The Washington Post offers tips on how to keep your EV battery running in frigid temperatures. The link at the end of this graf is supposed to be a "gift link" (from me, Marie Burns, the giftor!), meaning that non-subscribers can read the article. Hope it works: https://wapo.st/3u8Z705
Monday
Jul152013
The Commentariat -- July 16, 2013
Jonathan Weisman & Jeremy Peters of the New York Times: "Senator Harry Reid of Nevada took a defiant and uncompromising stand on Monday ahead of a closed-door meeting of the Senate, saying that pushing through a rules change to end filibusters of executive branch nominations would 'save the Senate from becoming obsolete.'" ...
... John Bresnahan & Burgess Everett of Politico: as all Senators meet into the night to try to avoid the "nuclear option," John McCain comes to the rescue with a fantastic solution: let Republicans pick the nominees! David Koch & a couple of Walton heirs for the NLRB, Charles Koch for Secretary of Labor, Lloyd Blankfein to head up the CFPB, & a few Scalia kids for open judgeships. ...
... Ed O'Keefe & Paul Kane of the Washington Post with a 9:23 pm ET Update: "The Senate made an eleventh-hour bid Monday night to avert an unprecedented maneuver to change the chamber's rules governing presidential appointees, with nearly all 100 senators huddled in a rare bipartisan, closed-door caucus.... All sides reported some progress, but there remained some critical distance on whether Obama's current picks to run the National Labor Relations Board would be confirmed or whether new selections would be sent to the Senate for confirmation.... If senators fail to reach a new agreement, Reid plans to hold a key test vote Tuesday morning on Cordray's nomination, needing 60 votes to move to a debate and final confirmation vote. Up after that would come the NLRB nominees, followed by less controversial selections to lead the U.S. Export-Import Bank, the EPA and the Labor Department. "CW: Sounds like they're taking up McCain's idea! ...
... Alex Rogers of Time: "After the meeting Reid continued to meet with Minority Leader Mitch McConnell to hammer out a compromise, but Democrats said he was still prepared to act without Republican support. The issue is likely to come to a head on the Senate floor Tuesday morning." ...
... Ed O'Keefe & Paul Kane: "Senators reached a tentative deal Tuesday on averting a constitutional showdown over confirming President Obama's agency nominations." No word on what the deal is. MSNBC is saying some of the nominees will get an up-or-down vote, but there's apparently still some question on the NLRB nominees. ...
... New York Times Editors: "... this is a precedent worth setting. Whether Republican or Democrat, a president should get a vote on executive appointments, giving nominees a chance to make a case to a simple majority that they are fit for office. The American people have come to detest Congress for its contentiousness and inaction. On Tuesday, the Senate has a chance to begin restoring its reputation."
Vladimir Isachenkov of the AP: National Security Agency leaker Edward Snowden on Tuesday submitted a request for temporary asylum in Russia, his lawyer said. Anatoly Kucherena, a lawyer who is a member of the Public Chamber, a Kremlin advisory body, said that Snowden submitted the asylum request to Russia's Federal Migration Service. The service had no immediate comment." ...
Another Upside to the Snowden Leaks
Adam Liptak of the New York Times points to the Catch-22 in the U.S.'s secret surveillance programs: the government has argued -- and the Supremes have agreed -- that the only persons who "have standing" to bring a Fourth Amendment claim against the intelligence-gathering are those who can show it was the source of the government's case against them. BUT the government has also argued, in other venues, that it does not have to inform a defendant that the secret programs were the sources of their evidence. Ergo, nobody has standing to challenge the law or the intelligence-gathering. Neat. ...
... MEANWHILE, Jerry Markon of the Washington Post writes, "But the legal landscape may be shifting, lawyers say, because the revelations by Edward Snowden, a former National Security Agency contractor and the principal source of the leaks, forced the government to acknowledge the programs and discuss them. That, they say, could help plaintiffs overcome government arguments that they lack the legal standing to sue or that cases should be thrown out because the programs are state secrets. A federal judge in California last week rejected the government's argument that an earlier lawsuit over NSA surveillance should be dismissed on secrecy grounds." ...
