home

Wednesday Open Thread

Busy week for me. Here's an open thread, all topics welcome (except Zimmerman.)

< Tsarnaev Friends Plead Not Guilty at Arraignment | Wednesday Night Open Thread >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Let me just say, upfront, that I don't (5.00 / 3) (#10)
    by Anne on Wed Aug 14, 2013 at 08:03:43 AM EST
    like where it appears you want to go with this; I have zero interest in getting into a race-baiting food fight with you or anyone.

    You have already taken it upon yourself to put words in my mouth ("So then, you'd see it as bunk"), and then use that fabrication to inform me that I'm missing the point.

    All I did - pay attention here, ok? - was clarify that the race discrimination element of the plaintiff's case was dismissed on the basis of standing, not on the basis that the allegations in the complaint were not true.

    Based on your approach to debate, I have no further interest in engaging you.

    I deleted that comment (none / 0) (#110)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Aug 14, 2013 at 03:51:52 PM EST
    race baiting is not allowed here. If Heidi does it again she will be banned.

    Parent
    Deen and heirs' financial gains (5.00 / 4) (#25)
    by ruffian on Wed Aug 14, 2013 at 11:10:29 AM EST
    were based in part on her on-camera image as a nice southern lady. It was never all about the cooking. Now their losses are based on the shattering of that image by revelations about her off-camera ideas and personality. It has nothing to do with her winning or losing the particular lawsuit.

    More Spying for Corporate Gain (5.00 / 2) (#28)
    by squeaky on Wed Aug 14, 2013 at 11:23:05 AM EST
    Google is making headlines this week for a court filing that some have interpreted as an admission that Gmail users should have no expectation of privacy while using the service....

    Google argued that "just as a sender of a letter to a business colleague cannot be surprised that the recipient's assistant opens the letter, people who use Web-based email today cannot be surprised if their communications are processed by the recipient's ECS [electronic communications service] provider in the course of delivery."
    The search giant goes on to quote a 1979 case, Smith v. Maryland, which found that "a person has no legitimate expectation of privacy in information he voluntarily turns over to third parties."

    and that goes for those who do not have a gmail account but send an email to someone who's address is gmail.

    So my service provider is the equivalent (none / 0) (#66)
    by ruffian on Wed Aug 14, 2013 at 02:03:01 PM EST
    of my "assistant"? Maybe google will get me a cup of coffee too, after they get done reading my mail.

    To be fair, it is true that we never really had any way to know that the mailman wasn't reading our mail.

    Parent

    I don't know why people use gmail, hotmail etc (none / 0) (#152)
    by DFLer on Wed Aug 14, 2013 at 06:37:34 PM EST
    when they can get an email from their indie ISP. Most of them offer online email too, so one can access away from home.

    Parent
    Speaking for Myself... (5.00 / 2) (#189)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Aug 15, 2013 at 08:57:55 AM EST
    ...a couple years ago when I moved, Comcast assured me I could keep my email when I moved in with someone who also had Comcast.

    The day I moved, everything was gone forever.  Still get's me hot when I think about it.  But even if they hadn't, I would have lost the account when I went to Direct TV.

    Like phone numbers used to be, you change services, you lose the email.

    I realize that no matter what service I use, people have the ability to read it.  I doubt Windstream or Comcast is anymore/less secure than Gmail.

    Parent

    I agree, Scott (5.00 / 1) (#200)
    by Zorba on Thu Aug 15, 2013 at 12:21:22 PM EST
    And I don't know the answer to this one. Although I wish I did.

    Parent
    I guess we better knock it off Gang... (5.00 / 4) (#34)
    by kdog on Wed Aug 14, 2013 at 11:55:24 AM EST
    John Kerry says the internet has made it much harder to govern.

    I say our government has made it much harder to be governed, or at least harder to stomach being governed.

    It's true (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Aug 14, 2013 at 12:05:24 PM EST
    When the backroom deal is exposed, if one of those internet flunkies finds out through some leak everyone knows.  It isn't like when you only had the media to deal with and you could tell them to stop reporting something they found out or you would deny them future access :)

    Man, and now journalists can easily practice journalism and be sent encrypted information while residing in Brazil.  Try strong-arming that jerk :)

    Parent

    Greenwald's encrypted email provider, (5.00 / 2) (#45)
    by Mr Natural on Wed Aug 14, 2013 at 12:51:57 PM EST
    Lavabit, was one of those that closed itself down last week, choosing oblivion over bowing before the Fed's secret demands for whatever it was the Feds were demanding.  The details are secret.  The demands were secret.  We'll never know what the heck they wanted because that's a secret.  Blah blah blah.

    You can still encrypt your communications and email but it's harder.  No one stop shopping, as it were.

    Parent

    Per the NYT article on Poitras (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by shoephone on Wed Aug 14, 2013 at 01:18:56 PM EST
    It sounds to me like both Snowden and Poitras are tech-knowledgeable enough to figure out an alternative to Lavabit. But, I suspect you're right: it will be harder for them. Amazing how the government is trying to squeeze people into submission.

    Oh, and while I'm at it, John Kerry can bite my _!

    Parent

    I think it will be harder for most everyone (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Aug 14, 2013 at 01:27:08 PM EST
    Lots of talk, regular people, entertaining encrypting their email now.

    Maybe this will spur new tech.  I don't see the Federal Government winning this no privacy for anyone battle in the end.  Maybe some economic growth will come of it all?  God knows we could use it.

    Parent

    I think it has to spur new tech, (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by shoephone on Wed Aug 14, 2013 at 01:54:30 PM EST
    and anything created will immediately be considered a threat by the government. But what about all those heads of state who were using encryption emails through Silent Circle, now also closed down?

    Oh, the counter-intuitiveness of it all.  


    Parent

    In the U.K., the RIPA laws can be used to force (none / 0) (#198)
    by Mr Natural on Thu Aug 15, 2013 at 12:15:50 PM EST
    individuals to surrender encryption keys.  I figure it's only a matter of time before that sort of thing is enacted here.  After all, as Dubya [the first] said, the Constitution is just a *** piece of paper.

    Parent
    I wonder if he's on about... (none / 0) (#47)
    by kdog on Wed Aug 14, 2013 at 12:59:01 PM EST
    the rampant information now readily available to the proles, or the rampant misinformation now readily available to the proles.

    Probably both;)  

    Parent

    I feel like we have always been (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Aug 14, 2013 at 01:23:13 PM EST
    on the misinformation/disinformation end, and slow information.  Fox News has made that all more prolific while redefining slow information.  Information for the slow, fast?

    But honest people can keep conversations going about certain issues online, and some individuals begin to dig into issues and then provide all the facts they can find in one place where it can all be discussed.  They never used to have to deal with that much.  Now bloggers catalogue what you have done, all your votes, what lobbyists seem to own you and who gave you what donations.

    And is it just me or did we lose a bunch of brave, sage, loud senior voices on the Hill to old age?  Kerry isn't really politically brave, he smells like sausage to me :)

    They used to be able to make sausage a whole lot easier.

    It is face/palm worthy too how much many Conservatives understand about DC workings.  It is weird how little some understand and seem to want to understand.  Last week at the post office a guy is complaining to another guy in line about how Obama has bankrupted the U.S. postal service.  He asks loudly, "How stupid can you be to do that?"  I had to just shut my mouth.   How can this person not know how all this is going down, and come out in public and want to discuss all this with a line of strangers and blatantly blame Obama?  Where do you even start with this guy?  Probably out in the parking lot.  Just shut up Tracy

    Parent

    Maybe that complaining guy (5.00 / 1) (#79)
    by christinep on Wed Aug 14, 2013 at 02:45:48 PM EST
    referred to in your last paragraph relates to sausage-making after all.  He & others like him (read, e.g., the Tea Party and those August 2010 town hall sessions where they shouted down anyone with ideas differing from their disdain)make it almost impossible to discuss controversial issues in public. The tri-cornered hat guys have openly sabotaged meetings in recent years because they do no consider any differing opinion or compromise acceptable.  A version of "my way or the highway" is playing out these days with the Paul-Cruz-Rubio attempt to defund Obamacare if they can't get their way on debt reduction.

    At the same time, we all know that the system has always been too closed.  Sunshine laws only get us part way there.  While I do not support shutting out the light, there has to be a way to provide for and encourage maximum citizen input for all government decision-making while at the same time not disallowing/discouraging agreements that are beneficial and needed to break gridlock.  In my experience -- personal & professional -- knotty situations where people are noisily pounding on each other often need a catalyst to get off stalemate.  Without beating around the bush, two or three or more people with differing positions who have grown to respect each other sometimes need to attempt that olive-branch move without the glare of a spotlight before bringing the outline of an agreement forward for debate and action.  I think that the locked-in-place positions so many decisionmakers have adopted in the screaming atmosphere of your "complaining guy" militates against genuine attempts at forward movement.

    Parent

    If you know (none / 0) (#86)
    by Mikado Cat on Wed Aug 14, 2013 at 03:10:46 PM EST
    of a place where even handed fair minded discussion of any topic occurs, please share it.

    Everyplace I have seen other than very narrow topic forums tends to be "democratic", as soon as one point of view has 51% those in the 49% are suppressed.

    Parent

    If the guy at the post office (none / 0) (#89)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Aug 14, 2013 at 03:18:30 PM EST
    Feels suppressed, I invite him to factually explain to me exactly how the USPS has become broke.  You don't have to loudly ask the air.  The facts are out there, you only have to want to know them.  And once knowing them, then we can have a fact based discussion or fight together :)  With the current three cornered hat brigade, the only thing being suppressed are specific facts...by them :)

    Parent
    Does anyone happen to know.. (none / 0) (#108)
    by unitron on Wed Aug 14, 2013 at 03:50:07 PM EST
    ...if then Senator O'Bama voted for or against Congress's 2006 "murder the postal service in slow motion" law?

