home

Monday Open Thread

Here's an open thread, all topics welcome (except Zimmerman who has his own threads.)

If you are looking for something moving to read today, try Senior U.S. District Court Judge Richard Kopf's blog post, "The best gift I ever got from a convicted killer" about sentencing decisions.

Judge Kopf is not going to be pleased that I'm praising his blog again, but now that I've read all the posts, I can't help but point out some that I especially liked. There's several on the sequester cuts to defender services. Today he proposed this solution:

Unless the House Judiciary Committee is run entirely by hypocrites, I think the Committee ought to fire one of its lawyers every time a federal public defender gets the axe as a result of the sequester. Perhaps Mr. Branden Ritchie, Deputy Chief of Staff and Chief Counsel for the House Judiciary Committee, would be a good candidate for the first sequester generated pink slip.

< CO Concealed Weapons Permits Soar, Recall Election Set for 2 Dems | The Truth About Metadata >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    More Islamaphobia on Fox (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by Yman on Mon Jul 29, 2013 at 02:16:48 PM EST
    Reza Aslan (a Muslim scholar) is interviewed on Fox News about his new book - "Zealot: The Life and Times of Jesus of Nazareth".  News anchor Lauren Green repeatedly asks Aslan why, as a Muslim, he is interested in writing about Jesus' life.  Then she suggests he was hiding his Muslim identity.

    Painfully, embarrassing to watch.

    I saw it, and agree; didn't think it was (5.00 / 2) (#5)
    by Anne on Mon Jul 29, 2013 at 02:27:30 PM EST
    possible for someone to be as openly stupid as the Fox interviewer was - nor did I think it was possible to maintain as much pleasant composure as Aslan did, although I did sense that he was trying to speak a little slower in hope that Green would finally get it.  I'm sure he was thinking that if he got too edgy with her, it would be proof that he was some kind of America-hating radical with visions of Muslim takeover.

    I guess even the dullest knife in the drawer is still a tool, huh?

    Parent

    Heh, heh ... (5.00 / 2) (#13)
    by Yman on Mon Jul 29, 2013 at 03:33:29 PM EST
    I guess even the dullest knife in the drawer is still a tool, huh?

    That's a keeper.

    Parent

    I wonder if she is aware that (5.00 / 2) (#21)
    by jondee on Mon Jul 29, 2013 at 05:28:10 PM EST
    traditionally Islam recognizes Jesus as a prophet..

     

    Parent

    As do Hindu teachers (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by sj on Mon Jul 29, 2013 at 05:36:31 PM EST
    "The Sermon on the Mount According to Vedanta" was more thoughtful and insightful than anything I was taught about it in the Catholic church.

    It seems to be most often the "Christian" churches that seek to deligimatize other faiths.

    Parent

    And that spelling error (none / 0) (#28)
    by sj on Mon Jul 29, 2013 at 06:25:15 PM EST
    is practically a crime.

    delegitimize
    D-E-L-E-G-I-T-I-M-I-Z-E
    delegitimize

    Parent

    Conservatives (5.00 / 2) (#26)
    by MKS on Mon Jul 29, 2013 at 06:01:18 PM EST
    are deathly afraid of historical Jesus research.....They have to discredit anyone who does not toe the fundamentalist line.

    I am going to buy his book....

    Parent

    Yep (none / 0) (#29)
    by sj on Mon Jul 29, 2013 at 06:32:57 PM EST
    the book intrigued me, too. I got the Kindle edition earlier today.


    Parent
    I got it, too (none / 0) (#35)
    by Zorba on Mon Jul 29, 2013 at 08:52:46 PM EST
    ;-)

    Parent
    He was on Real Time with Bill Maher (5.00 / 3) (#38)
    by ruffian on Mon Jul 29, 2013 at 09:02:28 PM EST
    later that night, and while he did not mention that Fox incident, he was a little on edge. At one point he gave a very emotional account of his family's immigration to the US from Iran in the late 70s and the bigotry they encountered. I've seen him on that show and others many times and have never seen him the least bit rattled. In retrospect it is easy to see why, or maybe I am reading into it since seeing the Fox clip.

    It is hard to be surprised anymore at the ignorance that Fox spews every single day. No wonder its steady viewers are so ill-informed, to put it the most charitably.

    Parent

    C'mon (2.00 / 1) (#31)
    by bocajeff on Mon Jul 29, 2013 at 07:53:59 PM EST
    If they were truly Islamaphobic he wouldn't have been on the air to promote the book.

    I agree that the interview was awful - on both parts as he was defensive from the beginning also. I still have no real idea of what the book is about - but getting it publicized on the most watched cable network is not a bad thing - even bad publicity is publicity. Fox knows this. So does the author.

    Parent

    Oh, please (5.00 / 2) (#40)
    by Yman on Mon Jul 29, 2013 at 10:14:37 PM EST
    Fox is so Islamaphobic it's ridiculous.  This is not an isolated incident on Fox, and bringing an author on to attack him is par for the course, publicity or not.

    Parent
    Believe It or Not... (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by desertswine on Mon Jul 29, 2013 at 10:28:32 PM EST
    This is one for Ripley.  Josh Marshall says that the interviewer is actually Fox's Religion Correspondent.
    Josh Marshall- July 29, 2013, 3:24 PM    
    You saw that jaw-dropping Fox interview with Reza Aslan. One little extra nugget on that: the interviewer, Lauren Green, isn't just your average Fox News interviewer dingbat - she's actually their `religion correspondent'.


    Parent
    Well, (2.00 / 1) (#42)
    by bocajeff on Tue Jul 30, 2013 at 12:25:24 AM EST
    Is the African-American female interviewer an Islamaphobe?

    I think she was ill prepared for the interview, but I wouldn't call it Islamaphobic. Again, it would have been much easier to either ignore the author or have someone else on the show who was antogonistic toward the author do her dirty work.