... Glenn Greenwald Is Still Nasty. Dylan Byers of Politico: "Veteran investigative reporter Carl Bernstein publicly criticized The Guardian's Glenn Greenwald on Monday over a statement he made about the National Security Agency secrets that could leak 'if anything should happen' to former security contractor Edward Snowden. 'That statement by that reporter is out of line,' Bernstein, who would not refer to Greenwald by his name, said on MSNBC's Morning Joe. In a subsequent email to Politico, Greenwald dismissed Bernstein ... as someone who 'hasn't done any actual reporting for a couple decades now.'"
Russell Luscombe of the Guardian: "One of the six female jurors who acquitted the Florida neighbourhood watch leader George Zimmerman of murdering Trayvon Martin has revealed that three of the panel originally wanted to convict him. The middle-aged woman, who is white and has grown-up children, said she and her fellow jurors believed that Martin, an unarmed black 17-year-old, threw the first punch in the fatal confrontation, leaving Zimmerman in fear of his life. That, she said, was the determining factor in why the three changed their minds." ...
... Philip Rucker & Sari Horwitz of the Washington Post: "Current and former Justice Department officials said Monday that bringing civil rights charges against George Zimmerman in the shooting death of Trayvon Martin ... would be extremely difficult and may not be possible." ...
... William Branigin & Sari Horwitz of the Post: "Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. said Monday he shares concerns about 'the tragic, unnecessary shooting death' of an unarmed black teenager in Florida last year, and he vowed to pursue a federal investigation into the matter. In a speech at the social action luncheon of the Delta Sigma Theta sorority, Holder pledged that the Justice Department would 'continue to act in a manner that is consistent with the facts and the law' and would work to 'alleviate tensions, address community concerns and promote healing' in response to the case." ...
... ** Ta-Nehisi Coates: "The jury's performance may be the least disturbing aspect of this entire affair. The injustice was authored by a country which has taken as its policy, for the lionshare of its history, to erect a pariah class. The killing of Trayvon Martin by George Zimmerman is not an error in programming. It is the correct result of forces we set in motion years ago and have done very little to arrest." CW: exactly. ...
Sadly, all the facts in this tragic case will probably never be known. But one fact has long been crystal clear: 'shoot-first' laws like those in Florida can inspire dangerous vigilantism and protect those who act recklessly with guns. Such laws -- drafted by gun lobby extremists in Washington -- encourage deadly confrontations by enabling people to shoot first and argue 'justifiable homicide' later. -- Mayor Michael Bloomberg
... Jamelle Bouie in the American Progress: "... what's clear to me is that, for all the real progress we've made, this country has yet to relinquish its long-standing hostility to blackness." ...
... Charles Blow: "The whole system failed Martin. What prevents it from failing my children, or yours?" ...
... Lawyers have been arguing about it, but Nichole Flatow of Think Progress outlines how Florida's stand-your-ground law was central to George Zimmerman's case -- and will figure in any civil suits that are brought. CW: One thing I didn't know: Zimmerman claimed on CNN that he knew nothing about the stand-your-ground law, but a professor of his testified that he covered it extensively in a course Zimmerman aced -- one of many reasons his lawyers didn't put him on the stand, I guess. ...
... Newt Gingrich seeks & finds the worst possible, most racially-charged thing to say about the Zimmerman acquittal & its aftermath. I'd like to hear Karl Rove comment on how Newt is "bringing the nation together." Update: see safari's excellent remarks in today's Comments.
Mark Landler of the New York Times: "In a homecoming tinged with nostalgia and an unspoken sense of farewell, President Obama on Monday welcomed his oldest living predecessor, George Bush, to the White House, where the two men, separated by nearly four decades but united in their fervor for volunteer service, presented an award to a retired Iowa couple. Appearing together in the East Room, Mr. Obama and Mr. Bush, who is 89, bestowed the 5,000th 'Daily Point of Light' award -- named after Mr. Bush's signature initiative on volunteer service – to Floyd Hammer and Kathy Hamilton, who founded a nonprofit organization that delivers free meals to hungry children in 15 countries":
Washington Post Editors Caught Flogging Dead Horse: "Don't write off the deficit."
