home

Monday Open Thread

By Jeralyn, Section Blog Related
Posted on Mon May 20, 2013 at 02:21:17 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Busy day. Here's an open thread, all topics welcome.

< Sunday Open Thread | Hearing on IRS Underway >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Monday Open Thread | 200 comments (200 topical)
    Economic Mental Health (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by Dadler on Mon May 20, 2013 at 02:45:49 PM EST
    Just missed the new thread, so I'll post this one again. A Dadler original (only posting originals of these). Been needing to laugh lately, and making these stupid things has been the ticket. Peace out, my good peeps. (link)

    RIP Ray Manzarek (5.00 / 3) (#23)
    by Dadler on Mon May 20, 2013 at 06:16:48 PM EST
    The legendary Doors keyboardist has died at the age of 73. That organ riff on LIGHT MY FIRE will live forever. Have a good trip, Ray. Peace. (link)

    The Doors live at Forest Hills Stadium (5.00 / 2) (#32)
    by Peter G on Mon May 20, 2013 at 07:24:56 PM EST
    August 12, 1967. Opening act for Simon & Garfunkel, of all things. One of the greatest shows I've ever seen, and Ray said it was one of their worst nights ever.  Most of the audience hated them, booed Morrison, etc.  Not me!

    Parent
    Same year same place (none / 0) (#34)
    by brodie on Mon May 20, 2013 at 08:01:22 PM EST
    Hendrix opened for the Monkees.  The Monkees.

    Similar disastrous response from the audience.  JH supposedly gave the middle finger salute to the Forest Hills crowd of white prepubescents as he left the stage.  Seems Jim Morrison was also appropriately rude to the folkies.

    Manzarek I always pegged as the main driver of their music, both in the studio and on stage, with Morrison providing the poetical lyrics and the surly, menacing image, and the other 2 pulling their weight creatively.

    Great original group with a good deal of outstanding music which has stood the test of time.

    Parent

    Ahhh...sorry to hear that. (none / 0) (#178)
    by mplo on Wed May 22, 2013 at 08:01:19 AM EST
    I remember the Doors quite well, especially back in the summer of 1967, when I heard their first big hit, "Light My Fire".   They were one of the coolest, if not the coolest Acid Rock groups around, although "Cream" was pretty cool also.  

    Ahhhh.. the mid to late 1960's and early 1970's...very exuberant times, with exuberant music to match!  

    Sorry to hear about the organist's death.  He played a mean organ, if one gets the drift!  How sad that Jim Morrison, the leaading vocalist of the Doors, died at such a young age...not even 30.  They don't seem to make music like that any more!  What can I say?

    Parent

    Watch THE VOICE tonight (5.00 / 3) (#33)
    by Dadler on Mon May 20, 2013 at 07:49:11 PM EST
    and if you see a dreadlocked dude playing sax or flute, that's my uber talented brother in law, Scott Mayo. To check out and purchase his new album...go here.

    Saw him just a bit ago backing up Sasha Allen. (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by Angel on Mon May 20, 2013 at 08:05:56 PM EST
    How cool!!

    Parent
    And he just rocked it out to Sarah Simmons (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by Angel on Mon May 20, 2013 at 08:53:33 PM EST
    singing Mama Knows Best.  Sarah killed it.  Woo.

    Parent
    Thank god for lesser evils (5.00 / 3) (#40)
    by Edger on Mon May 20, 2013 at 08:30:31 PM EST
    I would be horrible if a republican tried it. Obama supporters would have to spend years pretending to be opposed to this kind of thing.

    Hey, Edger (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by Zorba on Mon May 20, 2013 at 09:10:44 PM EST
    How are you doing?

    Parent
    Not bad. (5.00 / 3) (#57)
    by Edger on Mon May 20, 2013 at 09:24:01 PM EST
    I was a little better forty or so years ago, but doing fine. ;-)

    Parent
    Keep on keeping on, (5.00 / 2) (#78)
    by Zorba on Tue May 21, 2013 at 08:02:48 AM EST
    Edger.
    I know exactly what you mean about forty years ago.  ;-)

    Parent
    President Obama's (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by KeysDan on Mon May 20, 2013 at 08:39:23 PM EST
    commencement speech at Morehouse College, an historically black, all male institution,  was very good.   While offering the customary platitudes and exhortations to graduates, it also addressed eloquently the destructiveness of oppression inflicted as well as  the  destructiveness of oppression internalized.

    The president stressed personal responsibility and the criticality of avoiding excuses.  The personal advice included setting an example--admonishing the graduates "to be the best husband to your wife, or your boyfriend, or your partner.  Be the best father you can be to your children."   This is an occasion, in my view, where presidential words are so important.  

    Personal advice... (5.00 / 3) (#74)
    by lentinel on Tue May 21, 2013 at 06:33:08 AM EST
    "...be the best husband to your wife, or your boyfriend, or your partner.  Be the best father you can be to your children."

    Next time, I hope he reminds these graduates to be careful not to put a fork in the toaster. It could cause a shock.

    And, it is important to look in both directions when crossing the street.

    Seriously, when Obama goes into this routine, it reminds me of Jesse Jackson turning to his friend during the campaign of 2008 saying, "He (Obama) talks down to Black people".

    He didn't exactly keep his own nose clean when he was in college as I recall...

    And as far as "avoiding excuses" is concerned, his spokespeople  are doing quite a little dance at the moment to tell us what he didn't know and is not responsible for.

    Parent

    Your advice on toaster usage, (none / 0) (#103)
    by KeysDan on Tue May 21, 2013 at 10:58:44 AM EST
    was a good one, and had someone had the poor judgment to ask me to give a hand in the speech's writing, I would have weaved it in.  

    As an aficionado of commencement addresses, time does not permit a full recitation of cliches and trite sayings.  But, occasionally a commencement speaker does come through with good advice.

    In my case, I will always be grateful for the command of the speaker at my baccalaureate commencement.  Dr. Leon Lederman, Nobel Prize physicist and Director Emeritus of Fermi Labs had a lot to say, none of which I remember (I think I am doing pretty good just recalling the name of the speaker) other than--go to Paris.  Words to act on.  

    Words are often necessary but not  sufficient (too often a seeming trait of this administration).   However, as with Dr. Lederman, so too, did President Obama offer words that, in themselves, are sufficient to act on.  For example, calling on the all male graduates to be the best husband to your boyfriend or partner.

    Another favored commencement speech of the season, albeit with a different slant,  was that of Mittens Romney to graduates of Souther Virginia University. A speech laced with biblical quotes, including ".. a man shall leave his mother and father and shall cleave onto his wife.'"   Accordingly, Mitt's advice to the graduates was to get married and have a "quiver full of children."  

    Moreover,  he admonished the graduates not to do what some of his friends did--"not have kids right away, they were going to get a dog first and see how it went.  A dog!"   Given Mitt's treatment of Seamus, not getting a dog ever would have been good advice.  

    Parent

    As an aficionado of commencements... (5.00 / 1) (#106)
    by kdog on Tue May 21, 2013 at 11:20:13 AM EST
    how does "This is Water" by David Foster Wallace stack up in your opinion KD?  I think it might be the best I've ever read or heard.  

    May he rest in peace.

    Parent

    Definitely not as he feared, (none / 0) (#107)
    by KeysDan on Tue May 21, 2013 at 11:47:47 AM EST
    "..a Dr. Laura Sermon."    Lucky Kenyon College graduates; hope they realize what they heard.   David Wallace sure understood life, a tragedy that he left it so soon.

    Parent
    Ain't that how it goes... (none / 0) (#109)
    by kdog on Tue May 21, 2013 at 12:23:06 PM EST
    that understanding can torture your soul...an all too common trait of great artists and thinkers.

    Parent
    Well, (5.00 / 2) (#118)
    by lentinel on Tue May 21, 2013 at 01:40:21 PM EST
    "go to Paris" is the kind of advice I would like to see proffered more often.

    It also is advice that is more personal than the bromides most often spewed by politicians and politicians-in-waiting to the disinterested and near-comatose in the captive audience.

    Parent

    "Go to Paris" (5.00 / 2) (#149)
    by shoephone on Tue May 21, 2013 at 04:08:56 PM EST
    is much better advice, IMO, than telling a bunch of just graduated 21-year-olds to be good fathers and husbands. WTF?? Seriously, these graduates are looking for jobs now, looking to build new experiences. They are probably not yet focused on planning their weddings and babies' births. Obama's speech strikes me as very patronizing, not to mention, totally irrelevant.  

    Parent
    Ta-Nahesi Coates referred to it as (5.00 / 3) (#108)
    by Anne on Tue May 21, 2013 at 12:03:03 PM EST
    "targeted scorn" in the essay he wrote about it, too, here.

    After writing some very positive things about Obama in general, Coates closed his essay with this:

    But I also think that some day historians will pore over his many speeches to black audiences. They will see a president who sought to hold black people accountable for their communities, but was disdainful of those who looked at him and sought the same. They will match his rhetoric of individual responsibility, with the aggression the administration showed to bail out the banks, and the timidity they showed  in addressing a foreclosure crisis which devastated black America (again.)They wil weigh the rhetoric against an administration whose efforts against housing segregation have been run of the mill. And they will match the talk of the importance of black fathers with the paradox of a president who smoked marijuana in his youth but continued a drug-war which daily wrecks the lives of black men and their families. In all of this, those historians will see a discomfiting pattern of convenient race-talk.

    I think the president owes black people more than this. In the 2012 election, the black community voted at a higher rate than any other ethnic community in the country. Their vote went almost entirely to Barack Obama. They did this despite a concerted effort to keep them from voting, and they deserve more than a sermon. Perhaps they cannot  practically receive targeted policy. But surely they have earned something more than targeted scorn.

    I'm not an African-American, so I don't presume to speak for anyone who is, but this thing Obama does when he speaks to predominantly black audiences has always felt like just what Coates calls it - targeted scorn.

    Parent

    Coming from the kind of family... (5.00 / 1) (#110)
    by Dadler on Tue May 21, 2013 at 12:55:47 PM EST
    ...that Obama does (my Welsh mom's new hyphenated last name ends with Rasheed, after all, and I have
    two biracial half-siblings from an earlier interracial incarnation of my "family"), he has seemed to me the especially conflicted and insecure soul most peeps like us end up, no matter our academic or professional creds. When you feel like you belong to nothing, you act like you belong to nothing.

    Just my two cents, of the dimestore psychologist variety. But owning the office I rent, at least.

    Parent

    "black people" (5.00 / 1) (#111)
    by jondee on Tue May 21, 2013 at 01:12:06 PM EST
    being in fact, for all practical purposes, a euphemism for poor people..

    Emphasizing the class aspect of the problem though, would undermine the commonly-agreed-upon political ground rule which dictates that we don't directly elude to class and class conflict, but keep the emphasis on the more superficial and uselessly divisive issue of ethnicity.

     

    Parent

    Yeah, (5.00 / 2) (#124)
    by lentinel on Tue May 21, 2013 at 01:57:04 PM EST
    but BO doesn't often address gatherings of the poor.

    So he addresses the "euphemism" by lecturing Black people on proper comportment?

    To tell you the truth, I think O feels superior.
    And he clearly is not, imo. No one is.

    I also feel, and this is again subjective, that there is a collateral motivation to his lecturing Black people: It appeals to "conservative" White people - the people he is so often eager to court.

    Parent

    Yes, it's very subjective.. (none / 0) (#126)
    by jondee on Tue May 21, 2013 at 02:03:47 PM EST
    I never picked up on that whole he-thinks-he's-superior vibe, not once..