    Parent

    The interviewer was (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by MKS on Tue Jul 30, 2013 at 12:34:16 AM EST
    advancing a bigoted line of questioning....

    Whether the interviewer is always that way is beside the point.

    Parent

    It was an Islamophobia of the latent variety. (5.00 / 2) (#44)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Jul 30, 2013 at 04:26:09 AM EST
    No doubt, she would deny being bigoted or prejudiced, and there's a good possibility that she honestly believes that to be the case.

    But that interview speaks for itself. She knew her network's primary audience, and nakedly appealed to their worst fears and instincts about Muslims in an attempt to discredit Mr. Aslan's work, which she had quite obviously never even bothered to read.

    In short, it was classic Fox News.

    Parent

    No idea about her personally (5.00 / 3) (#46)
    by Yman on Tue Jul 30, 2013 at 06:24:47 AM EST
    But her repeated attempts to challenge his writing about Jesus simply because he is a Muslim align perfectly with the pattern of Islamaphobia demonstrated by her network - not to mention the fact that it ridiculous and hypocritical.

    BTW - Fox has people on its shows all the time that it wants to challenge and/or discredit.  Green is the religious correspondent for the network, so it makes sense that she would do the interview.

    Parent

    "Ill-prepared?" As in "might have (5.00 / 2) (#47)
    by Anne on Tue Jul 30, 2013 at 06:29:16 AM EST
    a box of hair somewhere that's smarter?"  

    Of course she was ill-prepared.  If she had been better-prepared, she'd have asked Aslan the Islamaphobic equivalent of "when did you stop beating your wife," but she wasn't smart enough to do that.

    But let's go to whether that means she's anti-Muslim.  What if she - or any interviewer -  had asked a black man why he'd want to write a book about a white person?  What if a woman had been asked why she'd want to write a book about a man?  Would that be racist or misogynistic?

    I'm not sure we could definitively answer either question, but we'd still know something about the intelligence of the person asking it.  We'd still know something about the openness of the mind of that person.

    What Aslan should have done, what he probably would have loved to have said is, "how fortunate for you that if you ever want to write a book about the dumbing-down of the media, no one will ever question your ability to speak from experience."

    I'd be willing to bet she'd have considered that a compliment.


    Parent

    African American women can be dumb tools (none / 0) (#82)
    by jondee on Tue Jul 30, 2013 at 04:15:11 PM EST
    because they're human beings first and, as they say, to err is human..

    I love how the conservatives scour the country to sign up AA conservative spokespersons and get them on the Scaife/Koch/Coors payroll.. The idea being of course that "liberals" will be afraid to criticize them. The head of the local college student union told me that he was told he could punch his own ticket if he became a conservative..

    Parent

    Juan Cole wrote about that interview (none / 0) (#33)
    by Mr Natural on Mon Jul 29, 2013 at 08:33:42 PM EST
    To Me, the Real Question isn't.... (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Jul 30, 2013 at 09:21:55 AM EST
    ...Why would a Muslim write a book about Jesus?

    It's why would a Muslim go on Fox News to promote a book that calls Jesus a zealot ?

    "I know, I know... hoping the interviewer would tow the Fox News line and create a controversy in the liberal blogs making the book sell like hotcakes."  

    They only way that book is selling to the Fox News crown is if they has a good old fashion book burning.

    This ain't Aslan's first rodeo.

    Parent

    Winner, Winner, Chicken Dinner (5.00 / 1) (#94)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Jul 31, 2013 at 09:53:04 AM EST
    Guess what book moved to the number one slot with Amazon and the number two slot of the NYTs after the interview ?  LINK

    You gotta love when Fox promotes the stuff they despise, by despising it on air.

    Parent

    Federal Appeals Court (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by jbindc on Mon Jul 29, 2013 at 02:40:29 PM EST
    in California to decide if lawyers can block gays from juries.

    Yes, really - in 2013. And oh, the judge.....

    Last month's Supreme Court rulings on same-sex marriage were major gay rights victories. But countless questions about the legal rights of gay men and lesbians remain.

    Here's one: May gays be excluded from juries on account of their sexual orientation? The federal appeals court in California will soon decide the issue, which turns out to be surprisingly knotty.

    It arose at the 2011 trial of an antitrust fight between two giant drug companies. After a potential juror appeared to reveal that he was gay, a lawyer for Abbott Laboratories used a peremptory strike -- one that does not require a reason -- to eliminate him from the jury pool.

    An opposing lawyer objected, saying the juror "is or appears to be, could be, homosexual."

    That mattered, the lawyer said, because "the litigation involves AIDS medications" and "the incidence of AIDS in the homosexual community is well known, particularly gay men."

    In legal terms, the lawyer had just tried to raise a Batson challenge, named after a 1986 Supreme Court decision, Batson v. Kentucky. That decision recognized an exception to the general rule that peremptory challenges are completely discretionary. Race, the court said, cannot be the reason.

    Eight years later, the court said that gender cannot be the reason, either. But it has never addressed sexual orientation.

    At the antitrust trial, in SmithKline Beecham Corporation v. Abbott Laboratories, things quickly got confusing, with the judge uncertain about the law and the Abbott Laboratories lawyer missing an opportunity to protect his client.



    This is going to be interesting (none / 0) (#10)
    by shoephone on Mon Jul 29, 2013 at 03:01:58 PM EST
    I can just imagine the preemptory challenges in places like Kansas, Indiana, Missouri, Georgia, South Carolina...

    Parent
    ...depending on the outcome in Cailfornia... (none / 0) (#11)
    by shoephone on Mon Jul 29, 2013 at 03:03:29 PM EST
    home to one of the largest gay populations in the nation.

    Parent
    How are you going (none / 0) (#30)
    by MKS on Mon Jul 29, 2013 at 06:51:34 PM EST
    to know someone is gay--only if they self identify?

    Adding sexual preference to the Batson list sounds fine.....But just how would that work out in practice?

