home

Sunday Open Thread

By Jeralyn, Section Blog Related
Posted on Sun Feb 22, 2015 at 03:15:21 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

I've been catching up on my reading this weekend, the snow that began more than 24 hours ago is still coming down.

It's also Oscar night, which means the Red Carpet should be starting soon.

This is an open thread, all topics welcome.

< "El Chapo" Guzman: One Year Later | The Oscars >

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

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Sunday Open Thread | 206 comments (206 topical)
    "verbal tap dance" (5.00 / 3) (#1)
    by The Addams Family on Sun Feb 22, 2015 at 04:44:50 PM EST
    two liberal feminist Muslim journalists (emphasis added) ask Will It Take the End of the World for Obama to Recognize ISIS as "Islamic"?

    At the White House summit on "countering violent extremism," President Obama declared that violent jihad in the name of Islam isn't the work of "religious leaders" but rather "terrorists." . . . But, as liberal Muslim feminist journalists who reject the vision of the Islamic State, we can say that the Islamic State . . . [relies] very much on the scholarship of "religious leaders," from Ibn Tamiyyah in the 14th century to Sayyid Qutb in the 20th century, who very much have credibility and authority among too many Muslims as "religious leaders.

    [ . . . ]

    Doing a verbal tap dance around Islamic theology and extremism, even calling it "whatever ideology," Obama and his policy team have it completely wrong. . . . Among Muslims, stuck in face-saving, shame-based cultures, we need to own up to our extremist theology instead of always reverting to a strategy of denial, deflection, and demonization. While Rome burns in the war plans of the Islamic State and other militants, it is important to identify the enemy clearly. . . . We know "America is not at war with Islam." We settled that in the days after 9/11. But we are at war with an ideology and theology of Islam. . . . Obama said that it would hand America's enemy a propaganda victory if we called out the Islamic theology that is the underpinning of their violence, but the enemy will despise us no matter how politically correct we try to be. And by returning always to "historical grievances" and "root causes," from the Crusades to colonialism, we only feed a culture of "wound collectors," as former FBI agent Joe Navarro calls terrorists.
    They accuse Obama (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by FlJoe on Sun Feb 22, 2015 at 06:29:30 PM EST
    of tap dancing yet they state
    Among Muslims, stuck in face-saving, shame-based cultures, we need to own up to our extremist theology instead of always reverting to a strategy of denial, deflection, and demonization.
    So go ahead and own up. Where are the fatwas against these guys? Obama is wisely steering away from the theological aspect.The notion that by uttering the magic words "radical Islam" he could some how "better define" the enemy is ridiculous. Letting Islam define their own apostates would be the best course all around.

    Parent
    on the contrary (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by The Addams Family on Mon Feb 23, 2015 at 02:16:47 PM EST
    Obama is wisely steering away from the theological aspect.

    Obama is explicitly not "steering away from the theological aspect" - he's heading right for that iceberg

    i never doubt that the president is acting with the best of intentions, but what he's also doing, especially from the perspective of the Islamic world, is illegimately setting himself up as an expert on Islamic theology, since he presumes to declare that ISIS has "perverted Islam" when in fact the actions of ISIS are thoroughly grounded in Islamic texts:

    . . . the claim that the Islamic State has distorted the texts of Islam [is] preposterous, sustainable only through willful ignorance. . . . [Koranic] texts are shared by all Sunni Muslims, not just the Islamic State. "And these guys have just as much legitimacy as anyone else" [according to Bernard Haykel, the Princeton University scholar who is the foremost expert on ISIS's theology

    for all his good intentions, which i actually support, in this instance i find the president ominously lacking in moral imagination, given his expressed ignorance of the medieval theology that fuels ISIS

    Parent

    About those quotes (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by Yman on Mon Feb 23, 2015 at 03:54:53 PM EST
    What The Atlantic Left Out About ISIS According To Their Own Expert

    One of the oft-mentioned criticisms of The Atlantic piece is that it echoed the inaccurate belief that since ISIS's theology draws upon Islamic texts to justify its horrendous practices, it is an inevitable product of Islam. Haykel didn't say whether or not he thought Wood's article says as much, but when ThinkProgress asked him directly whether Islamic texts and theology necessitate the creation of groups like ISIS, he was unequivocal.

    "No," he said. "I think that ISIS is a product of very contingent, contextual, historical factors. There is nothing predetermined in Islam that would lead to ISIS."

    He was similarly unambiguous when responding to the related critique that Muslims who disavow ISIS are somehow deluded or not "real" Muslims.

    "I consider people ... who have criticized ISIS to be fully within the Islamic tradition, and in no way `less Muslim' than ISIS," he said. "I mean, that's absurd."
    ...

    The issue, Haykel says, lies in ISIS's "ahistorical" theology, which justifies their horrific actions by essentially pretending that the last several centuries of Islamic history never happened.

    "This is something I did point out to [Wood] but he didn't bring out in the piece: ISIS's representation of Islam is ahistorical," Haykel said. "It's saying we have to go back to the seventh century. It's denying the legal complexity of the [Islamic] legal tradition over a thousand years."

    To illustrate his point, Haykel referenced Mohammad Fadel, the Associate Professor and Research Chair for the Law and Economics of Islamic Law at the University of Toronto, who criticized Wood's piece in a recent interview with ThinkProgress.

    "Mohammad Fadel, for instance, would say when you talk about Islamic law, you have to talk about a tradition that is many centuries old and is extremely sophisticated, that has a multiplicity of views and opinions and is not cut and dry the way ISIS presents Islam, in an ahistorical fashion, and in a completely monolithic way," Haykel said. "So ISIS's view of Islam is ... unhistorical. They're revising history."


    Parent

    straw man meets red herring (5.00 / 3) (#54)
    by The Addams Family on Mon Feb 23, 2015 at 04:17:56 PM EST
    who is saying that ISIS's theology is an "inevitable" product of Islam?

    as you pointed out, "Haykel didn't say whether or not he thought Wood's article says as much," & of course Haykel was "unequivocal" in his response to ThinkProgress & its moronic question about whether "Islamic texts and theology necessitate the creation of groups like ISIS"

    sheesh

    Parent

    OMG! This whole argument (5.00 / 3) (#61)
    by caseyOR on Mon Feb 23, 2015 at 07:24:34 PM EST
    makes me crazy. Anyone can pervert any religious dogma and turn it to evil. We see this all the time in the U.S. when Christian extremists cherry-pick from the bible to support their anti-women, anti-lgbt, anti many things in the modern world beliefs.

    Do we, in the case of those Christians, take all Christians to task for not denouncing them? Do we insist that moderate Christians take responsibility for stopping the extremists? I do not think we do.

    Nor have we held all Buddhists in some way responsible for the violence committed by some Buddhists in Burma.

    Why is Islam and its practitioners held to a different standard?

    Parent

    omg back at ya (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by The Addams Family on Mon Feb 23, 2015 at 07:34:50 PM EST
    don't know about you, but i am not talking about "Islam and its practitioners"

    i am talking about the religious millenarian death cult known as ISIS, an Islamist fringe engaged in decapitation & crucifixion & live incineration & slavery & kidnapping & rape of children

    things that, by the way, we do not "see all the time in the US"

    Parent

    Jim's comment illustrates the goal (5.00 / 5) (#79)
    by MO Blue on Mon Feb 23, 2015 at 11:12:05 PM EST
    Behind demonizing Muslims.

    And I didn't say we rush into war. We just take our time, develop our tactics, etc., etc and then go to war. Probably take 6-9 months from the time the decision is made to shock and awe all over the ME.

    My reasoning is the same as why I kill baby copper heads. If you don't they'll grow up and have more copper heads.

    When a fight is inevitable strike first and strike hard.

    And like Patton wanted to march on to Moscow I would continue on to Tehran. link

    The whole issue of demanding the label of radical Islam and the on going theme that the Muslin religion is an inherently violent religion, where others are not, is IMO part of the propaganda being used to sell another war to the American people. Once you demonize an entire population, it is so much easier to convince people outside of the demonized group to wage war against them and justify any and all atrocities that you commit against them. It is an age old technique and it appears it still works

    As you can see, Jim does not want to wage war with ISIS but with the entire Muslim population in the ME. Iran, who has not anything to do with the Sunni group, ISIS and who is presently fighting ISIL is part of the war plans.


    Parent

    All the time (1.00 / 1) (#81)
    by Slado on Tue Feb 24, 2015 at 03:03:00 AM EST
    Republicans are asked all the time where they stand on these issues.  When one of them says something particularly stupid (see Aiken) all are asked if they will defend those comments. In fact democrats would love nothing more then to talk about what Christian politicians believe and how they apply their Christian values to policy 24/7 if they could.  

    Nothing wrong with it.  

    Also the reason the Islamic community is under a bit of pressure these days is they are the ones producing the terrorism.  I don't think we'd be paying a bit of attention to Islam and its theology if that wasn't the case.

    Furthermore the lines between extremist and moderate beliefs in the Muslim world aren't as clear as many would wish.  It's the actions taken by certain Muslims that defines who the radicals and moderates are.   This is where the historical evolution comes in.  The modern day Muslim doesn't want to return to life in the middle ages.  

    Parent

    Actually, most terrorism in the United States ... (5.00 / 3) (#109)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Feb 24, 2015 at 02:02:06 PM EST
    Slado: "Also the reason the Islamic community is under a bit of pressure these days is they are the ones producing the terrorism."

    ... has historically been committed not by Muslims, but rather by white Judeo-Christians who profess fundamentalist religious and / or right-wing political ideologies. Prior to the 9/11 attacks, the biggest terrorist attack occurred in April 1995 at the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City, and was perpetrated by entirely by white men.

    The Southern Poverty Law Center, which has long tracked and documented such extremism, has compiled an extensive and detailed list of terrorist incidents which have occurred in this country since Oklahoma City. The latest incident:

    "November 28, 2014: Armed with a .22-caliber rifle and an assault rifle, Larry Steve McQuilliams, 49, fires more than 100 rounds at a police station, a Mexican consulate, a federal courthouse and a bank in downtown Austin, Texas, during the pre-dawn hours. He also tries to set the consulate on fire before he is shot dead by police. No one is hurt in the attack, which causes extensive damage to the buildings. In a rental van, police find multiple propane cans fashioned into homemade bombs and a map of 34 targets, including two churches. They also find Vigilantes of Christendom. The 1990 book inspired a white supremacist doctrine known as Phineas Priesthood, which finds divine justification for violence against those seen by such 'priests' as enemies of God. The Austin police chief describes McQuilliams, a felon, as a 'homegrown American terrorist trying to terrorize our people' and says a note found in the book 'discusses his rank as a priest in his fight against anti-God people.' Statements made in police interviews also tie him to ultra-conservative groups with anti-Semitic, anti-LGBT and racist views."

    I'm not at all discounting the serious threat posed by fundamentalist Islamic militants, and of course the Obama administration and Congress should undertake all appropriate and lawful measures to protect our citizens and residents from any possible harm.

    But nevertheless, one must obviously conclude on the basis of actual evidence that the greatest potential terrorist threat is really posed by some of our own people, and does not emanate from others residing mostly outside the country. We're simply deluding ourselves if we continue to insist and act otherwise.

    And if we're to be entirely consistent in our determination to hold all Muslims responsible for the horrific crimes committed by a relative minority of demented zealots, then shouldn't we as Christians therefore ascribe to the same exact standard, and hold ourselves to account for the extreme conduct of such Christian fundamentalist nutballs as the aforementioned Larry Steve McQuilliams, who similarly claim to act in the name of the Lord?

    Aloha.

    Parent

    If your argument is true then why did (none / 0) (#144)
    by Slado on Tue Feb 24, 2015 at 11:20:51 PM EST
    this administration and the previous build a trillion dollar intelligence machine, kill hundreds of terrorists abroad with guns and drones etc...?

    It's like the vaccine argument.  Success by both Obama and Bush in keeping other attacks from happening here make it easy for your argument to be made.  I think we've gone to far but are you stating that if we'd simply told Osama we were sorry for the Crusades and done nothing we'd been more likely to have been hurt after 9/11 by local neo nazis?

    Furthermore I don't hold all Muslims responsible I hold the leaders of the countries that allow this vile ideology to flourish and the Muslims that finance and support the terrorism that results responsible.   The problem is that group is quite large.  Much larger if argue then the home grown non Muslims you say we should be more concerned about but that's just a hunch.

    But I do agree since we've gone to all the trouble to build our monitoring apparatus to monitor radical Islamic terrorists let's make sure to also keep an eye on the crazy Christians, anti abortionists, Neo Nazis, anarchists, and enviro whackos too.

    Parent

    That's very noble of you to ... (none / 0) (#146)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Feb 25, 2015 at 01:00:29 AM EST
    Slado: "Furthermore I don't hold all Muslims responsible I hold the leaders of the countries that allow this vile ideology to flourish and the Muslims that finance and support the terrorism that results responsible. The problem is that group is quite large."

    ... only hold Muslim leaders accountable. But given that there are bad actors all over the world, why do you continue to focus on Muslims? Christians are an even larger group than them.

    The core problem here, Slado, is religious fundamentalism, which is inclusive of all faiths and not just the exclusive realm of Islam.

    There are Jewish fundamentalists who use the Torah as an excuse to expropriate Palestinian Arab lands in the West Bank, and hand it over to settlers who are mostly Eastern European immigrants.

    There are Hindu fundamentalists who've long turned to passages of the Bhagavad Gita as an excuse to massacre Muslims in India.

    And there are Buddhist fundamentalists in Myanmar who cite their own religion as an excuse to drive Muslims from the country.

    In each of these instances, the victims tend to be Muslim. Yet there are numerous conservatives in this country who continue to proffer the ridiculous notion that Islam alone is a militant and violent religion, while taking vigorous issue with any attempt to note the violent acts perpetrated by Christian zealots in the name of the Lord.

    Personally, I think the professional Muslim-baiters you see on TV traffic in fear, ignorance and misinformation as a means for political self-aggrandizement. At some point, I would hope that you'd finally realize that there will never be "us" in them, and that there will always be an "other" for them to fear and loathe. If it's not the Muslims, then it's the blacks or gays or immigrants.

    Basically, they're ten pounds of sH!+ stuffed in a five-pound bag.

    Aloha.

    Parent

    I just don't get your argument (none / 0) (#156)
    by Slado on Wed Feb 25, 2015 at 11:28:39 AM EST
    you basically are saying that since all religions have issues we can't or shouldn't point out the problems with any of them?

    Right now the Islamic world has imploded because of the battle between moderates and radicals and because of our involvement in Iraq and one could argue our continued war on terror and even Afghanistan. We can quibble over who is more responsible but we should all be able to agree that those are the factors.

    No such thing is happening anywhere else on the planet. There is no schism in the Christian church causing fanatical Christians to attack other religious people to the scale we are seeing with Islam.  There is no comparable schism in any religion causing the amount of death and destruction that we are seeing in the Islamic world.

    60% of terrorism occurring in 5 countries

    The only argument one could make is that since we have contained terrorism inside our borders and are more likely to choke on a grape then be killed by a terrorist we should switch to a policy of isolationism and remove ourselves from the troubles in the middle east.  

    That is an argument worth making and if that is your argument fine but that does not change the fact that Islam is suffering from a crisis and that the crisis is different from other religions.

    Your basic premise is false because you ignore the math and actual data that shows that today fundamentalists are different in what they do with that fundamentalism and right now the most dangerous fundamentalists on the earth are Muslim fundamentalists and I would argue it is because the line between moderate and radical is not as clear as you would like to think.   The theology and the history of each individual  religion that we're talking about matters. We should be able to discuss it without being called to the PC carpet. The history and theology affect what the fundamentalist think and do.  We can choose to examine this or we can choose to lump them altogether and ignore the differences so that we don't have to deal with the truth.

    Parent

    the line between moderate and radical (5.00 / 2) (#159)
    by CST on Wed Feb 25, 2015 at 11:52:03 AM EST
    is incredibly clear.

    And really there is nothing revolutionary or new or different about today's fundamentalists.  They are using violence and fear to gain and maintain power and religion is the excuse to control people.  It's one of the oldest/most common "bad guy" stories in history.

    The truth is the most violent places in the world right now are not Muslim, they're in South America.  So while it's not a religious war, saying that "There is no comparable schism in any religion causing the amount of death and destruction that we are seeing in the Islamic world", may not be technically incorrect it is very misleading.  There are certainly higher levels of death and destruction around the world they are just being caused by other things.

    You want to talk about the problem that is terrorism and the middle east - then don't use fear-mongering language, and don't oversell it to try and make a point that these people are somehow more prone to mass violence because of their religion.

    I think there are in fact similar forces at work in the middle east right now as there have been in South America.  Notably a history of American over-involvement in their affairs that has had very detrimental impacts on the region.

    Parent

    Homicide rates? (none / 0) (#172)
    by Slado on Wed Feb 25, 2015 at 02:06:30 PM EST
    you link to world homicide rates?  Talk about misleading. Tens to hundreds of thousands of people have been killed during the war in Syria, plus the millions that have been displaced.   Throw in all the people killed in Libya, Iraq, Yemen and Kurdistan and the middle east is easily the most dangerous place on earth.