    All the public appearences of pols are 90% schtick anyway..Someone coached Obama to try to project self-assurance and strength aand we've been seeing his take on that..

    He's going for a black Atticus Finch..

    Parent

    Take (5.00 / 2) (#143)
    by lentinel on Tue May 21, 2013 at 03:31:15 PM EST
    a gander at this - and tell me you don't think that he thinks he's  superior...

    It's the whole demeanor, not just the sexism.

    Sweetie.

    Parent

    "Sweetie"? (5.00 / 2) (#146)
    by Zorba on Tue May 21, 2013 at 03:49:00 PM EST
    "Sweetie"?  Really?  Oy!

    Parent
    Double (5.00 / 2) (#155)
    by lentinel on Tue May 21, 2013 at 05:25:27 PM EST
    Oy.

    With a side of gevalt.

    Parent

    Lol, this can't be (none / 0) (#166)
    by NYShooter on Wed May 22, 2013 at 12:14:32 AM EST
     the first time you heard this one, is it, Z?

    I wrote a chronology here a while back titled, "the more you dig, the more you wince." I went through all the key, talking points "O" used in the run-up to the Presidency. In virtually every one:..... Illinois State Senate, Harvard Law Review, "Present" votes, etc. there was more (much more) that met the eye, and, not in a good way.

    Parent

    Well, (none / 0) (#113)
    by jbindc on Tue May 21, 2013 at 01:16:07 PM EST
    This is kind of a crappy argument:

    And they will match the talk of the importance of black fathers with the paradox of a president who smoked marijuana in his youth but continued a drug-war which daily wrecks the lives of black men and their families.

    1. So, something someone does when they are 20 should not ever be allowed to be used in saying, "Hey, this is a bad idea. (I know from experience"?  (Seems like a lot of parents are never going to be able to discipline their children for anything anymore, by that logic).

    2. How about the fact that it is the black men so referenced who take the drugs that actually wreck the lives of themselves and their families?  (Which I think was kind of the point of Obama's speech - how about taking some personal responsibility for our actions for once?)


    Parent
    I can see how or why you would take that (5.00 / 3) (#127)
    by Anne on Tue May 21, 2013 at 02:11:03 PM EST
    passage the way you did, but allow me to offer a different perspective:

    Smoking marijuana is no more a "bad idea" than having a drink, but the man who, in his youth, indulged in illegal drugs and suffered no consequence, now works like a fiend to maintain those punitive laws that everyone else is subject to.  He does this in spite of the science, in spite of the documented benefits it delivers.  

    And yes, those laws do wreck lives - and not just the lives of black men, either.

    It may be unkind and uncharitable and terribly politically incorrect of me to say this, but I think these lectures Obama delivers to predominantly black audiences are more about "hey, man, you're making me look bad," than they are about anything else.  

    Parent

    No, it's not politically incorrect (none / 0) (#131)
    by vicndabx on Tue May 21, 2013 at 02:39:48 PM EST
    but it is rather banal and IMO, way off base.

    Parent
    Well (none / 0) (#134)
    by jbindc on Tue May 21, 2013 at 02:45:16 PM EST
    Smoking marijuana is no more a "bad idea" than having a drink....

    Only if you are talking about having one hit off a bong as compared to having a drink.  Otherwise, you are talking apples to oranges.

    Smoking marijuana in such quantities that it becomes a problem is equivalent to consistently drinking too much.  Money that should be spent on food for the family sometimes gets spent instead on a vice. That becomes a societal problem.

    And of course, we know he's not talking about smoking a joint here and there.  Funny how the "war on drugs" argument always equates to the supposed rounding up of everyone with a doobie in their pocket, as opposed to traffickers or those with other drugs. (Further, those in jail / prison for strictly marijuana possession is a teeny-tiny number, since the vast majority of inmates in state and federal prison for marijuana have been found guilty of much more than simple possession.)

    And, Obama actually addressed making mistakes in his youth.  

    "We know that too many young men in our community continue to make bad choices," he said. "Growing up, I made quite a few myself. Sometimes I wrote off my own failings as just another example of the world trying to keep a black man down. I had a tendency sometimes to make excuses for me not doing the right thing. But one of the things that all of you have learned over the last four years, is there's no longer any room for excuses."

    "I understand there's a common fraternity creed here at Morehouse: excuses are tools of the incompetent, used to build bridges to nowhere and monuments of nothingness," he said. "Well, we've got no time for excuses - not because the bitter legacies of slavery and segregation have vanished entirely; they haven't.

    "Not because racism and discrimination no longer exist; we know those are still out there," he added. "It's just that in today's hyper-connected, hyper-competitive world, with millions of young people from China and India and Brazil, many of whom started with a whole lot less than all of you did, all of them entering the global workforce alongside you, nobody is going to give you anything that you haven't earned."

    "And moreover," the president said, "you have to remember that whatever you've gone through pales in comparison to the hardships previous generations endured - and they overcame, and if they overcame them, you can overcome them too."

    Again - you're a parent.  Is there anything you did in your youth that you told your kids not to do?  Does that make you a hypocrite, or one who learned from experience?

    Look, I have lots of criticism for Obama on policy and politics, but in trying to encourage people to take some responsibilty, I have no qualms.  Why is it bad that he's lecturing a predominantly black male audience on this topic? Does someone have to be perfect to offer advice?

    Parent

    I guess the problem for me is that (5.00 / 1) (#148)
    by Anne on Tue May 21, 2013 at 04:01:52 PM EST
    I don't see him making this speech to a predominantly white, presumed-to-be-upper-class kind of audience.

    As for personal responsibility, I'm all for that, and as a parent, I made sure that my kids understood that actions have consequences, and once an action is undertaken, one doesn't always have control of what those consequences will be.

    I think you would be surprised how many people are sitting in jails or prisons for seemingly minor offenses - that it isn't always the high-volume dealer or user who gets swept up into the system.

    Parent

    I Know... (5.00 / 2) (#152)
    by ScottW714 on Tue May 21, 2013 at 04:28:36 PM EST
    ...if a white speaker would have used those words they would be in some serious trouble with a lot of folks.

    Parent
    That wasn't the point of the speech (none / 0) (#133)
    by vicndabx on Tue May 21, 2013 at 02:43:42 PM EST
    how about taking some personal responsibility for our actions for once

    Rather, take responsibility for improving the lives of others around you.

    I do agree w/your first point however, past experience can certainly be a teaching moment for others coming up behind you.

    Parent

    "Targeted scorn", (none / 0) (#123)
    by lentinel on Tue May 21, 2013 at 01:48:04 PM EST
    is one way to say it.

    I think Jesse Jackson's description of this penchant by Obama, "See, Barack been, um, talking down to Black people..." is less florid, but more to the point.

    Parent

    Did you read the speech (none / 0) (#130)
    by vicndabx on Tue May 21, 2013 at 02:36:48 PM EST
    and still come to that conclusion?

    felt like just what Coates calls it - targeted scorn.


    Parent
    Other voices from the AA community (5.00 / 2) (#136)
    by MO Blue on Tue May 21, 2013 at 03:05:18 PM EST
    "The first couple of times, it was okay, but I and a lot of other people are beginning to grow weary of it," said Coleman, adding that the message was particularly galling at Sunday's event at the historically black Georgia school. "What made it so gratuitous was this was Morehouse College! In the African American community, the very definition of a Morehouse man is someone who is a leader, who is taught to go out and make a difference in his community." (The White House declined comment.)
    ...
    Leola Johnson, an associate professor and chair of the Media and Cultural Studies Department at Macalester College in St. Paul, Minn., said the Obamas' speeches "are actually not aimed at black people."

    "They're actually for white people, liberals especially," she said. Liberal bloggers were brimming with praise for Obama after the Morehouse speech. "It's the legacy of Daniel Patrick Moynihan and that whole group of white liberals who want to say it's not just about structural problems that black people aren't doing well, it's about their own values." link



    Parent
    His speeches were aimed at the people (none / 0) (#193)
    by jondee on Wed May 22, 2013 at 12:06:24 PM EST
    who his pollsters told him were most likely to vote. He's trying to turn on AAs without making suburban middle class whites feel icky and start fretting about their property values..

    Doing shooters in a blue collar bar, now that's effing patronizing..

    Parent

    Just like, (none / 0) (#194)
    by NYShooter on Wed May 22, 2013 at 01:16:06 PM EST
     "it's not paranoia if someone really is following you,"  

    It's not "effing patronizing doing shooters in a blue collar bar" if you really do "do shooters in [blue collar bars."]

    I lived almost next door to my favorite "bar fly" (and the object of your scornful skepticism) for ten years, and while we didn't exactly swap cups of sugar from each other, the best retort I can offer is a ....  ;-)


    Parent

    I'm beyond sceptical (none / 0) (#195)
    by jondee on Wed May 22, 2013 at 01:37:48 PM EST
    and into the realm of mildly amused and exploring the possibility of starting a new surrealist movement.

    Parent
    Is that last sentance a reference to Hillary? (none / 0) (#196)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed May 22, 2013 at 06:28:22 PM EST


    Parent
    Yes, actually, I did. (5.00 / 2) (#147)
    by Anne on Tue May 21, 2013 at 03:55:31 PM EST
    I know that Morehouse is an historically black college, but I found the speech to be so rooted in race, so filled with stereotype, that it seemed to take away from the achievement these young men were there to celebrate and the progress we have made on matters of race.  Did he really need to talk about how the mamas and the aunts would be worrying about their hair in the rain?  Did there have to be so much emphasis on the women in the audience - were there no proud dads or granddads there?  

    So, yes, I do think there was, if not scorn, way too much stereotype; I think there's a difference between acknowledging race and making it such a focal point that it demeans the effort and the work many people have been involved in toward a post-racial society.

    As I said, I'm not African-American - maybe my WASP heritage makes me incapable of appreciating Obama's speech the way he intended; I don't claim that my perception of the speech is the right one, just explaining how it struck me, from the "outside" looking in, I guess.

    Parent

    You're not "African American?" (none / 0) (#167)
    by NYShooter on Wed May 22, 2013 at 12:17:09 AM EST
    C'mon.

    Parent
    No, it's not your WASP heritage (none / 0) (#185)
    by vicndabx on Wed May 22, 2013 at 09:10:44 AM EST
    It's the judgments you levy on how members of some other group relate to those w/in their own group.  In a post racial society, we each would be able to relate to those in our own "group" w/o the biases or complaints of some other group that feels we're not relating to our group in "the right way."  Why does it matter to you when no ones talking about you?  Do you really believe the black mamas and aunts incapable of speaking up for themselves if offended?

    As long as those in the group are not offending some other group in the process, it shouldn't be an issue.  FYI, yes, it is a common joke amongst black folk that our women worry about our hair in the rain.  Black women get their hair treated chemically - it's costs money, rain screws up that investment.

    The minority of blacks that had issue w/the speech represent just that, a minority.  Further, their issue was not w/the blackness of the speech, rather, their issue was w/the policy initiatives of the administration in light of the speech.  

    To use an example you are probably familiar with - women who are in a group w/other women, refer to themselves as "girls."  It may or may not be acceptable for me as a man to do the same - it depends on the women involved and the context.  Either way, it shouldn't (and doesn't) bother me how women want to relate to other women.

    Parent

    Whoever it was that mentioned Kellie Pickler (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by CoralGables on Mon May 20, 2013 at 08:46:51 PM EST
    Just watched her freestyle dance. Was that the best dance in DWTS history?

