home

Monday Morning Open Thread

So there are a lot of important stories going on right now. But none more important than my March Madness bracket.

No blogging today until I have it figured out. I may do some paying work as well.

Open Thread.

< Sunday Night Open Thread | Al Qaida Launches Women's Magazine >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    NY Fed Chief's version of (5.00 / 5) (#3)
    by MO Blue on Mon Mar 14, 2011 at 10:07:37 AM EST
    "Let them eat cake." In an effort to address concerns about about rising food prices, NY Fed Reserve President William Dudley reminded the crowd that other products were getting cheaper.

    "Today you can buy an iPad 2 that costs the same as an iPad 1 that is twice as powerful," Dudley said in Queens, Reuters reports. "You have to look at the price of all things."

    But better iPads don't put food on the table, audience members reminded him. "When was the last time, sir, that you went grocery shopping?" one person asked. And, perhaps most succinctly, another told him, "I can't eat an iPad." link

    The disconnect between those in charge of running this country and the average citizen is astounding.

    In the same vein, digby (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by MO Blue on Mon Mar 14, 2011 at 11:01:29 AM EST
    Share the sacrifice h/t Crooks and Liars which highlights the disconnect between "social distance" from the Americans the government and the overpaid media purports to serve.

    They seem to have no idea that the median wage in this country in 2009 was $26,261 -- sadly, lower than it was in the year 2000. (Even when you average in the billionaires, it was only $39,269.) Clearly, the average political TV host takes home many times that wage, so this idea that "we" are all "sharing" in the proposed sacrifices is a bit much, particularly in light of the recent extension of the Bush tax cuts, hailed in the media as the greatest piece of legislation since the founding of the republic.

    Now, it's true that these powerful media figures would get a smaller Social Security check and have to kick in more for their Medicare just like the rest of us if these programs are cut. But it's highly unlikely they will suffer the same financial pinch as the person scraping together a retirement income based on a paltry Social Security benefit and whatever he's managed to salvage from his wrecked 401(k) and lost housing equity.

    It's very easy to prescribe "shared sacrifice" when you will not personally sacrifice anything at all.



    Parent
    The media pundits (none / 0) (#30)
    by Zorba on Mon Mar 14, 2011 at 12:27:27 PM EST
    are indeed totally disconnected from reality.  Larry Kudlow, economist and CNBC anchor, said the other day, in talking about the tragedy in Japan:
    "The human toll here looks to be much worse than the economic toll, and we can be grateful for that,"

    Link
    He immediately tried to walk it back, and later apologized, and I sincerely hope that he really meant the opposite of what he originally said, but still......was it a Freudian slip?  Did he really mean what he originally said, and then realize after he said it how horrible it sounded?  I guess we'll never really know.

    Parent
    Also from digby's op-ed regarding (5.00 / 4) (#46)
    by MO Blue on Mon Mar 14, 2011 at 01:02:58 PM EST
    the media, gilded Regular Joes {snark}.

    Yet out here in the real world, poll after poll shows that, in fact, Americans are far more concerned with unemployment and favor surtaxes on the wealthy to close the deficit. And so, from time to time, these gilded Regular Joes are forced to regretfully admit that sometimes the people are like dotty old relatives who "just don't get it" or that they just want a "free lunch" -- after which they promptly forget those findings and go back to pretending that the American people see things exactly the way they do.

    The very idea that people who are receiving SS  or Medicare benefits after paying into these programs are receiving a "free lunch" is highly offensive to me. I paid into the SS for 50 years and Medicare for over 40 years. During many of those years I was a single mom barely making enough for us to survive yet each and every pay check had amounts deducted to pay for SS and Medicare. I d@mn well paid for these benefits. I strongly object to these overpaid, wealthy media and Congressional people having the nerve to indicate that wanting to get what I paid for is  the equivalent of wanting a free lunch. This is nothing more than them trying to steal those prepaid benefits from me and the American people to offset their ongoing wars, corporate bail outs and tax cuts for themselves and other millionaire and billionaires.

    I may be old but I'm not dotty enough not to recognize when someone is trying to rip me off.  

     

    Parent

    We'll never REALLY know (none / 0) (#34)
    by sj on Mon Mar 14, 2011 at 12:48:53 PM EST
    but using past history we can make an educated guess.

    Parent
    I thought the same, sj n/t (none / 0) (#36)
    by Zorba on Mon Mar 14, 2011 at 12:54:10 PM EST
    So often (5.00 / 0) (#43)
    by sj on Mon Mar 14, 2011 at 12:59:39 PM EST
    we are on the same wavelength.  :)

    Parent
    That's bizarre. nt (none / 0) (#9)
    by inclusiveheart on Mon Mar 14, 2011 at 10:44:08 AM EST
    Not so bizarre (none / 0) (#87)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Mon Mar 14, 2011 at 02:29:36 PM EST

    Pols love to change the subject when an unpleasant topic arises.  Much more fun to talk about those few things getting cheaper than to talk about the effect on food prices of turning 40% of the corn crop into low quality motor fuel.

    Parent
    Equating the affordability of (none / 0) (#112)
    by inclusiveheart on Mon Mar 14, 2011 at 03:21:13 PM EST
    an iPad with the affordability of food is bizarre.  First of all, the iPad is the most expensive of the options in the category.  But iPads are not a necessity for day to day survival as evidenced by the billions of people living without them the world over.

    His is a rarefied world where he marvels as how "cheap" and iPad is and believes that procuring an iPad is on a par with the necessity of accessing food.

    I'd pick something else were I to attempt to assuage fears about rising food prices.

    Parent

    I agree with you the comparison is silly (none / 0) (#150)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Mon Mar 14, 2011 at 05:10:30 PM EST

    OTOH, I consider that routine rather than bizarre for a politician.

    Parent
    recovering from surgery here, (5.00 / 10) (#14)
    by Dr Molly on Mon Mar 14, 2011 at 11:11:04 AM EST
    waiting for more test results, gradually getting on my feet, and feeling extremely grateful for very good health insurance through my fed govt job. everyone should have it.


    With the proviso (5.00 / 5) (#16)
    by andgarden on Mon Mar 14, 2011 at 11:22:10 AM EST
    that any surgery is serious, I hope the underlying issue isn't serious! (The mention of tests after surgery makes me nervous.)

    Stay strong!

    Parent

    Here's hoping you get good news (5.00 / 5) (#17)
    by MO Blue on Mon Mar 14, 2011 at 11:22:15 AM EST
    from your test results and that you have a speedy recovery.

    Glad that you didn't have to experience the additional worry of how you were going to pay for your care.

    Parent

    Here's to good news (5.00 / 3) (#29)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Mar 14, 2011 at 12:20:50 PM EST
    And I'm so glad you have been able to get the care you need and the time and space to heal in.

    Parent
    Glad to see you back, Dr. Molly - (5.00 / 2) (#31)
    by Anne on Mon Mar 14, 2011 at 12:29:00 PM EST
    I've been wondering where you've been!

    Here's to (1) good test results, (2) a speedy recovery and (3) more Dr. Molly postings here at TL...

    I'm so glad you have good insurance - the last thing anyone with medical issues needs to be dealing with is the stress of wondering how they are going to pay for treatment.

    Feel better and pop in when you're up to it - we've missed you!

    Parent

    Best wishes to you! (5.00 / 2) (#52)
    by ruffian on Mon Mar 14, 2011 at 01:11:17 PM EST
    Picture the card I recently sent to a friend:

    3 adorable golden retriever puppies...above them the command HEAL!!!

    Parent

    Always look foward (5.00 / 1) (#172)
    by Rojas on Mon Mar 14, 2011 at 07:55:37 PM EST
    to hearing from you.
    Please stay in touch. Let us know how you're doing.

    Parent
    Our vagabond friends are now in India (5.00 / 2) (#22)
    by Dadler on Mon Mar 14, 2011 at 11:44:14 AM EST
    And I mean vagabonds.  Drove around Europe and North Africa for a year for their honeymoon; then spent several years driving from San Diego to the tip of South America, shipped the van to South Africa, then drove up as far as Uganda I believe (LINK).  Wrote a book that they sold themselves, and still do (tho only as a download now), even got featured in National Geographic (LINK). Came home for a bit, saved a few bucks as they always do, then took off again to do India and Asia beyond, for however long they like, the wind taking them wherever they please. They are the most frugal, life-filled, adventurous people I can imagine knowing.

    This is their latest update from the road:

    Hello from Rajasthan, India!

    We hope this email finds you very well. Our trip through India brings us to the northern state of Rajasthan. While in Delhi we decided to rent a Royal Enfield motorcycle to tour this region for the next month.

    Our motorcycle is heavily loaded with our two backpacks bungeed to the sides, plus our food bag.  So far we are loving the freedom the motorcycle gives us. First stop was the Taj Mahal.  From there we headed toward Fatehpur Sikri and are now enjoying the Pink City of Jaipur.

    Tomorrow we head out to Rathambore National Park for a tiger safari.

    Rich put together a video of our first few days on the bike.  Hope you enjoy it! (LINK)



    Strangely, after much poodle talk (5.00 / 4) (#32)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Mar 14, 2011 at 12:33:33 PM EST
    around here one is coming to live here too.  Joshua had hoped that our dog Major would be his service dog, but Major isn't as body conscious as the dog that Josh needs.  Joshua does not have good balance, and he is very short and slight of build.  He weighs 45 lbs right now.  He must have a tall service dog too to better define HIM in parking lots.  Sometimes I feel so bad for him because when we are in parking lots he has the same rules that toddlers have about holding my hand.  He is eleven years old, he is an excellent student...very intelligent person.  But the world wasn't designed so much for him so he still has to have some of the same rules that three year olds have and it stinks.

    Major is very very intelligent but he tends to accidentally bump into to Josh and almost send him sprawling.  So after much talk with others who breed service dogs it was decided that a Standard Poodle would most likely be a dog better suited for Joshua.  Major is my dog now even though Joshua helped with everything since the day he was born, he always whines for me anyhow.  And I talked Joshua into getting a female poodle because it will likely bond more closely to him like Major cries for me and Digby and Auburn follow my husband everywhere he goes.

    Delilah is traveling to us today.  Joshua named her before even meeting her because he loves that song Hey There Delilah.  She should be here tomorrow.  I chose to have her travel by ground instead of air.

    Wonderful news for Josh (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by the capstan on Mon Mar 14, 2011 at 01:09:56 PM EST
    and for Delilah, too, who is moving to an excellent dog home.  Turning a pet into a service dog is part luck (breed, nature), part the type of job needed.  My pet, a small cattle dog, now wears a service vest and carries my gear so my spine does not get pulled out of whack.  He walks right by my side and watches my feet to gauge the direction I intend to go in.  If my auto-immune disorder gets worse, then the dog's duties will increase.    But he is an extremely sedate specimen to begin with, rather unlike hs breed.

    Standard Poodles , yea!  (Even if my first breed preference was the GSD.  The cattle dog was chosen to get a smaller package.)

    ps--do you know about Pet Airways?

    Parent

    I have used pet airways when we (none / 0) (#143)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Mar 14, 2011 at 04:36:42 PM EST
    have been shipping dogs out, and I have had two adult dogs shipped to us via pet airways and I've no complaints.  What is nice about the dog show thing though is that there is almost always someone on the road near someplace where a dog needs transport going to some place near you.  And they are all experts when it comes to dog care :)  You float them some gas money they weren't going to get otherwise and it is win/win.  I like having puppies in a less intimidating form of travel if I can get it.

    We figure we have two years to get Delilah ready for full service.  Josh will be getting her certified, mom will help though.  Major is in love with me though, horribly smitten....almost dumbstruck :) I realize that heavy textbooks will likely soon be replaced, but a good laptop is still heavy by Joshua standards.

    Parent

    Congrats on the new addition (5.00 / 2) (#58)
    by ruffian on Mon Mar 14, 2011 at 01:20:23 PM EST
    I hope Delilah and Josh have many happy years together. Poodles are sooo smart. I'm sure you made the right choice. And you can be Major's one and only, as he appears to want!

    Parent
    Plus - no shedding!!!! what a great feature! (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by ruffian on Mon Mar 14, 2011 at 01:22:39 PM EST
    Yep poodles are great (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by lilburro on Mon Mar 14, 2011 at 01:26:49 PM EST
    and actually I think the lack of fur makes them smell better too.  Am I crazy or is that true?

    Parent
    Hard to tell (5.00 / 2) (#67)
    by sj on Mon Mar 14, 2011 at 01:34:48 PM EST
    I loved the smell of my sweet boy, who has been gone nearly a year now.  Especially his foot pads.  Something about his personal fragrance (not wet doggie thing, mind) made me feel all tender and sh!t.  And he was a Lab/Boxer mix, or so we conjecture.