    Parent

    You can just tell, can't you?<snark> (none / 0) (#48)
    by jbindc on Tue Jul 30, 2013 at 07:20:18 AM EST
    Oh, c'mon -- that's easy! (none / 0) (#79)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Jul 30, 2013 at 03:50:58 PM EST
    MKS: "How are you going to know someone is gay -- only if they self-identify?"

    Prosecutors and defense counsels need only bait a prospective pool of jurors, by waving in front of them a copy of the National Enquirer or Globe containing a salacious cover story about Liza Minnelli, Lady Gaga or the late Anna Nicole Smith -- and then simply wait and listen for the inevitable lament to be voiced aloud: "Oh, why can't they just leave that poor woman alone?"

    (Bah-DUM-Bumm-Bumm!)

    I'm sorry for pandering to a vicious stereotype in order to make a cheap and tasteless joke, but I just couldn't restrain myself from swatting at that temptingly slow pitch over the plate.

    ;-D

    Parent

    Buckingham Palace (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by Nemi on Mon Jul 29, 2013 at 04:52:53 PM EST
    hosts an exhibition of "some of the most sumptuous outfits", juvels, throne chair, place settings and much more from the Coronation of Queen Elizabeth ll 60 years back.

    More details here like: 18 different types of gold thread was used in the 'Robe of Estate', and 1.333 diamonds in gold and silver settings in the Queen's diadem.

    National and Commonwealth Emblem embroidery samples, very pretty embroidery in itself and yet later "jewels, sequins and beads would be added as highlights."

    Lavish doesn't even begin to describe what's on display here and to better be able to simply admire and appreciate the draftmanship and splendour of it all, we commonors better leave our common sense out of it. ;-)

    CRAFTsmanship ... (none / 0) (#18)
    by Nemi on Mon Jul 29, 2013 at 05:07:16 PM EST
    I may have to visit.... (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by ruffian on Mon Jul 29, 2013 at 09:04:19 PM EST
    to see what a juvel is  ;-)

    Parent
    Heh, (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by Nemi on Tue Jul 30, 2013 at 08:21:38 AM EST
    and if you find out you might want to share your knowledge here. ;-)

    Parent
    AN AXE LENGTH AWAY, vol. 83 (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by Dadler on Tue Jul 30, 2013 at 09:20:12 AM EST
    Obama kisses GOP butt, GOP says "NO" (5.00 / 3) (#56)
    by shoephone on Tue Jul 30, 2013 at 10:42:23 AM EST
    Friends, welcome to another edition of Obama Negotiates With Himself, and Repulses Everyone in the Process.

    Obama campaigns for lower corporate tax rates, from the floor of an Amazon warehouse in Tennessee. Touts Amazon's business model as ggggggreat! for American jobs, pi$$ing off the 99% who point out that no one can survive on temporary, part-time minimum wages and no benefits. Meanwhile, back at the GOP ranch, Boehner says "NO!" and that there will be no deal on a tax/jobs plan until Obama cuts personal tax rates too.

    The following is the best description I've read of Obama on any comment thread (this one from Salon):

    Obama is basically an Evan-Bayh-style neoliberal with top notes of Cheney-neocon in the security-state register.


    Amazon (5.00 / 4) (#57)
    by jbindc on Tue Jul 30, 2013 at 11:18:40 AM EST
    I guess that info didn't make it (5.00 / 3) (#58)
    by Anne on Tue Jul 30, 2013 at 11:31:10 AM EST
    into the president's briefing...

    I'd like to find it astonishing that he doesn't know that working at an Amazon fulfillment center is not a "middle-class job," but I don't.  

    I'd like to be gobsmacked that he could hold Amazon up as an example of the kinds of employers and jobs we need more of, given the kinds of working conditions Amazon employees have been subjected to, but I'm not.

    Parent

    Amazon is HORRIBLE (5.00 / 2) (#61)
    by shoephone on Tue Jul 30, 2013 at 12:21:11 PM EST
    I've been saying this for years. From their refusal to pay their fair share on taxes, to their hideous sweat shop working conditions -- abuses straight out of "The Jungle" -- to their aggressive destruction of the independent book store, the company is a scourge. Jeff Bezos is an egomaniacal piece of excrement who has taken over all the real estate in downtown Seattle, making billions for his own profit, and giving NOTHING back to this community.

    I've had friends that have worked there, some in the 90's, and one who works there now, and the horror stories are real. Amazon is a monopoly which should be hit with anti-trust action, but Obama, instead, kisses Bezos' a$$.

    I've never bought one thing from that company and I never will. Bezos should be considered worst of the worst of the corporate wh*res.  

    And Obama is a g*dd*amned idiot for touting them as an example of anything positive. It's a disgrace.

    Parent

    I have to admit, I love Seattle and ... (none / 0) (#75)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Jul 30, 2013 at 03:29:39 PM EST
    ... truly enjoyed my time there while attending UW and playing college baseball. It's a great place.

    But honestly, that city and its environs have apparently also hatched more than their share of corporate lampreys, who attach themselves to some business concern, suck the life out of it and then swim away afterward, leaving wasted corpses of formerly thriving small and medium businesses in their wake.

    But Bill Gates and Paul Allen have made very real attempts to give back to the community through their philanthropy and investments. Jeff Bezos and Starbucks' Howard Schultz are two of the worst sharks I've ever seen, and everything they've done professionally or otherwise seems to be entirely self-serving.

    At least in Schultz's case, his actions and business dealings as owner of the NBA's SuperSonics ultimately cost the people of greater Seattle / Tacoma their beloved team, and that's what apparently and finally opened many people's eyes to what a self-absorbed and egomaniacal scumbag he truly is. Rightly so, his personal reputation took a big hit when the Sonics subsequently departed for Oklahoma City.

    I find nothing praiseworthy about either Bezos or Schultz. In my opinion, the only difference between them and a parasite like Jack Abramoff is that they've yet to be charged and convicted of an actual crime.

    Aloha.