    No spoilers! (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by nycstray on Mon May 20, 2013 at 09:15:26 PM EST
    I'm using the show to clear today's news from my brain and it doesn't start for another 45mins here :)

    Parent
    Impossible to spoil :) (5.00 / 1) (#60)
    by sj on Mon May 20, 2013 at 10:42:33 PM EST
    Even after the third or fourth time you've watched it.

    Parent
    I do believe it was (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by sj on Mon May 20, 2013 at 10:43:26 PM EST
    Beautiful.  Just beautiful.

    Parent
    The second hour of DWTS has just started on (none / 0) (#62)
    by caseyOR on Mon May 20, 2013 at 11:09:59 PM EST
    west coast. Now, I have not been a religious watcher of this show. I usually just do quick hits as I settle on shows that are generally more interesting to me. For some reason this season hooked me from the get-go.

    There is no one in the final four who I think should not be there. Not a Bristol Palin in the group. All four are excellent dancers. From what I have seen so far, and I have not seen the freestyle dances yet, my vote goes to Zendaya.

    I had never heard of Zendaya until DWTS. She has incredible poise for a 16 year old. And skills? My oh my can that girl dance.

    Parent

    Kelli's dance was astoundingly (5.00 / 2) (#65)
    by caseyOR on Mon May 20, 2013 at 11:45:38 PM EST
    beautiful. So simple yet so full of complexity. I understand why Carrie Ann Inauba was in tears. I was in tears.

    Parent
    For those that didn't see Kellie last night (5.00 / 2) (#75)
    by CoralGables on Tue May 21, 2013 at 07:25:37 AM EST
    You can skip to the 2:20 mark where it begins.

    I think anyome that has watched a few seasons of DWTS will see what Casey and sj and I mean about this one.

    As for who mentioned Kellie Pickler and convimced me to turn it on last night, a little hunting shows it was TeresaInPa. I hope she saw it, and thank you.

    Parent

    I never watch the show (5.00 / 1) (#83)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue May 21, 2013 at 08:36:10 AM EST
    but last night I was flipping through channels and happened to catch the opening act of the show and the first couple were so good I couldn't figure out which one was the "star." I thought "Are they both pros?" Thanks for the link, I see now that it was Pickler.

    Parent
    I watched Kelli's video late last night and it was (5.00 / 1) (#81)
    by Angel on Tue May 21, 2013 at 08:25:11 AM EST
    a beautiful dance.  Now, about the Aly Raisman pole dance - how in the world could they give that out of sync and flawed performance perfect scores???  Kelli or Zendaya should win, IMO, and maybe Kelli's dance last night turned the voters to her favor. (Nice to have some distraction from the horrible news coming this morning about the Oklahoma tornados.)

    Parent
    About those "doctored" emails (5.00 / 2) (#79)
    by jbindc on Tue May 21, 2013 at 08:05:45 AM EST
    on Benghazi.

    Seems the White House got three Pinocchios for this talking point.

    It has long been part of the Washington game for officials to discredit a news story by playing up errors in a relatively small part of it. Pfeiffer gives the impression that GOP operatives deliberately tried to "smear the president" with false, doctored e-mails.

    But the reporters involved have indicated they were told by their sources that these were summaries, taken from notes of e-mails that could not be kept. The fact that slightly different versions of the e-mails were reported by different journalists suggests there were different note-takers as well.

    Indeed, Republicans would have been foolish to seriously doctor e-mails that the White House at any moment could have released (and eventually did). Clearly, of course, Republicans would put their own spin on what the e-mails meant, as they did in the House report. Given that the e-mails were almost certain to leak once they were sent to Capitol Hill, it's a wonder the White House did not proactively release them earlier.

    The burden of proof lies with the accuser. Despite Pfeiffer's claim of political skullduggery, we see little evidence that much was at play here besides imprecise wordsmithing or editing errors by journalists.



    A Dadler comic for Tuesday (5.00 / 1) (#104)
    by Dadler on Tue May 21, 2013 at 11:06:49 AM EST
    LINK

    One more, what the hell, it's twosday... (5.00 / 1) (#105)
    by Dadler on Tue May 21, 2013 at 11:08:38 AM EST
    LINK

    Parent
    LOL! (5.00 / 1) (#119)
    by Zorba on Tue May 21, 2013 at 01:40:24 PM EST
    I love these cards, Dadler.
    But, as for "pour me a glass."  Of tuna?     ;-)

    Parent
    I admit, I am obssessed... (5.00 / 1) (#132)
    by Dadler on Tue May 21, 2013 at 02:42:05 PM EST
    ...with writing/creating them. Glad they're making you laugh. That's the only point, light or dark.

    Parent
    Well, I have sent (5.00 / 2) (#139)
    by Zorba on Tue May 21, 2013 at 03:15:58 PM EST
    a couple of them to friends, and they laughed, too.
    So consider them a success, Dadler.  
    As the old saying goes, "Laughter is the best medicine."


    Parent
    Donate to the Red Cross (5.00 / 1) (#112)
    by DFLer on Tue May 21, 2013 at 01:13:38 PM EST
    here

    Disaster relief for OK

    Uh oh (5.00 / 1) (#125)
    by jbindc on Tue May 21, 2013 at 02:00:35 PM EST
    Many unions break ranks on Obamacare:

    Months after the president's reelection, a variety of unions are publicly balking at how the administration plans to implement the landmark law. They warn that unless there are changes, the results could be catastrophic.

    The United Food and Commercial Workers International Union (UFCW) -- a 1.3 million-member labor group that twice endorsed Obama for president -- is very worried about how the reform law will affect its members' healthcare plans.  

    Last month, the president of the United Union of Roofers, Waterproofers and Allied Workers released a statement calling "for repeal or complete reform of the Affordable Care Act."

    UNITE HERE, a prominent hotel workers' union, and the International Brotherhood of Teamsters are also pushing for changes.

    In a new op-ed published in The Hill, UFCW President Joe Hansen homed in on the president's speech at the 2009 AFL-CIO convention. Obama at the time said union members could keep their insurance under the law, but Hansen writes "that the president's statement to labor in 2009 is simply not true for millions of workers."

    Republicans have long attacked Obama's promise that "nothing in this plan will require you to change your coverage or your doctor." But the fact that unions are now noting it as well is a clear sign that supporters of the law are growing anxious about the law's implementation.



    IMO... (none / 0) (#128)
    by ScottW714 on Tue May 21, 2013 at 02:17:07 PM EST
    ...the republicans have done nothing but lie and cheat their way into this becoming a self-fulfilling prophecy.  Most of it's really weak points are products of republican obstructionism, and not the work of democratic ideals.

    Seems like a lot of D's were wanting Medicare for all and it was taken off the table before the debate even started.  By Obama, but only because the R's would not have it.

    Just seems wrong on so many levels for them to dis the legislation they ensured would not be a good as the D's wanted.  And now it's become so bent, warped, and twisted, even people who once campaigned for it and jumping off of it.  And that is somehow Obama's fault.

    Parent

    Democratic ideals (5.00 / 1) (#135)
    by jbindc on Tue May 21, 2013 at 02:46:09 PM EST
    Were not encapsulated in the original bill proposed (including single payer).

    Parent
    Even the (none / 0) (#140)
    by Zorba on Tue May 21, 2013 at 03:27:37 PM EST
    " ffor

    Parent
    Sorry about this (5.00 / 1) (#144)
    by Zorba on Tue May 21, 2013 at 03:45:26 PM EST
    My fingers are to blame.
    At any rate, what I meant to say was that, despite what Obama said originally, even the "affordable public option"  was taken off the table early on.
    For crying in a bucket. Countries such as Romania, Serbia, Tunisia, and Bhutan have universal health care.  And we cannot do this?
    Medicare For All.  Single-payer.   Universal Health Care.  I don't care what the heck people call it, we need it.

    Parent
    "And we cannot do this?" (none / 0) (#168)
    by NYShooter on Wed May 22, 2013 at 12:22:37 AM EST
    was this a serious question?

    (or, did you just forget the <snark> tag?

    Parent

    It was a question (none / 0) (#172)
    by Zorba on Wed May 22, 2013 at 07:17:39 AM EST
    meant to convey my ongoing frustration that this country does not seem to have the political will to implement some form of Universal Health Care.  All these other countries have long done so, but we have not.    ;-)

    Parent
    Way to go, Zorba! (none / 0) (#180)
    by mplo on Wed May 22, 2013 at 08:08:33 AM EST
    And we cannot do this?
    Medicare For All.  Single-payer.   Universal Health Care.  I don't care what the heck people call it, we need it.

    It's a disgrace that we've had a GOP-written/based, corporate healthcare "reform" bill forced on everybody, if one gets the drift.  Obama and the Democrats really screwed the public by taking Single Payer and Public Option off the table, enacting a warmed-over 20 year old GOP-based and written healthcare "reform" bill into law that has still left millions of people uninsured.   What's equally, if not more disgraceful, is the fact that the Obama Administration also allowed abortion rights to be taken off the table in order to get  this  paltry body of legislature enacted.  

    Here's another reason we don't have Single Payer with Universal Healthcare/Medicare for All Americans:   The United States is still spending too much money on our wrongheaded, stupid and illegal wars abroad!

    Parent

    Way to go, Zorba! (none / 0) (#181)
    by mplo on Wed May 22, 2013 at 08:09:02 AM EST
    And we cannot do this?
    Medicare For All.  Single-payer.   Universal Health Care.  I don't care what the heck people call it, we need it.

    It's a disgrace that we've had a GOP-written/based, corporate healthcare "reform" bill forced on everybody, if one gets the drift.  Obama and the Democrats really screwed the public by taking Single Payer and Public Option off the table, enacting a warmed-over 20 year old GOP-based and written healthcare "reform" bill into law that has still left millions of people uninsured.   What's equally, if not more disgraceful, is the fact that the Obama Administration also allowed abortion rights to be taken off the table in order to get  this  paltry body of legislature enacted.  

    Here's another reason we don't have Single Payer with Universal Healthcare/Medicare for All Americans:   The United States is still spending too much money on our wrongheaded, stupid and illegal wars abroad!

    Parent

    You Missed the Bigger Point... (none / 0) (#151)
    by ScottW714 on Tue May 21, 2013 at 04:26:45 PM EST
    ...the folks that ground it down to a nub are now all complaining that its useless because it's not sharp enough.

    Parent
    Yes, the Republicans fought against (5.00 / 3) (#156)
    by caseyOR on Tue May 21, 2013 at 07:08:44 PM EST
    the health insurance bill, and now are fighting its implementation. There were also Democrats who put up roadblocks. Let's not forget that the staff person for Democratic Senator Max Baucus, chair of the committee that wrote the final bill, was basically on loan to Baucus from her real job as an executive with the health insurance industry.

    And then, of course, we have Obama's dealmaking with the hospitals and Big Pharma and the AMA. We do not have a public option, much less Medicare For All, because Obama dealt those away in his talks with the hospitals and the insurance companies.

    And let us not forget Bart Stupak, Democratic Congressman, and his insistence on enshrining the Hyde Amendment into law.

    Sorry to say, but a whole lot of the reason Obamacare is a cr@p plan is due to the actions of Obama and the Democrats.

    Parent

    Exactly so, Casey (5.00 / 1) (#157)
    by Zorba on Tue May 21, 2013 at 07:22:12 PM EST
    Exactly so.  As I said earlier, the affordable public option disappeared quite early, despite the original rhetoric from Obama.