    Okay, a little weird.  Is there such a thing as dog/human pheromones?

    Parent

    There must be (5.00 / 2) (#97)
    by ruffian on Mon Mar 14, 2011 at 02:47:55 PM EST
    Is there such a thing as dog/human pheromones?

    Based on my dog's tendency to stick her nose in rude places.


    Parent

    Yes, this is likely another win too (none / 0) (#144)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Mar 14, 2011 at 04:38:12 PM EST
    when we talked about it and decided to go with Delilah.  Nobody in our family is sensitive to dogs, but a lot of other people in the world are.  She is much less likely to trigger someone's allergies.

    Parent
    Calvin the Poodle (5.00 / 1) (#114)
    by christinep on Mon Mar 14, 2011 at 03:22:07 PM EST
    Calvin is the service dog for a longtime acquaintance named Ann. Calvin is wonderful as a service dog; and, when he is allowed to respond for playtime with others. (This big standard is just a marshmallow for ear rubs & tummy rubs.) Most importantly, Ann has found him to be a wonderful best helpmate for her...since an accident years ago, she has very little sight & has significant balance problems...Calvin is her strong balance in more ways than one.

    Parent
    Oh yes...Delilah is a great name. (5.00 / 1) (#115)
    by christinep on Mon Mar 14, 2011 at 03:25:09 PM EST
    She is the biggest female (none / 0) (#146)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Mar 14, 2011 at 04:43:36 PM EST
    and both of her parents are overly large, probably considered royal standard.  I didn't even realize until we started looking for her that some people are now breeding a smaller type standard and they call it a Moyen.  This knocked a few dogs out of the running because we need the tallest, calmest, smartest girl poodle out there :)

    Parent
    you worked for Carl? (5.00 / 0) (#82)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Mar 14, 2011 at 02:20:14 PM EST
    you deserve it.

    Carl Paladino's campaign stiffed about a dozen consultants, vendors and staff members for some $130,000 in salaries, fees and expenses, according to numerous veterans of his failed gubernatorial bid.

    They are pressing for payment from a campaign committee, Paladino for the People, that is deep in debt. Public records show the committee has a balance of only $5,305 and debts of $6.1 million, most of them loans from the candidate.



    Walker's big donors targeted (5.00 / 2) (#120)
    by jbindc on Mon Mar 14, 2011 at 03:36:22 PM EST
    Union members are pulling their money from banks that gave huge donations to Walker.

    M&I Bank is the largest bank in Wisconsin, and was the recipient of $1.7 billion in TARP bailout money from the federal government. The bundled contributions from M&I executives were Walker's second-largest source of campaign funds. According to records provided by the Sunlight Foundation, executives at M&I Bank gave $46,308 to Walker's campaign. And now, a group of local unions in Wisconsin have threatened to pull their money from M&I Bank unless it denounces Scott Walker's attack on workers' rights.

    "Walker and his henchmen in the GOP have chosen to ignore the people of Wisconsin, but we all know now that they will listen to their big money donors," says factory worker David Goodspeed, a member of Sheet Metal Workers Local Union 565. "This is an opportunity for donors like M&I to be good corporate citizens and do what's right for the citizens who bailed them out."

    On Thursday morning, several hundred protesters surrounded an M&I Bank across the street from the Wisconsin State Capitol shouting "You Got Bailed Out, We Got Sold Out."  International Association of Fire Fighters Local 311 President Joe Conway Jr. told me two union members marched in and pulled a combined $192,000 dollars out of the bank. "Hopefully this sends a message to the bank," says Conway. "We wanted to illustrate how serious our threat is by having just two of our members pull their money out. " The union said it plans to escalate actions and will soon begin handing out flyers at protests asking people to move their money.

    A senior union researcher estimates that unions have at least $1 billion invested in M&I Bank, mostly through pension funds. Discussions are going on at the highest levels of the labor movement about how exactly to leverage this financial clout in the political debate in Wisconsin. Since the Bank of Montreal is in process of purchasing M&I Bank, US unions have reached out to the Canadian Labour Congress to urge their involvement in a disinvestment campaign.



    So, what you're sayin' is.... (none / 0) (#129)
    by getoffamycloud10 on Mon Mar 14, 2011 at 03:59:40 PM EST
    based on the figures you've provided, the unions are out-gunned at least 16-1 by the Koch Brothers.

    And that's just the Koch Brothers.

    Gee, thanks for clearin' that up.

    Parent

    Why I'm not a Dem (5.00 / 1) (#138)
    by waldenpond on Mon Mar 14, 2011 at 04:18:44 PM EST
    As another example of why I am now as repelled by the Dem party as the Repubs.... Evan Bayh joins Fox.  bwahahaha!

    Don't forget to vote for the Dems in 2012.  They're on your side!

    See how fair and balanced Fox is? (5.00 / 1) (#142)
    by ruffian on Mon Mar 14, 2011 at 04:27:03 PM EST
    And Bayh is speaking for the left, no doubt. Ick!!!!

    Parent
    Really (none / 0) (#186)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue Mar 15, 2011 at 01:55:24 AM EST
    He's the absolute ideal "fox democrat."

    Parent
    The nuclear issue has moved (5.00 / 1) (#166)
    by christinep on Mon Mar 14, 2011 at 06:54:31 PM EST
    just a bit beyond politics.  For some time, we have been edging our way toward nuclear. My biggest surprise has been the growing acceptance (or, at least, not clear opposition to) among the environmental green energy community. I even tried to tell myself it wasn't that bad, that there was much improvement since Chernobyl, since TMI here in the US. Europe had invested heavily (see France); and, of course, there was Japan. And where am I now? Beyond political correctness on either side.

    Germany has instituted a moratorium on nuclear expansion. We should do no less.  It isn't a matter of who has been or is to blame for moving along the nuclear idea. This has been going on for years.  And even tho we know that communities are not interested in anything nuclear when fully confronted with realities of waste disposal, etc. (see WIPP and Yucca Mtn) the acceptability of nuclear power has grown. Why did Japan embrace nuclear (of all places) so willingly? Well, this mass hypnosis has come to a halt.  In my mind, the risks of nuclear power have not been fully explored, not been fully discussed, not fully appreciated.

    Won't change anything here currently. (5.00 / 1) (#167)
    by nycstray on Mon Mar 14, 2011 at 07:24:35 PM EST
    Obama will stop for a bit and have the issue studied, and then continue on after saying it's safe, nothing to worry about here. I hope he at least takes note of the Pacific coast hot spots for major tsunami and quake activity . . .

    Parent
    Yep (5.00 / 2) (#173)
    by lentinel on Mon Mar 14, 2011 at 07:56:39 PM EST
    It's reminds me of the way he handled the BP disaster.
    "Study" 'til it blows over.

    Parent
    Heh. I can just see (5.00 / 1) (#177)
    by brodie on Mon Mar 14, 2011 at 08:16:28 PM EST
    a Special Presidential Commission on Nuclear Power named by Obama, headed up by ...  James Earl Carter, former nukular engineer dude, the president who after TMI named a Special Presidential Commission to look into that one, and so on

    And because it's a presidential comm'n it must by law include one Lee Hamilton (if still alive), ex Dem rep from Indiana -- to help "contain" the damage to the political/economic establishment.

    Gotta have James Baker, too, if you're gonna have a bipartisan commission.  

    And we need at least one more Gooper of stature ... how about Colin Powell?  

    Parent

    Ah, can't we give it a rest? (none / 0) (#180)
    by christinep on Mon Mar 14, 2011 at 08:45:46 PM EST
    There are lots of times when we individually or as a country get hints, lessons. Rarely, very rarely do we see or experience what happened in Japan last week. The unavoidable life & death issue--where reality meets hyperbole--we can probably count on one or two fingers in our lifetimes. The come-hither attraction of nuclear power that seems to have captivated many countries in the world...that spell assuredly has been broken. Better for ALL of us to look at the future through the new lens rather than either the rose-colored glasses of the cobwebs of old. (Hey...without overlaying our own cynicism, we might get a clearer vision together.)

    Parent
    I don't presume to know what the President (none / 0) (#179)
    by christinep on Mon Mar 14, 2011 at 08:38:40 PM EST
    or other political leaders will do. And, right now, I think such a presumption grounded into our more day-to-day pedestrian positions. My point above: Japan may shake all of us out of that...Japan wasn't same old-same old...and we are no longer that. This is a situation beyond the stale phrases associated with "wake-up" call. Lets get beyond the cynicism of yesterday. Lets try.

    Parent
    what has changed between "yesterday" (5.00 / 1) (#181)
    by nycstray on Mon Mar 14, 2011 at 08:49:25 PM EST
    and today? I think our President has given us a very clear 2 years of how he handles things. I suspect we should be seeing his annual bracket pics any moment now. Priorities and all . . .

    Parent
    I will assume that your statement (none / 0) (#182)
    by christinep on Mon Mar 14, 2011 at 08:57:57 PM EST
    is rhetorical. You will see what you will see: I will see what I will see. What you think is a "clear 2 years" seems to be negative to you...while to me it is promising. (We can always talk specifics if you really want...but that would be different from conclusions by you or conclusions by me.)

    Parent
    Some paying work? (none / 0) (#1)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Mar 14, 2011 at 09:21:22 AM EST
    March Madness doesn't pay? :)  I was under the impression that some of you guys make a living  on sports betting :)

    It comes and goes (none / 0) (#2)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Mar 14, 2011 at 09:28:37 AM EST
    I had a good week last week.

    Parent
    Good (none / 0) (#23)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Mar 14, 2011 at 11:46:10 AM EST
    Tough draw... (none / 0) (#4)
    by kdog on Mon Mar 14, 2011 at 10:13:59 AM EST
    for the Johnnies...Gonzaga first, and should we advance BYU.  Both beatable, but I was hoping for an easier route to Sweet Little Sixteen.

    As for something important...my goodness what can ya say about Japan.  A manufacturer I sell for has their factory & headquarters near Mt. Fuji, very close to the epicenter of the quake...haven't heard any news at all yet about their employees...I'm fearing it is really bad.

    Gonzaga is always overrated (none / 0) (#7)
    by Dadler on Mon Mar 14, 2011 at 10:39:15 AM EST
    Always.  Though they're not slouches, they're thin at guard and just don't seem a complete team to me.  Something missing.  Speed, chemistry, something isn't there that usually is.  But that's why they play the games.

    As for BYU, well, you have no idea what you'll get.  Jimmer is a savant and can hit from anywhere past halfcourt, but without Davies underneath they are really vulnerable. With Fredette, put a long and fast defender on him (Scottie Pippen in his prime would be good) and hound him from baseline to baseline and hope for the best.

    SDSU got that #2 ssed, gets to play in Tuscon and, hopefully, Anaheim.  All set up for them to make a run.  We shall see.

    Parent

    Our most Pippen-like.. (none / 0) (#15)
    by kdog on Mon Mar 14, 2011 at 11:13:16 AM EST
    defender, DJ Kennedy, blew out his ACL against 'Cuse, the poor kid.

    I love our zone, but it's weakness is at the 3 point-line...hope Lavin goes with the man to man against BYU, should we advance.  Paris Horne can D with the best...I'd love to see him in Jimmer's shorts all day.

    They just gotta get to 16, so I can see a game!  I'll be in Mexico for the first two rounds.

    Your boys should coast to 16...nice draw, nothing too scary...Temple or Penn St. Round 2.

    Parent

    And I shouldn't diss Gonzaga (none / 0) (#25)
    by Dadler on Mon Mar 14, 2011 at 11:57:59 AM EST
    I spent my last night in San Diego attending the Gonzaga/USD Massacre.  They beat us 68-31.  That's right, I was a season ticket holder for four years, had the joy of an NCAA bid and upset of Connecticut in the tourney in Grier's first year with Brad Holland's players, then watched it slide every year until finally I get sent off with the fewest points scored by USD in modern history.  And they only broke 30 because a walk-on with a broken leg hit a three with a few seconds left.  It was embarrassing.  Like a JV team playing the Varsity.

    So, that said, I still think you'll beat the Zags, unless you have zero size inside, in which case they might give you trouble.  But I want to see an east coast team play BYU, not Gonzaga, so you better take them out.  

    And here's how you beat BYU.  Go Aztecs!

