home

Wednesday Open Thread

By Jeralyn, Section Blog Related
Posted on Wed Jul 15, 2015 at 02:22:11 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

I'll be at the jail the rest of the day. I'll have another El Chapo post up tonight. For those of you who are more interested in other topics, here's an open thread, all topics welcome.

< Senor de los Toneles | Friday Open Thread >

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

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Wednesday Open Thread | 208 comments (208 topical)
    New Horizons (5.00 / 5) (#4)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Jul 15, 2015 at 03:58:36 PM EST
    We can't seem to get a commercial rocket into space to resupply the ISS, but hot damn if we can't send a piano sized craft to Pluto, 9 years and 3 billion miles away, at over 52,000 mph.  It came w/i 8000 miles of Pluto, which in Earth terms is mid orbit, where GPS satellites orbit, which is considerably closer than high Earth orbit, where stationary satellites, like DirecTV fly.

    Before New Horizons, no one was even sure of what color Pluto was or it's exact size.  Turns out it's bigger than thought, which is opening up the discussion about it's reclassification from dwarf-planet back to actual planet.  It's going to take 6 months to get all the data back from the fly by.

    Another issue that had to be overcome is that Pluto's orbit is not on the same plane as the rest of the planets, so not only did New Horizon have travel 9B miles 'horizontally' it had to travel considerable distance 'vertically'.  Which is insane considering it had to used other planets to propel it.

    We are officially the only nation to send a craft to each of the 8 planets & Pluto.  This is a tremendous accomplishment.

    NEW HORIZONS

    If you look inside the engineering labs and fabs (none / 0) (#21)
    by Mr Natural on Wed Jul 15, 2015 at 09:12:32 PM EST
    where this work of engineering art got done, you'll find people from every corner of the planet.  When NASA does something, in a very real sense it is the accomplishment of every nation on this shared earth.

    Parent
    This is really cool (none / 0) (#33)
    by McBain on Wed Jul 15, 2015 at 11:40:39 PM EST
    We've had some failures but our space program has had tremendous success.  I hope this sparks more interest and opens the door for more funding.  I can't wait to learn more about Pluto and the Kuiper Belt.  I don't care at all what it's classification is.

    Other things I want to happen in my lifetime...

    • Manned mission to Mars
    • Europa lander that can find out what's inside
    • Titan mission
    • Proof of life outside of earth


    Parent
    I Think Mars is... (none / 0) (#59)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Jul 16, 2015 at 10:15:42 AM EST
    ...lifetimes away.

    Unlike the sun and our moon, Mars is not a set distance away from the Earth.  It only comes close to the Earth every 780 days.  Which means without a doubt, the mission has to last right around 2 years with absolutely no way to abort, or decide to come back home.  The record right now is just over a year in space, 438 days, and that was in our orbit, which in space terms is fairly easy to resupply.

    The energy needed to shoot people back to Earth will have to be in orbit around Mars waiting like gas a station.  That alone will take many trips into orbit so that it has the fuel to make it two Mars, and fuel to get a mission back to Earth.  Same with supplies.  All of these missions have the same two year window.

    I would love to get to people to Mars and returned safely, but IMO the technology just isn't there and the distances/time too great to see in our lifetimes and probably out kids lifetimes.  

    The other option is a suicide mission with no plans to come back.  I don't think any government will fund it, but that could done within a decade.

    I would prefer sending unmanned missions to the various moons you mentioned, ones with Earth like conditions, namely water, in search of life.

    Fun fact, July 14th, my bday, is the day New Horizons flew over Pluto, but 50 years prior, is the exact day in 1965, Mariner 4 probe flew past Mars for the first time.  LINK

    From 35 million miles and THIS, to 3 billion miles and THIS in 50 years.  And NH will be sending more data, including color HD photos of the surface in the next 6 months.  

    So anything is possible.

    Parent

    No reason to come back, really... (5.00 / 2) (#67)
    by Mr Natural on Thu Jul 16, 2015 at 11:29:40 AM EST
    The prime motivation for going to Mars is to disperse the human genome, to make a start at redundancy.  While we remain on one planet, if another extinction event size meteor/comet/whatever hits earth, we're done, we're gone.  And that's assuming that we don't extinguish ourselves with wars first.

    Mars is a far cry from being a new Eden.

    We're living on Eden, by the way.  A living, breathing Eden.

    It's a shame that humans have treated it the way we have.

    Parent

    It's not so much a matter of technology (5.00 / 1) (#123)
    by scribe on Thu Jul 16, 2015 at 04:31:56 PM EST
    as it is a matter of will.

    Recall, the first human went into space in April 1961.  7 years and 8 months later - Christmas '68 - Apollo 8 went to the moon and back.  Another 7 months later, we landed there and came back.

    I remember watching their Christmas Eve telecast from lunar orbit as well as the moon landings.

    When Gagarin went into space, we had the basic tech that we would use to get to the moon, but the outline of the moon missions had not been decided, nor had the tech been scaled up to that needed for a lunar trip.  And we had pretty much no idea what the moon was like - there was a substantial school of thought which believed it was covered in deep, deep dust that would swallow any spacecraft which would land on it.  There was more than a little exploring, research and science that needed to be done, and it got done.

    Recall, also, that it was only about 18 1/2 years from the first flight of the V2 (October 3, 1942), which was the first object to reach "space", to Gagarin's flight.

    We - the US and other spacefaring countries - have been experimenting and working on the Mars problem for years - longer than it took from first V2 to Moon landing.  Can a half-dozen people live in a Winnebago for months on end without going nuts or killing each other?  That experiment took place on a high volcano in Hawaii - they had to wear spacesuits when they went outside - just concluded, and it was successful.  The accumulation of knowledge and knowhow is cumulative, one bit at a time, and it's when the will comes that the project gets done.

    I'd love to see it, and it will likely happen when one country decides they want to go there and another, feeling left behind, will decide to race them there.  Then the will will appear.

    Parent

    Scribe, that was great, (none / 0) (#142)
    by fishcamp on Thu Jul 16, 2015 at 05:45:44 PM EST
    I  vaguely remember the V 2 rocket.  My mother was a block warden, walking her hood, for lights on in houses.  The entire west coast was lights out during that war.  I got drug along and we found a guy with his basement light on.  The guy was making soap out of bacon fat and lye.  He gave us some bars, cut from a cake pan. I think I was four years old during that war story.

    Parent
    My grandmother was a block warden, too. (none / 0) (#165)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Jul 16, 2015 at 10:00:49 PM EST
    She used to take my then-17-year-old uncle out on her nightly rounds in east Pasadena, CA. From what my mother said -- she was eight years old at the time -- my uncle was sort of a hardass even back then, all full of himself, and my grandmother would have to tell him to show some courtesy to the neighbors and not bark at people like they were junkyard dogs.

    Speaking of block wardens, were you old enough to remember "The Great Los Angeles Air Raid" on the night of February 24-25, 1942? My mother recalls that now-celebrated fiasco vividly.

    Apparently, some jittery coast artillerymen at Battery Osgood-Farley of the Ft. MacArthur complex near San Pedro saw a blip on their radar screen close to midnight that evening, which the Army later conceded -- long after the war was over, of course -- was likely an errant weather balloon or two.

    They dutifully alerted their comrades who were manning the coast guns, who in turn heard what they thought were approaching planes. So they probed the sky with searchlights and quickly opened fire with all the anti-aircraft weaponry they had at their disposal.

    This, in turn, prompted neighboring shoreline batteries up and down the coast to do the same in a chain-reaction sequence. And so, in relatively short order and for nearly an hour, air raid sirens sounded throughout the L.A. basin and the entire L.A. coastline, from Pacific Palisades and Santa Monica in the north to Dana Point in the south, was lit up by searchlights and anti-aircraft fire, all of which was shooting at absolutely nothing.

    Meanwhile, the police phone lines throughout the greater L.A. area were overwhelmed with calls from terrified residents, all wondering if the expected Japanese invasion of Southern California, which everyone had rightly feared in the immediate wake of Pearl Harbor, was finally at hand.

    And since she was block warden, people in my grandmother's Pasadena neighborhood all came running to her, peppering her with questions about what was going on. But honestly, she didn't know any more than they did, and so she kept urging them to go back home, sit tight, and listen to the radio for further information and instructions.

    For his part, my teenaged uncle strode around carrying my grandfather's Army-issued pistol -- "like an agitated rooster," my mother will say in a way that suggests she still finds amusing the chaotic scene from that night -- ordering people to remain calm, until my grandmother told him curtly to put the gun away and shut up because he was scaring everyone.

    The event naturally caused no small amount of embarrassment to the U.S. military, given that it was a false alarm of rather significant proportions, and a total blackout on information relating to the incident was quickly put into effect.

    The only mention of it at all was by Navy Sec. Frank Knox the very next day, who told L.A. residents via an exclusive radio broadcast from Washington, D.C. that the previous evening's warnings had been a false alarm.

    We can laugh about what was clearly farcical now, and even hold annual celebrations to commemorate that long-ago night's non-event, but that must have been a very scary time for everyone in L.A.

    Aloha.

    Parent

    Donald, I don't remember that event, (5.00 / 1) (#184)
    by fishcamp on Fri Jul 17, 2015 at 06:57:06 AM EST
    but certainly heard about it later.  Since there was no TV back then, we had to rely on the scratchy, delayed radio reports.  I should have used the word dragged along, since, the way I wrote it makes me sound like a four year old druggie.

    Parent
    I think we do have the technology (none / 0) (#68)
    by McBain on Thu Jul 16, 2015 at 11:31:02 AM EST
    but it would be a huge risk.  I've read about and  attended lectures discussing a two stage mission where an unmanned vehicle makes fuel on Mars for the return vehicle that would launch later.  The odds of success would be low but I do think it's possible to send people there and return them alive.

    There are three reasons we probably won't get to see anything like this in the next 50 years....

    • Money
    • Risk of death
    • Success of robotic rovers


    Parent
    Factoid... (none / 0) (#53)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Jul 16, 2015 at 09:05:16 AM EST
    ...when New Horizons was launched, Pluto was still a planet:
    Pluto was downgraded to a "dwarf planet" just months after the launch of New Horizons, following a vote by astronomers at the IAU to change the definition of the word "planet". The flyby has resurrected the debate, however, and Charles Bolden, Nasa's chief administrator, said he hoped the official classification would be reconsidered. "I call it a planet, but I'm not the rule maker," he said.
     LINK

    I would like to see it be classified as a planet once again.  
    This is complete BS:

    The downgrading of Pluto, discovered in 1930, came via a decision made by a very slim margin by the International Astronomical Union, spearheaded by what Discover magazine calls "Pluto haters." Only 237 out of 10,000 members of the IAU voted in favor of downgrading Pluto--157 voted against, and the rest were not present.

    If planets are redefined to include Pluto, then we will actually have 10 planets:

    Another NASA vessel, Dawn spacecraft, is due to arrive at Ceres--the largest asteroid in the belt between Mars and Jupiter--next week, which could result in Ceres being added to our list of planets. Some think Ceres has as much freshwater as Earth. As Dawn approaches Ceres' orbit on March 6, this is a picture it captured:
    (PIC LINK)
    Ceres was discovered in 1801 and immediately named a planet before being downgraded the next year. That could change this year--if astronomers can agree on what a planet is.
    LINK

    For the record, Pluto is smaller than our moon, but it has 5 moons:

    When New Horizons was planned, astronomers thought it would just be observing Pluto and its largest moon, Charon. Seven months before launch, two other moons, Nix and Hydra, were discovered and then, once the mission was under way, astronomers spotted two more - Styx and Kerberos - increasing the number of objects that the spacecraft would be able to observe and need to avoid colliding with.


    Parent
    Why would that be BS (none / 0) (#55)
    by CoralGables on Thu Jul 16, 2015 at 09:15:43 AM EST
    60% voted for the downgrade.

    Parent
    You Mean Just Over... (none / 0) (#60)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Jul 16, 2015 at 10:27:49 AM EST
    ...2%.

    I think it's BS that only 4% voted on something, that at least, to me is pretty important.  What is the real consensus of people who understand these things, not what is the consensus of the people who decided to vote.

    Parent

    No it was 60% (none / 0) (#61)
    by CoralGables on Thu Jul 16, 2015 at 10:41:20 AM EST
    The rest didn't give a damn, and in reality it doesn't make a damn bit of difference whether it's called a planet, a dwarf planet, or a chunk of rock in the sky...but by definition it's a dwarf and will likely forever remain so whether you or I approve or not.

    Parent
    The vote on Pluto (none / 0) (#66)
    by ragebot on Thu Jul 16, 2015 at 11:28:00 AM EST
    was held on the last day of the conference after many of those attending had left.  There was a lot of concern that the vote did not reflect the views of the union as a whole and was something of a rigged vote.

