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
Oct192015
The Commentariat -- October 20, 2015
Internal links removed.
Craig Whitlock of the Washington Post: "Federal regulators said Monday that they will require recreational drone users to register their aircraft with the government for the first time in an attempt to track rogue flying robots that are increasingly posing a threat to aviation safety. The decision to compel drone owners to register their aircraft represents a policy shift by the Obama administration and a tacit admission by the Federal Aviation Administration that it has been unable to safely integrate the popular remote-controlled planes into the national airspace." CW: Apparently the Second Amendment does not cover drones. Or else the drone lobby sucks compared to the NRA.
** Matt Yglesias of Vox: "The Democratic Party is in much greater peril than its leaders or supporters recognize, and it has no plan to save itself.... Not only have Republicans won most elections, but they have a perfectly reasonable plan for trying to recapture the White House. But Democrats have nothing at all in the works to redress their crippling weakness down the ballot. Democrats aren't even talking about how to improve on their weak points, because by and large they don't even admit that they exist.... The worst part of the problem for the Democratic Party is in races that are, collectively, the most important: state government." ...
... Ed Kilgore: "... aside from Matt's questionable assessment of Democratic self-knowledge, his hypothesis also suffers a bit from the assumption that the party's downballot problems can be dispelled by more effort or some undefined 'plan.'" ...
... Elias Isquith of Salon: "... while Republicans have big money at the top, they have passionate rank-and-file support at the bottom, too. They have corporate overlords like the Koch brothers, sure. But they've also got 'boots on the ground' to make calls, knock on doors, and pass around campaign literature." CW: They also have old people, who vote in off-year elections. But more importantly, they have anger -- and greed -- on their side. The Republican establishment, including outlets like Fox "News," has convinced right-leaning voters that crazy demands are reasonable & that every time Democrats block the crazy demands, they further victimize the American people. GOP voters see even very conservative Republicans, like John Boehner & John Roberts, as part of a vast left-wing conspiracy to deprive ordinary Americans of their god-given right to do whatever the hell they want. That kind of anger does exist among liberals, but it's fringier.
You may see Gowdy's chapeau as a warlock's hat. On the other hand, you may see it as a dunce cap. Whatever the case, you're right.Gowdy "Endangers National Security." Josh Gerstein of Politico: "... Trey Gowdy appears to have accidentally released the name of a CIA source in the midst of a back-and-forth with Democrats about ... its presence in former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton/s private email account.... The email posted Sunday on the [Benghaazi! committee]'s website included in one instance the name of 'Mousa Kousa,' an alternative spelling of Moussa Koussa, a former Libyan government spy chief and foreign minister. The name appeared to have been redacted in several other instances but was included in a subject line of a forwarded email. The redacted email was released at Gowdy's direction.... By Monday morning, the committee had replaced the document online with another version in which Koussa's name does not appear.... A spokesman for [Rep. Elijah] Cummings [(D-Md.), the ranking member on the committee,] said the episode underscored why Gowdy should not have released the email until the State Department completed reviewing the records for public release...." ...
... Michael Isikoff's story on Gowdy's slip-ups is here. ...
... CW: This is hilarious. Last week, Rep. Gowdy said Secretary Clinton had "endangered national security" when she forwarded an e-mail that contained Koussa's name, a name Gowdy asserted was classified. But of course Clinton did not reveal Koussa's name to the public; she sent the information on to another person in the State Department. THEN Sunday, Rep. Cummings announced that, according to the CIA, Koussa's identity was not classified. So Gowdy, in his initial leak of the correspondence, had defamed Clinton over nothing. THEN, in response to Cummings' criticsim (and call for an apology to Clinton), Gowdy himself actually did release Koussa's name to the public -- for the first time. The person who "endangered national security," to borrow Gowdy's words, was not Clinton, but Gowdy. What an ass! ...
... Rachel Bade of Politico: "Three days out from Hillary Clinton's high-stakes appearance before the House Select Committee on Benghazi, panel Democrats released excerpts from closed-door committee interviews they said showed there was 'no evidence' substantiating 'wild Republican conspiracy theories' about Clinton's response to the Benghazi attacks. The 124-page report concludes that investigators thus far have found no evidence over the course of 54 transcribed interviews that suggests the former Secretary of State had specifically ordered the military to stand down on the night of the deadly attack, or 'personally' directed State's reduction of security in Benghazi beforehand." ...