    Parent

    You are assuming (none / 0) (#18)
    by CoralGables on Mon Mar 14, 2011 at 11:23:07 AM EST
    my good man, that Jimmer & Co. gets past the Terriers

    Parent
    True... (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by kdog on Mon Mar 14, 2011 at 11:55:02 AM EST
    but I think it a safe assumption, barring no other key Cougars decide to get laid and confess before tip-off.

    Parent
    The Terriers (none / 0) (#27)
    by CoralGables on Mon Mar 14, 2011 at 12:15:31 PM EST
    took Xavier to triple overtime earlier in the season and are on an 8 game streak. Those little schools (only 1495 students at Wofford) make the best Cinderellas.

    Parent
    Happy (none / 0) (#5)
    by jbindc on Mon Mar 14, 2011 at 10:23:01 AM EST
    The (none / 0) (#6)
    by lentinel on Mon Mar 14, 2011 at 10:32:34 AM EST
    NYTImes is using strange language to describe the situation regarding the nuclear reactors in Japan.

    It is, oddly enough, the same lingo they used to describe the horrific BP oil spill in the Gulf.

    The reactors were first described as "troubled" and now are described as "stricken".

    This argues, in my opinion, for the usage of the vocabulary of the streets. It would tell us more if they would just say that things were fked up - or royally fked up.

    "Troubled"? "Stricken"? Gimme a break.

    True, the reporting (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by KeysDan on Mon Mar 14, 2011 at 10:45:36 AM EST
    has been to minimize the effects.  Nothing more than usual, we are routinely exposed.  This will continue until the effects are self-reporting.  The nuclear industry, and its political friends, will spin this in every way possible: it shows that even a earthquake of this magnitude does not result in a complete meltdown, just a "partial meltdown".   Nuclear accidents, like those from deep water drilling, rarely, if ever, happen.

    Parent
    I've seen this movie before (5.00 / 2) (#19)
    by scribe on Mon Mar 14, 2011 at 11:31:18 AM EST
    This is the same way the media treated Three Mile Island.  

    Setting aside the respective causative events (operator error v. earthquake/tsunami) the big difference between TMI and the present Japanese events is that at TMI the engineers managed to avoid a hydrogen explosion and the Japanese did not.  It was pretty clear (to me, anyway) by Saturday afternoon, shortly after the first hydrogen explosion, that there had been a partial meltdown inside the first reactor.  The crazy-desperate idea of pumping in seawater merely highlighted and reinforced my conclusion that there had been a partial meltdown.

    The media, hand in hand with the government, is slow-walking this so as to not shock the public - in Japan or elsewhere - too severely or too quickly.  Imagine how it would go over if the government simply came out and said:  "yup.  Sucker melted down part way, blew up the containment building (but not the vessel, yet), we aren't sure it won't blow up worse, and we've run out of alternatives on how to stop it, so we're pumping in seawater."  

    When TMI partly melted down, it took a couple years before the government and Metropolitan Edison came out and said - in very low tones - it had, and even longer - maybe the mid-80s - before pictures came out.

    I was in college, living less than 100 miles downwind of TMI, and I didn't get much work done that week, for watching the tube and trying to find out what ws going on.  CNN's coverage is pretty much the same in character as was the coverage in the networks then - more or less meaningless drivel intended more to calm the population than inform them.

    Parent

    That's actually funny (none / 0) (#185)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue Mar 15, 2011 at 01:35:56 AM EST
    since that's precisely what Da Media has been saying about it-- there's a partial meltdown, the explosions have damaged or destroyed the containment buildings, but not the containment domes, they're pumping in sea water as an absolutely last ditch desperation measure, and there's a real danger of some major radiation leakage.

    Don't know what channel you're watching, but in my view, they're *over*playing the problems, not underplaying or trying to minimize them.


    Parent

    Yes, the release of radiation (5.00 / 1) (#188)
    by Harry Saxon on Tue Mar 15, 2011 at 08:48:14 AM EST
    and the Japanese government evicting people is so 'overblown'.

    Parent
    Oooohhh! (none / 0) (#194)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue Mar 15, 2011 at 03:18:38 PM EST
    Such a clever comeback.

    Too bad it's entirely non-logical and not to the point.  But you knew that.

    Parent

    I will let history judge (none / 0) (#195)
    by Harry Saxon on Tue Mar 15, 2011 at 06:06:39 PM EST
    if it's overblown:

    The operator of Japan's stricken Fukushima Dai-Ichi nuclear power plant says fire broke out again at its No. 4 reactor unit because the initial blaze was not completely extinguished.

    Tokyo Electric Power Co. says the new blaze flared early Wednesday in the outer housing of the reactor's containment vessel. Fire fighters are trying to put out the flames.

    On Tuesday, a fire broke out in the reactor's fuel storage pond -- an area where used nuclear fuel is kept cool -- causing radioactivity to be released into the atmosphere.


    Click or San Francisco Me


    Parent

    An administration gaffe is (none / 0) (#8)
    by KeysDan on Mon Mar 14, 2011 at 10:39:44 AM EST
    telling the truth, but P.J. Crowley's gaffe of " ridiculous, and counterproductive and stupid" in describing the treatment of Pfc Manning's pretrial confinement resulted in not only the swift loss of his job, but also, efforts to diminish and tarnish his service.

    Now, it is learned, that he has been in a tenuous position for some time.  He did not travel with Sec. Clinton which is "highly unusual" for a spokesman and he was not in her inner circle and, as reported in the NYT, he "came under fire" in a State Department audit while managing the public affairs bureau. Of course, none of these factors, suspicions  or gaffes were enough to have him lose his job,  

    One has to conclude, based on her staying (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by scribe on Mon Mar 14, 2011 at 11:41:07 AM EST
    in her job, that HRC is totally on board with torturing Bradley Manning.  

    After all, if she couldn't take the crap foreign governments doubtless throw back at her about Manning and Gitmo when she gets preachy about human rights and torture, she surely would have quit by now.

    Parent

    Have to say that I find that disturbing (5.00 / 2) (#28)
    by Anne on Mon Mar 14, 2011 at 12:16:20 PM EST
    on many levels, and for obvious reasons.

    I have a feeling though, that this is one of those things where she knows - or reasonably suspects - that even if she believes it's wrong (and I'm not all that sure that she does), she can't do anything about what's being done to Manning - short of resigning in protest - so she is directing her energy and focus to those areas of the world where entire populations are being subjected to inhumane treatment - always keeping in mind, of course, that whatever we do, we want our bread to land butter-side-up.

    And for those who are offended every time Obama is accused of being more of a Republican than a Democrat, it's instructive to see who is supporting his statements about Manning and the "resignation" of Crowley and who is being critical; the "common ground" on which he and the GOP/conservatives stand seems to be getting larger and larger.

    Parent

    there are ways to object (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by CST on Mon Mar 14, 2011 at 12:56:13 PM EST
    without resigning.  Especially considering the fact that she has always made it known this was a one-term job.  I mean, it was clear to me that Colin Powell never fully accepted the Iraq war situation even though he kept his job for the remainder of the term.

    It's always easier to believe the best in the people we respect.  That doesn't make it true.

    Let's also not forget that Bradley manning released all the state department memo's and included a fairly personal attack on Clinton herself.  Frankly, there is no reason to believe she doesn't support this.  Although I guess until the book comes out in 2013 we'll never really know.

    In any event, she has made public comments back in '06 suggesting a willingness to use more extreme methods of interrogation, although she walked that back during the campaign.

    No ones hands are clean here.  And it's just further proof that this stuff is far deeper than any one person.  The whole power base in this country is f*cked.

    Parent

    I have to point out that Manning (5.00 / 1) (#69)
    by caseyOR on Mon Mar 14, 2011 at 01:37:45 PM EST
    has not been convicted of anything. We don't know that he is the person who released those emails. I believe the technical term used at this juncture in a criminal proceeding is "allegedly."

    Sadly, given how our government conducts things these days, I doubt that we will ever know the whole truth about who leaked those documents and why. Manning may eventually be convicted, but we will only hear what the government wants us to hear.

    Parent

    The word "alleged" (5.00 / 2) (#121)
    by christinep on Mon Mar 14, 2011 at 03:36:59 PM EST
    Agree that we tend to forget the word "alleged" when it is convenient (and, when the belief takes on a life of its own.) What I would like to see is the word "alleged" applied to Manning as to the crimes with which he is charged. Also: The word "alleged" should be used to describe claims that the government is suffering/allowing "torture" on Manning...since the term has legal implications and, in the case of dispute, is best suited for a court of law. All the way around, speculation is speculation.  "Alleged" is an important word.

    Parent
    Agree about the use of "alleged" as to (none / 0) (#127)
    by Anne on Mon Mar 14, 2011 at 03:51:12 PM EST
    what Manning is being accused of, but I don't think you can preface "treatment" the same way, since military officials and the brig commander have confirmed the various protocols.

    Manning, through his attorney, has been fighting to be taken off the status that controls the current treatment - which tells me that it's all spelled out in a manual or code section somewhere.

    Parent

    When there are competing views (5.00 / 1) (#136)
    by christinep on Mon Mar 14, 2011 at 04:15:05 PM EST
    as to whether an act(s) amount to torture, it does seem fair to recall that the eventual determination may be a legal one. While I agree with your take from an individual ethical view as to whether the known actions re: this prisoner amount to something ethically wrong, I believe that a legal argument might not be so clear-cut. (To me the real issue of the acts, as alleged, centers on the curtailed exercise situation for one in such detention primarily as protection from the general population. Just guessing, but there may be a mixed outlook here...if that curtailment is considered too restrictive, perhaps a type of mandamus would lie to adjust that aspect. In any event, the matter of conditions/treatment would eventually receive some type of adjudication.)

    In a broader sense, keeping our eyes on the meaning of "alleged" as to crimes, treatment, and--even--who might be thinking or saying what is helpful.

    Parent

    "The term has legal implications" (none / 0) (#154)
    by shoephone on Mon Mar 14, 2011 at 05:20:16 PM EST
    It certainly does. But, as we have already seen, no one in our government gets held accountable for torture -- alleged or otherwise.

    Parent
    Then, who will sue here? (none / 0) (#155)
    by christinep on Mon Mar 14, 2011 at 05:21:45 PM EST
    I don't have the answer to that question (none / 0) (#158)
    by shoephone on Mon Mar 14, 2011 at 05:33:25 PM EST
    But if Manning's lawyers are convinced that there is a case to be made for torture, it still may not be in his interest to pursue it. Last week, we witnessed the push back from Obama, who found it distasteful or inconvenient to hold Bush and Cheney accountable for the rendition flights which led directly to  torture by our "friends" in foreign locales. And he is not closing Guantanamo as promised -- he is re-upping the military tribunals. At this point, it's highly unlikely that irrefutable evidence of anyone's torture at the hands of the U.S government will ever be admissable in a federal court. Obama, like Bush, would claim state secrets privilege.

     

    Parent

    Before you go down the road (none / 0) (#33)
    by scribe on Mon Mar 14, 2011 at 12:42:40 PM EST
    of believing she's trying to do the right thing or is putting up with Obama's torture to work for higher goals or some other bullcrap, please check in with first principles:

    She's a pol.  She's doing what pols do.  Right and wrong have no meaning to her or any other pol;  the only rights and wrongs are things which help or hurt her career.

    Failing to do that leaves you looking lke the O-Bots who believed Obama would come around and do the right thing - "let Obama be Obama", in so many words -  when in fact he's done only the wrong thing and does so because he wants to.  Bradley Manning would not be undergoing torture if Obama didn't want it.

    Parent

    Before you decide that's what I'm (5.00 / 2) (#37)
    by Anne on Mon Mar 14, 2011 at 12:54:51 PM EST
    thinking, perhaps you should re-read my comment; I said I suspected SHE was justifying her actions - or non-actions - with that rationale, not that I found it justifiable.

    I mean, what part of "I find this disturbing, on many levels" would lead you to think I was being her apologist?

    Not to mention the knock-down, drag-out I got involved in over the weekend for continuing to insist that Manning's treatment is wrong even if "that's the way it is in the military."

    Hell, I know this is what Obama wants.  And I'm pretty sure that Hillary is okay with it.  I don't know how she reconciles being okay with it with lecturing other countries' leaders to be more observant of human rights.

    But I'm sure there's a justification there somewhere, some way of compartmentalizing that works for her - and him - but I'll be damned if I will like it or excuse it.

    Parent

    I want to say for the record (5.00 / 2) (#38)
    by sj on Mon Mar 14, 2011 at 12:55:53 PM EST
    That I think this is a bunch of cr@p.

    She's a pol.  She's doing what pols do.  Right and wrong have no meaning to her or any other pol;  the only rights and wrongs are things which help or hurt her career.