    Once again I'm not saying it's our problem and we need to solve it, especially since we have a direct hand in it being this bad,  but it's the problem that threatens world order the most and pretending otherwise isn't going to do anyone any good.   You don't have to deny reality to make a serious argument that the worst thing we could do is go in there with our own troops.

    My argument has been that we shouldn't even consider it until we have a plan for what's next.   Surely Iraq and afterwards Libya should teach us the afterwards can be worse then the present.  

    Parent

    yes homicide rates (none / 0) (#178)
    by CST on Wed Feb 25, 2015 at 02:45:45 PM EST
    Because they are violent, human-inflicted deaths.

    But if that's not convincing enough than here:

    "Homicide and acts of personal violence kill more people than wars and are the third-leading cause of death among men aged 15 to 44, the United Nations said Wednesday in a new report.

    Around the world, there were about 475,000 homicide deaths in 2012 and about six million since 2000, "making homicide a more frequent cause of death than all wars combined in this period," the report states."

    Also, I use homicide because the term "war" is misleading just like terrorism.  A drug "war" is not that different from other kinds of war.

    For more:

    "A recent United Nations report estimated nearly 9,000 civilians have been killed and 17,386 wounded in Iraq in 2014, more than half since ISIL fighters seized large parts on northern Iraq in June. It is likely that the group is responsible another several thousand deaths in Syria. To be sure, these numbers are staggering. But in 2013 drug cartels murdered more than 16,000 people in Mexico alone, and another 60,000 from 2006 to 2012 -- a rate of more than one killing every half hour for the last seven years. What is worse, these are estimates from the Mexican government, which is known to deflate the actual death toll by about 50 percent."

    The middle east isn't "easily" the most dangerous place on earth, and it's certainly not the biggest threat to American security.

    I actually disagree with you that it's "not our problem" though since I think we made it our problem when we invaded a country and created a massive power vacuum that has been filled with ISIS.  But I don't think we "solve" that problem by attacking the personal beliefs of the vast majority of people in that region.

    And no offense - but I'll take the word of the many moderate Muslims I know in my life over "some Muslim guy" quoted on the internet.  It's like Republicans who trot out a token black man.

    Parent

    The line is not clear (none / 0) (#174)
    by Slado on Wed Feb 25, 2015 at 02:27:14 PM EST
    Who is the real Muslim?

    Majid Rafizadeh

    This former Muslim now scholar at Harvard says that the Islam practiced by the Mullahs of Iran is the true practice of Islam.  Not the moderate Islam the 120 scholars are calling for and we hear described by our president and the president before.

    I post this not because I claim to have the answer or to assert that he is absolutely correct but instead to point out that it is not the clear-cut case so many like our president are making.

    The theology and the origins of Islam are completely different from Christianity and Judaism. Lumping them together and pretending that they aren't misses the point of where radical Islam or whatever you want to call it comes from

    The author points out because the Qu'ran  and Ha'Dith  are written as they are there will always be plenty of material for radicals to develop no matter what we do.  

    Parent

    Not clear? (5.00 / 1) (#183)
    by Yman on Wed Feb 25, 2015 at 03:07:29 PM EST
    Because Majid says so?

    Oy.

    The author points out because the Qu'ran  and Ha'Dith  are written as they are there will always be plenty of material for radicals to develop no matter what we do.

    Does he point out it would be just as easy to do the same thing with the Bible?

    Parent

    It wouldn't be as easy (none / 0) (#196)
    by Slado on Wed Feb 25, 2015 at 11:09:28 PM EST
    Because the theology of Christianity is based on the words and actions of Jesus and vice versa Islam Mohammed.

    Side by side comparison of the two men and how they went about their business should be enough to prove my point.

    Also nowhere in the New Testament does Jesus call for jihad or violence against non believers and also he never to my knowledge led military campaigns.  

    Simply put there are major differences between the two faiths and pretending otherwise (and we don't have to care which is better) doesn't get us any closer to dealing with today's real threat from Radical Islam.

    Parent

    Of course it would (5.00 / 1) (#199)
    by Yman on Thu Feb 26, 2015 at 06:51:46 AM EST
    It wouldn't be as easy.  Because the theology of Christianity is based on the words and actions of Jesus and vice versa Islam Mohammed.

    Side by side comparison of the two men and how they went about their business should be enough to prove my point.

    Also nowhere in the New Testament does Jesus call for jihad or violence against non believers and also he never to my knowledge led military campaigns.  

    It's funny how people who put on their rose-colored scripture glasses always want to change the subject to the New Testament rather than the Bible, which is what I stated in my post.  "My religion is better/non-violent!" and all that.  Of course, the problem is that - in addition to this selective memory - religious texts are completely subjective and open to interpretation, which is why actual religious scholars can (and do) easily disagree with your claim.

    Is The Bible More Violent Than The Quran?


    Parent

    There have been of people (none / 0) (#200)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Thu Feb 26, 2015 at 08:28:30 AM EST
    who have used the Bible to justify bombings of abortion clinics and  the killing of doctors and others who work there.  Any believe in the inherently  "non-violent" message of the Bible has to grapple with the fact that it's the way people interprete a given text, not the text itself, which is violent or non-violent.

    Parent
    cherry picking the Qu'ran (none / 0) (#186)
    by CST on Wed Feb 25, 2015 at 03:26:39 PM EST
    To show what, that "good" Muslims follow certain verses out of context to the letter but not others?  Osama Bin Laden is a "good" Muslim for following those verses, but not for completely disregarding all the other ones?

    Christianity has been used as an excuse to commit mass atrocities throughout history.  It may not be happening today - but that's not due to any inherent theological improvements.

    Parent

    Disagree CST (none / 0) (#197)
    by Slado on Wed Feb 25, 2015 at 11:13:00 PM EST
    there are major theological differences between the two religions.  One doesn't have to have an opinion on which is better to acknowledge this reality.

    Parent
    Selective picking of lines (none / 0) (#198)
    by Politalkix on Wed Feb 25, 2015 at 11:40:02 PM EST
    link from religious texts, against the spirit of the text, by zealots, is the problem and it happens in every religion.

    Parent
    Your posts? I would agree (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by Yman on Mon Feb 23, 2015 at 07:41:33 PM EST
    You cited Wood's article (quoting Haykel) as evidence of Obama's "expressed ignorance of the medieval theology that fuels ISIS" when he says that ISIS is a group that perverts Islam.  Nowehere does Haykel disagree with the premise that they are perverting Islam, merely with the claim that they are "unislamic".  Of course, there are many  people who are extremely knowledgeable about Islam who agree with Obama's premise that ISIS is perverting Islam, including 120 Muslim scholars and leaders.

    But perhaps they're all just "ominously lacking in moral imagination" and expressing their ignorance, too.

    Heh.

    Parent

    Do you really (none / 0) (#46)
    by FlJoe on Mon Feb 23, 2015 at 02:38:44 PM EST
    expect any president to have a really solid grasp
    of the medieval theology that fuels ISIS
    . I for one do not expect any president to be masters of theology. There are a lot of voices that are wanting Obama to do much more than he has in denouncing "radical Islam". I agree that calling out ISIS and other jihadists as apostates is not the proper role for any Christian, that is more appropriately done by other Muslims. I do think that Obama is doing his best to appease the rabble rousers in this country while not alienating Muslims in general. Not an easy job.

    Parent
    I thought the exchange between (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by Anne on Mon Feb 23, 2015 at 02:53:21 PM EST
    Frederica Whitfield and Bill Branniff, that apparently took place on CNN, and which digby posted to her blog, was one of the more rational/common-sense explanations I've heard:

    Fredricka Whitfield: ISIS ... seems to be the primary target right now but the president omitted the word Islam in terms of references to terror groups. He talked about extremist groups and even though ISIS has the name Islamic in it. How was that received among those who were invited to this [White House extremism] forum, the omission of the word Islam and instead a reference to a more generic term. How was that interpreted?

    Bill Braniff    : You have to understand that terrorism is a political form of violence. Right it's politics by other means. And therefore, counter-terrorism is inherently political behavior. And I don't mean Democrat Republican politics. It's about legitimacy. And it's about trying to, in this case, get governments to work together to marginalize a non-state actor. If you use the term Islamic extremism, and it's taken out of context, or you're not given the opportunity to explain specifically what you mean, you're referring to Al Queda or ISIL, you may alienate the very nation or communities you want working with you to marginalize these extremist groups , so the administration uses more abstract terms in order not to alienate the allies that it needs for this particular fight. It's a problem, vocabulary and language is a problem whenever you're dealing with highly politicized issues and the administration is trying to use expedient language.

    Whitfield    : And do you agree with that approach? Is it well received particularly among Arab nations?

    Braniff: There's certainly a push-back particularly when American political leaders talk about Muslim extremism and islamic extremism and the concern is that we are using too broad of a brush when we use those terms. There is push-back when we use those terms. So for political purposes I think it's ok to use vocabulary that's going to get you the most effective political outcome. Analysts, strategists those who are in the weeds on these issues need to be more specific and use more specific terms so that we know what we're talking about when we talk about them.

    Bill Branniff is Executive Director of the National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism (START).

    Parent

    the problem here, though, is that ISIS (none / 0) (#50)
    by The Addams Family on Mon Feb 23, 2015 at 03:52:23 PM EST
    is not exactly "a non-state actor," as witness the aspirations of this entity's very name

    as you yourself pointed out several days ago in response to the Graeme Wood article, holding territory is absolutely crucial to ISIS - i didn't see anyone else here actually focusing on that central & definitive fact (maybe i missed some comments) or following its implications (not that you have necessarily followed them to the same place that i see looming on the horizon)

    how much territory did ISIS (which the president famously called a "JV team") control a year ago? how much territory does ISIS control today?

    ISIS is a theological millenarian movement intent on restoring the "caliphate" - as long as ISIS continues to hold territory & expand its reach, whether in the Middle East or in Europe (through its recruitment of European citizens to jihad), ISIS will be a destabilizing force & a threat to world order, just as ISIS fully intends to be

    . . . for political purposes I think it's ok to use vocabulary that's going to get you the most effective political outcome. Analysts, strategists[,] those who are in the weeds on these issues[,] need to be more specific and use more specific terms so that we know what we're talking about when we talk about them.

    here, Braniff seems to contradict himself - he has already defined both terrorism & counterterrorism as "inherently political" & nonpartisan, but now he seems to have changed his definition of "political" when it has to do with "American leaders" (i.e., the Obama administration?) & he appears to be saying something that sounds like "Render unto (partisan) politics that which is political, & to (nonpartisan expert) analysis that which is analytical"

    if so, is he saying that there's no problem if truth & observable reality on the ground are fudged for the sake of "the most effective political outcome" (however "effective" may be defined at any given moment)?

    Parent

    Two different (none / 0) (#57)
    by FlJoe on Mon Feb 23, 2015 at 05:05:40 PM EST
    we are talking about two sets of politics here, domestic and international, two distinctly different beasts, both complex. Obama has to thread the needle between the need to mollify his critics and the need to work with the Muslim nations who have there own domestic politics, which of course have heavy religious undertones.
    is not exactly "a non-state actor
    yes they are now a quasi-state, a worrisome hybrid, jihadists with a conventional army and a criminal enteprise to fund it. Newsflash: their army is a joke, they beat the clownish Iraqi units, bullied the other factions in the Syrian conflict. Even the lightly armed Kurds after early set backs have now been able to repulse their attacks. The point being that they are surrounded by superior forces that could crush them in a heartbeat. If we do nothing someone will, trust me.

    The whole idea that ISIS is our problem is ridiculous, the idea that we are parsing presidential rhetoric in the light of centuries old end-times religious dogma is  frigging insane.

    Parent

    we disagree (none / 0) (#58)
    by The Addams Family on Mon Feb 23, 2015 at 06:51:17 PM EST
    The whole idea that ISIS is our problem is ridiculous.

    i am not an isolationist - ymmv

    . . . the idea that we are parsing presidential rhetoric in the light of centuries old end-times religious dogma is frigging insane

    what do you mean we, Kimosabe? it's Obama, Jen Psaki, Marie Harf et al. who have to keep parsing their own rhetoric & using pretzel logic to explain their incoherent talking points - even Chris Matthews has checked his leg & noticed that the thrill is gone

    nor does it matter how many centuries old the ISIS dogma is when ISIS is forcing it onto the contemporary world stage - your objection is illogical

    Parent

    I am talking about (none / 0) (#60)
    by FlJoe on Mon Feb 23, 2015 at 07:20:43 PM EST
    the tremendous hooplah in the media, political arena, blogosphere and academia all debating what Obama is saying, while is words have little chance of changing anything in regards to ISIS.
    using pretzel logic to explain their incoherent talking points
    see you are doing it too.

    By the way I don't consider expecting our allies to take responsibility for their own back yard to be isolationist.

    ISIS is forcing it onto the contemporary world stage
    Yeah, they are pretty good at marketing their  barbarity, you are illogical for buying into their propaganda.

    Parent
    i am even more convinced now (none / 0) (#65)
    by The Addams Family on Mon Feb 23, 2015 at 07:53:14 PM EST
    that the Graeme Wood article is a real watershed in having forced a very uncomfortable issue

    but Wood is no wingnut - his article is not Unfit for Command, & the Atlantic is not Regnery Publishing

    the call is coming from inside the house

    & what i see is a lot of heads in the sand & a few inconvenient truths under the rug

    wow

    Parent

    The notion (none / 0) (#71)
    by Politalkix on Mon Feb 23, 2015 at 08:18:28 PM EST
    that women in Islamic countries are crying out to be liberated by Western feminism is as misguided as the sales pitch of neoconservatives (during the run-up to the Iraq War) that people in Iraq, Iran and Syria (which would be the next stops after Iraq) were crying out for freedom to get the opportunity to taste coke and hamburgers.

    I have drawn a lot of flak here in the past for going against the common grain of thought. I have always argued that there is a religious component to the terrorism that we have seen and such terrorism would not disappear completely if we just withdrew or could even remove poverty, humiliation and deprivation among people in the ME with a magic wand. I disagreed with Jeralyn from the very beginning when she compiled her first post on ISIS. I wrote that the Caliphate would have to be expansionist in nature because it would draw from histories of the Ummayad and Rashidun Caliphates. Most people disagreed with me at that time and said that the history I mentioned had no relevance. I had also supported leaving a small residual force in Afghanistan (another Islamic country)so that the country did not fall apart as soon as we left and could prevent the worst of human rights abuses or atrocities on women and other vulnerable population. Atleast speaking for myself, I can therefore say that I have never been oblivious or lacking in sympathy for the plight of women, minorities and other vulnerable populations in Islamic countries.

    However, the track that you and MT have taken in this thread is simply ridiculous in my opinion. It seems to me that CST has a lot better handle on the situation than both of you do. And the President does too.

    Ruling families in the ME will never stop trashing the region (by exporting Wahhabism, Salafism, indulging in proxy sectarian warfare to keep monarchies and dictatorships in power, commit horrible human rights abuses) if they know that the American trash collector (US military) will always be available for hire to clean the place (while also creating some garbage of its own) and take the blame for all garbage that spills over. However, if the ruling elites in those countries come to understand that the services of the American garbage collector will not be available (even if paid well) and they will have to live with the putid waste and stench if they keep piling on trash, they will be more careful about creating garbage.

    We should just do enough from letting the garbage spill out too much.

    Let Egypt, Jordan, UAE, Saudi Arabia, Kurds, Turkey, etc put boots on the ground.

    Parent

    wait: what? (none / 0) (#73)
    by The Addams Family on Mon Feb 23, 2015 at 09:10:56 PM EST
    The notion that women in Islamic countries are crying out to be liberated by Western feminism is as misguided as the sales pitch of neoconservatives (during the run-up to the Iraq War) that people in Iraq, Iran and Syria (which would be the next stops after Iraq) were crying out for freedom to get the opportunity to taste coke and hamburgers.

    can't speak for MT, but i said nothing of the kind

    i linked to an article written by two liberal feminist Muslim journalists, in part to prove that you don't have to be a swivel-eyed wingnut to note the cognitive dissonance occasioned by a US president & his spokespersons as they contort the English language in their attempt to talk about a religious millenariam movement without acknowledging it for what it is (by contrast with the two liberal feminist Muslin journalists themselves, or with Abdel Fattah el-Sisi, for that matter)

    as for the rest of your comment, & the earlier comments of yours about ISIS to which you refer, i probably would have agreed with many of them if i had seen them

    Parent

    Just a minute! (none / 0) (#74)
    by Politalkix on Mon Feb 23, 2015 at 10:05:46 PM EST
    The first author of the article that you linked in your post is a journalist, named Asra Nomani.

    I did a quick google search and uncovered some items which makes me even more confident that the President's approach is likely the correct one.

    link  

    and link

    While Ms Nomani may be a liberal Muslim feminist, she supported Rep. Peter King's (a right wing loon) "Muslim radicalization hearings" and NYPD surveillance of Muslims. I do not think those positions are popular even among Muslim-Americans, let alone Muslims from other countries whose support we will need to fight ISIS terrorism.

    If we lose the support of even Muslim-Americans while taking the approach you are recommdending, you can write down with confidence that the fight against ISIS will be a lost cause.  

