home

Friday Open Thread

An exhausting week at work. I'm so glad it's Friday. Here's an open thread, all topics welcome.

< OIG Report on DEA Agents' Sexual Misconduct Allegations | Amanda Knox: Justice At Last in Perugia >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Harry Reid is retiring.... (5.00 / 2) (#12)
    by ruffian on Fri Mar 27, 2015 at 08:37:47 AM EST
    Now THERE is the perfect job for Elizabeth Warren - Senate Minority Leader.

    Make it so.

    Hell yeah! (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Mar 27, 2015 at 08:44:10 AM EST
    Corporate Dems lining up (5.00 / 1) (#78)
    by MO Blue on Fri Mar 27, 2015 at 03:34:09 PM EST
    behind Chuck Schumer.

    Harry Reid Quickly Passes Torch To Chuck Schumer For Democratic Leader

    Dick Durbin Endorses Chuck Schumer For Senate Democratic Leader

    There will be a serious leadership struggle in which a resurgent bloc of conservative Democrats -- who will be called "centrist" no matter what they actually believe and what they're actually willing to do -- will face off against those senators whose nominal leader is Senator Professor Warren. This is perilous at a time in which there is a serious threat to entitlement programs coming from the monkeyhouse on the other side of the Capitol, and at a time in which Evan Bayh, god help us, may consider a return to the Senate. The notion that Chuck Schumer is the odds-on favorite to succeed Reid should chill the bones of anyone in favor of lessening the death grip that the financial services has on our national economy. Charlie Pierce


    Parent
    Ugh. Just what we don't need. (5.00 / 2) (#90)
    by Anne on Fri Mar 27, 2015 at 05:20:09 PM EST
    I'm sure Wall Street and the banks are thrilled at the possibility...

    Yeesh.

    Parent

    No, not Chuckie! (none / 0) (#110)
    by kdog on Sat Mar 28, 2015 at 08:21:42 AM EST
    I apologize in advance on behalf of NY state...I really do.

    Imagine a President Clinton II and a Senate Leader Schumer? F#ck us!

    I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of Financial Services, and to the Republic from which they grift, one mark under oligarchy, excluded, with liberty and justice for 26.9% APR. Void where prohibited.

    Parent

    Her lack of seniority (none / 0) (#14)
    by CoralGables on Fri Mar 27, 2015 at 08:52:17 AM EST
    makes her chances about 1 in a million

    Parent
    That's true. (none / 0) (#71)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri Mar 27, 2015 at 02:27:36 PM EST
    'Tis far better that both she and her Democratic colleagues instead defer to the wisdom and leadership of Chuck Schumer and Dick Durbin.

    ;-D

    Parent

    Probably true, but there is precdent (none / 0) (#94)
    by Molly Bloom on Fri Mar 27, 2015 at 07:26:06 PM EST
    Namely LBJ elected to the senate in 48, seated in 49 and elected minority leader in 53.  Of course, it was not a powerful position then.

    The position of leader, is that of chief nose counter. I am not sure that is Elizabeth Warren's forte.

    Parent

    I worked in it at the state level for years. In addition to rounding up and counting votes, leadership will ultimately determine the caucus agenda, specifically the measures and policies to be supported and pursued.

    (Remember, it's the legislative branch that actually sets public policy, not the executive branch, which can only propose policies or amendments to legislators.)

    If one is majority leader, he or she will also have control over the scheduling of procedural and final votes by the entire body, the referrals of legislation to various standing committees, the appointments of members to those committees, rules regarding the introduction of amendments, and the parameters of floor debates.

    (As the chief legislative analyst to the Speaker of the State House, it was my job to draft bills that were to be part of the Majority's agenda, and to provide support and advice to those committees whose job was to schedule those bills for public hearing, including drafts of proposed amendments. Further, it was my job to schedule bills for Third and Final Reading, so I was the one who literally needed to "count to 26," which was the majority threshold in our 51-member House. If we couldn't rely upon at least 26 members to support its passage, I wouldn't schedule it for a floor vote until we could.)

    Congressional and state legislative caucus leaders are very important individuals in the legislative process. This is especially true with regards to the budget, which is arguably the most important legislation that Congress or a state legislature will pass in any given year, because its contents will frankly determine one's level of commitment to a stated policy.

    If that budget process breaks down for whatever reason, it's up to leadership to find a way to fix it, because they will invariably be blamed for any of its failures.

    Aloha.

    Parent

    Warren says no (none / 0) (#79)
    by MO Blue on Fri Mar 27, 2015 at 03:39:49 PM EST
    Moments after Reid's announcement, liberal activist groups Democracy For America and the Progressive Change Campaign Committee began boosting Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) to succeed him as Democratic leader. But Warren's office told TPM she wasn't interested and "will not" run.


    Parent
    She must (5.00 / 1) (#82)
    by sj on Fri Mar 27, 2015 at 04:06:03 PM EST
    be exhausted, and possibly annoyed, at all the "draft Warren" efforts.

    Parent
    Mariel Hemmingway on Woody Allen (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by Dadler on Fri Mar 27, 2015 at 10:04:09 AM EST
    Speaks for itself. On a personal note, my own father was a visiting college professor when he knocked up my still teenage mother, who was playing the lead in ST. JOAN which my father was brought in to direct. And his current wife is even younger, 25+ years younger, I believe. So it's not like I'm a rookie to this issue personally. (link)

    Hope y'all are doing well. I'm currently hiding from the world, as I am prone to do when I feel creatively dead. Used to lock myself in a closet for hours when I was a kid to escape the madness at home. Installed the lock on the inside of the door myself. Peace.

    Big up yourself... (5.00 / 6) (#27)
    by kdog on Fri Mar 27, 2015 at 10:17:16 AM EST
    don't hide too long my friend, the world is darker when you hide from it.  Or at the very least, the world of Talkleft.

    I've always found the Jamaica sound to be an excellent alleviant of the doldrums.  The bush doctor prescribes a night of Ketchy Shuby with the Mrs.!


    Parent

    Thanks, my friend (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by Dadler on Fri Mar 27, 2015 at 10:21:43 AM EST
    You're a good man. Just the way it is in my screwy head sometimes. At least I'm not in a literal closet as I type this. ;-)  

    Parent
    I miss you. (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by oculus on Fri Mar 27, 2015 at 10:41:54 AM EST
    The figurative ones... (none / 0) (#33)
    by kdog on Fri Mar 27, 2015 at 10:41:56 AM EST
    can be just as stifling.  

    One more musical pick me up, tis Friday after all.

    When you can't find the light,
    That guides you on the cloudy days,
    When the stars ain't shinin' bright,
    You feel like you've lost you're way,
    When those candle lights of home,
    Burn so very far away,
    Well you got to let your soul shine,
    Just like my daddy used to say.

    He used to say soulshine,
    It's better than sunshine,
    It's better than moonshine,
    Damn sure better than rain.
    Hey now people don't mind,
    We all get this way sometime,
    Got to let your soul shine, shine till the break of day.



    Parent
    My grandmother married my grandfather (none / 0) (#37)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Fri Mar 27, 2015 at 10:53:47 AM EST
    At the age of 16, 90 years ago in North Texas, he was 10 years older, and her mother was a widow.

    Parent
    Some nice rhetoric... (5.00 / 2) (#35)
    by kdog on Fri Mar 27, 2015 at 10:49:53 AM EST
    from NYPD commish Bill Bratton...let's hope he's serious.

    Predicting 1,000,000 fewer interactions between cop and citizen in 2015...music to many a NYer's ear!

    Amanda Knox ACQUITTED (5.00 / 1) (#95)
    by Peter G on Fri Mar 27, 2015 at 08:12:06 PM EST
    by Italy's highest court of appeals. I believe this is the end of the road.

    I'm glad they both had their convictions (none / 0) (#97)
    by McBain on Fri Mar 27, 2015 at 10:04:42 PM EST
    overturned.  Is this it, or can the crazy Italian courts try again?

    Parent
    This is it. (5.00 / 1) (#100)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri Mar 27, 2015 at 10:46:45 PM EST
    With this latest ruling, prosecutors can no longer re-indict Knox and her former boyfriend for the crime. They're free to get on with their lives.

    And please don't call other countries' judicial systems "crazy" simply because you don't understand how they work. In many places, such systems pre-date our own existence as a country. And quite frankly, given that some states in our union -- such as Wisconsin and Texas -- allow for the popular election of its judiciary, we really have no business putting on airs.

    Aloha.

    Parent

    Maybe the (none / 0) (#101)
    by lentinel on Fri Mar 27, 2015 at 11:32:47 PM EST
    Italian judicial system isn't, "crazy"...

    but,in my opinion, a legal system such as theirs which allows prosecutors to appeal not guilty verdicts is both nutty and dangerous.

    Parent

    FYI, while most western countries ... (none / 0) (#103)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sat Mar 28, 2015 at 04:05:20 AM EST
    ... forbid a retrial for the same offense once a verdict is considered final or concluded, said verdict is considered final only if there is no appeal filed in accordance with the law. (This is based on the Roman legal concept of ne bis in idem, which means "not twice in the same.")

    That said, the right of appeal by both the defense and the prosecution (in specific instances) is considered an integral part of due legal process in such nutty and dangerous places as Canada, the Netherlands, Germany, Japan, Australia and South Africa.

    And in the United Kingdom save for Scotland, double jeopardy is permitted under certain circumstances per the Criminal Justice Act of 2003. (In Scotland as in the U.S., a directed verdict of acquittal is considered final, per the Double Jeopardy Act passed by the Scottish Parliament in 2011.)

    That's why it's never a good idea to engage in sketchy behavior and risk arrest in another country, where the provisions of our Constitution protecting the rights of individuals caught up in legal proceedings don't necessarily apply.

    In many parts of the world, your fate would rest not in the hands of a jury of your peers, but rather at the discretion of a professional judiciary -- or perhaps a not-so-professional magistrate such as a local warlord, chieftain or the mayor's alcoholic brother-in-law.

    And since it's their country and not yours, what you think about it likely doesn't matter one iota to them.

    Aloha.

    Parent

    I totally (none / 0) (#140)
    by lentinel on Sat Mar 28, 2015 at 06:10:00 PM EST
    agree with what you wrote - and thank you for your clarification.

    I was thinking that, in our own system, as you said, judges are elected... and campaign... oh my god!

    And, in addition, people being held for trial, from what I have read, are sometimes placed in general population so that they can be beaten and/or raped and consequently made more eager to accept a plea bargain - even if they are innocent.

    I don't know of any justice system anywhere that lives up to the standard of equal justice fairly administered.

    Aloha!

    Parent

    More bad behavior from Mike Brown supporters (2.00 / 1) (#129)
    by McBain on Sat Mar 28, 2015 at 03:09:31 PM EST
    http://tinyurl.com/pgoh4n9

    Apparently, a white man was attacked on a train after a black man asked him how he felt about the Mike Brown shooting.  

    Assuming this is true, it adds to the damage caused by Dorian Johnson and co.'s lies.

    And then we have (5.00 / 1) (#132)
    by Zorba on Sat Mar 28, 2015 at 03:22:56 PM EST
    Incidents such as this.

    FENTON * Former Cardinals outfielder Curt Ford said Thursday he may move away from the St. Louis area in disgust after being punched in an allegedly unprovoked, race-related attack at a gas station.

    "I'm going to let the authorities handle this situation, but I've had enough of St. Louis," Ford said in a phone interview Thursday. "You hear about this kind of stuff happening, and I always knew it existed because of my previous experience working here in St. Louis, but you try to keep away from it, and there is just no way you can do that unless you stay inside like a hermit.

    "I just want justice. It's all I want."
                                            <snip>
    St. Louis County police from the Fenton precinct arrested James Street, 37, of the 400 block of Saline Road, a white man who allegedly slugged the black former Cardinals player Wednesday after shouting racial slurs at him and telling him to "go back to Ferguson," the Post-Dispatch has learned.

    "I was sucker-punched, blindsided," Ford said. "I was walking into the store and hit from my blind side."




    Parent
    but also this (5.00 / 2) (#133)
    by The Addams Family on Sat Mar 28, 2015 at 03:26:40 PM EST
    from your link:

    Condemnation of the beating has spread across social media, including from people who protested the shooting of Brown last year by a white police officer in Ferguson, Missouri.


    Parent
    "Lies" - heh (5.00 / 1) (#137)
    by Yman on Sat Mar 28, 2015 at 05:15:26 PM EST
    You think that because the grand jury didn't indict Wilson that means that DJ and "others" were "lying".

    That's funny.

    OTOH - the only witness we know was lying was Witness 40.

    Parent

    What makes them Brown supporters (none / 0) (#135)
    by nycstray on Sat Mar 28, 2015 at 03:48:43 PM EST
    vs iPhone (or whatever kind of cell phone) supporters? Dudes were looking to stir up some sh!t, plain and simple. Any regular subway rider has seen the type . . . .

    Parent
    The eighteen minute gap... (2.00 / 2) (#171)
    by thomas rogan on Sun Mar 29, 2015 at 12:36:04 AM EST
    From March 28 Wall Street Journal

    By BYRON TAU
    March 28, 2015 1:22 p.m. ET
    221 COMMENTS
    WASHINGTON--Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's emails from her time in government were deleted off her server late last year, her attorney said on Friday.

    Responding to a subpoena from a congressional committee investigating the Benghazi attacks, attorney David Kendall said Mrs. Clinton's email server no longer contained any records from her time in office and declined to submit it to a third-party for review and analysis.

    "There are no hdr22@clintonemail.com emails from Secretary Clinton's tenure as Secretary of State on the server for any review, even if such review were appropriate or legally authorized," Mr. Kendall said, referring to the email address Mrs. Clinton used.

    Baa waa waa (5.00 / 1) (#176)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Mar 29, 2015 at 06:52:10 AM EST
    The keystone kops are screeching again.