    There have also been critics of the definition of a planet the small number of union members came up with.  For starters no object outside our solar system would meet that definition of a planet.

    The origin of the word planet is from the Greek and means wander because there were a few objects in the night sky that wandered in relation to the rest of the objects in the sky.

    What ever one thinks about Pluto's status as a planet the vote does seem to have been rigged.


    Parent

    Which again means (2.00 / 1) (#74)
    by CoralGables on Thu Jul 16, 2015 at 11:44:01 AM EST
    they didn't give a damn to stay around to vote, meaning they likely didn't give a damn one way or the other. That's far from rigged.

    Parent
    As a long time member of (none / 0) (#80)
    by ragebot on Thu Jul 16, 2015 at 11:54:56 AM EST
    ALPO I can assure you there is a lot of bitter feeling about how the vote was conducted, as a rule many folks do leave early and miss announcements about a last minute vote.  Not to mention there is a real movement to change the current definition of planet.

    The most obvious failure of the current definition is that no object outside our solar system meets that definition of being a planet.  So far man has only observed one solar system in any detail.  There are literally millions (maybe billions or more) of solar systems and we have no idea how common or uncommon it is to have objects orbiting a star out side the ecliptic.

    Parent

    The root question is why would (none / 0) (#86)
    by Mr Natural on Thu Jul 16, 2015 at 12:11:45 PM EST
    other star systems be different?  At heart, a star is a gravity well and space borne stuff is gonna fall toward it.  After a star has been around a couple of billion years, middle aged, there's gonna be a pile of stuff orbiting it.  Some it will have self organized into the smaller gravity wells we call planets, comets, Plutos.  

    Some of the globular clusters have been estimated at containing over one hundred trillion individual stars.  That's a lot of opportunity.  What could be happening in those galaxies is almost beyond imagining.  But we're stuck here and with our lifetimes, we'll never know.

    The only people who still believe we're alone in this universe are those whose nose remains buried in a book.  And we know which book.


    Parent

    Did they know... (none / 0) (#179)
    by unitron on Fri Jul 17, 2015 at 12:28:15 AM EST
    ...before they left, that there was going to be a vote?

    Parent
    What CG said. (none / 0) (#118)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Jul 16, 2015 at 04:05:02 PM EST
    ragebot: "What ever one thinks about Pluto's status as a planet the vote does seem to have been rigged."

    That's a pretty strong accusation which you're offering here. What, pray tell, would be the motive for going through all that trouble to manipulate such a vote? Was there money, power and / or prestige at stake in the outcome? Not really, at least as far as I can tell.

    While I respect science and will more often than not defer to the judgments of its practitioners, on this particular issue I have to concede that I really don't have a dog in the hunt. And while I was admittedly surprised at the decision in 2006 to downgrade Pluto's status to that of a dwarf planet, the organization's stated reasons offered at the time for having done so look to be entirely logical.

    In that regard, the idea that certain people would conspire to "rig" such a vote appears to me so far-fetched as to be nonsensical, because it runs aground upon the rock of motive. And therefore, quite honestly, I must give it no more credence than another's prior-stated notion that Pluto's planetary status was downgraded because of its discoverer's U.S. nationality.

    Now, that said, and further given the knowledge about Pluto that's since been compiled in the wake of the vote nine years ago, I think there's actually a pretty decent case to be made for that decision's reversal, and with it Pluto's restoration as one of our solar system's nine known planets.

    But advocates for that position -- passionate though they may be -- are never going to convince people otherwise, if they choose enter the darkened realms heretofore reserved for political conspiracy theorists and xenophobes, and lob unsubstantiated allegations at those with whom they disagree.

    Aloha.

    Parent

    As has been already posted (none / 0) (#121)
    by ragebot on Thu Jul 16, 2015 at 04:27:05 PM EST
    Around two percent of the total IAU members voted in total at the end of a convention where the full membership was not close to being there.  I have seen lots of posts here about voter suppression with the implication that the object of voter suppression is to rig or fix an election.  If two percent of the voters in the US determined the prez I bet you would be up in arms, especially if an obvious effort to suppress voting was made.  Sorry but I am unable to determine the motivation of those who chose the timing of the election, but I do know it left a very bad taste in many astronomers' mouthss

    But what ever Pluto is called it is a very interesting object to study.  I would point out that the word object is used as the name of many objects astronomers don't completely understand.  I have no real dog in the fight over what Pluto is called, and many folks I observe with are kinda in the same boat; sorta amused about the petty fighting over the status of Pluto.  But I find almost all the astronomers I know and observe with think the vote was not done in an open manner.

    Parent

    What the Difference... (none / 0) (#83)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Jul 16, 2015 at 12:02:25 PM EST
    ...between calling you a man or a woman ?  Classifications matter, especially in regards to space.  In this instance, there is a good chance they would have not sent a probe to a dwarf-planet, aka large object that orbits the sun, had it never been labeled a planet.  They believe there are at least 100 dwarf planets in our solar system.

    If you don't care, don't comment.  You not caring does not equate to it not being important.

    This isn't about me, I am an accountant, and without someone telling me I would never be able to tell the difference between a large rock, an ice chunk, or a planet.  It's about classifying and labeling objects in our solar system correctly as the assumptions made rely on the underlying facts that are associated with classification.

    The vote involved just 424 astronomers who remained for the last day of a meeting of the International Astronomical Union (IAU) in Prague.

    "I'm embarrassed for astronomy," said Alan Stern, leader of NASA's New Horizon's mission to Pluto and a scientist at the Southwest Research Institute. "Less than 5 percent of the world's astronomers voted."

    "This definition stinks, for technical reasons," Stern told SPACE.com. He expects the astronomy community to overturn the decision. Other astronomers criticized the definition as ambiguous.

     LINK

    Parent
    That's the equivalent of a Jim link (2.00 / 1) (#88)
    by CoralGables on Thu Jul 16, 2015 at 12:12:13 PM EST
    "I'm embarrassed for astronomy," said Alan Stern, leader of NASA's New Horizon's mission to Pluto.

    He would likely have more bias than anyone since he's living on the Pluto payroll.

    Parent

    I just read the link (5.00 / 1) (#101)
    by sj on Thu Jul 16, 2015 at 12:50:45 PM EST
    And -- while it has a point of view -- it is definitely NOT the equivalent of a Jim link.

    It's sourced for one thing. I don't know why you are so bound and determined to hold on to the results of a rigged vote as being the final word.

    Not knowing about a vote and therefore not being present is not the same thing as "not caring to stick around".

    Parent

    I am glad to see that (1.00 / 1) (#192)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Jul 17, 2015 at 09:02:07 AM EST
    you understand that my pointing all the millions being poured into the MMGW hoaxers create more hoaxers.

    Parent
    And here's yet another reason why ... (5.00 / 2) (#19)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Jul 15, 2015 at 09:03:07 PM EST
    ... we should never put 13-year-olds -- or their emotional adult equivalents thereof -- in positions of actual authority:

    New York Times | July 15, 2015
    House Republicans to Investigate Planned Parenthood Over Fetal Tissue - "House Republican leaders on Wednesday announced a congressional investigation of Planned Parenthood, a day after anti-abortion activists released a video of an unsuspecting official from the organization explaining how it provides fetal parts to researchers."

    For their part, the good folks at Planned Parenthood assert that the video in question, which was cited by Speaker John Boehner as rationale for this latest attempted GOP assault on a woman's right to reproductive freedom of choice, was in fact selectively edited in order to deliberately cast the organization in the worst possible light.

    And lo and behold, it was. What a surprise, eh?

    While I don't (none / 0) (#23)
    by coast on Wed Jul 15, 2015 at 09:41:58 PM EST
    believe in abortion and find her descriptions of collecting the fetus material disturbing, I have to agree that there really is nothing here.

    Parent
    Well, I don't believe in abortion, either. (5.00 / 2) (#26)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Jul 15, 2015 at 10:15:33 PM EST
    I do, however, believe that a woman's inherent right to assert the sovereignty of her own person is inviolate, and should not be the subject of public debate -- particularly by men.

    Whether or not a woman chooses to carry her pregnancy to term is a personal matter that's best kept between her, her physician, and her significant other if she happens to have one. It is simply not our place to decide her fate by default. So, while I'm not pro-abortion, I'm definitely pro-choice. And I'm entirely comfortable in making that distinction.

    Aloha.

    Parent

    It's funny how when one states (none / 0) (#36)
    by coast on Thu Jul 16, 2015 at 05:58:44 AM EST
    A personal belief, people are always quick to believe that you project that belief on others.

    I never said anything about a woman not having a right to choose.  

    Parent

    No, you didn't. (5.00 / 2) (#82)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Jul 16, 2015 at 12:02:02 PM EST
    But you did state upfront at the very beginning of your post that you didn't believe in abortion, which certainly doesn't imply such a distinction. And for far too many people, there is none.

    Aloha.

    Parent

    Then you should have watched the tape (none / 0) (#39)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Jul 16, 2015 at 07:23:40 AM EST
    Selling human body parts is illegal.

    Parent
    No, Jim. (5.00 / 3) (#91)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Jul 16, 2015 at 12:19:10 PM EST
    Selling them for profit is illegal. And if you had bothered to watch the original and unedited version of that tape, you'd have seen and heard the executive from Planned Parenthood clearly make that distinction.

    She further notes the Planned Parenthood's patients must first agree to donate the fetal tissue for research purposes, and that the research labs and facilities reimburse Planned Parenthood only for the attendant costs associated with the transfer of that tissue, e.g., shipping and handling. Such transfers for research purposes have been occurring for decades.

    Therefore, nothing is being "sold" here -- except, of course, for the bullschitt that's being peddled to you and other willingly gullible wingbats by the anti-choice organization which manufactured this misleading video.

    Aloha.

    Parent

    Trying to parse (2.00 / 2) (#171)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Jul 16, 2015 at 10:42:19 PM EST
    selling and getting money with giving and being reimbursed for "expenses" would get you laughed out of any banking investigation.

    Any such quid pro pro agreement between two separate business entities is in fact a sale from one to the other.

    That you approve of such is frightening.

    Parent

    At the risk of incurring a scolding by Zorba, ... (5.00 / 2) (#174)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Jul 16, 2015 at 11:13:39 PM EST
    ... I'll just say that what's frightening here is your continued blind partisanship and willful ignorance. As I said above, these tissue donations and transactions have been taking place for more than forty years, and federal law only precludes such a transaction if the seller is profiting financially. What is it about the term "financial profit" that you don't understand?

    Further, I've read enough of your nonsense over the years to say with confidence that YOU are hardly qualified to determine what constitutes a legitimate transaction in these matters, which is the exclusive jurisdiction of the U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Services, and is most assuredly not within the purview of the Tennessee Valley Board of Self-Righteous Wingbats. So spare us your moralizing judgments on the subject, because you clearly don't know the time of day here.

    Aloha.

    Parent

    What you should do, Jim, (none / 0) (#172)
    by Mr Natural on Thu Jul 16, 2015 at 11:05:48 PM EST
    is refuse to use any medical advance or procedure developed as a result of research which depends on this tissue.

    BTW, you've overlooked an even greater injustice, that of allowing researchers to benefit when it impacts the bottom line profits of the Medical waste disposal industry.

    Parent

    I am so glad that you two (none / 0) (#200)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Jul 17, 2015 at 09:15:37 AM EST
    think medical experiments are good.

    Have you ever heard of the Nazis???

    Parent

    The fetal tissues are (5.00 / 1) (#205)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Fri Jul 17, 2015 at 09:25:26 AM EST
    being used in Nazi-style medical research?

    That has to be the dumbest thing anyone has written on the Internet today.

    Parent

    Your own ignorance of the law (none / 0) (#176)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Thu Jul 16, 2015 at 11:16:08 PM EST
    Is what's frightening, Jim.

    Parent
    Donald the devil is in the details (none / 0) (#99)
    by ragebot on Thu Jul 16, 2015 at 12:43:22 PM EST
    Money changed hands which by definition is selling.  But reimbursement is allowed, so the question is how much money changed hands and how much is the cost to provide the tissue.  Organ transfer is hard issue to deal with.  Many folks are willing to pay big bucks and some poor folks are willing to sell.  I am not saying this is what happened here, rather I don't know.

    But even well motivated organizations can get in trouble given the current rules.  As I posted earlier I think if a woman wants an abortion she should be able to get one.  But I also realize there are real logistic issues involved and how best to deal with the tissue resulting from an abortion is not an easy question to answer.  Adding money to the mix makes the question harder to answer.

    Parent

    "Money changing hands" is also ... (5.00 / 1) (#108)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Jul 16, 2015 at 01:36:26 PM EST
    ... the definition of receiving a paycheck, or a loan payment. There is no trafficking of human tissue for profit on the part of Planned Parenthood. And again, the donation of fetal tissue for purposes of research has been going on for decades.