    Parent

    Nomani describes herself (none / 0) (#78)
    by The Addams Family on Mon Feb 23, 2015 at 10:47:05 PM EST
    as a "liberal feminist Muslim," & i quoted that self-characterization - do you think she is faking it?

    Nomani doesn't claim to "represent" Muslim Americans or any Muslims other than her own Muslim self

    so what if Nomani has opinions that are at odds with those of some other Muslims? isn't that to be expected from a woman of independent mind? or does she fall short of your high standards for a liberal feminist Muslim (even though her contrary opinions could leave her looking at the business end of a fatwa)?

    anyway, i suspect that Nomani doesn't have to do a quick Google check to ratify her personal observations of & about her own Muslim community, which is another way of saying that i suspect she knows a hell of a lot more about her Muslim community than you do

    apparently you have a problem with this:

    "We use religion as a cover," said Asra Nomani, a 46-year-old journalist . . . Nomani, a native of India, says radical ideology is very real -- and damaging to all Muslims . . . "[T]he truth is, we do have a problem in our Muslim community."

    by the way, what "approach" do you think i'm "recommending" that would cause "us" (whoever "we" may be) to lose the "support" (whatever that looks like) of "Muslim-Americans" (who apparently live & breathe as a single monolithic groupthinking organism)?

    Parent

    of course i don't (none / 0) (#53)
    by The Addams Family on Mon Feb 23, 2015 at 04:07:53 PM EST
    as i said, the issue for me is the president's expressed ignorance, not the ignorance itself

    as i also said, it's ignorance supported by good intentions, so at least you & i agree on the president's good intentions

    but here's Graeme Wood again (with whom i also agree):

    . . . Muslims [and others] who call the Islamic State un-Islamic are typically, as the Princeton scholar Bernard Haykel, the leading expert on the group's theology, told me, "embarrassed and politically correct, with a cotton-candy view of their own religion" that neglects "what their religion has historically and legally required." Many denials of the Islamic State's religious nature, he said, are rooted in an "interfaith-Christian-nonsense tradition."

    that's some dangerous nonsense, in my opinion - ymmv

    Parent

    There is a difference ... (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by Yman on Mon Feb 23, 2015 at 07:52:11 PM EST
    ... between calling ISIS un-Islamic - the premise that Haykel disputes - and stating that they are perverting Islam - which Haykel does not dispute.

    Someone who is pointing the finger at the "ignorance" (expressed or otherwise) of others should know this.

    Parent

    i had already read (none / 0) (#66)
    by The Addams Family on Mon Feb 23, 2015 at 08:00:36 PM EST
    the whole ThinkProgress piece to which you linked before - maybe you should do the same (that means all the way to the end) before you consider commenting on it in public again

    & now a memorandum to myself with respect to you:

    link

    Parent

    So the issue isn't reading, ... (5.00 / 1) (#68)
    by Yman on Mon Feb 23, 2015 at 08:07:43 PM EST
    ... it's comprehension.

    BTW - You're also going to frustrate yourself if you're nowhere near as smart as the pig.

    Parent

    What does "radical" even mean? (none / 0) (#8)
    by Politalkix on Sun Feb 22, 2015 at 08:38:18 PM EST
    What does the descriptor "radical" even mean?
    The people who are insisting most loudly that the President use the word "radical Islam" also think that Gloria Steinem is a "radical feminist".

    Pat Robertson thinks that Mikey Weinstein is a "little Jewish radical"

    I think the President is wise to just stick to the word terrorist.

    Parent

    It's (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by lentinel on Mon Feb 23, 2015 at 08:55:15 AM EST
    all ultimately in the eye of the beholder.
    One person's terrorist is another's freedom fighter.

    We don't consider what we did to Baghdad and its hapless citizens in the "shock and awe" campaign as "terrorism".

    We called it shock and awe.

    So maybe we should call them shockers and awers?

    Parent

    The hyperbole (none / 0) (#3)
    by Politalkix on Sun Feb 22, 2015 at 05:16:42 PM EST
    (1) Are you an "End Times"er? link
    (2) When is the world coming to an end? In your mind it has to be within the time frame of the BHO Presidency for the question "Will It Take the End of the World for Obama to Recognize ISIS as "Islamic"?" to be relevant.

    Enquiring minds would like to know.

    Parent

    seriously? (2.67 / 3) (#7)
    by The Addams Family on Sun Feb 22, 2015 at 07:15:07 PM EST
    why not take it up with the two feminist Muslim journalists?

    while you're at it, tear them a new one for "tap dancing" - obviously r@cist

    Parent

    JMM had a good, piece about the (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Sun Feb 22, 2015 at 08:54:42 PM EST
    questions they raise, and answers them:

    Rhetoric is important. Important in general, important in a leader. For my money, one of Obama's best qualities as a president is his steadiness, his lack of drama, both in the lack of drama emerging out of his inner circle and his steadiness, unruffledness in the face of new challenges. We had a man who was big on drama and announcing 'we're all ...' this or that new national group every few days who the country could have elected back in 2008 and we did not. Having said all this, there are of course pluses and minuses to this style of leadership. And perhaps when it comes to war cries, it is a limitation. I fully recognize the legitimacy of this point. I do not believe that kind of inspirational or more emotional leadership requires a specific focus on Islam.

    I think Fareed Zakaria has the much better part of this argument. President Obama is not running a seminar on Islamic theology or the Rashidun period of Muslim history. He is trying to forge a broad coalition which necessarily must involve, must have at its forefront, countries made up overwhelmingly of Muslims. At least in the abstract that is a decent reason for avoiding approaches which tend to portray the clash or can be portrayed as a clash between Islam and the West.(Ed) Whether the execution is right, I'm genuinely not sure. But even beyond those who are simply trying to score domestic political points - and I fully grant that's not everyone - I have yet to see any actual argument about why this matter of word choice has any practical effect beyond a kind of righteous self-expression. In the absence of that, the plausible arguments for its benefits seem more than worth considering.



    Parent
    I think it is fine if everyone discusses (none / 0) (#12)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Feb 23, 2015 at 07:54:21 AM EST
    Everything. The world that surrounds me is anticipating that if ME countries will not commit boots on the ground to fight ISIS, at some point the West will be forced to and we could very well find ourselves in the next world war.

    If the Presidents approach is working...hooray, but let's not deify him because if his current approach does not work he will have to do something to adapt and change that.

    As for Muslim feminists telling the truth, it is fine, and I will listen, and I will fight for them.  I don't want a world war, but I dont think we all need to be ignorant of truths either or cherry pick our Muslim opinions we will heed.

    Parent

    Who wants to deify (none / 0) (#13)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Mon Feb 23, 2015 at 08:31:23 AM EST
    Obama?

     Certainly not I.  

    But the Muslim-majority countries can't depend on the U.S. to be the one that does all of the heavy lifting.  The old days of those and other countries getting money from Uncle Sam and sticking it in a Swiss bank instead of spending it because they're were anti-Communist (or are now anti-ISIS)are long gone.

    And, don't forget, ISIS would love to make it a theme of Islam vs. the West, for their sake.

    You should join the Ron Fournier "Obama is not doing it right" hand-wringing club.  Membership is free, last time I checked.  
       

    Parent

    I agree that the U.S. can't do all the (none / 0) (#16)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Feb 23, 2015 at 09:16:48 AM EST
    Heavy lifting.  Pretty sure I said that.  Pretty sure I said that even the military right this minute understands that the West....any of the West, not just us...fighting ISIS on the ground could potentially end in a kind of sovereign nations war.

    Everything the extremists are doing though is in the Koran and it is an acceptable practice to kill someone you consider an apostate.  It is Islamic.  Being a Muslim feminist can get you instantly killed and no justice, no consequences for your killer.  They are just pointing out that killing people for disagreeing with can easily be parlayed into disrespecting the Koran, and that's apostacy, and means it is okay to kill that person you have identified as disrespecting the Koran or the prophet in some way.

    If you were living in that environment and situation, or were raised and escaped that environment or situation, President Obama tap dancing around Islam and the facts might upset and pi$$ you off too.

    I am not enjoying how the current difficulties are marginalizing certain truths that women in the Middle East are suffering and trying to survive.  I understand why we are doing what we are doing.  There is always a flipside though, and this flipside is pretty ugly.  One day at a time.  Surviving one day at a time is what too many women are suffering.  Not a lot of hope, just get through this day.

    Parent

    I think Obama is also talking (5.00 / 4) (#18)
    by CST on Mon Feb 23, 2015 at 09:35:52 AM EST
    To American Muslims, who are afraid of a backlash, and to the American people, many of whom seem to need a reminder that all Muslims aren't evil.

    Parent
    The thing that my husband fears though (none / 0) (#20)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Feb 23, 2015 at 10:04:10 AM EST
    With all these death cult a$$holes threatening everyone constantly and constantly horrifying everyone, is that our reactions to Islam are moving away from a minority of us having a knee jerk reaction to most of us becoming conditioned.  I don't feel like going through a Century of an entire society suffering from that phobia.  We need to debate this stuff out now, and moderates have to do something to peel off severely separate.  It isn't going to be easy but these two women demonstrate it isn't impossible.

    I love how they identify Christian Mullahs.  That's beautiful.  We have Mullahs too.  We have all who were exposed to Christianity had death and the end of the world drummed into our heads to varying degrees too.  I was exposed to A Bit of "Evangelical" "faith" at a certain point in my life.  Surrounded by adults who spend their entire day looking for signs of the end of the world.  Waiting for Christ to suck them up in a tornado of eternal bliss :). I identify these individuals as a death cult now.  And when they try to recruit me I'm sort of an a$$hole.  I'm fine telling them they are wishing the lives of their children away.  It is a death cult too sadly propped up by certain crazy words in the Bible :)

    And our death cult wants to fight their death cult.  Our death cult has more brakes though on it.  Somehow everyone has to figure out how to live and the theology is bigger problem for some right now than others.  Perhaps this end of the world stuff served a purpose when most of us died before 40, it was our way to feel we had some sort of control over a very short destiny.  It doesn't serve anything worthy anymore.  But for those afraid of facing the realities of the day, it is a short cut to feeling in control.

    Parent

    The conditioning (5.00 / 4) (#26)
    by CST on Mon Feb 23, 2015 at 10:38:54 AM EST
    Is not accidental.  It's also intentional by a certain subset of the U.S. media.  The same way people were "conditioned" to fear black men.

    And yes - there are enough statistics and anecdotes to back up that fear when you choose.  But I'm not going to criticize the president for using that soapbox to tell us otherwise.  Because Chapel Hill and Ferguson area also very real concerns.  And there is plenty of media pushing against the "Islamic" aspect of ISIS, I don't feel like the president needs to pile on.

    Furthermore, while I totally agree with your point about human rights in the middle east - you think that the president needs to acknowledge the problem that is radical Islam - I think the president needs to acknowledge the problem that is Saudi Arabia - because frankly, otherwise it's all just talk.  And no one in the U.S. government is even willing to admit that they are the main source of the problem.  Saudi Arabia is where the theology of ISIS was developed, and where it is practiced by the government.  The only difference is they outsource their terrorism.

    Parent

    It isn't just Saudi Arabia who outsources (none / 0) (#27)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Feb 23, 2015 at 10:43:34 AM EST
    Their terrorism.  So do citizens of Turkey now, so do citizens of Dubai, so do citizens of the UAE, so do citizens Qatar....it goes on and on.  Most of the ISIS recruits were recently coming out of Jordan.  It's a theology problem, and all the ME countries have been outsourcing their terrorism.


    Parent
    the specific theology (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by CST on Mon Feb 23, 2015 at 10:51:30 AM EST
    originated in Saudi Arabia, the home of Mecca, where every Muslim is required to visit, and one of the most powerful countries in the Middle East.  And it's pretty much practiced by that government on their own people.  That doesn't happen in Turkey.  By outsourcing their terrorism I mean that is pretty much the only difference between ISIS and Saudi Arabia - not that they are the only ones who do it.  We "outsource" our terrorism too, so do European countries who have citizens going to join ISIS.  That is not the only characteristic that separates us from ISIS.

    Parent
    Not according to Muslims (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Feb 23, 2015 at 10:55:53 AM EST
    According to Muslims this sort of kill the apostate theology has been taught all over.

    Parent
    And with the new enticing technology (none / 0) (#33)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Feb 23, 2015 at 10:57:23 AM EST
    It seems the West has been invading them for years.

    Parent
    And the reason why ME countries (none / 0) (#28)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Feb 23, 2015 at 10:46:25 AM EST
    Have been reluctant to fight ISIS is because they fear their extremists attacking them in their countries.  Turkey and Jordan have admitted as much. So they all have out of control extremists?  How did that happen?

    Parent
    If your main problem is terrorism (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by CST on Mon Feb 23, 2015 at 10:55:42 AM EST
    you fight ISIS.  If your main problem is human rights abuses in the middle east - there is another much bigger and more powerful player you have to deal with.

    That's what I'm trying to get at.

    Parent

    My maintain problem isn't terrorism (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Feb 23, 2015 at 11:04:38 AM EST
    I didn't even specifically bring the word terrorism up, you did.Why accuse me of that in a thread where the only thing I want is a visitation of truth verses rhetoric.

    I remember when this discussion first surfaced, very few commenters knew anything about the faith underpinnings that drove ISIS.  And a lot of commenters got very inflamed at anyone discussing such things.  And that is exactly opposite of what I was taught Liberalism was about.  I was always taught Liberalism was about seeking facts, basing deductive reasoning on the truth and seeking the unknown truths in order to really solve problems.

    Parent

    it wasn't an accusation (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by CST on Mon Feb 23, 2015 at 11:09:46 AM EST
    hence the "if" - I was trying to make a point.  Maybe "your" was the wrong term, I meant it in the sense of "if a person's problem is terrorism" using you in the plural rather than you specifically.

    Parent
    It not a knock on these (none / 0) (#19)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Mon Feb 23, 2015 at 09:48:05 AM EST
    Muslim feminists to say that Obama wasn't elected to solve their concerns, but that's the truth of the matter.

    There are also Muslims who believe that the problems women face in her ME are the fault of the local customs and patriarchal practices that subsume the identity of Islam in order to continue to be followed by the population, as slave holding was defended 160 years ago in his country by Southern Christians by favorable references to slavery in both volumes of the Bible.

    The bottom line is, I trust our President.  You may argue that the trust is misplaced, like a talking head on Faux News, but as Martin Luther said, "Here I stand.  I cannot do otherwise."

    Parent

    So much for human rights then I guess (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Feb 23, 2015 at 10:05:57 AM EST


    Parent
    Please link to the comment (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Mon Feb 23, 2015 at 10:16:55 AM EST
    where I wrote that, or similar sentiments, please.  Your attempt to make Obama he villian because he hasn't dedicated the Amrican military to fighting for human rights around the world is, well, intellectually vapid.

    Parent
    It's not an attempt to make him a villain (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Feb 23, 2015 at 10:23:17 AM EST
    And you are absolutely out of your mind if you think anything I said was about him committing US military to anything.  It is about how a lot more is gray out there than some lefties want it to be.  It is about noticing your flipside too, because you own that too or you're just in denial. It is about being accountable for choices and often that isn't glowing or great.  

    If you own the flip though, you can tailor better policy.

    Parent

    You've so far engaged in vague denunciations (none / 0) (#24)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Mon Feb 23, 2015 at 10:28:50 AM EST
    without any specific details of Obama is doing that is wrong, or what he could be doing differently.  

    You're the one who talks about wanting to deify him, which is next door to calling people Obamabots, without any apparent sense of irony or shame.

    You need to specify your objections,, or just go down in history as a case of ODS brought about from his lack of concern for human rights in the ME.

    Parent

    I know (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Feb 23, 2015 at 10:33:14 AM EST
    I must get my poms poms out and cheer for him wildly or get my BB gun out and my Obama poster.  There is nothing in the middle.  There is no gray.  There is no, well this serves today but isn't the whole truth.

    Usually I AM accused of being an Obama cheerleader :). I don't see him as the devil, but he isn't my boyfriend either.

    Parent

    So Obama (5.00 / 2) (#41)
    by sj on Mon Feb 23, 2015 at 01:40:09 PM EST
    is not "your" President today? You do seem to go from one extreme to the other.

    Parent
    I like the truth (none / 0) (#44)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Feb 23, 2015 at 02:34:11 PM EST
    Why is he not my President today?  If I agree that a message he is pushing isn't exactly truthful, how does that make him NOT my President?  Why must I always be a voracious lover or a disillusioned hater? Those seem to me to be extremes. Why can't I just want the truth?  And why does noticing untruth mean I disown him?  He's a politician playing politics.  I am a citizen and a voter.

    Parent
    When you approve of him (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by sj on Mon Feb 23, 2015 at 02:37:27 PM EST
    he is "my President" this and "my President" that. I just observed that you are not "my President"-ing him  today.

    Parent
    I have pushed him away some (none / 0) (#47)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Feb 23, 2015 at 02:47:25 PM EST
    It's what feminists do to men who are upholding ideology that leads to their abuse and demise.  I didn't throw him out of the house though.  Not even the dog house.  I won't lie for him though.