    They need to read Aesop's Faebles and learn about the boy who cried wolf.

    Parent

    The gap of logic ... (5.00 / 2) (#177)
    by Yman on Sun Mar 29, 2015 at 07:14:17 AM EST
    ... and evidence offered by those pushing these claims is far more than 18 minutes.

    Parent
    There is absolutely (none / 0) (#178)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Sun Mar 29, 2015 at 07:55:36 AM EST
    no evidence of a cover-up, because there was nothing to cover-up in the first place.

    Parent
    And furthermore.... (1.75 / 4) (#190)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Mar 29, 2015 at 03:33:02 PM EST
    Your Presi...ooops...Secof State is not a crook!

    lol

    Parent

    Jim (5.00 / 2) (#191)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Mar 29, 2015 at 03:50:58 PM EST
    you've been shopping that line forever and it's become a punchline. We all know you are mad at her because she was one of the lawyers on the Nixon Impeachment Council. Wolf, boy that cried.

    Besides you wouldn't recognize a liar if they hit you in the face. See Bush, George W.

    Parent

    The only gaps I see here ... (4.67 / 3) (#173)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sun Mar 29, 2015 at 01:14:53 AM EST
    ... are the chasms between the ears of those Republicans who've apparently decided to stop flogging the dead horse named Benghazi, and instead break out the cardiac defibrillator.

    And let's please stop comparing the GOP's ham-handed attempt at manufacturing controversy here to the actual Watergate scandal, i.e. "The eighteen minute gap." By doing so, all you're underscoring is your general ignorance about both.

    :-|

    Parent

    Maybe (none / 0) (#3)
    by jbindc on Fri Mar 27, 2015 at 04:56:18 AM EST
    City living ISN'T what many people want after all

    During the housing bubble, Americans moved in droves to the exurbs, to newly paved subdivisions on what was once rural land. Far-out suburbs had some of the fastest population growth in the country in the early 2000s, fueled by cheap housing and easy mortgages. And these places helped redefine how we think about metropolitan areas like Washington, pushing their edges farther and farther from the traditional downtown.

    In the wake of the housing crash, these same places took the biggest hit. Population growth in the exurbs stalled. They produced a new American phenomenon: the ghost subdivision of developments abandoned during the housing collapse before anyone got around to finishing the roads or sidewalks.

    These scenes and demographic trends left the impression that maybe Americans had changed their minds about exurban living. New Census data, though, suggests that eight years after the housing crash, Americans are starting to move back there again.

    The fledgling trend, captured in data through 2014, raises questions about whether American preferences for where and how to live truly changed much during the housing bust, or if we simply put our exurban aspirations on hold. At the same time, the shift calls into question a parallel and popular narrative: that Americans who once preferred the suburbs would now rather move into the city.

    Demographic data over the last three years have tentatively supported this argument, with implications for the type of housing Americans want (smaller homes over large McMansions), the type of communities they prefer ("walkable" over car-dependent ones), and where developers should plan to build. The evidence: From 2011 until 2013, dense counties at the center of large metropolitan areas in the U.S. saw faster population growth than the exurbs, a fact cheered by city-lovers as a sign that urban living was on the rise again.

    The updated Census county population estimates released Thursday, though, show that the exurbs are now again growing faster than more urban places, according to Brookings Institution demographer William Frey.




    gas is cheap right now (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by CST on Fri Mar 27, 2015 at 09:51:45 AM EST
    Housing is cheaper the further you are outside the city.

    People still don't have a lot of money.

    But I kind of reject the notion that we should plan our built environment based solely on where people choose to live under the conditions that exist today.  If housing was cheaper and more plentiful in urban areas would people be moving there instead?  These aren't the same conditions that caused white flight.  Urban areas are expensive now.

    In a world with 7+ billion people and growing, we can't all live in McMansions in the exurbs, even if we wanted to.

    Parent

    Speaking of "white flight"... (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by kdog on Fri Mar 27, 2015 at 10:10:45 AM EST
    I see the opposite here, let's call it "broke flight".  Low income people fleeing the high cost of gentrification, moving to the less expensive ghetto suburbs.  While the offspring of the "white flight" generation flock back to the gentrified city.

    Parent
    exactly this (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by CST on Fri Mar 27, 2015 at 10:12:11 AM EST
    Which is why I disagree with the argument that people are leaving the city because they want to.

    They can't afford it.

    Parent

    I agree... (none / 0) (#31)
    by kdog on Fri Mar 27, 2015 at 10:37:44 AM EST
    that is the majority reason...but I'm sure a minority leave for the old reasons (big house, more space, a lawn), as well fleeing all the god damn hipsters! ;)

    Parent
    Yes (none / 0) (#40)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Mar 27, 2015 at 12:23:26 PM EST
    at least here I blieve the county with the most diverse populations is not the city. It's Gwinett County which used to be the ultimate white flight county 20 years or more ago. The county I live in is 25% hispanic and it would be considered the exurbs. Look at the changing demographics of another county Cobb which used to be white flight.

    White flight appears to be a thing of the past these days. People are buying what they can afford as close to work as they can get.

    Parent

    We all can't (none / 0) (#20)
    by jbindc on Fri Mar 27, 2015 at 09:54:54 AM EST
    And don't want, to be crammed into tight cities with millions of people either.

    Parent
    Given an Actual Choice... (5.00 / 1) (#74)
    by ScottW714 on Fri Mar 27, 2015 at 02:54:37 PM EST
    ...rather than a financial need, people would live in the country or in the city.  The burbs is where affordable housing meets the big city wages.

    No one in their right mind would commute the distances they currency do in most suburbs.  Nor would they all choose to live in nearly identical homes as their neighbors.

    The burps would dry up and die if everyone had the means to get what they wanted.  It's a choice as much as driving an Ultima is a choice given all the cars available, they make financial sense, but in reality, they are dream killers.

    I am currently there, if you count Sugar Land as a suburb of Houston, and I find it to be the worse kind of hell.  From 'Lawn of the Month' to 50 versions of Chili's all with people actually waiting to eat there, to d1ckhead neighbors striving to keep up with the other d1ckhead neighbors, to mindless naming of streets that all by chance are more of the less the same name, with maybe 5 different styles of houses for miles and miles.

    I grew up in the country and have always lived in the city, both are infinitely better than the burbs IMO.

    My commute incidentally is the same as it was when I lived downtown.  20 mins, which would be about 5 if I didn't have to deal with the suburbanites living 50 miles from where they work and clogging the freeways for hours.

    That being said, the most recent urban sprawl is basically bringing the suburban theme into the city, which means tearing down everything and putting up rows and rows of town homes on what used to be character filled neighborhoods.  And instead of chilli's it's fushion themed franchises and cookie shops.  IOW, the yuppies are managing to recreate the suburbs in the city. Which mean isolating themselves as much as humanely possible form the very city that supports their lifestyle.

    Parent

    I grew up in the 'burbs, but have (none / 0) (#77)
    by Anne on Fri Mar 27, 2015 at 03:33:26 PM EST
    lived on 5 acres in the country since 1983, and cannot imagine having to live asses-to-elbows with people: we like our privacy.  No one peering over at you on your deck chatting you up when you just want to be left alone.  No one to care if I go get the paper off the driveway in my bathrobe.  I work in the city, I get enough of people and traffic, and all I want when i get home is peace and quiet.

    Parent
    I have neighbors (none / 0) (#83)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Mar 27, 2015 at 04:33:11 PM EST
    that commute 1 1/2 hours to work. Of course if you mention getting light rail they have a meltdown.

    You're right about the suburbs/exurbs. All of my neighbors are all trying to "be somebody" but in reality they're "nobody" just like millions of others. In their desperation they are rude and nobody knows their neighbors. I've never lived in a neighborhood like the one I have now and I hate it. It is full of cliques trying to best other cliques. Ugh.

    Parent

    we may not want to (none / 0) (#24)
    by CST on Fri Mar 27, 2015 at 10:04:50 AM EST
    but most of us could.

    Parent
    Apparently, a majority of millenials want to... (5.00 / 1) (#185)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Sun Mar 29, 2015 at 12:25:26 PM EST
    live in city centers.

    According to the 2014 Nielsen report "Millennials: Breaking the Myths," 62 percent of millennials prefer to live in the type of mixed-use communities found in urban centers where they can live near shopping, restaurants and work. And 40 percent say they would want to live there in the future.

    This poses a problem in rural states like Iowa, which has long struggled with how to keep young people from leaving for greener pastures outside the state once they've completed their schooling.  One way that's proved somewhat successful in investing in revitalizing city centers.  

    For instance, Des Moines has come a long way in this regard since I left years ago when downtown rolled up the sidewalks after 5pm.  Much has been spent in building housing, amenities and cultural facilities and activities to make living downtown attractive. So much so that its frequently cited as a great place to live and work, and is now drawing young people from out of state.  

    Parent

    Except for those of us (none / 0) (#46)
    by Zorba on Fri Mar 27, 2015 at 12:32:26 PM EST
    who live out in the country, on working farms.
    We produce the food you eat.  If it weren't for the farmers, if most of us moved to the cities, then there wouldn't be food for people.
    And we have 60+ acres, but we live in a small, 75-year-old farmhouse.  Our barn is a whole lot bigger than our house, but it's filled with hay and farm equipment.
    Not the kind of lifestyle that most people want, but somebody has to produce the food.

    Parent
    absolutely (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by CST on Fri Mar 27, 2015 at 12:37:01 PM EST
    I'm in no way talking about farms or even small towns.  Or rural areas in general.  Small towns are often very sustainable.

    And it's also why I said most.

    I just mean that we really can't all afford big houses in the suburbs that take up a lot of space, don't produce anything, and are a large strain on resources.

    Parent

    The thing that bothers many of us (5.00 / 2) (#54)
    by Zorba on Fri Mar 27, 2015 at 12:43:54 PM EST
    out in the country is when a near-by farm is sold to a developer, who then proceeds to build a bunch of McMansions, whose residents then start to complain about the surrounding working farms.  The smells, the noise of the animals and the farm equipment, the fertilizers being put on the the fields (usually manure, which adds to any smells), the slow tractors driving down "their" roads while the farmer is going from one field to another, etc.
    It annoys the heck out of us.  What did these people expect when they moved out to "the country" next to farms?  That we would maintain these farms as some kind of bucolic parks that they could feast their eyes on?
    Enough nuisance lawsuits occurred against the farmers, that the county passed a "right to farm" bill.

    Parent
    Longtime... (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by kdog on Fri Mar 27, 2015 at 12:48:16 PM EST
    city neighborhood people have similar gripes...the gentrifiers come, and then bitch about the sounds and smells of the neighborhood they chose to move to.  

    Until all the longtime neighborhood people are totally priced out, that is.

    Parent

    One thing that helps out here is that (none / 0) (#56)
    by Zorba on Fri Mar 27, 2015 at 12:52:39 PM EST
    the county does not base our property taxes on the value of the fancy houses nearby.
    Working farms get a property tax break.  If we didn't, many farmers would not be able to afford their property taxes.

    Parent
    Let's hope that doesn't change... (none / 0) (#59)
    by kdog on Fri Mar 27, 2015 at 01:05:38 PM EST
    and the county doesn't get visions of more McMansions and more tax revenue dancing in it's head.

    Parent
    Here (none / 0) (#63)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Mar 27, 2015 at 01:15:45 PM EST
    they have found out that subdivisions are a net tax loss. The bring more children into the school system and drive up road costs but what they pay in taxes doesn't nearly cover the costs they incur.

    The thing now is these live and work neighborhoods.

    Parent

    Opposite here... (none / 0) (#64)
    by kdog on Fri Mar 27, 2015 at 01:20:17 PM EST
    the property tax rates are ridiculous in the ritzier McMansion burbs...it's like a 2nd mortgage just to pay the damn taxes.

    My ghetto burb has some of the lowest property taxes around, and they're still 6 grand a year.  My sister's ritzier burb are like 15 grand...insane!

    Parent

    Boston and NY are very similar (none / 0) (#65)
    by CST on Fri Mar 27, 2015 at 01:32:27 PM EST
    The rich established burbs will remain rich and established.  But you need more money than god to live there.  Same with the rich parts of the city.  Just a matter of preference.

    For the rest of us - it's a tough balance between where we want to live and where we can afford to live.

    The best thing I got going for me right now is a great neighborhood with a bad reputation, and a landlord who hasn't raised my rent in years.  But people are definitely starting to catch on.

    Parent

    Similar boat... (none / 0) (#66)
    by kdog on Fri Mar 27, 2015 at 01:42:39 PM EST
    I can't remember when the sweetest little old landlady you'll ever meet last raised our rent...and I like my quiet ghetto burb, even though it's got a bad reputation.

    And thank goodness for that bad rap...it keeps the white people (and white people prices/taxes) away;)  In the 4 square blocks around me there are only 3 cracker households, including mine.

    And since we're an hour train outta NYC proper, I think we'll be safe for long awhile.  In fact I see alotta "for sale" signs lately...I think the main reason is the brutal winter we just had is scaring off some of the Central American immigrants that make up the majority of my neighborhood.

    Parent

    I'm in the city proper (none / 0) (#68)
    by CST on Fri Mar 27, 2015 at 02:02:59 PM EST
    It's the Boston equivalent of Queens.  Too close to be safe for long.  It's going the way of Queens and Brooklyn.

    Not too many for sale signs, even after this winter.  If I could buy now I would in a heartbeat though.

    Parent

    Yep... (none / 0) (#69)
    by kdog on Fri Mar 27, 2015 at 02:15:12 PM EST
    you're f*cked for certain pal, it's only a matter of time. :(

    Queens is the new Brooklyn...I was down in Long Island City recently, hardly recognized the place.  Used to hang in LIC a lot back in the 90's, my friend rented studio space there with his band...no broked*ck musicians renting studio space there no more, replaced by luxury condos.