    Parent
    Public Option (5.00 / 2) (#158)
    by MO Blue on Tue May 21, 2013 at 08:03:47 PM EST
    NY Times Reporter Confirms Obama Made Deal to Kill Public Option

    For months I've been reporting in The Huffington Post that President Obama made a backroom deal last summer with the for-profit hospital lobby that he would make sure there would be no national public option in the final health reform legislation.
    ...
    ...On Monday, Ed Shultz interviewed New York Times Washington reporter David Kirkpatrick on his MSNBC TV show, and Kirkpatrick confirmed the existence of the deal. Shultz quoted Chip Kahn, chief lobbyist for the for-profit hospital industry on Kahn's confidence that the White House would honor the no public option deal, and Kirkpatrick responded:

    "That's a lobbyist for the hospital industry and he's talking about the hospital industry's specific deal with the White House and the Senate Finance Committee and, yeah, I think the hospital industry's got a deal here. There really were only two deals, meaning quid pro quo handshake deals on both sides, one with the hospitals and the other with the drug industry. And I think what you're interested in is that in the background of these deals was the presumption, shared on behalf of the lobbyists on the one side and the White House on the other, that the public option was not going to be in the final product."

    Kirkpatrick also reported in his original New York Times article that White House was standing behind the deal with the for-profit hospitals: "Not to worry, Jim Messina, the deputy White House chief of staff, told the hospital lobbyists, according to White House officials and lobbyists briefed on the call. The White House was standing behind the deal".


    Parent
    Agreed, But (none / 0) (#187)
    by ScottW714 on Wed May 22, 2013 at 09:47:13 AM EST
    My point was if the Democratic Party, not every single democrat, gotten the legislation they envisioned/wanted it would a world better than what was passed.

    Plenty of D's to blame as well, but they aren't out there complaining that is sucks or re-voting again and again to repeal it.

    To me, if you ensure good legislation is ground down to not-so-good, you shouldn't be running around the country whining that is sucks without acknowledging your part in making sure it sucks.

    Parent

    Obama got the insurance bill (5.00 / 2) (#159)
    by MO Blue on Tue May 21, 2013 at 08:07:40 PM EST
    he wanted complete with back room deals that benefited the insurance and medical industries.

    Parent
    O.K. this (none / 0) (#169)
    by NYShooter on Wed May 22, 2013 at 01:27:36 AM EST
    sounds like an "Onion" joke, but I'm serious.

    Suppose, whenever there's a bill, or program, that is tremendously needed, over due, and do-able, but can't get passed because of the all-too-common, lobbying, payoffs, well, you know how the system works. So, here's an approach that may sound crazy, but I think the American Public is ready for it:
    ---------------------------------------------

    The President:  "My Fellow Americans, Tonight I want to talk to you about one of the biggest problems we face as a country, and then, I'd like to offer a way to solve it that I hope you'll agree with me in saying, "Yes, We Can"
    ----------------------------------------

    Anyway, that would be the set-up, followed by the mechanics of getting this vital program passed, while taking reality into account.

    Here's how it would work. Let's take Health Care as an example. The President would lay out all the shop-worn statistics we all know so well. Then he'd explain why America, in the political reality of 2013, can't get Universal Health Care when every country in the rest of the world can. "Corruption." Yes, that's right, he'd come right out and say it. He'd look the American people in the eye, tell them how corruption works, and then say, "Be honest folks, you'd do it too if you had the chance." But, here's the thing people; we can get affordable, high quality, universal, single payer, health care. Yes We Can!"
    -----------------------------------

    "And, here's how: We don't have it now because a group at the very top of the system: CEO's, Doctors, various other evildoers, and, of course, politicians, are getting stinking, filthy rich NOT having it. How do we get around it? Well, we know you voters love Rush Limbaugh more than your families and, we also know that's not going to change. So, I'm going to do it for you. My staff has put together a list of the top 100 scumbags in the system now. These are the CEO's and politicians who have decided to screw 300,000,000 Americans just so they can make a whole bunch of money. But, we're going to screw them first. That's right, each of these 100 Anti-American Turds are going to get a check from the U.S. Treasury for One Hundred Million Dollars....Tax Free. The catch is, once the checks clear, they will pack up their paper clips, free dinner cards, and lifetime lap dance passes, and get out of town never to be seen, or heard from, again.

    Now, my friends, I know what you're thinking: "That's a ton of money, waaay too expensive, Prez. But, think about it; it's only ten billion dollars. A drop in the bucket compared to how you're getting screwed today, and only a tiny fraction of how much we'd save as a country year after year, after year, after year. Under today's system, they're jamming it to us this year, and every year from here to eternity. Just think of the irony; Giving these guys a hundred mil each is the cheapest payoff in our country's history. A historic, reverse screw job, if you will. (thinking to himself, "hey, that was pretty good, gotta remember to use it in next year's correspondent's dinner) Oh, and every American would get the best health care in the world........Free!

    Think it over, I've gotta go, Jamie's waiting for me at the back nine."

    Parent

    Only problem is that many of (none / 0) (#170)
    by MO Blue on Wed May 22, 2013 at 06:34:52 AM EST
    these scumbags are already getting a hundred million every couple of years most of which is tax free. And guess what, it is not enough. Think the "Fix the Debt" CEOs. They are more than willing to rob the poor, the sick and the elderly so that they can have even more. That is what this whole deficit reduction is all about. Cut all domestic and safety net programs, increase the taxes for the working poor and the middle class and reduce upper individual and corporate taxes while allowing corporations to bring off shore money back into the country tax free all under the guise of tax reform.

    Parent
    you're right, of course (none / 0) (#171)
    by NYShooter on Wed May 22, 2013 at 06:57:58 AM EST
    I'm not living under any illusions.....maybe delusions.

    Parent
    Well, (none / 0) (#190)
    by jbindc on Wed May 22, 2013 at 10:31:47 AM EST
    Had they originally written a smaller bill where they started with the points on which they agreed, it would have been a first step to better access to health care for more people.  Then, we wouldn't have had the wrangling with counter-bills that had no chances of passing, the time and money spent on selling this crap (and the thousands of hours of listening to these people and the Bill O'Reillys and Rachel Maddows of the world) bleat on and on with the talking points of the day, and eventually, the behmoth ACA bill in its final form, which I can guarantee will not work as supposedly envisioned.

    For example (from 2009) - my emphasis:

    The House Republican bill would not explicitly prohibit insurers from denying coverage to people because of pre-existing medical conditions, even though many Republicans have said they agree with Democrats that the federal government should outlaw such denials.

    SNIP

    In a few ways, the House Republican bill resembles the one headed for the House floor. It would allow young adults to stay on their parents' health plans at least through age 24, compared with 26 under the Democrats' bill.

    House Republicans, like the Democrats, would prohibit insurers from imposing annual or lifetime limits on spending for covered benefits. And they would prohibit insurers from canceling or rescinding coverage after a person became sick unless the person had intentionally concealed "material facts" about a medical condition.

    SNIP

    The bill would also make it easier for insurers to sell insurance across state lines. Policies would be subject to laws in a company's home state, but would be exempt from many of the consumer protection laws, rating rules and benefit mandates in other states where the company sold coverage.

    Republicans would also allow small businesses to pool their insurance buying power through "association health plans," sponsored by trade and professional associations and chambers of commerce. These plans would have "sole discretion" over what services to cover.

    SNIP

    The House Republican bill would offer $15 billion to states to establish high-risk pools, for people who could not otherwise obtain coverage, and reinsurance programs, under which states act as a backstop to private insurers.

    Now, I'm not saying all of these are great either, but wouldn't this would have been a better starting point for negotiation?  It would have been much harder to have a "Death Panel Summer", Republican histrionics, or 37 votes to repeal Obamacare, which does nothing to help anyone, but is a waste of time and money on mere posturing.

    Parent

    The across (none / 0) (#197)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed May 22, 2013 at 08:21:43 PM EST
    state lines thing is a joke though. Are people in GA going to drive to NY to see a doctor? No, they aren't and completely ignores the way insurance networks are set up. The only kind of insurance that could be sold across state lines is very expensive indemnity insurance which very few would be able to afford and junk insurance.

    Remember we did this stuff with credit cards and we ended up with a national banking disaster.

    Parent

    Charlie Cook on "Republican's Hatred of Obama (5.00 / 1) (#154)
    by Angel on Tue May 21, 2013 at 05:15:59 PM EST
    Blinds Them to Public Disinterest in Scandals" here

    DOJ vs. Fox News (3.67 / 3) (#1)
    by Slado on Mon May 20, 2013 at 02:35:23 PM EST
    Reason

    I'm not sure what to think anymore.  Everyday another weird storyline from this administration.

    Anyone believe anything coming out of this administrations mouth?

    The real question (5.00 / 3) (#4)
    by Yman on Mon May 20, 2013 at 02:48:10 PM EST
    Why would anyone believe anything coming out of Fox News's "mouth"?

    Parent
    The link wasn't from Fox News (none / 0) (#6)
    by Slado on Mon May 20, 2013 at 03:15:14 PM EST
    I hope you are snarking

    Parent
    Reason is a Right Wing publication (none / 0) (#10)
    by MKS on Mon May 20, 2013 at 03:38:31 PM EST
    But this is the type of thing that happens if you do not have a FISA warrant requirement.  

    The GOP can fix that by supporting new legislation that would require FISA warrants even in the evemt of national security.

    Parent

    Reason: the Cato Institute.. (none / 0) (#121)
    by jondee on Tue May 21, 2013 at 01:44:38 PM EST
    scorched earth libertarian wing..

    The kind of folks who think cutting down every old growth tree is "worth it" in the interests of privatization..

    Parent

    Yes, but (none / 0) (#129)
    by Zorba on Tue May 21, 2013 at 02:24:33 PM EST
    as Mr. Zorba is fond of quoting, "even a blind pig finds an acorn once in awhile."
    Read Glenn Greenwald's piece from yesterday.
    Link.


    Parent
    Yes, and Hitler (none / 0) (#191)
    by jondee on Wed May 22, 2013 at 11:43:19 AM EST
    was right that we should be kind to animals..

    Parent
    Not really (none / 0) (#44)
    by Yman on Mon May 20, 2013 at 08:50:57 PM EST
    But a Reason article complaining about threats to free speech (when applied to a Fox News reporter) is pretty damn amusing.  Particularly when the wingers were the biggest supporters of the FISA warrant exception.  Not to mention how they loved the idea of prosecuting Julian Assange for doing the same thing Rosen is was doing - reporting classified/national security information.  Hell, the Washington Times was calling for Assange to be assassinated.

    Take out "Fox News" and insert "Reason" in my comment.

    BTW - You cite this article as a reason to not believe anything from this administration.  Is there some evidence the administration was lying about this?

    Parent

    Not for nuthin' Yman... (none / 0) (#77)
    by kdog on Tue May 21, 2013 at 07:57:28 AM EST
    Reason Magazine has been sounding the alarm about threats to free speech as far as their online archives go back.  They have been just as critical of the totalitarian aspects of the Bush presidency as they have of the Obama presidency.  They are most consistent in this regard, imo.

    It's not about that sc&mbag Ailes and Fox and their hypocrisy on steroids, don't get it twisted. It's about what the government is up to, and it ain't kosher.  

    Do you dispute that it appears asking questions is now considered criminal by the DOJ?  Whether you work for Fox or Wikileaks doesn't matter...if true, it's dead wrong man, dead f*ckin' wrong.