... Charles Pierce: "Benghazi Committee Guy Thinks Criticism of His Committee Is the Biggest Conspiracy Since Benghazi." ...
... Brian Beutler: "Ever since Watergate, Republicans have been consumed with the certainty that a similar scandal will one day befall Democrats, and have gone to great lengths to make it so. But when their inquiries run aground, or devolve into partisan witch hunting, they eventually relent, and allow the investigations to fizzle out. The Benghazi committee is flirting with the same fate."
... MEANWHILE. Greg Miller of the Washington Post: "The FBI is investigating claims by an anonymous computer hacker that he stole potentially sensitive files from the private e-mail account of CIA Director John Brennan and posted them online, U.S. officials said. The exposed documents appear to include a roster of senior U.S. national security officials with their phone and Social Security numbers, a log of calls made by former CIA deputy director Avril Haines and a list of e-mail addresses that the hacker claimed were taken from Brennan's AOL account.... Other U.S. officials said that the FBI had launched an inquiry and that the Secret Service was investigating related claims that the hacker obtained private information from Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson.... The claims were first reported Monday by the New York Post, which described the unnamed hacker as a 'stoner high-school student.'..." ...
... No Knowledge of Computers Necessary. Sam Thielman of the Guardian has more details on the Brennan hack: "Former National Security Agency technical director Jasper Graham said the highly embarrassing breach of Brennan's email was likely a 'social engineering' attack, in which personal information supposedly only the account holder would know is used to break in." ...
... CW: It occurs to me that what is needed now is a hacker willing & able to break into Trey Gowdy's e-mail account & reveal that e-mail where he said, "Kevin McCarthy is an idiot." No, wait, he already said that on national TV. Something else, then, like the name of his hair stylist.
Way Beyond the Beltway
Bruce Campion-Smith of the Toronto Star: "Prime Minister Justin Trudeau. That title, which seemed improbable a mere 11 weeks ago, is now set to become a reality after the Liberals' historic, come-from-behind election result, besting incumbent Conservatives and hopeful New Democrats in one of the country's longest and costliest elections.... Preliminary results had the Liberals at 184 seats, comfortably more than the 170 seats needed for a majority government in the expanded 338-seat House of Commons. It's a stunning rebound for a party that had been knocked down to 34 seats in the 2011 election and left for dead. The Conservatives won 102 seats, the New Democrats 41, the Bloc Québécois 10 and the Green Party had one seat, won by leader Elizabeth May." ...
... The New York Times story on the results, by Ian Austen, is here. ...
... Robin King of the Toronto Star, linked below: "Polls are closing across Ontario, Quebec and the Prairies and three broadcasters have called the election for the Liberals after the party sweeps East Coast. CBC, CTV and Global news are projecting the Liberal Party will form the next government." ...
... From the Guardian Liveblog 1, linked below: "Although the networks have called victory for Trudeau and the Liberals, it's not clear whether the latter have enough clout to actually pull off a majority government." ...
... Ian Austen of the New York Times (linked above): "Despite a campaign that was the longest in modern Canada's history, if remarkably swift by American standards, no obvious outcome has developed as Canadians vote on Monday." ...
... The Toronto Star is posting results here. ...
... (1) The Guardian is liveblogging the election. (2) The Guardian's new liveblog on the election is here. ...
... Peter Edwards of the Toronto Star: On this week's "Last Week Tonight," John Oliver said he was "breaking a [Canadian] election law forbidding foreigners from influencing Canadian elections that comes with a $5,000 fine and six-month jail term to share it.... The good news, for Oliver: he need not fear being sent to the slammer.... Canadian elections authorities explained Monday that there's no law against foreigners expressing an opinion. They said the legal provision in question -- section 331 of the Canada Elections Act -- has been on the books since the 1920s and it doesn't cover people stating their view.... Elections Canada spokesman John Enright ... said the key provision refers to people who 'induce' Canadians: 'To induce there must be a tangible thing offered. A personal view is not inducement,' he added." See yesterday's Commentariat for context. ...
... Also see Cowichan's comment at the end of yesterday's thread: he provides a list of the documents that will suffice to prove your eligibility to vote in Canada. They're pretty much what you need in the U.S. to get a library card. And in all likelihood, you have the U.S. equivalent to a number of them. You must provide two of the listed documents if you don't have a driver's license picture I.D. Cowichan said he figured he had 18 of the type of documents required.