    Why are you making this way more complicated than it needs to be, especially given the fact that these right-wing whackjobs' so-called evidence of Planned Parenthood's criminal culpability in the for-profit trafficking of human body parts is nothing more than a clearly doctored and misleading video?

    And since the right to an abortion is legal, it should therefore be an option that's freely available to any and all women upon their request and / or demand. First, it should be performed without any corresponding requirements that such women first undergo counseling or be subjected to transvaginal ultrasounds, and without any stipulations that they offer to society their mea culpa and apology prior to undergoing the procedure.

    You know, this isn't rocket science. And if you're not a woman, it's really none of your business, either.

    Aloha.

    Parent

    It's really not the business of (5.00 / 2) (#112)
    by Anne on Thu Jul 16, 2015 at 02:34:21 PM EST
    anyone other than the woman who is pregnant - I know you know that, Donald, I just didn't want anyone thinking that as long as one is female, it's okay for her to stick her nose into another woman's business.  It's not.

    It might be instructive to read the law on human fetal tissue transplantation: see here.

    As far as I can tell, this public law is still in place.

    Parent

    Good point, Anne. (5.00 / 1) (#119)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Jul 16, 2015 at 04:19:59 PM EST
    And thank you for the link to the actual law. The anti-choice movement does indeed count a not-insignificant number of women in its strident ranks, and your own personal reproductive choices are no more Phyllis Schafley's business than it is of her equally crackpotted male counterparts.

    At our respective ages, you and I are likely past our own natural reproductive periods. We need to stand both firm and unequivocal on this issue on behalf of our daughters, our grandchildren and the future generations yet to come.

    Aloha.

    Parent

    It is the business (1.00 / 1) (#122)
    by ragebot on Thu Jul 16, 2015 at 04:31:18 PM EST
    of everyone who is paying money for an abortion.  There are limited resources and it is simply not realistic to think everyone can have everything free of charge.  Priorities have to be established.  I would put abortions high on the list of priorities, but this is not the case with everyone.  Sad to say many folks who are paying the most in taxes (even if you don't think they are paying their fair share) don't think abortions should be provided free of charge.

    Parent
    And if an unwanted baby is born, (5.00 / 3) (#128)
    by Zorba on Thu Jul 16, 2015 at 05:01:52 PM EST
    How much would these people be paying, for at least the next 18 years, for food, housing, education, and medical care for these children, whether to help a desperate mother, or for the cost of foster care?
    Or would they say, well, once the baby is born, it's not our problem.  Let the kid starve, or die from lack of medical care.  Our hands are clean, all we wanted was to avoid paying for an abortion.


    Parent
    Well, of course, (5.00 / 1) (#131)
    by Mr Natural on Thu Jul 16, 2015 at 05:12:34 PM EST
    the starving baby and economically crippled mother "are in their prayers."

    Parent
    Every Sunday the church I attend (none / 0) (#199)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Jul 17, 2015 at 09:13:56 AM EST
    sends money to organizations that support children. It also collects food and distributes it.

    Your comment is just an attempt to smear Christians and political opponents.

    Why are you so frightened of Christians? They won't make you join,attend or pay.

    Parent

    Zorba (none / 0) (#129)
    by ragebot on Thu Jul 16, 2015 at 05:11:14 PM EST
    Your post illustrates why I have posted twice in this thread that if a woman wants an abortion she should be able to get one.  Even if a child has food, shelter, and clothing I am not sure they will develop into a good adult (what ever that is) unless they are wanted.  Clearly a mother who wanted an abortion has reservations about raising a child.

    Just as an aside I am not convinced that once someone reaches the age of 18 they are fully developed, I know plenty of folks over 18 who need to grow up a lot.

    Parent

    Reread my comment (5.00 / 2) (#135)
    by Zorba on Thu Jul 16, 2015 at 05:20:23 PM EST
    I am not asking what you think, but what the "many folks who are paying the most in taxes" that you referenced, might think.
    You're the one who brought up their supposed thoughts about their willingness or lack thereof to pay for an abortion, so I thought that you might have an answer about their willingness, or not, to help the kids once they are born.

    Parent
    That's just nonsense, ragebot. (5.00 / 1) (#141)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Jul 16, 2015 at 05:40:24 PM EST
    ragebot: "It is the business of everyone who is paying money for an abortion. There are limited resources and it is simply not realistic to think everyone can have everything free of charge.  Priorities have to be established. I would put abortions high on the list of priorities, but this is not the case with everyone. Sad to say many folks who are paying the most in taxes (even if you don't think they are paying their fair share) don't think abortions should be provided free of charge."

    For nearly 40 years, the Hyde Amendment has effectively prevented federal tax dollars from being used to pay for Medicaid abortions, and since 1976 has been attached as a rider to the annual appropriations bill for the Department of Health and Human Services. Many states have similar restrictions in their respective budgets.

    As is the case with everyone else, you of course have the right to your opinions on the subject of abortion. But that said, if you're going to state them here, then you should take pains to ensure that they are in fact informed opinions, and not based upon the usual (and easily refuted) right-wing trope.

    I'm now going to have to reassess my understanding of your supposed position on abortion, because you are clearly playing the part of concern troll here.

    Aloha.

    Parent

    Who is talking about free abortions? (5.00 / 3) (#183)
    by Anne on Fri Jul 17, 2015 at 06:39:38 AM EST
    Exactly no one, not in this thread.

    No one, that I'm aware of, is selling the by-products of her abortion as a way to pay for the procedure; as far as I know, whether or not a woman donates the fetal tissue and organs from her abortion, or from a stillbirth, has absolutely zero to do with the facility's charge for performing it.  

    Not only is this a pretty lame attempt to derail the discussion, it isn't even based in reality or fact: the federal government is not paying for abortions.  

    So, as to whose business it is that a woman may choose to terminate her pregnancy, the answer is still no one's but her own.  It isn't anymore anyone else's business what she chooses with respect to her reproductive health than is is anyone's business what she or you or I do with respect to any other aspect of our health.

    And you know what?  Even if the government was subsidizing the cost of abortions, it still wouldn't be anyone else's business.  If the government was subsidizing the cost of your health insurance, do you think it would be my business if you decided to have a vasectomy, or surgery for your hemorrhoids?  Should I get to weigh in on whether you should be able to get treatment for depression or have your hip replaced?

    I don't think so.  Abortion is no different.

    I don't understand why you don't seem to get that, and it's even more puzzling because you keep insisting you believe in the right of women to choose.  

    And by the way, this is about a highly-edited, agenda-driven video that purports to be "concerned" about Planned Parenthood breaking the law by "selling" fetal tissue, which would be illegal.  Let me just say this: what Planned Parenthood - or any other facility or provider that performs abortions - does with the products of those procedures HAS NOTHIHG TO DO WITH THE LEGALITY OF ABORTION ITSELF, OR A WOMAN'S RIGHT TO HAVE ONE.

    If organizations like the Center for Medical Progress can't make abortion illegal, they will do the next best thing: work to restrict, and ultimately eliminate, through tactics like this highly-edited video, women's access to abortion: if one can't find a facility or a doctor to perform the procedure, it's as good as being illegal.

    And you fell for it, which just proves why they do it.

    Parent

    Well then, since they're so all fired up about (none / 0) (#126)
    by Mr Natural on Thu Jul 16, 2015 at 04:52:16 PM EST
    paying for abortions, why not allow tissue "sale" provide a little offset?

    Parent
    Not trying to defend Jim (2.00 / 1) (#70)
    by ragebot on Thu Jul 16, 2015 at 11:35:41 AM EST
    but my understanding is that the woman having an abortion must sign a release if body parts of the baby are to be sold.  If PP did not have the release then selling the body parts would be illegal.  I waded through the entire unedited video and have to say I was boored.  But what disturbs me most was this conversation took place over lunch at what seemed to be a good restaurant.  Gotta say I would not have much of an appetite listening to it.

    Parent
    Um, no, because the products of (5.00 / 4) (#89)
    by Anne on Thu Jul 16, 2015 at 12:14:29 PM EST
    the abortion are not being sold, they are being donated, and Planned Parenthood is only being reimbursed for the costs associated with the transfer/transport of tissue to research facilities.

    Here's what Planned Parenthood said:

    In health care, patients sometimes want to donate tissue to scientific research that can help lead to medical breakthroughs, such as treatments and cures for serious diseases. Women at Planned Parenthood who have abortions are no different. At several of our health centers, we help patients who want to donate tissue for scientific research, and we do this just like every other high-quality health care provider does -- with full, appropriate consent from patients and under the highest ethical and legal standards. There is no financial benefit for tissue donation for either the patient or for Planned Parenthood. In some instances, actual costs, such as the cost to transport tissue to leading research centers, are reimbursed, which is standard across the medical field.

    According to the "Center for Medical Progress" (now, there's an oxymoron for you), the video was taken more than a year ago; for an organization that purports to be horrified by and determined to stop this so-called illegal activity, one has to wonder why they waited so long.

    Given that Planned Parenthood has been a target of these anti-choice activists for years and years, I have to believe they are vigilant in maintaining the highest legal standards possible; they know there's a target on them, so why give them ammunition?

    Parent

    Ann (none / 0) (#92)
    by ragebot on Thu Jul 16, 2015 at 12:25:55 PM EST
    what is being investigated is the line between reimbursement and selling.  Another issue is did the women involved sign a release to donate.

    The issue of what to do with the results of an abortion has been a hard issue to resolve.  Some women simply want it to be out of sight.  Others may want to burry or cremate or what ever.  There have also been issues of the body simply being dumped in the trash.  Early on anti abortion folks griped about simply throwing the body in the trash which resulted in the state creating rules/laws.

    I am of the opinion that if a woman wants an abortion she should be able to get one, if only to save an unwanted child from growing up unwanted.  But there are real logistic issues about how to best do this.

    At one level I suspect the woman getting an abortion would want part of the money/reimbursement for the donation.  Not sure how to deal with that.

    Parent

    There are no "real logistic issues." (5.00 / 1) (#133)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Jul 16, 2015 at 05:14:11 PM EST
    ragebot: "I am of the opinion that if a woman wants an abortion she should be able to get one, if only to save an unwanted child from growing up unwanted. But there are real logistic issues about how to best do this. At one level I suspect the woman getting an abortion would want part of the money / reimbursement for the donation.  Not sure how to deal with that."

    As long as abortion is legal, which it presently is, then a woman's right and ability to access such services as necessary or desired should be both unfettered and unrestricted.

    I fear that you've clearly fallen into the logic trap laid out by anti-choice proponents, who've been using it to chip away at a woman's personal right to reproductive freedom and autonomy since at least the 1980s, if not earlier.

    Your hypothetical suspicion is exactly that -- hypothetical, and further it's one for which there is no actual evidence to support it. And that's certainly not a valid basis for imposing select restrictions upon another's rights to be secure in their physical personhood.

    Look, either you believe that a woman has the right to make her own personal reproductive choices and decisions as she sees fit, or you believe she does not. Sorry, but there's really no middle ground here -- at least, none that I'll ever be willing to concede to you or anyone else.

    Therefore, if you truly consider yourself to be in the camp of the former, as opposed to the latter, then you really shouldn't be qualifying your support for a woman's right and ability to obtain an abortion on the basis of someone else's ever-shifting terms and / or political agenda(s).

    Because in so doing, you also run a very serious risk of thus qualifying your own future personal choices, by which you'd render your medical care and / or end-of-life decisions subject to the potential approval or disapproval of persons who may or may not be known to you, and who further may or may not have your best interests at heart. And if you don't think that risk is both genuine and real, I've got two words for you: "Terri Schiavo."

    So, I would respectfully suggest that you perhaps ought to rethink your present contingency-laden position on this subject. If you wouldn't welcome and / or appreciate someone else's interventions in your personal decision making on the basis of their own suspicions or imaginary hypotheticals, then you should also naturally assume that most women would be likely to feel similarly about such baseless interference in their own lives.

    Why not, therefore, accord to women the very same courtesies which you would otherwise reserve and demand for yourself personally?

    Aloha.

    Parent

    Voltaire (2.00 / 1) (#188)
    by ragebot on Fri Jul 17, 2015 at 08:00:25 AM EST
    was famous for his quotation 'If you would speak with me first define your terms'.  The first issue I have with your post is the claim there is a right to an abortion.  My definition of right seems to be different than yours (and Ann's, and probably several others).  A right to me is something that is granted to all people.  An example I will submit is we all can own a 42 foot sailing catamaran, as long as we have resources to buy it.  But we don't have the right to own a sailboat, just the ability to live on one if we can legally obtain it.

    I have noticed lots of folks here falling into the trap of what my high school debate coach use to call two great ships passing in the night with no conflict.  A lot of posts start out misunderstanding  posts they are responding to.

