there is a lot of laughter along with the tears

    your grandchildren are so blessed to have you, loveed

    Parent

    So much better, in my opinion, to (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by Anne on Tue Feb 21, 2012 at 12:24:55 PM EST
    celebrate the lives of those we have lost - it brings them so much deeper into our hearts, which is where we want them to be.  

    Parent
    It is so good to pass these stories (5.00 / 3) (#39)
    by ruffian on Tue Feb 21, 2012 at 12:30:28 PM EST
    along while the young people can still talk to the elders about them. I did not learn until my aunt died that she had been vaudeville performer - traveled around the country with a trick roller-skating act. There are old black and white pictures of her being spun around on stage like you play airplane with a kid. I would have enjoyed knowing that about her a little earlier.

    Your family sounds so wonderful. Can you adopt me?

    Parent

    Strauss-Kahn back in the news (5.00 / 3) (#7)
    by MO Blue on Tue Feb 21, 2012 at 10:00:30 AM EST
    Strauss-Kahn questioned in prostitution case

    Interesting defense strategy?

    Strauss-Kahn's name surfaced in the investigation last fall and his lawyer has asked that Strauss-Kahn be allowed to tell his side of the story. One of Strauss-Kahn's lawyers has said that the former French presidential hopeful never knew that the women at orgies he attended were prostitutes.

    "He could easily not have known, because as you can imagine, at these kinds of parties you're not always dressed, and I challenge you to distinguish a naked prostitute from any other naked woman," Henri Leclerc told French radio Europe 1 in December.



    "no one could have predicted..." (5.00 / 4) (#8)
    by Edger on Tue Feb 21, 2012 at 10:02:59 AM EST
    Did some dude really say that? (5.00 / 2) (#9)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Feb 21, 2012 at 10:12:57 AM EST
    Prostitution is all in the dressing :)  What clothes you have on :)

    Parent
    Once again (5.00 / 3) (#10)
    by MO Blue on Tue Feb 21, 2012 at 10:19:14 AM EST
    It is all the women's fault. Had the women been required to have a "W" branded on their foreheads, Strauss-Kahn would not have participated in the orgies. :-)

    Parent
    Wanna bet? (none / 0) (#38)
    by cal1942 on Tue Feb 21, 2012 at 12:28:27 PM EST
    n/t

    Parent
    I always (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by kmblue on Tue Feb 21, 2012 at 10:45:33 AM EST
    believed the maid.  This shows he he has a habit of using women for his games.  And of course, women all look alike.  Perhaps he took the maid's uniform for a costume.

    Parent
    can you imagine (5.00 / 3) (#21)
    by CST on Tue Feb 21, 2012 at 10:58:53 AM EST
    living in a country where the scandal is not that he attended orgies, but that he had to pay the women to show up.

    Oh France.

    Parent

    Yer making me think about Colin Quinn's (none / 0) (#22)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Feb 21, 2012 at 11:08:03 AM EST
    'Long Story Short'

    Parent
    That's not the scandal... (none / 0) (#24)
    by kdog on Tue Feb 21, 2012 at 11:10:19 AM EST
    prostitution is legal in France, that's not the issue at all...the issue is whether they were expensing the cost of the parties.  If the
    host(s) of the parties paid the ladies on their own dime there would be no issue whatsoever...because, as you said, it's France;)

    Parent
    from the bbc (none / 0) (#31)
    by CST on Tue Feb 21, 2012 at 11:29:13 AM EST
    "It is also alleged that they were paid for out of corporate funds from a large construction company. It is illegal for a public official to receive gifts of any kind, including sex."

    I like that they felt the need to specify that sex is also an illegal "gift".

    Honestly with things like this I have to question his self-awareness.  Does he really think he's that desirable?  Meh.

    Parent

    Rich and Powerful... (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by kdog on Tue Feb 21, 2012 at 11:41:39 AM EST
    and delusions of grandeur seem to flock together, I hear ya.

    But I kinda see DSK's point, wouldn't it be rude to ask?  It may be unlikely that attractive young women are lining up to attend orgies with wrinkly old bastards, otoh lots of wrinkly old bastards have attractive young women on their arms.  

    Parent

    Ain't it the truth? (none / 0) (#34)
    by Zorba on Tue Feb 21, 2012 at 11:52:45 AM EST
    Seems to be that money and/or power makes someone very attractive to many who would not otherwise find that person attractive.