    You know what lies can get you?  They can get you things like the Iraq War.  It is important that voters know as many facts as possible.  That is what preserves their power.  Without the facts they are mostly powerless in the voting booth.

    Parent

    Yep (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by sj on Mon Feb 23, 2015 at 03:44:00 PM EST
    But, like most of us, he's still the same guy as he always was. I think you're just using a different lens right now.

    Parent
    I think I have always used a different lens (none / 0) (#69)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Feb 23, 2015 at 08:11:32 PM EST
    To view him, from my life perspective.  Doesn't everyone?

    Parent
    yep (5.00 / 1) (#70)
    by sj on Mon Feb 23, 2015 at 08:17:48 PM EST
    That's true -- when viewed from that lens. :)

    Parent
    Again, where have I stated (none / 0) (#29)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Mon Feb 23, 2015 at 10:50:00 AM EST
    that the only alternatives in criticizing Obama are cheerleading or denunciation?

    I'm not saying there isn't any gray, but you don't help things when you bring in the talk about making Obama a deity when asked for your objections to what he could do differently with regard to human rights and the ME

    You still haven't said anything of substance of what he could do differently, you just continue to bluster and post that he needs to come out for human rights around the world without any details of what he could do differently.

    For the third time, specify your objections, if you really want to engage in a discussion and not a group dissing instread.

    Parent

    As a feminist I do help things (none / 0) (#36)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Feb 23, 2015 at 12:08:23 PM EST
    When lefties don't weld themselves to policies that also have high backlash potential.

    You can hold two opposing ideas in mind at the same time and still retain the ability to function.  I know you can.

    Parent

    Answer the question, (none / 0) (#37)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Mon Feb 23, 2015 at 12:21:54 PM EST
    instead of talking about me and two opposing ideas, as you've yet to supply the details of what Obama is doing wrong, and what IYHO he should do right?

    Do you get it yet? Offer up a specific policy or idea or something he can do different, instead of flourishing your own feminist credentials.  I want neither mindless cheerleading nor mindless talk of gray areas,  what I would like to know is WHAT IS OBAMA DOING RIGHT NOW THAT HE SHOULDN'T BE DOING, OR WHAT ISN'T HE DOING THAT HE SHOULD BE DOING?

    Parent

    I guess you aren't one of those people :) (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Feb 23, 2015 at 12:24:47 PM EST


    Parent
    Non-responsive (none / 0) (#39)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Mon Feb 23, 2015 at 12:34:41 PM EST
    But not surprising.

    Parent
    I'm sticking with F Scott Fitzgerald :) (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Feb 23, 2015 at 12:37:59 PM EST


    Parent
    would give this one a 25 if i could - brava (none / 0) (#42)
    by The Addams Family on Mon Feb 23, 2015 at 01:54:45 PM EST


    Parent
    Calm down, (none / 0) (#85)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Tue Feb 24, 2015 at 07:42:27 AM EST
    Poindexter.

    Parent
    A semi-talented writer (none / 0) (#86)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Tue Feb 24, 2015 at 07:47:02 AM EST
    and alcoholic who died in a second-rate hotel.  Yeah, that's who you want to quote.

    Parent
    Last week while I was at... (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by desertswine on Sun Feb 22, 2015 at 05:47:20 PM EST
    Cost Plus, I came across a bottle of Downton Abbey Bordeaux.  I bought because I thought that it might be fun to drink it with the wife while actually watching Downton Abbey at the same time. I was surprised by its pretentiousness, and by my own as well.

    A pretentious vintage (5.00 / 2) (#10)
    by Repack Rider on Sun Feb 22, 2015 at 10:52:02 PM EST
    ...Bold, yet brusque, with a hint of the arrogance of a sunny August 12th.  The bouquet conjures up a soupcon of silliness, like the laugh of a
    Balinese dancer.

    Parent
    I wish I could write... (5.00 / 1) (#67)
    by desertswine on Mon Feb 23, 2015 at 08:02:05 PM EST
    the descriptions of wine on the wine bottle labels. That would be really fun.

    Parent
    Former CBS News staffers who ... (5.00 / 2) (#11)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Feb 23, 2015 at 12:00:05 AM EST
    ... were stationed in Buenos Aires during the Falklands War, led by longtime correspondents Eric Engberg, are now taking serious issue with Bill O'Reilly's version of events in the capital back in June 1982, immediately following the news of the surrender to the British at Port Stanley.
    And there's more on O'Reilly's lies (none / 0) (#72)
    by Yman on Mon Feb 23, 2015 at 08:28:59 PM EST
    Argentine historian disputes Bill O'Reilly's claim of protest fatalities - Washington Post

    O'Reilly deceptively cites/clips NYT report - pointed out by the original NYT reporter

    Former CBS News Colleague Calls O'Reilly's Combat Claim "Absurd" - This would be another colleague - in addition to the other seven.

    Parent

    Yes, but O'Reilly works (none / 0) (#75)
    by caseyOR on Mon Feb 23, 2015 at 10:25:31 PM EST
    for Fox a place where truth and accuracy are not even in the corporate vocabulary. So, I doubt there will be any thing like the mea culpas from NBC and Brian Williams. And Bill will certainly not face a suspension, or any repercussion from Fox.

    Parent
    All true (none / 0) (#76)
    by Yman on Mon Feb 23, 2015 at 10:33:15 PM EST
    But it sure is fun to watch him squirm.

    Parent
    Fun (5.00 / 2) (#80)
    by MO Blue on Tue Feb 24, 2015 at 12:36:43 AM EST
    Doncha Wish Your Car Could Do This

    I want one (5.00 / 1) (#139)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Feb 24, 2015 at 07:14:34 PM EST


    Parent
    I can picture (none / 0) (#148)
    by MO Blue on Wed Feb 25, 2015 at 01:33:37 AM EST
    You tootling around town in one of those.

    Parent
    Watched Citizenfour last night (5.00 / 1) (#91)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Feb 24, 2015 at 08:33:06 AM EST
    Very interesting way it was shot and edited.  Not a lot of narration.

    A sound environmental act (5.00 / 3) (#120)
    by christinep on Tue Feb 24, 2015 at 03:53:15 PM EST
    President Obama has officially vetoed Keystone XL legislation.

    Although the mystery of to veto/not to veto has long since been erased by the common knowledge of the President's intent ... as they say "it ain't over 'til its over," and now it is ....  Another good environmental action from this WH shortly after the addition of new National Monuments last week to protect land most worthy of that protection.

    One word: (5.00 / 1) (#122)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Feb 24, 2015 at 04:04:10 PM EST
    Good.

    Parent
    Kudos to President Obama (5.00 / 1) (#138)
    by MO Blue on Tue Feb 24, 2015 at 06:52:41 PM EST
    I'm glad to see this veto and am disgusted by the Dems, like my sweet Claire, who voted for it.

    Parent
    My sweet Claire (none / 0) (#140)
    by MO Blue on Tue Feb 24, 2015 at 07:37:27 PM EST
    sides with Republicans again.

    Sens. Joe Manchin (W.Va.), Claire McCaskill (Mo.), Heidi Heitkamp (N.D.) and Bob Casey (Pa.) will vote to override Obama's veto, according to aides, and it's possible that several other Democrats will follow suit. link

    If she decides to run again, she better hope that she is running against a dumb as a rock politician like Akin.

    Parent

    Something to make you smile (5.00 / 2) (#130)
    by jbindc on Tue Feb 24, 2015 at 04:46:40 PM EST
    Link

    Very cool... (none / 0) (#133)
    by kdog on Tue Feb 24, 2015 at 05:23:31 PM EST
    I'm a sucker for simple acts of kindness. And f#ck those kids in his class!

    But I gotta ask, what's up with the armored personnel carrier? Have the Cubans invaded Osceola County?

    Parent

    I dunno (none / 0) (#149)
    by jbindc on Wed Feb 25, 2015 at 07:24:14 AM EST
    But wouldn't it be cool if you were 6 and one showed up at your birthday party?

    I once worked at a place in small industrial park, and within those buildings, was a place where they manufactured and built APC's.  They used to test them out by driving them up and down the shared parking lot, and on more than one occasion, I had to dodge one as I went to my car!

    Parent

    No way... (none / 0) (#151)
    by kdog on Wed Feb 25, 2015 at 08:55:03 AM EST
    the fire truck, hell yeah...but not a vehicle of war, it's supposed to be a party!

    Parent
    More trouble for O'Reilly (5.00 / 1) (#142)
    by Yman on Tue Feb 24, 2015 at 08:01:57 PM EST
    O'Reilly Lied About Suicide Of JFK Assassination Figure, Former Colleagues Say

    Ruh-Roh ...

    Wouldn't he be considered a witness (5.00 / 2) (#169)
    by jondee on Wed Feb 25, 2015 at 01:03:16 PM EST
    if he was standing on the front step when the gun went off in the house?

    What did he do after, just get in his car and drive away without ever reporting the incident to anyone?

     

    Parent

    Ugh! I am glad this is your last comment on (5.00 / 1) (#181)
    by vml68 on Wed Feb 25, 2015 at 03:01:05 PM EST
    the subject because with every comment you just get uglier.

    Well have you ever had an abortion?  Then you are in no position to know how the guilt feels, the regret, the depression.and the other medical issues.

    Most women feel guilt, regret, depressed after an abortion whether it was as you term "elective" or medically necessary. It is a life changing decision for most of us. That does not mean you get to restrict our choice or decide what is an acceptable reason.
    You want to sit on your moral high horse and judge, be my guest. Call us names, look down on us, as long as you stay the f*ck out of it when it comes to wanting to have a say in our personal decisions.

    As for this...

    But for a 100% healthy fetus to be aborted- when we all know there are couples flying to china cause they are so desperate to adopt is a social wrong.

    just because I am not able to have children, I do not feel the need to force another woman to act as my brood mare.

    Jim, no name calling allowed (5.00 / 4) (#191)
    by caseyOR on Wed Feb 25, 2015 at 05:02:00 PM EST
    on TL. Jeralyn's rule. If you cannot make your point without resorting to insults and name-calling this is probably not the place for you.

    Oh, and Anne is most certainly not an "unaware old bat" as you called her.

    Honestly, casey, sometimes it's hard to (5.00 / 3) (#192)
    by Anne on Wed Feb 25, 2015 at 07:03:31 PM EST
    know whether to laugh or throw something when these people get going.  You try to share something from your experience, and what does it get you?  Some very small-minded person who wants to call me an unaware old bat and somehow managed to get from what I said that I would be okay with my grandchildren being aborted.

    Clearly, this is someone who gets his information from some less-than-credible sources, who can't admit what he doesn't know and will never experience, and chooses instead to label women in the ugliest ways possible.

    I've thought for a long time that many of these anti-choice men really just don't like or respect women very much. There's a resentment and an anger that eventually oozes out like so much slime and then we see who they really are.

    But thanks for your kind words - I appreciate them more than you know.

    Parent

    That comment was deleted and (5.00 / 2) (#193)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Feb 25, 2015 at 08:17:25 PM EST
    Jim of St Louis is now banned. That name calling was over the top and completely unacceptable.

    Parent
    Re: Abortion (5.00 / 2) (#204)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Thu Feb 26, 2015 at 11:12:59 AM EST

    And should we henceforth establish a regime where no laws may be enacted unless they are designed to prevent harms that affect a large percentage of the population?

    Congratulations, you've just come out agains Civil Rights, because racism doesn't harm a large percentage of the population, does it?

    What if the scans and tests and (5.00 / 3) (#206)
    by Anne on Thu Feb 26, 2015 at 12:30:41 PM EST
    what-not do not reveal a significant problem within whatever time frame a particular state has chosen?

    "A patient of mine -- already a mother to a young child, really happy about the pregnancy, husband is really happy about the pregnancy -- went in for her first ultrasound and was told everything was fine." But when the patient came back at 18 weeks for a follow-up, Davis says, her doctors told her to brace for difficult news. The fetus' heart was not developing normally, and would require multiple operations to fix. Still, after meeting with a pediatric cardiologist to discuss what it would mean to raise a baby with chronic health condition, the couple decided to continue with the pregnancy.

    Then came their 20-week checkup.

    The heart condition had gotten worse, and the latest scans picked up new information: a systemic problem had emerged, affecting other organs in the body. The outcome was dire. After a week of painful discussions within their family, the couple decided to terminate the pregnancy -- at 21 weeks.

    Fetal conditions like this, though rare, Davis says, are not diagnosable earlier in the pregnancy. "You cannot see this stuff in the first trimester. A woman could be in there every day up until 18 weeks getting ultrasounds and a doctor still wouldn't be able to catch these issues any earlier."

    Link

    Wait - don't jump on me yet...I'm aware that here, and in the article, we're focusing on the 20-wk fetus, and on the assertion that fetal pain can be experienced at 20 weeks.  But I think this, also, speaks to why bans can be dangerous:

    But laws like Texas' 20-week ban eliminate a physician's ability to be adaptive to the unique circumstances of their patients' health. Instead, nominal exceptions for the health and life of the mother in these laws can make otherwise safe abortions dangerous by forcing doctors to wait until their patient's condition deteriorates before they can legally act to terminate a pregnancy and save their lives.

    [...]

    But that is precisely what these laws do -- force doctors to choose between saving a patient's life or breaking the law. It's a lose-lose situation that is becoming frighteningly more common.

    Question(s): is there pain associated with being born?  With hours and hours of the uterus contracting around the fetus, of the fetus being squeezed into the birth canal, of having forceps or a vacuum used to forcibly pull the baby out?

    With your own daughter, did you ever consider not supporting her medically once she was born because of the pain she would experience from insertion of IVs and catheters and needles?  I'm guessing not - that as bad as you may have felt about it, you accepted it - much like women accept the pain of childbirth - because the end result - a healthy baby - would be worth it?

    But, let's say someone decides to continue to term a pregnancy where there are defects and anomalies and such that will require much medical and surgical intervention, possibly over the course of a baby/child's lifetime - if we're concerned about pain, isn't this a valid consideration?  

    Where one ends up is in this terribly knotty place where it looks like it's bad to possibly subject a fetus to a life-ending procedure because of the pain - even if that momentary pain is infinitely smaller than the pain of what is involved with multiple birth defects - but it's good - or at least acceptable - to subject a baby to pain after birth if that pain is the result of life-supporting procedures.

    What about the pain that someone with a terminal illness is experiencing - even with medication?  Is it okay to prohibit that person from ending his or her life because, well, life!  

    There are no easy questions, no simple answers - at least I don't see them.  They aren't even there with bans, are there?  Do the people who oppose abortion under all circumstances ever think about what those bans impose on people, or do they simply not care as long as no fetus' life is ever terminated?

    I'm glad I'm not having to make these decisions, or am being forced to live with the results of laws that purport to make them for me - but others are, and I sometimes don't think there is enough consideration given to those people, many of whom are already going through a terrible experience that these laws can make infinitely worse.

    Reconstructionist (5.00 / 2) (#207)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Fri Feb 27, 2015 at 09:34:07 AM EST
    the fact of the matter is that women who get abortions at the 20th week of development are usually doing so for good reasons

    To take away the right of bodily autonomy for the dubious purpose of not causing fetal pain, which, as one researcher noted, can be avoided by administering a lethal injection to the fetal heart before the procedure begins, is to make the fetus more important than the woman having the abortion.

    That such cases are a minority of abortion cases does not make it any more moral or fair to ban them on that basis.

    Even though I haven't seen Birdman yet (none / 0) (#2)
    by McBain on Sun Feb 22, 2015 at 04:48:26 PM EST
    I'm pulling for Michael Keaton.  He's been underrated for a long time. Not many actors can do comedy, action and drama. Keaton has done well in all three of those genres.... if you count Batman as action.

    As for best picture.... anything but Boyhood and The Grand Budapest Hotel.  

    Keaton in Pacific Heights... (none / 0) (#15)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Feb 23, 2015 at 09:04:55 AM EST
    ...was really really good,  and who doesn't love Beetlejuice.

    Parent
    The name's Dangerously... (none / 0) (#17)
    by kdog on Mon Feb 23, 2015 at 09:31:51 AM EST
    Johnny Dangerously.

    Keaton's comedic opus.

    Parent

    Have to disagree with you on that. (none / 0) (#52)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Feb 23, 2015 at 04:02:35 PM EST
    Personally, the first time I saw Johnny Dangerously while a senior in college, I found it to be insipid to the point of moronic. A repeat viewing in my middle-aged years did absolutely nothing to dissuade me from my initial impression, that what I saw onscreen was an abuse of celluloid.

    I find Beetlejuice to be a much better representation of Michael Keaton's comedic talents, as is Ron Howard's 1982 film Night Shift.

    Aloha.

    Parent

    I like you... (none / 0) (#96)
    by kdog on Tue Feb 24, 2015 at 09:49:58 AM EST
    but you're crazy...Johnny Dangerously is comedy gold, as is Night Shift.

    Beetlejuice I could take or leave...I enjoyed it in the theater back in the day, but don't find it particularly rewatchable like Johnny Dangerously is.