Where Are They Now?
Ariel Kaminer of the New York Times: " the news that David H. Petraeus, the former C.I.A. director and commander of the allied forces in Iraq and Afghanistan, would be a visiting professor at the Macaulay Honors College at CUNY this coming academic year was supposed to be great publicity all around. Instead it turned into a minor scandal all its own, as some professors and politicians expressed outrage over his six-figure salary, and others accused the university's administration of lying about just what the salary was."
Remember Her? Stephen Webster of the Raw Story: "President Barack Obama (D) may throw the 2014 House races to his Democratic allies by producing a 'magic wand' that grants non-citizens the right to vote in U.S. elections, Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN) said in a video published Monday." CW: yes, she's still totally wacko -- and totally irrelevant. ...
... Caught on Bachmann's Surveillance Camera. Mila Mimica of NBC Washington: "An aide for Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) is out of a job after allegedly stealing cash from a Congressional office building. According to U.S. Capitol Police, 37-year-old Javier Sanchez was arrested July 11 and is facing charges of second-degree misdemeanor theft from the Rayburn House Office Building."
Local News
Trip Gabriel of the New York Times reveals that Ken Cuccinelli -- Virginia's attorney general, the Republican candidate for governor & former ward of Kate Madison -- has been slightly less successful than have Gov. Bob McDonnell & the Missus at extracting gifts & benefits from Jonnie Williams, the phony diet supplement mogul.
News Ledes
Los Angeles Times: "'Glee' star Cory Monteith died of a 'mixed drug toxicity' involving heroin and alcohol, according to results released Tuesday by the British Columbia Coroner's Service in Canada."
Guardian: "The defence team representing Bradley Manning, the US soldier who leaked reams of state secrets to WikiLeaks, has made one last attempt to persuade the judge presiding over his court martial to dismiss the most serious charge against him: that he 'aided the enemy'."
Los Angeles Times: "A peaceful protest of the George Zimmerman verdict in Los Angeles turned violent Monday after youths broke away from the main demonstration in Leimert Park, stomped on cars, broke windows, set fires and attacked several people. KCBS-TV/KCAL-TV reporter Dave Bryan and his cameraman were among those who came under assault. One of the two journalists was taken to a hospital with a possible concussion.... Protesters also stormed a Wal-Mart in the Crenshaw district of Los Angeles.... A short while later, LAPD officers wearing helmets and carrying batons swarmed the store as others marched through the parking lot."
Al Jazeera: "Health officials say that clashes overnight between police and supporters of Egypt's deposed President Mohammed Morsi have left at least seven people dead in Cairo. Khaled el-Khateib, a senior health ministry official, said that about 261 people were also injured in the violence that broke out late on Monday and carried on into the early morning hours in four different locations in the capital. Mohamed Sultan, the head of Egypt's emergency services, told the Reuters news agency that two people were killed at a bridge in central Cairo and five more in the city's Giza district. The Muslim Brotherhood said that police used birdshot and live ammunition against protesters."
New York Times: "The leader of one of Mexico's most violent and feared drug organizations, the Zetas, was captured Monday in a city near the Texas border, an emphatic retort from the new government to questions over whether it would go after top organized crime leaders. The man, Miguel Ángel Treviño Morales, 40, who goes by the nickname Z-40 and is one of the most wanted people on both sides of the border, was detained by Mexican marines Monday morning...."
New York Times: "A 30-year old Poughkeepsie murder mystery is solved, when the body is found in the basement after the murderer -- the victim's husband -- died."
Share Article
Comments for this entry have been disabled. Additional comments may not be added to this entry at this time.
Reader Comments (26)
I sense that the Constant Weader is beginning to shift her opinion a little on Snowden and Greenwald; that she may be willing to focus less on messengers and more on their message. Perhaps CW will now allow readers to disagree with her? Am I still banned from comment?