    Parent
    That apostrophe... (none / 0) (#109)
    by unitron on Wed Aug 14, 2013 at 03:50:56 PM EST
    ...really isn't supposed to be there.

    It's O'Mara's fault.

    : - )

    Parent

    No individual records were kept (none / 0) (#123)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Aug 14, 2013 at 04:13:33 PM EST
    on anyone's stance on it.  It passed unanimously by voice vote in the House, passed unanimously in the Senate and the postal union endorsed it at that time.

    Parent
    Too bad that link came from (none / 0) (#54)
    by shoephone on Wed Aug 14, 2013 at 01:24:30 PM EST
    Brent Bozell's CNS News site. Not that I doubt any of the Kerry quotes. It's just that Bozell and his acolytes don't really deserve a forum.

    Parent
    I hear ya... (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by kdog on Wed Aug 14, 2013 at 01:44:45 PM EST
    I searched for other sources, but only the right-wing media is running with the quote.  

    To be fair if he was only talking about the misinformation all over the internet, he has a point...but it's quite possible he's talking about a better informed citizenry and easily accessible facts and records.  And even hacking.  

    Maybe he will clarify for us...lol.

    Parent

    The reason (none / 0) (#70)
    by CoralGables on Wed Aug 14, 2013 at 02:07:49 PM EST
    you don't find that on normal news sites is the ... within the sentence not just leaves out words, but the words used are from completely different paragraphs.

    Parent
    That's really not surprising, given that ... (none / 0) (#75)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Aug 14, 2013 at 02:31:28 PM EST
    ... per Sec. Kerry's former Senate colleague Ted Stevens, "the internet's not something you just dump something on, it's not a big truck -- it's a series of tubes."

    Not to make any accusations or admissions, Big Dog, but Mr. Kerry's no doubt lamenting that a few of us have probably broken off pieces of those tubes on occasion to fashion an improvised bong -- haven't we?

    I think it's pretty clear that the Secretary of State has been trying to use the internet(s) as a conduit to improve communications between the various adversarial factions in the Middle East, but somehow, this guy's always hijacking the scene.

    ;-D

    Parent

    Anybody have (none / 0) (#106)
    by Mikado Cat on Wed Aug 14, 2013 at 03:48:29 PM EST
    a link to the full text of the speech?

    I checked whats new state dept

    which has links to transcripts, but of the three speeches in Brazil on 8/13/2013 I don't see the quotes.

    Parent

    He was supposedly speaking to... (none / 0) (#112)
    by kdog on Wed Aug 14, 2013 at 03:52:58 PM EST
    US State Dept. personnel in Brazil...I doubt there is a full transcript, but somebody might be in trouble for leaking top secret State Dept. communications;)

    Parent
    If you click on the link above (none / 0) (#129)
    by Yman on Wed Aug 14, 2013 at 04:33:17 PM EST
    ... it takes you to the CNS News (heh) article.  The link in the first sentence of that article takes you to the full text of the speech.

    Parent
    That was a little cynical IMO (none / 0) (#130)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Aug 14, 2013 at 04:39:09 PM EST
    Has the internet really made it that much more difficult to find the common good?  I thought that because the common good was so often ignored, that nourished the internet.

    Parent
    Found it, thanks. (none / 0) (#141)
    by Mikado Cat on Wed Aug 14, 2013 at 05:14:05 PM EST
    Link above looks like same one I found, speech appears to be to the family members of embassy staff.

    relevant sections is toward the bottom of the linked speech.

    I'm a student of history, and I love to go back and read a particularly great book like Kissinger's book about diplomacy where you think about the 18th, 19th centuries and the balance of power and how difficult it was for countries to advance their interests and years and years of wars. And we sometimes say to ourselves, boy, aren't we lucky. Well, folks, ever since the end of the Cold War, forces have been unleashed that were tamped down for centuries by dictators, and that was complicated further by this little thing called the internet and the ability of people everywhere to communicate instantaneously and to have more information coming at them in one day than most people can process in months or a year.

    It makes it much harder to govern, makes it much harder to organize people, much harder to find the common interest, and that is complicated by a rise of sectarianism and religious extremism that is prepared to employ violent means to impose on other people a way of thinking and a way of living that is completely contrary to everything the United States of America has ever stood for. So we need to keep in mind what our goals are and how complicated this world is that we're operating in.

    Parent

    AN AXE LENGTH AWAY, vol. 98 (5.00 / 2) (#39)
    by Dadler on Wed Aug 14, 2013 at 12:23:47 PM EST
    Marcia didn't realize that her new glass jaw would be free-floating. (link)

    Volume 97
    Volume 96

    And a plug for my dear old friend, Carey Harrison. If you want to read a great historical novel about pre-war and post-war Italy, then check out JUSTICE (link) by my old college professor and longtime asskicking mentor. Get a copy and share it up, the guy is a demonically talented scribe. Available on Amazon and all the usual suspects. Peace out and TGIF, my friends

    Lavabit's Levison Can't Discuss Case with Lawyer (5.00 / 2) (#51)
    by Mr Natural on Wed Aug 14, 2013 at 01:21:33 PM EST
    "There's information I can't share with my lawyer."

    - from Amy Goodman's NPR interview with Ladar Levison, the owner of encrypted email provider Lavabit, which closed last week.

    I'm not an attorney, nor do I play one on the internet, (popular as that may be,) but it sounds to my untutored ear as though not being able to discuss the facts of a case with an attorney would make defending oneself against the government literally impossible.


    Or (none / 0) (#56)
    by jbindc on Wed Aug 14, 2013 at 01:27:19 PM EST
    He's a) hiding something or b) not being truthful.

    Parent
    Funny that should be your first impression (5.00 / 3) (#58)
    by shoephone on Wed Aug 14, 2013 at 01:30:04 PM EST
    It seems obvious Levison received a national security letter -- which bars him from even talking about it.

    Parent
    Interesting how one's perspective (5.00 / 2) (#71)
    by sj on Wed Aug 14, 2013 at 02:13:35 PM EST
    so completely colors one's interpretation of news. You immediately assume that the actions of the citizen are shady. I immediately assume that the shady actions are on the government side.

    We could both stand to be more objective.

    Parent

    I Disagree... (5.00 / 1) (#78)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Aug 14, 2013 at 02:41:50 PM EST
    ...one entity is pretty much pathological in their avoidance of truth, the other is the person/company they are shutting down.

    To take the government's word on anything to do with security is insane and it's not your fault you first reaction to liars is disbelief.  It's the liars fault.

    JB likes the totalitarianism, so no matter how much the government/police lie, cheat, and steal, they will always get the benefit of the doubt, and the individual with no record of wrongdoings is suspect.

    Parent

    I'm just at the point where skepticism (5.00 / 2) (#97)
    by Anne on Wed Aug 14, 2013 at 03:29:38 PM EST
    is my initial reaction to everything.  Then I try to gather as much info as I can, and eventually, I am less skeptical about one "side" than I am about the other.

    With regard to the Lavabit situation, the government isn't saying anything - they're just issuing threats right and left - and I just flat-out don't trust them.  I don't have any reason to anymore, not on these issues.

    Parent

    Most of the time (none / 0) (#80)
    by christinep on Wed Aug 14, 2013 at 02:48:44 PM EST
    maybe it really is in the middle.  Sometimes the motives from either are or are not shady.  

    Parent
    I don't think so (5.00 / 1) (#85)
    by sj on Wed Aug 14, 2013 at 03:07:35 PM EST
    Most of the time ...maybe it really is in the middle.
    While perception always colors truth, most of the time "objective truth" is weighted more heavily on one side than the other. Plunking down "in the middle" is just lazy thinking.

    Parent
    I beg to differ (not unexpectedly) (none / 0) (#140)
    by christinep on Wed Aug 14, 2013 at 05:11:01 PM EST
    Because--IMO--there are very, very few policies, programs,theories in our present physical world, outside of quantum physics, that have "objective truth."  Perhaps, a specific & relatively small factual situation in mathematics or undoctored/non-photoshopped images might reach that level of objectivity.  Otherwise, as the courtrooms always show, there really are "two sides, if not more, to everything."

    I'm not just toying here.  IMO, the belief/feeling that "objective truth" can be readily found--especially when talking about political situations--is a chimera.  But then, we both have "opinions" on that.  I have a belief system that trends left-of-center, and filter my factual organization and approach from that viewpoint. I examine the major issues at the outset and, typically, re-examine from time to time ... changing my opinion or revising it where factors point (not scientifically or otherwise proven.) That is not lazy thinking any more than your visual screen is.  

    What surprises me most as the years pass:  Unlike in the first 30 to 40 years of my life, I am more likely to look for an agreement on a number of areas that require support from people of different persuasions.  Not all the time, clearly; sometimes I'd just as soon render a swift kick to the destructive right and similar know-nothings. Other times, I'm in my own pig-headedness mode. As I evolved in law toward mediation, my political & personal movement tracked that way as well.  I also found that a successful compromise, which increases the likelihood of anything actually happening, calls for hard work, a give, & a bit of luck.

    Finally ... lots of words, because it seemed worth it to me.

    Parent

    I think you are both right (5.00 / 2) (#142)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Aug 14, 2013 at 05:18:45 PM EST
    How can that be?

    Parent
    I agree with you (5.00 / 1) (#160)
    by CoralGables on Wed Aug 14, 2013 at 07:09:51 PM EST
    with sj and christinep it's often a case of close to agreement but not quite close enough, and they start talking past each other looking for a blurb in each other's comment to pick apart.