    Parent

    It's a different town now, Donald (none / 0) (#89)
    by shoephone on Tue Jul 30, 2013 at 04:54:12 PM EST
    Believe me. I moved here in the mid-80's (enjoyed it a lot), left briefly in 1990 and often wish I'd never returned. It was in 1990 that those in positions of power decided Seattle needed to become a "world class city" (a bunch of hogwash as there ever was) and set about courting all the rich folks to come from LA and New York and make it so. Millionaires came, gobbled up all the available land, colluded with developers and the city to build on every last square inch, driving up property values for everyone else, then seduced all the nerds to come here, made millionaires out of them too, crowding the city ever faster, making Seattle one of the worst traffic nightmares in the country, creating a populace that is socially inept, and giving outrageous tax breaks to every Chris, Howard, and Jeff who slithered out from behind a rock.

    Seattle is now unaffordable for any but the rich. Of course, you could rent a 300-square foot "apodment" (no bathroom) for $1000 per month, or, if you're really lucky, a 400-square foot studio apartment for only $1350 per month -- in Ballard!

    Schultz and Bezos exemplify the worst of the big kahoonas, but there are so many others on that list. And yet, we have even more homeless being bussed in to eat up social services and harass passersby from every street corner in downtown, Ballard, Queen Anne, Roosevelt, the U-District, and Capitol Hill.

    But fear not, Mayor McShwinn has spent most of his tenure building bike lanes and fighting city council.

    Seattle. A fake Indian name for a fake "world class city."

    You're lucky to be in Hawaii.

    Parent

    Homelessness was a big problem ... (5.00 / 1) (#91)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Jul 30, 2013 at 05:28:46 PM EST
    ... in the U-District when I was going to college in the early '80s, and Capitol Hill even then nurtured a reputation as a gathering place and hang-out for homeless youth, gay and lesbian teens, and runaway kids escaping their own private hells.

    And further down south, the rows of hotels and motels along Pacific Hwy, S. (Hwy. 99) next to Sea-Tac Airport, in what was then an unincorporated area of King County, was known as a notorious place for prostitution. That's where serial killer Gary Ridgway, aka the "Green River Killer," preyed upon many of his dozens of young female victims -- upwards of 71 girls and women, by some estimates.

    I think that's what has always struck me hardest about both Seattle and Portland: their outsized populations of at-risk kids on the street, hustling and panhandling and selling / taking drugs, generally doing whatever they could to get through another day and night.

    It's a very painful and heartbreaking sight to behold, and frankly unworthy of any city aspiring to be known as "world-class."

    Aloha.

    Parent

    Anyone (none / 0) (#65)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Jul 30, 2013 at 01:19:32 PM EST
    who read that NYT interview with Obama should not be surprised. He still thinks the GOP will negotiate in good faith. What the heck is wrong with him? Is he in such a bubble or what?

    Parent
    It's pathological with him (5.00 / 2) (#66)
    by shoephone on Tue Jul 30, 2013 at 01:28:23 PM EST
    and the rest of us are paying the price.

    Parent
    Maybe the audience (none / 0) (#67)
    by christinep on Tue Jul 30, 2013 at 01:30:45 PM EST
    at this stage is primarily intended to be the media & the citizenry.  It is the preliminary posture prior to the Repubs' autumn assault of the stale debt-argument.  The early posture may well define how the public perceives both parties once again for the coming months and for 2014.
    All part of the Who Is The Reasonable Party (and who wants to help middle America, etc.)

    Parent
    Oh please! (5.00 / 3) (#70)
    by shoephone on Tue Jul 30, 2013 at 01:40:25 PM EST
    It's the same nonsense as always. Nothing changes with Obama. He is seriously pathological.

    Parent
    Sorry. (5.00 / 2) (#80)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Jul 30, 2013 at 03:53:42 PM EST
    I'm with shoephone on this one. Instead of Charlie Brown going up and Lucy pulling the football out from under him, Charlie Brown this time sees Lucy pull the football out way before he even starts running. The minute Obama said what he wanted the GOP said NO.  But Charlie-Obama is running full speed ahead to kick a nonexistent football.  I've never seen anything like it in my entire life of watching politics.

    Parent
    People (5.00 / 1) (#81)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Jul 30, 2013 at 03:57:59 PM EST
    are sick of the whole "adult in the room" shtick. We still have high employment and a lot of problems resulting from the disastrous Bush Administration but Obama continues with trying to argue in good faith with people who do not want to solve those problems. The GOP would rather collapse the country as evidenced by the debt ceiling argument than work with Obama. It's give them what they want or they are going to burn the country down. You absolutely cannot deal with crazy people. Would you try to reason with someone who was seriously ill with schizophrenia? I would not waste my time.

    Parent
    Oh, I agree in large part (none / 0) (#83)
    by christinep on Tue Jul 30, 2013 at 04:27:51 PM EST
    People are sick of the play-acting.  People are sick of a lot of the game-playing ... until $$$$$ pour into defining very differently what they (we) all thought we were sick of ... and, how many times have we seen that re-vised play ... and, how many times have the paid-for ad contingent defined us all so very differently than we thought could happen.

    Nope.  The adult-in-the-room dance tends to work, and this President has shown that he knows how to read that script.  Because that script defines the Repubs as temper-tantrum-saying-no-to-everything types, the President will enter this ridiculous debate (brought to us once more by the bring-down-the-debt) with the higher ground in the eventual eyes of the majority of voters.  It may not be pretty; but, it works.  And, when one is dealing with this Congress, better to lead with a counter-punch set up from the beginning.

    I know that this is more than a mite cynical ... and, I wish that someone could make an argument that the way for a President to deal with what we know is the upcoming budget battle -- in view of the need for continuing resolutions -- is by leading with the same no-give that Americans have disdained in the Repubs.  Whether we like it or not, it takes a bipartisan vote in the House to pass anything that we might remotely want.