    Another difference we seem to have in definitions is that money is fungible.  Even if the federal government only gives PP a small portion of their budget it is subsidizing abortion, even if only to a small extent.  If the government subsidizes insurance that can be used to pay for abortion the same is true.  This is basic economic theory.

    The two of us failing to agree on the definition of what a right is or that money is (or is not fungible) means continuing we are on two great ships that passed in the night.

    Parent

    So, you don't agree that the law (5.00 / 4) (#193)
    by Anne on Fri Jul 17, 2015 at 09:02:39 AM EST
    defines what women's rights are with respect to abortion?  

    In looking at PP's last financial statement, it appears that abortion services represent 3% of the total services of the organization.

    I find it kind of interesting the phobia people have about even the possibility that a penny of their tax dollars would go anywhere where it might be deemed to be helping "pay" for an abortion, or birth control, but I wonder why they don't seem to have any problem with their tax dollars "paying" for war, and torture, and corrupt and abusive law enforcement, and illegal surveillance - to name a few.

    Parent

    Yeah (5.00 / 1) (#195)
    by FlJoe on Fri Jul 17, 2015 at 09:07:57 AM EST
    Forced rectal feeding and Dick Cheney's new heart, all on our dime.

    Parent
    ragebot, are you really so under the (none / 0) (#197)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Jul 17, 2015 at 09:10:15 AM EST
    thumb of the political correct mavens here that you feel you must apologize for writing something that may agree with me???

    I feel so sorry for you.

    Parent

    Sorry (none / 0) (#198)
    by FlJoe on Fri Jul 17, 2015 at 09:13:40 AM EST
    is such an appropriate word choice here.

    Parent
    You are very easy to mislead (none / 0) (#43)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Thu Jul 16, 2015 at 07:49:01 AM EST
    from pathos dot com:

    This latest story of this latest video purporting this latest Satanic baby-killer atrocity follows the familiar pattern. The video itself, despite painstaking selective editing, scarcely supports the outrageous claim -- only providing "evidence" for those who desire to find it, and who are willing to squint, and twist their necks, and cover one eye to maybe kinda sorta make it seem like it might show something that, if taken a certain way, might be horrifying.

    Snopes.com is already on the case -- compiling a long list of reasons this video and the allegations it supposedly supports don't pass the smell test. Consider, for example, the evasive group that produced this video -- the previously unknown and strangely named "Center for Medical Progress." About the only thing we know so far about this group is that its leader is somebody named David Deleiden. And about the only thing we know so far about Deleiden is that he's friends with disgraced right-wing activist James O'Keefe.

    This Scary Story -- like the Pepsi is Soylent Green! story it echoes and revitalizes -- seems credible mainly to those who want to believe it. It seems plausible mainly to those who would prefer that such nightmares were true.

    "This is the test," C.S. Lewis said. How will such people respond when confronted with evidence that this latest Scary Story is not true? Will they be relieved to learn -- thank God! -- that this nightmare of a black market in dead-baby body parts isn't a horror they need to fear? Or will they deny all such evidence, growing angry with the spoilsports who point it out and thereby ruin all the fun of believing it was true?

    "If it is the second," Lewis said, "then it is, I am afraid, the first step in a process which, if followed to the end, will make us into devils."

    White evangelical Christianity in America is now three decades along in that process. And it's gaining momentum.



    Parent
    Two states are investigating (none / 0) (#50)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Jul 16, 2015 at 08:57:12 AM EST
    So we'll find out.

    Parent
    That indicated (none / 0) (#54)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Thu Jul 16, 2015 at 09:07:53 AM EST
    that there are many people who have been fooled by this, aside from.

    Just like those Benghazi investigatiaons never found any of the rumored orders to 'stand down' that were supposedly ordered by Obama, I can predict that these investigations will lead to exactly nowhere.

    Parent

    Facts? The facts don't matter to (5.00 / 4) (#57)
    by Anne on Thu Jul 16, 2015 at 09:48:19 AM EST
    the people who put this video together, or to the people who support their efforts; all that matters to them is the mission: bringing an end to Planned Parenthood as part of a quest to ban all abortions.

    And that means getting people to believe that something is true, even when it isn't.

    This is why we have people who still believe that Obama isn't an American, that Saddam was behind the 9/11 attacks, that Clinton was responsible for Benghazi, that climate change is a liberal conspiracy - I could go on - but the bottom line is that no amount of facts has ever or will ever change the minds of people who believe this garbage.

    I'm sure by the end of the day, if not already, they'll believe that Planned Parenthood has been encouraging women to abort so that they can sell the tissue/organs.

    Some days, it's hard to believe just how much stupid there is in this world.

    Parent

    Anne, this is not about Obama, or 9/11 (2.00 / 1) (#169)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Jul 16, 2015 at 10:36:18 PM EST
    or anything of the other things you want to use to try and reframe the debate.

    The claim is that Planned Parenthood has been "harvesting" the organs of late term abortions and selling them.

    That is horrific and illegal.

    Two states are investigating.

    You can run but you can't hide.

    Parent

    They aren't harvesting them illegally, you (none / 0) (#187)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Fri Jul 17, 2015 at 07:46:43 AM EST
    ignoramus:

    Republican presidential candidates are attempting to capitalize on right-wing media's manufactured outrage over a deceptively edited video attacking Planned Parenthood, using conservative media platforms to call for investigations into Planned Parenthood and fundraising off of the drummed up outrage.

    On July 14, the Center for Medical Progress (CMP) released a deceptively edited video purporting to show a Planned Parenthood official discussing prices for the illegal sale of fetal tissue from abortion. But the full, unedited video makes it clear that Planned Parenthood actually facilitates tissue donation with full patient consent, at no financial benefit to the organization, and in full compliance with the law.

    Right-wing media seized on the video, with Fox News' Bill O'Reilly calling for an FBI investigation into Planned Parenthood, and Megyn Kelly accusing the organization of "celebrating its practice of harvesting the organs of aborted fetuses for money."

    And now the GOP is capitalizing on right-wing media's phony outrage despite the fact that numerous media outlets have called out CMP's "shady video," concluding it "shows nothing illegal."



    Parent
    If the harvest them with the woman's (1.00 / 1) (#196)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Jul 17, 2015 at 09:08:02 AM EST
    permission and then sell them, or give them with a predetermined "gift" to cover "expenses" that is illegal.

    You are having another "homicide" moment.

    You remind me of what Gump said.

    Parent

    An abortion is not a "harvest," (5.00 / 4) (#207)
    by Anne on Fri Jul 17, 2015 at 09:45:10 AM EST
    jim; Planned Parenthood is not "harvesting" fetuses with the intent to sell them and make money off them.

    Being reimbursed for the costs associated with preserving and transporting the materials is not a "gift," jim.  That these costs vary depending on where they are being sent, how much is being sent, etc., is no more unusual than one employee getting reimbursed by his employer "more" for the expense of a 300 mile trip and another getting reimbursed "less" for the expense of a 100 mile trip.

    Maybe you don't understand what a gift is, jim.  Hell, at this point, the list of what you do understand is a lot shorter than the list of what you don't.

    Parent

    It's the law (none / 0) (#201)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Fri Jul 17, 2015 at 09:21:18 AM EST
    that tissue donated can be given in return for the expenses involved in handling it and keeping it alive.  Keeping human tissue alive complicated and cost money.  They get reimbursed for their expenses, they don't make a single penny of profit off of it.

    That you fail to understand this is something you have to work on, Jim.

    Parent

    The Idea That This... (none / 0) (#63)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Jul 16, 2015 at 10:55:30 AM EST
    ...is about anything but anti-abortion non-sense, would be funny if they were so pathetic.

    But I see they upgraded from pseudo-pimps.

    And in case you missed this, anti-abortion summer camp teaching kids how to properly protest abortion.  'Your neighbor is a killer'

    Today is day five of a 10-day camp considered one of the oldest training grounds in the country for pro-life activists aged 13 and up. They're a pimple-faced army for life, afire with anti-abortion fervor, and drilled in everything from how to write a press release to how not to get arrested. Camp classes include Five Bad Ways to Argue about Abortion, The Abortion Industry, and Knowing Your Rights, a first amendment primer.
    ...
    Veronica gathers campers around her and points down the street, away from the police, where the campers are to begin "chalk and awe". In pastel pink, yellow and blue chalk, the campers write on the sidewalks and street: "Stop Killing Babies" and "Abortion Hurts Women". They draw large arrows that point to the doctor's home, and write "Baby Killer" and "Murderer". Few of them realize that "shock and awe" was the term used for the Bush administration's bombardment of Baghdad.

    The adults who send their kids to do their dirty work should be tossed in jail:

    More neighbors are outside now. Two women hose the words off the sidewalk in front of their homes. "Please don't write here," says one woman, who is elderly with bobbed white hair.

    The campers don't stop, upsetting the woman. "You don't listen," she says. "You don't know how to listen." Her voice rises. "You just scream!" She sprays the campers.

    It's time to leave. Veronica helps round up the campmates. They hurry back to the vans. The neighbors are chanting now: "Shame, shame, shame."



    Parent
    Oh man (5.00 / 1) (#107)
    by sj on Thu Jul 16, 2015 at 01:33:39 PM EST
    That is so sad and sickening.

    Parent
    Obama gave (5.00 / 3) (#30)
    by MKS on Wed Jul 15, 2015 at 10:36:02 PM EST
    confident, coherent, cogent answers at the press conference today about the Iran nuke deal.

    One of the chief criticisms is that Iran can have up to 24 days notice of any inspection.  Netanyahu compared this to allowing a drug dealer time to flush the drugs down the toiler.

    Secretary Muniz on Rachel said hiding a nuke program can be done so easily.  Others said you can't hide a nuke program in 24 days.  One commentator pointed to the Syrian facility that was bombed.   The Syrians bulldozed the site and yet still inspectors could detect tell-tale vestiges of the program months later.

    The outrage on the Right is bizarre.

    One is reminded of JFK's standing up to the Joint Chiefs on day 12 of the Cuban Missile Crisis and refusing to invade and bomb Cuba....JFK probably save the World that day.  Bombs away Lemay would have killed us all.

    The question is (none / 0) (#41)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Jul 16, 2015 at 07:28:03 AM EST
    Why did Iran demand the 24 days if it doesn't do anything they want?

    And the answer is???  

    It's like CAIR opposing the OK law that would have banned Sharia Law in OK. If you are not against something.....Why oppose it?

    Parent

    They had an explaination (none / 0) (#44)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Thu Jul 16, 2015 at 07:53:50 AM EST

    began with State Question 755 (SQ755), a state ballot measure in Oklahoma in the November 2010 election that would have amended that state's constitution to forbid judges from considering Islamic principles (Sharia) or international law when making a ruling. After an aggressive fear-mongering campaign that included political ads depicting gruesome videos of beheadings as "sharia," Oklahoma voters passed SQ755 with an overwhelming vote of 70 percent.

    As a civil rights advocacy organization, CAIR recognized that SQ755 could seriously impact the daily lives of Oklahoma Muslims and business people of all faiths if it was enacted. While the ballot measure's supporters scared people by calling it the "Save Our State" bill and claiming that Muslims would "take over" and enact frightening laws and customs, we know the reality of Islam and Sharia - that brutality and inhumanity have no place in our faith, and that Sharia encompasses the principles of Islam and is based on justice and compassion.

    If SQ755 and the more than 20 similar bills that followed it were passed and enforced, many aspects of Muslims' daily lives - such as participating in mosque activities or having an Islamic marriage contract or will - could have become illegal.

    Because of the serious civil liberties implications of these anti-Islam bills, CAIR knew decisive legal action had to be taken to set a precedent from the beginning. We watched the political debate over SQ755 and prepared to respond.

    The day after the ballot measure was passed in the Oklahoma election, the executive director of CAIR's Oklahoma chapter, with assistance from CAIR's national office, filed a lawsuit in federal court to address the dangerous and unconstitutional elements of the bill. A federal judge agreed with the lawsuit's arguments and put a temporary hold on SQ755 until the issue could be heard in court.



    Parent
    Hooey (3.50 / 2) (#51)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Jul 16, 2015 at 09:02:04 AM EST
    CAIR is named by the feds as an unindicted co conspirator...among other things.

    It is also an Muslim organization.

    Why would they oppose the banning of Sharia if they didn't want it imposed?

    Well duh.....

    As Gump said.....

    And yes, as you quoted.... Sharia Law has serious civil rights problems.

    Parent

    "Hooey" seems to be ... (5.00 / 1) (#98)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Jul 16, 2015 at 12:40:23 PM EST
    ... your favorite epithet to describe anything which doesn't correlate with your own ignorant and fact-free parallel universe.