    Parent
    And, it may be a "two-way street", (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by KeysDan on Tue Feb 21, 2012 at 01:49:34 PM EST
    according to Oscar Wilde (Lady Windermere's Fan), when the gents at the Club warned old Lord Augustus that the beautiful Mrs. Erlynne would not be interested in him at all if he were not rich and powerful; the Lord replied that if Mrs. Erlynne weren't young and attractive, he would not be interested in her.

    Parent
    A fundamental truth (none / 0) (#40)
    by cal1942 on Tue Feb 21, 2012 at 12:31:47 PM EST
    n/t

    Parent
    It's the (none / 0) (#41)
    by CoralGables on Tue Feb 21, 2012 at 12:32:55 PM EST
    entrepreneur spirit alive and well in the pursuit of short term expense accounts and long-term wills.

    Parent
    In America... (5.00 / 1) (#73)
    by kdog on Tue Feb 21, 2012 at 02:42:19 PM EST
    it would be a sex scandal, in France I think it is more a corruption scandal...as it should be.

    In America, we don't bat an eye about buying politicians, as long as your faithful to your spouse while selling your office it's all good.

    Parent

    DKS's defense rivals the (none / 0) (#62)
    by KeysDan on Tue Feb 21, 2012 at 02:09:18 PM EST
    Twinkie defense in legal improbability.  But DKS may well need a good story since he is being questioned on suspicion of "pimping and misuse of company funds".  So, it will be important to his defense that he can show that he did not know the women who were "entertaining" him were prostitutes and that he did not know that the escorts were being paid by funds fraudulently obtained by his hosts.  The Affaire du Carlton is big news in France, involving the deputy police chief of Lille, the director and staff of the Hotel Carlton and an executive of a large construction firm, Eiffage.

    Parent
    I'm sure (none / 0) (#65)
    by jbindc on Tue Feb 21, 2012 at 02:13:38 PM EST
    He's being framed. The prosecutor is out to get him and is corrupt. Or he was abused as a child.  Or the glove didn't fit.

    I'm sure there's some explanation.

    Parent

    how about waiting until he's accused (5.00 / 2) (#92)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Feb 21, 2012 at 05:59:10 PM EST
    of something. Right now he's just being questioned.

    Parent
    Howes, Warden v. Fields was decided (5.00 / 5) (#52)
    by Anne on Tue Feb 21, 2012 at 01:11:40 PM EST
    today, and I am very much interested in the resident lawyers' take on it.

    This was a Miranda case - it involved a prisoner serving time on a disorderly conduct conviction, who was taken from his cell and interrogated for between 5 and 7 hours, and never given any kind of Miranda warning.

    The Court held that Miranda did not apply to this prisoner.

    The dissenting opinion was written by Justice Ginsburg, and its concluding paragraphs state:

    Miranda instructed that such a person "must be clearly informed that he has the right to consult with a lawyer and to have the lawyer with him during interrogation." Ibid. Those warnings, along with "warnings of the right to remain silent and that anything stated can be used inevidence against [the speaker]," Miranda explained, are necessary "prerequisite[s] to [an] interrogation" compatible with the Fifth Amendment. Ibid. Today, for people already in prison, the Court finds it adequate for the police to say: "You are free to terminate this interrogation and return to your cell." Such a statement is no substitute for one ensuring that an individual is aware of his rights.

    For the reasons stated, I would hold that the "incommunicado interrogation [of Fields] in a police-dominatedatmosphere," id., at 445, without informing him of his rights, dishonored the Fifth Amendment privilege Miranda was designed to safeguard.

    Joining Justice Ginsburg were Justices Breyer and Sotomayor.

    Justice Kagan voted with the majority.

    Kagan siding with the likes of Alito, Roberts, Scalia, Kennedy and Thomas is not reassuring.

     Here's the link (it's in pdf form) to the entire decision.

    Here's Glenn Greewald's take: (5.00 / 1) (#110)
    by Mr Natural on Tue Feb 21, 2012 at 10:15:02 PM EST
    Rolling Stone... (5.00 / 2) (#57)
    by kdog on Tue Feb 21, 2012 at 01:50:19 PM EST
    calls Obama on broken promises...Obama's War on Pot.

    Nothing in there that Jeralyn hasn't already schooled us on...but it's a nice unhappy recap of the first term so far.  