    Parent

    But but but but but but ...... (none / 0) (#84)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue May 21, 2013 at 08:48:39 AM EST
    They're Republicans!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    And it doesn't matter....

    (sarcasm alert)

    Parent

    It must be hard to... (5.00 / 2) (#89)
    by kdog on Tue May 21, 2013 at 09:16:06 AM EST
    twist and untwist a pretzel every 2,4,6,8 years.

    Where do you stand old friend, for the record, regardless of the letter after the perp's name?  I would guess you on the other side than I actually, and supportive of over-reaching government actions to catch leakers by spying on and intimidating the press.  Dangerous world, terrorism, and all that jazz. Correct me if I'm wrong.

    Parent

    Reason: dial me up (none / 0) (#205)
    by jondee on Thu May 23, 2013 at 02:59:24 PM EST
    when Reason ever sees fit to devote a line or two to corporate totalitarian behavior..

    Or, for that matter, corporation's right to drug test their employees..

    Whats reasonable about seeing the air, soil, flora, and fauna as nothing but capital ripe for liquidation?

    Parent

    This was uncovered by WaPo (none / 0) (#9)
    by Cylinder on Mon May 20, 2013 at 03:27:26 PM EST
    Right or wrong, this information came from the Washington Post. They published the story along with the APC today. It's not clear to me if the Post gave FNC advance notice of the story.

    Parent
    Well (5.00 / 2) (#8)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon May 20, 2013 at 03:19:35 PM EST
    you finally found something. Hooray for you. The whole wiretapping of phones thing but he has the Patriot Act to back him up remember? Warrantless wiretapping anyone? How is the GOP going to go full tilt on this one when they are the ones that were screaming in support of this kind of stuff?

    Parent
    It (5.00 / 4) (#73)
    by lentinel on Tue May 21, 2013 at 06:21:54 AM EST
    is worth remembering that the Patriot Act would not exist were it not for the Democrats supporting it and pushing for it during W.'s first term.

    Indeed, last I heard, AG Holder was urging that this piece of ---- be renewed because "we need it more than ever".

    In short: The Dems and the Repubs are conjoined twins when it comes to the repressive features of the Unpatriotic Act.

    Parent

    Obama (none / 0) (#92)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue May 21, 2013 at 09:39:22 AM EST
    is certainly complicit in the fact that he renewed it but would he have been able to get this through instead of just renewing it? Conservatives were cheering this stuff on and now are freaking otu that Obama has those powers. I personally don't think any president should have those powers.

    Parent
    Obama's (5.00 / 1) (#102)
    by lentinel on Tue May 21, 2013 at 10:44:54 AM EST
    attorney general, as I said, urged the renewal of this thing enthusiastically. He said that we need it now more than ever.

    If that isn't cheerleading, I don't know what is.

    Your question as to whether this piece of tripe could have passed if proposed by Obama --- well, I don't understand what you're getting at.

    The simple fact is that this thing was in place, and instead of opposing its renewal, Obama's administration enthusiastically and cheerleaderingly urged that it be extended. Them's the facts.

    And, Obama has the powers thanks to the Dim Dems and the Rabid Repubs. It seems obvious to me that he likes them and intends to hold on them and to use them whenever he pleases.

    BTW, I don't think that any true conservative would never have voted for such an unconstitutional piece of garbage. I don't think any true progressive, liberal or democrat would have either.

    Parent

    My point (none / 0) (#141)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue May 21, 2013 at 03:28:26 PM EST
    is that I don't think any president could have gotten something like that passed in the first place. George W. Bush was able to ram it through because of 9/11. Once something like that it is in the system so to speak it's a lot easier to renew than to actually get rid of it. Do you really think Obama could have gotten the Patriot Act passed in the first place? I don't think so.

    Parent
    But it wasn't supposed to be used on them. (none / 0) (#66)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue May 21, 2013 at 01:12:51 AM EST
    It was meant for those other people who hate America so much. So, when you use it on real Murecans, that's bad. But when you use it on people who stand in the way of real Murecans, that's good.
    ;-D

    Parent
    Donald, you weren't around when (none / 0) (#85)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue May 21, 2013 at 08:52:54 AM EST
    the NYTimes wrote an article explaining how we had a way of following the money trail back to the terrorists..

    It was back around 12/05 and many here claimed that it was okay.....

    Parent

    Good news, bad news (none / 0) (#2)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Mon May 20, 2013 at 02:45:10 PM EST
    .

    The good news is that there is no evidence of Obama directing this stuff.  The bad news is that this is what big government is all about.  

    .

    Parent

    Here's another one (none / 0) (#5)
    by Slado on Mon May 20, 2013 at 03:11:41 PM EST
    What are the odds someone gets audited by 4 Federal and 1 State agency in two years while simultaneously being called out by congressional democrats?

    After the IRS thing hard to believe this is coincidence right?

    NRO

    Parent

    One more (none / 0) (#7)
    by Slado on Mon May 20, 2013 at 03:18:27 PM EST
    DOJ vs. Whistleblower

    Parent
    Conspiracy site (none / 0) (#12)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon May 20, 2013 at 03:46:55 PM EST
    Don't use stupid conspiracy sites to prove your point. Just say no to conspiracy sites.

    Parent
    And look what we know (none / 0) (#48)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon May 20, 2013 at 09:07:04 PM EST
    The inspector general gave Republicans some fodder Friday when he divulged that he informed the Treasury's general counsel he was auditing the I.R.S.'s screening of politically active groups seeking tax exemptions on June 4, 2012. He told Deputy Treasury Secretary Neal Wolin "shortly after," he said. That meant Obama administration officials were aware of the matter during the presidential campaign year.

    NY Times

    Now that forced this to come out.

    The White House on Monday once again added to the list of people who knew about the IRS investigation into its targeting of conservative groups -- saying White House chief of staff Denis McDonough had been informed about a month ago.

    Press secretary Jay Carney said again that no one had told President Barack Obama ahead of the first news reports: not his top aide McDonough, nor his chief counsel Kathy Ruemmler, nor anyone from the Treasury Department.

    Monday's revelation amounts to the fifth iteration of the Obama administration's account of events, after initially saying that the White House had first learned of the controversy from the press.

    (PHOTOS: 10 slams on the IRS)

    Republicans said they were on the lookout for the next installment in the White House's ever-shifting narrative.

    Link

    The question, my dear GA, is not if Obama will be named as knowing all about this, but who will do it...

    Rats get nervous when the water gets on their feet.  

    Parent

    So, impeach him (none / 0) (#63)
    by MKS on Mon May 20, 2013 at 11:39:10 PM EST


    Parent
    Issa (none / 0) (#93)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue May 21, 2013 at 09:41:00 AM EST
    apparently knew about it too. Why is he just now bringing it up? And it wasn't just right wing groups that were targeted despite their whining. It was all the 501C political organizations.

    Parent
    Why are you trying to change the subject? (1.00 / 2) (#150)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue May 21, 2013 at 04:16:33 PM EST
    Issa isn't the Won, doesn't work for the Won and isn't in the IRS.

    You're getting more and more desperate.

    lol

    Parent

    You guys (5.00 / 2) (#153)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue May 21, 2013 at 04:28:41 PM EST
    were the ones that were talking about Obama knowing this months ago right? So tell me if this was so darn important why didn't Issa bring it up months ago when he first found out? Face it Jim, once again they are playing you for a fool.

    Parent
    It makes no difference what Issa (1.00 / 1) (#173)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed May 22, 2013 at 07:20:37 AM EST
    knew...

    It was what the President knew and when he knew it.

    Fool???? Nothing to hide??

    Why is the woman in charge gonna take the 5th?

    And I know she has that right.

    But her actions prove the claims.

    Parent

    If it (5.00 / 1) (#183)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed May 22, 2013 at 08:26:27 AM EST
    makes no difference when Issa knew then it makes no difference when Obama knew either.

    She's probably taking the 5th because that is what her lawyer probably advised her to do. You are free to do the same thing Jim. You know not everybody is guilty until proven innocent. Her actions prove nothing. I know conservatives are DESPERATE for SOMETHING but the fact of the matter is nobody much listens to conservatives anymore except the talk radio crowd. Read the article in the National Journal.

    Parent

    It makes no difference what Issa (1.00 / 1) (#174)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed May 22, 2013 at 07:20:37 AM EST
    knew...

    It was what the President knew and when he knew it.

    Fool???? Nothing to hide??

    Why is the woman in charge gonna take the 5th?

    And I know she has that right.

    But her actions prove the claims.

    Parent

    Utter logic fail (5.00 / 3) (#177)
    by Yman on Wed May 22, 2013 at 07:52:35 AM EST
    The woman is taking the 5th because the WH announced there will be a full, criminal investigation.  Any lawyer with half a clue would advise her to do the same - regardless of whether she did anything wrong - because the Congressman are about to use her as a prop and political punching bag in the drama they're trying to produce.  Yet you claim that invoking the 5th is proof of of her wrongdoing and/or Obama's wrongdoing.

    It's almost like you're trying to be funny.

    BTW - Question - When President Bush's WH spokesman Ari Fleischer invoked the 5th Amendment in the Valerie Plame outing - refusing to testify until granted immunity - does that mean that Fleischer and Bush were guilty of criminal acts?

    Heh.

    (Don't worry - I know you won't answer that - because you can't.)

    Parent

    BTW - Libby outed Plame ... (5.00 / 2) (#182)
    by Yman on Wed May 22, 2013 at 08:21:41 AM EST
    ... in a meeting with Judith Miller on July 8th, 2003.  That would be six days before Novak's article.  Libby also discussed Plame with Tim Russert on July 10, 2003 - 4 days before Novak's article.

    According to Rove's own lawyer, Rove outed Plame in a meeting with TIME reporter Matt Cooper 3-4 days before Novak's article.

    Care to try again?

    Parent

    The bad news is that it's legal (none / 0) (#11)
    by MKS on Mon May 20, 2013 at 03:40:05 PM EST


    Parent
    Thats yet to be seen. (none / 0) (#16)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Mon May 20, 2013 at 04:29:08 PM EST

    For openers, theft of honest services and/or the Hatch act may apply.

    .

    Parent

    You would have to spin quite a yarn (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by MKS on Mon May 20, 2013 at 07:08:28 PM EST
    to get there.

    The subpoenas were issued by the DOJ in an investigation of a  leak of classified information.   The investigation may or may not be justified.  But to say it was done just to please someone's personal fancy would seem beyond any facts known so far.

    And who would be that stupid?  No one worth catching....

    You guys really can't help yourselves.....just keep marching down that 1998 path.....that'll help you in the midterms, especially since your sacred deficit is disappearing.

    Parent

    Heh (none / 0) (#53)
    by Yman on Mon May 20, 2013 at 09:16:15 PM EST
    Oh, wait ...

    ... you were trying to be serious.

    Parent

    Glenn Greenwald's (none / 0) (#13)
    by KeysDan on Mon May 20, 2013 at 03:52:04 PM EST
    reaction to "criminalizing basic reporting".   For me, it is too early and complicated to form an opinion, but one thing for sure, that it relates to Fox should be irrelevant.  We know this administration works hard at "balance" so we are talking about  a potential maimed-stream media.  As for Fox's Rosen,  he may have chosen the wrong profession for the times:  safer  to be a banker than a journalist.

    Parent
    I think it's also important for people to (5.00 / 6) (#17)
    by Anne on Mon May 20, 2013 at 04:40:38 PM EST
    understand that this happened in 2009 - Obama's first year in office - not so recently, which makes me wonder how much more of this kind of thing went on.