    And since you are no more an expert on nuclear weaponry and disarmament, than you are about anything else that's the subject of your often nonsensical rants, there's really nothing you're saying here that's at all worthy of note. It's merely the same bigoted anti-Muslim crap which we can hear from most any white looney-tunes wingbat who pollutes our public airwaves on most any AM political squawk radio show.

    So, in your particular case, the shopworn phrase "Move along, people, nothing to see here" is certainly applicable to the rest of us -- and speaking for myself only, I intend to heed it.

    Good day.

    Parent

    Now, now, Donald (5.00 / 3) (#100)
    by Zorba on Thu Jul 16, 2015 at 12:49:53 PM EST
    I thought that you wrote the other day that you were going to take my advice and start ignoring him.
    I know, I know, it's difficult to let the claptrap pass.
    Deep breaths, my brother.
    Namaste.

    Parent
    I know, I know! (none / 0) (#159)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Jul 16, 2015 at 08:35:48 PM EST
    But it's like quitting smoking -- the intent is there, but that open pack of Marlboro reds on the coffee table just beckons, "C'mon! You know you want to, and one more time won't hurt ..."

    ;-D

    Parent

    Have a link for your assertions (none / 0) (#52)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Thu Jul 16, 2015 at 09:04:02 AM EST
    Or are you just repeating Fox News again.

    CAIR won their lawsuit, BTW.  Get over it.

    Parent

    et al (none / 0) (#152)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Jul 16, 2015 at 07:14:27 PM EST
    Zorba, if you can't debate then you are doing the right thing. But why whine? Is it because you know I'm right? I think so.

    Mordiggian

    In 2007 the organization was named, along with 245 others, by U.S. Federal prosecutors in a list of unindicted co-conspirators and/or joint venturers in a Hamas funding case involving the Holy Land Foundation,[3] which in 2009 caused the FBI to cease working with CAIR outside of criminal investigations due to its designation.[4

    Look it up.

    And I note again. If you oppose Sharia law then you wouldn't oppose a law banning it.

    Horowitz asked the simple question: "Do you feel more comfortable living under American Law or do you feel more comfortable living under Sharia law?"

    The majority of the people answered that they'd rather live under strict Sharia law. Sharia law gives women virtually no rights at all, they can be married at the age of nine, and is a literal interpretation of the Quran, which governs all aspect of life.

    Link

    Donald - So noting CAIR's status is a no no???

    BTW - Four Marines died today so that you and Mordiggian can babble.

    Enjoy your freedom purchased by them.

    Parent

    The unindictment (none / 0) (#156)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Thu Jul 16, 2015 at 07:54:17 PM EST
    is because they couldn't prove a thing, Jim.  You fall for any little piece of 'evidence' when it seems to prove something.

    And, yes, two people have the right to have a sharia law contract for marriage and the likenas long as it diesn't violate the laws of this country, like, I dunno,hiding under the beds of American citizens and chopping their heads off after they've gone to sleep.  You catch my drift?

    The OK law died in court, so get over it.

    Parent

    So you are pro Sharia law (none / 0) (#167)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Jul 16, 2015 at 10:24:37 PM EST
    I have understood that for a long time.

    I just can't understand how anyone claiming to be liberal would be for laws that deny human rights, calls for death for homosexuals and killing of female family members who have brought "shame" to the male members of the family.

    So I must conclude that you are not a liberal.

    Parent

    Quit making things up (none / 0) (#175)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Thu Jul 16, 2015 at 11:14:27 PM EST
    I wrote what I wrote, which is that sharia,law is find between consenting parties.

    You do seem to have a severe reading problem, Jim.  Quit trying to redefine hints because you're losing the argument.

    Parent

    So by your logic (none / 0) (#202)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Jul 17, 2015 at 09:21:45 AM EST
    if Party A consents to being killed by Party B that is okay.

    If Party A consents to be a prostitute for Party B that is okay.

    That is just two of many things that two parties cannot agree about and adopt.

    There is no argument.

    CAIR is an organization of Muslims.

    Sharia is the law of Islam.

    OK wanted to ban Sharia.

    CAIR opposed banning Sharia law.

    Parent

    Look at my earlier comment (none / 0) (#203)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Fri Jul 17, 2015 at 09:23:18 AM EST
    Where I sarcastically excluded beheading people from agreements between two people concerning Sharia law, and you'll have your answer.

    Parent
    Jim, maybe (none / 0) (#163)
    by MKS on Thu Jul 16, 2015 at 09:26:51 PM EST
    Iran wants some secrecy as a sovereign nation--to protect its conventional defense and military objectives.

    Or, maybe, they think they can cheat. But I care more about whether they can....If we catch them cheating, then it doesn't matter if they think they can get away with it.

    Parent

    Seeing as how Iran is an avowed (2.00 / 1) (#168)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Jul 16, 2015 at 10:27:32 PM EST
    enemy of the US and Israel I really don't care what they want.

    Focus on that.

    Iran is our enemy.

    They are responsible for many deaths. They will kill more. They sponsor terrorism.

    Parent

    You asked a question of (5.00 / 2) (#170)
    by MKS on Thu Jul 16, 2015 at 10:36:55 PM EST
    what they wanted...

    Good grief....We did a deal with Stalin.  And good that we did.  Without Stalin, it is not all that clear we beat the Nazis.....We can do deals with enemies...

    Your ilk would have killed us all during the Cuban Missile Crisis.....All threats and bombs away.....Thank God, JFK rejected the warmongering ways of the Joint Chiefs back then....

     

    Parent

    The deal with Stalin was when we had (none / 0) (#204)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Jul 17, 2015 at 09:24:28 AM EST
    a common enemy. Immediately afterwards Stalin tried to takeover the world and we fought a deadly Cold War for 50 years.

    Thanks for demonstrating how radical Islam, and Iran, is exactly the same.

    Parent

    Yes (none / 0) (#46)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Jul 16, 2015 at 07:57:32 AM EST
    there's a total meltdown on the right over this.

    Parent
    McCain Yesterday... (5.00 / 2) (#64)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Jul 16, 2015 at 11:02:06 AM EST
    Shortly after world powers successfully negotiated a nuclear-framework agreement with Iran, Sen. John McCain warned that a lasting peace with the Middle Eastern nation "could greatly limit our ability to bomb it."

    "President Obama is hailing this framework as something that could enhance the prospects for peace in the Middle East," McCain told reporters at the United States Senate. "For those of us who have looked forward to bombing Iran for some time now, that would be a doomsday scenario."

    "The Iranians know well and good that if they abandon their nuclear program exactly the way we've asked them to, we can kiss bombing them goodbye," he said, shaking his head ruefully. "It's a damn shame."

    As for President Obama, McCain added, "Sometimes I think the President cares more about making the Iranians happy than about making the people who want to bomb the Iranians happy."

    With the deadline for finalizing a nuclear treaty with Iran set for June 30th, McCain said that there was still a chance that talks could break down and allow the United States to bomb it, but added, "I'm not getting my hopes up."

    "If we all wake up on July 1st and we're at peace with Iran, don't say I didn't warn you," he said.

    OK, that satire from the New Yorker, but how far did it take you to realize it ?  

    Parent

    Not satire as much as (5.00 / 2) (#104)
    by KeysDan on Thu Jul 16, 2015 at 01:19:27 PM EST
    subtext.

    Parent
    One sentence (none / 0) (#77)
    by CoralGables on Thu Jul 16, 2015 at 11:48:09 AM EST


    Parent
    I thought it was a jimakaPPJj post (none / 0) (#173)
    by Mr Natural on Thu Jul 16, 2015 at 11:10:56 PM EST


    Parent
    The outrage on the right (none / 0) (#109)
    by KeysDan on Thu Jul 16, 2015 at 01:38:36 PM EST
    is par for the course.   Because (a) President Obama, (b) 2016.  Nothing else matters to them.  And, save your breath for cooling your soup--no explanations, facts, arguments will change their opposition.   Because (a) President Obama, and (b) 2016.

    Parent
    I give the President and SOS Kerry credit (none / 0) (#164)
    by coast on Thu Jul 16, 2015 at 09:43:27 PM EST
    For their work on the agreement, and that is from someone on the other side of the aisle.

    This emphasis on the 24 days is somewhat ridiculous.  If the experts from the AEIA are satisfied with time requirements, I don't see any reason to question them.

    My biggest criticism would be the continued use of description by the President and others that this agreement "prevents" Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon.

    This agreement does no such thing.  If Iran adheres to the agreement, it does nothing more than delay them from creating a weapon for about 10 years, maybe 15 at the most.

    Again, I commend them on the agreement which will hopefully remove the need for additional military action in the ME.  However, if you are going to sell me a Porsche, don't pull up in a Buick and try and convince me it's a Porsche.  It's smells too much like "if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor".

    Parent

    How could this be? (5.00 / 2) (#58)
    by kdog on Thu Jul 16, 2015 at 10:05:28 AM EST
    No sitting president has ever been inside a federal prison?  

    Good on the pres for being the first...I'm really liking the criminal justice reform push.

    I hope every future president takes the time to see the damage done by 50 years of over-criminalization and over-incarceration first hand and visits federal prisons regularly, at least until our prisons and policies are no longer an international disgrace.  

    Both Clinton's are now involved (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Jul 16, 2015 at 10:51:17 AM EST
    I don't think it's just talk.

    Parent
    for the first time (none / 0) (#87)
    by CST on Thu Jul 16, 2015 at 12:11:54 PM EST
    I'm optimistic we will see some movement.  And I don't think Obama's gonna quit this once he's no longer president either.

    Parent
    For that matter,has any President ever been inside (none / 0) (#71)
    by jondee on Thu Jul 16, 2015 at 11:35:50 AM EST
    any other kind of prison or jail? To visit, I mean..

    It's hard to imagine politicians vistiing jails and prisons when they have hard enough time publicly acknowledging that there are a lot of poor people in this country; besides the much-evoked "middle class"..

    Parent

    Yeah... (none / 0) (#102)
    by kdog on Thu Jul 16, 2015 at 01:17:51 PM EST
    the "ignored" column is pretty full.  It takes a lame duck, and thank goodness for small favors.

    Were I in the cabinet, I'd suggest nothing but food pantry, homeless shelter, unemployment office, and prison visits for the rest of the term.  Tell Lloyd and Jamie he can't take the call right now, he's in meetings with key constituents and won't be available till 2017.  

    Now that would be a mother-f8ckin' legacy...along with 100,000+ pardons.  But that's just me.

    Parent

    President Obama's trip (none / 0) (#106)
    by KeysDan on Thu Jul 16, 2015 at 01:25:56 PM EST
    to Oklahoma to visit the El Reno Federal Corrections Institute included a greeting of citizens  with Confederate Flag waving.  Heritage not hate....they say.  Guess I forgot that Oklahoma was a Confederate state--being admitted to the Union in 1907 and all.  But, I am beginning to recall that Oklahoma did  became a Confederate state in 2008.

    Parent
    Were I in the cabinet (redux)... (5.00 / 1) (#110)
    by kdog on Thu Jul 16, 2015 at 01:49:09 PM EST
    I'd also suggest a pardon of a pigmented prisoner for every Confederate rag he sees until 2017.  

    Crackers wanna play?  Lets play!

    Parent

    The House Republicans, and (5.00 / 1) (#111)
    by KeysDan on Thu Jul 16, 2015 at 02:03:38 PM EST
    more precise, the House Judiciary Committee Republicans, are after President Obama for discriminating in favor of drug offenders in a manner that is somehow, someway, illegal.  

    The Constitution says "the president shall have the power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the US, except in cases of impeachment."   Of course, this is the Constitution, not the Bible or the Evangelical's songbook.  So there is that.

    Parent

    To my knowledge (none / 0) (#132)
    by ragebot on Thu Jul 16, 2015 at 05:13:59 PM EST
    No sitting president has driven a car.  Bush the first was shocked when he went to a food store and saw a scanner, but I doubt any president does grocery shopping, puts gas in a car, rides a subway, or a multitude of other things that normal folks do.

    I would love to see most pols go to DMV and have to wait in line like I do.

    Parent

    Why won't people like Hillary (5.00 / 1) (#73)
    by jondee on Thu Jul 16, 2015 at 11:43:25 AM EST
    ever publicly talk about the fact that the big investment banks need to broken up; that their existence seriously endangers not only the economy of the U.S, but of the world?

    Is it because she would then be forced to acknowledge that Bill was disaterously mistaken in knuckling under to the cutthroat Randian agenda of Greenspan and Rubin & co?

    Because those people... (5.00 / 1) (#105)
    by kdog on Thu Jul 16, 2015 at 01:23:44 PM EST
    would rather win the wrong way than lose the right way.  And they wanna be rich one day too, if they aren't already.

    Bernie from Brooklyn, otoh, mentions just that in a feature article in the new Rolling Stone.  Integral part of his New New Deal economic policy platform, break up the big bad banks.