Jordan Fabian of the Hill: "President Obama had time to meet with 'clock kid' Ahmed Mohamed after all. Obama greeted Mohamed, 14, on Monday during the White House's Astronomy Night on the South Lawn. The president personally invited the Texas teenager to the event after he was arrested last month for bringing a homemade clock to school. Earlier Monday, White House press secretary Josh Earnest downplayed the possibility of Obama meeting Mohamed."
Gary Langer & Gregory Holyk of ABC News: "More than half of Americans in a new ABC News/Washington Post poll approve of Barack Obama's job performance, a first in nearly two and a half years. That compares with 71 percent disapproval of the Republicans in Congress with six in 10 calling their struggle to select a new House speaker a sign of dysfunction within the GOP caucus."
Art Swift of Gallup: "Fifty-five percent of Americans say they want laws covering the sale of firearms to be stricter than they are now, a distinct rise of eight percentage points from 2014. Fewer Americans than last year want the laws to be less strict, and the proportion who want the laws to stay the same has also declined slightly."
Dana Milbank: Sheldon Adelson "has no particular insight into politics. Yet, with the possible exception of the Koch brothers, he exerts more influence over elections than any person in America.... On Israel and Jewish issues, likewise, Adelson's insights are unoriginal. But he has become one of the most influential American Jewish figures -- and a leading voice for Israel hard-liners -- just by throwing around a lot of cash.... Nobody would listen to Adelson if he weren't worth $26 billion."
Catherine Thompson of TPM: "If Hillary Clinton wins the presidency, Rep. Mo Brooks (R-AL) wants to impeach her on day one.... Brooks [said] that he thought Clinton's exclusive use of a private email account as secretary of state violated 'all rules of law that are designed to protect America's top-secret and classified information from falling into the hands of our geopolitical foes who then might use that information to result in the deaths of Americans.'" CW: I believe some while back I mentioned that Republicans would try to "pre-impeach" Hillary. Apparently, the proceedings are underway. I wonder if Mo feels the same way about Trey Gowdy, the actual publisher of "top-secret and classified information." (Okay, what Gowdy published was not classified, but he said it was.)
Charles Pierce is a bit exercised that ole Judd Gregg (R-N.H.-way back) is playing the class card. It's what Republicans do. They pretend you're just as good as they are & if only you'd vote for them, they would unlease their freeedom, & you'd become as rich as David Koch. It's a con millions of Americans have fallen for again & again. It's "devisive" Democrats, see, who want to keep you down & out & dependent upon food stamps, Obamaphones & other handy goodies to keep close by your hammock.
Annals of "Journalism," Ctd.
Josh Marshall of TPM: "Watching things unravel, it's hard not to ask, where'd they find Trey Gowdy? The latest, of course, is that he inadvertently revealed the name of a CIA asset in the course of falsely accusing Hillary Clinton of doing the same. Great work! This is after being reduced to demanding that fellow Republicans in the House stop saying his Committee is abjectly political and designed to attack Hillary Clinton.... It all goes back to Kevin McCarthy saying out loud what had long been transparently obvious: that the committee was designed to and was hammering Hillary Clinton's poll numbers. It got a bit more steam when other Republicans starting saying the same thing. But McCarthy's comment was [journalists'] permission slip.... Journalists either felt that they needed such a statement to start looking at what this investigation was about.... Everybody knew what was up. But you couldn't say it because doing so violated the 'two, equally valid arguments on both sides' rule.... And that's really not the way it should work."
The Very Brief Campaign of Joe Biden. Tom McGeveran of Politico: "The Washington Post published an item Monday evening to its website with the headline 'Biden to launch a presidential campaign.' But even the fast clickers were disappointed to reach a page on the Washington Post website titled 'Editor's Note' that read, 'This file was inadvertently published.'... Post congressional reporter Paul Kane, whose byline appeared on the article, was quick to tweet ... this wasn't news published before it was ready -- just a 'shell' story prepared so that the Post could push the button faster in case Biden did announce."