Re: the slithery Newt
Don your hood and mount your horse you fucking racist coward.
I'm not sure which makes me angrier, the fact that Newt can casually invoke "lynch mobs" on CNN with no reprisal, or the fact that the African American host couldn't even call him out on the egregious insensitivity of his remark because of so-called "political correctness" or being neutral or whatever the fuck.
Just looking at the reaction of the host, him wincing in pain of remembrance, demonstrates the level of inequality that exists between our colors. Inequality in America spelled out in a 5 second sound bite on national teevee. Newt's out there picking up face time and scoring political points for his tea party supporters completely oblivious that history happened in this country, and recent history at that. All the while, the African American host's instinctive reaction is to internalize the injustice. Suck it up, zip your lips and take it. Move on like it never happened. Despite him being a US citizen in 2013 he still can't call out the racist bastards for what they are because that just further "divides us" as a nation.
The fact that were having this conversation of race right after the gutting of the Voting Rights Act is an irony of history coming full circle. Racism rearing its ugly head under the national spotlight like some tragic character assuming the foreshadow of the decades to come. As whites diminish in number and see the minorities expanding into our inevitable future, adding more cinnamon than vanilla to our historic melting pot. As the Republicans further barricade themselves in the last great bastion of white America, inciting racial divisions and never having the will power to denounce (but rather foment) the growing cries of the racist loonies.
Yet, as the counterweight, the younger generations who will encounter this concoction face on are, as a whole, considerably more liberal on social issues than their parents and more easily accepting of racial integration and equality for all.
We Shall Overcome but political correctness needs to be put aside when facing those apologists of history, rewriting the books, sugarcoating racial injustice.
@Waltwis: the part of your comment that isn't ignorant is untrue.
I haven't banned you from commenting & I haven't deleted any of your comments. I hope you understand the difference between mischaracterizing & lying. Your claim that I banned you from commenting falls into the flat-out lie category.
Now to the mischaracterization. If you had followed what I've written on Snowden & Greenwald (& on Greenwald well before the Snowden revelations), you would know that I haven't changed my views one iota on Greenwald -- although when I first started reading him 5 years ago I gave him more of the benefit of the doubt than I do now.
My views on Snowden have evolved only to the extent that I didn't know anything about him (including his name) when the Guardian & WashPo published the first -- and useful -- revelations about NSA snooping. Once Snowden decided to make himself a star, it wasn't difficult for me to form an opinion. As always, my opinions are not unwavering, & new events could make me more sympathetic to him, although so far new events have simply served to solidify my views.
As I've written before, you don't have to like a whistleblower -- or a reporter -- to be appreciative of some new information s/he puts into public view.
But more important than what I think about each specific act or fit of pique from Greenwald or Snowden is the overarching truth about human nature that you -- and others -- seem not to get. Very few people are all good or all bad, although Newt Gingrich -- see above -- is a person who does his best to belie that view. And even someone who is basically a lowdown rat can perform a useful service, while a person who is pretty nice can do something damned awful. It is quite possible to love the person & hate the act, and conversely to hate the person & love the act.
I know right-wingers don't get this, but I am -- or was -- surprised at how many lefties don't get it, either. The inability to see nuance is the source of a lot of human tragedy.
So of course you may continue to comment here. If you trash another commenter or advocate for some sort of dangerous lawbreaking, I'll delete those comments. When you trash me, I have options, so in all likelihood I'll publish your comment, & in some cases I'll respond.
I would ask that you think before you write in the future & have some idea that what you're writing is accurate because I'm as bored as many of our readers with my again repeating what I've written before.
Marie
Marie, The issues discussed in your marvelous RealityChex have many facets. I don't always see the same one as you do, but I am fascinated by the facets you and your readers describe as they help to broaden my thoughts on so many subjects.
You and your readers have had educations and lifetime reading experiences in so many areas of classical literature and thought that reflect these facets you describe, that I have to dig deep into my own gray matter to understand.
Thank you for the experience. Sorry if I piss you off with my in articulate utterances on various matters, but I guess the facets I see are not always as bright as yours.