    Parent

    "Building the Growth and (none / 0) (#136)
    by KeysDan on Thu Jul 16, 2015 at 05:20:38 PM EST
    Fairness Economy," by Hillary Clinton, July 2015.  From transcript:   'ensure that no firm is too complex to manage or oversee,'   'some major banks are too complex and too risky."

    Parent
    Irony abounds. (none / 0) (#137)
    by Mr Natural on Thu Jul 16, 2015 at 05:23:30 PM EST
    Some people think that our government is too large and complex to manage or oversee.

    Parent
    Great...another shooting... (5.00 / 2) (#114)
    by Anne on Thu Jul 16, 2015 at 02:50:40 PM EST
    Four members of the military were killed in two attacks on military centers in separate parts of Chattanooga by an unknown gunman, leading to lockdowns at local hospitals as well as the Army Recruiting Center on Lee highway as well as the Naval and Marine Reserve Center at the Chattanooga Riverpark, where shots were fired.

    A single shooter, described by witnesses as a white man driving a silver Ford Mustang convertible, began firing shots at 10:45 am.m. at the Lee Highway recruiting center, then led police on a chase to the Amnicola Highway location, where further shots were fired.

    At least four Marines were killed and one police officer was shot in the attacks at Amnicola Highway. Two others, a soldier and a police officer, were wounded in the attack, according to the Associated Press.

    Officials have said the shooter is dead and that the active shooting situation has ended. The shooter did not work at either of the facilities, according to the FBI. Today's attack came with no warning, the FBI said.

    A sign on the outside of the Lee Highway location had a "no guns allowed" sign posted. During the news conference, the FBI confirmed that guns were generally prohibited at federal facilities.

    Link

    I guess the FBI only knows about stuff when it's setting up its own stings; all that surveillance and spying and collection of data and the FBI doesn't have a clue.

    Your link (2.00 / 1) (#125)
    by ragebot on Thu Jul 16, 2015 at 04:41:33 PM EST
    has the name of the dead shooter being Muhammad Youssef Abdulazeez.  It also is reporting his father works for the city water department and the father's name is Youssef Abdulazeez.  His picture is posted at the link and he looks Muslim to me, not sure your "white man" description fits him.

    Also wondering if it is common for a son and father to have names that similar?

    Parent

    If the man is Arabic, (none / 0) (#130)
    by Zorba on Thu Jul 16, 2015 at 05:12:13 PM EST
    which it would seem he is, since he was originally from Kuwait, then yes, he would be considered to be of the Caucasian race,  if that is important to you.
    He's as Caucasian, or "white" as a Jewish person is, since Arabs and Jews are both Semites.
    So let me ask you, do you consider Jewish people to be "white," or not?


    Parent
    Race and religion (2.00 / 1) (#138)
    by ragebot on Thu Jul 16, 2015 at 05:24:52 PM EST
    are two different things.  Sammy Davis Jr. was Jewish and I feel comfortable saying he did not self identify as white.

    Growing up in South Florida I know lots of Hispanics who self identify as Hispanic, not white, and I would bet lots of Arabs don't self identify as white.

    Not sure what that means though after the NAACP lady in the NW self identified as black but her parents though she was white.

    Even race itself is a soft term to me.  How do you describe Obama, is he black, or mixed race.  It gets even more complicated as wiki explains.

    Bottom line is I would describe the shooter as Arabic, not white; especially in a situation involving a crime.

    Parent

    You said in your earlier comment (5.00 / 1) (#206)
    by Zorba on Fri Jul 17, 2015 at 09:28:44 AM EST
    That he looked "Muslim" to you.
    Of course, you do realize that Islam is not a race, it's a religion.
    There are black African Muslims, Indonesian Muslims, Arabic Muslims, Persian Muslims, and even pale-skinned, fair-haired Muslims.
    There are over 1.6 billion Muslims in the world, and you're going to get a lot of variety.

    Parent
    While I have no problem with ... (none / 0) (#147)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Jul 16, 2015 at 06:38:21 PM EST
    ragebot: "His picture is posted at the link and he looks Muslim to me, not sure your 'white man' description fits him."

    ... with you saying that the man looks Arabic, since that's what he obviously is, the truth is that one can no more "look" Muslim, than one can "look" evangelical Christian or Taoist. In that regard, I would note that about 5-10% of Arabic people have identified as Christian over the centuries.

    If you ever travel to southeastern Europe, you'll no doubt see many Muslims who otherwise look very European because ethnically, that's exactly who they are. And if you go to Indonesia in southeast Asia, which is the largest Muslim country in the world, or neighboring Malaysia, you'll note than its inhabitants hardly resemble Omar Sharif and the Bedouins of "Lawrence of Arabia."

    Physiologically, as someone of predominantly German-Irish descent, I certainly don't look anything like my Ilocano (Filipino) neighbors here in Hilo, even though we share the same Christian faith of Roman Catholicism.

    Religious affiliation is not the same as ethnicity, and we should therefore avoid conflating various terms as though they were. All that does is further fan the flames of anti-Muslim bigotry in this country.

    Aloha.

    Parent

    One of my website tools suppliers (none / 0) (#151)
    by Mr Natural on Thu Jul 16, 2015 at 07:12:44 PM EST
    is in Petaling Jaya, outside Kuala Lampur.  I hadn't given that any thought until today when I needed a little technical support.  "Eid Mubarak" was plastered on the banner.  So I'll wait.

    Parent
    He looks like ... (none / 0) (#162)
    by desertswine on Thu Jul 16, 2015 at 09:25:25 PM EST
    one of those duck dynasty guys to me.

    Parent
    Another (none / 0) (#134)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Thu Jul 16, 2015 at 05:19:27 PM EST
    Another shooting in a so called gun free zone.

    Parent
    Welcome (5.00 / 1) (#145)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Jul 16, 2015 at 06:20:20 PM EST
    to the ideal America according to conservatives: many mass murders are what they are willing to pay so the NRA can have their way.

    Parent
    When (none / 0) (#166)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Thu Jul 16, 2015 at 10:09:16 PM EST

    When did the NRA endorse such gun free zones?  Perhaps I'm mistaken, but is it not liberals/progressives that prefer would be victims to be defenseless?

    Parent
    You see (5.00 / 1) (#182)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Jul 17, 2015 at 06:37:03 AM EST
    you're making my point. You believe that everybody having guns makes people safer and it doesn't. People are killed and mass murdered in gun zones all the time. You never seem to believe that a mixture of the element of surprise and a gun will kill off everybody. And you guys want guns everywhere making it easier to mass murder. If having 24 children mass murdered in their classroom at school won't get you to change your thinking then nothing will.

    Parent
    The NRA is pro-gun everywhere (none / 0) (#177)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Thu Jul 16, 2015 at 11:20:19 PM EST
    that's the way the gun manufacturers get more sales for their product, and unpaid shills like you to run interference for them and your fellow ammosexuals.

    Parent
    From our "We Must Have Order" file: (5.00 / 1) (#155)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Jul 16, 2015 at 07:44:28 PM EST
    In which German Chancellor Angela Merkel participates in a televised town hall meeting with her constituents, and delivers the robotic response of a soulless technocrat to a teenaged Palestinian refugee's personal inquiry about why she can't stay in Germany -- only to suddenly realize how badly she effed up when the young girl bursts into tears upon hearing the rather heartless answer, whereupon she quickly moves to personally console the teen by patting her on the back, which serves to make the chancellor appear even more cold and aloof to the live audience and viewers at home.

    Way to go, lady! You know, while Merkel was on such a dubious roll, I likely wouldn't have been at all surprised had she offered that girl and her family a one-way ticket to Athens.

    What a putz.

    A shoulder/neck rub (none / 0) (#157)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Jul 16, 2015 at 08:04:53 PM EST
    from W might not be looking so bad right about now.

    Parent
    When are the next elections in Germany? (none / 0) (#160)
    by christinep on Thu Jul 16, 2015 at 08:41:04 PM EST
    Merkel, meanwhile, is reviving the specter of centralized power-mania, an ugly role.  I wonder about the long-term prospects for the EU with such an obvious non-resilient, inflexible, achtung! image. Bismarck redux....  IMO, she has exacerbated the existing cultural cleavage in parts of Europe by carrying the stiff-upper-lip discipline too far.

    Parent
    I just saw (none / 0) (#1)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Jul 15, 2015 at 02:35:38 PM EST
    that the last of the mountains of snow from last winter just finally melted in Boston.  
    To bad you couldn't ship it out west to the non existent snowpack.

    you wouldn't want it (none / 0) (#2)
    by CST on Wed Jul 15, 2015 at 03:29:37 PM EST
    Snow is one word for it.  Frozen pile of trash is more of an accurate description.

    It became exhibit A for why you don't dump snow into the harbor.  And trust me, we came pretty close to choosing that option.

    Parent

    Ha (none / 0) (#3)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Jul 15, 2015 at 03:39:19 PM EST
    yeah. Saw that.  Auto parts. Bicycles.  Traffic cones.

    Parent
    New Horizons (none / 0) (#5)
    by lentinel on Wed Jul 15, 2015 at 05:07:50 PM EST
    I was just wondering why the media have to keep referring to Pluto as "the dwarf planet".

    Do they think we might mistake it for some other Pluto?

    Well...... (5.00 / 3) (#6)
    by Zorba on Wed Jul 15, 2015 at 05:13:33 PM EST
    Maybe the Disney character?   ;-)

    Parent
    That's (5.00 / 2) (#8)
    by lentinel on Wed Jul 15, 2015 at 05:21:20 PM EST
    it.

    Definitely!

    I sure thought it was that doggy until they made it clear that they wuz talking about outer space and stuff!

    Parent

    Because iPluto only meets 2 of the three (none / 0) (#7)
    by oculus on Wed Jul 15, 2015 at 05:18:37 PM EST
    to be deemed a "planet," per wiki.

    Parent
    True, (none / 0) (#9)
    by Zorba on Wed Jul 15, 2015 at 06:01:00 PM EST
    But I think that lentinel was wondering why they had had to identify it as such in all the news reports about the New Horizon.
    If it was reporting back about Jupiter, would they be describing the planet, in every news report, as "the gas giant planet Jupiter"?
    OTOH, given the intelligence level of some of those out there who consume the news, they may have a reason to do so.......
    And Pluto is being reported as slightly larger than previously thought, although still not large enough to earn a "planet " designation.    ;-)

    Parent
    It's still being argued over (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Jul 15, 2015 at 06:05:22 PM EST
    A new petition on Change.org hopes to restore Pluto's planetary status. The petition claims that the IAU meeting in August would be a good time to revisit Pluto's planetary classification.

    I am celebrating by watching Interstellar.  Which I have not seen yet for some reason.  They just went through the wormhole.

    Parent

    Well, it was a planet. Then not a planet. (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by oculus on Wed Jul 15, 2015 at 07:08:34 PM EST
    Then the society defined "planet."  Then Pluto became a "dwarf planet" (a new appellation). Now it turns out to be not-so-dwarf but still doesn't meet all three mandattes.

    But, then again, I only had h.s. physics. I think Pluto was a planet then.

    Parent

    you want to laugh (none / 0) (#12)
    by nyjets on Wed Jul 15, 2015 at 07:18:23 PM EST
    There is a LOT of politics with this debate.
    The primary reason why there is any debate is because Pluto was discovered by American astronomers. If Pluto was discovered by another country, this probable would not be up for discussion.


    Parent
    Re your final sentence. (none / 0) (#13)
    by oculus on Wed Jul 15, 2015 at 07:20:28 PM EST
    Please explain.

    Parent
    sorry (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by nyjets on Wed Jul 15, 2015 at 07:39:50 PM EST
    Pluto, if I remember correctly was discovered by an American astronomer. It is the only planet in the solar system discovered by the United States. Therefore, whenever this argument flares up, the American astronomers argue the loudest that Pluto should be considered a planet and not a dwarf planet or planetoid, etc.

    If the planet had been discovered by Europeans, there would be lot less arguments as to whether or not Pluto should be a planetoid or dwarf planet. It would already have been downgraded.

     Therefore the only reason why the discussion on the classification of Pluto goes on is because it was discovered by the US.


    Parent

    Actually, the primary reason why scientists ... (none / 0) (#17)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Jul 15, 2015 at 08:17:16 PM EST
    nyjets: "Therefore the only reason why the discussion on the classification of Pluto goes on is because it was discovered by the US."

    ... at the International Astronomers Union decided to reclassify Pluto as a dwarf planet in 2006 was because its tilted and elliptical orbit is completely atypical of that of the other eight planets, in that it doesn't clear other objects in our solar system and actually passes to the inside of Neptune at its closest point to the sun.