    That generalization is as BS as saying that all pols are nobly representing their constituents.

    Judge all pols (and actually probably everyone) by their acts.  I know the "pols are pols" bit that is bandied about here.  And I have mixed feelings about it.  But I call BS on this "right and wrong have no meaning" nonsense simply because one is a "Pol".

    Parent

    Hillary's trying to help Sr. Dianna Ortiz (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by MKS on Mon Mar 14, 2011 at 12:56:17 PM EST
    and the people of Guatemala has had no potential political upside.

    No votes, no financial contribution, no greater standing among any community of influence.  

    Parent

    yes (none / 0) (#42)
    by CST on Mon Mar 14, 2011 at 12:58:37 PM EST
    and I do not doubt that she means it.

    But you have to consider, it has no political downside as well.

    I think people will do good when they can do good without facing any negative consequences.  It's much harder to do the right thing when you will pay for it.

    Parent

    Plenty of downside (5.00 / 2) (#53)
    by MKS on Mon Mar 14, 2011 at 01:11:35 PM EST
    Wtih respect to Sr. Dianna, the entire political establishment treated her like a leper or a kook.  Her account in essence accused the U.S. of running the torture chambers in Guatemala.  Siding with Sr. Dianna meant being accused of siding with "communist" guerillas or being duped by their propaganda.

    And this whole attack against Obama for "apologizing" for U.S. actions overseas?  The genesis of that was Bill Clinton's formal apology to the people of Guatemala for atrocious U.S. actions there.

    I think that is the only "apology" that Clinton or Obama have ever made.  And you can see the downside from that "apology."

    Hillary appears to have been instrumental in Bill's apology.  The starting point appears to have been when she took Sr. Dianna into the White House to be officially photographed with her during Sr. Dianna's vigil outside the White House protesting on behalf of the people of Guatemala.

    Life can be complicated....Hillary may be a hawk but she has opposed torture when it was not politically convenient.

    Parent

    One thing (none / 0) (#61)
    by lilburro on Mon Mar 14, 2011 at 01:24:50 PM EST
    Hillary Clinton originally was supportive of the "ticking time bomb" situation (a stupid construct that has been attacked on this blog in the past many times).  She did change her position during the 08 Presidential campaign.  Obama was originally stronger on this issue.

    That said, here we are today.  Manning certainly doesn't even begin to pose a "ticking time bomb" type threat...outside of a sadistic desire to cause this man pain there seems to be no actual reason for him to be held the way he is being held right now.

    Parent

    haven't you been reading the papers? (none / 0) (#65)
    by CST on Mon Mar 14, 2011 at 01:30:07 PM EST
    "there seems to be no actual reason for him to be held the way he is being held right now"

    It's for his own safety/good

    or something....

    Honestly, this sums up how I feel about a lot of political discussions:

    "That said, here we are today"

    I almost miss the primaries.  At least back then people were making the right arguments.

    Parent

    Is that how (none / 0) (#44)
    by sj on Mon Mar 14, 2011 at 01:00:44 PM EST
    you conduct your life?

    Not being snarky.  I just want to get your frame of reference.

    Parent

    my life is not that complicated (none / 0) (#47)
    by CST on Mon Mar 14, 2011 at 01:04:23 PM EST
    as I am not secretary of state.  Usually doing the right thing doesn't have much of a downside.

    I'll have to think about it some more as off the top of my head I just don't know.

    Frankly, it's probably a mixed bag.

    Parent

    Well the rest of us (5.00 / 2) (#73)
    by brodie on Mon Mar 14, 2011 at 01:53:06 PM EST
    non-pols usually don't have to answer to thousands or millions of people and their views.  So, while I tend to come down on the side of sj here, it's also true that pols do have to take into consideration public sentiment as they make decisions.  Can't get out too far ahead or you'll be out of a job in some cases -- and the replacement might be far worse.

    That said, not many Sec'ys of State or top cabinet officials offer to resign over such relatively mid-level (or so) matters like the Manning matter, disgusting though it is.  I can only think of one SoS in recent times -- Cy Vance -- who did resign in protest.  But, iirc, that might have had more to do as much with the fact that he deliberately hadn't been consulted as with Carter's decision on that harebrained Iran hostage rescue mission.

    And that said, I do wish Hillary and Obama would at least stop talking publicly to other countries about human rights until we've cleaned up our own act.  Why this torture is allowed to continue is a puzzle and an unnecessary black eye for the Obama admin and this country.

    Parent

    I think it's a mixed bag (none / 0) (#49)
    by sj on Mon Mar 14, 2011 at 01:09:12 PM EST
    for me and my less complicated life as well.  But, as I get older, I take what I determine to be the "ethical" more than I take the "easy" path.

    Which is why I kind of took exception to that comment.  It seemed to be a pretty cavalier assessment of someone else's ethical choices.

    Parent

    I wasn't intending it that way (none / 0) (#60)
    by CST on Mon Mar 14, 2011 at 01:23:59 PM EST
    It was more of a general statement pointing out the difference between an easy choice (to do the right thing) and a hard choice (to do the right thing).

    I wasn't saying she will always make the easy choice.  I don't doubt she will make the hard choice at times as well.  It's more that if doing the right thing is also the easy choice, than she will always make that choice every time.

    Parent

    Hillary has a good track record (5.00 / 2) (#35)
    by MKS on Mon Mar 14, 2011 at 12:50:30 PM EST
    on torture and human rights.

    As First Lady, she validated and tried to help Sister Dianna Ortiz, a U.S. citizen and Catholic Nun who had been abducted, raped and tortured in Guatemala.  Many including officials in the Bush I adminstration said she had concocted the whole story.  But there had been medical confirmation of 112 cigarette burns on her back, which many including at least one official in the U.S. Embassy in Guatemala attributed to "rough lesbian sex."

    Hillary also appeared instrumental in her husband's release of thousands of documents regarding the CIA involvment in Guatemala and the Holocaust there....

    She just released documents as Secretary of State that showed U.S. medical experimentation on Guatemalans in the 1950s.

    Parent

    The issue at hand is (5.00 / 2) (#70)
    by KeysDan on Mon Mar 14, 2011 at 01:39:20 PM EST
    the manner of treatment of Pfc. Bradley Manning during pretrial confinement at Quantico, the Marine base. The president has weighed in on this matter with his statement that the "Pentagon" has assured him  that the treatment is "appropriate and meets our basic standards.".  The quick departure of P.J. Crowley from the State Department for his disapproving assessment of Manning's treatment makes it appear that Secretary Clinton is complicit. And, this is no small matter, in my view.

    Parent
    Yes, I know, Guatemala is never the issue (5.00 / 2) (#75)
    by MKS on Mon Mar 14, 2011 at 02:01:00 PM EST
    But in terms of torture, no one aside from Hillary, from what I can tell, really stood up for the people of Guatemala when it counted.....Perhaps Sen. Torricelli.  Maybe Dodd.

    Hillary deserves credit for opposing torture in the past.

    Not to say that she does not have authoritarian tendencies and a hawkish bent that can take one's breath away.

    As far as I can tell, I am probably further most Left on issues of incarceration and torture among regular contributors here, and have many posts I think would show that.  From that vantage point of being in a small minority, I tend to see the broader picture a certain way, and am not surprised at what our tough-on-crime culture hath wrought.

    Manning is not an isolated instance.  His treatment should stop.  His treament is abominable.

    Parent

    And that's what so disturbs me, that (5.00 / 1) (#79)
    by Anne on Mon Mar 14, 2011 at 02:09:39 PM EST
    someone who has been an outspoken advocate for the right of all people to be treated fairly, has been silent on the treatment of Bradley Manning.  She's actually been pretty much silent on the whole issue of detainees, on Guantanamo, on indefinite detention; I just don't know at what point one can justify continuing to represent the interests of a government whose president is determined to punish whistleblowers and is okay with treatment of a yet-to-be-convicted member of the military that could - and possibly is designed to  - lead to that person's total mental breakdown.

    She just plain knows better, knows about the presumption of innocence which even the military subscribes to, knows that if the day comes when one of our own is being held by a foreign government, we cannot credibly argue against inhumane treatment when we've been engaging in it ourselves, against one of our own.

    In what universe is someone who might be in danger from his peers punished because of it?  And is our new procedure that it is okay to begin the punishment before due process and a conviction?  How long before the whole "presumed innocent" concept does a 180 and we're treating people as if they were guilty while we mouth platitudes about our great democracy?  Oh, wait - that's already happening.

    I don't deny that Hillary has done some good work in her lifetime, but I don't know if it can make up for, or if I can ignore, what she isn't doing now to oppose what our own government is engaging in; if the world is saved one person at a time, how does she know Bradley Manning isn't someone she is supposed to help save?

    How do any of us know that?


    Parent

    Does she have decision making (5.00 / 3) (#95)
    by sj on Mon Mar 14, 2011 at 02:44:44 PM EST
    power over what happens to him?  I don't think so.  Any efforts she may or may not be making on his behalf would, by necessity be private, I think.

    I'm trying to analyze her options:  She can:

    1.  Speak out publicly in opposition, start a firestorm, and likely resign hastily
    2.  Speak out publicly in support and start a firestorm, and distract from the work she is doing on behalf of women around the world
    3.  Resign in protest
    4.  Acknowledge it's out of her hands, and continue to do her quite influential job
    5.  Acknowledge it's out of her hands, lobby privately on his behalf and continue to do her quite influential job.
    6.  Acknowledge it's out of her hands and lobby to have the book thrown at him, and continue to do he quite influential job.

    Well, we know she hasn't done 1, 2 or 3.  And while I wish I knew where she stood on the 4,5 or 6 spectrum, there is a part of me that just isn't ready to throw out the the Clinton baby with the Obama bathwater.  She's the only one who comes close to caring about some of the things that I care about.  That I can think of anyway.

    Of course, if she had decision making authority then all these thoughts go out the window.

    Parent

    The reason (none / 0) (#108)
    by MKS on Mon Mar 14, 2011 at 03:11:36 PM EST
    I posted about Hillary's past opposition to torture and help of torture victims was to leave the door open to a conclusion like # 4-6 above.

    Her past actions do matter here.

    Parent

    The Answer is quite simple (none / 0) (#83)
    by MKS on Mon Mar 14, 2011 at 02:22:07 PM EST
    Hillary tried to help innocent victims.  Manning is no innocent victim.  

    He represents an ongoing danger because he may have knowledge of other secrets that he could divulge to others.  He is being segregated from others in custody for his own protection as if he were a child molester.  He is on suicide watch to protect him from himself.

    Done.  That is the Answer....Such reasoning or sentiment is not new.  Rather common actually.  I would be surprised if the overall sentiment were different.  

    The problem is that Manning may not be suicidal (at least originally) and that everything else is so clearly not necessary to achieve the stated goals.

    People don't like felons or traitors.  And that is how Manning is viewed by most everyone, including probably Hillary.

    Most people jettison concepts of decency and Due Process when fear and hatred sink in.  Look at Dershowitz.....


    Parent

    So, on the one hand, you can (5.00 / 2) (#94)
    by Anne on Mon Mar 14, 2011 at 02:43:14 PM EST
    definitively state that Manning is no innocent victim, and in the next breath, qualify that he "may have" potentially damaging information?  

    And, I have to say that when Military Tracy made the argument that he was being protected from those within the military who are enraged about what he is accused of, that was the first time I had seen that argument made anywhere.  I repeat my question: in what universe do we punish people because they are at risk from being harmed by others?  Yeah, I know there is such a thing as protective custody, but does it usually rise to the level of torture?  

    As for what Manning potentially "knows," it is not my understanding that Manning has examined the totality - or anything close to the totality - of the information he is accused of handing over to Wikileaks; the people at Wikileaks, together with the media partners, have been poring over and analyzing the materials for months, and we have seen very little of it.

    No, people don't like felons or traitors, but Manning has not been convicted which means he is neither of those things.  And while I recognize that Hillary is human, and may feel any number of things about Manning, she knows probably better than most people the importance of being presumed innocent.

    We can't just deem as innocent only those we "like" and still expect to maintain the strength of our democratic foundation, can we?  And if Hillary cannot separate her personal feelings - which we are all assuming are allowing her to go along with what is being done to Manning -  from the principles she knows she should be safeguarding as a representative of the American government, she shouldn't be representing that government.  Is that too extreme?  I guess it depends on how strongly one feels about the importance of our basic civil and human rights.

    I don't know how we expect to have any shred of credibility with the rest of the world if we can't walk the walk we keep talking about.