    But the biggest cultural loss in that area was "The Institute of Higher Burnin'" aka 5 Pointz.

    Parent

    I read an article (none / 0) (#72)
    by CST on Fri Mar 27, 2015 at 02:35:00 PM EST
    A few years ago - that once starbucks comes to your neighborhood it's too late.  The tide has turned.  At the time there were zero starbucks in Dorchester.  We now have one.

    Parent
    The NYT informs me part of the Bronx is (none / 0) (#80)
    by oculus on Fri Mar 27, 2015 at 03:43:28 PM EST
    gentrifying. Who'd a thunk that would happen.

    Parent
    Not really surprising. (none / 0) (#88)
    by Zorba on Fri Mar 27, 2015 at 05:14:58 PM EST
    Land is at an extreme premium in New York City, so as more people want to live there, parts of the city that were previously not as "desirable" become gentrified.


    Parent
    Have you driven through the Bronx in the last 20 (none / 0) (#131)
    by oculus on Sat Mar 28, 2015 at 03:20:27 PM EST
    yts.?

    Parent
    Yep (none / 0) (#62)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Mar 27, 2015 at 01:14:07 PM EST
    exact same thing here. Neighbors whine and moan about the smell from the farmers fertilizing with chicken stuff. It's not pleasant but like you say you move next to farm you deal with the consequences.

    I live in one of those neighborhoods that was built on a farm. I did not want to move out here. My husband dragged me kicking and screaming. I'm an Atlanta, Sandy Springs, Dunwoody kind of gal though that's not where we lived before but were a lot closer.

    I talked to one county council person who said a lot of people in the area are mad about the farms being turned into subdivisions and thought they should stay farms and the county council person said do you know a farmer that has 5 million dollars to buy a farm?

    Parent

    No, No, that's where I draw the line. (none / 0) (#73)
    by NYShooter on Fri Mar 27, 2015 at 02:35:01 PM EST
    Cow plops, horse droppings, fine. Pig turds, mule dung, no problem. Sheep offerings, even Alpaca gifts, tolerable.

    But.....Chicken $hit?....NO WAY!!

    Have you ever wandered into a packed, healthy, "working" chicken coop? The lenses in your glasses will melt right out of their frames, man!

    Come on people, farm smells come with the territory. I get that. But, the Good Lord must've been really P.O'd at somebody the day he proclaimed, " let there be chickens, and let them donate their abdominal dreck onto those who deny me, and my holy perfectness."

    "Cluck, cluck," my azz. Gonna vomit just thinking about it.

    Parent

    The really bad smells (none / 0) (#75)
    by Zorba on Fri Mar 27, 2015 at 03:26:58 PM EST
    come from the "factory farmed" chickens where a whole lot of them are stuffed into small cages.  Ugh!  And the poor chickens!
    We never had chickens.  And if you only have a few, for some eggs, it's really not smelly.  But get a bunch of them, and it's bad.
    Our beef cattle were basically free-range, we didn't crowd them into small spaces.  The manure smell really wasn't bad at all, since we would move them from pasture to pasture.

    Parent
    Like 5 miles outside the City... (none / 0) (#81)
    by ScottW714 on Fri Mar 27, 2015 at 03:59:01 PM EST
    ...I went to college in was a place in which the smell of boiled/steamed chickens(to remove their feathers) was almost vomit inducing.

    It never went into he city, but it was always at the edge so whenever you left town or returned, that was the first thing that caught your attention.

    I grew up on a farm, and we had a couple chickens when I was maybe 4.  I remember that smell, there is nothing more disgusting.  And if I had to guess, the very I absolutely hate chicken.

    It smelled so bad, just talking about it makes me sick to my stomach.

    Parent

    Aw, Scott (none / 0) (#89)
    by Zorba on Fri Mar 27, 2015 at 05:16:05 PM EST
    Don't be such a weenie.   ;-)

    Parent
    You know, Zorba, that's exactly ... (none / 0) (#76)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri Mar 27, 2015 at 03:32:29 PM EST
    ... what happened to my paternal grandparents' community in northeastern Illinois, only it was the farmers who eventually split the scene, abandoning their fields to the McMansionites and corporateers.

    Back in the days of their youth, it was known as Wheeling Township, a hardy German-American rural farm community of perhaps 5,000 souls, spread across thousands of acres of rich black soil in northwest Cook County. Today, where they once lived and farmed is best known as the "Village of Northbrook," a very posh Chicago suburb of 35,000 well-heeled residents who will politely demand that you explain what you're doing in their neighborhood, before they call the police.

    But I'll have you know that my family held out and never sold to a McMansion developer. No, ma'am, they had high standards to uphold. And that's why today, what was once the site of the family farm is now the corporate HQ and grounds of Allstate Insurance.

    Because for my grandparents, who were both in their mid-50s at the time they sold to Allstate in 1971, and who had raised a family of six boys on what they earned through truck farming, the multi-million dollar cash offer that was tendered for their acres was probably more money than they could've ever possibly imagined seeing in their lifetimes. Naturally, they took it and ran.

    (Actually, they didn't run. Rather, they moved to a then-small rural town to the northwest called Lake Zurich, located in Lake County, IL -- a region which, thanks to the widened highways and a commuter rail line, has since undergone its own suburban transformation into a metropolitan Chicago dependency. And they sold those acres to McMansionmakers.)

    Meanwhile, Allstate subsequently subdivided their newly acquired Northbrook property into two very large parcels, kept one of them to build their HQ, and sold the other in 1976 to Household Finance (HFC), who proceeded to build THEIR corporate HQ next door.

    And further, the little township airport that was started on a portion of my great-grandparents' farm and was once known as Palwaukee Field (because it was located at the corners of Palatine Rd. and Milwaukee Ave.), has grown and expanded into Chicago Executive Airport, where all the cool kids who live and work in the area today prefer to keep their private jets.

    It's said that nearly everyone has their price, and my father's family was no different. And were my grandparents and their siblings still around, it's quite likely that none of them would recognize what's become of their former home turf.

    My mother sure didn't, when she went back there to visit her former brothers-in-law in 2009.  What was once a narrow two-lane rural road named after my grandmother's family is now a very busy six-lane thoroughfare that's lined with corporate HQs and large hotels on either side, and yet it still retains its now-quaint original name, Sanders Road. Progress, and all that.

    Aloha.

    Parent

    What tends to happen out (none / 0) (#86)
    by Zorba on Fri Mar 27, 2015 at 04:59:10 PM EST
    in the country is, when the farmers die, many of the kids have no interest in farming, so they sell the place.
    Fortunately, on our road, we are zoned agricultural and we're all on wells.  They can't get a perk (in order to put in a septic tank) on less than 5-10 acres, so they would have a real problem putting in a bunch of houses, even if they could get the agricultural zoning changed (which does happen all the time).  They'd still have to figure out where to get all the water, since we're all on wells, too, and the wells have to be well away from the septic fields.
    But what really, really helps is that across the road from us, the land is zoned preservation, because it backs up onto the Appalachian Trail.  So that severely limits how many houses can be built there, anyway.
    It's much worse down the road, lower down the mountain and in the valley, where the usage isn't as restricted.

    Parent
    More than food, Zorba, (none / 0) (#93)
    by Mr Natural on Fri Mar 27, 2015 at 06:49:23 PM EST
    We are net producers of oxygen.

    For the the privilege of doing so, local governments ding us with higher property taxes.

    Parent

    Part of that (none / 0) (#4)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Mar 27, 2015 at 06:50:45 AM EST
    is availability of land. There is land in the exurbs but not in the city.

    And part of it is the shortage of houses and the availability of houses in the exurbs. At least here in metro Atlanta.

    My observation has been that younger couples prefer to live closer in to the city, older people and retirees don't mind the exurbs as much but the commute from the exurbs in Metro Atlanta is absolute h*ll.

    Parent

    I think there's also (none / 0) (#5)
    by jbindc on Fri Mar 27, 2015 at 07:03:37 AM EST
    Younger people want things like the nightlife a city offers, whereas, once people start raising families and getting into middle age they want more housing for their dollar, better schools, more quiet, less crowding, more shopping choices, etc.  

    Parent
    Shopping (none / 0) (#7)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Mar 27, 2015 at 07:16:45 AM EST
    choices are abysmal in the exurbs. And some of the best schools in Atlanta metro are inside the perimeter. No, I'm mostly talking about young families that like the amenities living in the city or on the edge of the city offers like parks etc. I'm not just talking about young single people. Young single people have always liked the city but it's just that more of them are staying there these days it seems than moving to the exurbs. The main thing about the exurbs is housing costs are lower but there also are no jobs in the exurbs.

    Parent
    Exurb vs Suburb (none / 0) (#19)
    by jbindc on Fri Mar 27, 2015 at 09:53:09 AM EST
    Schools are generally better in suburbs vs. cities.  So are shopping choices - especially for things like groceries and household, although you can order that stuff online now. The point us, all the young city dweller bloggers and writers for places like The Atlantic got all starry-eyed about telling us how the a burbs were dying and that cities were the focus and where people wanted to move to.  Turns out - not so much.

    Many people in exurbs / suburbs, if not now, but in the coming years, won't need to worry about "no jobs" being there as telecommuting options are ever expanding.  I mean - who is moving to these suburbs / exurbs that are far out with more land and bigger housing choices? Hint:  it isn't people with minimum wage or entry-level jobs.

    Parent

    Well (none / 0) (#50)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Mar 27, 2015 at 12:39:21 PM EST
    I have to tell you they aren't doing all that well here. Housing prices still are not up to par and people are still upside down in their houses. We're still having foreclosures in my area. Perhaps in some areas of the country it is different.

    Nope, grocery shopping is way worse in the exurbs. You basically get Kroger and Publix, Wal-mart and Target. Anything else you need to drive 20 miles to get. You live in Buckhead and you have all the grocery stores within a few blocks of you--including Trader Joe's and others. Nothing close to that in the exurbs.

    I hate to tell you but there are a lot of low income people out here because they can't afford to drive to jobs that pay better and all the jobs that exist in the exurbs are low paying jobs.


    Parent

    not just Atlanta (none / 0) (#57)
    by CST on Fri Mar 27, 2015 at 12:52:50 PM EST
    The suburbs are getting poorer across the country.

    Link

    Parent

    It's difficult to generalize (none / 0) (#118)
    by Reconstructionist on Sat Mar 28, 2015 at 10:49:34 AM EST
     about what "people" want or to quantify the compromises most people have to make because everything they "want" is unattainable. different people make different choices for different reasons.

      Personally, I hate traffic and commuting-- really hate it. I also really like "the country" and quiet solitude, but not enough to endure an hour commute every day, and the closer burbs here are either generic, cookie cutter subdivisions and though the lots are larger, hardly bastions of solitude or also very pricey (yet similarly "soulless"  in my mind)  

       I preferred to  sacrifice in terms of size of  house and land in order to be  less than 3 miles from my downtown office. A "grand" house in the best neighborhoods that close to work was way beyond my means at the time (and would still be  beyond them 25 years later).

      We bought a 60 year (now 85) old, 2000 sq. ft. house on a 1/4 acre lot that needed a lot of work. It's situated in a quiet residential  neighborhood but one that in its best days was professional middle class, not "upscale.".

      Structurally, the house was and is excellent, but it immediately needed all new wiring a new roof and  had no central air. We are inside the city limits, but it's not an "urban" neighborhood, just pretty close to them. I live at the end of  dead end street and my backyard abuts a large city park with a golf course, tennis courts, swimming pool soccer fields and  woodlands so it seems , especially since the entrance to the park is on the far side well over a mile from my house and the portion near my house is woods.

      At the time I bought, prices in the neighborhood were very low as new buyers were mostly buying in the burbs and many people from the city were moving there too, for the new houses and better schools.

      My house was even lower because of the needed repairs/improvements and the fact it has only a 1 car detached garage. In addition to the roof (which was just done a second time last year) and wiring, over time we replaced all the windows and doors, redid all the trim, completely redid the kitchen, renovated full bath, put in a new EE furnace, finished the basement, added another full bath down there,  did a bunch of littler stuff, all told we've put in well over double the original purchase price over the years).

      We were just married and had no kids when we bought. The only time we thought about selling was when school became an issue. The choices were to move to a better school district or private school. Moving actually would have been cheaper (and for people with more kids much cheaper), but we decided to stay. I like my house, the short commute and I think our neighborhood has more "character" than the cookie cutter subdivisions. But, if I could not have afforded private school, we would have sacrificed and  moved.

      Prices in my neighborhood are still low. I doubt there will ever be a "boom market" here given the age of the houses and the schools. This town has had a pretty stagnant economy. The population of the city has actually decreased and the metro population has grown very little in the last 25 years. Accounting for inflation, the current market value of my house is probably not that much more than the tax  basis, so it has not appreciably contributed to my real net worth.

      We do have younger people move in to the neighborhood, but it seems most of them move on after a few years. This contributes to another problem. People who buy and sell within 5 years seem not to invest in the houses and most of the other houses in the neighborhood have gone downhill over a quarter century. My house was probably the "worst" on my  street when I bought but is now probably the "best." In terms of property value that's not helpful. On the other hand, because the houses are on the small side, we have not experienced the issue of some neighborhoods, where older, large single family homes have been subdivided into rental units which is worse for value and generally.

       Even when we bought the house just out of school, the mortgage and escrow was only about 10% of my and my wife's gross income and beyond the roof and wiring which was built into the mortgage, we've just saved and paid cash for everything since. By the time we retired the mortgage a couple of years ago, the payments were maybe 2%.

       Perhaps, that is a reason I have no sympathy for middle class or upper middle class folks who got in trouble assuming mortgages for expensive houses  that consumed 30% or more of their gross income. It doesn't take a financial whiz to appreciate the risk of doing that. Taking the risk is a choice that they are entitled to make. Having others help pay the cost of that risk becoming reality is unfair to those who made wiser  choices.