    (don't shoot me you two)

    Parent

    You only think that (5.00 / 2) (#166)
    by sj on Wed Aug 14, 2013 at 08:14:32 PM EST
    because christine is always going on about compromise. For example:
    I examine the major issues at the outset and, typically, re-examine from time to time ... changing my opinion or revising it where factors point (not scientifically or otherwise proven.)
    And she is absolutely right that there is a place for that. When crafting a plan or a solution, or engaging in a plan of action, it is good to seek common ground.

    But a) conflating finding common ground with the "finding the middle", and b) applying that principle when fact-finding is just ...off. A fact is a fact. Period. Now there is room for interpretation in a group of facts. And that is where finding more and more evidence produces a clearer and clearer picture. It's called a trend, and, again, that is open to interpretation. Got that.

    But then she scolds because all the facts I find point to an ugly picture. If she doesn't like the ugliness, how about she produces some additional facts, then? Maybe some mitigating circumstances? And how about showing some understanding of how the resulting picture manifests for real people in the real world? Instead, she ignores uncomfortable facts because.... compromise, or something.

    I could not. care. less. what her she and her friends discuss over lunch or after a speech, or what her personal journey has been. Would I be interested in what she is thinking now? Sure. What data she used to reach that conclusion? Most definitely. Personal journey? No, nope, nein, nyet and blechhh.

    I work in a digital world. The bit is on or it is off. The real world is not so clean, when judging the past to evaluate the present sometimes one must judge based on a preponderance of bits ("if it looks like a duck...").

    Now. Architecture made manifest is a thing -- whether it is in construction, software or implementation of policy. There may be things that are not yet implemented or not yet clearly defined, but what is there, is actually there. It is an actual thing.

    Once the implementation stage is reached it is not concept. It either is or has an artifact. At the risk of sounding even more preachy than I already sound, I want to repeat that:

    Once the implementation stage is reached it is not concept. It either is or has an artifact.

    Having said that, I completely understand that the original goal is an idea, and a concept and as such there is room for interpretation and for compromise and for finding common ground.* In the design stage, hopefully the goal is to benefit all the stakeholders as much as possible. There must be some give and take.

    However what I am seeing in the implementation is that one primary stakeholder is doing all the giving (both wittingly and not), while the other takes, and takes more.

    It is incredibly frustrating to have her float over that distinction and conflate one thing (goal) with another (architecture/implementation).

    That is not a blurb to me. These are fundamentally two different things. I am focused almost exclusively on implementation. And frankly, I'm really tired of her taking my remarks regarding one thing and dragging it into the realm of the other. It so completely disfigures what I have said as to make it unrecognizable.

    ---
    * by the way, "common ground" is not synonymous with "the middle". Although it may often overlap.

    Parent

    But I agreed with you (5.00 / 3) (#172)
    by CoralGables on Wed Aug 14, 2013 at 08:44:38 PM EST
    No need for a lecture. If you go back to your first comment on this I gave it a 5.

    You two need an apple martini summit. MT will be happy to be the mixologist.

    Parent

    Fall is coming (5.00 / 2) (#178)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Aug 14, 2013 at 09:47:52 PM EST
    I am recommending red blends :)

    Parent
    Okay, I'm stupid here (none / 0) (#199)
    by Zorba on Thu Aug 15, 2013 at 12:21:15 PM EST
    What is "red blends"?

    Parent
    I think we're talking wine, or at least (5.00 / 1) (#201)
    by Anne on Thu Aug 15, 2013 at 12:30:07 PM EST
    that's my best guess.

    Parent
    Red Blend (5.00 / 1) (#207)
    by squeaky on Thu Aug 15, 2013 at 01:52:27 PM EST
    From Humboldt... soooo smooth.

    Parent
    I think that is probably it (none / 0) (#206)
    by MO Blue on Thu Aug 15, 2013 at 01:19:23 PM EST
    A blend of various types of red wine.

    The biggest category for this year's InterVin International Wine Awards competition is red blends, which is to say wines that are made of a combination of different grapes.

    They could be classic combinations such as Cabernet Sauvignon and Merlot or more fanciful and modern concoctions of Syrah, Zinfandel and other international varieties. The category could house blends of two grapes or 13 -- possibly more
    ...
    The traditional ones were easy enough to sort. Classic Cabernet Merlot or Meritage style wines that take their inspiration from Bordeaux or Tempranillo-based blends pioneered in the Rioja region of Spain fell into place quickly. Cutting edge producers who assemble dramatic or soft, fruity wines as the case may be from seemingly every grape available to them offered more of a challenge. link



    Parent
    Oh, I do hope so :) (none / 0) (#205)
    by sj on Thu Aug 15, 2013 at 01:11:20 PM EST
    I think we're talking wine, or at least (5.00 / 1) (#201)
    by Anne on Thu Aug 15, 2013 at 11:30:07 AM MDT

    that's my best guess.



    Parent
    Yum. Apple martinis (5.00 / 2) (#182)
    by sj on Thu Aug 15, 2013 at 12:11:49 AM EST
    Definitely one of my guilty pleasures. Coincidentally, red blends are another.

    With two such finely crafted virtual arrows puncturing my dignity, who am I to stay in outrage mode?

    Peace :)

    Parent

    Martinis are a favorite here. (5.00 / 2) (#208)
    by christinep on Thu Aug 15, 2013 at 03:31:16 PM EST
    As for wines, the bold reds are good.  So -- MT and CG -- if you can arrange this little session, yea!  If not in the near future ... there is always Racines, sj. (Or, after we learn the ways of the new puppy, come on over; we'll have a round or two of martinis.

    Parent
    The ways of a new puppy? (5.00 / 1) (#212)
    by nycstray on Thu Aug 15, 2013 at 05:53:09 PM EST
    HA! You'll be surprised about how much you have forgotten :D It's shocking . . . Be prepared to get the pup on a schedule lickety split (including naps!) so that in a couple of months when she gets more rambunctious, you're ahead of the game. Puppy class is also a great way to go for a safe place to socialize your youngin' :) And stock up on enzyme cleaner, lol!~

    When's the big day?


    Parent

    Lazy to the second power :) (none / 0) (#143)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Aug 14, 2013 at 05:20:02 PM EST
    I didn't say (none / 0) (#148)
    by sj on Wed Aug 14, 2013 at 05:37:51 PM EST
    absolute truth, I said
    most of the time "objective truth" is weighted more heavily on one side than the other.

    But in any event, when describing an infrastructure, there is an objective truth. Buildings and official statements and official policies are real substantive things, not opinions.

    When describing an event there is an objective truth which may or may not ever be found as it is usually viewed through the filter of subjective memory.

    When getting to the truth of a situation, or trying to find truth regarding a past or present event, the idea of compromise is ludicrous on its face. And that is what we're talking about here.

    Looking for agreement or common ground when on a fact finding mission is worse than lazy thinking. It's completely bogus.

    Parent

    Something that I have been studying lately (5.00 / 1) (#161)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Aug 14, 2013 at 07:27:34 PM EST
    For obvious reasons.  The difference between Post Traumatic Stress Disorder and something called Post Traumatic Growth.

    Both require a trauma, something that should not have happened, and then some experiencers are able to return to a more normal state of existing while experiencing short term PTSD and some suffer chronic PTSD.  Those who experience short term PTSD usually graduate to something called Post Traumatic Growth, where they excise important life lessons and spiritual lessons they learned via the trauma and feel enriched vs. destroyed.

    Yet war is hell, the Iraq War should have never happened, but in recovering you may all run into soldiers who have a tale to tell about how that experience made them a better person.  It is easy to misunderstand someone going through this, and I know that nobody here would rather that their soldiers blow their heads off vs. finding something gained from what they survived that allows them to process things and be better people in the end.

    Does the truth die though when a man or woman tells you what they learned in Iraq that makes their life worth living?

    I started taking a look at this when positive reports came out of Iraq, tales of how some Iraqis felt their lives were improved after the war.  In those stories I saw the same thing though I see in the states.  There is nothing left to do with any of it but glean anything worthwhile that may remain.  You either find reason to live, or find reasons to die, because it was all mostly really awful and souls were bare.

    In that light, a light that takes up a bit of space in my life, you both seem right

    Parent

    In reading this (5.00 / 1) (#173)
    by christinep on Wed Aug 14, 2013 at 09:07:14 PM EST
    I thought about the powers, the potential of human resilience.  I thought about Elie Wiesel, and how he taught so much after the Holocaust; and, I thought about the survivors of Omaha Beach and Iwo Jima and all the other names that we know and don't know.  No, MT, I fear that the ugly reality of wars remains with us; but, there are also those good men & women that are testimony to life.  The ability to survive such horrors, the horror of war, to prevail & transcend it is beyond admirable.

    Parent
    With all due respect, sj, I think (none / 0) (#159)
    by christinep on Wed Aug 14, 2013 at 06:58:22 PM EST
    that in talking about your version of "objective truth," it appears that you are propounding an argument for an absolute that corresponds with your opinion.  IMO.

    Parent
    Then you aren't reading (none / 0) (#167)
    by sj on Wed Aug 14, 2013 at 08:17:03 PM EST
    carefully enough.

    Parent
    I don't think so, not from what I (none / 0) (#60)
    by Anne on Wed Aug 14, 2013 at 01:38:12 PM EST
    understand about how this process works, and not from what is said here, from the link:

    "AMY GOODMAN: Glenn Greenwald also wrote, "What is particularly creepy about the Lavabit self-shutdown is that the company is gagged by law even from discussing the legal challenges it has mounted and the court proceeding it has engaged. In other words, the American owner of the company believes his Constitutional rights and those of his customers are being violated by the US Government, but he is not allowed to talk about it."