    Worse than Bush, maybe the worst ever...and that's a bold statement with predecessors like Nixon and Clinton.

    No republican could ever (5.00 / 0) (#59)
    by Edger on Tue Feb 21, 2012 at 01:55:31 PM EST
    hope to accomplish what Obama does....

    Parent
    immigration too (5.00 / 2) (#61)
    by CST on Tue Feb 21, 2012 at 02:06:40 PM EST
    Apparently these days if you have a green card you can't leave the country longer than 2 weeks a year.  And if you try to oppose it in court you will have it completely revoked and put on a black list.  That means if you want to visit family, or if someone at home gets sick, or your sister is getting married - doesn't matter.  You can't leave and come back.

    At least that's what an immigration lawyer recently told a family friend who had her green card revoked.

    It's a big issue right now for my sister because her husband isn't a citizen.  So she's working on getting turkish citizenship just in case he gets kicked out.  They say they aren't gonna split up families anymore, but that doesn't seem to apply to muslims these days.  The immigration laws in this country are entirely f*cked.  And Obama has absolutely been worse.

    Parent

    Whistleblowers, too. (5.00 / 2) (#70)
    by KeysDan on Tue Feb 21, 2012 at 02:29:28 PM EST
    More whistleblowers (6) have been charged under the World War I Espionage Act by the Obama administration than any other administration in history. And, more anti-leaker cases in the last two years than all presidents in the last 40 years.  Maybe, there is just a lot more of it going around these days.

    Parent
    F*ckin' A you guys... (5.00 / 1) (#74)
    by kdog on Tue Feb 21, 2012 at 02:45:56 PM EST
    immigration, whistleblowers...the authoritarianism is strong in this one.

    Parent
    with the green card thing (none / 0) (#75)
    by CST on Tue Feb 21, 2012 at 03:00:04 PM EST
    it basically comes down to the issue of "abandonment" - if you are out of the country too long you have abandoned the US and can lose your green card.

    Since there is no specific amount of time set in stone for this, it can be completely arbitrary if they decide they don't want you.

    Conventional wisdom in the past has been that if you are gone for more than a year you have abandoned the US.  But word on the street is they are now just running rampant with that and using it as an excuse to get rid of people, so people are afraid to leave for any reason.  Especially Muslims.  Shoot for a while, you could be a US citizen but if you went to the wrong country and ended up on a "do not fly" list you couldn't come home.  Luckily the ACLU was all over that.

    Parent

    And then there is... (none / 0) (#76)
    by kdog on Tue Feb 21, 2012 at 03:09:17 PM EST
    "Secure Communities"...to deport the worst of the worst, like the poor slob with a broken headlight.

    It's all so f*cked up it is hard to even contemplate.

    Parent

    Something specific about their case? (none / 0) (#77)
    by vicndabx on Tue Feb 21, 2012 at 03:11:13 PM EST
    Does travel outside the United States affect my permanent resident status?
    Permanent residents are free to travel outside the United States, and temporary or brief travel usually does not affect your permanent resident status. If it is determined, however, that you did not intend to make the United States your permanent home, you will be found to have abandoned your permanent resident status.  A general guide used is whether you have been absent from the United States for more than a year. Abandonment may be found to occur in trips of less than a year where it is believed you did not intend to make the United States your permanent residence.

    Link

    I have an in-law that travels home regularly and never has an issue.  

    Parent

    and today (5.00 / 2) (#121)
    by CST on Wed Feb 22, 2012 at 11:25:58 AM EST
    I see this article in the news.  It's actually a story that started a few years ago (2009), but it's stuff like this that seems to be happening more and more.  Full disclosure, I know these people, the woman is a good friend of my sister's and I've eaten at that restaurant a few times.

    Basically she owned a restaurant in Boston, was here on an investment Visa, she goes home to visit family with her son (who is a U.S. citizen) they are denied re-entry and her Visa is revoked, with no reason given.  Now they've lost their business and everything they worked for went down the drain.

    It's crazy and a lot of legal immigrants I know are becoming (rightfully) afraid of leaving the country for any reason.

    Parent

    not sure the specifics (none / 0) (#79)
    by CST on Tue Feb 21, 2012 at 03:27:21 PM EST
    I do know that in this case, they also traveled home regularly and never had an issue.

    Until they did.