    Parent

    Oh, I agree in large part (none / 0) (#85)
    by christinep on Tue Jul 30, 2013 at 04:30:03 PM EST
    People are sick of the play-acting.  People are sick of a lot of the game-playing ... until $$$$$ pour into defining very differently what they (we) all thought we were sick of ... and, how many times have we seen that re-vised play ... and, how many times have the paid-for ad contingent defined us all so very differently than we thought could happen.

    Nope.  The adult-in-the-room dance tends to work, and this President has shown that he knows how to read that script.  Because that script defines the Repubs as temper-tantrum-saying-no-to-everything types, the President will enter this ridiculous debate (brought to us once more by the bring-down-the-debt) with the higher ground in the eventual eyes of the majority of voters.  It may not be pretty; but, it works.  And, when one is dealing with this Congress, better to lead with a counter-punch set up from the beginning.

    I know that this is more than a mite cynical ... and, I wish that someone could make an argument that the way for a President to deal with what we know is the upcoming budget battle -- in view of the need for continuing resolutions -- is by leading with the same no-give that Americans have disdained in the Repubs.  Whether we like it or not, it takes a bipartisan vote in the House to pass anything that we might remotely want.

    Parent

    Yikes! (5.00 / 2) (#68)
    by jbindc on Tue Jul 30, 2013 at 01:31:38 PM EST
    I don't even want to know what that (5.00 / 2) (#71)
    by Anne on Tue Jul 30, 2013 at 02:40:41 PM EST
    childbirth was like...yeesh.

    Parent
    Did you see the size of that head?? (5.00 / 2) (#73)
    by jbindc on Tue Jul 30, 2013 at 03:04:36 PM EST
    I was on the phone with my daughter, (5.00 / 2) (#74)
    by Anne on Tue Jul 30, 2013 at 03:12:05 PM EST
    whose baby weighed almost 9 pounds at birth.  I clicked on the story and when it came up, with the picture of the baby, I (rather uncharitably, I guess) said, "wow, it's like she gave birth to a mini-Sumo wrestler," because that's the first thing that popped into my head.

    I guess I'm going into the Mothers' Hall of Shame for that comment, but "awww, how sweet" just didn't seem to be in me at that moment...

    Parent

    Nope - not a bad mom (5.00 / 2) (#76)
    by jbindc on Tue Jul 30, 2013 at 03:30:14 PM EST
    I'm at work and all my co-workers and I had the same reaction. (You would love her to pieces if she were yours).

    For some reason, I thought she was a he - just "looks" like a boy, I guess (certainly not dainty).

    It would be funny if she actually turns out to be a pretty petite girl and all her weight gain was in utero!

    Parent

    Well, the fact that the mom had (5.00 / 2) (#77)
    by Anne on Tue Jul 30, 2013 at 03:43:36 PM EST
    gestational diabetes may mean that the baby's weight and growth should not continue at the same rate, and should stabilize and be back within more normal ranges within some period of time.  My grandson was almost 22 inches long at birth, and this baby wasn't a whole lot longer - almost 5 pounds more over the almost-same length makes quite a difference.

    I also thought "boy" when I looked at the photo, and had to double check the story to make sure.

    [And of course I would love her to pieces - as soon as I was able to walk again, lol...]

    Parent

    Ow! (5.00 / 2) (#78)
    by Zorba on Tue Jul 30, 2013 at 03:47:02 PM EST
    Ow, ow, ow!  That's all I have to say.

    Parent
    Aloha, Eileen Brennan (1932-2013). (5.00 / 2) (#84)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Jul 30, 2013 at 04:28:55 PM EST
    The Emmy-winning and Oscar-nominated ("Private Benjamin," 1980) character actress, who also earned rave reviews for creating the role of Irene Malloy opposite Carol Channing in the Broadway premiere of "Hello, Dolly!" back in 1964, died today at her home in Burbank, CA after a bout with bladder cancer.

    Among other noteworthy roles, Ms. Brennan played Billie, the world-weary brothel madam who was also Paul Newman's girlfriend, confidante and fellow schemer in George Roy Hill's 1973 Oscar winner, "The Sting." She also had a prominent part in Peter Bogdanovich's acclaimed 1971 film, "The Last Picture Show."

    On October 28, 1982, upon exiting a Venice, CA restaurant after having dinner with actress and "Private Benjamin" co-star Goldie Hawn, Ms. Brennan was struck by a passing car and critically injured as she attempted to cross the street. Both her legs were broken in multiple places, her jaw was shattered, an eyeball was wrenched from its socket, and her face had to be literally rebuilt with extensive plastic surgery. Afterward, she subsequently had to battle an addiction to pain medication, which had been prescribed to her after the accident. It would be over three years before she would be able to return to acting.

    Rest in peace, ma'am.

    Mrs. Peacock! (none / 0) (#88)
    by jbindc on Tue Jul 30, 2013 at 04:49:12 PM EST
    That's sad. (none / 0) (#90)
    by shoephone on Tue Jul 30, 2013 at 04:59:50 PM EST
    She really was great. "Last Picture Show" was the first movie I saw her in (my parents took the whole family, including my grandmother -- believing it was going to be a western, because Ben Johnson was in it...the scenes with Cybil Sheppard at the pool party made my mom and grandma think it might have been a mistake to bring me, age 11).

    Brennan was memorable, exuding both savvy and weariness in that role.

    Parent

    Well, it was a western, in its own way. (none / 0) (#92)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Jul 30, 2013 at 05:33:29 PM EST
    And Ben Johnson quite rightly won the 1971 Academy Award for Best Supporting Actor with his touching, against-type performance as "Sam the Lion," the owner of the town's only movie theatre. I consider "The Last Picture Show" to be one of the truly great films of the 1970s.