    Parent

    Seriously??? (5.00 / 2) (#100)
    by jbindc on Mon Mar 14, 2011 at 02:56:10 PM EST
    In what universe of any type of reality do you expect her to speak publicly in contradiction to the president, about an issue that is no way under her portfolio of responsibilities?


    Parent
    I have not, as near as I can tell, (5.00 / 1) (#113)
    by Anne on Mon Mar 14, 2011 at 03:21:50 PM EST
    demanded that she speak out publicly against Manning's treatment, but in the universe in which I live, when people don't speak out, it generally indicates one of two things: they are not opposed to whatever is at issue, or they support what is at issue but wish to not be dragged into the middle of it.  "Not opposed" is the more passive of the two, but the result is the same: whatever it is will continue.

    Does she support it?  Or just not oppose it?  I have no idea, but it's hard to imagine she has no opinion, either as a citizen or as a representative of government.  From all reports, she has been marginalizing Crowley for some time, and clearly did not make an effort to save his job.  What does that say?  A lot, I would suspect.  Crowley was definitely in her purview, and he no longer has a job.

    When all is said and done, she is not the one who has the power to order the Pentagon to cease their mistreatment of Bradley Manning; we all know that.  But you can't convince me that she doesn't have the ability to influence or lobby the president in opposition to that treatment; when I put it all together - how long it's been going on, the marginalization and "resignation" of Crowley, the president's assurances, I don't come away with a feeling that she's provided much opposition to how Manning has been treated.

    I'd like to think I'm wrong, but nothing points in that direction.


    Parent

    This (5.00 / 3) (#116)
    by jbindc on Mon Mar 14, 2011 at 03:29:14 PM EST
    When all is said and done, she is not the one who has the power to order the Pentagon to cease their mistreatment of Bradley Manning; we all know that.  But you can't convince me that she doesn't have the ability to influence or lobby the president in opposition to that treatment; when I put it all together - how long it's been going on, the marginalization and "resignation" of Crowley, the president's assurances, I don't come away with a feeling that she's provided much opposition to how Manning has been treated.

    is a lot different than this:

    Does she support it?  Or just not oppose it?  I have no idea, but it's hard to imagine she has no opinion, either as a citizen or as a representative of government.

    Of COURSE she has an opinion.  She probably has lots of opinions (as every secretary does) that we don't get to hear.  I'm not sure why you deem this a special case and think we SHOULD her hear opinion about it.  Why aren't you asking what Robert Gates thinks about it?

    Parent

    And no (5.00 / 1) (#117)
    by jbindc on Mon Mar 14, 2011 at 03:32:14 PM EST
    Crowely apparently wasn't in the inner circle - but has hasn't been for over a year.  And he was on his way out in a few months anwyays.  this gaffe just hastend his exit.

    Although Clinton had warm words upon Crowley's departure, he never got along with the secretary's inner circle. He was well-liked by the press corps, but his often unusually blunt remarks from the State Department podium got him into trouble and he had not traveled with Clinton on overseas trips in more than a year.

    His departure had been expected in the coming months, but officials said the fact that the president was asked about his comments on Manning led the White House to push for him to go sooner. The officials spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss a personnel decision.



    Parent
    Not enough to summarily fire the man after (5.00 / 2) (#126)
    by KeysDan on Mon Mar 14, 2011 at 03:50:25 PM EST
    years of service, but "anonymous officials" have to add a few disparaging remarks after he is out the door. They do not want to say more because it is a personnel matter, although the NYT does allow the issue to rise of his coming under fire from an audit of a bureau he headed, also attributed to anonymous officials.

    Parent
    I'd love to know what Gates thinks about (5.00 / 2) (#124)
    by Anne on Mon Mar 14, 2011 at 03:45:07 PM EST
    all of this, and what role he has played - but this sub-thread didn't start with a comment about Gates, but about the resignation of Crowley - who worked for Clinton - and about Hillary's silence,  so that's what I've been discussing; if you want to get started with Gates' role, by all means, knock yourself out.

    As I tried to communicate, it probably doesn't much matter to Bradley Manning's treatment what anyone other than the president thinks - he gets the last word, and unless I'm not understanding English anymore, I think he had that last word on Friday: he's been assured that everything's just peachy, nothing to see here, move along.

    Hillary had a choice to make, and it looks like she made it: Crowley's gone.  There's been no announcement of any kind that anyone has any intention of embarrassing the Pentagon by looking into the matter any further, so I think it's safe to assume that if she attempted to influence Obama, she failed, and is just going back to business-as-usual in good soldier fashion.

    She may be choosing her battles such that she didn't think this one worth fighting, or she doesn't' have a problem with how it's all being handled; either way, I don't see how this helps in the larger battle for human rights.

    Parent

    Really? (5.00 / 2) (#128)
    by jbindc on Mon Mar 14, 2011 at 03:54:51 PM EST
    Hillary had a choice to make, and it looks like she made it: Crowley's gone.  There's been no announcement of any kind that anyone has any intention of embarrassing the Pentagon by looking into the matter any further, so I think it's safe to assume that if she attempted to influence Obama, she failed, and is just going back to business-as-usual in good soldier fashion.

    That's the point.  What choice did she have - besides giving up her job?  That's the only endgame here from her defending Crowley or speaking out over any alleged treatment or mistreatment of Manning.

    Now, yes, there are a few brave souls that would say, "the heck with the job, I'm speaking out."  But I dare say that while many of us here would, in theory, stand up and speak out, I would bet all the money I have that almost no one would if it meant giving up everything - including the opportunity to "do good" where we had actual control and influence.

    Parent

    Yes, that is the point... (none / 0) (#131)
    by Anne on Mon Mar 14, 2011 at 04:06:48 PM EST
    that it appears she has chosen to stay where she is, doing what she's doing, and not making waves.

    I just don't know how she reconciles, internally, or in her dealings with other countries, the US government's decision to subject Manning to treatment that is in violation of the Convention on Torture.

    It does not compute for me; at some point this control and influence she has is only going to bite her - and us - in the a$$.

    Parent

    My guess is (5.00 / 2) (#135)
    by jbindc on Mon Mar 14, 2011 at 04:11:57 PM EST
    The SOS, as well as other administrion officials, as well as every other politican, have to make decisions about things on a daily basis that they don't necessarily personally agree with, but have to do because there are more facts in play than their personal feelings.

    Parent
    You could be right (none / 0) (#104)
    by MKS on Mon Mar 14, 2011 at 03:03:26 PM EST
    about the State Department not having any direct control over Manning.

    And the State Department may not have access to the inside information regarding Manning, and Hillary is relying on the public account.  Resigning, or publicly disagreeing, based on a public account of a prisoner's treatment is precarious.

    Parent

    Obama said it too (5.00 / 1) (#102)
    by CST on Mon Mar 14, 2011 at 02:58:44 PM EST
    that some of it was "for his own safety" - whatever that means.

    The buck clearly stops with Obama.  One word from him and this would be over.

    Parent

    From what I've been reading (5.00 / 1) (#103)
    by jbindc on Mon Mar 14, 2011 at 03:00:28 PM EST
    Other soldiers held in prisons generally don't take to kindly to those accused (and convicted) of aiding the enemy and treason.

    Kinda like the military's version of pedophiles.

    I guess we could put Manning in the general population and see what happens.

    Parent

    Even so, the other treatment (5.00 / 1) (#105)
    by MKS on Mon Mar 14, 2011 at 03:04:33 PM EST
    makes this protective custody abusive and unjustifiable....

    Parent
    Agreed (none / 0) (#125)
    by lilburro on Mon Mar 14, 2011 at 03:46:38 PM EST
    I also don't see the point in throwing Manning to his fellow soldiers or into the general prison population.  Playing into and/or exploiting the injustices that occur in our prison system ...nothing will ever change if we reserve the right to use its horrors to our advantage.

    Parent
    Your argument is not with me (none / 0) (#101)
    by MKS on Mon Mar 14, 2011 at 02:58:16 PM EST
    I summarize the majority opinion--I do not agree with it....

    Protective custody rising to torture:  Yes, I think that happens very frequently in our correctional system....

    Parent

    Good track record? (1.00 / 1) (#92)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Mon Mar 14, 2011 at 02:41:56 PM EST
    ...she validated and tried to help Sister Dianna Ortiz...

    Tried and succeeded, or tried and failed?

    ....released documents as Secretary of State that showed U.S. medical experimentation on Guatemalans in the 1950s.

    So she ended abuses a half century ago!  Nice work that, but a bit late don't you think?  

    Has she any accomplishments that effect real persons lives today>


    Parent

    Thanks--your post (5.00 / 1) (#140)
    by MKS on Mon Mar 14, 2011 at 04:24:41 PM EST
    had me go back and create a timeline.  Wonderful organizing principle.  I had not done this before.

    Here it is.

      1989.  Sister Dianna Ortiz is abducted in Guatemala.  She is released from the torture chamber by a blond man called Alejandro who spoke English with an American accent and who was in control of the torture chamber.  She flees to American Embassy in Guatemala.  The U.S. Ambassador is Thomas Stroock, from Casper, Wyoming.  Stroock got Dick Cheney into Yale. Cheney was Secretary of Defense at the time.  Stroock publicly casts doubt on Sr. Dianna's account.  He later tells a Wyoming paper that he thought Sr. Dianna was ungrateful given that he had had her rescued.

      April 1996.  Sr. Dianna begins 5 week  vigil across the street from the White House.

      April 4, 1996.  Hillary takes Sr. Dianna into the White House and is photographed with her there. Sr. Dianna pleads for the people of Guatemala and that the U.S. government release all information about its role in Guatemala.

      Late April/early May 1996.  Sr. Dianna ends her vigil when the State Department declassifies thousands of documents.  I have read some of them.  They publicly detail the CIA's overthrow of the Arbenz governemtn in 1954.  Widely believed before but now proved.  Evidence of U.S. complicity in atrocities in 1980s.

       December 29, 1996.  The Peace Accords are signed, officially ending Guatemala's Civil War.  Dr. Susanne Jonas, the Grande Dame of Guatemala Scholars, writes that her investigation reveals that the Vatican secretly brokers the Peace Accords.  But, with the U.S. clearly now backing away from the Right wing military previously supported by Reagan and his henchmen, the tide shifts against the military dicatorship.

    The Peace Accords give qualified amnesty in order to allow truth commissions to go forward.

      1998.  Archbishop Gerardi publicly announces the offical findings of the Catholic Church regarding the atrocities.  He reports that over 90% of the atrocities were committed by the Guatemalan military. He is killed days later in the rectory.  The Gerardi Report is the most harrowing account of torture and murder.

      1999.  The UN Truth Commission is published.  It builds on the Gerardi report and issues the now official and accepted account that 93% of the 200,000 atrocities were committed by the Guatemalan military dictatorship, not the guerillas.

      1999.  Bill Clinton "apologizes" to the people of Guatemala.  

    Based on that timeline, one could argue that Hillary not only had the State Department release the classified documents in 1996, but was instrutmental in setting the stage for the Peace Accords, which led to the Gerardi Report and the UN Truth Commission.

     Never thought of it in that light before.  Hillary was "real time" effective on that human rights issue.

    Parent

    Hillary did this during the 1996 re-election (none / 0) (#141)
    by MKS on Mon Mar 14, 2011 at 04:25:48 PM EST
    campaign.

    The political risks were high.

    Parent

    Any accomplishments (none / 0) (#151)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Mon Mar 14, 2011 at 05:11:59 PM EST

    more recent than a decade back?

    Parent
    Time erases everything (5.00 / 1) (#168)
    by MKS on Mon Mar 14, 2011 at 07:25:02 PM EST
    That was a signifcant accomplishment.

    This reminds me of our visit a couple of years ago to the Air & Space Museum in D.C.  The exhibit getting the most attention was something dangling from the ceiling.

    The Apollo Moon landing was in one tiny room off to the side.  The Command Module was encassed in glass and was small and dusty looking.  A space suit was hanging on the wall.  There was a Moon rock under glass and some plaques on  the wall.

    That was it for the first Man on the Moon.  A couple of people popped their heads in and then got bored and left after about 30 seconds. It was so yesterday. Soo boring.  Soo nothing.

    And when it happened it was the biggest event in all of human history.  All the boys wanted to be astronauts when they grew up. Many of us had large scale model rockets that had the Saturn booster rocket, the LEM and the Command Module.  Walter Cronkite and Wally Schirra.  One billion people watched the first Moon landing live.

    Just nothing now.

    What Hillary did for the people of Guatemala was significant.