    Parent

    Journalists killed in Homs, Syria (5.00 / 1) (#120)
    by ruffian on Wed Feb 22, 2012 at 10:12:53 AM EST
    One of them Marie Colvin, who already had lost an eye covering another conflict.  If only we had more like her, and the late Anthony Hadid.

    Colvin, 57, had worked as a foreign correspondent for The Sunday Times for the past two decades. She was instantly recognizable for an eye patch she wore after being injured by shrapnel while covering conflicts in Sri Lanka in 2001.

    Colvin said she would not "hang up my flak jacket" even after the eye injury.

    "So, was I stupid? Stupid I would feel writing a column about the dinner party I went to last night," she wrote in the Sunday Times after the attack. "Equally, I'd rather be in that middle ground between a desk job and getting shot, no offense to desk jobs.




    President Irony? (none / 0) (#4)
    by Edger on Tue Feb 21, 2012 at 08:58:30 AM EST
    You'd think they could have picked someone with a different NAME to highlight for this campaign?

    Can Obama's volunteer army win him a second term?

    In a cramped campaign office a couple of blocks from a sprawling General Motors assembly plant, Linda KOCH rings the bell used to signal that a new volunteer has signed up for the fight to reelect President Barack Obama.


    Go ahead. You first ;-) (none / 0) (#12)
    by Edger on Tue Feb 21, 2012 at 10:24:02 AM EST
    Post's aim is to invent an efficient way to produce skeletal muscle tissue in a laboratory that exactly mimics meat, and eventually replace the entire meat-animal industry.

    The ingredients for his first burger are "still in a laboratory phase," he said, but by fall "we have committed ourselves to make a couple of thousand of small tissues, and then assemble them into a hamburger."

    -- First `test-tube' hamburger to be produced this year

    grabbing the throne as I read (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by DFLer on Tue Feb 21, 2012 at 10:37:26 AM EST
    Talking to Ralph (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by Edger on Tue Feb 21, 2012 at 10:39:44 AM EST
    on the big white telephone?

    Parent
    better buy a buick (none / 0) (#102)
    by DFLer on Tue Feb 21, 2012 at 08:04:04 PM EST
    I heard this story on my local morning (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by Anne on Tue Feb 21, 2012 at 11:09:30 AM EST
    news show as I was getting ready for work; the anchor reading it was grossed out by the fact that the materials for the "starter" were from the leavings at a meat processing facilty, and after he read the part about there likely not being an actual product for sale for another 20 years, said, "guess we'll just have to make do with Soylent Green."

    It was an hilarious - and unexpected - comment, but said more as an aside, so not sure how many people would have picked up on it.

    Parent

    I originally heard this was in the works (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Feb 21, 2012 at 11:12:39 AM EST
    via Bill Maher.  I have mixed feelings initially, it almost sounds too good to be true in a way.  That's just my initial feelings about something that makes me sort of squeamish.

    Parent
    Hysterical (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by cal1942 on Tue Feb 21, 2012 at 12:37:38 PM EST
    I believe very, very few people under 50 would get it.

    Parent
    I stopped (none / 0) (#27)
    by Edger on Tue Feb 21, 2012 at 11:13:55 AM EST
    eating any meat years ago. It grosses me out.

    Parent
    I am not all the way there yet, but close (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by ruffian on Tue Feb 21, 2012 at 12:38:26 PM EST
    The more I hear about meat, the less I eat.

     

    Parent

    The more I hear about... (none / 0) (#63)
    by kdog on Tue Feb 21, 2012 at 02:11:01 PM EST
    meat delicous meat, the less I listen so as not to spoil my appetite;)

    Mixed feelings on test tube meat...might be a good thing for world hunger and the enviroment, but I ain't keen on eating it myself.  

    I'll stick with the old-fashioned stuff mixed with steroids, antibiotics, and bleech that I am used too.


    Parent

    Me too and when (none / 0) (#80)
    by fishcamp on Tue Feb 21, 2012 at 03:32:22 PM EST
    I stopped eating beef over 25 years ago my cholesterol level dropped from 205 to 185 in one year.  I still do eat an occasional pork chop and  love BLT's but I'm slowly phasing them out too and my cholesterol is now 165.  I know there is good and bad cholesterol but I'm very happy and healthy with my levels.  What do you imagine stem cell meat would do to cholesterol levels?

    Parent
    CNN headline (none / 0) (#19)
    by CST on Tue Feb 21, 2012 at 10:56:50 AM EST
    intentional?  