       

    Parent

    Breaking on CNN (none / 0) (#6)
    by jbindc on Fri Mar 27, 2015 at 07:04:24 AM EST
    Harry Reid will not run for re-election in 2016.

    Somebody else in DC (none / 0) (#34)
    by Uncle Chip on Fri Mar 27, 2015 at 10:44:28 AM EST
    who should also be considering retirement:

    Congresswoman demonstrates worst parking job ever

    Parent

    Republicans - Religion vs Constitution (none / 0) (#8)
    by MO Blue on Fri Mar 27, 2015 at 07:35:59 AM EST
    This year: Mandatory church attendance.

    An Arizona state senator thinks it is a good idea for the American people.

    State Sen. Sylvia Allen, R-Snowflake, brought it up during a committee meeting Tuesday while lawmakers were debating a gun bill, not religion.

    Allen explained that without a "moral rebirth" in the country, more people may feel the need to carry a weapon. Link

    I do believe a shortened version of her name would be appropriate.

    This woman is (5.00 / 2) (#9)
    by Zorba on Fri Mar 27, 2015 at 07:55:57 AM EST
    dumber than a box of rocks.  (Which doesn't say much about the voters who elected her.)
    Let's call her the Christian Taliban.


    Parent
    Then (none / 0) (#10)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Mar 27, 2015 at 08:02:39 AM EST
    you also have the theocrats in places like here in GA and IN pushing discrimination to gays. It's all just so ugly.

    And I guess that lady forgot my grandmother's saying that you can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink.

    Parent

    There was a demonstration in Dothan (none / 0) (#15)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Mar 27, 2015 at 08:59:12 AM EST
    In support of gay marriage, a really progressive event for around here.  Of course some terrible Christians showed up to do their part.  We all knew they would.  But some Christians showed up to support gay marriage and we're shunned by the support gay marriage group.  Not a lot of trust out there.  The against basic civil rights Christians have out meaned and out nastied evolved Christlike Christians and now it's just scar tissue.

    Parent
    Georgia Religious Liberty Bill in the news (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by MO Blue on Fri Mar 27, 2015 at 10:56:24 AM EST
    How To Kill A Discriminatory `Religious Liberty' Bill: Call The Bluff

    Georgia lawmakers have been quickly advancing their own version of a "Religious Freedom Restoration Act" (RFRA), a bill similar to the pro-discrimination legislation that just became law in Indiana. SB 129 has already passed the Georgia Senate -- having advanced through votes while Democrats were in the bathroom -- but it came to a screeching halt in a House committee on Thursday.

    As in Indiana, proponents of Georgia's bill have tried to argue that it has nothing to do with discrimination. Rep. Mike Jacobs, an LGBT-friendly Republican, decided to test this theory by introducing an amendment that would not allow claims of religious liberty to be used to circumvent state and local nondiscrimination protections. Supporters of the bill, like Rep. Barry Fleming (R), countered that the amendment "will gut the bill." Nevertheless, the House Judiciary Committee approved the amendment with a 9-8 vote, three Republicans joining the Democrats in supporting it.

    Fleming moved to table the amended bill, a motion that passed with 16 votes, making it doubtful the bill will proceed before the legislative session ends. With an exception for nondiscrimination protections, the "religious liberty" bill is likely dead.



    Parent
    Among the opponents of (5.00 / 3) (#60)
    by KeysDan on Fri Mar 27, 2015 at 01:10:37 PM EST
    the  proposed GA Religious Freedom Restoration Act, (aka "Death-rattle Act,")  was Rabbi Joshua Heller, senior rabbi of one of the largest synagogues in Georgia, located in Sandy Springs, a close-in suburb of Atlanta.  Rabbi Heller is also chair of a subcommittee of the Conservative Movement's Committee on Jewish Law.  

    In a masterful guest column in the Atlanta paper (see reporting), the rabbi wrote that he must speak out because "I see a wrong being contemplated in our state in the name of God and of people of faith, and I cannot be silent while that wrong comes to pass."

      "... I know some come with no malice.  Unfortunately, they have been sold not a bill of rights, but a bill of goods."   "Faith sometimes demands being different from the world around us.  My own observance sets me apart in what I eat and how I spend every Sabbath, but I have never protested that the Georgia Bulldogs handle a pig skin on the Sabbath."   "People of faith must reject this law."

    It would provide cover for hatred and discrimination under a false flag of faith.  All are at risk: gay and straight, Christian and Jew."

    The rabbi also pointed out the legislative "shenanigans" surrounding the bill's consideration.  In addition to its passage out of the Senate during a bathroom break, he expressed his concern that when he and others who registered to testify against the bill in the House committee last Tuesday, they were directed to the wrong door, and then denied entry to the woefully undersized hearing room. Some did not get to testify. The rabbi asks, " Can people who act deceptively in the name of faith really call themselves "religious"?  

    Parent

    Yes (none / 0) (#70)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Mar 27, 2015 at 02:17:04 PM EST
    even though many religious leaders were against this bill, Rabbi Heller is the one who took the legislature by suprise. A breakaway Baptist group, a memeber of the Young Repbulicans and many others were against it.

    The stuff going on in GA is a window into the problems the GOP has nationwide. You cannot continue to only cater to the far right and expect to continue to exist as a political party.

    Parent

    Some comedian (none / 0) (#44)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Mar 27, 2015 at 12:28:10 PM EST
    could do a whole show or heck a whole serious of shows from the Gold Dome here in Ga.

    Jacobs I have read comes from Brookhaven which is a gay friendly area of Atlanta.

    Parent

    The amendment to the GA "Religious (none / 0) (#188)
    by KeysDan on Sun Mar 29, 2015 at 03:25:24 PM EST
    Liberty" bill  that called the bluff on proponents who were proclaiming that this was not anti-gay (an amendment not to allow claims of religious liberty to be used to circumvent state and local nondiscrimination laws) resulted in  a tabling since proponents said that would gut the bill, has also revealed another intention of the bill.

    Erick Erickson, a GA resident, right wing talk show host, Fox contributor and virulent anti-gay provocateur, and big supporter of the religious liberty bill has slammed GA Representative Mike Jacobs (R. Brookhaven), author of the amendment, as the man who wants to deny protection to "Christian Business."  

     A not too subtle shift from Religious Business to Christian Business,  and a dog-whistle about Mike Jacobs, who is Jewish.  Moreover, Erickson has been using the metaphor of Judas, betrayal for monied interests.   Yes, indeed,  religious liberty.

    Parent

    As Mahatma Gandhi (5.00 / 4) (#47)
    by Zorba on Fri Mar 27, 2015 at 12:35:06 PM EST
    Once said, when asked what he thought about Christianity:

    "I like your Christ.  I do not like your Christians.  Your Christians are so unlike your Christ."
     

    Parent

    That's really (none / 0) (#17)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Mar 27, 2015 at 09:48:55 AM EST
    unfortunate and not helpful because that is what has been pushing a lot of people into the evangelicals.

    Parent
    Not all churches are behind anti gay movement (none / 0) (#36)
    by MO Blue on Fri Mar 27, 2015 at 10:50:44 AM EST
    In Indianapolis, the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) sent a letter to Pence on Wednesday threatening to cancel its 2017 convention in Indy if he signs the measure into law.

    "Our perspective is that hate and bigotry wrapped in religious freedom is still hate and bigotry," Todd Adams, the associate general minister and vice president of the Indianapolis-based denomination, told The Indianapolis Star.

    Adams said the Disciples of Christ would instead seek a host city that is "hospitable and welcome to all of our attendees."

    The Disciples of Christ has held its annual convention in Indianapolis three times since 1989. Adams expected about 8,000 to attend in 2017. VisitIndy estimated the economic impact at $5.9 million. link

    Also, 7 Entities That May Boycott Indiana Over New LGBT Discrimination Law

    The entities are Yelp, Salesforce, The City of San Francisco, NCAA, Eli Lilly and Company (voiced disapproval), Disciples of Christ and Gen Con.

    Parent

    I think (none / 0) (#41)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Mar 27, 2015 at 12:25:12 PM EST
    Tracy was making the statement that the Christians who do support gay marriage were shunned by the pro gay marriage people.

    Parent
    Yes, I understood Tracy's statement (none / 0) (#45)
    by MO Blue on Fri Mar 27, 2015 at 12:32:11 PM EST
    It was unfortunate. Turning down legitimate support for your cause is not wise IMO.

    Parent
    I agree (none / 0) (#51)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Mar 27, 2015 at 12:41:59 PM EST
    and very sad.

    Parent
    This doesn't make any sense, what's missing? (none / 0) (#49)
    by NYShooter on Fri Mar 27, 2015 at 12:38:55 PM EST
    "Tracy was making the statement that the Christians who do support gay marriage were shunned by the pro gay marriage people."

    Why would people who support gay marriage be shunned by gay marriage people?


    Parent

    It sounded (none / 0) (#52)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Mar 27, 2015 at 12:42:31 PM EST
    like they couldn't get over the fact that they were Christians.

    Parent
    Because... (none / 0) (#53)
    by kdog on Fri Mar 27, 2015 at 12:43:49 PM EST
    nobody has a monopoly on bigotry and prejudice?

    Parent
    It is very possible that some members (none / 0) (#58)
    by MO Blue on Fri Mar 27, 2015 at 12:57:16 PM EST
    Of the group demonstrating for gay marriage have endured various forms of demonization and suffering from from ant-gay Christians.


    Parent
    In Dothan?? Wow (none / 0) (#91)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Mar 27, 2015 at 06:05:26 PM EST
    I know there have been a lot of short term marriages but never a gay one in Circle City.

    Parent
    Which shortened version though? (none / 0) (#11)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Mar 27, 2015 at 08:09:52 AM EST
    Snow from the Hunger Games or self explanatory Flake :)

    Parent
    I was dropping Snow from her name (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by MO Blue on Fri Mar 27, 2015 at 09:01:41 AM EST
    The alternative didn't occur to me. Individually, I view her as more stupid than powerful.

    Although as a group, they seem to be more active in trying to establish a religious state throughout the country.

    Some days I'm glad that I am old. I shudder to think about the possible direction of this country.

    Parent

    You do realize (none / 0) (#21)
    by CoralGables on Fri Mar 27, 2015 at 09:56:52 AM EST
    her name is Allen? She represents a district that includes Snowflake, AZ.


    Parent
    Whoops (none / 0) (#29)
    by MO Blue on Fri Mar 27, 2015 at 10:36:17 AM EST
    No, I did not realize that. I completely misread the article and all I saw was Sen. Snowflake. and thought how appropriate.  

    Parent
    That's why I was confused! (none / 0) (#22)
    by jbindc on Fri Mar 27, 2015 at 09:57:30 AM EST
    Snowflake is jet district, not her name!

    Parent
    My mistake (none / 0) (#30)
    by MO Blue on Fri Mar 27, 2015 at 10:37:20 AM EST
    Although, I still think she should be named Flake.

    Parent
    Airizona already has a US Senator Flake (none / 0) (#39)
    by CoralGables on Fri Mar 27, 2015 at 12:18:03 PM EST
    I guess there is an opening for a State Senator Flake

    Parent
    IMO there are a whole lot of openings for (none / 0) (#42)
    by MO Blue on Fri Mar 27, 2015 at 12:27:07 PM EST
    politicians to be named Flake.

    The competition would be hard to judge with so many qualified contestants.

    Parent

    Bergdahl's possible defense (none / 0) (#43)
    by ragebot on Fri Mar 27, 2015 at 12:27:23 PM EST
    link here

    First time I have seen this.  Not following the chain of command is seldom a good idea.  Not sure how well it will fly.

    So very pleased and relieved to see (5.00 / 1) (#85)
    by Peter G on Fri Mar 27, 2015 at 04:51:32 PM EST
    (in the article linked by Ragebot) that Eugene Fidell is representing Bergdahl. Gene is just a terrific military lawyer, very smart, and a good person, too. The toughest cases should have the best lawyers, just like at the ongoing trial in Boston.

    Parent
    Our hostess... (none / 0) (#61)
    by kdog on Fri Mar 27, 2015 at 01:11:40 PM EST
    might appreciate this one...looks like a buncha Indonesian police could be executed or imprisoned for decades after mass distributing 3.3 tons of reefer and getting all of West Jakarta high as f*ck.

    Jodorosky's Dune (none / 0) (#84)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Mar 27, 2015 at 04:42:15 PM EST
    i can't remember who told me to see this but thank you.  Wow. Amazing.  I had some forgotten that he made El Topo which is in my top ten best ever.  
    If only.....
    I would have paid to see that.

    Fun to think what some films could have been.   That awful Dinosaur movie me and hundreds of others spent years of or life on was, many years before Disney got hold of it, going to be made by Paul Verhoeven and Phil Tippett.  Consider that for a moment compared to the silly saccharine thing Disney produced.

    It looks like (none / 0) (#87)
    by sj on Fri Mar 27, 2015 at 05:04:00 PM EST
    the original script could now be made into a trilogy. Or quadrilogy. That wouldn't have happened in the 70's though.

    I hated David Lynch's version, although I could have gone either way. The tipping point for me, though, was the treatment of the child-Reverend Mother Alia. She was a fascinating character in the book. Not the caricature she was in the movie.

    Parent

    If you love the source material (none / 0) (#92)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Mar 27, 2015 at 06:26:51 PM EST
    you owe it to your self to see this documentary.

    It is equally awe inspiring and heartbreaking to think of a Dune with Salvador Dali, Orson Wells, Mick Jagger, the music of Pink Floyd and Magma and concepts by Moebius and Geiger.

    Parent

    Agreed. (none / 0) (#99)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri Mar 27, 2015 at 10:33:01 PM EST
    David Lynch's Dune was, at best, an inglorious and cringe-worthy cinematic mess. At worst, it was an almost criminal waste of perfectly good celluloid. And for the tons of money that was spent bringing the Frank Herbert novel to the big screen, I thought that the film's special effects were often surprisingly cheap-looking. Everyone who was associated with this project should rightfully be embarrassed by it.