    Greenwald goes on to write, quote, "Just as is true for people who receive National Security Letters under the Patriot Act, Lavabit has been told [that] they would face serious criminal sanctions if they publicly discuss what is being done to their company." . . .

    LADAR LEVISON: Well, just to add one thing to Greenwald's comments, I mean, there's information that I can't even share with my lawyer, let alone with the American public. So if we're talking about secrecy, you know, it's really been taken to the extreme. And I think it's really being used by the current administration to cover up tactics that they may be ashamed of."

    I guess you can choose not to believe him, but I think that would require you to enter a very deep state of denial about the extent to which the government is exerting its power.

    Parent

    Or, more likely, (none / 0) (#65)
    by jbindc on Wed Aug 14, 2013 at 01:55:20 PM EST
    I could just be offering alternate reasons why he is being so sketchy and evasive, separate from my personal opinions, since that was what the question was. But of course, you jump to conclusions about my opinions.

    There's a great deal of "allegedly" going on here without any actual facts being known.  Allegedly, Snowden was an active customer (as opposed to just having a registered email account), allegedly Lavabit received an NSL, allegedly he shut down the company rather than comply, etc. Tsk, tsk - believing everything on face value without proof.

    And, newsflash -  if he did receive an NSL - why is he even talking to the media?


    Parent

    Ay yi yi...here we go again... (5.00 / 2) (#77)
    by Anne on Wed Aug 14, 2013 at 02:33:32 PM EST
    There was no question posed; Mr. Natural said it sounded to him like if you couldn't discuss the facts of the case with an attorney, it would be pretty hard to defend yourself.

    That's not a question, it's a statement of the obvious. Which apparently escaped you in your zeal to take up the cause of government primacy.  

    And I didn't jump to any conclusions about your opinions, I just offered one of my own, namely, that I didn't agree with your take on the situation.  

    I'm hard-pressed to know how you will ever be apprised of facts sufficient to deem Levison truthful, given the severe penalties he faces for disclosing any information about what the government wants with him, including even to legal counsel.

    Jesus.

    Parent

    Has the constitutionality of NSL's (none / 0) (#57)
    by shoephone on Wed Aug 14, 2013 at 01:27:26 PM EST
    ever been challenged? Maybe we could put Ron Wyden on the case...

    Parent
    yes, the ACLU won the right (5.00 / 1) (#144)
    by Peter G on Wed Aug 14, 2013 at 05:23:19 PM EST
    for an internet service provider in Connecticut to disclose and discuss his NSL, on a settlement after winning several legal rulings in the case, including on appeal.  I am not enough of an expert to know if a FISA NSL is subject to even greater and/or different restrictions.

    Parent
    The first rule of NSLs... (none / 0) (#114)
    by unitron on Wed Aug 14, 2013 at 03:55:50 PM EST
    ...well, you know the rest.

    How do you challenge the Constitutionality of something you can't even say whether you've received or not in order to establish that you have standing to challenge the Constitionality of it?

    Parent

    Cory Booker's Democratic senate primary (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by KeysDan on Wed Aug 14, 2013 at 01:23:20 PM EST
    victory speech invoked a little  "ah ooh" when he said that he was not red, and not blue, but for you.   Another neo-conservative Democrat in search of the golden, albeit elusive, bipartisanship?  Of course, alongside of his Republican opponent, Steve Lonegran, he looks like Che Guevara.  

    But, win one, maybe, lose one--Booker's video aggregation start-up "Waywire"  apparently is on the ropes.  Maybe, the high roller's venture  (Oprah, Eric Schmidt) was doomed after it recently lost, after some unfavorable notice, one of its advisory board members, 15-year old Andrew Zucker, thereby depriving it of his youthful insights.  Andrew is apparently quite talented, and is the son of CNN president Jeff Zucker.  

    Meteor Blades has a story up at Orange (5.00 / 5) (#59)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Aug 14, 2013 at 01:35:58 PM EST
    According to the Wall Street Journal the President is miffed at all this pushback against Larry Summers running the Fed, and is now pushing back against the pushback.

    Why not?  You make Clapper the head of an NSA audit, you might as well make Larry Summers the Fed chairman too while you are out of your mind.

    What dimension of chess is this now? (5.00 / 4) (#63)
    by shoephone on Wed Aug 14, 2013 at 01:49:37 PM EST
    Honestly, this doubling down from him -- on more than just Summers -- seems like a good way to soil his legacy.

    Parent
    This is where you have been re-elected (none / 0) (#67)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Aug 14, 2013 at 02:03:02 PM EST
    And you don't care if Clinton is left with a decent shot I suppose.

    Parent
    I guess she (none / 0) (#154)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Aug 14, 2013 at 06:43:59 PM EST
    was smart to go to state because that's the only attachment she will have to Obama.

    Parent
    Curious (none / 0) (#158)
    by CoralGables on Wed Aug 14, 2013 at 06:57:08 PM EST
    does all the previous jibberjabber above this become null and void since Clapper isn't in charge of the NSA review?

    Parent
    So, this announcement must mean (5.00 / 1) (#169)
    by Anne on Wed Aug 14, 2013 at 08:27:07 PM EST
    something other than what it seems to say:

    I believe it is important to take stock of how these technological advances alter the environment in which we conduct our intelligence mission. To this end, by the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, I am directing you to establish a Review Group on Intelligence and Communications Technologies(Review Group).

    The Review Group will assess whether, in light of
    advancements in communications technologies, the
    United States employs its technical collection capabilities in a manner that optimally protects our national security and advances our foreign policy while appropriately accounting for other policy considerations, such as the risk of unauthorized disclosure and our need to maintain the public trust.

    Within 60 days of its establishment, the Review Group will brief their interim findings to me through the Director of National Intelligence (DNI), and the Review Group will provide a final report and recommendations to me through the DNI no later than December 15, 2013.

    Link

    So, Clapper gets to choose the members of the Review Group, and the Review Group will report its findings to Clapper.  Clapper's clearly involved, and will clearly have input and influence; if he wants to stock the group with those likely to rubber-stamp these programs, who's going to stop him?

    Parent

    They walked it back (none / 0) (#170)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Aug 14, 2013 at 08:35:38 PM EST
    Saying Clapper isn't choosing the members.  And that his role is "limited".  What does that mean?

    His is first named.  Don't know how that doesn't make him something primary.  They can walk it all over, it seems obvious.

    Parent

    Digby has the screen shot of (5.00 / 1) (#184)
    by Anne on Thu Aug 15, 2013 at 06:42:54 AM EST
    Clapper's announcement, here.

    The announcement, dated Monday, August 12, begins with,

    At the direction of the President, I am establishing the Director of National Intelligence Review Group on Intelligence and Communications Technologies to examine our global signals-intelligence collection and surveillance capability.

    I am just so relieved to know that according to the WH, it won't be Clapper who chooses the members, but Obama himself:

    But the White House national security council insisted on Tuesday that Clapper's role would be more limited.

    "The panel members are being selected by the White House, in consultation with the intelligence community," national security council spokeswoman Caitlin Hayden said.

    The DNI had to be involved for administrative reasons, because the panel would need security clearance and access to classified material, she added.

    After the White House and the Pentagon released their statements saying Clapper had been asked by Obama to "establish" the panel and report its findings, media outlets reported this to mean Clapper heading the panel and choosing the members.

    Now, is there some reason - one that makes any sense, anyway - why, if this is how it was going to work, that couldn't have been part of the announcement?  You know, as in, "I will be selecting the members of the Review Group, who will be afforded access to materials under conditions established by the Director of National Intelligence, for their complete review of programs, protocol and process."

    I know, as sure as I'm sitting here typing this, that had no one raised an eyebrow, had there been no challenge to the announcement that Clapper was going to establish the group, the fox would have been allowed to continue to guard the henhouse.

    I can't wait to see who Obama picks for the group; I'm guessing there will be one token privacy rights proponent, and the rest will be there to rubber-stamp everything with a giant "APPROVED."

    Parent

    I love you and you keep everyone straight (none / 0) (#165)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Aug 14, 2013 at 07:58:30 PM EST
    Around here.  But Clapper was the first chosen individual who would make up this panel.  That's so fishy it's stank :)

    Parent
    Ha! (none / 0) (#168)
    by sj on Wed Aug 14, 2013 at 08:22:54 PM EST
    Have you considered that perhaps the jibberjabber coming from all sides may have influenced Clapper/NSA-review result?

    Parent
    The President always gets miffed (5.00 / 2) (#72)
    by sj on Wed Aug 14, 2013 at 02:21:34 PM EST
    at pushback of any sort, so no news there.  And he always uses that excuse to get all pi$$y. So I guess, we have the beginnings of an answer to Yves Smith:
    So the question really isn't whether he nominates Summers; it is how hard he goes to the mat for him.


    Parent
    Makes no sense (none / 0) (#87)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Aug 14, 2013 at 03:11:00 PM EST
    I have attempted to find any information as to why Summers would be a better choice over Yellen and I have found nothing.

    But the liberal/Democrat base will be demoralized, so why do it?

    Parent

    I ask you this seriously (5.00 / 4) (#96)
    by sj on Wed Aug 14, 2013 at 03:28:54 PM EST
    Have you ever known him to care about the morale of the "liberal/Democrat base" unless there was an election in the works where he needed votes? And even then it has been mostly lip service.

    I assure you, on my honor as a true-blue, tree-hugging, union-supporting, bleeding-heart liberal, Obama is not the least bit interested in appealing to me.