    "Some Republicans whispering about Plan B"

    Turns out they meant another candidate, not the morning after pill.  I just assumed they were coming after us again.

    In other news, the globe and the herald both have articles slamming Scott Brown today for his support of an anti-contraception bill.  I'm linking to the herald since you need a subscription to the globe article.  Mind you, this is the local "right-wing" newspaper.  In other horse-race updates, he was ahead in the last poll.  I don't know whether to be happy or mad that he's doing this.  I would be really mad, but I can't complain if he's helping himself lose.

    Funny in some ways (none / 0) (#49)
    by cal1942 on Tue Feb 21, 2012 at 12:56:57 PM EST
    GOP plan b

    The GOP created their constituency of raving lunatics and now they have to live with the consequences.

    Parent

    supreme court (none / 0) (#28)
    by CST on Tue Feb 21, 2012 at 11:14:43 AM EST
    will be hearing another higher-ed affirmative action case.  This time brought on by a white girl who was denied admission to the University of Texas.

    I have a few questions about this case, the first being - how does she know that race is why she was denied admission?  It's not like they tell you.  As a legal question, does it even matter if that was the reason or not for the case to proceed?

    I use to work in admissions, and the stuff they judge you on is so arbitrary, I have a hard time singling out "race" as the issue.  I remember reading on one application "Wyoming, we don't have anyone from Wyoming, that would be great".  Not to mention the preference given to student athletes (and this was a division 3 school). Is location-diversity a fair metric?  Or is race the only one that is a problem?  Mind you, if we went to completely race-gender-whatever blind admissions, most universities would be even more overpopulated with asians and white girls.  Which is not something I think either asians or white girls actually want.  Personally, I think people go to college to learn more than just academics, and it's fair to take demographics into account when trying to foster the student-body experience that a school wants.

    Typical right wing (none / 0) (#50)
    by lilburro on Tue Feb 21, 2012 at 01:03:14 PM EST
    reaction to affirmative action policies.  Nothing new there, that I can see anyway.  I live near the campus.  Trust me, it's hardly lacking white women or whites generally.

    Parent
    I'm sure it's not (none / 0) (#58)
    by CST on Tue Feb 21, 2012 at 01:52:46 PM EST
    these suits always make me wonder -
    what makes you think it was about race?

    Maybe your grades/essay/recommendations weren't good enough.  When I got rejected from college they sent me an email - not even a thin letter - saying something like "no thanks, good luck".  I did not automatically assume it was because I was white.

    My high school use to have a quota.  It was overturned in the courts.  But in that case they sent you a letter with a number of where you ranked on the test, with and without grades factored in.  So if your number was within the class size but you didn't get in, you could do the math and figure it out.  With college admissions it's much more complex.  Does anyone know if that would matter legally - does she have to proove it was race-based, or is the fact that they have a policy in place enough to sue?

    Honestly I have slightly mixed feelings about affirmative action.  Only because it's often an excuse for people to act like jerks, ie. "you only got here because you're _". In the case of college admissions though that's true for everyone because it's so arbitrary.

    Parent

    It's why (5.00 / 2) (#60)
    by jbindc on Tue Feb 21, 2012 at 02:06:36 PM EST
    the Gratz v. Bollinger suit (the one about race and admissions at the University of Michigan) was such a joke, even though the Supreme Court eliminated the "points system" the university used for different groups of people.

    The two plaintiffs(Jennifer Gratz and Patrick Hamacher) claimed they were denied entry into Michigan because they were white.  Of course, Gratz applied before Michigan instituted their "point system" (which gave more points to poor, urban black youth than middle class, white suburban kids - of course, poor, rural white kids also got the same number of points as the black urban youth, but that statistic always got lost in the rhetoric).  It was also reported at the time that Hamacher had graduated from high school with something like a 3.2 GPA and a low SAT score.  I always wondered how figured he thought it was because he was white that kept him from U of M, when many other white kids with the same credentials also didn't get in.

    And that's been my question.  How do they know it's about race?  I never got in somewhere and they said it was because I was female.  Would they really tell you you weren't admitted because you were black?

    Parent

    And the funny thing in Texas is (none / 0) (#67)
    by jbindc on Tue Feb 21, 2012 at 02:21:49 PM EST
    That in 1997, the state legislature passed what is known as the "Top 10% rule", which guarantees that all students who graduate in the top 10% of their class are automatically admitted to any state-funded school.  Now, you can see that this is a problem, where you have excellent students at a rich high school, who may graduate with almost all As and one or two Bs may not get in, but a kid from a small district or failing district, who still graduates in the top 10% of their particular class will get in.