In the I-wish-I-were-surprised department:
The main sticking points for the R's in the filibuster negotiations seem to be 1) the NLRB and 2) the no longer new Consumer Protection Agency appointments.
Let's see now... is it possible the R's just don't want any part of the workers' or consumers' government to function, certainly not well enough to take their side effectively in any dispute with the R's corporate masters? After all, who would dare question employers who shorted workers' wages, imposed unsafe working conditions or businesses who perpetrated outright fraud on their customers? That's not what government is for...
Could the identities or the stakes in the fight between the 21st century master and slave be any clearer? Or the degree to which this is truly all about the money? If the R's really depended on workers and consumers for their support, wouldn't they be singing a different tune and rushing to protect their worker and consumer base?
Or maybe they're just depending on the dumb ones...one more reason to doubt the sincerity of their frequent calls to improve our nation's schools....
I didn't follow the Zimmerman trial that closely so I didn't hear that he shot Martin because he feared for his life simply because he was punched. Let's see, he had about fifty pounds on Trayvon Martin but he was in fear of his life? Enough to shoot the other guy? Such bullshit. I've been in plenty of fights when I was younger and I never once feared for my life. Plus, even if I had been armed in one of those altercations, pulling out a gun would have been the height of cowardice.
But none of that matters now. Zimmerman sold his story, a story designed to take advantage of a legal system heavily weighted in favor of those who are armed and who shoot first. Especially if they are white and the guy on the ground bleeding out is black.
Our culture has been so warped by weapons and those who worship the gun that justice itself has been made insignificant by their influence. Laws crafted by second amendment loonies have made us all less safe and cleared the way for out of control, murderous gunsels like Zimmerman.
Safari,
Excellent points, well made.
Picking up your comment about political correctness (a concern that never restrains right-wing commentators), one of the great successes of the right's war on the media is the way an entire generation of MSM reporters, producers, and pundits have been bullied into supine submission when faced with even the most outrageous lies. The brutal efficiency of Dan Rather's evisceration at the hands of the right when he dared to question Bush's desertion was an object lesson to many.
The lesson was don't even try to do any serious reporting on an issue the right cares about. They will kill you.
It doesn't matter that years later, the bloggers who made an issue of the typefaces in the documents held up by Rather and his producer to support that contention that Bush was nowhere to be seen for over a year while he was supposed to be on active duty, confessed that they pretty much made it all up.
Rather was done and so was his producer and now a little editor in the heads of the vast majority of the MSM (at least those not completely under right-wing control) reporters and hosts is constantly reminding them not to rock the boat with inconvenient truths and especially never call out any of these rat bastards for their lies and outrageous comments. Which is why anyone with a brain who sits through the Sunday morning gas-a-ramas has to refrain from throwing things at the television when the McConnells and McCains and Grahams and DeMints routinely lie with impunity.
No sense of political correctness, however, applies to the wingnuts. Ann Coulter can still go on TV and call for liberals to be murdered. Newt Gingrich can still spew hatred and lies. And no one dares call them on it.
Big win for the right. Big loss for any semblance of decent reporting and commentary with backbone.
Bloody but unbowed.
FWIW The Hill just reported the senate confirmed Cordray, 71-29.
Ooops. The senate voted to vote on it. Sorry.
OK. Good on the Senate for confirming some Obama exec appointments. I fear that the Democrats have gobbled up this tiny cookie, pronounced it delicious and no, they couldn't possibly take another cookie. Again I have to say judges, judges, judges. Does this mean, judicial appointments are null and void until the Obama leaves office?
I consider Snowden a dickhead. I am getting a bit tired of the false dichotomy that has become a favored talking point. Supposedly minimizing the content of Snowden's leaks in favor of denigrating "the messenger". I completely agree with Marie that few people are either completely evil or pure good. The situation has more moving parts than that. Snowden's material on domestic spying spurred some discussion and hopefully some positive movement toward better policies. I didn't find the material all that revelatory - in short duhhh. However, he has moved on to revelations and threats about US intelligence related to other nations. The threats of releasing more information don't seem to be in the service of altruism, but are completely self serving. We have no real idea what he has already discussed with other nations in the service of his asylum. When Snowden crossed that line, he blew up that simplistic "messenger vs information" argument. In my view, he lost his whistleblower card. It's sincerely naive to disregard safeguarding global intelligence gathering. It as a key piece of security and diplomacy for all countries.