    In short, astronomers note that Pluto's orbital behavior mimics that of a large asteroid such as Ceres (which is also classified as a dwarf planet), rather than the other planetary orbits in our solar system. It has absolutely nothing to do with the nationality of Clyde Tombaugh, the astronomer who discovered it in 1930 while working at the Lowell Observatory in Flagstaff, AZ.

    That said, Pluto may yet regain its full planetary stature, thanks to yesterday's fly-by discoveries and the Hubbell Space Telescope, with which astronomers have since discovered five moons in its orbit.

    Aloha.

    Parent

    fair point (none / 0) (#20)
    by nyjets on Wed Jul 15, 2015 at 09:11:07 PM EST
    I still think that the US angle is still in play to a certain extent.
    However you are 100 percent correct. There is some valid scientific points on both sides of the equation.


    Parent
    Yes, please do. (none / 0) (#15)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Jul 15, 2015 at 07:48:34 PM EST
    Hopefully, he'll locate some long-lost archival footage of astronomer Clyde Tombaugh announcing Pluto's discovery, accompanied by the Lowell Observatory staff's chants of "USA! USA! USA!"

    Interesting sidenote: Tombaugh's ashes are onboard the spacecraft that just completed the Pluto fly-by.

    Aloha.

    Parent

    this is a contempory issue (none / 0) (#16)
    by nyjets on Wed Jul 15, 2015 at 07:50:38 PM EST
    I am not saying  staff chanted USA
    What I am saying that the argument is relatively recent. The last few years. At least 10 years if not longer.


    Parent
    Clayton Kershaw (none / 0) (#18)
    by oculus on Wed Jul 15, 2015 at 08:20:19 PM EST
    is Tombaugh's great-nephew. [wiki.]

    Parent
    Thanks (none / 0) (#42)
    by Steve13209 on Thu Jul 16, 2015 at 07:42:03 AM EST
    I saw the container of ashes and hadn't figured out the significance.

    Parent
    Bring back Pluto (none / 0) (#22)
    by christinep on Wed Jul 15, 2015 at 09:41:47 PM EST
    Bring back the little, beloved planet Pluto, I say.
    Always a mystery, always a dream ... and with a name like Pluto .... Nah, not a mere asteroid nor a planetoid.  The cause for Pluto will grow.  And, a worthy cause it is. Go Pluto!

    Parent
    Pluto is my ruling planet (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Jul 15, 2015 at 10:03:24 PM EST
    so of course it's a planet.

    Parent
    You do realize, I hope, (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by Zorba on Wed Jul 15, 2015 at 10:23:30 PM EST
    that in Roman mythology, Pluto was the god of the Underworld (equivalent to the Greek god Hades)?
    Just saying, Capt, beware of who rules your life.   ;-)

    Parent
    I am a Scorpio (none / 0) (#47)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Jul 16, 2015 at 08:00:31 AM EST
    definitely ruled by Pluto.

    Parent
    Proudly and comfortably (none / 0) (#48)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Jul 16, 2015 at 08:10:25 AM EST
    ruled, I might add.

    Parent
    Pluto was the god of wealth, as well (none / 0) (#75)
    by jondee on Thu Jul 16, 2015 at 11:47:29 AM EST
    hence the word plutocrat..

    Parent
    Pluto - Charon... (none / 0) (#27)
    by desertswine on Wed Jul 15, 2015 at 10:15:44 PM EST
    is the only binary planet system in the solar system. So it's like two planets.

    Parent
    - wandering like lovers in deep space... (none / 0) (#69)
    by Mr Natural on Thu Jul 16, 2015 at 11:32:25 AM EST


    Parent
    Anyone who missed the ESPYs, (none / 0) (#24)
    by Anne on Wed Jul 15, 2015 at 09:46:28 PM EST
    I hope you can catch the segment on the Arthur Ashe Courage award given to Caitlyn Jenner; it was truly an amazing, inspiring, touching presentation - both the intro piece, and Jenner's speech afterward.

    If some minds weren't opened, or changed, tonight, I will be very surprised.

    I really wasn't planning on watching. (none / 0) (#28)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Jul 15, 2015 at 10:18:20 PM EST
    But on second thought, perhaps I should. Thank you for the heads-up, Anne.

    Parent
    I hadn't planned to watch, either - (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by Anne on Thu Jul 16, 2015 at 07:21:52 AM EST
    I had just finished watching something I had recorded, and truly, just happened to catch the intro to the presentation to Caitlyn Jenner at the very moment it was starting.

    ESPN has gotten a lot of flak for choosing Jenner as the recipient of the award, but I have to think that some of those minds may have been changed - or started to change - as a result of seeing the back-story on Jenner's journey to where she is, and hearing her poignantly describe the need for all of us to accept each other, differences and all.

    It is a hard thing to wrap one's head around, learning that someone we knew to be one gender is now living as the other, but the fact that we may not understand is really our problem - and it's really not fair to project our difficulties with it onto the person making the transition.

    Sports has such a huge audience that one can only hope that ESPN giving Jenner this kind of platform will raise awareness and bring a level of understanding to minds that might not have been receptive to doing so.

    Parent

    Here is host Joel McHale's opening monologue (none / 0) (#72)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Jul 16, 2015 at 11:38:04 AM EST
    It is very good.

    Parent
    Secretary "Moniz" said (none / 0) (#31)
    by MKS on Wed Jul 15, 2015 at 10:37:54 PM EST
    hiding a nuke program "cannot" be done so easily.

    Here's how the Donald, aka el Trumpo (none / 0) (#32)
    by Mr Natural on Wed Jul 15, 2015 at 11:35:46 PM EST
    hides his.

    Do Not Open This at Work, pretending to work, or while otherwise engaged in being serious.

    Parent

    Art imitates life. July 6 & 13 (none / 0) (#34)
    by oculus on Thu Jul 16, 2015 at 12:42:31 AM EST
    New Yorker inclues a review of "The Cartel," a crime novel by Don Winslow. Art Keller of the D.E.A. Is after Adan Barrera, whose might as well be El Chappo.

    The city of Gardena, CA ... (none / 0) (#35)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Jul 16, 2015 at 01:13:15 AM EST
    ... recently settled for $4.7 million a federal civil rights lawsuit brought by the family of an unarmed man who was shot to death by Gardena police in June 2013.

    While the L.A. County District Attorney's office declined to bring criminal charges against any of the officers involved in the incident, video of the shooting -- which required a federal court order before police officials would release it -- provides clear and compelling evidence as to why the city of Gardena decided to settle, rather than let this case proceed to trial.

    At the very least, both the officers' judgment and their training can be rightly called into question here.

    Aloha.

    He's sure to be a headline in sports today (none / 0) (#37)
    by CoralGables on Thu Jul 16, 2015 at 07:13:50 AM EST
    but the headline should read:

    Is Tiger Woods the worst golfer on the PGA Tour?

    Driving in to work, I heard that he (none / 0) (#40)
    by Anne on Thu Jul 16, 2015 at 07:25:00 AM EST
    was 4 over par after only 7 holes.

    That's really just not even worthy of this level of competition.

    I guess I give him props for keeping at it and not giving up, but it's reached a level where pity is lapping admiration.

    Pulling for Jordan Spieth myself.

    Parent

    Will be interesting to see (none / 0) (#45)
    by CoralGables on Thu Jul 16, 2015 at 07:55:58 AM EST
    if Dustin Johnson can overcome his US Open meltdown and make a run (for all 72 holes) at Speith. Tiger will likely be home on Sunday watching the last round on TV.

    Parent
    Tiger +4, tied at 144th. (none / 0) (#78)
    by fishcamp on Thu Jul 16, 2015 at 11:49:11 AM EST


    Parent
    Lucky for him (none / 0) (#84)
    by CoralGables on Thu Jul 16, 2015 at 12:04:30 PM EST
    he teed off in the morning when conditions were better. He's currently 5 strokes behind the cut line. He needs 70 players in front of him to tank tomorrow.

    Parent
    Azinger on Woods: (none / 0) (#85)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Jul 16, 2015 at 12:09:33 PM EST
       "It's hard to watch the greatest player of this generation be a middle of the pack hack."

        "Here's a stat for you: Tiger Woods is 21 over par for his last 45 holes at major championships."

        "You almost want to say, `Who are you and what have you done to Tiger Woods?'

        "Everyone wanted to swing like Tiger. Except Tiger."



    Parent
    Never screw with a great recipe (none / 0) (#90)
    by CoralGables on Thu Jul 16, 2015 at 12:16:55 PM EST
    but I do have to correct Azinger. He should have said, "It's hard to watch the greatest player of this generation be a back of the pack hack."

    Parent
    Ya, back of the pack hack is more accurate. (none / 0) (#93)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Jul 16, 2015 at 12:26:55 PM EST
    His first two holes:

    1. Perfect iron off the tee, chunks a wedge into the bottom of the Swilken Burn, bogey.

    2. Another great iron off the tee, 177 to the flag, chunks a 9i 30 yards short, bogey.

    Perfect weather conditions, btw.

    Parent
    Actually, another report says he fatted (none / 0) (#96)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Jul 16, 2015 at 12:32:53 PM EST
    his t-shot on 1, too.

    Jeebus.

    Parent

    Tiger bogeyed four holes (none / 0) (#144)
    by fishcamp on Thu Jul 16, 2015 at 05:57:58 PM EST
    In the front nine.

    Parent
    2 great trailers (none / 0) (#49)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Jul 16, 2015 at 08:31:14 AM EST
    Roger Waters The Wall
    Yeah, I know.  It's the third movie.  It's also some of the best rock in the history of rock.

    Longtime Radiohead producer Nigel Godrich is credited with "Sound" in Roger Waters: The Wall, along with veteran sound mixer Adam Scrivener. The documentary runs for 133 minutes - 12 minutes longer than the classic double-LP itself - and was co-directed by Waters and Sean Evans, who was The Wall Tour's creative director. Roger Waters: The Wall was filmed in three cities on two continents. So far, no release date has been announced for the documentary, but there will be two more Toronto screenings. Waters also revealed that his tour documentary could double as "an anti-war, protest film."

    and Zack Snyders Suoerman vs Batman

    which also has a great poster

    There is a Documentary... (none / 0) (#65)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Jul 16, 2015 at 11:23:37 AM EST
    ...on Netflix on the making of 'Dark Side of the Moon'.  Pretty interesting when you consider all the sound effects were done before sound effects machines were used.  The clock sounds in 'Time' was actually a room full of clocks that someone set to go off as they do.

    I really like Pink Floyd, but I love Roger Waters.  'The Pros and Cons of Hitchhiking' IMO is the best album ever made.  It was a toss-up with 'Bricks in the Wall' and PF decided  to go with what ultimately became 'The Wall'.  Waters sat on Pros and Cons until after he left the band.

    The Wall is spectacular, but it's been so overplayed that I can barely stand to listed to it.

    Parent

    How long has it been? (none / 0) (#94)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Jul 16, 2015 at 12:28:56 PM EST
    a long time for me.  I just took the dog to the vet (20 mi) and took the wall.
    I loved it just as much.

    Comfortably Numb

    Parent

    Every Day... (none / 0) (#103)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Jul 16, 2015 at 01:18:04 PM EST
    ...Classic Rewind & Classic Vinyl play a couple songs.  They are at least descent about not playing the hits.  I stream music all day at work, so it's nearly impossible for me to find a station that doesn't have a rotation.  I have XM and TuneIn.

    It was just one of those albums that everyone loved and played everywhere.  You couldn't go to a party, get a ride, or even listen to the radio without hearing it.  I wore that tape down to nothing in my cassette/8 track adapter in my car.  Then after that it was 'Ten' by Pearl Jam, which I think got even more play.  Both fantastic albums that were so good they were over-played to death for me.

    Parent

    Other than NPR (none / 0) (#116)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Jul 16, 2015 at 03:29:05 PM EST
    dont remember the last time I heard radio.

    Oh well.   There is always the less over played ones.
    Meddle, Atom Heart Mother, Ummagumma, Obscured By Clouds, Piper at the Gates of Dawn,etc etc.

    Parent

    Definitely... (none / 0) (#117)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Jul 16, 2015 at 04:03:01 PM EST
    ...and I like the old stuff, especially when Syd Barrett was still around.  Can't say I ever heard 'Arnold Layne' or 'See Emily Play' on the radio.

    A friend had Live at Pompeii on VHS which at the time was revolutionary in that his family was the first ones to have a VHS player.  I am not even sure I knew what they looked like before that, much less playing.

    Parent

    The other thing about The Wall (none / 0) (#97)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Jul 16, 2015 at 12:36:10 PM EST
    is that it's a 2 hour anti war howl.  It's really never been more timely.

    And sadly why it is timeless.

    Parent

    My favorite song from "The Wall" ... (none / 0) (#148)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Jul 16, 2015 at 06:52:36 PM EST
    ... is the hauntingly brilliant "Mother."