    Parent
    that must be a logistical nightmare (none / 0) (#72)
    by CST on Tue Feb 21, 2012 at 02:36:08 PM EST
    what if they all want to go to the same school?

    I would imagine 10% of all college seniors in Texas is a large number.

    And yea, seems like a really crazy metric to use.  Especially if they have any magnet schools - where they take the top students in an area, vs the other high schools in the same area.

    Then there are cases like mine.  My high school didn't rank me at all because I spent a year abroad.  They just took my number out of the mix (I doubt I would have been in the top 10% but still).  I guess I would just fall into the abyss?

    Parent

    Not an issue (none / 0) (#78)
    by CoralGables on Tue Feb 21, 2012 at 03:26:51 PM EST
    the only school with a possible problem, the University of Texas (Austin) has their own addendum to the rule.

    "Under legislation approved in May 2009 by the Texas House as part of the 81st Regular Session (Senate Bill 175), UT-Austin (but no other state universities) was allowed to trim the number of students it accepts under the 10% rule; UT-Austin could limit those students to 75 percent of entering in-state freshmen from Texas. The university would admit the top 1 percent, the top 2 percent and so forth until the cap is reached, beginning with the 2011 entering class."

    Parent

    According to this (none / 0) (#88)
    by lilburro on Tue Feb 21, 2012 at 04:53:14 PM EST
    CSM article:

    In 2008, the year Fisher submitted her application, 29,501 students applied to the University of Texas. Of those, 12,843 were admitted. Roughly half - 6,715 - eventually enrolled for classes.

    Of the 6,715 enrolled students, 6,322 arrived from Texas high schools. The Top Ten Percent Law produced 5,114 of those students for admission.

    That left approximately 1,200 spots open for some 16,000 Texas students who did not place in the top 10 percent of their high school classes. The competition for those spots was ferocious.

    The university's supplemental race-conscious admissions program admitted 58 African-American candidates and 158 Hispanic candidates.

    In comparison, the Top Ten Percent program admitted 305 African-American students and 1,164 Hispanic students without using race as a factor.

    Based on the article's description, she was competing outside of the Top Ten program.  

    So ...she's pissed at the 216 out of 1200 students who were admitted.  WHO STOLE AWAY HER CHANCE FOR SUCCESS!!!!  Not.

    Parent

    Rick Santorum wants my (none / 0) (#51)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Feb 21, 2012 at 01:03:27 PM EST
    prenatal testing too now

    Of course, he does, Tracy... (none / 0) (#53)
    by Anne on Tue Feb 21, 2012 at 01:16:52 PM EST
    because pre-natal testing is the reason we have so many abortions.

    I'm convinced that Rick Santorum would like nothing better than to go back to the days when women were chattel.

    Parent

    I just saw the clip of him (5.00 / 4) (#55)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Feb 21, 2012 at 01:45:35 PM EST
    saying that he disagrees with "Obamacare" because it says that prenatal testing must be paid for, and that the handicapped are being culled from our population via "Obamacare".

    I feel like I'm about to cry, because of the sheer hypocrisy of the man and who his friends are and who he represents and what they did to us.

    During Dubya's administration I had to fight Tricare for everything Joshua needed.  I had to fight for Joshua's life at one point.  I remember them denying him his lifesaving surgery twice and my husband was in Iraq.  I would hang up the phone, run to bedroom, close the door, and sink to the floor and sob! Tricare stopped denying Joshua when Obama started fighting for healthcare reform.  I wasn't happy with what he got in writing.  I don't know how it is going to work out for everyone in the long term.  But Josh has not been denied any procedure or anything he needed since "Obamacare" and the scare of "Obamacare".

    Rick Santorum says, "Every child must be born no matter whast their disabilities so that the people I represent can grind them into the dirt and spit on them. They can die horrible deaths after they have lived hopeless lives, and in the process the sanity and lives of their families can be destroyed too".

    Parent

    I have believed for a long time that (5.00 / 4) (#66)
    by Anne on Tue Feb 21, 2012 at 02:18:01 PM EST
    the root of opposition to abortion and contraception is not in the sanctity of life, but in the control and subjugation of women to the men who must control and must subjugate in order to perpetuate the belief - their own belief - that they are some sort of being superior in every way.