    Parent

    It's comedy gold only if I'm 12 years old. (none / 0) (#110)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Feb 24, 2015 at 02:09:48 PM EST
    Sorry, kdog, but we're going to have to agree to disagree about Johnny Dangerously. I'd rather watch a Bugs Bunny / Road Runner marathon, then ever endure that film again.

    Parent
    It's raining in LA (none / 0) (#5)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Feb 22, 2015 at 06:06:34 PM EST
    Robert Duvalls wife showing some serious cleavage.  

    Zoe Saldana looks even better than usual.

    Never cease to be amazed by stupid questions (none / 0) (#55)
    by CoralGables on Mon Feb 23, 2015 at 04:19:33 PM EST
    or statements from politicians.

    This in from Idaho today:

    Idaho state Rep. Vito Barbieri (R) asks in a hearing if women can swallow a tiny camera for doctors to conduct a remote gynecological exam.

    That comment doesn't leave me speechless (5.00 / 4) (#56)
    by MO Blue on Mon Feb 23, 2015 at 04:28:34 PM EST
    considering the source. I do have a few suggestions on where he can insert that tiny camera.

    I never cease to be amazed that any woman would vote Republican though.

    Parent

    It may not leave you speechless... (5.00 / 2) (#59)
    by vml68 on Mon Feb 23, 2015 at 07:06:17 PM EST
    but it does me. I just can't fathom that kind of ignorance/stupidity.

    And, this just hurts my brain and heart.

    Barbieri, who sits on the board of a crisis pregnancy center in northern Idaho

    It is 20freakin15! How, how, how is this possible in the US?

    Parent

    That type of ignorance/stupidity (5.00 / 2) (#77)
    by MO Blue on Mon Feb 23, 2015 at 10:36:54 PM EST
    is on display on the floors of Congress in D.C. and throughout the states and on the talk shows on a fairly regular basis. So much so, that it no long has shock value for me. Just makes me angry at them and the women who allow them to remain in office.

    Parent
    Wow- how about that! (2.00 / 1) (#84)
    by Jim in St Louis on Tue Feb 24, 2015 at 06:27:05 AM EST
    I read your comment and thought it sounded fake- and of course it was.

    Monday afternoon Barbieri told The Spokesman-Review that he adamantly supports the bill, and wasn't fazed by the social media attention his question garnered.

    "I was being rhetorical, because I was trying to make the point that equalizing a colonoscopy to this particular procedure was apples and oranges," he said. "So I was asking a rhetorical question that was designed to make her say that they weren't the same thing, and she did so. It was the response I wanted."

    The crowd in the hearing room got the joke- why did you miss it?

    Parent

    Nope (5.00 / 2) (#89)
    by jbindc on Tue Feb 24, 2015 at 08:18:57 AM EST
    Try again.

    The laughs were for the doctor - not Barbieri. They were laughing AT him.

    Here's the full exchange:

    Barbieri: "You mentioned the risk of colonoscopy , can that be done by drugs?"

    Dr. Julie Madsen: "It cannot be done by drugs. It can, however, be done remotely where you swallow a pill and this pill has a little camera, and it makes its way through your intestines and those images are uploaded to a doctor who's often thousands of miles away, who then interprets that."

    Barbieri: "Can this same procedure then be done in a pregnancy? Swallowing a camera and helping the doctor determine what the situation is?"

    Madsen: "It cannot be done in pregnancy, simply because when you swallow a pill, it would not end up in the vagina." (Hoots of laughter from the audience)

    Barbieri: "Fascinating. That certainly makes sense, doctor."




    Parent
    If legislators wouldn't constantly be (5.00 / 2) (#95)
    by Anne on Tue Feb 24, 2015 at 09:40:14 AM EST
    trying to make it harder for women to obtain the reproductive health care they need, we wouldn't have to be treated to these ongoing insults to our intelligence.  

    As of 2001, according to the Guttmacher Institute, there were only 4 abortion providers in the State of Idaho; prohibiting doctors from remotely prescribing abortion-inducing medications is just one more way to ensure that women for whom it is a hardship to travel will be less likely to get an abortion.

    I can see where Barbieri was going with this, given that a standard gyn exam cannot be performed from a remote location, but what about a sonogram? If a doctor can remotely view a colonoscopy and diagnose and prescribe on that basis, wouldn't an ob/gyn be able to do the same with an ultrasound?  A pregnancy can be confirmed, fetal age can be determined, anomalies can be detected, etc.  How, then, is the uterus any different from a colon?

    No jokes please.

    What's really important here is that this kind of restrictive - I would even call it punitive -  legislating is going on all over the country.  Reproductive rights have never been more endangered than they are now, and while it's all well and good to point and snicker at the people behind legislation like the bill in Idaho, it's not even - pardon the pun - remotely funny what's happening to the rights of women to have dominion over their own bodies.

    Parent

    I will not 'try again' (1.75 / 4) (#92)
    by Jim in St Louis on Tue Feb 24, 2015 at 08:42:54 AM EST
    How about you "Try to come up with a response that has not been overused by every hack on every website all over the internet"

    Losers always self identify: "Try Again"  is one of their markers.  It means that you are planning on digging in and will hold your position till hell freezes over- Be my guest.

    This is an example of an out of context quote to try and get some clicky-clicky.  Don't be a sucker for it. You should demand that Leftist websites at least try and not be comical promoters of half truths. And you certainly should not repeat and promote them yourself.

    Parent

    No (5.00 / 5) (#93)
    by jbindc on Tue Feb 24, 2015 at 09:07:40 AM EST
    There isn't anything "out of context.". In fact, I posted the WHOLE exchange exactly to give context.  You may want to believe the spin put out afterward in a CYA mode, but it doesn't change the fact of what he said and how he reacted.

    Half truths seem to be your specialty, not mine.

    Parent

    Whoops! (5.00 / 3) (#94)
    by Yman on Tue Feb 24, 2015 at 09:09:39 AM EST
    So you believe Barbieri when he says he was just "asking a rhetorical question" and the audience was laughing with him, as opposed to laughing at him when they laughed at the doctor's response?

    That's so cute.

    Parent

    Ok (none / 0) (#90)
    by FlJoe on Tue Feb 24, 2015 at 08:31:34 AM EST
    just another episode of "Republicans say the darndest things". Maybe if there was not a long history of Republicans saying the most ridiculous things with dead seriousness we would be able to realize when they are joking.

    Parent
    Hey Jim - do you have a uterus? (5.00 / 6) (#97)
    by Anne on Tue Feb 24, 2015 at 10:10:44 AM EST
    What's the likelihood that you're ever going to get pregnant?  Zero?

    But, let's say that by some marvel of anatomical engineering, you did have a uterus and working fallopian tubes and ovaries and could get pregnant, guess what no one could force you to do?  Terminate a pregnancy.  You'd have that right, just as millions of women do.

    So, how come women are increasingly facing effective forced pregnancy because of legislators like Vito Barbieri?  How is that right?  

    But Vito Barbieri, who, like you, will never be faced with the decision, will never be told he is carrying a fetus with genetic defects incompatible with life outside the womb, will never be economically imperiled by being forced to carry a pregnancy to term, will never face the risks to health and life that are associated with pregnancy, thinks his beliefs, his opinions about abortion, should be imposed on women who live in his state.  And I mean Idaho, not the state of confusion he seems to be in.

    He shouldn't get to decide for women.  You shouldn't get to decide for women.  Women should not get to decide for other women.  

    Each woman should have the right to access the care she needs, and to make the decisions that are right for her, by her.  Period.


    Parent

    ^^Exactly this^^ (5.00 / 2) (#104)
    by Zorba on Tue Feb 24, 2015 at 12:53:26 PM EST
    Please accept a (virtual) standing ovation for an outstanding comment.
    And many thanks.

    Parent
    My chance of pregnancy is the same as yours (1.00 / 6) (#105)
    by Jim in St Louis on Tue Feb 24, 2015 at 01:05:32 PM EST
    -- does that mean you will STFU about abortion? I doubt it. So since we have equal chance of becoming pregnant we should be on an equal footing to discuss abortion.

    No way could I convince you to change, there is just too much distance between us. But then I don't think that I could have convinced Thomas Jefferson to grant his slaves freedom either. Even with all his fancy talk about freedom he had a blind spot with his property.  For starters you are convinced that abortions are "health care" (free tip: if you have a doctor who tells you the abortion of a healthy fetus is going to make you healthier- run away at top speed cause that is not a doctor- that is an abortionist)
    But I wanted to reply to your final paragraph in your earlier comment, - "Reproductive rights have never been more endangered than they are now". I agree!  I see the nation turning more pro-life with every election.  State legislators are expressing the will of the voters who are wondering why can't we have parental notification for 15 year olds?, or what is so terrible about a 24 hr. waiting period?  Or why not have abortion doctors meet the same requirements as other outpatient surgery clinics?  Or why can't we outlaw infanticide after 20 weeks?  Or why not require a doctor to examine a patient before prescribing drugs?  The pro-choice response is to call these "punitive" assaults upon women's rights, which seems a little hysterical (pun intended).
    For a long time any restriction on abortion was knocked down by the supreme court- at least up till Casey v PP. But the mood is changing. You mention sonograms and I think that seeing pictures of the baby has done a lot to support the pro-life position, and those pictures are only going to get better quality in the future. Hard to keep calling it a clump of cells when even a dummy like me can see that it is a baby. Another way technology has changed people's opinion that many people pick `viability' as the cut off for when abortion is acceptable, but with viability now at 25 weeks, and that time only getting shorter- people are asking why do the leftists (who love science remember) hold themselves to a 1972 understanding of fetal development?  Another factor is that the understanding of genetics is more wide spread- and people understand that the baby's DNA is complete on the first day of her life- it is just at an early stage of development of her life, fetus is the same as a toddler- still a DNA complete human, just an earlier stage of development.  Contraception and family planning is more advanced as technology has improved- (have you seen the app that tells when you are ovulating?)  And lastly there is the medical advances that are being made to treat children still in the womb- even heart valve surgery is now (almost) routine- so the attitude of the death cult known as pro-choice is becoming very clear- they would prefer that all `imperfect' children be aborted- rather than try to save their lives.
    I hate the phrase "wrong side of history"  It implies a flow going to some mystical perfect destination, I think it's more accurate to think of civilization as being precariously perched and that it can fall backwards into chaos pretty easy (dark ages-US Slavery, 1930's Germany- 1950's China- Islamic terror today) I think that abortion will go away the same way- and 50 years from now people will just shake their heads and say- really?  They used to abort perfectly healthy fetuses just for convenience? Or just for some economic imperiled threat to the mother's pocketbook? Or just because it was the wrong sex? The elimination of elective abortion will be seen in the future like the Emancipation Proclamation is seen today- "what took you so long?"  is what the great-grandchildren will ask.

    I'm going to risk posting this- although it might get deleted for being too long- I really am sorry for being long winded. But it is not a topic to be short and snarky.


    Parent

    And is your pregnancy history the same? (5.00 / 5) (#107)
    by sj on Tue Feb 24, 2015 at 01:12:27 PM EST
    My chance of pregnancy is the same as yours (none / 0) (#105)

    How many times, exactly, have you given birth?

    The rest of your comment is just a mish-mash of hysteria and quien sabe que tanto.

    I don't think your comment shouldn't be deleted because it's long. I think it should stay there because it's a perfect example of the pseudo "science" (and false conclusions based on the mis-use of science) that reactionaries use to justify their ignorance and biases.

    Parent

    Heaven forbid that you should give birth, Jim. (5.00 / 5) (#112)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Feb 24, 2015 at 02:16:58 PM EST
    It's long been my hope that such hopelessly Neanderthal and misogynistic thinking as yours dies off with your generation.

    Parent
    I knew it was wrong to post a loooong comment (2.00 / 3) (#114)
    by Jim in St Louis on Tue Feb 24, 2015 at 02:24:10 PM EST
    it just will not get read.  Blog comments sections are not the place to try and be serious.

    Lesson learned.

    Parent

    Paragraphs help, fwiw... (5.00 / 1) (#115)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Feb 24, 2015 at 02:26:05 PM EST


    Parent
    It wasn't the length, it was the content. (5.00 / 4) (#117)
    by Anne on Tue Feb 24, 2015 at 02:40:51 PM EST


    Parent
    The length is not why (5.00 / 4) (#119)
    by nycstray on Tue Feb 24, 2015 at 03:15:38 PM EST
    some will not read it . . . . this is

    My chance of pregnancy is the same as yours (1.00 / 3) (#105)
    by Jim in St Louis on Tue Feb 24, 2015 at 01:05:32 PM EST
    -- does that mean you will STFU about abortion?

    WTF? Really, not much you can say after that, that can change the lack of credibility of that comment.

    Parent

    Another example of lack (5.00 / 5) (#135)
    by sj on Tue Feb 24, 2015 at 06:21:11 PM EST
    of reading comprehension:
    I knew it was wrong to post a loooong comment (2.00 / 1) (#114)
    by Jim in St Louis on Tue Feb 24, 2015 at 01:24:10 PM MDT

    it just will not get read.  Blog comments sections are not the place to try and be serious.

    Lesson learned.


    You think it didn't get read? Here? We slog through all sorts of rubbish. You're not being criticized because we didn't read it. You're being criticized because we did.

    Even though you don't really know how to functionally use paragraphs.

    Parent

    Okay, so, I don't want to embed your (5.00 / 6) (#116)
    by Anne on Tue Feb 24, 2015 at 02:39:26 PM EST
    comment in my response, but I will respond more or less consistent with the order of it; since you are an expert at seeing a "baby" in the still-grainy/fuzzy sonogram pictures of 10-week old fetuses, I'm sure you can follow along.

    (1)  So, here's the thing: I have two children - daughters - and while I am no longer producing eggs, they are, and I will continue to advocate for their right to make their own choices and decisions about their reproductive health.  So, no, I'm not going to STFU about it.  

    (2)  Why would I want - or need - to change?  I have my beliefs, which I am not imposing on anyone.  I don't demand that anyone make the same choices I would, just that we have enough respect for each other to allow these decisions to be personal ones.  Our choice, in our way, with the help we decide we need.  If you're the daddy, hopefully, you get to express your opinion - but if you're not, it's none of your business.

    (3)  You know, just because I believe women should have dominion over their own bodies, that abortion should be available to those who decide that is the right decision for them, doesn't mean I would make the same choice.  I've been pregnant twice, both times planned.  I know what that feels like to carry a life inside me, to love it and feel protective of it while it was still more a collection of cells than a recognizable human form.   I was 32 when I got pregnant with my second child, and we were offered amnio and other screenings, as the odds of Down's Syndrome increase rather dramatically between the ages of 32 and 33.  My husband and I talked about it, and decided we would not have the tests.  Why?  Because we felt like a perfect set of chromosomes was no guarantee of a perfect life,  this was a baby we wanted and planned for, and knew that we would continue the pregnancy regardless, so what was the point?  Fortunately, we had two healthy daughters, who now each have a husband and a child of their own.

    (4)  Again, that you or anyone is pro-life is really kind of irrelevant to the woman who is pregnant.  You're not going to help raise the child.  Vito Barbieri isn't going to find affordable day care, or housing.  You're not going to figure out how to care for a child with a severe genetic defect.  You're not going to be there when the stress of having one more child tears a marriage apart.  Are you going to be there when a 15 yr old gets pregnant because the "community" won't allow her to get the birth control that would have prevented the pregnancy in the first place?  It's just not your business.

    And how do I know that Mr. Barbieri isn't as interested in post-pregnancy life as he is about pre-pregnancy life?  Tell me how many programs for poor women and children Barbieri has supported.  Tell me how many food and nutrition programs have been expanded with the help of Mr. Barbieri.  How about daycare subsidies?  Access to birth control and sex education for teenagers? Does he support those?  What about education and training programs to help single or poor parents better their lives?   Is it the will of the voters to only be there long enough to make sure there's no "murder" going on, and then to pack up and disappear to leave women on their own?  

    (5)  The will of the voters...here's the problem, as I see it.  A lot of these laws are coming out of legislatures with no input from voters at all.  All these things you reference - and by "infanticide," unless you are referring to an actual baby, born 20 weeks ago, you're using the wrong term, because a fetus is not an infant at all - are not designed to protect the pregnant person, but to deny her the choice to have the abortion she seeks.  They are barriers to choice - I don't know how you don't see that.  Perhaps for some women, these things do not represent a hardship, but for many, they absolutely do.  These are the kinds of restrictions that get in the way of women who are predominantly poor.  Yes, as a parent, I'd want to know that my daughter was going through this - but I'm not every parent.  I'm not the mother of a child whose stepfather or uncle abused her and she got pregnant.  24-hour waiting period?  What if I already had to travel across the state to get to an abortion provider?  What if I can't take two days off from my job without getting fired?  What if I don't have the means to get a hotel and stay overnight?  Am I supposed to sleep in my car?  

    (6)  Oy, already with the "leftists" again...so, how many sonograms of 8-week old fetuses have you looked at?  Sure, it's pretty easy when you're looking at a 3-D image from 20 or more weeks, but before then, and with the traditional images?  Not so much.  Most women - and men - I know have sheepishly admitted that they had no idea where "the baby" was in their first sonogram until the technician showed them what was what.  