Jay Carney of Amazon, in Medium: "'Nearly every person I worked with, I saw cry at their desk.' If you read the recent New York Times article about Amazon's culture, you remember that quote. Attributed to Bo Olson, the image of countless employees crying at their desks set the tone for a front-page story that other media outlets described as 'scathing,' 'blistering,' 'brutal' and 'harsh.' Here's what the story didn't tell you about Mr. Olson: his brief tenure at Amazon ended after an investigation revealed he had attempted to defraud vendors and conceal it by falsifying business records. When confronted with the evidence, he admitted it and resigned immediately.... [Reporter Jodi] Kantor never asked us to check or comment on any of the dozen or so negative anecdotes from named sources that form the narrative backbone of the story." ...
... Times executive editor Dean Baquet responds: Did not. And you lie. ...
... Jay Carney responds to Baquet's response: Did, too. "The bottom line is the New York Times chose not to fact-check or vet its most important on-the-record sources, despite working on the story for six months. I really don't see a defensible explanation for that failure." ...
... Nick Wingfield & Ravi Somaiya of the New York Times: "In an unusually public tussle over a prominent article, a senior executive from Amazon and the top editor of The New York Times clashed on Monday over the details in a Times article about the Internet retailer's work culture." ...
... Jason Abbruzzese of Mashable rounds up some reactions to the set-to between Amazon & the Times. CW: No one seems to wonder if the Times piece had anything to do with the fact that Amazon's founder Jeff Bezos owns the Washington Post, the Times' biggest competitor. Whatever. Amazon still sucks.
Presidential Race
Leigh Ann Caldwell & Kristen Welker of NBC News: "Vice President Joe Biden is nearing a decision on if he will enter the presidential race, which could come within 48 hours, two sources tells NBC News."
This Should Work. Gabriel Debenedetti of Politico: "Jim Webb, the longshot Democratic presidential candidate, may run as an independent, his campaign said in an email to reporters on Monday evening. The former Virginia senator, who complained last week about not having enough talking time on the stage during the first Democratic debate in Las Vegas, will hold a press conference in Washington on Tuesday to discuss his options." CW: The move could force one of the other Democratic candidates to take up Webb's main campaign issue: "I'm not getting enough speaking time." I believe Bernie Sanders -- or Larry David -- would be exceptionally good at this.
Carrie Dann of NBC News: "Donald Trump remains the front-runner in the Republican presidential field, while former neurosurgeon Ben Carson holds a close second place, a new NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll shows. With the backing of 25 percent of Republican primary voters, Trump is at his highest level of support in the poll since entering the 2016 race." ...
... Nick Gass of Politico: "Carly Fiorina's time near the top of the Republican polls may have come to an end, as another national CNN/ORC poll out Tuesday suggests. Just 4 percent of Republican or Republican-leaning voters said they would cast their votes for her in a primary election, down from 15 percent in September."
Andrew Kaczynski of BuzzFeed: "In 2000, 19 months before Sept. 11, 2001, Donald Trump wrote extensively of the terrorism threat the United States was facing. Trump, who at the time was considering a presidential bid on the Reform Party ticket, went so far as to say that an attack on a major U.S. city was not just a probability, but an inevitability. 'I really am convinced we're in danger of the sort of terrorist attacks that will make the bombing of the Trade Center look like kids playing with firecrackers,' wrote Trump in his 2000 book, The America We Deserve. 'No sensible analyst rejects this possibility, and plenty of them, like me, are not wondering if but when it will happen.' Trump even mentions Osama bin Laden by name...." ...
... Andrew Kaczynski: "... Donald Trump says there are actually 100 million people who are unemployed in the United States.Trump has previously said the number was 93 million, a number that independent fact-checking site Politifact said was 'way too high.'... As noted by Politifact, Trump is including in his accounting every American of retirement age and those 16 years old and above and represents 'a basic misunderstanding of the labor market.' The Wall Street Journal brutally declared in a headline of Trump previous account, 'Donald Trump Is Right: About 42% of Americans Are Unemployed (If You Include My 88-Year-Old Grandma).'"
I just don't like the guy. -- George W. Bush, on Ted Cruz, speaking to Jeb! donors ...