    She does have other accomplishments since then. I  supported Obama in the primaries but one cannot gainsay what Hillary has accomplished.  Google her sometime.

    Parent

    But... (none / 0) (#76)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Mar 14, 2011 at 02:04:28 PM EST
    She is definitely one of the very powerful people that were embarrassed by the document release.

    One has to assume that anyone with any power knows what's going on, especially after the resignation/firing.  I won't pretend to know who is appalled and who is pushing this non-sense.

    I would like to think certain people, say the President or the Secretary of State, has the power to stop it, like yesterday.

    There are a lot of people who could end this and they aren't.  A lot of very powerful people were embarrassed, and I used to believe that egos were something only republicans put before human decency.  I a not a naive person, but apparently I am in regards to my own party's recent decency.

    Argue what will about Obama or HRC, the fact is this kid is being mistreated, they are aware, and neither are doing anything to change it.  

    MLK said something about the appalling silence of good people, pretty sure this is the kind of BS he was referring to.  Except, they are actively shutting down anyone that speaks out, which begs the question, are they 'good people'.

    Parent

    The Secretary of State (5.00 / 1) (#80)
    by jbindc on Mon Mar 14, 2011 at 02:09:51 PM EST
    does not have the power to stop anything that is, or isn't, going on at Quantico.  It is a military facility and is not under the purview of the SoS.

    She could privately encourage or try to convince, but it falls within the chain of command of the military, up to the Secretary of Defense, and ultimately to the President.

    If anyone thinks she, or any cabinet officer, would speak out in direct contradiction to what the administration has said, then they sorely need an education on how things are done.

    Parent

    Pleaze (none / 0) (#137)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Mar 14, 2011 at 04:15:48 PM EST
    She may not have the official power, but one phone call and this kid has undies at night.  One of her actual duties involves human rights and prisoner rights throughout the world, or are you suggesting the US is not part of the world ?

    If she can't even get one kid some undies at home, then why are we spending billions trying to get other countries to be more humane, really, why ?

    I know, it's because she isn't bothering to help the kid that embarrassed her and her office.

    "If anyone thinks she, or any cabinet officer, would speak out in direct contradiction to what the administration has said, then they sorely need an education on how things are done." - JB

    This is non-sense, maybe that is the way things are done, but what's you point, move along, because that's just the way things are done ?

    This is important and throwing out the 'that's how things are done' defense is pretty damn weak.  'HRC, don't bother with Lebanon's torturing of political enemies because that's just the way things are done...'

    And lastly, are you suggesting her only option is going public, I may not be in the game, but I do know that she has about a thousand other avenues without publicly embarrassing anyone.

    Parent

    How do you know (5.00 / 1) (#139)
    by jbindc on Mon Mar 14, 2011 at 04:22:45 PM EST
    She isn't talking behind the scenes?  Do you have inside information as to what is really going on?  That's the same logic is saying we should believe somththing being said because Manning's lawyer said it.

    Do you think all the other diplomacy gets done because she decrees it by her public opinion?  Or do you think she does what she does behind the scenes, including going through a chain of command?  How effective do you think she could be in advocating for Manning, if she chooses, when she gets fired for publicly contradicting the President?

    Oh, and by the way - Manning doesn't sleep nude.  Please do keep up.

    Parent

    Thanks for the questions here , jbindc (5.00 / 2) (#157)
    by christinep on Mon Mar 14, 2011 at 05:32:45 PM EST
    I think the issues raised by the whole matter warrant serious discussion. And, your questions keep it honest. The reason: Some have stitched or unstitched all kinds of stories about what the facts are surrounding Manning. Some facts are known; some are not yet known. As you suggest, a suicide-proof smock is different than naked.

    Parent
    The only one who pushes the (5.00 / 1) (#162)
    by Anne on Mon Mar 14, 2011 at 06:09:06 PM EST
    same logic is (in?) saying we should believe something being said because Manning's lawyer said it
    is you, and you do that when you're trying to have the argument you want, rather than the one that is on the table.

    What has Hillary said?  Some boilerplate thank-you-for-your-service about Crowley and pretty much nothing at all, that I'm aware of, about Manning.

    Want to hazard any guess what she - or Obama - would say if Manning were being held under these conditions by a foreign government?  Can you imagine Obama saying he had checked with the authorities and had been assured that everything was being done by the book?  "oh, okay then."

    Food for thought.

    Based on Obama's comments on Friday, my take is that if she said anything at all to him about Manning - and we don't know that she did - he had the last word, and she isn't going to rock the boat.

    Should she rock the boat?  Are the principles at stake worth it?  I can't decide for her, I can only offer how I feel about it, looking at it from the outside.  I see a president not having any problem with holding Manning under conditions that appear to violate the Convention against Torture, and a Secretary of State who is willing, apparently, to let that stand.  I see both the president and the SOS delivering lectures to our global neighbors about the importance of human rights, which is disconnected at best, and hypocritical at worst, in light of what is being done to Manning.

    Obama's apparently happy with her.  She's either okay with the whole Manning thing, or has rationalized why it wouldn't be prudent for her to rock the boat.  We may not know for a while what the consequences of these decisions are, but there will be consequences.

    And while Manning has been given something along the lines of a hair shirt for sleeping, let's get something out of the way: when one chooses to sleep without clothing so as to enjoy the feel of one's silk sheets, one is sleeping "nude;" when one is deprived of clothing and forced to sleep without sheets or a pillow, and to stand at attention outside one's cell, in full view of others, that's "naked."

    Parent

    And again (none / 0) (#164)
    by jbindc on Mon Mar 14, 2011 at 06:34:41 PM EST
    I seriously don't know what you expected her to say.  I called it on Friday - Crowely would lose his job.  HE had to know as soon as the comment came out - he was done.

    She's either okay with the whole Manning thing, or has rationalized why it wouldn't be prudent for her to rock the boat.

    Now you're reading her mind.  Amazing.

    Parent

    Again, what would you expect her to say (none / 0) (#169)
    by Anne on Mon Mar 14, 2011 at 07:38:33 PM EST
    if Manning were being held by a foreign government?  Should we expect anything less - or more - than whatever that is when it's us that's doing the holding?

    Or is that "different?"

    Is this a case of situational ethics?  Okay for me, but not for thee?

    I don't know what's in her head; I can only go by what is and isn't happening.  Maybe she will fill us in someday so we know, but until then, are we just supposed to come to no conclusions - just take a "whatever" attitude?

    And hey, congratulations on your "calling it" on Friday - you and thousands of other people have an excellent grasp of the obvious.


    Parent

    Manning is in the military (5.00 / 1) (#85)
    by brodie on Mon Mar 14, 2011 at 02:25:21 PM EST
    detention-"justice" system, so you're chain of command goes up to the SecDef, not the SoS, and then Potus.

    Frankly, the buck stops with Obama on this one.  And until now, he's been fortunate that he's had only one media question about it during Manning's many months of solitary confinement, so has been able to get away with saying nothing with no political fallout.  But we'll see -- if we can get more than just Kucinich and Ellsberg to speak out, a few more Dems with spine who will speak plainly and not out of both sides of their mouth, as with John Kerry last week, then there will likely be enough pressure to force Obama to do the right thing finally.

    Appalling though that this has gone on for this long already.  Gates saying nothing, condoning it, I understand.  Hillary though has been a disappointment.  And Obama just seems to want to pass the buck in order to avoid crossing the Pentagon -- hard to believe though that this same guy who seemed so morally outraged by the treatment of his Harvard prof friend by that racist cop doesn't also see enough in the Manning situation to be at least a little upset.

    Parent

    Crossing the Pentagon (5.00 / 1) (#88)
    by MKS on Mon Mar 14, 2011 at 02:30:40 PM EST
    Among Democratic Presidents, only JFK appears to have been able to do this.  

    Having been in combat himself, and knowing the clay feet of the Generals and Admirals firsthand, he was better able to dismiss them when necessary.

    Parent

    Yep, and thank Dieu (5.00 / 2) (#96)
    by brodie on Mon Mar 14, 2011 at 02:46:27 PM EST
    JFK told the Pentagon to no, or to shove it, as often as he did -- especially during the Missile Crisis and when the Joint Chiefs came to him once or twice with their plans to launch a nuke attack against the Soviets while the "window of opportunity" was still available (which they'd actually figured out would last until about Dec 1963).

    I'm always amused when I come across that line where JFK expresses how unimpressed he often is with the wisdom and judgment of those guys "wearing all the fruit salad."

    Parent

    Do tell (none / 0) (#106)
    by MKS on Mon Mar 14, 2011 at 03:07:59 PM EST
    The Joint Chiefs, independently of the Cuban Missile Crisis, wanted to launch a first strike against the Soviets because until December 1963 they could not effectively retaliate?

    Where can I read about that?

    Parent

    Iirc, the Chief Joints (5.00 / 0) (#118)
    by brodie on Mon Mar 14, 2011 at 03:32:51 PM EST
    on two occasions (1961, 1963) presented a plan to JFK to unilaterally nuke the Russkies.

    Here it is, in the James Douglass book, JFK and the Unspeakable, the 1961 proposal:

    July 20, 1961:  At a Nat'l Security Council meeting, the Joint Chiefs of Staff and CIA director Allen Dulles present a plan for a preemptive nuclear attack on the Soviet Union "in late 1963 preceded by a period of heightened tensions."  President Kennedy walks out of the meeting, saying to Sec'y of State Rusk, "And we call ourselves the human race."
     (Douglass, p. xxii)

    In Sept 1963 the JCS again present Kennedy with a nuclear first strike plan, again noting that the remaining months of 1963 are most optimal for attack, and again JFK nixes it, saying "Preemption is not possible for us." (ibid at xxvii)

    According to some of the notes in this book, the revelation about a JCS/CIA plan to unilaterally attack may have appeared in print in this country by the early 1980s.

    Highly recommend reading the Douglass book -- an eye-opener about what Kennedy was trying to achieve in ending the Cold War while battling the Pentagon, CIA and many in his own nat'l security chain.

     

    Parent

    There was Truman (none / 0) (#89)
    by MKS on Mon Mar 14, 2011 at 02:34:11 PM EST
    but he did not fare so well politically after he dismissed MacArthur, and after that Dems gave the Top Brass what they wanted except for JFK.....

    Parent
    But he paid (none / 0) (#107)
    by BackFromOhio on Mon Mar 14, 2011 at 03:08:55 PM EST
    a heavy price

    Parent
    JFK did? (none / 0) (#110)
    by MKS on Mon Mar 14, 2011 at 03:15:18 PM EST
    I used to think so.  Gerald Posner, however, is very convincing on this....

    Past Grassy Knoll enthusiasts have placed the jump seat Connolly was sitting in in the wrong place.  The magic bullet had a straight trajectory....

    Parent

    Nah, MKS, Posner the (none / 0) (#123)
    by brodie on Mon Mar 14, 2011 at 03:39:43 PM EST
    plagiarist isn't credible at all on the Dallas matter either.  GIGO on his trajectory analysis and much of the rest.  Ditto for other WC apologists like the bully prosecutor Bugliosi.

    This site by Jim DiEugenio is a wonderful place to get good online info about the case plus some quality and detailed debunkings of the likes of Posner and Bugliosi.

    I tend to agree with BfOhio -- likely the Pentagon got their revenge on Kennedy in Dallas, though more likely it was elements of the CIA who planned it, probably with some military (intel) cooperation on site and in the cover-up later.

    Parent

    Oh no, I website that can claim (none / 0) (#145)
    by MKS on Mon Mar 14, 2011 at 04:38:33 PM EST
    entire days of attention.  Thanks, I think.

    Parent
    Whoa (none / 0) (#160)
    by sj on Mon Mar 14, 2011 at 05:50:48 PM EST
    no kidding. I just came up for air and I haven't even finished the first article that I selected.

    Parent
    Hey, happy to oblige (none / 0) (#170)
    by brodie on Mon Mar 14, 2011 at 07:53:39 PM EST
    those of you who wanted to spend a few hours, days and even weeks reading long, meaty articles online. ;-)  

    For a more condensed version of many articles at CTKA, see DiEugenio and Pease's (editors) one volume trade paperback book, The Assassinations.  Jim is also heard frequently on Len Osanic's weekly Black Op Radio.

    For shorter reading, good overviews, or focused areas, offline there is:  

    Cover-Up, by Stewart Galanor.  Short and sweet.  

    Reasonable Doubt, Henry Hurt.  Dramatic rendering of the case for conspiracy by an indy author (skip set-apart chapter on Easterling, which didn't pan out).  

    Breach of Trust, Gerald McKnight.  The WC and why it failed to deliver the truth.