    The Washington Post says:

    Privacy protections limit searching or seizing a reporter's work, but not when there is evidence that the journalist broke the law against unauthorized leaks. A federal judge signed off on the search warrant -- agreeing that there was probable cause that Rosen was a co-conspirator.

    Machen's office said in a statement that it is limited in commenting on an open case, but that the government "exhausted all reasonable non-media alternatives for collecting the evidence" before seeking a search warrant.

    However, it remains an open question whether it's ever illegal, given the First Amendment's protection of press freedom, for a reporter to solicit information. No reporter, including Rosen, has been prosecuted for doing so.

    Rosen appears to have been soliciting Kim for information - but as Glenn says:

    Kim did not obtain unauthorized access to classified information, nor steal documents, nor sell secrets, nor pass them to an enemy of the US. Instead, the DOJ alleges that he merely communicated this innocuous information to a journalist - something done every day in Washington - and, for that, this arms expert and long-time government employee faces more than a decade in prison for "espionage".

    [snip]

    Under US law, it is not illegal to publish classified information. That fact, along with the First Amendment's guarantee of press freedoms, is what has prevented the US government from ever prosecuting journalists for reporting on what the US government does in secret. This newfound theory of the Obama DOJ - that a journalist can be guilty of crimes for "soliciting" the disclosure of classified information - is a means for circumventing those safeguards and criminalizing the act of investigative journalism itself. These latest revelations show that this is not just a theory but one put into practice, as the Obama DOJ submitted court documents accusing a journalist of committing crimes by doing this.

    That same "solicitation" theory, as the New York Times reported back in 2011, is the one the Obama DOJ has been using to justify its ongoing criminal investigation of WikiLeaks and Julian Assange: that because Assange solicited or encouraged Manning to leak classified information, the US government can "charge [Assange] as a conspirator in the leak, not just as a passive recipient of the documents who then published them."

    Never in a million years did I think we'd have a "Democratic" president who seems determined to criminalize reporting/journalism.  

    This is bad - and I don't care if in the instant case, it's a Fox News reporter - this is bad.

    Parent

    Since the Espionage Act was passed in 1917 (5.00 / 2) (#82)
    by jbindc on Tue May 21, 2013 at 08:32:42 AM EST
    It had been used a total of three times (before Obama took office) to prosecute federal employees accused of leaking classified information.

    Under the Obama administration, it has been used six times, and we still have 3 years to go.

    Parent

    Anne wrote (1.00 / 2) (#87)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue May 21, 2013 at 09:07:09 AM EST
    Never in a million years did I think we'd have a "Democratic" president who seems determined to criminalize reporting/journalism.

    Doesn't make it any better but....

    Me and millions of others tried to keep it from happening.

    I suspect you voted for him.

    Twice.

    Parent

    I suspect you are wrong (5.00 / 4) (#88)
    by MO Blue on Tue May 21, 2013 at 09:12:18 AM EST
    as usual.

    Parent
    You are wrong (5.00 / 3) (#95)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue May 21, 2013 at 09:42:15 AM EST
    Romney supported these same things and even wanted to expand them. So if you were interested in civil liberties which apparently you are not you would have not voted for Romney.

    Parent
    You can suspect all you want, but (5.00 / 3) (#100)
    by Anne on Tue May 21, 2013 at 10:24:44 AM EST
    you would be wrong; I made no secret of the fact that I did not cast any vote for president in 2008, and voted for Jill Stein in 2012.

    So much for that theory, huh?  

    What slays me is that you and millions of others thought John McCain/Sarah Palin or Mitt Romney/Paul Ryan would have been a superior choice, though.

    That kind of speaks for itself, I think.

    Parent

    If only Obama & Romney... (5.00 / 1) (#101)
    by kdog on Tue May 21, 2013 at 10:33:44 AM EST
    hadn't stolen all of Jill Stein's and Gary Johnson's votes;)

    Seriously, I think both of those supperior candidates in the area of civil liberties would have heads rollin' at the DOJ over this.  Then again, neither would have appointed a hack like Holder in the first place, imo.

    Parent

    The same people think (none / 0) (#114)
    by jondee on Tue May 21, 2013 at 01:20:23 PM EST
    "we need" the war economy and all those military bases overseas to keep us safe and to protect "our vital interests"..

    While still keeping our society running smoothly along with all our civil liberties intact and even enhanced. What that is is a middle class walking daydream; a "you can have it all" fantasy.

    It hasn't happend in American history yet, and it's not going to happen.

    Parent

    But should the reporter exercise some judgement (none / 0) (#15)
    by Farmboy on Mon May 20, 2013 at 04:25:09 PM EST
    regarding the outcome(s) of her/his reporting?

    For example, reporting on gov't corruption is seen as a "good" thing because ideally the outcome is a better gov't.

    On the other hand, a reporter revealing national security secrets just because they're secret - "In other news, last month the CIA inserted 5 operatives inside al Queda!" - while news, rarely has a positive outcome for anyone.

    Or is the freedom of the press truly the most important right, regardless of potential harm to the nation/public welfare/lives/etc?

    Parent

    Think about what your suposing (5.00 / 3) (#19)
    by Slado on Mon May 20, 2013 at 05:04:09 PM EST
    The reporter must use judgement on what questions to ask.

    The reporter should be able to ask any questions and the "government official" should answer...Sorry that's classified.

    If this is now criminal then the WH press Corps breaks the "law" on a daily basis.   How many times does the WH say...I can't comment on an ongoing investigation, or that is classified?

    There is no excuse for this.  It appears that they called him a "criminal" so they wouldn't have to inform him of the warrant.

    Simply amazing..

    And what was he reporting on?  The fact that North Korea was going to respond to sanctions with a missile test.   How is that top secret classified information?  How is that worth even an investigation?

    Parent

    As (5.00 / 3) (#20)
    by lentinel on Mon May 20, 2013 at 05:16:51 PM EST
    long as it is in the interests of the party in power to control the flow of information, I will always suspect the worst: That they want us to know only that which profits them politically or financially. I have absolutely no reason to believe that they suppress information because they actually think that it will be to our benefit.

    Leaks which are "harmful to national security", and leaks that simply reveal our government to be engaging in torture or murder or double-dealing are seemingly interchangeable in the eyes of those who would prosecute reporters.

    Did anything published by Julian Assange actually hurt our national security - or did it simply reveal a two-faced foreign policy as well as the deliberate slaughter of some Iraqi civilians?

    Freedom of the press should be absolute, imo.
    Otherwise, it is not a free press.

    Parent

    In Other Words... (none / 0) (#18)
    by ScottW714 on Mon May 20, 2013 at 04:56:27 PM EST
    ...does the right to keep a source confidential outweigh putting people in grave danger ?  It's obvious to me.

    It's not about freedom of the press, no one at the AP is in trouble for anything they printed.  They want the source of the leaked the information.

    There is no right to conceal the identity of people who leak sensitive information that could endanger lives.  The only shame here is that the government can't just get judicial approval for the AP to reveal the source.  I am not comfortable with the government tracking the press, there is no need.  

    The press should look at themselves in this case, the AP should not have printed the story until they had the OK.

    Wanting to be perceived as the ones who got the scoop is no excuse.  Had they waited a day, there would be no issue, the government wasn't trying to keep the story hush, they just wanted to make sure no one was endanger before it was printed.

    Parent

    Freedom (5.00 / 2) (#22)
    by lentinel on Mon May 20, 2013 at 05:37:33 PM EST
    There is no right to conceal the identity of people who leak sensitive information that could endanger lives.

    But, it seems to be the government that is the one determining whether any specific information "could endanger lives''. And they have a penchant for using that as a cover for simply protecting their own keisters.

    Reporters have a time-honored right to protect their sources, imo. Otherwise, they will have no sources - and the only sources will be those authorized by a government with a vested interest in controlling what we get to know.

    I may have felt as you do at one time, but after a belly-full of Bush and now Obama, I am for unbridled freedom of the press.

    If they don't want information leaked, they'll have to do a better job of holding on to it. Once it is in the hands of a reporter, it should be available to the American public.

    Parent

    Judith Miller went to jail to protect hers ... (none / 0) (#70)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue May 21, 2013 at 01:41:40 AM EST
    ... during the investigation to find out who leaked the identity of CIA operative Valerie Plame to the media. Unfortunately for Miller, her source ended up being Scooter Libby, chief of staff to Vice President Dick Cheney, who was mad at Plame's husband and wanted to get even.

    While I have no problem requiring a very high bar for the government to meet before compelling reporters to reveal confidential sources, as the Valerie Plame case shows, nothing should ever be absolute, because the motives of both leakers and media personnel aren't always altruistic.

    Parent

    I can (5.00 / 1) (#72)
    by lentinel on Tue May 21, 2013 at 06:10:15 AM EST
    agree with you about that - and I would have enjoyed seeing Scooter put behind bars for an indefinite period - but that didn't happen.

    So, ultimately, what good did it do to reveal the source of the information? Plame was outed. Her career ended. Nobody was really held to account.

    So, I would have to opt for absolutism regarding the right of a reporter to protect his or her sources.

    A "high bar" is not good enough when it comes to a government that is out to curtail our free access to information. imo.

    Parent

    Uh Donald, you (1.00 / 3) (#86)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue May 21, 2013 at 09:04:27 AM EST
    have the right to your opinion but not your own facts.

    Richard Armitage was the person who leaked to Novak and Novak wrote the article..

    Funny and sad... The SP knew the first day on the job that Armitage was the leaker, yet he kept looking for the leak that was not there. Makes you wonder.

    CNN

    Libby was:

    "..the subsequent federal trial, United States v. Libby, the jury convicted Libby on four of the five counts in the indictment (one count of obstruction of justice, two counts of perjury, and one count of making false statements.."

    Link

    What's really funny is you bringing up Plame while we have 1005% reason to believe that the President approved of using the IRS as a weapon to intimidate Tea Party organizations and individuals and now the DOJ to go after FNC.

    Take it back. Sad. Very sad.

    Parent

    The (5.00 / 4) (#96)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue May 21, 2013 at 09:43:12 AM EST
    Armitage thing is another conservative myth. Libby was the one that did it and that's why he was the one charged.

    Parent
    Good heavens (1.00 / 1) (#175)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed May 22, 2013 at 07:25:14 AM EST
    I GAVE YOU THE VIDEO OF ARMITAGE ADMITTING IT!

    You established a new record for denial.

    Parent

    Not better than yours (5.00 / 1) (#179)
    by Yman on Wed May 22, 2013 at 08:07:40 AM EST
    In reality, Armitage was only one of the leakers.  There were multiple leakers to multiple reporters, including Libby and Rove.

    Just a coincidence, though...

    Parent

    Nope (none / 0) (#184)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed May 22, 2013 at 08:28:02 AM EST
    you are wrong according to all the other sources and the counsel that indicted Libby. You have been played for a fool by talk radio once again.

    Parent
    So Armitage lied?? (none / 0) (#198)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed May 22, 2013 at 10:18:41 PM EST
    Come on.

    Watch the video.

    And I never knew CNN was talk radio.

    And despite your calling me a fool, I will be polite and say that you aren't one.

    You are just dishonest.