    Parent

    I haven't felt him this tone deaf (none / 0) (#100)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Aug 14, 2013 at 03:36:43 PM EST
    Since he was negotiating Obamacare out.

    Parent
    Why tone deaf? (5.00 / 1) (#111)
    by CoralGables on Wed Aug 14, 2013 at 03:51:59 PM EST
    He hasn't nominated anyone. If you heard his press conference he was very clear he hadn't made any decision yet.

    Then again, I don't care one way or another. The Chairman of the Federal Reserve doesn't have much to do with my everyday life and I don't get a vote. Of course, Obama has been very active in naming women to positions and, all things being equal, Yellen could be the first ever female Chairman of the Federal Reserve. I'm a fan of good firsts.

    Parent

    This person can affect all of us. (5.00 / 1) (#150)
    by Visteo1 on Wed Aug 14, 2013 at 05:55:05 PM EST
    The Federal Reserve chairman is not just one of the most important economic policymakers in America, he or she is one of the most important policymakers in the world. And that person presumably will stay on after I'm President. So this, along with Supreme Court appointments, is probably as important a decision as I make as President.

    I would argue this is the most important appointment he will make.  What can this person affect (please correct me if I am wrong):

    Inflation
    Interest Rates
    Economic Growth
    Unemployment
    Dollar Exchange Rate
    Trade balance
    ...etc.

    They cannot control a drought in the plains, but they can affect the mortgage rate you pay, the price of a gallon of gas and even the price of a loaf of bread.  Their actions may determine whether you are working or unemployed.  If ever there is a place to put aside politics and only look at how a leader will take us forward, it is here.  

    Parent

    If his first choice isn't (none / 0) (#117)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Aug 14, 2013 at 03:57:24 PM EST
    Summers, why pushback?  And the cries against Summers have been large since day one.  Meteor Blades has had a White House petition up against Summers for quite awhile too.  But just about all tides were against Summers and Obama seems determined to have him or be beaten down hard to the point that he will go with Yellen.

    I don't think Ezra was making stuff up when it was let slip that Obama's first choice was Summers.

    Parent

    If you don't understand the pushback (none / 0) (#122)
    by CoralGables on Wed Aug 14, 2013 at 04:13:14 PM EST
    It's good you posted a link (5.00 / 1) (#124)
    by sj on Wed Aug 14, 2013 at 04:19:31 PM EST
    to the transcript. Having said that, I'm a big believer in "watch what they do, not what they say".

    Ye shall know them by their fruits.

    Parent

    So you think Ezra reported bad information? (none / 0) (#127)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Aug 14, 2013 at 04:25:50 PM EST
    Because until Ezra reported that Summers was in the lead with Obama, I didn't see any debate about Larry Summers chairing the Fed.  I think a lot of people were flat shocked he was even being considered, and I am one of those people.

    You are right, I did not watch this presser, because about all the FISA issues he's full of $hit and I wasn't going to listen to it :)

    Prior to 9/11 the NSA couldn't collect on any American without a FISA warrant.  You just don't flat change the rules on me, hide it all, classify every aspect of it so I don't know and can't know you changed all the rules without the knowledge of the democracy and without oversight, and whitewash it all with me after you get caught proper at a presser.  I have no patience for it.  Sorry

    Parent

    I truly envy you then (none / 0) (#102)
    by sj on Wed Aug 14, 2013 at 03:39:10 PM EST
    And I didn't feel the Afghanistan betrayal (none / 0) (#101)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Aug 14, 2013 at 03:38:48 PM EST
    My husband had just got home from a trainup to go to Afghanistan though at Ft Benning and it was packed to the gills and then some.  So I knew we were going.  That did not surprise me.

    Parent
    Even among economists (none / 0) (#93)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Aug 14, 2013 at 03:22:51 PM EST
    Yellen is the choice.

    Parent
    I am not so sure that Summers is a bad (none / 0) (#179)
    by MKS on Wed Aug 14, 2013 at 11:53:27 PM EST
    choice.

    I understand that many say he is too pro-corporate, etc.  But the position is for head U.S. Banker...

    And the Chairman of the Federal Reserve does not have the kind of power that many seem to believe--the Fed Chairman controls the money supply through buying bonds, selling bonds, setting the overnight interest rate on Fed funds, selling T Bills....He does control monetary policy, assuming he gets a majority of his fellow governors to vote with him.

    The Fed Chair has no control over the U.S. Budget, Taxes, the IRS, Social Security, Medicare etc.  He is not the head of the SEC which is responsible for investigating Wall Street.  I did hear of some arcane regulatory power, but it seemed really out of the ordinary.

    The key in picking a Fed Chair is to avoid someone obsessed with inflation imo-someone like Bernanke would be good.  I have no idea if Summers is like that or not....

    Parent

    Hate speech (5.00 / 1) (#149)
    by Mikado Cat on Wed Aug 14, 2013 at 05:39:19 PM EST
    I've been doing a little reading, so pardon the thoughts of a novice, but spread between SCOTUS and local surprised me. I had no idea how far speech could go protected by the concept of imminent action.

    OTOH wikipedia had a piece on FCC regulations looking at;

    "Hate Speech on Commercial Radio" categorized hate speech in four different areas.
    False facts
    Flawed argumentation
    Divisive language
    Dehumanizing metaphors
    In May 2010, NHMC filed comments in the FCC's proceeding on the Future of Media and Information Needs of Communities in the Digital Age.[70] Joined by 32 national and regional organizations from throughout the country, the comments ask the FCC to examine hate speech in media. In its comments, NHMC reinforces the need for the FCC to act on NHMC's petition for inquiry on hate speech in media filed in January 2009.

    I wonder if any real action is possible regarding the four points.

    If this is truly what defines (none / 0) (#151)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Aug 14, 2013 at 06:16:31 PM EST
    Radio hate speech, once again, why is Rush Limbaugh being spoon fed to our troops when they are away from home and Armed Forces Radio.  The guy IS hate speech.

    Parent
    Do you mind if I write a diary (none / 0) (#157)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Aug 14, 2013 at 06:54:01 PM EST
    Using what is originally your find?

    I mean I know I can, but would like your blessing, because I did not stumble on this myself.

    Parent

    Fine with me (5.00 / 1) (#174)
    by Mikado Cat on Wed Aug 14, 2013 at 09:24:20 PM EST
    My understanding is that the FCC has more ability to regulate than the general concept of free speech, but I still don't see where it might go.

    I don't listen to any fringe entertainment news, so I don't know enough to comment beyond I doubt it meets any criminal standard. Public figures usually lie in a artful manner that doesn't expose them to any liability. Plenty of nut sources to quote so you can say anything you choose under the shield of reporting what others said.

    Parent

    Here (5.00 / 2) (#175)
    by Mikado Cat on Wed Aug 14, 2013 at 09:26:03 PM EST
    is a link to the wikipedia, looks like time for me to donate to them again.

    Parent
    Thank you thank you (none / 0) (#176)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Aug 14, 2013 at 09:34:14 PM EST
    Surprising ages (5.00 / 3) (#192)
    by jbindc on Thu Aug 15, 2013 at 09:35:08 AM EST
    Great link (none / 0) (#195)
    by sj on Thu Aug 15, 2013 at 10:53:39 AM EST
    Thanks!

    Parent
    Makes me feel (none / 0) (#210)
    by jbindc on Thu Aug 15, 2013 at 05:26:34 PM EST
    Like I've pretty done much with my life.  I mean -the Marquis de Lafayette and James Madison were 18!

    Parent
    "Pretty much (none / 0) (#211)
    by jbindc on Thu Aug 15, 2013 at 05:26:58 PM EST
    done nothing with my life.

    Parent
    The 80 year old (none / 0) (#197)
    by Wile ECoyote on Thu Aug 15, 2013 at 11:05:01 AM EST
    Sam Whittemore was tending his fields while carrying a Musket, 2 dueling pistols and a sword!      

    Parent
    Well (none / 0) (#202)
    by sj on Thu Aug 15, 2013 at 12:38:24 PM EST
    he was participating in a revolution after all.

    Parent
    All those top federal job openings (none / 0) (#2)
    by jbindc on Wed Aug 14, 2013 at 06:17:20 AM EST
    Who is to blame?


    The president and administration aides make a familiar argument that this is due to political obstructionism: look at how many nominees the Senate has sat on, they say, and Republicans' unprecedented number of questions on so many previously untouched topics that have forced them into extensive and necessarily extended vetting.

    But the president's taking his time, too.

    More than six months into his second term, Obama has left top positions throughout his administration vacant, or filled by acting officials. In many cases, he hasn't even nominated people for the jobs.

    That has left unfilled dozens of high-level jobs at key departments that require nomination and confirmation. Even with the expected turnover of a second-term administration, that's extremely high. And at Homeland Security -- where Obama has already waited more than a month to nominate a successor to Napolitano and Republicans have already signaled a fight over her successor -- and other agencies, that's where things are stuck.

    For example:


    But there are plenty of empty jobs for which the president has yet to put forward nominees, including the inspector general posts at the departments of Homeland Security and the Interior. Obama did put forward nominees this summer for three other Cabinet-level departments -- State, Defense and Labor -- but those posts have all been vacant for well over a year.

    The State Department's most recent Senate-confirmed inspector general left in January 2008. It took more than 2,000 days, including the end of George W. Bush's presidency and all of Obama's first term, for the president to nominate someone for the job, something he did in June. At Interior, Mary Kendall has been acting on the job since February 2009, but Obama hasn't nominated her or anyone else to formally take the job.