    Parent
    AN AXE LENGTH AWAY, vol. 84 (5.00 / 1) (#93)
    by Dadler on Wed Jul 31, 2013 at 07:30:52 AM EST
    Another cost of war (none / 0) (#1)
    by jbindc on Mon Jul 29, 2013 at 01:39:33 PM EST
    One that isn't talked about -the Army's child abuse epidemic

    While the Army's intense public attention has been focused on suicides, domestic violence and sex assaults in the ranks, Liyah is part of an epidemic of child abuse inside the Army so under the radar that even top brass were unaware of its scope and an alarming spike in cases. Nearly 30,000 children have suffered abuse or neglect in Army homes over the past decade, an Army Times investigation shows.

    Beatings, torture and starvation claimed the lives of 118 Army children.

    More than 1,400 children were subjected to sexual abuse.

    "The Army put a lot of focus on domestic violence because there's been a lot of political pressure," said Dr. Rene Robichaux, social work programs manager at Army Medical Command. "There hasn't been a concurrent interest in child abuse."

    Army Vice Chief of Staff Gen. John Campbell said he was not aware of the extent of the epidemic.

    When the Army suspects child abuse or neglect, Campbell said, "we'll investigate and prosecute and try to make sure we have the right program in place to take care of the soldiers and their families and do what's right there."

    Of the 29,552 cases of child abuse and neglect in active-duty Army families from 2003 through 2012, according to Army Central Registry data, 15,557 were committed by soldiers, the others by civilians -- mostly spouses.

    The Army's rate of child abuse was 4.5 cases per 1,000 children for 2011. The civilian rate was 27.4 per 1,000 children, according to the Children's Bureau of the Department of Health and Human Services.

    But the number of Army cases has spiked 28 percent between 2008 and 2011, while the number of civilian cases has increased by 1.1 percent.



    Is This an Error ? (none / 0) (#2)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Jul 29, 2013 at 01:54:08 PM EST
    The Army's rate of child abuse was 4.5 cases per 1,000 children for 2011. The civilian rate was 27.4 per 1,000 children, according to the Children's Bureau of the Department of Health and Human Services.

    They have 1/6th the child abuse rate of civilians ?

    Parent

    Guess that would mean (none / 0) (#3)
    by CoralGables on Mon Jul 29, 2013 at 01:57:32 PM EST
    it's an epidemic of good, and one of the safest living environments for children.

    Parent
    I think you have to look at the next stat (none / 0) (#6)
    by jbindc on Mon Jul 29, 2013 at 02:28:45 PM EST
    They have had a 28% increase, while the civilian increase has ben 1.1%

    And of course, what's the reporting like?  Seems it would be a lot more secret on an Army base, and the stats lower, but I could be wrong.

    Parent

    Right... (none / 0) (#8)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Jul 29, 2013 at 02:49:34 PM EST
    ...but they are still leaps and bounds ahead of civilians which is very hard to classify as an epidemic.

    Unless you know it's being under-reported you shouldn't make that claim.  That the logic jump, but is it true ?

    In any case, violence against kids should be on the top of everyone's list, no mater if it less than another group.

    Parent

    The only thing I can think of (none / 0) (#9)
    by jbindc on Mon Jul 29, 2013 at 02:59:17 PM EST
    is that those are the average rates for overall 2003-2012, but

    Last year's 3,698 reported cases of abuse and neglect represented a 40 percent increase over the 2,626 in 2009.

    And of course, the big stat:

    Nearly 30,000 children have suffered abuse or neglect in Army homes over the past decade, an Army Times investigation shows

    I think that's where "epidemic" might come into play.

    Parent

    Good catch, Scott. (none / 0) (#34)
    by Mr Natural on Mon Jul 29, 2013 at 08:37:05 PM EST
    AN AXE LENGTH AWAY, vol. 82 (none / 0) (#12)
    by Dadler on Mon Jul 29, 2013 at 03:08:09 PM EST
    The machismo of money (link).

    And apparently, this Francis guy the Pope is really making some progressive waves in the Catholic Church (link). At least rhetorically. Good start though, great to be honest, but we shall see...

    I've been watching (5.00 / 2) (#16)
    by indy in sc on Mon Jul 29, 2013 at 04:40:09 PM EST
    Pope Francis pretty closely since he became Pope (I am catholic) and all the early signs are pretty positive.  From choosing Francis as his papal name, to eschewing the ornate trappings traditionally associated with the papacy to his well-noted outreach to the poor and imprisoned, and now this statement on gays--I am very hopeful.

    He did recently say that the "door is closed" on women becoming priests, which was disappointing to hear, but I guess I wasn't expecting Vatican III to happen overnight either.  

    Parent

    Agree, and (5.00 / 2) (#27)
    by christinep on Mon Jul 29, 2013 at 06:02:20 PM EST
    You might want to add to the list of positives his recent statements clearly inclusive of and inviting of people of all faiths as well as people not adhering to any faith.

    As to women, and as you indicate, I do not expect the Pope to eradicate the wrongs of the past overnight.  Remember that he is a Diplomat as well as our new Rebel. As an active Catholic woman, who from time-to-time engages in friendly debate with my parish Monsignor (and even the Auxiliary Bishop who tends to reside at the rectory), I am pleased to hear Pope Francis offer his view that women should appear more prominently in Church matters (hmmm, maybe in academic doctrinal discussions?)  

    Pope Francis really is a renewal, I believe.  A good, genuine person.  So far so good ... that he is prescient & standing back from the whispering-in-the-ear of the Curia.  He understands the bureaucracy.  A caring, smart leader ... even now the sermons are including more words about tending to those less fortunate and talking simply, directly (without the over-intellectualization.)  I am very hopeful.

    Parent

    Hey, Donald in Hawaii - (none / 0) (#14)
    by Anne on Mon Jul 29, 2013 at 03:41:15 PM EST
    can you speak to the new plan to fly Hawaii's homeless to the mainland?

    State legislators passed funding this year for a new program to offer one-way flights to any of the state's estimated 17,000 homeless persons. Lawmakers appropriated $100,000 over the next two years for the "return-to-home" program, but that funding could increase if the initiative is viewed as a success.