    And again, the James Douglass book, JFK and the Unspeakable, which assumes conspiracy and explores the why and who behind the case.  Landmark book highly rec'd.

    Parent

    Posner (none / 0) (#198)
    by BackFromOhio on Thu Mar 31, 2011 at 09:39:06 PM EST
    is wrong.  If you read the book "Brothers" about Bobby Kennedy's search for his brothers' killers, you will find information by the author that Posner himself doesn't believe his own stuff any more.

    Another great source of real info is "Best Evidence" (1983) -- written by a physicist in an interdepartmental graduate seminar at Berkley; seminar led by one or two of the counsels to the Warren commission.

    Parent

    My concern is not with (none / 0) (#93)
    by KeysDan on Mon Mar 14, 2011 at 02:42:06 PM EST
    who has the "power" or what the "chain of command is" for those lines of authority are well known.  President Obama and, now with the firing of Crowley, Secretary Clinton, appear to be of one mind on the appropriateness and adherence to basic standards that Pfc Manning is being subjected to while in pretrial confinement.

    Apparently, Secretary Clinton does not feel that will be a problem as she goes around the world lecturing authoritarian states on human rights.  Of course, Secretary of State Cyrus Vance resigned in opposition to President Carter's order for a secret military mission to rescue hostages in Iran--he apparently felt strongly about the merits of that military operation.

    Parent

    Re the Cy Vance resignation, (none / 0) (#99)
    by brodie on Mon Mar 14, 2011 at 02:51:33 PM EST
    as I noted earlier, to my knowledge it's unclear whether he did so because he disagreed with Carter undertaking such a highly risky operation, or because he Cy Vance the Sec'y of State was deliberately cut out of deliberations about it by Carter, who moved on the plan and decision when Vance was out of the country.  Vance didn't learn about it until after the initial stages had begun, had immediately submitted his resignation, making it clear he would resign whether or not the mission was a success.

    Parent
    The fact remains, he resigned. (none / 0) (#119)
    by KeysDan on Mon Mar 14, 2011 at 03:34:46 PM EST
    A disagreement with the president existed  that he could not abide and he took the most serious step available to him. It did not go unnoticed.    The Iran hostage taking was a crisis for the administration and it would seem that an act of resignation would be based on a substantive reason-- and one that demonstrates the cross-over  between the work of State and DOD.

    Parent
    Well, perhaps more than (none / 0) (#130)
    by brodie on Mon Mar 14, 2011 at 04:02:13 PM EST
    just a disagreement with the president over substance, assuming Vance resigned actually over the failure to be involved in planning and deciding on the rescue scheme.  That was deliberately cutting the SoS out of decision making on a very important matter that was well within Vance's jurisdiction.  And it was the president essentially saying to Vance, You don't matter much except as my errand boy abroad.

    If so, then Vance almost had no choice but to resign -- or else accept being an openly neutered and humiliated member of the cabinet.

    As for Hillary, I don't think the Manning matter rises to the level of Iran on substance -- though it's a troubling civil liberties issue getting worse by the day for Obama -- and of course doesn't raise the problematic, fundamental issue of Hillary not being consulted by the Potus as with the Vance situation.  In fact, both seem to be on the same unfortunate page on this one so far -- but we'll see if the pub for Manning forces a change in the status quo.

    Parent

    Well, to me, the timing (none / 0) (#149)
    by KeysDan on Mon Mar 14, 2011 at 05:00:14 PM EST
    of Cyrus Vance's resignation would argue against a broader concern for his role and influence in presidential decision-making.

    Cyrus Vance served as Army Secretary for JFK and was acutely aware of the interplay between the State Department and military actions.  It is true that he felt he was being marginalized by  the hawkish Zbignew Brzezinski, but he was a distinguished lawyer and cautious negotiator.

    Vance was a serious and responsible man who would be unlikely to resign at such a crucial time for the president for a more generalized or personalized concern.   He certainly did not have a record of impulsivity or inflated ego, such as we saw with Newt Gingrich, who shut the country down  because he did not get a good seat on Air Force One.

    Parent

    Hmm, I'm not sure it (none / 0) (#175)
    by brodie on Mon Mar 14, 2011 at 08:08:22 PM EST
    would have taken an inflated ego for someone like Vance to have taken serious note of how Jimmy went ahead with such a crucial decision with his nat'l security team w/o bothering to have Cy fly in for the day from his vacation in FL.  Though for sure in his resignation -- assuming I'm right about his real motive -- he would have diplomatically used the other rationale -- the disagreement over the decision itself -- rather than bring up the dicey personal affront.  

    And I don't really know what his primary motivation was -- just reading between the lines here and trying to put myself into his shoes.  You resign, and make it effective 60 or so days later, to give the boss a chance to adequately fill your spot.  Nothing childish or impulsive or unreasonable about that as with Newt and that trivial slight and his delicate feelings.  And Newt didn't work for Bill as Cy did with Jimmuh.

    Point is, you pick your spots carefully.  And someone in the SoS position -- she is going to become aware of plenty of awful stuff re foreign govts and even our own govt.  Where does a moral person draw the line?  With the fairly principled, human rights-inclined Cy Vance, Jimmy toasting the Shah in Tehran as a "pillar of stability" in the region, and otherwise turning a blind eye to all the human rights atrocities over there, well that apparently was not sufficient for him to resign over -- we needed Iran for our own geopolitical objectives.

    Parent

    some levity (none / 0) (#11)
    by CST on Mon Mar 14, 2011 at 10:50:46 AM EST
    on what seems to be a bad-news weekend.

    The city of Boston has apparently inhereted an italian estate.

    "When Visocchi died this past summer at the age of 62, he honored the city his family loved. In his last will and testament, he named Boston as the heir to his estate, which an Italian newspaper estimated at $700,000 plus a house and other property.

    Good news, right? But there's a catch.

    "The City of Boston, MA, USA, is obliged to look after the old dogs Argus and Jak,'' Visocchi's will decrees, according to an English translation. "To feed the cat Rossina, easily recognizable from her great size, as well as the cats: Giacchino, Rossino, Pasquale, Francesco, and others as well.''"

    Well if they need a caretaker (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by ruffian on Mon Mar 14, 2011 at 01:14:48 PM EST
    I'm available.

    Parent
    Pretty interesting (none / 0) (#12)
    by sj on Mon Mar 14, 2011 at 11:01:28 AM EST
    But can I say, until the legal dust settles (and actually, afterward, too), that I hope some one is looking after the dogs and cats?

    Parent
    I could see the City hiring q (none / 0) (#21)
    by scribe on Mon Mar 14, 2011 at 11:42:57 AM EST
    Whitey Bulger to do that....

    Parent
    yea (none / 0) (#26)
    by CST on Mon Mar 14, 2011 at 12:05:13 PM EST
    honestly, I think the obvious thing to do here is give it back to the town in some way (although not sure the 18 politicians are the way to go).

    To a degree, you want to make sure the person's wishes are respected, but at the end of the day, there is no way the city will be able take care of the pets.

    If I were one of the 18 politicians in the town who was contesting the will I would be taking care of the pets and say the city of Boston was not holding up their end of the deal.  Let's hope someone is, the article really didn't say.  

    That house is pretty cool looking though, seems like something out of a fairy tale.  Maybe a haunted fairy tale.

    Parent

    I guess we have seen this (none / 0) (#41)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Mar 14, 2011 at 12:56:20 PM EST
    Bachmann Flubs Fifth Grade American History

       "What I love about New Hampshire and what we have in common is our extreme love for liberty," the potential GOP presidential candidate said. "You're the state where the shot was heard around the world in Lexington and Concord. And you put a marker in the ground and paid with the blood of your ancestors the very first price that had to be paid to make this the most magnificent nation that has ever arisen in the annals of man in 5,000 years of recorded history." [...]

        "I'm thankful that you are the first in the nation state because you are the liberty state," Bachmann said. "That is your charge. You keep that baton of liberty. You've done it very well for almost 20 generations from the time the Pilgrims landed at Plymouth Rock, and I'm sure the very first one came up to New Hampshire and said, `This is where I want to be.'"



    later in the same speech (5.00 / 1) (#91)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Mar 14, 2011 at 02:38:49 PM EST
    "I don't think that our public schools are necessarily the place where one fixed set of political beliefs should be imposed on students," Bachmann said. "I think that knowledge, facts, and information should be on the table, and let students decide what their beliefs should be."

    and decide what their own facts should be I guess.


    Parent

    Oh MAN (none / 0) (#45)
    by CST on Mon Mar 14, 2011 at 01:01:45 PM EST
    This is hilarious.

    I guess it's easier to root for NH as a republican than MA.

    I can see where this could be confusing, there is a concord and plymouth in NH, although as far as I know there is no Lexington.

    Parent

    Perhaps confusing, but (none / 0) (#63)
    by brodie on Mon Mar 14, 2011 at 01:28:07 PM EST
    unless I had an unusual upbringing in school, I recall frequently, starting at an early age, seeing the name "Massachusetts" heavily associated with the beginning of the Revolutionary War as well as earlier matters re the colonies.  Long, funny-sounding place-name which I thought most people would find sort of hard to forget re the Revolution even as they forgot most other details about that war.

    People like Bachmann and the very similar history-impaired Sarah "The US lost the space race" Palin need to learn to keep it simple, and build slowly from a few basic facts.  So, to start, "New Hampshire" means only:

    1. State where the first primary is held every 4 yrs.

    2. Home of Dartmouth College.

    3. The "Granite" State.

    4. Old Man on the Mountain

    5. Betty and Barney Hill -- first Americans to be abducted by aliens.


    Parent
    Number 4 (none / 0) (#68)
    by CST on Mon Mar 14, 2011 at 01:37:30 PM EST
    Not any more, his face fell off in '03.  There have been some proposals to re-create it artificially but they haven't gotten anywhere yet.

    Parent
    Yeah, you're right (none / 0) (#74)
    by brodie on Mon Mar 14, 2011 at 01:59:34 PM EST
    I think the Old Man featured on the state quarter series for NH must have been minted before the accident -- the state quarters, I was thinking, normally being a good way for people like Bachmann to get a start learning about our country.

    So, good -- that's one less thing for Bachmann to have to learn about the state.

    Parent

    LOL (none / 0) (#84)
    by sj on Mon Mar 14, 2011 at 02:22:10 PM EST
    state quarters, I was thinking, normally being a good way for people like Bachmann to get a start learning about our country.


    Parent
    understandable mistake (none / 0) (#86)
    by CST on Mon Mar 14, 2011 at 02:28:56 PM EST
    he's still on all the state highway signs as well.

    Just that, he might not be a good thing for a politician to bring up, as it could be a bit touchy to have one of your famous landmarks disappear from the face of the earth (bad pun, I'm sorry).

    Poor New Hampshire.  First they lose the old man, and then they lose the bragging rights of having the windiest place on earth.

    ""It's hard to find somewhere where there are such cold temperatures, a lot of snow and such high winds all together,'' said Clark. "Add to that the freezing fog, which is something you don't find in many places, and that's what makes the place unique.''"

    Gotta love New England-style "bragging rights" :)

    Parent

    Betty and Barney Hill - (none / 0) (#72)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Mar 14, 2011 at 01:42:53 PM EST
    well
    they were the first to have a film made about their abduction anyway.


    Parent
    Hey, don't get me (none / 0) (#77)
    by brodie on Mon Mar 14, 2011 at 02:05:47 PM EST
    started.  Pretty credible couple, actually.  And to their credit, they didn't originally seek publicity -- a local newspaper got wind of the story years later, and that was how it came out.  I think their story tends to hold up well 50 yrs later.  See, e.g., Stanton Friedman's recent book about the incident.

    Parent
    the movie (none / 0) (#78)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Mar 14, 2011 at 02:08:56 PM EST
    was very good.  James Earl Jones and Estelle Parsons.


    Parent
    Agree -- saw it online (none / 0) (#90)
    by brodie on Mon Mar 14, 2011 at 02:36:42 PM EST
    in the past year; hadn't seen it when originally aired.  1975 movie-for-teevee, The UFO Incident.  Decently accurate depiction of the reported events, told via their taped interviews with the psychologist.  50th anniversary of event is this September, btw.

    Parent
    It would be hilarious if it (none / 0) (#109)
    by BackFromOhio on Mon Mar 14, 2011 at 03:14:29 PM EST
    weren't so concerning.  

    And we wonder why to all too many facts and education do not seem to matter in our political discourse.