... Eli Stokols of Politico: "One donor in the room said the former president had been offering mostly anodyne accounts of how the Bush family network views the current campaign and charming off-the-cuff jokes, until he launched into Cruz. 'The tenor of what he said about the other candidates was really pretty pleasant,' another donor said. 'Until he got to Cruz.'... George W. Bush is well acquainted with his home-state senator, who served as a domestic policy adviser on his 2000 campaign before rising to national prominence by distancing himself from -- and often going out of his way to antagonize -- the GOP establishment." ...
... Marc Caputo of Politico: "For the first time, former Florida governor Jeb Bush has fallen into single digits in a home-state Republican primary poll that shows Donald Trump still in front, trailed by Ben Carson and Sen. Marco Rubio. Jeb Bush's 9-percent, fourth-place showing in the University of North Florida poll is his worst showing in any survey of likely Florida Republican voters." ...
... Ryan Lizza has a long piece in the New Yorker on where Jeb! went wrong. Lizza concentrates on Jeb!'s neo-con foreign policy.
Beyond the Beltway
Carolyn Bankoff of New York: "It's 2015, yet a Rockland County[, New York,] newspaper still managed to publish a job ad specifying that Haitians need not apply." CW: Yeah, most people know enough not to put that in writing; but they won't even interview you if you "sound black" when you phone them about the job.
Share Article
Comments for this entry have been disabled. Additional comments may not be added to this entry at this time.
Reader Comments (12)
Forgive my crass observation, but......looking at both the unfortunate shape of Trent Gowdy's head and the content therein, I can't help but believe he met with some mighty brutal obstetric forceps.
I live in Australia. What I need to vote:
:)
My son moved to the UK to study. What he needed to vote on a four year student visa:
:)
CW: I almost deleted Gloria's comments because I thought she didn't have a chance to finish them. Then I got it.
But, seriously, Gloria, how do they prevent actual voter fraud in Australia? Couldn't you vote in every precinct you could get to in the space of an election day?
Marie
If I mount a gun on a drone will I still have to register it?
On revealing the identities of intelligence sources and operatives -- remember Valerie Plame?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plame_affair
and
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_Game:_My_Life_as_a_Spy,_My_Betrayal_by_the_White_House
Lessons forgotten, unlearned, or never learned in the first place.
A couple of days ahead of the Benghaaaazi Boys' pillorying (hoped for pillorying, at least, on their part) of Hillary Clinton, it's worth adding some historical context, a mere soupçon, just to offset the noxious ingredients provided by "National Security Threat" Trey Gowdy and his Confederate "investigators".
For the sake of this comment, we'll set aside what everyone knows now to be true, that this whole thing is a sham, a fetid fabrication to provide oppo info to anyone looking to take down Hillary Clinton and to keep the running dogs yapping at her heels all the way to election day. We'll pretend that this is a serious investigation (hey....you in the back...stop that snickering) worthy of the millions we've been pumping into it.
And if we're going to treat this as a serious inquiry, no one should object to a brief side trip down memory lane to see how similar events have been dealt with in our recent past.
In 1982, the Reagan administration decided to take sides in the Lebanese civil war. We also wanted to help Israel who had an idea that the PLO was getting support from factions in Lebanon. In 1983, National Security Advisor Robert MacFarlane sent US warships to the region and started bombing the shit out of the Muslim side of the conflict. But the Reagan people had no real idea of what was going on on the ground in Lebanon. Marines had been deployed and things were very messy. On October 23rd, truck bombs hit the US Marine barracks killing nearly 300, mostly US Marines and a few dozen French servicemen stationed onsite.
Like the Benghazi situation, people wanted to know what happened and how it could have happened. The Long Commission Report for the DoD, overseen by retired US Navy Admiral Robert Long, produced a laundry list of problems (by the way, Admiral Long's report took months to investigate a far more serious incident--about a year quicker than the Issa/Gowdy "investigation"), but the most serious problem was the lack of a clear mission in the first place (remind you of Bush's Iraq War of Choice? Republicans love blowing shit up but come up way too short on the whys and wherefores and what to do next.).
It was a clusterfuck of enormous proportion. Reagan gave a speech in which he sort of but not really accepted responsibility (Hillary Clinton accepted full responsibility for a situation involving the deaths of 4--not 300--people).
Then, Reagan decided to cut and run. You never hear Saint Ronald disciples bragging about that, do you?