    A fetus is not the same as a toddler.  I can't even believe you said that, but then, you referred to a 20-week old fetus as an infant, so I guess you're being consistent, even if you're scientifically, medically, biologically wrong.  

    (7)  Here's the bottom line for me:  I know about the advances at all points along the spectrum from couples just thinking about getting pregnant right on through to the delivery room, and all of that knowledge is a great and wonderful thing, but in the nitty-gritty of everyday lives, it has to come down to what is right for each person, in whatever the situation is - and not up to the government or some loon in the state legislature who thinks women can somehow control their bodies in the event of a rape, to make decisions for me, or, since I am not in the child-bearing stage anymore, my daughters.

    This is all just theoretical for you - and it's so unbelievably disrespectful and highly offensive to the many women who do not come to this decision out of casual disregard for life.  

    It's not your choice, it's not your business.  


    Parent

    While Jim not only (none / 0) (#131)
    by Reconstructionist on Tue Feb 24, 2015 at 05:12:53 PM EST
     went off the rails he was carrying a loads of Bakken Shale and exploded, his one point about the utter inanity of the argument that because men cannot get pregnant their opinion on the abortion matter should not matter is well taken.

      You inadvertently illustrate just one of the reasons when you discuss your concern for the women who can get pregnant including you daughters. You thus  implicitly recognize that a person can have a wholly legitimate  interest in a condition that cannot they themselves cannot experience

      Many men also have daughters and have just as much right to advocate as do you, even if they advocate for the other side. Many men are also capable of impregnating a woman. That's not to suggest that impotent childless men do not have a legitimate interest in the abortion issue, it's just intended to highlight the silliness of the argument.

       You are not going to convert anyone with that kind of "STFU" argument and you will alienate just as many if not more people than Jim does.

      The bottom line is that as long as people disagree on the question of when human life begins, they will disagree about abortion. the idea that a person's sex renders his belief on that fundamental question more or less legitimate is absurd.

       

    Parent

    I think you still do not understand what I (5.00 / 3) (#141)
    by Anne on Tue Feb 24, 2015 at 07:44:10 PM EST
    am saying, so one more time:

    By all means, have opinions.  If you want to believe that life begins when the man hangs his pants on the bedpost, go right ahead.  But in her bedroom, in her doctor's office, in the dead of night as she wrestles with herself, with her god, with whether it's fair to bring a child into the world who will never see or speak or hear or walk or be more than an infant mentally, with whether she has enough mentally to give a child if there's no dad in the picture or she's working three jobs to keep ahead of the bills, you don't have a place.  You don't get to impose your beliefs on someone else, whose life you aren't a part of, whose shoes you will never walk in.

    I've been pregnant, I have daughters who have been pregnant, and while I certainly love and care about them, even I, as their mother, do not get to decide what they do.

    Your opinions about abortion are as relevant as anyone's, but you don't get to choose for anyone but yourself.

    Parent

    No individual can, or should (none / 0) (#150)
    by Reconstructionist on Wed Feb 25, 2015 at 08:38:37 AM EST
     be able to impose his BELIEFS on others but, that's not the issue involved.

      The issue is whether the MAJORITY acting through representative government can dictate BEHAVIOR by prohibiting or regulating conduct through laws that apply to everyone, including those whose beliefs are that the conduct should not be prohibited or regulated.

      Even those who agree that there should be a constitutional right to abortion (and there are obviously many people who believe there shouldn't-- and there  is nothing illegitimate about the belief or the act of advocating for change based on that belief) don't necessarily believe that such right should be absolute and free from any and all government regulation.

       

    Parent

    But laws enacted in Idaho (5.00 / 3) (#152)
    by Anne on Wed Feb 25, 2015 at 10:01:59 AM EST
    or Alabama or North Dakota, by legislators who seek to write into law their beliefs about abortion, do not apply to everyone, do they?  They don't apply to women in every state, do they?  So, where one lives has a great deal to do with how much choice and how much freedom one has to make these personal, private decisions.  

    Is geography really how one's rights should be determined?  Are you aware that some states have tried to take away women's rights to travel to other states where their choices are broader?  That they have tried to make it a crime?

    Are you aware that there are legislators who want to make women have to prove that their miscarriage was not an abortion, and provide criminal penalties if she can't prove that?

    In fact, here is a list of the various states - and in the US Congress - where legislators have attempted to impose additional restrictions, as well as criminal penalties, on women, and on the doctors who provide services.

    Get comfy - it's a long, long list.

    And my question is, why?  Because the thing, is, no one is preventing anyone who is opposed to abortion from adhering to that belief.  No one's going to be screaming in their faces as they go to the OB that they must have an abortion.  Why isn't being able to live one's belief that abortion is wrong enough?  Why must people who won't be living the result of restrictions and bans and criminal penalties seek to impose them on those who will?

    Do you think this much effort is being expended in these legislatures to provide support for access to affordable birth control and sex education?  Um, no - it does not appear so.

    Do you think the Georgia legislator who is so determined that no women will be allowed to end a pregnancy that he wants to criminalize miscarriage gives a rat's a$$ about living, breathing women and children?  What do you want to bet that many of these anti-choice zealots turn their backs on women who need economic and other help once they have these children?  And on the children themselves, cutting food and nutrition programs, day care and early childhood education?  How many of them, having made it extraordinarily difficult for women to end a pregnancy, then deny her any help because it's her own fault she got pregnant?

    Oh, but of course, women should just move in order to get the rights they feel they deserve, move to a state where women aren't treated like incubators, right?

    You're not getting it.  You apparently do not see the depth and extent of the efforts to reduce women to little more than gestational vessels who can't be permitted to have any say in these matters.  And where women have made efforts to circumvent these restrictions, legislators have gone after the providers, closing off more and more avenues where she could have any choices at all.

    Why?  If someone doesn't believe abortion is right, she shouldn't have one.  I respect that choice - why can't all women's choices be respected?  Why can't women be trusted to make the decisions that are right for them?  Because maybe some women won't make the "right" decision?  Again, "right" according to whom - you?  Good ol' Vito out in Idaho?  

    Enough already.

    Parent

    IMost of that (1.50 / 2) (#153)
    by Reconstructionist on Wed Feb 25, 2015 at 10:16:54 AM EST

    is a rant worthy of your nemesis Jim. That's the problem with abortion. Zealots on either side are mostly incapable of ration discussion. It always amazes me that neither can see in themselves what they attack in their adversaries. Different sides of the same coin. I'll only illustrate one thing. you state:

    Because the thing, is, no one is preventing anyone who is opposed to abortion from adhering to that belief.

      By the same token, for example, permitting an "absolute right" to carry firearms would not prevent anyone opposed to such freedom from deciding not to carry a gun. Does making that banal observation mean I have just won the debate on gun control versus the Second Amendment? Have I now established the majority should have no ability to regulate firearms because no one is required to have one and the majority should have no ability to regulate what others choose to do? Come on! You let your passion cloud your ability to reason.

     

    Parent

    Mind boggling that you can call Jim (5.00 / 3) (#157)
    by vml68 on Wed Feb 25, 2015 at 11:29:30 AM EST
    and Anne different sides of the same coin.

    This from Jim

    the attitude of the death cult known as pro-choice is becoming very clear- they would prefer that all `imperfect' children be aborted- rather than try to save their lives.

    And, this from Anne

    If someone doesn't believe abortion is right, she shouldn't have one.  I respect that choice - why can't all women's choices be respected?  Why can't women be trusted to make the decisions that are right for them?

    I think in your efforts to be "Mr. Reasonable" you've let that cloud your ability to distinguish between the legitimacy of different opinions.

    Based on this comment from you...

    Many men also have daughters and have just as much right to advocate as do you, even if they advocate for the other side. Many men are also capable of impregnating a woman. a person can have a wholly legitimate  interest in a condition that cannot they themselves cannot experience

    Since many women have husbands and sons, can I assume that if a man has testicular cancer we can advocate for them NOT being able to undergo chemotherapy or having their testicles removed because it would affect their ability to have children? Afterall, as a wife/mother, I have a wholly legitimate interest in their ability to give me children or grandchildren.

    Parent

    Jim exceeds in (1.50 / 2) (#162)
    by Reconstructionist on Wed Feb 25, 2015 at 12:06:07 PM EST
      exceeds in hyperbole, but the 2 are very similar in the inability or unwillingness to concede the possibility that their polar opposite views are extreme and based on nothing more than "sez me."

      To one abortion is murder, to the other it's nothing more than a medical procedure implicating no possible interest other than the patient's desire for the procedure. To each, anyone who deviates from their extreme views either can't understand how wrong they are or has no right to even have an opinion.

      Opinions, pretty much by definition, are up to individual. I fully support having them and being free to express them and advocate for laws/policy in accord with them.

      Other than the fact you disagree with it, what about the opinion that terminating a pregnancy is a matter of state interest is illegitimate? Are all opinions with which you disagree illegitimate?

       As I said, people do and always will disagree about the ultimate question-- when does human life begin. That's not a legal question or one answerable medically or scientifically. All anyone can have is an opinion  or belief.

      Given that, what is the conceivable argument that abortion is an inalienable human right that must be free from any state regulation? why is this not an issue that  should be decided politically?

       Jim will never show to Anne's satisfaction that a fetus is a human life and she will never convince him that it is not. Both opinions are equally legitimate.  Why should policy not be determined on the basis of which opinion has a greater number of adherents?

      Even many , such as me, who believe  constitutional concerns  are implicated  in favor of SOME limits on the state's power to regulate find it disturbingly extreme for anyone with any anatomy to think they can win  a debate simply by calling the other side names and accusing them of being at the least misguided if not  bad people.

      That's exactly what both of them do. Nothing more and nothing less.

    Parent

    No one's forcing me to own a gun, (5.00 / 2) (#168)
    by Anne on Wed Feb 25, 2015 at 12:44:46 PM EST
    just because the government says I have a right to own one.

    No one's forcing any woman to have an abortion, even though she has the right to one.

    Parent

    That's NOT (none / 0) (#175)
    by Reconstructionist on Wed Feb 25, 2015 at 02:33:20 PM EST
      the issue, and your failure to grasp it illustrates my point about passion subverting reason.

      Any gun control law whatsoever is inconsistent with an ABSOLUTE RIGHT  to bear arms. Despite the Second amendment, all gun control legislation is not unconstitutional.

      Any restriction on abortion whatsoever is inconsistent with an ABSOLUTE RIGHT to abortion. Despite, constitutional  (per the Supreme Court) limitations on the government's power to regulate abortion, all legislation restricting abortion is not unconstitutional.

       Proponents of an ABSOLUTR RIGHT in either instance offer no rational support for their stance by observing the absolute right would not force people to possess guns or have abortions.

      Moreover, a great many people believe the constitutional doctrine at present in one or both of these areas is "wrong" and that the government should have greater power to regulate. Again the observation that people are not forced to have guns or abortions does not undermine their opinions in any way whatsoever.

       

    Parent

    I don't know....you might try (none / 0) (#155)
    by Jim in St Louis on Wed Feb 25, 2015 at 11:17:37 AM EST
    and win some elections or something.

    Parent
    If you are going to start of your argument (5.00 / 2) (#143)
    by vml68 on Tue Feb 24, 2015 at 08:52:12 PM EST
    with this crap...

    My chance of pregnancy is the same as yours does that mean you will STFU about abortion? I doubt it. So since we have equal chance of becoming pregnant we should be on an equal footing to discuss abortion.

    you might want to brush up on your knowledge of the current technology in reproductive medicine. Anne can still get pregnant and carry a child to term, using a donor egg. You, unfortunately cannot. So, I guess you are not on equal footing to discuss abortion, afterall.

    Parent

    I am quite confident that like (5.00 / 2) (#158)
    by vml68 on Wed Feb 25, 2015 at 11:36:34 AM EST
    The elimination of elective abortion will be seen in the future like the Emancipation Proclamation is seen today- "what took you so long?"  is what the great-grandchildren will ask.

    the Emancipation Proclamation, gay marriage, etc., when the great-grandchildren ask "what took you so long", it is going to be in reference to getting rid of your way of thinking not elective abortion.

    Parent

    Perhaps you would like to flesh out that comment? (2.00 / 3) (#161)
    by Jim in St Louis on Wed Feb 25, 2015 at 12:00:57 PM EST
    OK- what makes you think that? Do you see the elective abortion of healthy fetuses for reasons of convience becoming more acceptable in society?  I do not.

     I see even the most radical pro-choicers talking about how they would never personally have an abortion- but they still support the right for others. Well why do they reject it for themselves personally?  I think it is cause they see it as wrong.  

     I see young people joining pro-life clubs and being excited to vote pro-life.     I am very optomistic that the days of "abortion on demand and without apology"  are coming to an end.   Do you see a different trend out there?

    Parent

    Because they recognize it ... (5.00 / 3) (#163)
    by Yman on Wed Feb 25, 2015 at 12:13:46 PM EST
    I see even the most radical pro-choicers talking about how they would never personally have an abortion- but they still support the right for others. Well why do they reject it for themselves personally?  I think it is cause they see it as wrong.

    ... a fundamental (constitutional) right/choice, whether or not they would choose to do it themselves.  It has nothing to do with seeing it as "wrong".  I would never be a fundamentalist Christian or eat mushrooms, but I would defend anyone's right to make those choices.

    Parent

    Like Jefferson said about religious freedom (5.00 / 1) (#164)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Wed Feb 25, 2015 at 12:20:30 PM EST

    The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbour to say there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.



    Parent
    What you "see" is irrelevant (5.00 / 2) (#165)
    by Yman on Wed Feb 25, 2015 at 12:29:42 PM EST
     
    I see young people joining pro-life clubs and being excited to vote pro-life.     I am very optomistic that the days of "abortion on demand and without apology"  are coming to an end.   Do you see a different trend out there?

    The numbers are basically the same as they were 40 years ago - @ 1/5 of people say it should be illegal under all circumstances and the rest saying it should be legal under all or some circumstances.

    Parent

    "I see even the most radical (5.00 / 1) (#166)
    by jondee on Wed Feb 25, 2015 at 12:32:44 PM EST
    pro-choicers.."  Sorry, but that little anecdote doesn't even come close to passing the b.s test.

    Which "radical pro-choicers" did you "see" saying that, and when did they say it?  

    Parent

    You use the term "elective abortion" (5.00 / 4) (#167)
    by Anne on Wed Feb 25, 2015 at 12:41:01 PM EST
    for what reason - to distinguish it from abortions that are not elective?  Would those be forced abortions?  Where are those being done, and who is forcing women to have them?

    No, you're using "elective" to add an element of casualness to the decision: "oh, so what shall I do today?  I know - I'll go have an abortion!"

    Have you ever been pregnant, Jim?  Can you tell me what it feels like when you see that plus-sign on the stick, or have your OB confirm by physical exam that, in fact, you are pregnant?  Have you ever even had a conversation with women about being pregnant, what it feels like, how it changes you?

    I was lucky.  I had been happily married for two years.  Both my husband and I had jobs, we owned a house.  We planned for the pregnancy and were fortunate to get pregnant very quickly.  Everything was normal and went well.

    But I'll tell you a little story.  Last October my daughter and her husband had a little boy.  When my daughter was 20-weeks pregnant, she had what's known as an anatomy scan - it's pretty routine now, and is done to identify problems, defects, etc.  The technician and the genetics person told them that the scan showed several markers for Down's syndrome, one of them being related to the baby's heart.  They were understandably concerned, but decided not to sign on for more testing until they had talked to their obstetrician - and with each other.

    The OB told them he'd seen the scan and didn't have any worry - he said it's common to find markers, and most of the time, everything is normal.  The baby's heart looked fine.  Meanwhile, they had decided that if it turned out it was likely their baby had Down's, they weren't going to terminate - they would have the baby.  Both my daughter and son-in-law feel strongly that women should have the right to choose, but felt they were strong enough to handle whatever it meant to have a Down's baby.  They also said that if the scan had revealed something like lack of brain development, a fatal heart condition, severe deformities - the decision would not be an easy one, but they thought they might have to consider the quality of life they'd be subjecting this baby to.

    The little boy they had in October is normal in every way, and he's growing and developing and laughing and cooing; he's just fine, just as the doctor expected him to be.  Doesn't mean his life will be perfect - whose is? - but so far, so good.

    It's all well and good to believe abortion is wrong; some of us who believe it isn't right for us are still able to understand that we don't walk in anyone else's shoes, and cannot and should not judge the decisions of others, or create barriers to the choices available.

    The same cannot be said for all people who oppose abortion.  It's clear that many who have decided it's wrong for them have also decided it needs to be wrong for everyone.  Why is that?  Seriously, I don't understand it.  It has nothing to do with your body, your life, your marriage, your future, your education, or your health.  

    It's not about you.

    Any woman who has ever been pregnant will tell you that there's a huge difference between the idea of being pregnant and actually being pregnant.  And the fact that the reality changes women's minds about the idea of abortion as opposed to the reality of it should also tell you that those women who do make that decision are not doing so lightly or casually.

    And I sincerely hope that as someone who champions life, that your support for living, breathing women and children is as vigorous and steadfast as your opposition to abortion.