    There are many reasons why homelessness is so pervasive in Hawaii. It's an expensive state to live in. It's not easy to leave. There isn't much affordable housing.

    Viewed in the most charitable light, one-way flights allow homeless people who currently live in Hawaii but have a family or better job opportunities on the mainland to be able to move. Viewed more cynically, officials in Hawaii will use this initiative to coerce homeless persons into leaving, freeing the state from any further obligations to help them.

    The state Department of Human Services will administer the program, but officials there worry that the program could wind up being abused by those not currently living in Hawaii. "We remain concerned this program is an invitation to purchase a one-way ticket to Hawaii with a guaranteed return flight home," said Kayla Rosenfeld, the department's spokeswoman.

    Guess a lot of people wind up in Hawaii who can't afford to live there, and then can't afford to leave.

    One would hope some of these people would end up with family on the mainland, but I'm guessing a lot of them will just get off a plane in a new city and have nowhere to go.  Then what?

    Hawaii and Southern California ... (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Jul 30, 2013 at 05:35:11 AM EST
    ... have been reputed as repositories of other state's homeless for quite a while now. While offering them one-way tickets from cold climates to warm ones is something that has passed for compassion in this country for quite some time now, its effect is often overstated in terms of the overall problem of homelessness.

    This measure you noted, which we passed this last legislative session, authorizes the DHS to assist financially those homeless persons who are not originally from Hawaii in their efforts to return home, provided that (a) they actually have family back home to which they can return, and (b) the family must be willing to take them in. It requires both documentation and commitment, and is not simply a matter of forcibly putting homeless people on a plane, giving them a lei and bidding them aloha, as the author of the blog post wrongly implies could happen. It can't, and it won't.

    A 2009 annual homeless report from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development to the U.S. Congress found that on a single night in January 2008, the states with the highest concentrations of homeless people were all out west: Oregon (0.54% of the state's population), Nevada (0.48%), Hawaii (0.47%, or 6,061 homeless people), California (0.43%) and Washington (0.41%).

    We completed a comprehensive statewide survey of the homeless in Hawaii in 2011, and as best we can determine, some 13,886 people across the islands experienced homelessness between July 1, 2009 and June 30, 2010 and received state and county services at some point during that period. Of those, 9,781 are on Oahu, and about 40% have lived here for their entire lives.

    Suffice to say that homelessness in Hawaii has been a persistent and nagging problem. And while we're currently doing our best to remedy it, I must shamefully admit that we had heretofore also been quite adept at avoiding the issue altogether, until it could no longer be ignored.

    And for the record, one of my two pro bono clients as a consultant is the largest private agency in the State of Hawaii serving at risk, displaced and homeless youth. I'm trying to do my part, by raising funds for them through grant writing and soliciting private contributions.

    Aloha.

    Parent

    Thanks, Donald - I knew you'd have (5.00 / 2) (#50)
    by Anne on Tue Jul 30, 2013 at 07:54:10 AM EST
    the kind of information that I couldn't get from a blog post; I'm glad to know people aren't just going to wind up on the curb at their destination city, wondering where they're going to sleep that night.

    Actually, it pains me that there are so many people who have to ask themselves that question every day: where am I going to sleep, will I get to eat, how can I get out of this situation?  

    How can we spend billions electing a president, but claim we don't have money to see that every person has a place to call home, food on the table and a way to make a living?

    Well, I kind of feel a rant coming on, so I will close this here, and just thank you once again for the additional information.

    Parent

    Thanks Donald and Anne (none / 0) (#55)
    by Visteo1 on Tue Jul 30, 2013 at 10:25:31 AM EST
    I have met and talked with a dozen or so homeless in Detroit.  Three of whom I got to know a little better than the others.  They are part of what I will call the habitual homeless.  Two are alcoholics and one is a heroin addict.  Until their addictions are addressed, they will remain part of the homeless population.  I am aware their stories are unique. I tried to help the alcoholics and maybe will again.  The heroin addict scarred the poop out of me.  He seemed to sincerely not know about methadone availability in the city.  Hope he has found help.

    Parent
    Like any serious illness, you either ... (5.00 / 2) (#72)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Jul 30, 2013 at 02:58:22 PM EST
    ... seek help, or you'll eventually succumb to it and die. Okay, it's "True Confessions / Too Much Information" time:

    I believe that a true social progressive harbors compassion and empathy for those less fortunate, because in all likelihood, he or she has had occasion to experience some of life's darker and sinister shades, either vicariously or in person, or both.

    I have two young male first cousins on either side of the family -- I'm 20-plus years older than both -- who've long battled serious addiction problems for the better part of the past decade. On the maternal side, he's had a love affair with heroin. And on my father's side, he's overly fond of the bottle.

    Both young men have been a primary source of grief and consternation within their respective families and beyond, and both ended up briefly on the street and even in jail at one point or another in their lives. While they've since climbed back from rock bottom and at least made it to their 30s, they've had alternating bouts of sobriety and inebriation ever since.

    I've also had two close friends from college days at UW, one a Husky baseball teammate, who've since drank themselves to death, before ever reaching the ripe old age of 45. And it wasn't until I was in my 30s that I learned about a great-grandfather on my father's side in northern Illinois, an incorrigible 50-something alcoholic who back in 1950 wandered outside his home while sloshed to the gills, passed out and fell face first into a drainage ditch, and drowned in six inches of water -- not 50 feet from his own front door.

    Now, I'll be the first to admit that I've had my share of good times with booze, pot and coke. I have tried most everything else at least once, save for crack and meth; that stuff really scared me. But I outgrew all that, and with regard to my former affinity for the nose candy, I just put down the hand mirror and rolled-up dollar bill one day in the summer of 1986 -- still can't remember exactly when -- and walked away, without even realizing at the time that I was actually turning my back on the white lines for good. I haven't touched it once in the 27 intervening years since.

    Further, I think there are more than a few people out there like me, even if they don't necessarily want to be upfront and frank about their past, for whatever their own reasons. Look, we had fun getting buzzed and high in younger days, but it's not like we needed to do it on a daily basis to the virtual exclusion of everything else in life.

