home

Saturday Open Thread

I'll be out running errands today. Not too exciting, but they have to get done.

Here's an open thread, all topics welcome.

< The Shifting of Public Opinion on Rod Blagojevich | Obama Says No To Social Security Privatization >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    In the California Prop 8 equal marriage case (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by Peter G on Sat Aug 14, 2010 at 01:48:06 PM EST
    Because neither the Governor (Schwartzenegger) nor the Attorney General (Jerry Brown) chooses to appeal, it may be that Judge Walker's opinion will stand as final, although in that event it will have less force as precedent.  The intervenors (proponents of the Proposition), who were allowed to carry the ball in its defense in the district court, face higher hurdles in being recognized as permitted to appeal (called "standing" to appeal).  SCOTUSBlog is all over this, written to be understandable to an intelligent but non-lawyer audience (and with links to all the actual court filings).

    Anyone here have some extra (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by BTAL on Sat Aug 14, 2010 at 05:48:42 PM EST
    Recovery Summer sunscreen going spare?

    Meant to add the requisite ;-) (none / 0) (#8)
    by BTAL on Sat Aug 14, 2010 at 05:49:40 PM EST
    Sad news for jazz lovers (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by shoephone on Sat Aug 14, 2010 at 08:41:15 PM EST
    The incomparable Abbey Lincoln died today.

    She was very influential for me, not just because her voice was so searing and really touched me emotionally, but beause she was one he[[ of a brave woman. She eschewed what was considered "proper" for black women, especially performers, in the heat of the civil rights era. She was a strong and wonderful human being who never failed to bring out the best in her bandmates.

    Pole Dancing (none / 0) (#2)
    by squeaky on Sat Aug 14, 2010 at 02:43:02 PM EST
    Never saw anything quite like this.... ... more... and then there is rope dancing via MeFi


    Liberation (none / 0) (#3)
    by squeaky on Sat Aug 14, 2010 at 03:46:08 PM EST
    "I'm not saying you can't win a COIN fight, but it's not going to work in Afghanistan, and it's not going to work during the fighting season," said one Charlie Company soldier who asked not to be identified to avoid being disciplined for his candor. "It's hard to go to hugs and kisses when you still close your eyes at night and see your friends' body parts."

    McClatchy

    President says he wasn't talking (none / 0) (#4)
    by oculus on Sat Aug 14, 2010 at 05:32:21 PM EST
    about that mosque.  NYT

    BS (none / 0) (#5)
    by squeaky on Sat Aug 14, 2010 at 05:38:40 PM EST
    Of course he was talking about that mosque. He was not talking about the wisdom of building it, as it is none of his beeswax.

    The right to build and the wisdom inherent in building are two totally different things, same mosque though.

    Parent

    If you read the linked NYT story (none / 0) (#6)
    by Peter G on Sat Aug 14, 2010 at 05:48:22 PM EST
    you can see that Oculus has totally misrepresented what it reports the President as having said, in exactly the way pointed out by Squeaky.

    Parent
    Well (none / 0) (#10)
    by squeaky on Sat Aug 14, 2010 at 06:06:02 PM EST
    Mr. Gingrich said that the proposed mosque and community center would be a symbol of Muslim "triumphalism" and that building it near the site of the Sept. 11 attacks "would be like putting a Nazi sign next to the Holocaust museum."

    It is good to know that the Gingrich speaks for the GOP and considers Islam akin to Nazism.  It is obvious that they do not need the Hispanics, Blacks Gays, Women, Muslims, and Americans who have any vague notion of the US Constitution, in order to encourage their 18% of voters to pull the lever for fascism.

    Parent

    I should have sd. WH press spokesperson: (none / 0) (#11)
    by oculus on Sat Aug 14, 2010 at 06:26:30 PM EST
    White House officials said earlier Saturday that Mr. Obama was not trying to promote that particular project, but rather sought to make a broader statement about freedom of religion and American values.

    And then the President spoke again.  

    Parent

    You Miss The Point (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by squeaky on Sat Aug 14, 2010 at 06:50:19 PM EST
    Obama is not promoting anything but constitutional rights. In that he was specifically talking about the downtown mosque.

    Not sure why this seems so difficult for you to understand.

    Parent

    If you look to my initial comment, you may (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by oculus on Sun Aug 15, 2010 at 12:22:52 AM EST
    realize I was pointing out the President, through his press office, apparently backed away from the speech.  Then the President reaffirmed the speech.  Which is fine.  I did not express an opinion on what he initially said.  Don't read into my comments that which is not there.  

    Parent
    OK (none / 0) (#21)
    by squeaky on Sun Aug 15, 2010 at 12:52:27 AM EST
    OK well I disagree with your presumptions about anyone "backing away" on this issue.  

    Parent
    The WORM moment has officially arrived: (none / 0) (#22)
    by Anne on Sun Aug 15, 2010 at 11:24:39 AM EST
    From today's WaPo:

    One day after President Obama defended the freedom of Muslims to build an Islamic complex near New York's Ground Zero, he offered a less forceful version of that position on Saturday: Yes, Muslims have that right, Obama said -- but that doesn't mean he believes it is the right thing for them to do.