    Parent

    This was me. I have always been (5.00 / 5) (#171)
    by vml68 on Wed Feb 25, 2015 at 02:00:32 PM EST
    I see even the most radical pro-choicers talking about how they would never personally have an abortion- but they still support the right for others. Well why do they reject it for themselves personally?  I think it is cause they see it as wrong.

    pro-choice but I did not see myself ever having one. Not because I saw having an abortion as wrong but because I could not imagine circumstances under which I would ever have one.

    So, here is my story. I have been pregnant numerous times but never made it past the 1st trimester. I cannot tell you how it felt to see a heartbeat flickering on the monitor one week only to see nothing a week or two or more later.
    Then, finally I had one pregnancy that made it to 12 weeks. I was seen by a perinatologist. My bloodwork came out fine, all the state of the art ultrasound equipment showed that everything looked great. While I knew that there was no guarantee for the future, I felt like I could finally breathe, that I did not have to spend every waking moment wondering if my baby would still be alive at the next appointment.

    My 20 week ultrasound was around Christmas/New Year that year and because of the holidays and difficulty in getting an appointment, my OB suggested that I have it done at 18 weeks and then another at 22 weeks, if necessary. I refused the amnio because I was not about to risk losing the pregnancy. Imagine my shock when the ultrasound showed that my baby was missing most of her heart. So, I was told that if she survived to term (and the odds were not good) her only chance would be a heart transplant as soon as she was born.
    Because of the heart issue, my doctor convinced me to have an amnio. And, just as he suspected there were chromosomal issues as well. So, now we had to face the additional reality that even if there was a heart available for transplant when my baby was born, the doctors would choose to give it to a baby/child that had a much higher chance of survival and a better quality of life.
    So, my choices were to go on with the pregnancy and let my child die naturally or terminate. I chose to terminate.

    One woman I know (staunchly pro-life till then) terminated twice in the second trimester because the ultrasound showed serious issues with her babies kidneys that were incompatible with life. Her doctors could find no reason for this happening and were convinced that it was a rare occasion of lightening striking the same place twice. So, she got pregnant a third time. Only to have the same nightmare happen. This time she just did not have it in her to terminate, so she carried her baby to term, only to watch him die the next day.

    I have plenty more stories I can share. Women who were pro-choice choosing not to terminate and those who were pro-life choosing to do so. All I can say, is that till you are personally facing that decision, you never know what you will choose to do.

    Believe me when I say that your choice of words like, "elective" and "aborting imperfect babies" as if we women just decide to go for a mani/pedi followed by an abortion, is deeply insulting and ignorant of what we go through. And, one of the reasons why you and people like you should never ever have a say in the decisions we women make about our lives/bodies.

    Parent

    My wife and I went through multiple situations (5.00 / 2) (#176)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Feb 25, 2015 at 02:34:39 PM EST
    similar you the ones you describe, and my heart goes out to you.

    My perspective underwent a seismic shift after the first D&C (potentially life-threatening ectopic pregnancy). For me, all I really thought about was that my wife was not going to die from a ruptured fallopian tube, but when they wheeled my wife out of the operating room she was in tears because "they took our baby."

    That's one of the things that make these conversations so difficult. There are a few ridiculous kooks out there who do mean situations like yours and ours when they say "elective" or "imperfect babies" but I think the vast majority are not.

    Parent

    My heart goes out to you and vml (5.00 / 2) (#180)
    by jbindc on Wed Feb 25, 2015 at 03:00:43 PM EST
    And Jim in St. Louis- just wow.

    Parent
    I believe (none / 0) (#182)
    by Reconstructionist on Wed Feb 25, 2015 at 03:04:09 PM EST
     (but do not assert it is the only "legitimate" view) that abortion should always be permissible when the life or physical well-being of the mother is in peril, but beyond that it is a VERY complex issue with no right or wrong moral certainties.

      As for where the life or health of the mother is imperiled, I think that even if one holds that the fetus is a person with a  "right to life" that the  rights of the fetus are outweighed by the rights of the mother. I don't at all believe such situations are "God's will" and the fetus and mother have "equal rights." (I don't even need to factor in the decreased likelihood the fetus will survive absent an abortion in such situations).

      I also believe, not without misgivings, that abortion should be available where survival of the fetus is doubtful or there is strong reason to believe that if born, the baby will have very severe health problems.

       Forcible sexual assault or sexual assault of a girl below the age of consent resulting in pregnancy is probably the only situation where I strongly feel that "psychological harm" to the mother is  enough standing alone to justify a late-term abortion.

       Even in those situations I acknowledge there are very valid questions as to why one would wait to terminate the pregnancy, but, on balance, I would permit it.

        I am not even convinced that consensual incest should suffice (including lack of capacity within non-consensual incest). There may well be  reasons to allow it based on the fetus's prognosis, but that's a different (and also thorny) issue.

       Off the top of my head, I cannot conjure up a scenario where a woman whose health is not in peril and who is carrying a fetus with no evident health problems should have the right to terminate the pregnancy after allowing the fetus to reach an advanced stage of development.

      Those are my views. I don't proclaim that anyone or disagrees with some or all of them is an evil, callous creature lacking in morality.

      full disclosure, my daughter had to be delivered at approx. 26 weeks gestation and spent over month in NICU. Holding her 2 pounds and change in my hands no doubt colors my views as to the aborting fetuses that have advanced beyond a certain stage.

       

    Parent

    There are already restrictions with (none / 0) (#184)
    by Anne on Wed Feb 25, 2015 at 03:16:52 PM EST
    respect to 2nd- and 3rd-trimester pregnancies.

    Here are the limits, per Roe v. Wade:

    Drawing Lines: The Three Tiers of Justice Blackmun's Trimester Framework in Roe

    Tier 1

    Time Period Covered: First trimester of pregnancy

    Legal Standard: State has no real interest in protecting mother's health

    Legal Limits: State can only require basic health safeguards and cannot limit access to abortion

    Tier 2

    Time Period Covered: End of first trimester to point of fetal viability

    Legal Standard: State has interest in protecting mother's health

    Legal limits: State can regulate abortion only to protect health of mother

    Tier 3

    Time Period Covered: Period after point of fetal viability

    Legal Standard: State has interest in protecting "potential life"

    Legal Limits: State can restrict or even ban abortion as long as procedure still allowed when mother's life or health at risk



    Parent
    I know that (2.00 / 1) (#188)
    by Reconstructionist on Wed Feb 25, 2015 at 03:50:39 PM EST
      but that was arbitrary and unscientific when announced and very obsolete now.

     Children have survived who were born as early as approximately 21 weeks gestation. Children very commonly survive at 24 weeks, well before third trimester. My daughter, at  approximately 26 weeks, was within the age where abortion is permissible despite the fact the large majority of babies born at that age survive nowadays.

      I also believe the issue of whether a fetus can experience pain is a very valid consideration in balancing.

    Parent

    Should I construe the lack of response (none / 0) (#201)
    by Reconstructionist on Thu Feb 26, 2015 at 09:12:01 AM EST
     to mean no one disagrees with that?

    Parent
    Heartbreaking, vml, but to Jim, (5.00 / 3) (#179)
    by Anne on Wed Feb 25, 2015 at 02:47:28 PM EST
    it's just another "boring personal story" from which he can learn nothing.

    And, didn't we know that eventually, he'd show us the really ugly side of himself?  The one that always blames the woman, questioning her intelligence, judging her "lifestyle choices."  About the only thing missing from his rant was the shaming word "slut."

    I am so sorry for the pain you have experienced, and for the losses you have had to come to terms with.  People like Jim will never in a million years understand any of it, so I don't know why we're putting ourselves through this exercise in futility.

    Yeesh.

    Parent

    Thanks, Anne. (5.00 / 1) (#185)
    by vml68 on Wed Feb 25, 2015 at 03:24:25 PM EST
    I share my story and speak up about this issue because I have spoken to so many women who hide what they have been through from family, friends, etc., because they are afraid of a$$h0les like Jim out there ready to be judge, jury and executioner.

    They have no support when they are at their most vulnerable and they keep the shame and the guilt and the regret inside instead of seeking help. As if having an abortion for whatever reason is not a hard enough decision without having people like Jim out there making it even harder.

    Parent

    So sorry vmi (5.00 / 1) (#187)
    by MO Blue on Wed Feb 25, 2015 at 03:41:08 PM EST
    What a heartbreaking experience and what courage to share your experience to help others.

    I agree the cretins should never be permitted to dictate what choices women make.

    Parent

    The O'Reiley "scandal" (none / 0) (#82)
    by Slado on Tue Feb 24, 2015 at 03:28:49 AM EST
    So as predicted...

    New York Times

    O'Reiley has come out swinging and the ratings are great.  He's invited his accusers on his program and they have of course denied because he "just wants to beat people up."

    The whole thing boils down to a he said she said about how bad the protests were in terms of violence and did Bill exaggerate the situation by calling it a war zone.    It's hardly comparable to the accusations against Williams and Bill is the host of an opinion show.  Not a network anchor in charge of the news division.  

    To me I'd say the better attack on Bill would have been to call him a whimp for freaking out when a few bullets started to fly.    

    Not really (5.00 / 4) (#88)
    by Yman on Tue Feb 24, 2015 at 08:15:41 AM EST
    The whole thing boils down to a he said she said about how bad the protests were in terms of violence and did Bill exaggerate the situation by calling it a war zone.

    Actually, it's more of a "he said they said" situation - "they being:

    1.  The 8 other CBS co-workers who called him out on his claims.

    2.  The contemporaneous NYT report of the demonstrations which O'Reilly said confirmed his claims - which the very author refuted.

    3.  All of the journalists in Buenos Aires, none of whom reported what O'Reilly claimed - a "war zone" or "combat" with soldiers shooting into crowds and numerous (or any) dead civilians - including O'Reilly himself, who mentioned nothing about such shootings in his report.  Somehow, the soldiers massacred civilian demonstrators and the only record of it is O'Reily's words - 30 years later.

    4.  O'Reilly's own words - where he claimed not merely that he was reporting about the war but that he was "in the Falklands".  ("Because I was in a situation, one time, in a war zone in Argentina, in the Falklands, where my photographer got run down...").

    He wasn't.

    5)  The video - that O'Reilly claims showed soldiers firing into the crowd - but in reality, doesn't.

    But yeah, the "prediction" that O'Reilly would attack his critics was correct.  In other news, I predict my dog will wag her tail when I get home.

    Parent

    He said, she said.. (5.00 / 1) (#126)
    by jondee on Tue Feb 24, 2015 at 04:28:35 PM EST
    with O'Reilly it's more like He raised his voice, interrupted, jabbed his finger, launched off-topic ad hominems about "Far Left" conspiracies, She said.

    Father Coughlin-O'Reilly is, sadly, downright pathetically, practically the face of Fox News. Of course they have go to the mat for him..

    Parent

    It "boils down to a he said she said" (none / 0) (#83)
    by CoralGables on Tue Feb 24, 2015 at 05:51:28 AM EST
    Ummm...no. You really need to get a grasp on when a "he said she said" is in play. For example, a Bill O'Reilly falafel is a he said she said as long as there is no audio tape.

    Parent
    Pretty (none / 0) (#87)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Feb 24, 2015 at 08:15:40 AM EST
    much O'Reilly has fabricated stuff but there are no consequences on Fox for doing so. None of this surprises me. Everybody knows Fox has no standards  for anything they report.

    Parent
    I'd say the facts speak for themselves. (none / 0) (#118)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Feb 24, 2015 at 02:45:03 PM EST
    O'Reilly was nowhere near the Falkland Islands, as he's said previously. While he's clearly tried this past week to walk that back, unfortunately it's in print and was written by him. His remarkably ham-handed attempt to expand the late war's zone of hostilities to Buenos Aires itself has predictably encountered very stiff resistance from his former CBS colleagues, all of whom have denounced his present claims as absurd.

    It's pretty evident that O'Reilly loves to embellish his own journalistic credentials for a loyal audience that's already inclined to take his word as gospel. And since Fox News did nothing to punish O'Reilly 12 years ago over his false claim to have been a two-time Peabody Award winner, I seriously doubt that the network brass will doing anything to him now in light of this latest revelation of serial exaggeration on his part.

    Therefore, O'Reilly's best bet right now is to just shut up himself, and let the other side talk itself out to the point of redundancy. Because right now, he's the one who's fanning the flames of his own potentially self-immolating controversy, doubling down on stupid by attempting to defend the indefensible. It only encourages his opposition to keep digging into his past, and who knows what else might be turned up if they do? It could be something that finally compels Fox News to take necessary steps to separate themselves from him.

    Aloha.

    Parent

    Slate Magazine (none / 0) (#145)
    by Slado on Tue Feb 24, 2015 at 11:51:56 PM EST
    Sums it up well

    It appears that O'Reiley is at best been caught using the word Falklands instead of Argentina and calling a riot a war zone.    Both seem as you say to be exaggerated but in his view debatable points and since he loves to debate he's eating this up.

    Also please don't assume that my posts indicate I care either way really other then I'd hate for an entertaining news opinion show to be taken off the air for something as silly as this.  I occasionally watch his show because it's entertaining not because I'm looking for hard news coverage.  By the time he is on the news has already happened and if something real does happen they cut away to a real reporter to start reporting on the actual news.  

    That's the main difference here.  Bill is in the same category of other journalistic Giants like Chris Matthews or Al Sharpton.   Only difference is he makes tons of money for his network.

    Parent

    O'Reilly doesn;t make that much money for them. (5.00 / 1) (#147)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Feb 25, 2015 at 01:12:31 AM EST
    At best, his audience is perhaps 2.5 million people at most on any given night. Most people still turn to the three major networks for their news.

    Cable TV blowhards are always replaceable, especially when they've outlived their usefulness. And perhaps O'Reilly's shelf life may be approaching its expiration date.

    Aloha.

    Parent

    What ???? (none / 0) (#194)
    by Slado on Wed Feb 25, 2015 at 09:59:04 PM EST
    O'Reiley has the number one show on cable news by a long shot and one could argue helped make Fox News what it is.  

    New York Times

    Say what you want about him but he is a huge success in the cable world and it's going to take a lot more then these charges to get him out of that chair at 8 EST.

    Heck I haven't watched him in years but I DVRd it tonight so I can see his reaction to the smear campaign or whatever tag line he's going to go with.

    Now that he's fired back so hard looks like the "left wing media" will keep digging through his past for more "lies" and exaggerations so we'll just have to sit back and enjoy the back and forth which will end in big ratings for Bill and more money for Fox.

    Parent

    You're probably right (5.00 / 1) (#195)
    by Yman on Wed Feb 25, 2015 at 10:09:46 PM EST
    Fox viewers know better than to expect honest reporting and set the bar pretty low.  they'll rally around one of their own rather than address the substance of the charges, unlike with Williams.

    Parent
    The economy is finally adding jobs (none / 0) (#98)
    by CST on Tue Feb 24, 2015 at 11:16:31 AM EST
    And there was a pretty interesting article in the times about where these jobs are going.

    "In recent years, employment in city centers has grown and employment in the surrounding suburban areas has shrunk, a striking change from the years before, according to a report published Tuesday by City Observatory, a think tank. The changes are seemingly small, but they represent an important shift in the American work force. As recently as 2007, employment outside city centers was climbing much faster than inside."

    I know that a lot of thinking is that once people settle down and have kids - they will move to the suburbs and we'll see a shift in population again.  But at this point I have to wonder if it will even really matter.  People are putting off having kids and birth rates are declining - which could be recession related or could represent a shift in values or most likely a bit of both.  We could get to the point where families with children are no longer the driving force in geographic population shifts.  Especially as people with grown up kids are also leaving the suburbs.

    Maybe (5.00 / 2) (#99)
    by jbindc on Tue Feb 24, 2015 at 11:50:24 AM EST
    As the article points out, is that while there are some number of "high skilled" jobs moving into cities, there will be many more service jobs that follow - busing tables, restaurant serving, copy centers, etc. Good to have people working as long as you don't have to work three of them to be able to afford city life.  The article also raises the specter (although they bury it at the end) of this phenomenon creating a wider gap as more people are priced out of cities.

    I see the appeal of cities.  And maybe, if I were younger.... But after spending a very, very fun weekend in NY, and seeing how they can't really handle snow, the garbage piled up and litter everywhere, and people on top of each other all the time. I'm really glad I can go visit and experience the fun the city has to offer and then get on a train and come home.  Makes me also appreciate what an amazing job the folks who work to keep downtown DC so clean do every single day.

    Parent

    oh I couldn't live in NYC either (none / 0) (#100)
    by CST on Tue Feb 24, 2015 at 12:08:26 PM EST
    there's normal city crowded, and then there's New York City crowded.  No thank you.  Nice place to visit.

    No doubt there will be other jobs that follow, that's not a bad thing to have them across the spectrum, I think that was being touted as a positive effect.  As the number of jobs go up so will the demand for workers and salaries should eventually follow, even at the low end, like Walmart.

    The pricing out is a big issue.  It's already happening.  One possible solution to that is deliberately increasing the housing supply on the low/moderate income end through zoning boards.  Developers will naturally want to build the most high-end/expensive housing the market can get away with, and in the case of NYC and other places the market can get away with a lot, so sometimes they need a little nudge from the state to include other housing options as well.  This already happens in a lot of places, but probably needs to be ramped up as more jobs/people come in.