    The landscape of the anti-choice movement is just littered with men - they head up organizations, they act as spokespeople for groups and organizations, they hector and harangue and browbeat and pontificate, perhaps to drown out the voices of the women who believe in their own essential autonomy, and the children who, once born, are abandoned by those who used every tool and strategy in the book to make sure their mothers carried them to term.

    I'm sick of it.  Disgusted by it.  The hallmark of a civilized and humane society isn't the ability to give birth, it's about how we treat each other from cradle to grave; on that score, I think we are failing miserably, and listening to the constant braying of people like Rick Santorum is an assault on reason and humanity.


    Parent

    People that are sick of this (5.00 / 1) (#68)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Tue Feb 21, 2012 at 02:27:03 PM EST
    should probably vote for the candidate opposing it.

    Parent
    Uh-huh (5.00 / 2) (#71)
    by shoephone on Tue Feb 21, 2012 at 02:34:40 PM EST
    Stupak.
    Hyde.
    Plan B.

    La la la la la...

    Parent

    Except you'd be wrong (none / 0) (#81)
    by CoralGables on Tue Feb 21, 2012 at 03:35:52 PM EST
    "the root of opposition to abortion and contraception is not in the sanctity of life, but in the control and subjugation of women to the men who must control and must subjugate in order to perpetuate the belief "

    That would be a wonderfully thought out philosophical argument but there is little difference between men and women in being for or against abortion.

    Parent

    then explain to me why it is men's faces (5.00 / 1) (#84)
    by Anne on Tue Feb 21, 2012 at 04:14:34 PM EST
    and men's voices that seem to be at the forefront of organized opposition to abortion, to contraception, to Plan B, to sex education.

    I know there are women who are opposed, but when you think of the movement, do you picture women's faces in front of the cameras, are women's names the ones that come to mind?

    Having been pregnant twice, and given birth in both instances, I can't honestly say that I would have been able to terminate either of my pregnancies; there's a distinct difference between the abstract of someone else's pregnancy and someone else's circumstances that does not always mesh with the reality of one's own.  And having lived two pregnancies, I felt less qualified to weigh in on what other women should or shouldn't do, or consider, than I ever did before I lived the reality of being pregnant.

    People are entitled to their opinions, and they are equally entitled to live up to their own opinions, to act or not.  In the case of decisions about a woman's reproductive health, about whether or when to have children, to use birth control, to have an abortion, those decisions should be hers and hers alone.  If she wants help with those decisions, she should have help.  If she wants advice, she should seek it.

    You cannot bridge the gap between some man apoplectically railing about the sanctity of life, and the same man or men working tirelessly to find ways to limit government assistance to those women who didn't have abortions and the children who were born as a result.

    It's embarrassing to hear someone like Santorum actually spouting nonsense about pre-natal testing being used to increase the abortion rates, and running on a platform that seems to want to relegate women to ligves of being barefoot, pregnant and givin birth in the fields.

    I'm tired of men, especially, telling women what they should or shouldn't be able to do, but really what it comes down to for me is, it's my body, my uterus, which makes it my decision.

    Now, our resident Obama cheerleader, ABG, has weighed in with the suggestion that if we are so angered by the likes of a Rick Santorum, we should vote for the guy who opposes him.  The only problem with that is that the man opposing him seems to have a little trouble getting himself to believe in the right of women to be autonomous in matters of their health.  Maybe if I thought he really got it, if he'd stop putting those rights and issues on the table for dicussion with Neanderthals, I'd be able to feel that on that subject, Obama was the hands-down winner.

    He's got a way to go, and he's running out of time.

    Parent

    That's an easy answer (none / 0) (#103)
    by CoralGables on Tue Feb 21, 2012 at 08:20:32 PM EST
    and again we'll stay with math. Only 11 percent of the elected members of the Senate and the House of Representatives are female "and" members of the Democratic Party. That doesn't give you many faces to see. And none are running for President. There are 29 female members of the Senate and House in the Republican party, and they would likely disagree with you.

    There are more women in the population and more women voters than there are males. If a vast majority of females felt very strongly one way it would never be an issue.

    And in a very unscientific poll of life, I've never met a male that didn't see abortion as an option for unplanned pregnancies, but I know a long list of women who are "verbally" against that option.