    Parent

    Not Armitage - YOU (5.00 / 1) (#199)
    by Yman on Wed May 22, 2013 at 11:02:10 PM EST
    Armitage admitted he was the first person to tell Novak, but he wasn't the only (or even the first) source of the leak:

    1.  Libby outed Plame in a meeting with Judith Miller on July 8th, 2003 - six days before Novak's article.

    2.  Libby also outed Plame with Tim Russert on July 10, 2003 - 4 days before Novak's article.

    3.  Rove's own lawyer admitted that Rove outed Plame in a meeting with TIME reporter Matt Cooper 3-4 days before Novak's article.

    Those facts can be pretty inconvenient things, huh, Jim?

    Parent
    Baa waa waa (none / 0) (#200)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu May 23, 2013 at 05:53:54 AM EST
    Then why wasn't Armitage indicted? He was not indicted because he was not the one that outed Plame. It's that simple. It was already out when Artmitage stated that. Scooter Libby was indicted silly. The damage was done by Libby and probably Dick Cheney too but you'll continue to apologize for the Bush Administration until the cows come home I guess. No wonder the GOP thinks they can continue to play you for a fool.

    Parent
    He was not indicted because he didn't break (1.00 / 1) (#201)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu May 23, 2013 at 07:22:25 AM EST
    a law:

    4) The term "covert agent" means-

    (A) a present or retired officer or employee of an intelligence agency or a present or retired member of the Armed Forces assigned to duty with an intelligence agency-
    (i) whose identity as such an officer, employee, or member is classified information, and

    (ii) who is serving outside the United States or has within the last five years served outside the United States; or

    Link

    Plame wasn't covered.

    Libby was not indicted for outing Plame, either.

    In October 2005, Libby was indicted by a federal grand jury concerning the investigation of the leak of the covert identity of Central Intelligence Agency officer Valerie Plame Wilson.[5][6][7] Plame's position at the CIA was considered classified information.[5] Libby was indicted on five counts relating to the Plame affair: Two counts of perjury, two counts of making false statements to federal investigators, and one count of obstruction of justice. Libby resigned all three government positions immediately after the indictment was announced.[8]

    Link

    Now, when did Armitage do what he did??

    You can download the audio file for yourself (mp3 file) or listen to it via CNN.

    Here is my transcription of the exchange:

    Woodward: Well it was Joe Wilson who was sent by the agency, isn't it?
    Armitage: His wife works for the agency.
    Woodward: Why doesn't that come out? Why does that have to be a big secret?
    Armitage: (over) Everybody knows it.
    Woodward: Everyone knows?
    Armitage: Yeah. And they know 'cause Joe Wilson's been calling everybody. He's pissed off 'cause he was designated as a low level guy went out to look at it. So he's all pissed off.
    Woodward: But why would they send him?
    Armitage: Because his wife's an analyst at the agency.
    Woodward: It's still weird.
    Armitage: He -- he's perfect. She -- she, this is what she does. She's a WMD analyst out there.  
    Woodward: Oh, she is.
    Armitage: (over) Yeah.
    Woodward: Oh, I see. I didn't think...
    Armitage: (over) "I know who'll look at it." Yeah, see?
    Woodward: Oh. She's the chief WMD...?
    Armitage: No. She's not the...
    Woodward: But high enough up that she could say, "oh, yeah, hubby will go."
    Armitage: Yeah. She knows [garbled].
    Woodward: Was she out there with him, when he was...?
    Armitage: (over) No, not to my knowledge. I don't know if she was out there. But his wife's in the agency as a WMD analyst. How about that?

    According to Woodward, this exchange took place "nearly a month" before Bob Novak wrote his column referencing Ms. Plame.

    Link

    The people who are being played for fools are you Obama lovers. Standby and wait to see who gets sent to jail.


    Parent

    Plame WAS covert, Jim (5.00 / 1) (#202)
    by Yman on Thu May 23, 2013 at 08:42:08 AM EST
    As has been pointed out to you many times, Plame was a covert agent when she was outed.  Rather than your sophomoric attempt to interpret a statute, let's look at Libby's actual sentencing memorandum:

    First, it was clear from very early in the investigation that Ms. Wilson qualified under the relevant statute (Title 50, United States Code, Section 421) as a covert agent whose identity had been disclosed by public officials, including Mr. Libby, to the press.

    Furthermore, the unclassified summary of Plame's CIA employment confirmed her status.

    Plame was `covert' agent at time of name leak:

       

    On 1 January 2002, Valerie Wilson was working for the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) as an operations officer in the Directorate of Operations (DO). She was assigned to the Counterproliferation Division (CPD) at CIA Headquarters, where she served as the Chief of a CPD component with responsibility for weapons proliferation issues related to Iraq.

        While assigned to CPD, Ms. Wilson engaged in temporary duty (TDY) travel overseas on official business. She traveled at least seven times to more than ten countries.

    What's that word used to describe someone who repeatedly makes false claims when they know they're false?

    BTW - The fact that Woodward claims to have been told by Armitage a month before Novak's article means nothing in terms of the violation of the statute.  Assuming it's true, the information had not been made public until Novak published it.  So what you have is several administration officials (Armitage, Libby, Rove and Ari Fleischer) all leaking this information over the course of several weeks to at least a half dozen reporters before the information is public, until someone gets confirmation (Novak - from Rove) and decides to publish it.  Then you have Libby convicted of obstructing justice, lying to the FBI and committing perjury in order to prevent the Republican Special Prosecutor from getting to the truth, which is the real reason no one was prosecuted:

    And what we have when someone charges obstruction of justice, the umpire gets sand thrown in his eyes. He's trying to figure what happened and somebody blocked their view.

    As you sit here now, if you're asking me what his motives were, I can't tell you; we haven't charged it.

    So what you were saying is the harm in an obstruction investigation is it prevents us from making the fine judgments we want to make.

    You also have Fleischer pleading the 5th and refusing to testify until he was granted immunity, something which you now claim is proof of guilt of not only the person invoking the 5th, but the President as well.

    So much hypocrisy, so little time ...

    Parent

    I've followed Jim's act (none / 0) (#204)
    by jondee on Thu May 23, 2013 at 02:52:24 PM EST
    long enough to know that his reasoning goes: she couldn't have been covert, because if she were covert and then outed, it would be a treasonous act jeopardizing our national security, and the Right would NEVER endanger our national scurity, therefore she couldn't have been covert.

    Parent
    ROTFLMAO (none / 0) (#203)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu May 23, 2013 at 09:06:52 AM EST
    What you posted does NOTHING to prove your point. This is another example of why the GOP can continue to play you for a fool. You'll believe ANYTHING they tell you.

    Parent
    I wasn't thinking about protecting the sources (none / 0) (#80)
    by Farmboy on Tue May 21, 2013 at 08:17:41 AM EST
    in my question, or about gov't censorship; rather I was thinking about how the actions of the press can have potentially harmful consequences. Shouldn't someone at the AP, whether reporter or editor, have thought to themselves, "If we publish this now is there a chance we'd be helping the bad guys get away or attempt another mass murder?"

    The AP's defense seems to be wrapped in the idea that a free press is above any responsibility except to blindly publish anything they wish when they wish. What happens afterward isn't their fault, and they can't be held accountable - or even questioned - for any harm caused by their choice.

    Parent

    OMFG! Massive tornado just hit a suburb (none / 0) (#14)
    by caseyOR on Mon May 20, 2013 at 04:04:54 PM EST
     of Oklahoma City. This tornado was a mile wide, a f*cking mile wide, and was on the ground for a half hour. Think about that.  This tornado cut a mile wide swath through this suburb for approx. 30 minutes. Geez!

    CBS is reporting massive destruction and the expectation of lost lives.

    Wars and bank bail outs unconditional support (5.00 / 3) (#90)
    by MO Blue on Tue May 21, 2013 at 09:23:43 AM EST
    Relief for his Oklahoma constituents only if it inflicts more pain for others in the nation.  

    Oklahoma Senator Won't Support Tornado Relief Without Budget Cuts

    Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK)is already insisting that any additional appropriations for disaster aid for Oklahoma should be paid for with cuts elsewhere.

     

    Parent

    What a piece of work... (5.00 / 1) (#97)
    by kdog on Tue May 21, 2013 at 09:50:21 AM EST
    his own constituents no less!  While they're still searching for survivors in the rubble!

    "I'll be happy to help you rebuild your town, just trade in your food stamps and Medicaid for disaster relief."

    Parent

    He and Inhofe did the same thing with regard to (5.00 / 2) (#98)
    by Angel on Tue May 21, 2013 at 09:53:44 AM EST
    the Oklahoma City bombing.  And, in 2011, both senators opposed legislation that would have granted necessary funding for FEMA when the agency was set to run out of money. Sending the funds to FEMA would have been "unconscionable," Coburn said at the time.  More of their hypocrisy here.

    Parent
    If Only... (5.00 / 2) (#117)
    by ScottW714 on Tue May 21, 2013 at 01:35:26 PM EST
    ...the residents had some sort of system where they could each express who they want representing them in Washington DC, then they wouldn't be stuck with these losers.

    I can't believe these two nitwits have been in office since OKC bombing.  Inhofe especially, nitwit is far too kind.

    But they have both been kept around by the voted, Inhofe for nearly two decades.

    Parent

    Coburn's only accomplishment in life (none / 0) (#120)
    by shoephone on Tue May 21, 2013 at 01:42:41 PM EST
    is fathering his daughter, Sarah, who is a wonderful operatic soprano. He should just be happy about that, realize that everything that emanates from his brain and body now is total cr*p, and retire.

    But of course, he's got more damage to do.

    Parent

    And Inhofe is one of the craziest, (5.00 / 2) (#122)
    by shoephone on Tue May 21, 2013 at 01:45:23 PM EST
    stupidest people to ever serve in Congress.

    Parent
    CNN (none / 0) (#21)
    by lentinel on Mon May 20, 2013 at 05:19:20 PM EST
    is reporting the tornado as being two miles wide.

    Are you in that vicinity, caseyOR?

    Parent

    Casey lives (none / 0) (#24)
    by Zorba on Mon May 20, 2013 at 06:31:33 PM EST
    in Oregon, lentinel.  (Unless she's visiting Ok. City, which I hope not.)

    Parent
    I (none / 0) (#25)
    by lentinel on Mon May 20, 2013 at 06:33:31 PM EST
    should have guess from the OR part of his nom de plume.


    Parent
    I mean (none / 0) (#26)
    by lentinel on Mon May 20, 2013 at 06:34:45 PM EST
    her nom de plume.

    Parent
    Reports don't sound good (none / 0) (#31)
    by CoralGables on Mon May 20, 2013 at 07:17:08 PM EST
    here's a quick before/after of Moore, OK

    An elementary school was leveled during school hours.

    Parent

    Two elementary schools were leveled. (none / 0) (#43)
    by caseyOR on Mon May 20, 2013 at 08:49:04 PM EST
    Death toll is now over 50 and counting.

    Parent
    Oh, no. It's going to be really bad. (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by Angel on Mon May 20, 2013 at 08:54:11 PM EST
    Thanks for the updates.

    Parent
    Numbers revised downward (none / 0) (#91)
    by MO Blue on Tue May 21, 2013 at 09:28:07 AM EST
    Death Toll Revised Down To 24, Including 7 Children

    Spokeswoman Amy Elliot said Tuesday morning that she believes some victims were counted twice in the early chaos of the storm. Authorities said initially that as many as 51 people were dead, including 20 children.

    News not good but definitely better than what was originally reported.

    Parent

    Found child (none / 0) (#58)
    by Cylinder on Mon May 20, 2013 at 10:02:23 PM EST
    KWTV: Keith and Melanie Thompson, your 3-year-old has been found and is at St. Anthony's Health Plex. Call 272-7955.

    via Twitter

    Parent

    Toll's now up to 91, at 1:15 a.m. CDT. (none / 0) (#67)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue May 21, 2013 at 01:15:52 AM EST
    20 of the dead are children. Heartbreaking.