    There's really no excuse for this, (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by Anne on Wed Aug 14, 2013 at 06:58:21 AM EST
    unless he wants to make the argument that there are others who have taken over the responsibilities and duties and we don't need to fill the slots.

    It just makes no sense to me why, in an economy where eminently qualified people have been looking for months and years for a job, the administration's sitting on so many vacancies.

    There's no question that Republicans had stated, up to this last deal with Harry Reid, that they would unilaterally block any nominee they were asked to consider - but there's no excuse for allowing that kind of obstructionist behavior, either.

    I'm in general agreement with you on this, but just to let you know - today feels like it might be a cranky day for me, so please don't push my buttons any more than you have to - and I will make an effort to count to 10 before I react.  :-)

    Parent

    Will do (none / 0) (#5)
    by jbindc on Wed Aug 14, 2013 at 07:21:30 AM EST
    If you do the same. :)

    Parent
    Who is to blame? (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by sj on Wed Aug 14, 2013 at 11:24:15 AM EST
    All of them.

    Parent
    Who is to "blame"? (none / 0) (#76)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Aug 14, 2013 at 02:32:48 PM EST
    I say we blame the gossip-mongers at Politico, which has become the Beltway equivalent of the old Hollywood Confidential.

    Parent
    Well, I won't argue with that (none / 0) (#84)
    by sj on Wed Aug 14, 2013 at 03:01:36 PM EST
    but the gossip mongers neither nominate nor confirm nominations. So I don't think they're to blame for the many job vacancies.

    Parent
    Perhaps (none / 0) (#23)
    by PatHat on Wed Aug 14, 2013 at 10:36:00 AM EST
    The WH knows that there is virtually no chance of getting most nominees thru the House, so why tie up someone's life nominating them and then having them sit around for 3 years?

    Parent
    And again, (none / 0) (#24)
    by jbindc on Wed Aug 14, 2013 at 10:41:46 AM EST
    What was his excuse for the first 2 years of his administration?

    And why have the job if you aren't going to do it?

    Parent

    That may be so (none / 0) (#29)
    by sj on Wed Aug 14, 2013 at 11:23:48 AM EST
    But it's still a BS excuse. I would not be able to hold a job if my attitude is "they aren't going to do their job, so why should I do mine?"

    A nomination doesn't require the nominee to "sit around". A potential nominee could have continued to live life pretty much as they did for the past few un-nominated years.

    Parent

    Nominations (none / 0) (#118)
    by Mikado Cat on Wed Aug 14, 2013 at 03:59:34 PM EST
    are political currency, why spend it until there is something you want to buy?

    Parent
    Uh... because they (mostly) (none / 0) (#125)
    by sj on Wed Aug 14, 2013 at 04:22:31 PM EST
    are also functions? But then, I'm proponent of functional government and not a fan of political kabuki.

    Parent
    One thing about the Internet sj (none / 0) (#128)
    by CoralGables on Wed Aug 14, 2013 at 04:27:29 PM EST
    it gives us a tremendous source of information at our fingertips. It's also the greatest source of misinformation the world has ever known.

    Parent
    If it's on the internet it must be true (5.00 / 3) (#131)
    by sj on Wed Aug 14, 2013 at 04:45:55 PM EST
    I'm off to my date with a French model.

    Parent
    And I AM a French model! (5.00 / 3) (#204)
    by ruffian on Thu Aug 15, 2013 at 12:55:56 PM EST
    Hahahahahaha! (none / 0) (#145)
    by Zorba on Wed Aug 14, 2013 at 05:24:34 PM EST
    n/t

    Parent
    The surveillance reforms (none / 0) (#6)
    by jbindc on Wed Aug 14, 2013 at 07:27:36 AM EST
    No news there. (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by Mr Natural on Wed Aug 14, 2013 at 09:27:03 AM EST
    We hoped.  He changed.

    Parent
    What are the chances (none / 0) (#7)
    by AmericanPsycho on Wed Aug 14, 2013 at 07:30:34 AM EST
    that Obama will do the right thing and pardon Manning on his way out in 2016 ?

    The way they've hounded Snowden... (5.00 / 3) (#9)
    by kdog on Wed Aug 14, 2013 at 08:02:41 AM EST
    I'd say the chances of a Manning pardon are slim to none...but it sure would be cool and improve Obama's legacy a little bit.  

    Parent
    About the same as pigs flying, hell (5.00 / 5) (#11)
    by Anne on Wed Aug 14, 2013 at 08:05:15 AM EST
    freezing over and me winning the Powerball...

    Parent
    Speaking of Powerball... (none / 0) (#13)
    by kdog on Wed Aug 14, 2013 at 08:33:41 AM EST
    love this guy Willie Seeley, one of the NJ winners.  Quite the character.  

    When's the party?  Where's the cabin?  ;)

    Parent

    Presiden Obama has been (5.00 / 2) (#26)
    by KeysDan on Wed Aug 14, 2013 at 11:11:50 AM EST
    pretty tight with pardons.  He went quite a way into his first term before granting any at all--December 2010, and for relatively lesser offenses such as drug possession, counterfeiting and mutilating coins.

    A pardon or commutation of sentence for the high profile case of  Bradley Manning is very unlikely.  However,  sufficient time and, maybe, emotions have passed for the president to consider a pardon or, commutation of sentence,  for John Walker Lindh.  While Lindh was not as Daddy Bush described him ("some misguided Main County hot-tubber",) he was a mis-directed and mixed up 20year old.

     His plea bargain at the hands of Michael Chertoff (also of Katrina infamy) gave him 20 years without parole, and he was made to consent to a gag order, apparently insisted upon by Donald Rumsfeld, that would prevent him from making any public statements for the duration of this sentence and drop any claims that he was mistreated or tortured by US military personnel in Afghanistan or aboard military ships.  Also no profits would accrue to him for any books or interviews, in keeping with "Son of Sam" law.  

    Parent

    It will be (5.00 / 1) (#120)
    by Mikado Cat on Wed Aug 14, 2013 at 04:03:25 PM EST
    interesting to see who is pardoned, final act of legacy, or doing political business.

    Parent
    None (none / 0) (#14)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Aug 14, 2013 at 09:01:08 AM EST
    Thank you (none / 0) (#15)
    by CoralGables on Wed Aug 14, 2013 at 09:03:21 AM EST
    I figured that answer was best left to you

    Parent
    Manning does have a chance IMO (none / 0) (#16)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Aug 14, 2013 at 09:23:37 AM EST
    Of the military letting him off the hook someday, but they will place that on the shoulders of a convening authority.  Just like with the pilot in Italy who was found guilty of sexual assault and his convening authority let him off.

    And Hagel and the President really couldn't interfere as the system exists.

    No President will ever be responsible for pardoning Manning, it undermines overall good order and discipline.  So they leave the weight to be shouldered by lower ranking, and then those who disagree can mumble quietly about that so and so if they are even paying attention.  When the President says or does something that is huge news for everyone, that's like ringing a dinner bell.  Someone lower ranking isn't news for everyone and does have authority over everyone.

    I feel this system will work much better for Manning because the Pentagon is always going to have a hell of a time dealing with the aftermath of the Iraq War and Manning will be a part of that.  His chances are much better than hoping some commander in chief will place that respect for authority in question by pardoning him.  That is just never going to happen.

    Besides, Obama does not view Manning as a whistle blower, so why would he?

    Parent

    Sorry (none / 0) (#18)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Aug 14, 2013 at 09:25:56 AM EST
    Lower ranking Does Not have authority over everyone, so order and discipline still maintained via the CIC not being involved.

    Parent
    Zero to None, IMO (none / 0) (#31)
    by sj on Wed Aug 14, 2013 at 11:25:31 AM EST
    Maybe even less than none. O has hardly been generous with his pardons in the past in any case.

    Parent
    I Would Go as Far... (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Aug 14, 2013 at 11:48:05 AM EST
    ...as saying if Obama pardoned every criminal in the US, Manning would be in the last 5%, if not one of the very last ones.

    Ditto for HRC, what manning released is IMO worse than Snowden in that it embarrassed a lot of high ranking folks that were under HRC's command.

    Not worse in reality, but in political/diplomatic arena, Manning will never get a lick of sympathy from HRC is she were to be Obama's replacement.

    Parent

    Agreed. (none / 0) (#81)
    by KeysDan on Wed Aug 14, 2013 at 02:51:37 PM EST
    Bradley Manning (or Edward Snowden, if tried and convicted) would fare any better with an H. Clinton Administration; or, for that matter, even with a Rand Paul Administration (or whomever survives the next Republican clown car derby).   A lot of time will be necessary for any hopes for Bradley Manning.  Perhaps, in the Honey Boo Boo Administration.

    Parent
    Shocker: Florida Prison Throws Open its Doors! (none / 0) (#17)
    by Mr Natural on Wed Aug 14, 2013 at 09:25:31 AM EST
    ... and all heck breaks loose.  The Miami-Dade Corrections Department says it still doesn't know why the security system unlocked and opened every door in the maximum-security wing of the Turner Guilford Knight Correctional Center on June 14.  Article includes video of the incident, culminating with the spectacle of an inmate jumping over a balcony railing, breaking his ankle and a couple of vertebrae, to avoid a knife attack by gang rivals.


    I hate wrong headlines (none / 0) (#20)
    by CoralGables on Wed Aug 14, 2013 at 09:46:50 AM EST
    Shocking moment all the doors in U.S. maximum-security prison flew open

    They have what is referred to as a maximum security wing at the local jail but it's far from a maximum security prison. It's just the local county jail.

    Parent

    Through the Wormhole (none / 0) (#21)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Aug 14, 2013 at 10:01:51 AM EST
    Is a new show on the Science Channel.  Morgan Freeman hosts and they dive into abstract topics from the Universe to the mind.