    Parent

    You seem to be under the impression I (5.00 / 1) (#105)
    by Anne on Tue Feb 21, 2012 at 08:30:57 PM EST
    was confining my remarks to members of Congress; I wasn't.

    And you also seem to have missed my reference to "organized opposition" which is where many of those male faces can be seen.

    In fact, I would say that you pretty much missed the entire point of my comment.

    Parent

    I see (none / 0) (#106)
    by CoralGables on Tue Feb 21, 2012 at 08:38:59 PM EST
    you missed mine. If a large majority of women were in front of shutting this talk down, it would be nothing more than background chatter from an upstart third party of rightwingers.

    Parent
    Ok, I had a 'Downs baby'-- (5.00 / 1) (#112)
    by the capstan on Tue Feb 21, 2012 at 11:07:03 PM EST
    there was no prenatal testing then--i would not have been selected for testing anyway, because I was in my early 20's.  Downs' kids keep being born, because they tend to test only older mothers.  (The test can cause unintended abortion, so not everyone wants it.  I would not have, because that baby was my first.  And I had no comprehension of what life would mean for me and her.)  Life was not easy for us or for the father and the siblings either.  But today is her birthday--the birthday of a blessed being, I know now.  (After all, the hardest part was all those years ago; years  long gone.)

    Do I want all those women denied the chance to choose?  Not hardly!  I'm tough and I can fight and I can outsmart a bunch of naysayers, and I had a lot of family help in those early years.  Also, my Down's baby, my daughter, is stubborn and attentive and adjustable, and not exactly backward about new experiences: rafting, and snorkeling, and hiking, and climbing, and learning to eat croissants and shrimp in France, and helping to raise 3 more babies.  Not every mother nor every Downs' baby has our advantages.  And life can be painful for 'difficult' children and mothers without resources.

    Do I think St. Orum is a sanctimonious and ignorant idiot?  You bet I do!


    Parent

    Chattel (none / 0) (#54)
    by jondee on Tue Feb 21, 2012 at 01:24:47 PM EST
    that paradigm has quite a lot of support in quite a few quarters in this country..

    The husband is the head of the family as Christ is the head of the church. The divine pecking order.

    For the Bible tells me so..

    Parent

    I think (none / 0) (#69)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Tue Feb 21, 2012 at 02:29:14 PM EST
    Unemployment is going to spike up this month.

    Just wanted to throw that out there so that people don't present it as a surprise when it happens and I talk about it.

    We may be back into the 9's.  I think the bump is short term though and the number will start falling again.

    Thank you. (none / 0) (#89)
    by lilburro on Tue Feb 21, 2012 at 04:55:27 PM EST
    Off to refill my Xanax prescription...

    Why do you think it will spike?


    Parent

    Translation: I talk to hear myself talk. (none / 0) (#111)
    by Mr Natural on Tue Feb 21, 2012 at 10:30:38 PM EST
    Unless, of course, you have advance information from the BLS or ADP, in which case your opinion is not utterly meretricious, but possibly criminal.

    Parent
    What's going on with Israel? (none / 0) (#90)
    by lilburro on Tue Feb 21, 2012 at 04:57:17 PM EST
    Are they really going to bomb Iran this time?

    Proponents of California Prop 8, (none / 0) (#94)
    by KeysDan on Tue Feb 21, 2012 at 06:54:54 PM EST
    appear to have determined that the Supreme Court will not find in their favor and will affirm the Ninth Circuit' panel's  ruling that Prop 8 violates federal law.  Rather than going directly to the Supreme Court, the proponents have asked for an en banc re-hearing of their case before the full Ninth Circuit.  Since the likelihood of the full Circuit over-ruling the panel are not great, their move seems to be that delay is their friend if for no other gain than to deny rights for as long as possible.  

    Can the 9th deny the request for (none / 0) (#95)
    by caseyOR on Tue Feb 21, 2012 at 07:03:00 PM EST
    an en banc rehearing?

    Parent
    yes (none / 0) (#98)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Feb 21, 2012 at 07:30:27 PM EST
    They are rarely granted. Here's the 9th circuit rule.

    Parent
    Thanks, J. (none / 0) (#100)
    by caseyOR on Tue Feb 21, 2012 at 07:33:46 PM EST
    If the 9th denies the en banc request, is that the end of this? Can the proProp 8 people still appeal to the Supremes? And if they choose not to go to the SC, is Prop 8 then overturned?

    Parent