    Parent
    Jodo's thoughts (none / 0) (#104)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Mar 28, 2015 at 07:44:34 AM EST
    on Lynchs Dune are great.  And very interesting.

    Parent
    To expand on that a bit (none / 0) (#106)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Mar 28, 2015 at 08:10:28 AM EST
    he said he was very sad when the De Laurentiis's took the project from them but happy when he heard Lynch would direct. He had great respect for Lynch and his work and thought, as many of us did, that if anyone could do it justice it was David Lynch.
    Then when the film came out he didn't want to go thinking it would be very hard to see the product of the only person besides him who could make a great movie and his son talked him into it.
    So he went and slowly he started feeling better.  ITS AWFUL! ITS A DISASTER!  WONDERFUL!
    This, he explained was not Lynch.  It was was the producers.  He's right.

    Parent
    Jodo isn't the only one who blames (none / 0) (#119)
    by McBain on Sat Mar 28, 2015 at 11:15:16 AM EST
    De Laurentis more than Lynch.  I've heard that from a couple other people as well.  I didn't think it was all horrible.  The first scene when the goth looking dudes wheel the space guild pilot in to see the emperor was pretty cool.  There were a few more decent scenes.... but, overall, it was a mess.

    Even worse, De Laurentis and co. re edited Dune for the TV realease and included a lengthy voice over narration in the opening, trying to explain the complex story.  Lynch wanted nothing to do with that so he had them take his name off the credits.  Usually, when that  happens, the producers list the name "Alan Smithee" as the director.  I don't know who the original Alan Smithee was but whenever you see his name, you know something went horribly wrong.

    Parent

    Alan Smitmee is the (none / 0) (#120)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Mar 28, 2015 at 11:35:49 AM EST
    universal film code for "I don't want to be blamed for this".  Not surprisingly he has a lengthy IMDB list.
    I thought it was pretty dreadful.  The 4 hour extended version was marginally less dreadful except for the long inserts of what were essentially story board frames.  Jodo had the right idea.  A looooog (12-20 hour) movie is what is required.  The SiFi miniseries was better.
    Everyone knew this was not Lynches movie.  He did it only to get the money for Mullholland Dr and other stuff.

    Parent
    Lynch actually dollowed up "Dune" ... (none / 0) (#164)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sat Mar 28, 2015 at 10:12:47 PM EST
    ... with "Blue Velvet," which I consider to be his best film. "Mulholland Drive" came 15 years later.

    Parent
    I think Mulholland Drive (none / 0) (#174)
    by McBain on Sun Mar 29, 2015 at 01:25:00 AM EST
    was his masterpiece but Blue Velvet was great too.  Maybe we already talked about this?  Roger Ebert didn't like BV because of how Isabella Rossalini was treated (gratuitous nudity).  I thought it was an excellent performance.

    On a related note, before directing Dune, Lynch was offered The Return of the Jedi.  I wonder how that would have tuned out?  I thought Jedi was the beginning of the end of Lucas's magic.

    Parent

    We talked about "Mullholland Drive," ... (none / 0) (#187)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sun Mar 29, 2015 at 02:19:05 PM EST
    ... a film which I had to think about for a long while before I decided that I liked it, during a prior discussion about David Lynch's "Eraserhead." It's an ambitious effort, and not necessarily accessible to audiences because of its convoluted onscreen complications. (It was a hoot to see Lynch cast legendary Hollywood actress-dancer Ann Miller as the landlady. She was great.)

    I consider "Blue Velvet" to be a stylish thriller in the very best sense of noir cinema, but its menacing undercurrent of sexual violence and deviance certainly challenges the mainstream sensibilities of American audiences. As you noted, Roger Ebert found the film to be repulsive and further called David Lynch "cruelly unfair to his actors," and to Isabella Rossellini in particular. A friend of mine appreciates Lynch's brilliance in "Velvet," but also calls it a "mindf---."

    Dennis Hopper received an Oscar nomination as best supporting actor for "Hoosiers," the same year that "Blue Velvet" was released (1986). Which was fine, but in the back of my mind, I've always felt that Academy voters sold Hopper's ferocious performance in "Velvet" short that year, because his drug kingpin Frank Booth stands as one of the great screen villains of the modern era.

    Aloha.

    Parent

    Glad you liked it (none / 0) (#96)
    by McBain on Fri Mar 27, 2015 at 09:59:58 PM EST
    I loved seeing the passion he had for his vision.  Dune fans probably wouldn't have approved how he changed several things.... especially the ending... but it would have been a sight to behold.

    I've got El Topo in my netflix queue.

    Parent

    I love that he basically (none / 0) (#108)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Mar 28, 2015 at 08:12:12 AM EST
    gave the book and project to anyone who would make the film.  He is right,  it could easy be done now.  Especially with animation.   If there is a film God it will happen before I die.

    Parent
    "A reward for Iran's noncompliance" (none / 0) (#102)
    by The Addams Family on Sat Mar 28, 2015 at 02:37:16 AM EST
    the editorial board of the Washington Post, that notorious house organ of the Tea Party & other right-wing outposts, quotes nuclear weapons expert David Albright, who asked almost four months ago:
    If Iran is able to successfully evade addressing the IAEA's concerns now, when biting sanctions are in place, why would it address them later when these sanctions are lifted?

    the Post concludes:
    In its rush to complete a deal, the Obama administration appears eager to ignore the likely answer.


    The Washington Post, including their (5.00 / 3) (#115)
    by MO Blue on Sat Mar 28, 2015 at 09:01:00 AM EST
    Editorial Board, has a history. It appears that they have chosen to repeat it.

    In 2003, the Washington Post editorial board -- like many others in the media at the time -- supported the invasion of Iraq and viewed the war as inevitable.
    ...
    According to former Washington Post writer Howard Kurtz, from August 2002 until the invasion in March, there were approximately 140 front-page pieces in the paper making the Bush administration's case for war.

    link



    Parent
    Indeed (5.00 / 1) (#116)
    by Yman on Sat Mar 28, 2015 at 09:20:49 AM EST
    The myth of the "liberal" Washington Post opinion pages.

    Even the DailyBeast called Fred Hiatt's foreign policy views "near neo-con".

    Parent

    since you evidently prefer (2.00 / 1) (#122)
    by The Addams Family on Sat Mar 28, 2015 at 01:03:33 PM EST
    to consider aspersions cast on the source rather than engage with the point being made, note that far-right Politico, under the byline of noted wingnut Michael Crowley, has used such terms as "free fall" (quoting Obama's former ambassador to Iraq) and "meltdown" to characterize the administration's ME policy

    Parent
    It's an OPINION piece (5.00 / 3) (#125)
    by Yman on Sat Mar 28, 2015 at 01:48:00 PM EST
    The biases and credibility of the source are always an issue - and I wasn't responding to your main point (or your post) because it didn't interest me.  Your insinuation about the WP editorial board, OTOH, was downright funny.

    BTWE - I have a lot of respect for Albright's opinion (and credibility), but he wasn't endorsing the WP's broader points - and I give the WP's opinions about as much weight as I give yours.

    Parent

    i weep sad tears (2.00 / 1) (#126)
    by The Addams Family on Sat Mar 28, 2015 at 02:19:32 PM EST
    i so desired your approbation

    Parent
    Apparently (5.00 / 3) (#127)
    by Yman on Sat Mar 28, 2015 at 02:27:56 PM EST
    You were the one who decided to respond to my post with a silly, straw argument.

    They don't work so well, huh?

    Parent

    since you want to make this all about (3.50 / 2) (#166)
    by The Addams Family on Sat Mar 28, 2015 at 10:39:19 PM EST
    the Washington Post, i wonder if you know about Jason Rezaian, the Post's bureau chief in Tehran

    this piece appeared in the Post on the same day as the "War with Iran" op-ed you linked to downthread:

    Rezaian, the American-born Tehran bureau chief for The Post, and his Iranian wife were taken captive by Iran's Revolutionary Guard Corps in July, and he remains in custody after spending most of the past eight months in isolation and without access to medical care or a lawyer. The Iranian regime hasn't explained what he's being charged with, and no wonder: Jason Rezaian's only crime is being an American journalist. . . . The sad irony is that Iran's treatment of Rezaian reinforces the caricature and cements Iran's status as a rogue state that mocks human rights and ignores its own laws. U.S. officials are no doubt raising Rezaian's case as they sit down in Geneva this weekend for nuclear negotiations with Iran. There's every reason to link Rezaian's case to the nuclear talks because it calls into question whether Iran's elected leaders, the executive branch with which U.S. officials are negotiating, can be reliable partners if they have no control over Iran's ayatollahs and their Revolutionary Guard. Iran's elected leaders seemed as surprised as U.S. officials were that Rezaian had been taken prisoner, and Iran's foreign minister, Mohammad Javad Zarif, has said he hopes Rezaian will be cleared. . . . hopefully Iran's elected leaders will have the courage to insist on Rezaian's release. Otherwise, it's difficult to see how they get sufficient credibility to secure a nuclear deal, or anything else. And the Iran that Rezaian tried to bring into the world will remain a pariah.

    i would say that the Post has more than a little skin in the game, & reason to know more than a little about the fundamentalist theocrats running Iran

    on a personal note, i have been a customer several times at the rug store in Marin County that was operated by Rezaian's father

    Parent

    The OpEd in the Washington Post (5.00 / 4) (#170)
    by MO Blue on Sat Mar 28, 2015 at 11:51:18 PM EST
    War with Iran is probably our best option

    Does this mean that our only option is war? Yes, although an air campaign targeting Iran's nuclear infrastructure would entail less need for boots on the ground than the war Obama is waging against the Islamic State, which poses far smaller a threat than Iran does.
    Wouldn't an attack cause ordinary Iranians to rally behind the regime? Perhaps, but military losses have also served to undermine regimes, including the Greek and Argentine juntas, the Russian czar and the Russian communists.

    Wouldn't destroying much of Iran's nuclear infrastructure merely delay its progress? Perhaps, but we can strike as often as necessary. Of course, Iran would try to conceal and defend the elements of its nuclear program, so we might have to find new ways to discover and attack them. Surely the United States could best Iran in such a technological race.
    ...
    Nonetheless, we might absorb some strikes. Wrenchingly, that might be the price of averting the heavier losses that we and others would suffer in the larger Middle Eastern conflagration that is the likely outcome of Iran's drive to the bomb....

    Do you really want to justify this position?

    Parent

    ridiculous (3.50 / 2) (#172)
    by The Addams Family on Sun Mar 29, 2015 at 01:02:50 AM EST
    where did you pull that idea from? or are you just deliberately being dishonest now?

    you're the one who posted the "War with Iran" link, so should i assume that it represents your point of view?

    i'll do that - by your own logic, i should understand that the op-ed does speak for you, since in your through-the-looking glass world i am an apologist not only for the Washington Post itself but also for whatever random ideas you've decided to read into the editorial that i linked to, regardless of what that editorial actually says

    in fact, however, the editorial raises the question of whether the lying theocratic mullahs of Iran can be trusted to limit their nuclear program to peaceful purposes once sanctions are lifted

    it's a good question, & no one knows the answer, which is just one reason why there is no small amount of agita across the political spectrum

    i called attention to the fact that the editorial was published in the Post to prevent some of the more rigid, ideologically puritanical, logically challenged characters who frequent TL from being able to dismiss the editorial as right-wing propaganda such as we see from Fox & related sources (a favorite way of some around here to deflect an unwelcome question, or fact)

    well, a lot of good that did, but lesson learned

    i see now that it would have been easier for a camel (since we're speaking of the Middle East) to go through the eye of a needle than for me to have descried the surpassingly narrow range of sources now considered kosher (excuse my language; maybe i should have said halal) by an ideological puritan

    Parent

    I see you are still trying to promote (5.00 / 2) (#175)
    by MO Blue on Sun Mar 29, 2015 at 03:12:42 AM EST
    the Washington Post Editorial Board as creditable and have now decided you have to resort to strawmen, distortions and insults to try and support your agenda.

    Your very rigid view that the Post Editorial Board is somehow the standard for accurate reporting and does not promote a neocon agenda on various issues is not supported by facts.

    I doubt that you will allow actual facts to deter you from your agenda but here are a few:

    The Editorial Board and WaPo columnists have a long history of promoting U.S. Military action in the M.E. They sold the war in Iraq, argued for three simultaneous wars -- in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan. advocated for U.S. Military involvement in Syria and  feature articles  promoting war in Iran.while their board is criticizes the negotiations.

    It is no accident that they published the OpEd titled

    War with Iran is probably our best option

    You might want to notice that the actual title is War with Iran is probably our best option. and not "War with Iran."It is an OpEd promoting war between the U.S. and Iran. It is part of "The selling of a war version 2.0."

    Some of the not so accurate or objective views of the Washington Post Editorial Board and their staff columnists::

    Came out in full support of the invasion of Iraq, stated Colin L. Powell's presentation to the United Nations Security Council proved without a doubt that Iraq possesses weapons of mass destruction, defended Dick Cheney's statements linking Iraq and September 11.

    O]n August 14th, 2004, the Post editorialized that, "Mr. Bush's sympathizers are right that Social Security privatization could reduce long-term deficits, and right that the nation should not be deterred by the transition costs."
    ...
    "Privatization could also stimulate economic growth, boosting tax revenues and so strengthening the nation's fiscal prospects via a second route." They continued, "Private accounts would boost national savings" thus "savings would become more plentiful," which, in turn, would "stimulate extra corporate investment and growth."

    Post's  editorial endorsements of John Roberts and Samuel Alito,  David Broder praised President Bush's response to Katrina and  Post columnist, Gerson has continued to advance his pet cause (that would be war, of course). In an April 2008 column, he argued for three simultaneous wars -- in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan.