    Parent

    Prime presidental material if (none / 0) (#48)
    by MO Blue on Mon Mar 14, 2011 at 01:07:08 PM EST
    you consider that she might be fun to have a beer with. :-(

    Parent
    Or at least (none / 0) (#51)
    by sj on Mon Mar 14, 2011 at 01:10:12 PM EST
    it would be tres amusing to get her drunk.  

    Parent
    Is N. H. the (none / 0) (#54)
    by the capstan on Mon Mar 14, 2011 at 01:12:32 PM EST
    51st state?  Or the 52nd?

    Parent
    In the spirit of bipartisanship (5.00 / 1) (#66)
    by MO Blue on Mon Mar 14, 2011 at 01:31:12 PM EST
    maybe it is the 57th state. :-)

    Parent
    Give her a few beers and you're likely... (none / 0) (#56)
    by Dadler on Mon Mar 14, 2011 at 01:16:48 PM EST
    ...to get more "sense" out of her.

    Parent
    Does she even know where the Tea Party was? (none / 0) (#57)
    by ruffian on Mon Mar 14, 2011 at 01:17:45 PM EST
    The Valley Forge Bar and Grill? (5.00 / 2) (#71)
    by Dadler on Mon Mar 14, 2011 at 01:41:55 PM EST
    I hear the wings (none / 0) (#81)
    by Rojas on Mon Mar 14, 2011 at 02:11:31 PM EST
    are to die for.

    Parent
    Oy. (none / 0) (#64)
    by nycstray on Mon Mar 14, 2011 at 01:28:29 PM EST
    the potential GOP presidential candidate


    Parent
    I think you're confusing St. Johns... (none / 0) (#111)
    by kdog on Mon Mar 14, 2011 at 03:15:32 PM EST
    with Villanova...if there is an underserving Big East team 'tis Nova....not that I think there is an undeserving Big East team.

    I mean if the Top 25 21-11 Johnnies, with wins over Duke, Pitt, and assorted top tens are undeserving you must be talking about some 16 team tournament I am unfamilar with...but ya had a good rant going up until that point Don:)

    And we were 12-6 reg. season in conference....Hater! :)
     

    When folks complain (none / 0) (#122)
    by CoralGables on Mon Mar 14, 2011 at 03:37:39 PM EST
    because their favorite team of choice doesn't make a field of 68, I completely understand why football has no interest in a playoff.

    I honestly think there was less complaining when the field was 32. The ESPN talking heads last night sounded like a bunch of mopey whiny middle schoolers. I turned them off for Hitch.

    Parent

    Wow -- the field is now (none / 0) (#134)
    by brodie on Mon Mar 14, 2011 at 04:10:10 PM EST
    68?  That's almost on a par with the NBA, where you have to be a really bad team not to make the playoffs.

    Yes, something to be said for the good old days.  Though talk about unfair -- iirc, back in the 32-team days, you had to win your conference to be an automatic qualifier, then the few final non-conference indy spots were assigned, and that was it.  

    So, if you were a top team in the national rankings, but had to go up against UCLA in your conference, or NoCar or Duke in the East -- sorry, but 2d place in your conference even with a 26-2 overall record meant you were out of the tournament.  It was off to the NIT for you.

    Parent

    sCOTT bLOCH SENTENCING DELAYED again (none / 0) (#133)
    by NMvoiceofreason on Mon Mar 14, 2011 at 04:09:33 PM EST
    Ex-Bush Lawyer Bloch Urges D.C. Judge To Reconsider Ruling

    Robinson today in court set Bloch's sentencing for March 30, giving the lawyers a chance to file more court papers addressing why Robinson should let Bloch start over. Prosecutors have not opposed Bloch's effort to withdraw his guilty plea.



    buying for workplace equality (none / 0) (#147)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Mar 14, 2011 at 04:45:56 PM EST
    About the Guide

    More than ever, consumers are sending a message to businesses that they are watching. They are watching to see if the businesses they patronize understand and honor issues important to them, giving buying power to issues ranging from LGBT inclusiveness to environmental protection. Corporate social responsibility has become an imperative for a successful business. With Buying for Workplace Equality, we hope to harness that power by providing you with the most accurate review of a business's workplace policies toward LGBT employees.

    and it turns out its useful for the World Nut Daily crowd as well:

    HOMOSEXODUS!

    American companies that don't promote 'gayness'
    From cars to food to entertainment, see firms not pushing LGBT agenda


    I noticed that another gsd person (none / 0) (#148)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Mar 14, 2011 at 04:52:54 PM EST
    got a new website too.  She put it up on her facebook to show everyone, and I was surprised it was a free website run through something called wix.com.  Then I started thinking about how stoic my website is.  I did not make it, another gsd person did it up for me and they never really did finish it off either.  And I need to pay for my domain again soon so this seems like the perfect time to remedy my dull, unfun, not really complete website.  It will probably take untechie me forever too but wix.com is fascinating as heck, and I do have my main page down.  That's a miracle.

    Home at Last. (none / 0) (#152)
    by KeysDan on Mon Mar 14, 2011 at 05:16:42 PM EST
    Evan Bayh has sighed on as a contributor to Fox News.

    My Favorite Comment ... (5.00 / 4) (#159)
    by Robot Porter on Mon Mar 14, 2011 at 05:43:04 PM EST
    from Twitter on this:

    Fox hires Evan Bayh to get a Democrat's perspective on the news. Next up: Fox hires RuPaul to get a woman's perspective.


    Parent
    And to think his Dad (5.00 / 2) (#176)
    by MKS on Mon Mar 14, 2011 at 08:09:30 PM EST
    wrote the Equal Rights Amendment.

    Parent
    And - if memory serves - (5.00 / 2) (#178)
    by brodie on Mon Mar 14, 2011 at 08:37:40 PM EST
    Birch Bayh also introduced (ca 1970) an amendment abolishing the Electoral College, making it a direct popular election of presidents.  Nearly came up with the 2/3 necessary in the senate (I think it passed the House sufficiently), but for some unfortunate resistance from (as I recall it) one Sam Ervin, later to be a liberal hero, and one Bobby Byrd along with probably all the southern Dem senators.

    He was also the primary author of the 25th amendment (pres'l succession and disability) and the 26th amendment (18 yo vote).

    Also was on the plane with Ted Kennedy in 1964 in that awful crash and pulled his senate friend to safety, saving his life probably.

    Quite a life of accomplishment and near greatness as a senator.  If only he'd been a little better candidate in 1976, we could have been spared Jimmy and probably Ronnie ...

    Parent

    Birch was always (none / 0) (#187)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue Mar 15, 2011 at 01:56:26 AM EST
    one of my heroes.

    Parent
    Snark, I hope? (none / 0) (#183)
    by Towanda on Mon Mar 14, 2011 at 10:44:59 PM EST
    since a woman penned the ERA. . . .

    Parent
    Wikipedia says he was the principal sponsor (none / 0) (#184)
    by MKS on Tue Mar 15, 2011 at 12:47:12 AM EST
    of the ERA in the Senate....

    Interesting history  behind the Amendment.  Prior to the 1970s, wealthy conservative women were its chief supporters.  Labor and Eleanor Roosevelt opposed because it was thought it would harm women's statutory protections.

    Timing is everything.

    Parent

    You do know, surely (none / 0) (#189)
    by Towanda on Tue Mar 15, 2011 at 09:42:07 AM EST
    that sponsor is not the same as writer?  (As for citing Wikipedia, you do know, surely . . . well, fill in the rest of the sentence.)  

    The comment said that Bayh wrote the ERA.  Not so. Alice Paul, head of the National Woman's Party, wrote it.  In the early 1920s, immediately after the 19th Amendment, as that only negated the 15th Amendment.  The 14th Amendment, the first to insert gender into the Constitution, still stood -- and still stands, not negated by a later amendment, as Justice Scalia recently pointed out with joy.  

    So how old was Bayh in the 1920s?

    Btw, no man wrote the 19th Amendment, either.  Susan B. Anthony wrote it.  But since she wasn't in Congress, either, she also got a guy there to sponsor it.  

    Good for those guys . . . although they could have sped up those amendments in committee, where both were stuck for many decades.

    But let's not erase women from our history even more.  Men were not the only ones to write our Constitution, as amended.  And as it still needs to be amended.

    Parent

    CC, is this you? (none / 0) (#190)
    by vml68 on Tue Mar 15, 2011 at 10:23:40 AM EST
    I hope so...have been missing the history lessons...:-)!

    Parent
    i think (none / 0) (#193)
    by The Addams Family on Tue Mar 15, 2011 at 02:03:41 PM EST
    it is quite clear that Towanda is not CC

    Parent
    on second thought (none / 0) (#197)
    by The Addams Family on Tue Mar 15, 2011 at 07:38:22 PM EST
    i am quite sure that Towanda is CC

    i wondered where she went!

    Parent

    Yes, I know the difference (none / 0) (#191)
    by MKS on Tue Mar 15, 2011 at 11:17:01 AM EST
    That is why my second post stated that he was a sponsor.

    If I were trying to contradict you, I would of course not have cited Wikipedia....

     

    Parent

    Perhaps you could have commented (none / 0) (#192)
    by MKS on Tue Mar 15, 2011 at 11:18:16 AM EST
    on the other statement in my second post about the early supporters and opponents being not true to (current) type.    That is interesting, no?

    Parent
    Interesting if you didn't know (none / 0) (#196)
    by Towanda on Tue Mar 15, 2011 at 06:30:55 PM EST
    that wealthy conservative women also were the ones who finally came to the suffrage side after 1910 and were a major reason that it was won in 1920, when many then turned to opposing the ERA version that included the "protective clause."  That is key to understanding the split in the movement then -- as those protections had been hard-won for working women, and because the version with the clause that had been passed in one state then was used against working women, by their state legislature.

    So it's just not so simple.  If interested in the complexities that cannot be summed up here, see Nancy F. Cott's work; as I recall, The Grounding of Modern Feminism.

    Parent

    I hope they'll be very happy together; (none / 0) (#156)
    by Anne on Mon Mar 14, 2011 at 05:30:09 PM EST
    means I may never have to see Mr. Wellpoint again.

    And I expect he will be joined over time by many of my favorite "Democrats" who seem to feel more at home with Republicans...

    Parent

    Oops (none / 0) (#161)
    by jbindc on Mon Mar 14, 2011 at 05:53:53 PM EST
    October 2009:

    With a nuclear emergency under way in Japan, nuclear power advocates in the United States have lost one of their key talking points. And that includes President Barack Obama.

    Speaking at a town hall meeting in October 2009, Obama specifically cited Japan as a model for America's nuclear renaissance. "There's no reason why, technologically, we can't employ nuclear energy in a safe and effective way," Obama said. "Japan does it and France does it, and it doesn't have greenhouse gas emissions, so it would be stupid for us not to do that in a much more effective way."

    Nuclear power is part of the "clean energy standard" that Obama outlined in his State of the Union speech in January. And in the 2011 budget, the administration called for a three-fold increase in federal loan guarantees for new nuclear power plants, from the $18.5 billion that Congress has already approved to $54.5 billion. "We are aggressively pursuing nuclear energy," said Energy Secretary Steven Chu in February 2010 as he unveiled the budget.

    The administration isn't backing off its support for nuclear, despite the unfolding nuclear crisis in Japan. In Monday's White House press briefing, press secretary Jay Carney said that nuclear energy "remains a part of the president's overall energy plan."




    He's still (none / 0) (#163)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Mar 14, 2011 at 06:20:43 PM EST
    a proponent of nuclear energy I guess because he has ties to it.

    Parent
    Excelon Nuclear Energy (5.00 / 1) (#165)
    by KeysDan on Mon Mar 14, 2011 at 06:41:29 PM EST
    based in Chicago has been a contributor to Obama's campaigns over the years, and among top contributors to his presidential campaign.  

    Parent
    Definitions (none / 0) (#171)
    by lentinel on Mon Mar 14, 2011 at 07:54:07 PM EST
    According to the NYTimes, the nuclear plants in Japan were at first, "troubled", and then moved on to being, "stricken".

    Now, we have a novel use of the word, "contentious".

    Here 'tis:

    But the situation a reactor No. 3 was being closely watched for another reason. That reactor uses a special mix of nuclear fuel known as MOX fuel. MOX is considered contentious because it is made with reprocessed plutonium and uranium oxides. Any radioactive plume from that fuel would be more dangerous than ordinary nuclear fuel, experts say, because inhaling plutonium even in very small quantities is considered lethal.

    Yep.
    That sounds contentious to me.

    When your bracket goes bust... (none / 0) (#174)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Mon Mar 14, 2011 at 08:02:16 PM EST
    is that going to be the Deal's fault too?