    Parent

    Especially in NYC... (5.00 / 2) (#101)
    by kdog on Tue Feb 24, 2015 at 12:43:58 PM EST
    where luxury condos and apartments are built and bought up by foreign investors only to sit vacant and held as "investments", while people who work here and/or want to live here can't find anyplace they can afford.  It's a god damn sin.

    I'd like to see an expansion of squatter's rights...say if a dwelling sits vacant for a year, it's up for grabs.  That would give "investors" pause in gobbling up real estate, or at least make them sublet their sh*t so dwellings have dwellers, instead of being another line in a investment portfolio and nothing else.

    Parent

    they certainly need to do something (5.00 / 2) (#125)
    by CST on Tue Feb 24, 2015 at 04:17:21 PM EST
    Having that much of your prime housing supply functioning essentially as a mostly-empty hotel room is certainly not the most efficient use of space.

    I'm not really sure what you do, although they could theoretically implement some kind of residency requirement for home ownership the way they do for some public office holders.  I wouldn't want to be the politician who proposes that but clearly something has got to give.

    The thing is - that really only happens in the high-end housing market.  I think one root of the problem is that too much development is happening in high-end real estate, and not enough at the mid-market level.  Some oil Barron isn't going to want that as their own personal permanent hotel room.  And the only way I can think of to fix that problem is through fairly heavy-handed zoning regulations/rent controls.

    Parent

    You've got it pegged... (none / 0) (#132)
    by kdog on Tue Feb 24, 2015 at 05:13:43 PM EST
    What to do is the difficult question...

    Rent control worked for awhile...but then it became a case of nepotism. Too many people moved into Grandma's rent control spot on the sly when she died and it blew up the spot.

    The city could definitely do a better job negotiating development deals and demand more affordable units. DeBlasio will certainly be better on this front than Bloomberg, who gave the city away, but there are always wheels susceptibile to grease.

    What it will take is nobody left nearby to wash dishes...that'll work! Desperation however is not nearly as rare as a decent apartment for 800 a month.


    Parent

    Urban planners & specialists have (none / 0) (#102)
    by christinep on Tue Feb 24, 2015 at 12:44:04 PM EST
    long talked about developing more vertical communities in future.  Outside of NYC and the few longtime big cities such as Chicago & and those east-northeast, one of the big environmental issues has been the consequences of sprawl.  The sprawl from suburb to exurb often follows a jammed highway pattern and an over-taxed water system (the latter is especially obvious in the west.)

     Urban planners focused on sustainability look to the planned vertical community ... planned in terms of housing & retail space configuration as well as foresight in siting employment options. The effort to create more sustainable communities seems to ebb & flow in public view as the PR campaign of various governors & mayors ebb & flow. Colorado seems to have some success by using award and PR publications promoting efficient design choices ... but, the potential for that kind of planning has barely been touched.

    Parent

    Sounds like a subject CST might have a few (5.00 / 1) (#103)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Feb 24, 2015 at 12:49:34 PM EST
    words about.

    I'm presently of the opinion that when real-world economics force more concentrated living, that's when it will occur.

    Like when fossil fuels start running out.

    Parent

    I think it's more complicated than that (4.00 / 1) (#123)
    by CST on Tue Feb 24, 2015 at 04:07:43 PM EST
    Although you're not totally wrong - and one of the things I think this article is bringing up and certainly something I'm seeing locally is that the real-world economics are shifting/have shifted in that direction - at least regionally, I really can't speak nearly as much to the rest of the country.  It's less about fossil fuels though and more about perceived value.

    For a long time there was the push/idea that if we brought office parks to the suburbs that would alleviate some of the transportation concerns by creating more mixed-use neighborhoods in the suburbs.  Essentially if we can't get people to move to the city let's bring the jobs to them.  Unfortunately, this didn't work out, at least for reducing congestion, because the public transportation infrastructure wasn't there to support inter-suburb trips.  In other words, you may work and live in the 'burbs, but it's probably not the same 'burb, and the public transportation infrastructure was developed and designed to get people to and from an urban core.  So what you endeded up with is now you have huge rush hour congestion issues on the road that takes you from suburb to suburb.

    This helps make office locations in the city much more desirable - and it matters for attracting the right people.

    Unfortunately, even if the economic desire is there for concentrated living, the political climate is much murkier.  You're always gonna get the people who show up at a public hearing because they don't want a tower going up on their front lawn.  Depending on where you are and the economic/political climate those people can have a lot of power.  I've seen lots of developments get the "death by a thousand papercuts" treatment, where the developer wants to go big, and the economic desire is there, but NIMBYism keeps it from happening.  That's not to say these people don't have valid concerns, but if you work in development you will begin to see the damage they can cause.  I can feel for the person who doesn't want their neighborhood to change, but just because you liked the way Cambridge was in the 60s doesn't mean it's not the right location for dense development today.  It's got good access to transit, the right mix of uses, and it's where the major economic employers and employees in the region want to be.  But those decisions need to be made at a higher level because no matter where you go you're gonna piss off someone.

    I'll just end it by saying that right now there are more towers going up in the Boston area than I can remember in my entire life combined.  So at least locally it feels like we're starting to turn a corner on density.

    Parent

    Ya, agreed. I guess I was thinking on (none / 0) (#127)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Feb 24, 2015 at 04:31:46 PM EST
    country/world-wide scale.

    Parent
    yea (none / 0) (#128)
    by CST on Tue Feb 24, 2015 at 04:39:13 PM EST
    I think that was the interesting thing for me about the article I linked was that it suggests the demand for urban (and presumably denser) development is starting to happen on a broader national scale.

    World-wide - depends where you're talking about but certainly there are places that are both ahead and behind on this one.  Although if anything I'd say suburban sprawl seems to be a bit more of an American thing.

    Parent

    Interesting article, and I'm glad to hear (none / 0) (#129)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Feb 24, 2015 at 04:44:43 PM EST
    that Boston is doing so well economically.

    Parent
    Undeniably (none / 0) (#106)
    by christinep on Tue Feb 24, 2015 at 01:11:49 PM EST
    When we feel it--in the pocketbook and in other very tangible ways--is when structural changes really get a push.  In the West, the water issue can have a powerful effect on location ... the limits and associated costs of water usage ... in prolonged drought years, citizens tend to have attitudes more conducive to change; whereas when the spring run-off is above average, etc.

    Parent
    Oregon, especially the Portland (5.00 / 3) (#108)
    by caseyOR on Tue Feb 24, 2015 at 01:31:57 PM EST
    metro area, has had some success with this. The linchpin of planning in Oregon is the Oregon Land Conservation and Development Act, which passed the legislature in 1973.

    This law required each county in the state to develop long-range development plans that preserved forest and farmland. These plans are periodically updated.

    What this has meant for Portland is a concentration of development in both the city downtown core, which has a substantial residential population, and in the outer city neighborhoods where infill is the practice.

    The dreaded urban sprawl has been much more contained than anywhere except maybe San Francisco, where sprawl is constrained by large bodies of water.

    Some of the richest farmland in the west, certainly, and maybe the nation, can be found in the Willamette Valley, that area of land that runs from the Columbia River at the north end, south to just past Eugene. It is bordered on the west by the Coast Range and on the east by the Cascades.

    Portland, Salem, Eugene and Corvallis, major population centers, are located in the Willamette Valley, but so is that valuable farmland.

    Agriculture is a major industry in Oregon. In the WV we grow Christmas trees, nursery stock (all those rhododendrons you plant in your yard, vegetable seed and grass seed. We also have many farms that produce food, fruits and vegetables and meat and cheese, both for our local farmers markets and for grocery stores. When I shop at one of Portland's many farmers' markets, and some are open year-round now, I can can purchase food that was grown within 50-100 miles of my home. And I can do this because over 40 years ago Oregon's political leaders saw the future without strict zoning laws and shuddered.

    Not everyone likes this, just like not everyone likes Portland's extensive public transportation system. Developers continue to try to gut the law. Still, it lives on, admittedly with some alterations, but not many.

    It has made Portland an insanely livable city. Also, because decades ago Portland placed a premium on maintaining and growing a vibrant downtown and preserving the city's network of neighborhoods, complete with commercial districts, one can, as I did for many years, live in Portland without a car.

    It is not perfect, we are not without our problems, but it makes Portland and Oregon better places to live.

    Parent

    zoning works (5.00 / 1) (#154)
    by CST on Wed Feb 25, 2015 at 10:43:46 AM EST
    when done right.

    I always think it's funny how hard developers fight against these things - and how much they are willing to pay in order to develop in places where effective zoning regulations are in place.

    I get that it's in their short-term interest to not pay as much up front - but it's clearly more in their long-term interest to develop in a vibrant community.  And they must see that, because the demand to build in these places is clearly there within their own company, or they wouldn't be fighting the zoning regulations.

    So they are fighting to eliminate the very things that are making it a worthwhile place for them to build.

    Parent

    It isn't just zoning (5.00 / 1) (#189)
    by caseyOR on Wed Feb 25, 2015 at 04:56:34 PM EST
    in Oregon. It is that the entire state, through public hearings held for months on end in every county, forced Oregonians to think about and discuss with their neighbors just what kind of place we wanted Oregon to be. And zoning is based on that.

    And we continue to have that discussion because each county revisits and revises its plan, within guidelines set statewide, periodically.

    I am currently in my Illinois hometown. When I left here for Oregon about 40 years ago, it took only about ten minutes to drive from my home to the country, to farmland. Now it takes, depending on traffic, 45-60 minutes.

    When I am at home in Portland I can be in the country, on a farm, in about 20-25 minutes. And Portland is much bigger than my hometown. Yes, there is land around Portland, especially to the east, that used to be farmland and no longer is, because cities do grow, but we have tried to act carefully to preserve farm and forest, and keep Oregon beautiful and livable.

    Parent

    Have you been to Houston? (No zoning regs.) (none / 0) (#160)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Feb 25, 2015 at 11:56:29 AM EST
    I spent some time there during a semester hiatus from college (iow, with all my CE/urban planning classes fresh on my mind) and it didn't suck, liveability-wise, imo.

    At least, it didn't suck any worse than any other sprawling western US city that I visited, which included New Orleans, Phoenix, Tucson, Dallas, LA & SF.

    Parent

    I've spent about 24 hours there (none / 0) (#170)
    by CST on Wed Feb 25, 2015 at 01:38:40 PM EST
    Once.  Had some pretty good Tex-Mex downtown.  I thought it was kind of pretty in it's own way.  It certainly wasn't enough time to make any kind of reasonable judgement about the livability.

    Re-reading my previous comment I also want to clarify that the statement that "zoning regulations work" can also be a very very bad thing.  It's a tool that can and has been put to many uses over the years, some of which are intentionally or unintentionally nefarious.  So I didn't mean to imply carte-blanche support for all zoning regulations ever.  Zoning regulations are also one of the major causes of suburban sprawl.  It's just a tool, depends entirely on how you use it.

    Parent

    Yup. (none / 0) (#177)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Feb 25, 2015 at 02:38:12 PM EST


    Parent
    It isn't just zoning (none / 0) (#190)
    by caseyOR on Wed Feb 25, 2015 at 04:56:50 PM EST
    in Oregon. It is that the entire state, through public hearings held for months on end in every county, forced Oregonians to think about and discuss with their neighbors just what kind of place we wanted Oregon to be. And zoning is based on that.

    And we continue to have that discussion because each county revisits and revises its plan, within guidelines set statewide, periodically.

    I am currently in my Illinois hometown. When I left here for Oregon about 40 years ago, it took only about ten minutes to drive from my home to the country, to farmland. Now it takes, depending on traffic, 45-60 minutes.

    When I am at home in Portland I can be in the country, on a farm, in about 20-25 minutes. And Portland is much bigger than my hometown. Yes, there is land around Portland, especially to the east, that used to be farmland and no longer is, because cities do grow, but we have tried to act carefully to preserve farm and forest, and keep Oregon beautiful and livable.

    Parent

    Arquette is getting some blow-back (none / 0) (#111)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Feb 24, 2015 at 02:16:29 PM EST
    due to her comments backstage.

    I'll keep my eyes open for a stampede ... (5.00 / 3) (#121)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Feb 24, 2015 at 04:02:33 PM EST
    ... of outrage that compels Patricia Arquette to walk back her comments. But as of right now and this writing, one single blog post doth not a crescendo make, and as such it hardly constitutes "blow-back." Arquette's remarks reached tens of millions of ears Sunday night, while Blue Telusma can consider herself lucky if her comments are read by ten thousand sets of eyeballs.

    Arquette and most everyone else have clearly moved on since Oscar night. Telusma really ought to do likewise, and resist the urge to file oppressed peoples by category and argue about who's really been the most oppressed. Suffice to say that women, LGBTs and African-Americans can all make a pretty good case against The Man.

    Aloha.

    Parent

    I was made aware of this through a (none / 0) (#124)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Feb 24, 2015 at 04:12:40 PM EST
    friend's FB post. She is a black female and was a writer on a TV show I worked on years ago.

    She just posted this link to another similar WaPo article.

    Parent

    That article goes off the rails (5.00 / 1) (#136)
    by sj on Tue Feb 24, 2015 at 06:38:56 PM EST
    In the same place as your first link.

    "...And it's time for all the women in America, and all the men that love women and all the gay people and all the people of color that we've all fought for to fight for us now!"
    ...
    It's clear that Arquette's notion of "women" refers to straight white women.
    It is no such thing. To me, it is pretty darn clear that Arquette refers explicitly to "all women". It says so right there! In her own words. Quoted in the article.

    I really hate it when some one decides words don't really mean what they express. And in this case, it is so someone can cling to the existing chip on their shoulder.

    Parent

    Yes, I know how you feel. (5.00 / 2) (#137)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Feb 24, 2015 at 06:43:33 PM EST


    Parent
    sorry sb in the Oscars thread. (none / 0) (#113)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Feb 24, 2015 at 02:22:54 PM EST


    Parent
    Hey Congress! (none / 0) (#134)
    by kdog on Tue Feb 24, 2015 at 05:36:12 PM EST
    You gonna let Salman show you up like this?

    We take bribes, right guys? U-S-A!!! C-T-C!!!

    Article from Slate (none / 0) (#202)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Thu Feb 26, 2015 at 09:28:21 AM EST
    on why science doesn't support fetal pain bans

    Dr. Sunny Anand, a professor at the University of Tennessee, is the best-known mainstream proponent of the view that fetuses can feel pain as early as 18 weeks. The pro-life report cites him 25 times. Arizona's fetal-pain ban quotes his work. NRLC and its allies often cite testimony he gave in 2004 and 2005. But Anand tells Belluck that "fetal pain does not have much relevance for abortion, since most abortions are performed before the fetus is capable of experiencing pain." According to the most recent government data (see Table 8), only 3 percent of U.S. abortions were performed at 18 weeks gestation or later, and only 1 percent were performed at 21 weeks or later. Anand says that since 2005, he has turned down further requests to testify in regard to abortion legislation. That's not his focus, he says, and the politicization of his work has "gotten completely out of hand."

    Anand doesn't seem to like these sweeping bans. He tells Belluck that women and doctors should apply their judgment in the context of each case. "In the very few abortions where fetal pain could possibly occur," he adds, we should "consider what can be done to avoid inflicting a lot of pain on the fetus." One option, he notes, is to inject a lethal drug that quietly stops the fetal heart. Many late-term abortionists do precisely that. Another option is anesthesia. It's easy to prevent fetal pain without forcing women to carry their pregnancies to term.
    Does that link not actually (none / 0) (#203)
    by Reconstructionist on Thu Feb 26, 2015 at 10:28:22 AM EST
      offer support for a ban based on pain, just one later than 20 weeks, even if you accept the obvious slant of the article at face value?

      And I really don't see anything "scientific" or even logical about the doc's opinion that because the vast majority of abortions are performed prior to a fetus being capable of experiencing pain to mean laws banning abortion once a fetus can experience pain is "irrelevant." Would not the small percentage of abortions performed after such time suggest it is a fairly easy matter for women to have one before that and the ban on later abortions is a very minimal and reasonable restriction? And should we henceforth establish a regime where no laws may be enacted unless they are designed to prevent harms that affect a large percentage of the population?

      If I was advocating for a law to ban the sale of tainted food would it be a good counter argument to show that because the tainted product comprises only a small percentage of the overall supply it won't harm that many people relative to the total population?

      It would seem unnecessary to point out that precisely because he advocates the use of drugs similar in effect to those used for lethal injection executions to mitigate the pain felt by the persons being put to death that he is tacitly acknowledging that fetal pain is in fact a very real concern. It might be necessary thought to remind you of the substantial opposition to lethal injection based on the fact the drugs have demonstrably not preventd the persons beig executed from experiencing pain. Should we also ignore that because so few (far fewer than are aborted post 20 weeks)are affected?
       

    Try again! (none / 0) (#205)
    by Reconstructionist on Thu Feb 26, 2015 at 11:42:55 AM EST
     Read slowly, then THINK for a bit.

      I was obviously making precisely the opposite point for purposes that seem to go way over your head.

    Sunday Open Thread | 206 comments (206 topical)