But here's where it gets interesting. To his credit (once he woke up from his nap), Reagan was either told by someone in the know (NOT MacFarlane) that the whole thing was fucked from the get go, or he somehow intuited that this was just a very bad idea (congress' support for this adventure dwindled by the hour so there was that too). They had no idea what they were even doing there and no one thought that sending the USS New Jersey to drop a zillion tons of high explosives on rebel sites could possibly blow back on the US Marines stationed in Beirut. I mean, who could possibly have thought that?? Anyway, at this point, rather than dig his heels in and double down on the blood running in the streets and the body bags coming home by the dozen every day, Reagan did a smart thing. He backed away. He brought the Marines home and called it a very bad day.
Pretty smart, really.
The lesson was that we shouldn't have been there in the first place. Sure we were giving weapons and money to the Lebanese Army but that didn't mean we had to back their play--with US lives--if they couldn't hold off some well planned insurgency attacks (like we think we have to do today).
No one ever learned to a certainty who carried out the attacks. Wingnuts to this day demand that everyone acknowledge that it was Hezbollah, but the bombing took place in 1983. Hezbollah wasn't even organized until 1985, but why quibble over a few years? Facts, schmacts. But it's very likely that the rise of Hezbollah was triggered by this poorly planned and executed foreign adventure, so there's that to consider: the law of unintended consequences.
The point to all this is that Confederates have a far bigger example of poor support and planning resulting in the death of United States citizens than Benghazi, but they never even mention it. What they also never do is think to look at the lessons of Beirut. Clearly The Decider learned nothing from those lessons. Right now, today, another civil war is raging in Syria. I guarantee you that neither Ted Cruz nor Sean Inshannity nor any other war-minded winger pundit or pol can tell you exactly what's going on there, but they want to rush in with bombs and boots on the ground.
One of the few times they really should be asking "What would Ron do?" and they don't.
They're not long on historical precedent. Or smarts. Or guts. Because it takes a lot of guts to pull out when it's the right thing to do and to admit you've made a mistake. Just ask The Decider. Or Trey Gowdy.
A thought (or two) about the Matt Yglesias/Ed Kilgore/Marie Burns interaction on a possible malaise in the Democratic Party.
First, I think Yglesias is right about the problems Democrats have at the state levels. This is the bedrock, the wellspring of so much political power. Confederate control of half the states makes it possible for them to get away with all manner of electoral nonsense and legislative shenanigans that could take years and years to redress. Kilgore's point, that there is no magic bullet, no secret plan for this problem is well taken, but that doesn't mean that some kind of plan isn't necessary. And yes, the presidency is a vital part of the power structure, but a GOP controlled congress with a Democrat in the White House will not stem the obstructionist tide that has engulfed Washington (although Barack Obama has been able to a lot with very little, but we can't count on that the next time around).
I think Marie's point about the very real anger (even it's been manufactured by lies) and greed that abet the Confederate Party must be recognized. And I would add one more point about why Democrats need to come up with some kind of master plan to turn back the barbarians. Much has been made of the necessity for Republicans to show they can govern, and there's been a lot of chuckling about the fact that they haven't--in fact, they've demonstrated the exact opposite. The not so secret thing here is that they don't care about governing or "showing they can govern". They don't give a shit about it and neither do the people voting for them. To pull on the anger string that Marie loosened, they are too frustrated and furious for pragmatic considerations to steer their rudder away from the oncoming storms. They. Don't. Give. A. Shit. Look, they're ready to shut down the government. They jeopardize the nation's credit and reputation. A large number of those voting for these idiots WANT them to do these things.
And Confederate pols know this. They also know, as we routinely note, that few in the MSM will call them on lies, inconsistencies, hypocrisy, ineptness, or irresponsible and irrational platforms. They are fully aware that their constituents want blood. They want to see their enemies writhing on the floor. They don't care about governing, and all those pundits wagging their fingers about that are flat-out wrong, at least where many GOP voters are concerned.
The flip side of this is that that means there are a substantial number of voters who don't care how effective and how responsible and how mature Democrats appear.
They don't want mature. They want a schoolyard bully to punch those Matty Matures in the face. They don't want responsibility and political correctness. They want someone who will say "fag" and "nigger" and "whores" out loud in the living room in front of company.
This sort of behavior used to wither under a public spotlight, and crawl back into its hole. Not anymore.
I wish I could say "here's the answer to that" but I'm not sure I have the answer. But the first step surely is to acknowledge what we're up against and collectively figure out a way back to the real world.