His actions speak loudly enough without even talking about the messenger aspects: his immaturity, previous statements condemning commensurate behavior on someone else's part, or his self aggrandizement.
I get that the NSA stuff bothers lots of people. We all have different thresholds. I happen to avoid social media like the plague. I resent looking at an item on line and having it pop up repeatedly, or ads to buy stuff based on my browser history or the fact that retail sites are selling my financial info to who knows? None of that stuff has the potential to enhance my security. It does have the potential to compromise my identity and finances.
James,
Predictably nearly a third of the Senate voted not to allow Cordray's nomination to come to the floor for a vote. Nearly a third declared, in effect, that it was thrilled to allow predatory bankers to keep their collective foot on the throat of average Americans. Without looking at the roll call I don't think there's any doubt that most or all of those rooting for financial vultures over American consumers have an R (repulsive) after their names.
For a party that whines on and on about liberty and freedom from government intrusion they're pretty dead set on making sure that they control every aspect of American life they don't agree with. Consumer protection? Unh-uh! Choice for women? Ixnay. Concern for labor? Control those commies! Food stamps for the poor? Not when corporations need more handouts! Defense against those who would make voting difficult to impossible? Puh-lease.
Freedom is only for who they say it's for.
Have been going through old copies of my NYRB [hard to throw some of them away] and came across an essay by Michael Massing (2009) on the new internet bloggers. He cites Glenn Greenwald who for some time had been writing a lot about the Bush torture memos among other things. Massing praises Greenwald for his in depth coverage and his daunting array of facts, but then says this:
" In so vigilantly watching over the press, Greenwald has performed an invaluable service. But his posts have a downside. Absorbing the full force of his arguments and dutifully following his corroborating links, I felt myself drawn into an idealogical wind tunnel, with the relentless gusts of opinion and analysis gradually wearing me down. After reading his harsh denunciations of Obama's decision not to release the latest batch of torture photos I began to lose sight of the persuasive arguments that other commentators have made in support of the President's position. As well-argued and provocative as I found many of Greenwald's postings, they often seem oblivious to the practical considerations policymakers must contend with."
This has the same ring that Marie has made about Greenwald. He just ain't the kind of guy you could have one of those nuanced conversations with––there's no middle for him except when he eats an Oreo and even then ...
PD,
I remember that piece in the NYRB (I keep mine too). One point I recall (at least I think it was from the Massing article, but it may have been from another piece) had to do with something Greenwald was (and is) good at, and one of the reasons I started reading him in the first place.
He's one of the few journalists who take others in the MSM to task for their false--and dangerous--concept of the need for balance, their slavish fealty to "both sides do it", the idea that both sides have an equal claim on the truth. This is complete rubbish, but as we see on a regular basis, this deplorable tendency has reached pandemic proportions in the media and Greenwald's readiness to point this out has always been refreshing if not entirely therapeutic.
The downside, however, is his apparent inability to deliver this message in a way that cannot be easily dismissed as a rant. I've said it before that one of the things I have always admired about Greenwald, what drew me to his writing in the first place, is his idealism. I get that. I'm an idealist from way back (my "Idealists for Idealism" card was signed by Bishop Berkeley). But at some point idealism has to be tempered--not tamped down, mind you, but moderated--and focused by pragmatism.
When St. Ronnie was sleeping through important meetings and breaking laws, selling weapons to terrorists, toasting the rich at the expense of the poor, and running the most corrupt administration in history (until Bush II), I was unbearable. I was in full-on rant mode for the eight years. I was miserable and so were my friends and family members whenever I'd launch into yet another philippic against yet more Reagan bullshit. But I learned to temper those rantings. That shit can blind you to the possibility of workable solutions and give anyone in earshot permission to tune you out.