    Parent
    Another side would be (none / 0) (#161)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Jul 16, 2015 at 09:02:56 PM EST
    SEVERAL SPECIES OF SMALL FURRY ANIMALS GATHERED TOGETHER IN A CAVE AND GROOVING WiTH A PICT

    Ummagumma

    Parent

    First (5.00 / 1) (#181)
    by FlJoe on Fri Jul 17, 2015 at 06:08:41 AM EST
    heard that track during an intense date with Owsley. My personal altitude record if you know what I mean.

    Parent
    Clearly made for those occaisions (none / 0) (#185)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Jul 17, 2015 at 07:36:44 AM EST
    not sure that's how I first heard it but definitely more than once at altitude.

    Parent
    Btw fishcamp, (none / 0) (#186)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Jul 17, 2015 at 07:38:13 AM EST
    there is a lovely bit if Gaelic at the end there.

    Parent
    Thanks Howdy. (none / 0) (#189)
    by fishcamp on Fri Jul 17, 2015 at 08:16:40 AM EST
    The little figures in the tree look suspiciously Leprecaunish, which would mean Ireland, but since the tree is in England it's probably Scottish Gaelic.  There is a difference, but I can't recognize it.

    Parent
    Only saying that because (none / 0) (#191)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Jul 17, 2015 at 08:41:00 AM EST
    an Irishman on acid once told me that.

    So grain of salt and all

    :)

    Parent

    I Hate, Hate, Hate... (none / 0) (#194)
    by ScottW714 on Fri Jul 17, 2015 at 09:07:55 AM EST
    ...that track.

    The same friend with the Pompeii video used to play that animal non-sense over and over and over because I knew how much it bothered me.

    Parent

    Another Death in Police Custody (none / 0) (#56)
    by Palli on Thu Jul 16, 2015 at 09:26:47 AM EST
    We should all suspect the arrest, assault imprisonment,"paper' release but actual hanging murder of Sandra Bland in Waller Co. TX was a targeted event. Ms. Bland was an outspoken 2008 alumni of Prairie View A&M University who was recently hired for the school's Outreach programs. Waller County Sheriff was then and still is R. J. Smith: he has a bigoted and very checkered career.
    http://abc7chicago.com/853139/  #SandraBlan

    The college and the county's Black citizens have been unsung leaders at the vanguard of American Voters' Right issues since the first part of the 20thC. African Americans were once the county's majority population despite intense bigotry marked by the third highest number of Lynchings in Texas.

    This reign of terror against Black citizens nationwide has to stop.

    "More Nixonian than (none / 0) (#76)
    by KeysDan on Thu Jul 16, 2015 at 11:48:00 AM EST
    Nixon," says John Dean of Scott Walker.   I, too, feel that a Walker presidency would be the third Nixon term, if we skip over that part of the second term filled-in by Gerald Ford.  

    There do seem to be similarities between the two, particularly their shared disvalue of, and entanglement by, the truth.   There are differences, too. Nixon was intelligent and knowledgeable.

    Some believe that Walker should finish college first before moving up in the Koch hierarchy, but, I believe him to be educable.  After flubbing a bit during his foreign travels, we are told by his campaign that he is boning up on foreign affairs.

    This will certainly be re-assuring to those of the electorate who find a need to know for the election to be higher in priority than curiosity about the world and the need for knowledge.  

    Of course, Walker is not big on such things as a "search for truth" --a frivolity he tried to erase from the central mission of the University of Wisconsin, and, when unsuccessful, ducked culpability for the attempt.  

    And, this week, to please the ears of Evangelicals and Iowan Republican caucus wingers, Walker stated his opposition to the lifting of the ban by BSA to permit gay Scout leaders.  Walker supported the previous ban because "it protected children....."  And, a little later this week, after some feeling that he was sliming gays, he "clarified" what he really meant: he meant, protecting the children from the debate on the ban, and from the media.

     That clears it up, but when read with the full sentence it does not seem quite as clear:  "protected children and advanced Scout values."   Unless, he means that Scout values require  protection from media and debate.  And, of course, his call for a Constitutional amendment banning same sex marriage is his new badger of honor to display along with  his flag lapel pin.

    But, Walker did get some help this week from others--the Wisconsin Supreme Court, which ruled a criminal investigation into coordination between winger groups in Walker's 2012 campaign must stop.  

    The decision was along party lines by activist judges short-cutting the investigative process.  We probably can expect Walker to call for a state Constitution amendment to curb that judicial over-reach.  

    As one who could not abide Nixon (5.00 / 1) (#120)
    by christinep on Thu Jul 16, 2015 at 04:26:59 PM EST
    and as one who cheered with so many others when he resigned, nonetheless, allow me to say: Scott Walker makes Richard Milhous Nixon seem fair, kind, and nice.  

    Parent
    Maybe Christi, (none / 0) (#127)
    by KeysDan on Thu Jul 16, 2015 at 05:01:38 PM EST
    it is because Walker is less known to you.  I recall a TL commenter from WI alerting us to this Milwaukee politician prior to his winning the governorship.   I doubt if there is any daylight between your assessment of Nixon and mine--indeed, I have always felt that the Republican party deserved to go the way of the Whigs for having nominated Nixon for the presidency--three times.  Walker is an update, I believe.  All the signs are there, as Frank Bruni also observes.

    Parent
    If I was unclear, (5.00 / 2) (#139)
    by christinep on Thu Jul 16, 2015 at 05:32:47 PM EST
    I want to clarify: Walker could well be worse than our collective experience with Nixon.  

    Hey ... at least Nixon went to China; and, he was instrumental in establishing the EPA.  Insofar as Walker is concerned, I think that the man only has the beliefs & approach that satisfy his $$$$$ mentors (the Kochs.) Walker is potentially much worse than Nixon in many respects ... because there appears to be NO belief system other than placating the $$$$$-suppliers. (Towanda, I recall, alerted us to the Wisconsin onslaught by Walker.)

    Parent

    Agreed. (none / 0) (#140)
    by KeysDan on Thu Jul 16, 2015 at 05:39:45 PM EST
    And, thanks,  it was Towanda (and, also, Cream City).   Walker just has not had all the opportunities to be Nixonian as Nixon had.

    Parent
    To paraphrase Winston Churchill's ... (none / 0) (#149)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Jul 16, 2015 at 06:56:51 PM EST
    ... rather astute but flippant assessment of Americans, Richard Nixon could be counted upon to do the right thing only after all other options had been exhausted.

    Parent
    I have (none / 0) (#143)
    by FlJoe on Thu Jul 16, 2015 at 05:48:37 PM EST
    long smelled a whiff of Nixon around Walker and it only grows stronger. Both craven politicians but Nixon had a much superior intellect, Walker of course has the advantage of oceans of dark money that Tricky Dick could only dream of.

    Parent
    Not that Tricky didn't try: (none / 0) (#146)
    by Mr Natural on Thu Jul 16, 2015 at 06:20:52 PM EST
    Remember CREEP?

    Parent
    Todays (5.00 / 3) (#153)
    by FlJoe on Thu Jul 16, 2015 at 07:20:32 PM EST
    PACs makes CREEP seem quaint, and they are legal, with virtually no accountability, a crooks dream.

    Look closely at a Wisconsin and you will see an entire government bought lock stock and barrel by the Koch Brothers et al. Walker is merely their chief henchman. Say what you will Nixon was nobody's henchman.

    That being said, Walker is a monster, not an accident like Trump, but a lovingly built creation of the oligarchs, a monster that will never turn on his creators.

    Parent

    Why is an "activist judge" label (none / 0) (#79)
    by CoralGables on Thu Jul 16, 2015 at 11:52:56 AM EST
    always given to the judge/judges that rule against the preferred outcome of a given group?

    Parent
    For my usage, (5.00 / 2) (#81)
    by KeysDan on Thu Jul 16, 2015 at 11:59:38 AM EST
    please see the Urban Dictionary.

    Parent
    The activist (none / 0) (#95)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Jul 16, 2015 at 12:29:28 PM EST
    judge statement makes me laugh. It's one of those evangelispeak things the right loves to shout.

    Parent
    David Margolis (none / 0) (#113)
    by jbindc on Thu Jul 16, 2015 at 02:44:30 PM EST
    50 years at DOJ and still going strong.

    Margolis recently completed 50 years at the Justice Department, an occasion marked last month by a ceremony -- part tribute, part roast -- in the Great Hall. There were remarks by Attorney General Loretta E. Lynch, who had been sworn in that day -- and hundreds of officials and former officials were in attendance.

    Margolis is the senior-most career employee in the department and one whose tenure out-clocks that of J. Edgar Hoover, the legendary FBI director. A tall, shambling bear of a man, Margolis has been the consigliere to a succession of deputy attorneys general, with a Forrest Gump-like knack to be involved with a number of the most politically controversial issues of the department's past 25 years.

    Despite his somewhat lofty status as an associate deputy attorney general in the stately granite-and-marble Justice Department building, he disarms people with his disregard for appearances -- an occasional shirttail hanging out, food stains on his tie -- and with his mastery of the spontaneous quip.

    On one occasion, Margolis, who was sometimes called to testify on the Hill, was asked by a lawmaker how many people work at the Justice Department. "About 60 percent," he said, without missing a beat.

    On another occasion, he was called to testify before the Senate Whitewater Committee, which was investigating Vincent Foster's suicide. He was still recovering from a heart attack and quadruple-bypass surgery, and the committee's Democratic counsel, aware of that, asked, "Mr. Margolis, are you comfortable?"

    "No," he said. "But I make a living."



    And ethics complaints about (none / 0) (#124)
    by scribe on Thu Jul 16, 2015 at 04:38:54 PM EST
    DoJ attorneys continue to go to his office - a/k/a the Roach Motel - to disappear without a trace.

    Parent
    Gunman opens fire in Chattanooga (none / 0) (#115)
    by jbindc on Thu Jul 16, 2015 at 02:54:04 PM EST
    Two facilities:  4 dead Marines. Plus the gunman is dead.

    Being treated as an act of domestic terrorism.

    Emmy nominations (none / 0) (#150)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Jul 16, 2015 at 07:12:14 PM EST
    are out
    Everyone got a nomination in Horror Story except Jessica Lange.  Including the series.  Ok with that.  It was not her best year.

    Oops missed it (none / 0) (#154)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Jul 16, 2015 at 07:24:38 PM EST
    she did get nominated.  I think Tyrion is a shoe in.
    Glad the noticed The Americans exists.  One insignificant nomination.

    Parent
    Also (none / 0) (#158)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Jul 16, 2015 at 08:08:50 PM EST
    really glad Tatiana Maslany from Orphan Black got some recognition.  She is amazing.  She should win but I would be very surprised if she did.  

    Parent
    GOP Fox Poll Released Tonight (none / 0) (#178)
    by CoralGables on Thu Jul 16, 2015 at 11:34:12 PM EST
    Trump 18
    Walker 15
    Bush 14
    Paul 8
    Rubio 7
    Carson 6
    Huckabee 4
    Cruz 4
    Christie 3
    Santorum 2
    Kasich 2
    Perry 1
    Fiorina 1
    Jindal 0
    Graham 0

    Heads have got to be spinning in Bush camp. Since the last Fox poll in June, Trump and Walker make gains. Rubio, Carson, and Huckabee backslide. Bush remains stagnant.

    The (none / 0) (#190)
    by FlJoe on Fri Jul 17, 2015 at 08:33:41 AM EST
    really bad news for Bush is that is little hope of him gaining any of the 33 point currently split by Trump and Walker. If and when Trump flames out Walker should be able to grab a Lion's share of his support. Ironically at this point in the race Bush needs Trump.

    Parent
    A thing (none / 0) (#180)
    by lentinel on Fri Jul 17, 2015 at 06:04:45 AM EST
    I like about Trump is that he does tell you what he thinks - without hesitation and without filtration or parsing of words.

    I prefer that to the usual style of pols talking  at the same time that their "brains" are hard at work editing content.

    In addition - I don't see much in what he has to say that is more offensive than the spoken or unspoken beliefs of the other contenders. And when it comes to protecting Social Security, and caring for Veterans - and even universal healthcare, he is much more outspoken and progressive than the rest of the field.

    Frankly, I would like to see a debate between him, the outrageous and reviled one, and Hillary Clinton, the centrist.

    With Clinton vs Bush, it will be far less illuminating imho.

    In the meanwhile, it's nice to see all those stuffed shirts on the republican side have coronaries and exploding heads.

    And... final tally (none / 0) (#208)
    by sj on Fri Jul 17, 2015 at 11:25:57 AM EST
    jim posted 17 comments. His comment count creeps up as expected. I'm sure he will be back to his usual 20 or 30 in no time. Bringing along his hangers-on.

    Wednesday Open Thread | 208 comments (208 topical)