    Parent
    Curiouser... (none / 0) (#27)
    by lentinel on Mon May 20, 2013 at 06:50:40 PM EST
    From the NYTimes;

    WASHINGTON -- White House officials were first notified on April 16 about an investigation into Internal Revenue Service scrutiny of conservative groups and discussed its potential findings with the Treasury Department but never told President Obama, the White House said Monday.

    The I.R.S. inspector general informed the White House counsel's office about the agency's nearly finished audit along with other reviews nearly a month before its release, the White House said. Kathryn Ruemmler, the White House counsel, was personally told on April 24, and she notified the White House chief of staff, Denis McDonough, and other senior aides without informing the president, the White House said.

    "She made the decision or the judgment that it was not necessary or appropriate to inform the president of this, and that didn't happen," said Jay Carney, the White House press secretary. "And most importantly, no action was taken by anyone in this building to intervene."

    This is dizzying.
    We are offered quotes from something known as the "White House" - as in "the White House said"...  I suppose they mean Carney...
    The "White House" is certainly not President Obama.

    In fact,  White House officials and White House counsel apparently make decisions about what information it should share with the Chief Executive.

    Maybe this is as it always has been, but I find it beyond parody.

    Maybe (none / 0) (#29)
    by MKS on Mon May 20, 2013 at 07:11:11 PM EST
    But whether Obama was informed as soon as the others will make no difference in the IRS probe because the others were informed just a few weeks ago.....

    In terms of shielding the boss, who knows whether that is a good idea or a bad idea.  He could have done nothing about it during the investigation, else he be meddling....

    Parent

    I (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by lentinel on Mon May 20, 2013 at 08:11:45 PM EST
    wasn't speculating about whether it would have made any difference if Obama had been informed re the IRS probe.

    The Times article just stuck me funny on two counts...
    The first being the use of the phrase, "The White House said"... and not meaning the primo occupant thereof...

    The second was the casual reference to the fact that members of the White House apparently routinely take it upon themselves to decide whether or not to inform the President about an issue.

    I don't know that I want those folks making those decisions - if in fact they are. I wonder whether President Obama wants those people making those decisions, if in fact they are.

    Parent

    The Big Fish always have screeners (none / 0) (#37)
    by MKS on Mon May 20, 2013 at 08:13:46 PM EST
    That's why it matters who the staffers are....  

    Parent
    I (none / 0) (#39)
    by lentinel on Mon May 20, 2013 at 08:23:45 PM EST
    wonder whether all of the fish, presidential fish that is, were equally open to having people screen what information would be given to them.

    I have a feeling, for example, that Clinton might have wanted to be informed of everything.

    I am open to the idea that I'm wrong about that - but that is my impression.

    Parent

    "Plausible Deniability" (none / 0) (#59)
    by Mr Natural on Mon May 20, 2013 at 10:32:54 PM EST
    lol; how quickly we forgot...

    Parent
    LOL (5.00 / 2) (#71)
    by lentinel on Tue May 21, 2013 at 06:01:12 AM EST
    Great.
    We elect people who don't want to know what is going on so that they can't be held responsible when things hit the fan.

    Crock city.

    Parent

    He knew about it last year (3.00 / 2) (#51)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon May 20, 2013 at 09:12:11 PM EST
    Let's stop kidding ourselves.

    It was a Chicago move from a Chicago politician...

    Parent

    And that gut instinct of yours (5.00 / 2) (#64)
    by MKS on Mon May 20, 2013 at 11:45:09 PM EST
    told you Romney would win.

    And that Saddam Hussein had WMD and was behind 9/11.

    Good grief, have you guys forgotten 1998?  

    Parent

    You know nothing about Chicago politics, Jim. (5.00 / 1) (#68)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue May 21, 2013 at 01:29:30 AM EST
    And given that you live in a region where Louisiana, Alabama, Mississippi and Florida are your neighbors -- yep, home of the eight-hour long lines to vote -- you've absolutely no business mocking northern politics. Clean up your own act first.

    Parent
    Would that have been ... (none / 0) (#56)
    by Yman on Mon May 20, 2013 at 09:22:47 PM EST
    ... around the same time that the IRS told Republicans (Issa, Jordan, etc.)?

    Heh.

    Parent

    You oould start writing for Drudge (none / 0) (#30)
    by CoralGables on Mon May 20, 2013 at 07:12:17 PM EST


    Parent
    I think (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by lentinel on Mon May 20, 2013 at 08:19:49 PM EST
    you should re-read what I wrote if you felt I was being critical of Mr. Obama - which is what I assume you meant by referring to that slug, Drudge.

    I was referring to the phrase, "The White House said"... without a specific reference to whom the actual speaker was. They didn't write the White House Press Secretary, or the President... Just "The White House". A house don't talk - last I heard.

    The other thing that caught my eye was the way in which it seems to be accepted practice for staffers to decide what they want the President to be informed about. I find this to be either comic, or potentially tragic.

    Parent

    My reasoning is (none / 0) (#47)
    by CoralGables on Mon May 20, 2013 at 08:59:17 PM EST
    I believe you know why the White House Counsel wouldn't notify the President until the investigation was complete.

    But your point on "the white house said" makes perfect sense and you're right it was pretty lousy writing.

    Parent

    How about (5.00 / 3) (#76)
    by jbindc on Tue May 21, 2013 at 07:56:17 AM EST
    The Treausry Department (which works for the White House) knew and consulted multiple times on the timing of the IRS disclosure, adding to the timeline that those in high places couldn't possibly have "just found out about it by reading the papers"?

    Parent
    Missed The Voice in favor of (none / 0) (#69)
    by oculus on Tue May 21, 2013 at 01:37:56 AM EST
    Daniel Barenboim conducting the Brahms "Requiem". Ethereal.

    CNN taking break from OK (none / 0) (#115)
    by Militarytracy on Tue May 21, 2013 at 01:20:46 PM EST
    Jodi Arias now says she does not want to die.  Confusing, does the jury know about her interview on the ultimate freedom after being found guilty?

    Jodi Arias will say anything for attention... (5.00 / 2) (#116)
    by Anne on Tue May 21, 2013 at 01:33:52 PM EST
    and it's been a while since she had center stage.

    Parent
    Dying for attention it seems (none / 0) (#176)
    by Militarytracy on Wed May 22, 2013 at 07:27:15 AM EST
    I don't know what I would decide as a juror.  I haven't paid close enough attention, but if you aren't a juror is it possible to. That interview and now this?  Makes it hard for someone to hear their own internal death penalty and morality tiny voices.

    Parent
    Well (none / 0) (#137)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue May 21, 2013 at 03:10:43 PM EST
    we have another conservative shopping conspiracy theories by the name of Pete Santilli who thinks Obama and Hillary should be shot but he wants to pull the trigger on Hillary himself and torture her. Any other questions as to why women don't vote for the GOP?

    Okay, I didn't see a link so I googled (none / 0) (#138)
    by Angel on Tue May 21, 2013 at 03:15:53 PM EST
    pete santilli conspiracy theory and here's what I came up with.

    This guy is beyond wacko.  Seriously, the SS needs to do something about this kind of thing.

    Parent

    I'm not (none / 0) (#142)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue May 21, 2013 at 03:29:40 PM EST
    sure what conservatives have just gone off the deep end.

    Parent
    I read about that a couple days ago (none / 0) (#145)
    by shoephone on Tue May 21, 2013 at 03:48:27 PM EST
    That guy is really disgusting, and by the way, isn't it illegal to call for the murder of the president? Or make threats against anyone else for that matter, like a former Sec of State, who is still under secret service protection?

    While Republicans are busy investigating nonsense, I wonder if any of them will call for Santilli to be investigated for threatening the lives of Obama and Clinton...

    Nah, I thought not.

    Parent

    Jeebus (none / 0) (#165)
    by sj on Tue May 21, 2013 at 11:02:36 PM EST
    That is one of the sickest things I've read lately.

    Parent
    IRS about to score (none / 0) (#160)
    by CoralGables on Tue May 21, 2013 at 08:38:56 PM EST
    a huge hit against the Miccosukee Indians in South Florida for violating the 1988 Indian Gaming Regulatory Act. Six years of non payment of taxes from their casino and the 600 member tribe owes a total of $228 million. It gets worse. That's only from 2000 thru 2005. From 2006 thru now isn't finalized yet but is expected to double the current bill.

    The tribe is suing the husband of Congresswoman Ileana Ros-Lehtinen for bad legal advice. Sounds like he will get away clean with the $50 million they paid him from 1992-2010 before firing him.

    The lawyer got $50 million (none / 0) (#161)
    by MKS on Tue May 21, 2013 at 08:49:06 PM EST
    for giving bad advice?   Lord love a duck....

    Parent
    That we don't know yet (none / 0) (#162)
    by CoralGables on Tue May 21, 2013 at 08:55:07 PM EST
    he claims he did what they asked him to do which was to tell the government the tribe owes no taxes. He also claims he told the tribe they did owe taxes. Guess that is what court is for.

    Parent
    So, he got $50 million for giving (none / 0) (#163)
    by MKS on Tue May 21, 2013 at 09:02:37 PM EST
    "good advice?"  That's some fees....Fleecing indeed....

    Some legal research and a research memorandum at the largest of law firms would cost maybe 50-100K, I assume.  Maybe a $1 million if you really had to review a lot of documents.....

    $50 million.....Unreal....

    Parent

    I've always chalked up the attorney's employment (none / 0) (#164)
    by CoralGables on Tue May 21, 2013 at 09:11:57 PM EST
    to the tribe buying the local member of Congress, but I can be cynical.

    Parent
    Stallone gets 15 to 20 mil (none / 0) (#192)
    by jondee on Wed May 22, 2013 at 11:46:59 AM EST
    for making horrible movies..

    Whats the old Jewish saying? "If you want to know what God thinks of money, look at the people he gives it to."

    Parent

    White Man's Hustle... (none / 0) (#186)
    by kdog on Wed May 22, 2013 at 09:32:41 AM EST
    never ends.  

    I consider the Miccosukee a sovereign nation, why do they have to pay taxes at all?  They deserve every nickel being pumped into their slots as reparations.  

    Parent

    I would be fine with that (none / 0) (#188)
    by CoralGables on Wed May 22, 2013 at 10:11:05 AM EST
    I would also be fine with putting up a border crossing at the entrance to the casino with a processing fee to re-enter the country, but I'm pretty sure that would kill the casino business completely.

    For the record, the Miccosukee Tribe of Florida is the only Indian tribe with casinos in the nation not abiding by the 1988 Indian Gaming Regulatory Act

    Parent

    Quite possibly... (none / 0) (#189)
    by kdog on Wed May 22, 2013 at 10:28:37 AM EST
    because of bad advice from a grifter.

    The other nations with gaming know the score, ya can't beat the white man at the white man's game...cut the check and be happy with what you get.

    I don't think a Customs checkpoint would kill the gaming business...still beats the TSA rub and tug for a flight to Vegas, and cheaper too.  Unless Customs starts anal cavity searches for untaxed keno winnings;)

    On second thought, it would put a major hurtin' on the nations cigarette business...I can't fit a carton up my arse, nevermind 3.  Bloomberg is probably already lobbying for it!

    Parent

    Monday Open Thread | 200 comments (200 topical)