Greenwald, for all his good qualities, hands out permission cards by the truckload and that's unfortunate.
"The inability to see nuance is the source of a lot of human tragedy." CW, you might want to install that line on a regular rotation because sometimes the obvious needs a reminder.
@waltwis: I, too am a faithful reader of RC, and I don't recall Marie ever banning you. I won't comment on your comments except to say that I don't agree with you.
I have commented before that when I first started reading Greenwald i found him worthwhile, but over the years, I began to tune him out, just as others here have done. Listening to someone shout at the top of their lungs about every issue, large or small, is wearying, and eventually not worth it.
If you think that what Snowden/Greenwald revealed is brand new, you haven't been paying attention. Remember Admiral Poindexter's Total Information Awareness? The one that was supposedly shut down? Yeah right.
For the US to forgo monitoring foreign countries would be a stupid move. I suggest reading diplomatic history to see how far back this practice goes. I mentioned before the Army and Navy cracking the Japanese Purple code prior to the war saved lives.
Would someone in this wind tunnel say something about what Snowden and Greenwald reported about the NSA without calling them (or me) names? Can any of you refrain from using words like Liar, or Dickhead, or Oreo insults and address the fact that the message is about our slow march toward a Stasi State? And that the poindexters among the NSA and the Pentagon are winning while you all seem to take such pleasure in inventing more contrived insults about Reagan and people you don't agree with. As Chris Hayes said about another insult to our national honor, "Godammit."
Please. Pay attention to the messages.
Senator Warren talks about the benefits of reinstating Glass-Steagall, as only she can:
http://www.upworthy.com/cnbc-hosts-decided-to-teach-senator-warren-how-regulation-works-probably-shouldnt-have-done-that
Waltwis,
Contrived insults?
Are you saying that Reagan's selling of arms to a nation that had months before held Americans hostage for a year and his rolling over of the profits from that sale to illegally fund a right-wing terror group in Nicaragua, in direct contravention of American law (the Boland Amendment), that the "investigation, indictment, or conviction of over 138 administration officials, the largest number for any US president" (Wikipedia), and that he was"...a man who slept through meetings" (from his biographer Edmund Morris) are all spurious and "contrived" inventions on my part and are untrue?
Is that what you're saying?
Then back it up.
If you don't agree with factual statements, counter them, like an adult, with other, provable facts. Simply declaring that what I say is "contrived" is childish and ignorant.
Grow up.
No names. As a RChex regular, I enjoy this site and its contributors, even when I do not agree. It and you make me think.
That said, the point about professional wolf-criers, which Marie has made, is maybe worth more attention. Lord knows, the Right makes its living at it. See the latest Bachman nonsense noted above. But the Left has its own professional hysterics. Let me note a recent instance that has nothing to do with Mr. Snowden.
"Public Citizen," which I support financially, often recounts the kind of corporate shenanigans I like to keep abreast of, but its agenda often compels them to convey less than the whole truth. The last issue I read reported that because a long-term study of premie births carried out at many U.S. university hospitals, as well as in New Zealand, Australia and Great Britain, had caused unneeded deaths, the Department of Health and Human Services had pulled the plug on the study, criticizing in particular the language of the consent form researchers asked parents to sign. Public Citizen's stance, to no surprise, was one of studied outrage, as if they were the first to discover that the medical emperor is sometimes scantily dressed.
I asked my son, a doctor who reads extensively in the field, about it. In summary, here's what he said about that research on the effects of varying oxygen levels (oxygen introduction being a standard treatment for premies, too much causing blindness, too little increased mortality). He said it was only AFTER the study that the HHS concluded (or could have reasonably concluded) that the lower oxygen levels introduced were firmly associated with increased mortality, that when the study was undertaken some years ago the range of oxygen levels administered were all within the "safe" range.