    In that regard, and speaking for myself only, I tend to view substance abuse as not unlike an adult version of a child's toy for people like me. After a while, we got bored with it and put it up on a shelf, where there it sits until the next time we choose to play with it. I mean, I still like my margaritas, but quite honestly, my life isn't going to be empty without them, you know?

    But for far too many other of our brothers and sisters, substance abuse is simply not a personal choice, even though it may have once started out so. They suffer from addiction, which is an insidious, corrosive and very real disease that gradually eats away at their flesh, like a cancer.

    And if we Americans are really the compassionate and caring people we regularly like to claim to be, and we're at all interested in helping such unfortunates instead of shaming and ridiculing them, then we need to deal with substance addiction for the serious public health problem that it is -- rather than attending to it primarily through the legal system as we do today, as though it were simply one more of life's ugly and unpleasant sideshows to be locked away someplace, out of sight and thus out of mind.

    But at the same time, we also need to be brutally honest and real with ourselves here, and acknowledge that even if all the latest treatment options were made freely available to addicts and alcoholics, we're just not going to be able to save everybody. Only those persons who are innately strong-willed and self-disciplined have the greatest chance of overcoming their disease and surviving. Those who aren't, generally don't.

    Aloha.

    Parent

    Actually (none / 0) (#15)
    by Semanticleo on Mon Jul 29, 2013 at 03:51:54 PM EST
    It was mainland states who gave free airfare to the homeless to rid themselves of the problem.  The entire coast of the Makaha was tents and rickety structures when I visited in 2010.

    Parent
    Squeaky and anyone in NYC (none / 0) (#36)
    by ZtoA on Mon Jul 29, 2013 at 08:54:10 PM EST
    Did you see 'White Snow' show at the Armory by Paul MaCarthy? What did you think of it?

    Tuesday Snowden Update (none / 0) (#49)
    by CoralGables on Tue Jul 30, 2013 at 07:30:52 AM EST
    Other than keeping a close eye on the Manning verdict today, Snowden remains holed up in his hotel room where Russian Federal Migration Service has pretty much acknowledged what we knew all along. Snowden isn't likely to be leaving the Sheremetyevo Airport Transit Area prior to Obama visiting Moscow next month.

    FMS has said Snowden won't be fast-tracked meaning he will stay up to three months in the hotel (that's the positive for Snowden). The less than positive is they also hint that legally he can be stuck in that hotel room forever as they never have to do anything with his request.

    If the Moscow Summit between Putin and Obama goes well (but not too well), Snowden's next chance at leaving the transit area could be January 20, 2017.

    And if the September meeting (none / 0) (#54)
    by christinep on Tue Jul 30, 2013 at 10:08:15 AM EST
    somehow, and maybe surprisingly, goes quite well...?

    Parent
    Langley? (none / 0) (#59)
    by CoralGables on Tue Jul 30, 2013 at 12:00:52 PM EST
    not expecting that though.

    Parent
    I wish I didn't have the (none / 0) (#60)
    by Anne on Tue Jul 30, 2013 at 12:12:42 PM EST
    mental image of you rubbing your hands together and trying not to drool over the prospect of Snowden being returned to the US, but that's kind of what I'm getting from your comment.

    But I do.

    Parent

    Nope. I suspect that you are (none / 0) (#63)
    by christinep on Tue Jul 30, 2013 at 12:39:18 PM EST
    exercising a vivid imagination, Anne ... or maybe simply trying to validate what may be a stereotype.

    At this point, I'm more interested in the progress or lack of progress in USA-Russia relations with Putin in power there.  It is my since-college interest in Russian history that is speaking above, because I really think that so much of the "stand off" has been predictable from the moment that Snowden alit in Moscow.  The question from an international relations standpoint is: What does Putin want in whatever the ultimate "bargain" is?  The matter, from the global perspective, isn't about any one individual, it isn't about emotions (yours or mine), it may not even be about what happened to get to this point ... more likely, it is about a specific geopolitical situation.  

    In sum:  While I respect your point of view here, Anne, and even shake my head at the mess that a young individual got himself into, my colloquy with CG is more in the nature of the situation and what-happens-next.  

    Parent

    It's a Complete Fabrication... (5.00 / 2) (#69)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Jul 30, 2013 at 01:32:37 PM EST
    ...it's not like your posts are the only thing people here 'stereotype'... /condescension

    Anyone in a forum who feels stereotyped must certainly realize there is only one thing to see, your own words.

    But here's to one noble and empathetic post, cheers.

    Parent

    Whoa...and I call BS (none / 0) (#86)
    by christinep on Tue Jul 30, 2013 at 04:34:48 PM EST
    I said what I believe...and, who are you to call me a liar ("complete fabrication")

    Parent
    Ha. Strongly disagree: (none / 0) (#95)
    by oculus on Wed Jul 31, 2013 at 04:29:21 PM EST
    Anyone in a forum who feels stereotyped must certainly realize there is only one thing to see, your own words.


    Parent
    goes quite well for who? (none / 0) (#62)
    by sj on Tue Jul 30, 2013 at 12:34:00 PM EST
    And, for that matter, what constitutes "quite well"?  Your comment is reminding me of something...

    Parent
    sj: See my response to Anne (none / 0) (#64)
    by christinep on Tue Jul 30, 2013 at 12:47:46 PM EST
    By using the words "quite well," I was inviting a colloquy with CG from the POV of that described in my immediate response to Anne. And: CG seems to be viewing this from an international political perspective with the periodic Snowden updates.  Depending upon what may or may not happen at the summit, there could be a significant effect on the international politics sphere (Chechnya, Georgia border disputes, Syria geopolitics, etc.)

    Parent
    Groundswell Audio Leaked from Anonomous (none / 0) (#87)
    by Visteo1 on Tue Jul 30, 2013 at 04:41:32 PM EST