    Well worth checking out.


    You need to go back (none / 0) (#22)
    by jbindc on Wed Aug 14, 2013 at 10:16:30 AM EST
    and find some archives -  it's been on the air since 2010. :)

    But yes, it's a great show.

    Parent

    jb - I see that Ken Cuccinelli is at it (none / 0) (#27)
    by Anne on Wed Aug 14, 2013 at 11:14:22 AM EST
    again, this time proposing that VA amend its state Constitution to make it possible for the commonwealth to issue vouchers that parents could use to send their kids to parochial schools...

    Think Progress

    This isn't exactly a new idea, but it isn't getting better with age.  And it seems to me that, overall, the VA governor's race has reached new levels of crazy - or am I just imagining that?

    No, you are not imagining it (none / 0) (#36)
    by jbindc on Wed Aug 14, 2013 at 12:19:36 PM EST
    The crazy thing is, no one is really paying attention right now.

    But between Crazy Ken and school vouchers, and asking the Supreme Court to re-institute laws against sodomy, the shadow of Bob "I see no problem in taking $150,000 from a donor" Mcdonell, and Terry MacAullife's former car company troubles, this is going to be an election of "We hate both of them and their predecessors."

    Parent

    Huh? (none / 0) (#103)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Aug 14, 2013 at 03:40:11 PM EST
    How exactly does yet another one of Sen. Chuck Grassley's political fishing expeditions -- this time, about EB-5 visas for GreenTech investors -- equate with the documented evidence of illegal gifts to the McDonnell family and the apparent influence-peddling that took place in the Virginia Statehouse?

    Further, given that Terry MacAuliffe only bought EuAuto Technology (name since changed to GreenTech) in late 2010, and further that GreenTech's Horn Lake, MS plant -- where the MyCar is being manufactured -- has actually only been in operation since July 2012, the Washington Post's so-called "in-depth" report on the company looks to be awfully long in its offering of innuendo, but woefully short on its presentation of any actual evidence regarding malfeasance or wrongdoing on Mr. McAuliffe's part.

    Speaking for myself only, I'll be blunt here. Most of the current and so-called "controversy" surrounding GreenTech appears to be politically motivated, and probably rooted in the GOP's otherwise increasingly shaky prospects in the Virginia governor's race this November.

    Whatever veracity the Post sought to convey about GreenTech rests primarily upon complaints by several disgruntled individuals over the company's apparent failure to instantaneously transform its Mississippi facilities into the equivalent of a GM manufacturing plant operating at full capacity in only 13 months.

    Having been a former state executive director for the party during McAuliffe's tenure as DNC Chair, I can attest that I'm certainly no fan of his, by any stretch.

    But this particular WaPo editorial is vacuous scandal-mongering at its worst -- and unless the editors have actual evidence of influence-peddling and shady dealing at GreenTech to share with us, it's really nothing more than a thinly-veiled hit-piece on the VA Democratic gubernatorial nominee, and isn't worth the bandwidth used to post it.

    One can only hope that the Washington Post's new owner Jeff Bezos sweeps the paper's status quo-cozy editorial regime out the door as they take charge, and bring in some fresh faces, eyes and ears to augment the professionally incestuous Beltway media circuit.

    Aloha.

    Parent

    Greentech (none / 0) (#136)
    by Mikado Cat on Wed Aug 14, 2013 at 05:00:43 PM EST
    Nothing I see about this company looks good, its a $10k golf cart, and not one of the better ones.

    Parent
    You (none / 0) (#187)
    by jbindc on Thu Aug 15, 2013 at 07:44:57 AM EST
    can decide if it's true or not, but that really wasn't the point.  

    The point was, that this is in the local papers, it's what's being talked about 3 months before election day (frankly, because they haven't had much else to talk about with MacAuliffe, because it's not like there's been [thankfully] many political commercials).  

    So you can, as always, pooh-pooh those articles you don't agree with, and dismiss them as not important, but the fact is, it's going to be a factor that will be brought up time and again before Election Day and may influence some voters.

    Parent

    The media let me down. (none / 0) (#33)
    by Visteo1 on Wed Aug 14, 2013 at 11:51:28 AM EST
    Maybe I missed it.  It certainly was not one of the points being highlighted in my news sources.  Nor do I recall hearing this...

    They said before Jackson filed suit, she threatened to embarrass Deen publicly unless she paid the ex-employee "huge sums of money."

    I think both of these points are newsworthy.  Maybe I was selective in what I heard.  Maybe this was initially mentioned, but I only saw follow up reports.

    Not the media's fault (5.00 / 2) (#61)
    by Yman on Wed Aug 14, 2013 at 01:40:39 PM EST
    It's easy to lay blame on "the media".  But the media can't figure out what sources are checked by each individual or what facts are important enough to "highlight" for each person.

    Personally, the fact that the plaintiff is white is mildly interesting (and relevant to the motion on standing), but hardly worthy of being highlighted.  As the plaintiff herself said before this motion was decided, this suit isn't about Deen's use of the n-word but about a pattern of behavior and a work environment allegedly created/condoned by Heirs and Deen, including the allegations of racism.  I'm not sure why the demand for damages is noteworthy, given that it happens in virtually every lawsuit.

    But here are a few examples of the media noting Ms. Jackson's race in the week after the deposition came to light:

    NBC News/Today Show

    CBS News

    Huffington Post

    Talking Points Memo

    New York Times

    Fox News (via RNN)

    There are many more from the first week, and even more from the weeks following - not to mention that the court filings identify Ms. Jackson's race as well.

    Parent

    Thanks, Yman (none / 0) (#73)
    by Visteo1 on Wed Aug 14, 2013 at 02:21:48 PM EST
    I chose to follow the CBS link because it is here that I probably first heard about Deen on the evening news.

    The video only mentions a deposition...no mention if it is a civil or criminal deposition.

    The piece takes 2 minutes 32 seconds.  A little history would have been nice for those of us hearing about it for the first time.  I guess the history got edited out due to time constraints.  

    I asked before on TL where I should get my news.  I believe one response was the evening news.  I won't ask again....but suggestions are welcome ;-).  

    Parent

    I wonder who gave that advice? (5.00 / 1) (#83)
    by sj on Wed Aug 14, 2013 at 02:58:26 PM EST
    I asked before on TL where I should get my news.  I believe one response was the evening news.
    It's doubtful that any regular commenter here would rely on the evening news broadcast as a source of information. That is more a place to get "the buzz". Definitely not the news.

    If you want suggestions, you could follow the links that are provided here. From that you could build a library of sources that you trust. That's how most of take responsibility for what we do or do not know.

     ;-)

    Parent

    Pretty Sure... (none / 0) (#95)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Aug 14, 2013 at 03:28:19 PM EST
    ...that advise was a joke.

    Parent
    Ah... (5.00 / 1) (#98)
    by sj on Wed Aug 14, 2013 at 03:30:59 PM EST
    now that makes sense.  But Visteo1 was so earnest... :)

    Parent
    Jesse Jackson, Jr. (none / 0) (#37)
    by jbindc on Wed Aug 14, 2013 at 12:20:17 PM EST
    Sentenced to 30 months in prison.

    More (none / 0) (#38)
    by jbindc on Wed Aug 14, 2013 at 12:21:20 PM EST
    Wonder How Many Folks... (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Aug 14, 2013 at 12:36:24 PM EST
    ...are in prison far longer for stealing far less, probably every single prisoner there for theft.

    Parent
    Minus the whole (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by jbindc on Wed Aug 14, 2013 at 12:38:33 PM EST
    "public trust" thing.

    Parent
    Yeah, Good Point... (none / 0) (#42)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Aug 14, 2013 at 12:42:56 PM EST
    ...and I am not suggesting they get more time, just close the disparity gap between the entitled and the rest of us.

    Parent
    His wife got a year (none / 0) (#46)
    by jbindc on Wed Aug 14, 2013 at 12:54:42 PM EST
    Serious mental health mitigation (5.00 / 3) (#146)
    by Peter G on Wed Aug 14, 2013 at 05:27:03 PM EST
    comes into play here.

    Parent
    Come On (none / 0) (#190)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Aug 15, 2013 at 09:25:01 AM EST
    I don't know if Jackson has mental issues/depression, but I always find it odd they only seem to need help after the they get caught.

    I would even venture and say most people facing prison are going through major depression issues.  Just seems like the higher up on the food chain you are the more those kinds of issues effect the sentencing.

    Not saying Jackson wasn't, just that certain folks get a lot more leeway in term of sentencing.  Usually the rich and/or famous.  And while Jackson doesn't need more time, people who steal less should get less time.

    Parent

    Bipolar mental illness (5.00 / 2) (#196)
    by Peter G on Thu Aug 15, 2013 at 10:56:22 AM EST
    is not "major depression."

    Parent
    My Fault... (5.00 / 1) (#203)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Aug 15, 2013 at 12:50:46 PM EST
    ...I only read about the depression.

    I was not aware of the bi-polar prognosis.

    That does change things.

    Parent

    Can't Wait.... (none / 0) (#191)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Aug 15, 2013 at 09:26:45 AM EST
    ...for GZ, the African Redux, here.

    Parent
    Fix for "new comment" issue yet? (none / 0) (#68)
    by shoephone on Wed Aug 14, 2013 at 02:03:55 PM EST
    I sure wish the thing gets fixed soon. It's kind of annoying to have to scroll through the entire thread to figure out which comments are new.