I read the lengthy HHS letter, as well as the articles and documents that my son sent along with his opinion, and though I saw a little lawyerly fudging in it, the consent form did seem based on the expected outcomes that previous research, experience and practice would have predicted. That and his training is why my son believed there was some post hoc, Monday morning quarterbacking going on in HHS' recent reaction to a study that went on for years.
That is not to say (me talking now) that the added deaths (a three percent increase) were worth the costs, though the study did increase the profession's knowledge about prevention of blindness in premies caused by too much oxygen as well as add to its knowledge of the increased risks (it doubled) associated with low oxygen at what had formerly been thought to be safe levels. Interestingly, I do not remember the Public Citizen account conveying the higher instance of blindness in the high oxygen group, which is also part of the story. As I said, they were too high on outrage.
In short, Public Citizen does provide a useful service. I can find "reporting" there I can find nowhere else, but I have learned to read it skeptically, mindful that I'm not getting the whole story, a stance I would recommend everyone take about darn near everything.
The human race has been spinning things since it uttered its first word.
A voice from the old "wind tunnel"––something said by Dag Hammarksjöld, the UN's famously principled second secretary-general long ago might be appropriate to remember here:
"If, while pleading another's cause, you are at the same time seeking something for yourself, you cannot hope to succeed. And if you do not have materially substantial means of persuasion, you cannot hope to succeed either."
Might just be something to keep in mind not only dealing with high stakes negotiations with other countries, but here in our little RC room of our own.
@Waltwis. Snowden is a dickhead. No, I won't acknowledge "that the message is about our slow march toward a Stasi State", especially a message from someone who is seeking asylum in a country run by an ex KGB thug. I'm much more concerned with the daily onslaught committed at both the state and national levels to voting rights, to laws subverting women's health, to laws diminishing the poor even further and the return to the racist practices of previous decades. I think the perversion of the Constitution apparent in Supreme Court decisions made by the Roberts Court circumvent rights and liberties more than anything Snowden has revealed about the NSA. If you were paying attention, his information isn't new news.
To quote you "Please pay attention to messages." Some people don't agree with your opinion, some people don't agree with mine. I do have enough respect for other participants in the discussion to refrain from referring to the forum as a "wind tunnel."
As Beckett so wisely said: "We human beings are wrecks." Indeed, we are--all of us. Therefore, I think it makes sense to be as kind to each other as possible, and as tolerant.
Skepticism about everything political and religious, IMHO, is a good thing. I wish humankind had more of it. Curiosity too. But there is no place in our sad little world for name-calling and trashing people--unless they are Dick Cheney! (And now his darling daughter, Liz.)
I'm going to stand down now, disappointed that what started off as questioning CW's reasoning has turned into a barroom brawl. I'm apparently not in tune with this chorus.
@WaltWis: What you did was this: you lied about me when you said I had done a specific thing which I had not done; then you mischaracterized my long trail of comments about the Snowden leaks & their effects.
This little pile of mendacity you now characterize as "questioning my reasoning." Actually, no. You never questioned my reasoning. And rather than apologizing for making up stuff about me, you described yourself as "unbowed."
When you got through with me, you disparaged all of the contributors here. When a number of them responded without disparaging you, you dissed them again. Not only that, you made these remarks in the same thread that I reiterated my taboo against trashing other commenters.
Besides all that, your "arguments" are not arguments at all; they are, as Akhilleus pointed out, expressions of opinions untethered to facts & often counterfactual.
I'm letting your last comment stand -- mixed metaphor and all -- because it demonstrates what a fucking sociopath you are.
Get help. And good luck to you. This I mean.
Marie
P. S. Kate, you're absolutely right. This is no place for name-calling and trashing people. I won't do it again. Probably.
Have been flat-out busy with time for just sporadic readings, but my reaction to the morning's first post was "wha, huh?" followed by "oh, oh!" It appeared positioning for a fight rather than looking to open a dialogue.
As commenters responded through the day I sat back, read and watched. Said to myself, "Wait, wait, there's a CW response a-coming...AND IT'S GONNA BE A GOOD ONE!"
Then it came, living up my expectations—and then some!
—in other words, "Don't MESS with CHEX-us!"