     How many of WaPo opinions above do you support? Which ones are creditable?

    Parent

    Is it possible to consider that the (5.00 / 2) (#179)
    by Anne on Sun Mar 29, 2015 at 09:51:12 AM EST
    reporting side and the editorial side of the Washington Post - or any newspaper, really - are two different worlds, and that what is expressed on the editorial side, in this case by someone who has apparently never met a war he didn't want to wage, may bear no relation to what is appearing in the rest of the paper?

    If memory serves, Dana Priest wrote some of the most anti-war, anti-administration pieces for the WaPo, including breaking the black-site prisons story.  

    That her reporting appeared in the same paper whose editorial board carried the administration's water ought to be proof of the disconnect between these two sides of the paper.

    My point, I suppose, is that you and Blue seem to be having an apples/oranges food fight, and it's possible, i think, that you're both right.  I could be wrong - I'm sure one of you will let me know if I am!

    Parent

    I think you are right that (5.00 / 1) (#180)
    by MO Blue on Sun Mar 29, 2015 at 10:04:04 AM EST
    reporting side and the editorial side of the Washington Post - or any newspaper, really - are two different worlds.

    The discussion was about the Washington Post's Editorial Board who published  "A reward for Iran's noncompliance" and as stated "he editorial board of the Washington Post, that notorious house organ of the Tea Party & other right-wing outposts," the OpEds published on their opinion pages and other opinion pieces
     

    Parent

    Call a spade a spade (5.00 / 1) (#181)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Sun Mar 29, 2015 at 10:05:52 AM EST
    Fred Hiatt is a neocon, not a Tea Partier.

    Parent
    Posted too soon (none / 0) (#183)
    by MO Blue on Sun Mar 29, 2015 at 10:50:56 AM EST
    See comment below.

    Parent
    I think you are right that (5.00 / 1) (#182)
    by MO Blue on Sun Mar 29, 2015 at 10:50:05 AM EST
    reporting side and the editorial side of the Washington Post - or any newspaper, really - are two different worlds but I do not agree that was the discussion taking place. I have reviewed the comments made and none referred to reporters such as Dana Priest.

    The discussion was about the Washington Post's Editorial Board who published  "A reward for Iran's noncompliance" and its creditability on the matters of war and military intervention in the M.E.

    Their editorial board has a history of supporting war in the M.E. Their Editorial Board, the OpEds and opinion pieces published on their opinion pages such as "War with Iran is probably our best option" which promoted war with Iran are examples of their current agenda.

    The offshoot discussion revolved around whether or not there is an effort to promote war with Iran. I believe that there is. Editorials and opinion pieces  in the Washington Post and the NYT are doing precisely that. Republican members of Congress are promoting regime change and advising that we bomb Iran immediately.

    Also, the Washington Post's editorial board and opinion pages are not an example of liberal media. They have supported the war in Iraq, called for concurrent wars in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan, military intervention in Syria and are now against negotiating with Iran and are publishing calls for war in the OpEd. They have defended Cheney's claim of a connection between Iraq and 9/11. On the domestic front they have endorsed Roberts and Alito, praised Bush on his handling of Katrina, supported privatizing SS and called for reduction of the minimum wage.

     

    Parent

    I didn't say it was the discussion taking (5.00 / 1) (#198)
    by Anne on Sun Mar 29, 2015 at 05:53:31 PM EST
    place, it just seemed to me that you're saying that because the WaPo's editorial board is war-hungry, nothing that comes out of the reporting side can be trusted or believed.  Are you also saying that the editorial side is now influencing the reporting side?

    If I were to take your logic to the next level, wouldn't I have to dismiss Dana Priest's reporting on black site prisons as being less than credible because the editorial board was fully invested in carrying the Bush administration's water?

    My suggestion would be to ignore what Fred Hiatt is saying on the editorial pages of the Post, and concentrate on the content of the actual reporting of what's happening on the ground, so to speak.  I don't know any other way to try to ferret out the truth - or something close to it - other than to not filter the reporting through the lens of the editorial board.

    Parent

    Exactly (5.00 / 3) (#203)
    by Politalkix on Sun Mar 29, 2015 at 06:59:23 PM EST
    I will also say that it would be a mistake to tar every article published in the WaPo on Iran because of some of its editorial history relating to the Iraq war. That would be painting with too broad a brush.

    Having said that, I would also disagree with a fundamental unstated (but implied) premise of The Addams Family-that somehow nukes in the hands of Ayatollahs in Iran are more dangerous than nukes in the hands of Tom Cotton, Ted Cruz, Bibi Netanyahu, Naftali Bennett Avigdor Lieberman, Aryeh Deri, Yaakov Litzman, Putin or Pakistanis or North Koreans.

    It is not 1979 anymore. Though the country is still a theocracy, religious fervor is slowly dying in Iran. More engagement with Iran will make the country more progressive because the young people (atleast in urban Iran) like America and western Europe. They can make a movie about Prophet Mohammed in Iran which they cannot do in Sunni Islamic countries that are supposedly our allies and even Ayatollah Khomeini's grandson can meet a director who has made a movie that gives a say to people who were close to the deposed Shah of Iran  (something similar would never be allowed in Saudi Arabia). Even some of the religious clergy in Iran (Khatami, Rafsanjani, Rouhani) are hardly the rrligious nutjobs that the Addams Family would have us believe.
    Sadly, religious fervor has increased manifold in Israel and America. It is not 1979 anymore. The leftist parties do not run the show in Israel anymore and a large segment of the population in America have an apocalyptic vision of the future. I would not trust leaders in America or Israel to handle nukes any better than the Ayatollahs when they are elected primarily by people who think that the President is the anti-Christ or the Seventh King or Haman, etc. link, link.

    Iran is also fighting ISIS. The Addam's Family's attempts to conflate ISIS, Iran, Sunni, Shia, jihadists, etc into one scary and monolithic group is therefore laughable and deserves ridicule. Iran does not have nukes and negotiations between world powers are Iran are occurring to make sure that they never do. However, many of the countries that have them are already being run by crazy people or in danger of being run by crazy people. That is no less scary than Iran having nukes.


    Parent

    One question that may seem like a (none / 0) (#184)
    by Anne on Sun Mar 29, 2015 at 11:55:40 AM EST
    non sequitur, and is entirely due to the grammar/usage monkey that lives in my head, but are you using the word "creditable" in place of or as a synonym for "credible?"  

    The adjective credible means believable, worthy, or trustworthy. (Incredible means unbelievable or extraordinary.)

    The adjective creditable means worthy of praise or credit.

    The adjective credulous means gullible or easily fooled--tending to trust or believe too readily. (Incredulous means skeptical.)

    Something tells me you are speaking to the WaPo's believability, not whether it is worthy of praise.

    Apologies if this seems nit-picky.  

    Parent

    exactly (2.75 / 4) (#197)
    by The Addams Family on Sun Mar 29, 2015 at 05:32:15 PM EST
    what is expressed on the editorial side . . . may bear no relation to what is appearing in the rest of the paper

    i wanted to share a perspective on the question of whether the fundamentalist theocratic ayatollahs of Iran can be trusted with nukes

    Christine, Jim, & FlJoe engaged with that question

    others immediately impeached the question's (secondary) source, which is to say that they reflexively clutched their pearls at the effrontery of anyone's raising such a question at all - teh horror!

    if you're interested, you can pick Christine's, Jim's, & FlJoe's on-topic comments out of the food-fight debris

    Parent

    You (5.00 / 3) (#204)
    by FlJoe on Sun Mar 29, 2015 at 07:05:06 PM EST
    keep getting the question wrong it is not:  
    whether the fundamentalist theocratic ayatollahs of Iran can be trusted with nukes
    of course not!  The whole point of this deal is to prevent that from happening, so any inference that we are ceding nukes to the ayatollahs is pure straw.

    Sure there are legitimate questions about trusting the Iranians, even more importantly about the verifications and safegauards that will be included in the final deal.

    When you really think about it we are giving up virtually nothing. Even if we immediately start phasing out sanctions the benefits will not accrue to Iran for months if not years giving us plenty of time to evaluate their compliance before they gain much of anything.

    I just don't get all the hand wringing, by diplomatic standards we won. We put harsh sanctions on them to force them to the table and it worked. Of course there is always an element of "doubt" baked into the cake and the devil is in the details but it is hard to see us and our P+5 partners getting a raw deal.

    Parent

    got it (2.00 / 1) (#123)
    by The Addams Family on Sat Mar 28, 2015 at 01:12:56 PM EST
    the Washington Post supported the invasion of Iraq 12 years ago, & therefore nothing that a seasoned nuclear expert has to say about the pending deal with Iran can possibly make any sense at all

    impeccable logic - thanks for sharing

    Parent

    I'm only too happy to share with you (5.00 / 2) (#130)
    by MO Blue on Sat Mar 28, 2015 at 03:16:24 PM EST
    facts that show when it comes to advocating for war, Washington Post Editorial Board has a history of being less than creditable. ;-(  Here is one of their brilliant assessments from 2003.

    "After Secretary of State Colin L. Powell's presentation to the United Nations Security Council yesterday, it is hard to imagine how anyone could doubt that Iraq possesses weapons of mass destruction," read a Washington Post editorial on Feb. 6, 2003.

    That was a small sample of the "impeccable logic" used by the Washington Post Editorial Board.

    It was very easy to doubt that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction and Colin Powell's presentation was easily debunked by anyone who wanted to present actual facts to dispute the fantasy (otherwise known as lies) that he presented to the UN.

    The Washington Post helped sell the invasion of Iraq to gullible people who read their Editorial Board's one sided opinion pieces that cherry picked and distorted pieces of information.


    Parent

    granted (2.00 / 1) (#134)
    by The Addams Family on Sat Mar 28, 2015 at 03:27:41 PM EST
    & therefore nothing that a seasoned nuclear expert has to say about the pending deal with Iran can possibly make any sense at all

    as i said: got it

    Parent

    Albright said quite a bit that wasn't (5.00 / 3) (#136)
    by MO Blue on Sat Mar 28, 2015 at 03:51:32 PM EST
    included in the Editorial Board's one side piece. Included in his testimony was a statement that "an adequate agreement is possible and within reach of the United States and its negotiating partners."

    More wisdom from the WaPo:
    You'd have to be a "fool" or a "Frenchman" to disagree with Powell's assertions, according to [Richard] Cohen. [George] Will added that such foolishness would require the closed mind of a conspiracy theorist.

    Being skeptical of the neocon opinions of Washington Post's Editorial Board seems like sound policy to me.  They have proven that they are very good at selling wars to the gullible.

    Parent

    yes, Albright did say that (3.00 / 2) (#139)
    by The Addams Family on Sat Mar 28, 2015 at 05:55:17 PM EST
    & i hope he is right

    he also said this:

    Despite some progress in the negotiations, much reportedly remains to be settled. The primary goal of a comprehensive solution is to ensure that Iran's nuclear program is indeed peaceful, against a background of two decades of Iran deceiving the IAEA about its nuclear programs, including military nuclear programs. This long history of deception and violations places additional burdens on achieving a verifiable long term agreement, including the need for any agreement to last for about 20 years.

    i repeat the Washington Post's citation of Albright's question from his testimony of 3 December 2014:

    If Iran is able to successfully evade addressing the IAEA's concerns now, when biting sanctions are in place, why would it address them later when these sanctions are lifted?

    it's an eminently sane question & has nothing whatsoever to do with conspiracy theories, nor are Albright's concerns limited to the confines of the right wing, or even to the Republican Party

    but i see your Media Matters and raise you a Guardian (presumably a source pure enough for you):

    The draft understanding, according to diplomats at the talks, is two or three pages long and lays down the outline of a much more detailed and technical agreement that is due to be completed by the end of June. It is thought to include a ceiling for Iran's uranium enrichment capacity, tentatively agreed at 6,000 centrifuges, and a limit for its stockpile of low enriched uranium. It would also specify a timetable for the lifting of sanctions and the duration of the restrictions on the Iranian programme, thought to be between 10 and 15 years.

    well, i guess 10 years is "about 20 years," as Albright recommended

    i guess 15 years is also "about 20 years"

    12.5 years, which is right smack in the middle "between 10 and 15 years," is also "about 20 years," i suppose

    we'll all see what happens, won't we?

    Parent

    Washington Post (5.00 / 1) (#142)
    by MO Blue on Sat Mar 28, 2015 at 06:47:28 PM EST
    Editorial Board is in the business of selling military action throughout the M.E.

    Cmdr. Daniel Dolan, USN (Retired):

    The No Deal crowd offers only increased sanctions against Iran, but other than that there is little in the way of a rational theory of victory. No one in this bunch has adequately explained why more sanctions will work now, when they haven't worked for the past 35 years. Where do the No Deal proponents see this leading? Consider the fact that Iran has come further out of its box to engage with the Western world with the P6 talks than ever before. By slamming the door in its face, the "No Deal" spoiler option will only leave Iran humiliated and rejected.

    You don't need to be Nostradamus to predict the likely course of events if the No Dealers get their wish. First, Iran will give the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) inspectors, who are currently working in Iran, a one-way ticket home. Feeling further isolated and threatened, Iran is more likely to intensify efforts on its nuclear program. Israel, or the United States, will therefore be more likely to take military action when "red lines" are reached. And when the punitive airstrikes begin the United States will find itself at war with a nation of 90 million people in the largest geographic area since WWII. Many really well-informed people say such a war would cost a lot, and take a very long time to resolve.

    The Deal crowd's theory of victory includes maintaining the current IAEA verification program, and probably strengthening it. Iran's nuclear activities remain frozen in place, and its highest levels of enriched materials will reportedly be shipped to a neutral country for safekeeping. Although the details are still pending, the deal is reported to buy at least a 10 year moratorium on Iran's nuclear program.