    Speaking to reporters during a family vacation visit to Panama City, Fla., Obama reiterated the stand he took Friday night at a White House dinner observing the Muslim holy month of Ramadan. "In this country we treat everybody equally and in accordance with the law, regardless of race, regardless of religion," Obama said.

    But he went on to explain that he was not endorsing the construction of the Islamic center. "I was not commenting and I will not comment on the wisdom of making the decision to put a mosque there," he said. "I was commenting very specifically on the right people have that dates back to our founding."

    [snip]

    White House officials said the president's comments Saturday were not at odds with what he had said the night before -- and they insisted they should not be seen as Obama backing down because of political pressure. He was merely clarifying his position, they said.  Yet Obama had left the distinction between principle and prudence unstated in his declaration Friday night that "Muslims have the same right to practice their religion as anyone else in this country. And that includes the right to build a place of worship and a community center on private property in Lower Manhattan, in accordance with local laws and ordinances."

    [my bold]

    Had he added, at the time, "regardless of what I or anyone else would decide to do or not do: it is between them, and the local community," I'm sure he would still be getting crap for it, but at least he would not be engaged in this "what I really meant" nonsense.

    He does this to himself constantly, and it's one of the reasons no one can take, at face value, anything he says initially on any issue - because there is always justification, walk-back, nuance, reversal, or flat-out denial to follow.  He knows what he thinks until he finds out what others think, and if those wonderful people on the right don't like it, he falls all over himself to make it better; if the "professional left" object, he laughs and sends Gibbs out to tell us how little he cares.

    This is not an example of good leadership.

    Parent

    You and I agree. He walked it back. (none / 0) (#23)
    by oculus on Sun Aug 15, 2010 at 12:21:26 PM EST
    But several commenters here vehemently disagree with us.  Which is interesting, as we are all reading the same things, I gather.

    Parent
    Walking Back (none / 0) (#24)
    by squeaky on Sun Aug 15, 2010 at 03:00:42 PM EST
    Disputing right wing spin is hardly walking back.  

    Obama made a statement about the constitutional right to build the NYC mosque. This statement is a general statement of principal supporting the US constitution and would apply to any mosque that is built on private property and meets local regs. Obama was not weighing in on the popularity of the thing, and in fact implicit in his remarks was the fact that mob rule does not ever outweigh the constitution.

    Wingnuttia spun his statement into one where they claimed that Obama was promoting the specific Mosque instead of a general constitutional principal. In other words, in that context he could weigh in that another Mosque is not a good idea, or the decorations were gaudy or beautiful etc. This wingnut spin was meant to draw a create a false argument that Obama supports Muslim terrorists instead of the families of 9/11 victims IOW he was intentionally being insulting.

    It is absurd, and I am quite surprised that you insist on swallowing the wing nut spin.

    Parent

    Do you deem Glenn Greenwald (none / 0) (#26)
    by oculus on Sun Aug 15, 2010 at 03:22:08 PM EST
    a "wingnut"?

    Parent
    No (none / 0) (#27)
    by squeaky on Sun Aug 15, 2010 at 03:26:22 PM EST
    In this case, one of their minions.

    Parent
    And to complete (none / 0) (#25)
    by jondee on Sun Aug 15, 2010 at 03:09:36 PM EST
    the closed circle of equivocation and mollifying, Hillary's scheduled to give another lap dance to each member of the board of AIPAC in the next few days..


    Parent
    Exactly. (none / 0) (#13)
    by Peter G on Sat Aug 14, 2010 at 07:17:52 PM EST
    There are plenty of things that people have a constitutional right to do, which other, perhaps more sensible people would rightly think it would not be wise to do.  Listening to Glenn Beck comes to mind, or smoking cigarettes, or watching "Jersey Shore," for example.

    Parent
    Since Obama smokes and supposedly knows (none / 0) (#14)
    by BTAL on Sat Aug 14, 2010 at 08:16:44 PM EST
    who Snooki is, doesn't that cut about 2/3 of your argument at the knees?  Based on Gibby's statements at the podium regarding Beck, it looks like a clean sweep.

    Parent
    Nope, not at all. (none / 0) (#15)
    by Peter G on Sat Aug 14, 2010 at 08:27:14 PM EST
    Of course, it is possible that you and Oculus are just pretending not to understanding this very important point about respect for rights.  The best-known version is commonly, but apparently wrongly, attributed to Voltaire.  

    Parent
    Don't worry, I can provide links too (none / 0) (#16)
    by BTAL on Sat Aug 14, 2010 at 08:34:23 PM EST
    Guess it is time to put the BP hate to bed (none / 0) (#9)
    by BTAL on Sat Aug 14, 2010 at 06:00:29 PM EST
    No, not at all. (5.00 / 4) (#17)
    by Peter G on Sat Aug 14, 2010 at 08:39:50 PM EST
    That there are some clean beaches says nothing about the seriousness and persistence of the damage to wetlands.  The damage to undersea marine life and habitat, including edible species, is also enormous, and still of unknown extent.  Could it have been worse?  No doubt.  But it makes no sense to pretend that the whole thing was some sort of false alarm.

    Parent
    Yeh, that's why Exxon is still (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by Cream City on Sat Aug 14, 2010 at 11:12:26 PM EST
    a name that raises hackles even now.

    BP's name is oil-drenched mud forevermore.

    Parent