    I don't think it's being worked on (none / 0) (#82)
    by sj on Wed Aug 14, 2013 at 02:53:05 PM EST
    because neither J nor the webmaster are seeing the problem. (I wonder if BTD is...) Last I knew, the advice was certain settings for comment display, but that was a total non-starter.

    BTW, I found your comment by search for "#6" because I knew there were about 60 comments last time I checked the thread. Now there are 72.  I'll wait awhile before searching for "#7". It is really seriously annoying.

    Parent

    That's What I Do (5.00 / 1) (#91)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Aug 14, 2013 at 03:21:35 PM EST
    Totally sucks, especially when no one is commenting and your searching for non-existent comments.

    Parent
    Somebody's listening (none / 0) (#90)
    by shoephone on Wed Aug 14, 2013 at 03:18:35 PM EST
    All of a sudden, I'm able to see new comments (in reliable red).

    Did J fix it, or was it the NSA?

    Only your hairdresser knows for sure.

    Parent

    And just that fast, I don't see the new (none / 0) (#92)
    by Anne on Wed Aug 14, 2013 at 03:22:27 PM EST
    ones in red...but it's been back and forth for me all day.  Sometimes, the main page doesn't show new comments, but when I click into the post itself, I do see them - but if I don't see them, I'm still not sure if there are new ones or not unless I read through...

    I have a headache.

    Parent

    Nah (none / 0) (#99)
    by sj on Wed Aug 14, 2013 at 03:35:15 PM EST
    You just reached that threshold where the post is old enough that the new comment tag decided to make an appearance.

    Parent
    It seems (none / 0) (#156)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Aug 14, 2013 at 06:52:56 PM EST
    to me that after you go in and out of a thread about three or four times you start seeing new comments.

    Parent
    I find (none / 0) (#188)
    by jbindc on Thu Aug 15, 2013 at 07:45:50 AM EST
    You can see the new comments as soon as it is not the top post.

    Parent
    try changing your comment settings (none / 0) (#107)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Aug 14, 2013 at 03:49:42 PM EST
    neither I nor our webmaster have been able to duplicate your problem with seeing new comments.

    Parent
    the red new comments (5.00 / 2) (#209)
    by fishcamp on Thu Aug 15, 2013 at 04:14:10 PM EST
    alert goes away for me if I rate someone...I think.

    Parent
    I didn't know that (none / 0) (#113)
    by sj on Wed Aug 14, 2013 at 03:54:19 PM EST
    there had been analysis/information gathering to troubleshoot the problem. Is it too late to contribute observations for consideration?

    Parent
    email them to me (none / 0) (#119)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Aug 14, 2013 at 04:00:24 PM EST
    I will do so this evening (none / 0) (#126)
    by sj on Wed Aug 14, 2013 at 04:25:29 PM EST
    Sounds (none / 0) (#138)
    by Mikado Cat on Wed Aug 14, 2013 at 05:03:18 PM EST
    like a cookie or browser issue.

    Parent
    Such a lovely song (none / 0) (#88)
    by Dadler on Wed Aug 14, 2013 at 03:13:33 PM EST
    Clinton Foundation (none / 0) (#94)
    by Slado on Wed Aug 14, 2013 at 03:24:34 PM EST
    Interesting article from the NYT's

    More interesting . . . (none / 0) (#115)
    by nycstray on Wed Aug 14, 2013 at 03:57:15 PM EST
    The amount of articles just out about her in the past 24hrs . . .

    Parent
    Republicans are panicking (5.00 / 2) (#121)
    by CoralGables on Wed Aug 14, 2013 at 04:09:12 PM EST
    Not having the White House again before 2024 has them on edge. Expect a lot of internet hooey concerning Hillary between now and the day she announces if she is running.

    Parent
    And then what, the hooey will stop? (5.00 / 1) (#134)
    by Anne on Wed Aug 14, 2013 at 04:57:44 PM EST
    Can't see that happening, unless she decides not to run.

    If she does decide to run, lordy, I don't even want to think about how bad it will get.

    Yeesh.

    Parent

    They are already practicing (5.00 / 1) (#139)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Aug 14, 2013 at 05:05:36 PM EST
    Firing shots at her.  If she runs in 2016 they will be nasty ugly.

    Parent
    Is the NYT's internet hooey? (none / 0) (#132)
    by Slado on Wed Aug 14, 2013 at 04:53:50 PM EST
    They simply point out that the Clinton's are the Clinton's.

    Hold your nose when you pull the lever for Hillary.

    Only way republicans can't beat her is if they run Ted Cruz or Ron Paul.

    Not saying they won't

    Parent

    NYT can be very fickle, imo . . . (none / 0) (#135)
    by nycstray on Wed Aug 14, 2013 at 05:00:24 PM EST
    just sayin' . . . :)

    Parent
    Why? (none / 0) (#153)
    by Yman on Wed Aug 14, 2013 at 06:40:21 PM EST
    They simply point out that the Clinton's are the Clinton's.

    Hold your nose when you pull the lever for Hillary.

    They are, in fact, "the Clintons".  I wouldn't "hold my nose" at all.

    Parent

    You're the one (none / 0) (#164)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Aug 14, 2013 at 07:50:11 PM EST
    that's probably going to be holding your nose unless you like Todd Akin types. The people picking your nominee are the ones that think people like Paul Broun are great conservatives.

    Parent
    No evidence to support your theory (none / 0) (#181)
    by MKS on Thu Aug 15, 2013 at 12:03:11 AM EST
    People said the same thing about Obama in 2012.

    Parent
    They've been pitching the hooey (none / 0) (#155)
    by jondee on Wed Aug 14, 2013 at 06:49:35 PM EST
    and hit pieces for twenty years..

    How "The Truth About Hillary" books did the Scaifes, Coors, and Kochs bankroll?

    Parent

    Yes (none / 0) (#162)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Aug 14, 2013 at 07:46:01 PM EST
    they are but they should have thought about that before they Bozo de Bush take an election to the supreme court. Or maybe they should have thought about that before they joined hands with the segregationists back in the 1960's. The chickens have come home to roost on the GOP it would seem and  no trashing of Hillary is going to help them one bit and it probably is going to hurt them even more. A friend of mine who is a a Republican predicts if she runs they are going to go full Monty over the top with conspiracy theories and sexism and they are going to get creamed in the presidential election in 2016.

    Parent
    If the Republicans (none / 0) (#183)
    by MKS on Thu Aug 15, 2013 at 12:17:42 AM EST
    go all Vince Foster on Hillary, they will appear not only looney and malicious but even more out of date than last time.

    We have heard it all before.....a long, long time ago.

    Parent

    But that is One of Their... (5.00 / 3) (#193)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Aug 15, 2013 at 10:26:09 AM EST
    ...Oldies, but a Goodie.

    Let's not forget the biggest thing going for the D's, the shrinking of the white population.

    But if Hillary were to govern like Obama all the D's really get is the title.

    Parent

    The Hillary buildup seems (none / 0) (#133)
    by Slado on Wed Aug 14, 2013 at 04:55:25 PM EST
    similar to 2006 & 2007.

    Lots of time between now and 2016.

    Remember the last two presumptive Democratic nominees were Hillary and Howard Dean.

    We saw how that worked out.

    Parent

    Actually (5.00 / 3) (#163)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Aug 14, 2013 at 07:47:12 PM EST
    no this seems completely different nothing like 2006 and 2007. She actually has a voting base already built up which she did not have outside of NY before.

    Parent
    What a great comment (none / 0) (#171)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Aug 14, 2013 at 08:36:04 PM EST
    Thank you

    Parent
    So we aren't supposed to even (none / 0) (#137)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Aug 14, 2013 at 05:02:18 PM EST
    Think it is time for a President Hillary Clinton?  All the polls indicate I am not alone.  I don't really buy into that jinx business.

    Any decent President weighs the changing of the guard and does not sabotage their party.  LBJ just sat down.  Bill Clinton served well, but in the end may have blighted Gore.

    Parent

    2014 will setup 2016 (none / 0) (#177)
    by Mikado Cat on Wed Aug 14, 2013 at 09:38:17 PM EST
    HRC will be 69 in oct 2016. The question may be how badly does she want the nomination?

    I don't think its a given that the machine that elected Obama will automatically endorse and support HRC, and its grown a lot stronger since they faced each other in the primaries.

    Parent

    Obama's head of internet (none / 0) (#180)
    by MKS on Wed Aug 14, 2013 at 11:58:02 PM EST
    outreach has already joined the Hillary start up....

    Hillary will have full access to the Obama machine.

    Hillary can have the nomination without lifting her little finger.  She can coast if she wants to right until Labor Day 2016.

    Parent

    That would be a joy (none / 0) (#186)
    by jbindc on Thu Aug 15, 2013 at 07:40:27 AM EST
    for so many reasons...

    We could eliminate the primary circus, um, season, and ignore the Republicans until September.

    Parent

    Right... (none / 0) (#194)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Aug 15, 2013 at 10:28:37 AM EST
    ...the election isn't even a year behind us and we are talking about 2016.  Now way we skate through anything.  

    Parent
    I don't think (none / 0) (#185)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Aug 15, 2013 at 07:10:41 AM EST
    2014 is going to mean much in terms of 2016.

    Parent
    Antonio Santiago case (none / 0) (#147)
    by Mikado Cat on Wed Aug 14, 2013 at 05:30:43 PM EST
    is troubling to me. Everyone associated with it seems something of a mess, and the slow roll out of information is allowing speculation that seems like it could be easily verified, but I haven't via Google been able to answer some basic questions.

    Was the father in Walmart?

    Did the father meet with Sherry West in the hospital and possibly handle her clothing prior to GSR testing?

    What was the description Sherry West provided to police?

    What is the deal with the bullet in her leg?