    The neocons, with the aid of the Washington Post and their supporters,  are replaying the selling of a war.

    Parent

    & others, in my view, (3.00 / 2) (#144)
    by The Addams Family on Sat Mar 28, 2015 at 07:17:46 PM EST
    are propagating a false (imo) dichotomy of either this deal or war

    Parent
    What do you mean "THIS deal"? (5.00 / 1) (#150)
    by Yman on Sat Mar 28, 2015 at 08:00:01 PM EST
    No one is talking about the specific terms of "this deal", because there is no "this deal".  The terms are being negotiated and no one (apart from the people in the room) even knows what "this deal" means.

    Parent
    let me rephrase for you (3.50 / 2) (#153)
    by The Addams Family on Sat Mar 28, 2015 at 08:16:59 PM EST
    & for anyone who may have suffered momentary confusion due to your attempted sophistry:

    others, in my view, are propagating a false (imo) dichotomy of either the negotiations being conducted in Lausanne & elsewhere & aimed at reaching an agreement by March 31 so as to get a deal by June or war


    Parent
    Really? That's funny (5.00 / 1) (#156)
    by Yman on Sat Mar 28, 2015 at 08:57:18 PM EST
    Who, specifically - is "propogating" that little bit of sophistry?

    Besides you, of course ...

    Parent

    please see my comment #158 (3.50 / 2) (#161)
    by The Addams Family on Sat Mar 28, 2015 at 09:59:33 PM EST
    which was erroneously placed as a response to Jim's comment rather than to yours

    by the way, since i have already described others (including the retired navy commander who makes his second appearance in my comment #158) as falsely propagating this dichotomy, there is no "besides" in your equation that can apply to me

    but evidently you just like to argue, so please have the last word & have a good night

    Parent

    Happy to (5.00 / 3) (#165)
    by Yman on Sat Mar 28, 2015 at 10:21:32 PM EST
    1.  You cite the WAPO editorial board as evidence that the Obama administration is ignoring Iran's history of noncompliance in its "rush to complete a deal", despite the fact that they have absolutely no idea of the proposed terms of the deal.  You also editorialize that they are not conservative (i.e. "that notorious house organ of the Tea Party & other right-wing outposts"), when this is the same editorial board that sold the Iraq War and is now selling an Iranian War.

    2.  Your one credible source is Albright who asks the question about how we can trust Iran to comply after sanctions are lifted.  He points out this is a hurdle for negotiations, while also clearly stating that "an adequate agreement is possible and within reach of the United States and its negotiating partners."

    Wow.

    Not really what the WP editorial board is saying while they sell a war with iran, huh?

    Parent

    Let's start first with a 3/13/2015 (5.00 / 2) (#159)
    by MO Blue on Sat Mar 28, 2015 at 09:25:27 PM EST
    OpEd in the Washington Post.

    War with Iran is probably our best option

    Does this mean that our only option is war? Yes, although an air campaign targeting Iran's nuclear infrastructure would entail less need for boots on the ground than the war Obama is waging against the Islamic State, which poses far smaller a threat than Iran does.
    Wouldn't an attack cause ordinary Iranians to rally behind the regime? Perhaps, but military losses have also served to undermine regimes, including the Greek and Argentine juntas, the Russian czar and the Russian communists.

    Wouldn't destroying much of Iran's nuclear infrastructure merely delay its progress? Perhaps, but we can strike as often as necessary. Of course, Iran would try to conceal and defend the elements of its nuclear program, so we might have to find new ways to discover and attack them. Surely the United States could best Iran in such a technological race.
    ...
    Nonetheless, we might absorb some strikes. Wrenchingly, that might be the price of averting the heavier losses that we and others would suffer in the larger Middle Eastern conflagration that is the likely outcome of Iran's drive to the bomb....

    To Stop Iran's Bomb, Bomb Iran by John Bolton (NYT) 3/26/15

    The inescapable conclusion is that Iran will not negotiate away its nuclear program. Nor will sanctions block its building a broad and deep weapons infrastructure. The inconvenient truth is that only military action like Israel's 1981 attack on Saddam Hussein's Osirak reactor in Iraq or its 2007 destruction of a Syrian reactor, designed and built by North Korea, can accomplish what is required. Time is terribly short, but a strike can still succeed.

    Rendering inoperable the Natanz and Fordow uranium-enrichment installations and the Arak heavy-water production facility and reactor would be priorities. So, too, would be the little-noticed but critical uranium-conversion facility at Isfahan. An attack need not destroy all of Iran's nuclear infrastructure, but by breaking key links in the nuclear-fuel cycle, it could set back its program by three to five years. The United States could do a thorough job of destruction, but Israel alone can do what's necessary. Such action should be combined with vigorous American support for Iran's opposition, aimed at regime change in Tehran.

    Regime change - Sound familiar

    WASHINGTON -- Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.), the organizer of a controversial letter warning Iran that the U.S. government will not necessarily abide by any agreement Iran strikes with the Obama administration, previously told a conservative audience that the goal of congressional action should be to scuttle talks with Iran. The U.S. should, instead, engage in a policy of "regime change," he argued. link

    Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-TX)
    The Republican lawmaker said it was too late to negotiate with Iran on its nuclear program.

    "We need to encourage this administration to go take out Iran's nuclear capability," Gohmert said.

    "I think it's time to bomb Iran -- anything that resembles a nuclear facility with centrifuges," he added. "It's time to bomb." link

    The selling of a war version 2.0.

    Parent

    Iran will not abide by the rules and (2.00 / 1) (#147)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Mar 28, 2015 at 07:34:13 PM EST
    the inspectors will be snookered and...

     

    Many really well-informed people say such a war would cost a lot, and take a very long time to resolve.

    .....is very accurate. And the longer the wait the longer the war.

    But Obama will have his de facto treaty and another piece of our security on his honors shelf.

    Parent

    The recent op-ed in the New York Times by John Bolton, a wingbat who's long been afflicted by Chronic Recto-Cranial Inversion Syndrome?

    Parent
    Cmdr. Daniel Dolan, USN (Ret.) (3.50 / 2) (#158)
    by The Addams Family on Sat Mar 28, 2015 at 09:16:59 PM EST
    cited earlier by MO Blue

    You don't need to be Nostradamus to predict the likely course of events if the No Dealers get their wish. First, Iran will give the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) inspectors, who are currently working in Iran, a one-way ticket home. Feeling further isolated and threatened, Iran is more likely to intensify efforts on its nuclear program. Israel, or the United States, will therefore be more likely to take military action when "red lines" are reached. And when the punitive airstrikes begin the United States will find itself at war with a nation of 90 million people in the largest geographic area since WWII. Many really well-informed people say such a war would cost a lot, and take a very long time to resolve.


    Parent
    Cmdr. Dolan isn't talking about ... (5.00 / 1) (#162)
    by Yman on Sat Mar 28, 2015 at 10:03:25 PM EST
    ... the merits of this deal, which is what the WAPO editorial board is challenging (despite the fact that they don't know the details).  He's opining that - if the No Dealers get their way and scuttle these negotiations - increased sanctions are likely to lead to each side hardening its position and an eventual outbreak of war.  In fact, military action is precisely what many No Dealers are already proposing.

    There's a good chance Dolan is right that this presents the best opportunity for a negotiated agreement and thst the No Dealers alternative will lead to war, but it has nothing to do with what Fred Hiatt and his editorial board are claiming.

    Parent

    Juan Cole (5.00 / 2) (#163)
    by MO Blue on Sat Mar 28, 2015 at 10:09:29 PM EST
    US hawks in both parties and the Israeli political right wing want to prevent Iran from having any nuclear enrichment program at all, so as to prevent Iran from having the security that comes from the deterrence Lite produced by latency.

    The US Joint Chiefs of Staff looked at this issue and have decided that only an Iraq-style invasion, occupation and regime change could hope to abolish the nuclear enrichment program.

    If that is what it takes, the US and Israeli hawks are perfectly all right with it. It would be good times for the military-industrial complex, and Israel's last major conventional enemy (though a toothless one) would be destroyed. An irritant to US policy and a threat to Wahhabi Saudi Arabia, our big volatile Gasoline Station in the Sky, would also be removed.

    Iran is three times as populous and three times as large as Iraq. So I figure this enterprise would cost at least 15,000 troops dead, 90,000 seriously wounded, and altogether $15- 24 trillion dollars over time (including health care for the 90,000 wounded vets). Given the size of the country and the nationalism of the population, it could be much more like the US war in Vietnam than Iraq was, i.e. it could end in absolute defeat. Russia and China would almost certainly aid insurgencies to weaken the US. link



    Parent
    heh (3.00 / 2) (#168)
    by The Addams Family on Sat Mar 28, 2015 at 11:01:30 PM EST
    i am familiar with Juan Cole's ideas & general worldview, having edited several of his books in the early to mid 2000s & followed his blog since then

    Professor Cole, a thoughful cultural and political historian, is less grounded as a pundit & is not everyone's idea of an impartial authority, nor is that what he aspires to be, to say the least

    amusing that you seem to have trotted him out as one

    Parent

    You like the opinion pieces (5.00 / 2) (#169)
    by MO Blue on Sat Mar 28, 2015 at 11:45:09 PM EST
    in the Washington Post and trot them out  in several of your comments as a creditable source on the Iran negotiations. But then again in another of your comments, you state that since Iran arrested their bureau chief they may not be so impartial after all.

    To quote you: "i would say that the Post has more than a little skin in the game & reason to know more than a little about the fundamentalist theocrats running Iran."

    The Washington Post's Editorial Board is not everyone's idea of an impartial authority, nor has it aspired to be so when promoting military action in the Middle East. 140 front page articles promoting the Iraq war is fairly substantial proof that they were not impartial any more than they are now.

    Juan Cole wrote an opinion piece about Iran. IMO it contained very valid points about Iran. Juan Cole also wrote numerous opinion pieces against invading Iraq. Cole was right about Iraq and IMO has proven creditability on the subject of the M.E.

    The Washington Post wrote an opinion piece about Iran and has published OpEds supporting a war as the only real alternative in Iran. The Washington Post wrote 140 front-page pieces in the paper making the Bush administration's case for war in Iraq. They were wrong. They do not have proven creditability. In fact, they failed so miserably I wonder why anyone would be so gullible as to believe they are a creditable source.

    When choosing between proven creditability vs abject failure, I will go with Cole and you can stick with promoting the Washington Posts agenda.

    Parent

    With all (5.00 / 2) (#145)
    by FlJoe on Sat Mar 28, 2015 at 07:23:41 PM EST
    due respect to Allbright, he is not the only expert in town, no reason to believe meeting his recommendations is that important to a successful  deal. His point:
    against a background of two decades of Iran deceiving the IAEA about its nuclear programs, including military nuclear programs.
    Is correct but we could substitute Israel, Pakistan, India, North Korea in that sentence and describe the history of failed non-proliferation efforts. So Iran's "background" is not unique and even understandable.

     

    Parent

    true enough (3.00 / 2) (#151)
    by The Addams Family on Sat Mar 28, 2015 at 08:05:48 PM EST
    Iran's "background" is not unique and even understandable

    & yet i do perceive a difference between (a) nuclear weapons in the hands of opposing powers that appreciate the deterrent effect of mutual assured destruction & (b) nuclear weapons in the hands of fundamentalist theocrats who have supported both Sunni & Shia jihadists & Islamists in their quest for a restoration of the Caliphate, to be preceded by Armageddon

    as Graeme Wood reminded us recently, it's unwise (& ethnocentric) to ignore Islam as ideology, no matter how inconvenient that truth may be

    Parent

    You know (5.00 / 1) (#154)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Mar 28, 2015 at 08:23:43 PM EST
    what is scary about that article? ISIS and the fundamentalists here in the US have the same goal. Here to turn the US into a theocracy but not by sword but by elections. The apocalypse is the goal of both groups and Israel is their tool. Ted Cruz opined on returning America to it's "former glory" much like ISIS wants to return the Caliphate. The law just passed in Indiana and the one they are thinking about here in GA under the guise of "religious freedom" is something that would be welcome in countries that practice Sharia.

    Parent
    You do know (5.00 / 2) (#155)
    by FlJoe on Sat Mar 28, 2015 at 08:42:02 PM EST
    That Islam is very far from being monolithic ? Because such a beast as you describe here:  
    fundamentalist theocrats who have supported both Sunni & Shia jihadists & Islamists in their quest for a restoration of the Caliphate, to be preceded by Armageddon
    does not exist.

    Parent
    that's not even close to accurate (3.00 / 2) (#157)
    by The Addams Family on Sat Mar 28, 2015 at 09:13:23 PM EST
    but i support your right to believe it

    Parent
    to be clear, (2.33 / 3) (#160)
    by The Addams Family on Sat Mar 28, 2015 at 09:34:46 PM EST
    i was not addressing the portion of your comment dealing with whether Islam is or is not "monolothic," since that portion of your comment was just putting words in my mouth

    i was specifically describing the Islamic Republic of Iran, a regime of fundamentalist theocrats, which has indeed supported jihadists & Islamists, Sunni and Shia alike, in their Allah-ordained quest

    again, though, feel free to ignore this fact (or, alternatively, to do your own research)

    Parent

    With all (5.00 / 2) (#146)
    by FlJoe on Sat Mar 28, 2015 at 07:26:28 PM EST
    due respect to Allbright, he is not the only expert in town, no reason to believe meeting his recommendations is that important to a successful  deal. His point:
    against a background of two decades of Iran deceiving the IAEA about its nuclear programs, including military nuclear programs.
    Is correct but we could substitute Israel, Pakistan, India, North Korea in that sentence and describe the history of failed non-proliferation efforts. So Iran's "background" is not unique and even  understandable.

     

    Parent

    But is the result desirable?? (2.00 / 1) (#148)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Mar 28, 2015 at 07:35:27 PM EST
    So Iran's "background" is not unique and even  understandable
    .

    Parent
    I do not (5.00 / 2) (#152)
    by FlJoe on Sat Mar 28, 2015 at 08:07:14 PM EST
    find it "desirable" for any nation to gain nukes. I just think that trying to talk Iran out of it is much preferable then the alternative. If we can get some kind of "trust but verify" agreement we can at least put Iran's on hold for a while and lose nothing.


    Parent
    Well we've been trying to talk them (1.00 / 1) (#189)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Mar 29, 2015 at 03:30:16 PM EST
    out of "it" for a long time with no success.

    As much as I hope for success I am also a realist who knows that you cannot deal with Iran.

    The only question is, what will be the eventual cost of Obama's desire to leave some kind of legacy besides all the other screw ups he's sired.

    Parent

    Circular logic (5.00 / 3) (#117)
    by FlJoe on Sat Mar 28, 2015 at 10:42:59 AM EST
    here. We impose sanctions because they are non-compliant with The IAEA. The purpose of those sanctions was to force them into compliance. Now that Iran is prepared to accept compliance, critics of the deal want to move the goalposts. There is a reason that the international community has used some form of sanctions for centuries, they often work and are much preferable to war. By asking the question,  
    why would it address them later when these sanctions are lifted?
    you are disregarding the the whole concept and history of international sanctions being used to force compliance. Of course the Post asks the question and answers itself, to it's own satisfaction, of course.

     

    Parent

    in fact (3.50 / 2) (#121)
    by The Addams Family on Sat Mar 28, 2015 at 12:54:55 PM EST
    it was David Albright, the nuclear arms expert, who asked that question, not me

    but anyway, where did you read or hear that Iran is now "prepared to accept compliance"? the news for days if not weeks has been that Iran is "prepared to accept" virtually nothing, & that the goalposts are in continual motion thanks to the Obama administration, to the alarm of the French among other US allies

    Parent

    This (5.00 / 2) (#128)
    by FlJoe on Sat Mar 28, 2015 at 03:03:29 PM EST
     is a heck of a start.
    They also seem to have agreed to provide international inspectors unprecedented access to Iranian nuclear sites to assure the nuclear program remains peaceful.
    The details remain cloudy as negotiations continue(ie. goal post moving), but the bottom line is there is no evidence that the final deal will be
    that Iran is "prepared to accept" virtually nothing.  
    There is a very high probability that this deal will stop or severely slow the Iranian weapon program, there is zero chance that this will happen peacefully with no deal. At the very worst this deal will give us an unprecedented look inside their nuclear program at a relatively cheap price.

    Parent
    Ah, yes, the same folks (none / 0) (#109)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Sat Mar 28, 2015 at 08:14:04 AM EST
    whose columnist Jennifer Rubin was such a paragon of accuracy during the 2012 presidential election.

    Fred Hiatt is a neocon.  He, along with Charles Krauthammer, never met a war they didn't want to send American troops to, especially when it comes to the ME.

    Parent

    argumentum ad hominem, (5.00 / 1) (#124)
    by The Addams Family on Sat Mar 28, 2015 at 01:25:10 PM EST
    served three ways and garnished with a dollop of thought-terminating cliché

    one Michelin star for you

    Parent

    From The Atlantic: (5.00 / 1) (#138)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Sat Mar 28, 2015 at 05:53:38 PM EST

    The perception among media insiders was brutally summed up by Alex Pareene, writing at  Salon. "In Jennifer Rubin, the Washington Post currently employs a semi-official Mitt Romney spokesperson," he wrote. "There's not another prominent media figure who is more shameless about acting solely in the best interests of a presidential campaign." He isn't the only one who sees it that way. On two occasions at the Republican National Convention, I heard members of the media joking about Rubin as if everyone knew that she was a shameless shill for Team Romney. During the primaries, even conservatives were complaining. "For the past year, Rubin has done more to hinder the Washington Post in the eyes of conservatives as a place willing to treat conservative views honestly than even hiring Ezra Klein and Greg Sargent, both activist leftists who can, at least, put aside partisanship to occasionally engage in good reporting," Erick Erickson once wrote, adding that Rubin "routinely assails all the Republican candidates but Romney (with the caveat that she will praise non-Romney candidates whose actions benefit Romney)."

    Link

    Parent

    Addams Family: I must confess (5.00 / 1) (#143)
    by christinep on Sat Mar 28, 2015 at 06:47:33 PM EST
    In the matter of the WashPo and foreign policy--especially in the Mideast--that I have been lazy in now starting from an assumption that the editors strongly favor what may be termed a robust policy by some and war-drum-beating by others.  Over the years--and I rely here on faulty memory--I have read several editorials when Washington policy makers (particularly Democrats) do not appear aggressive enough for their liking.  

    Yet ... in your pushback here, you make a point well-worth considering: That we are jumping here to pre-set conclusions about the WP, and not open to experts that may offer an opinion with which
    we disagree. I admit to being ready to take the risk with Iran--even as a few days ago, I argued the "don't trust Iran without strong compliance mechanisms, et." position to hear what I sounded like--if only because the status quo seems to be going nowhere but disintegrating.  It is important, tho, to have eyes wide open in any agreement with that particular nation in view of history with us and in view of the jockeying for position vis-à-vis the shia-sunni conflict that may be so much a part of this as well.  It does seem, however, that if any agreement if girded with clear enforcement/compliance mechanisms that are the "stick" part of the new approach, then the "carrot" could have a positive effect (for now.)

    Parent

    i certainly hope so (3.50 / 2) (#149)
    by The Addams Family on Sat Mar 28, 2015 at 07:47:59 PM EST
    for people like most of us at TL, the issue can only be complicated by our knowledge that the GOP & its partisans have been openly hell-bent since 20 January 2009 on obstructing any achievements at all by this president, to say nothing of the true & splendid "legacy" that a solid deal with Iran would be

    & yet the draw of that potential legacy would be a terrible reason to extend a "trust" that hedges on mechanisms needed to "verify," or to put the whole polarized & volatile region at nuclear risk because of unfounded hope that a fundamentalist theocracy will somehow "improve" (insha'Allah on that, however, if only for the sake of the Iranian people)

    you said something the other day that caught my eye, about the many layers of this situation & the possibility that the president's alleged "tantrum" is strategic

    my hope is that you are right, & that President Obama & Prime Minister Netanyahu are putting on a big show of mutual pique while collaborating behind the scenes for the greater good, especially including the security of Israel, with Netanyahu playing bad cop for the benefit of the negotiations with Iran while giving Obama the cover he needs from the "progressive" (& sometimes antisemitic) flank of the party

    we will see - i appreciate your thoughtful comment

    Parent

    Snowing here (none / 0) (#105)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Mar 28, 2015 at 08:02:51 AM EST
    68 tomorrow.

    You have (none / 0) (#107)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Mar 28, 2015 at 08:11:08 AM EST
    the strangest weather for a supposedly "southern" state. LOL.

    Parent
    We are the very northern edge (none / 0) (#111)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Mar 28, 2015 at 08:26:21 AM EST
    of the south.  It accumulating.

    Parent
    Your weather (none / 0) (#112)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Mar 28, 2015 at 08:29:55 AM EST
    just sounds similar to a friend of mine who lives in Ohio. She had snow the other day and the next day it went up to 60. I said I guess the good thing is that with those temps it will be gone in short order.

    Parent
    When I lived in North Central (none / 0) (#113)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Mar 28, 2015 at 08:35:40 AM EST
    Illinois I was amazed how often they had exactly the same weather here.

    Parent
    Fear the Walking Dead (none / 0) (#114)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Mar 28, 2015 at 08:44:55 AM EST
    Spinoff!

    "Fear the Walking Dead" has already been confirmed for two seasons.

    Unlike the original series, which takes place on the East Coast, the new series will be set in Los Angeles. The series will star Kim Dickens and Cliff Curtis along with Frank Dillane and Alycia Debnam Carey.

    Season one will comprise of six one-hour episodes, and will debut on AMC in summer 2015. Season 2 will air in 2016.

    We don't know much else about the show, but the first trailer for the series will debut after the 90-minute finale of "The Walking Dead" Sunday evening.



    I've got zombie fatigue (none / 0) (#141)
    by McBain on Sat Mar 28, 2015 at 06:32:47 PM EST
    Loved the first few seasons of WD but I'm struggling to make it through the current one.  Rick should have been killed off a long time ago. I hate his cowboy hat kid.  The preacher is the most boring character on TV.  I still like Daryl with his crossbow and Michonne with her sword but that's about it.

    I can't see the spinoff being very good but I had doubts about Better Call Saul and it's been impressive so far.

    Parent

    Indiana's Gov. Pence & "Uncle" (none / 0) (#186)
    by christinep on Sun Mar 29, 2015 at 02:13:21 PM EST
    Odds on when Governor Mike Pence--he of Indiana discrimination legislation imbroglio--will realize that anything resembling an honorable exit means he needs to "say uncle" and offer a direct, non-blustering, non-bs apology to everyone in Indiana and throughout the country.

    After the demagogic manure Pence attempted to spread around--with an exceptionally bad appearance on the Sunday morning show where he would not/did not answer George Stephanopoulis six-times repeated question about whether discrimination against gains would be allowed as a result--his ploy looks to be exposed for the wrong that it is.  After the announcements of recent days from many businesses and business leaders expressing disappointment, potential boycotts, withdrawing or scaling back significant Indiana operations as well as the negative reactions from that Hoosier mainstay Basketball (NBA and NCAA), the week grew bad enough for ol' Pence ... and, now, even the Indianapolis Star takes him to task for the embarrassment and shame he has caused the state.  <For those of any beliefs left of far right who live/lived in Indiana, you know what it would take for that paper to diss a Republican governor.  Maybe someone forgot to tell pretentious Pence that times do change.>

    Signed: christinep, Indiana University B.A. & J.D. degrees and husband, Indiana University PhD.

    Mike Pence, (none / 0) (#192)
    by KeysDan on Sun Mar 29, 2015 at 04:36:05 PM EST
    Republican governor of Indiana, went on a Sunday Talk Show to defend signing his "religious liberty" law.  Apparently aimed to be damage control, his performance became uncontrolled damage, although Pence did fare better than if he went hunting with Dick Cheney--he only shot himself in the foot.  

    Pence refused, six times, to answer if the bill discriminates against gays.   And, he said that a gay anti-dioscrimination bill is "not on his agenda."   He did say that he would be open to a legislative "clarification" but he doubled down on Indiana's discrimination.   One restaurant owner was quoted as saying he has already refused to serve gay customers, and he is happy with Pence  

    The right (none / 0) (#193)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Mar 29, 2015 at 04:57:07 PM EST
    wing is screaming for Stephanopolous to be fired now for asking that question.

    Parent
    Unsurprising, of course. (none / 0) (#195)
    by KeysDan on Sun Mar 29, 2015 at 05:10:03 PM EST
    But, Pence is more concerned about  businesses firing Indiana.  

    Parent
    I seriously (5.00 / 1) (#200)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Mar 29, 2015 at 06:29:58 PM EST
    doubt he's too worried about that. He's more concerned about what the far right thinks. He's only surprised about the reaction across the nation because he resides in the typical GOP bubble.

    Parent
    Will the NCAA "Final Four" (none / 0) (#194)
    by christinep on Sun Mar 29, 2015 at 05:08:24 PM EST
    be a story this coming week about basketball or about Mike Pence?  I'm thinking the pressure of $$$$ generally (see Apple, Sales Force, Angie's List, even Indianapolis-based Church of Christ w/it's potential withdrawal of the 6,000 person convention, etc.) and the Basketball dollars (see expected revenue for locale from successfully hosting the Final Four) will continue to grow.  One of the more interesting facts here concerns Angie's List CEO, a Repub who was former Governor Mitch Daniels campaign manager and who has stated now that his company will halt the operation's expansion previously planned for Indiana ... and, as husband queries: What will Mitch Daniels, as the current President of a major university in Indiana (Purdue) and as a highly-regarded member of Governor Pence's Repub party, advise?

    So much in life and government is about timing, isn't it?

    Parent

    Pence is another (none / 0) (#196)
    by KeysDan on Sun Mar 29, 2015 at 05:15:13 PM EST
    winger who is attempting to  clamber into that Republican presidential primary clown car.  The Iowa Republicans will surely love him--for awhile.  

    Parent
    Bingo (none / 0) (#201)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Mar 29, 2015 at 06:34:46 PM EST
    its this law is all about making the wingbats swoon for 2016.   It could work.

    Parent
    Speaking of the NCAA Men's Final Four, ... (none / 0) (#199)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sun Mar 29, 2015 at 06:17:35 PM EST
    ... congratulations to the Wisconsin Badgers, Kentucky Wildcats, Michigan State Spartans and Duke Blue Devils. Three of the four top seeds made it to Indianapolis, and Duke Coach Mike Krzyzewski has now tied the record set by UCLA's John Wooden with his 12th Final Four team.

    Should be a great Final Four next weekend.

    Parent

    About Kentucky (none / 0) (#202)
    by christinep on Sun Mar 29, 2015 at 06:44:42 PM EST
    So ... will it be a sure-footed waltz for Kentucky to finish the entire season's dance? Or, am I assuming too much ... what say you, Donald?

    Half of me would enjoy watching a team win after an unbroken record, an admirable feat by any measure. The other part has a tendency to want to see an upset in such situations ... but then, my longevity remembers being just old enough to  watch from an IU campus bar many years ago as the underdog (Texas El Paso, I recall) beat another Kentucky team for the big win.  (And, that was quite a win ... for a lot of reasons.)

    Parent

    Jim still hasn't (none / 0) (#205)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Sun Mar 29, 2015 at 09:06:47 PM EST
    Stated what laws Hillary broke with using her private e-mail account, but that doesn't stop him from comparing it to Watergate.

    LOL!