On the other hand, there might be enough voters out there who are tired of the circus and the bullies and the irresponsible assholes; enough to help turn it around. All they need to do is to get off their lazy asses and VOTE!
Oh yes, and let's not forget all the election rigging, voter suppression, and vote stealing. It seems everyone only remembers that after they've lost. Again. Plenty of time to start attacking the thieves and democracy hating blackguards. Now. Before it's too late. Again.
Well, all is not doomy and gloomy.
CBS television is considering a new show that looks at what it would be like to live completely according to Biblical Law.
If you're waiting for the punch line there ain't one.
Apparently, a show based on Esquire editor A.J. Jacobs' book "The Year of Living Biblically" is in the works. No word on when or if it will be produced, but the show is being developed by "Big Bang Theory" star Johnny Galecki which makes me wonder.
Considering all the rules in the Bible about sex (pretty much every sexual act that is not "married couple, man on top, woman on bottom, get it over with quick and only to have kids") that require participants to be put to death, and considering all the sexual innuendo that's part and parcel of most TV sitcoms these days, how long will the thing last? The entire cast would have to be killed off by the end of the third episode. And if sex doesn't get them, Burger King will. Mixing dairy and meat is punishable by being burned at the stake so, I guess no cheeseburgers.
What if a cast member shaves? "Stone him!"
I dunno. But hey, they might have some interesting guest stars. Kim Davis could play herself. Oh wait....Westboro Baptist Christians are now saying that Kim Davis is a big ol' adulterous sinner who needs to die and is going straight to hell immediately thereafter. And since adultery is punishable by death in the Bible, they'd better get her cameo appearance done right quick.
Live by the Bible, die by the Bible, I always say.
(Oh, and here's a little extra giggle: the URL for the above linked USA Today story about Westboro Baptists hating on St. Kim of Redneckia has, at the end of its story link, the number 666. Deus ex machina or a digital media geek with a sense of humor? Gotta have something to laugh at these days...)
Ryan Lizza's piece is excellent. Early on he says: "The realists, who dominated the Presidency of Bush’s father, George H. W. Bush, emphasized diplomacy and coalitions over go-it-alone displays of force, and a skepticism about America’s ability to shape the internal dynamics of foreign countries. They also expressed a willingness to tolerate tyrannical regimes that advance U.S. interests or create greater stability in volatile regions of the world. The other camp—variously described as idealists, hawks, and neoconservatives—dominated the Presidency of Bush’s brother. They have more often called for the overthrow rather than the containment of hostile regimes, and they remain committed to exporting American-style democracy to places where it has never flourished."
So here we have the dilemma that we face today: Too many that don't know squat are putting in their dish of dimes into foreign policy issues and those that have some credibility disagree vehemently. I found this article so interesting and comprehensive. (Who knew that Baker would be looked at as a deterrent) Loved the part where Lizza is talking to Lindsey Graham who is eating nachos and gives the answer to a question about U.S. interventions: "Japan and Germany." That knocked my socks off.
And again, thanks to you, Akhilleus, for the long trek into historical facts.
There is some voter fraud in Australia, and I would assert, in most countries' elections, it's a matter of whether or not it impacts on the overall result. I can't see how ID stops a voter from running from one polling place to another to vote. A centralised, live voter list would be required to prevent multiple voting. Analysis of voter lists after elections in Australia shows a number (maybe 16,000 in the very close 2010 election, usually many fewer) of multiple votes. About half are attributed, by the Australian Electoral Commission (AEC), to errors - similar names, unfamiliarity with the voting system, confusion with postal votes, drunk(!), trying out the system, etc. I have heard that unions have driven bus loads of voters from polling station to polling station in close seats in close elections trying to influence an outcome. There are scrutineers, who are official volunteers, authorised to challenge (to the AEC official in charge of that station, not harass voters) dubious practices at polling stations. After the election, the rolls are examined, and if you have not voted exactly once you will probably receive a "Please explain" letter. If you can't explain to the satisfaction of the AEC, you will be fined, $20 for a first offence. Organised groups like unions are happy to pay these fines for voters. I'm sure the other sides have their own favourite attempts at election fraud. If it is deemed that the election in a particular seat was affected by fraud, the election can be held again. I haven't heard of that happening for politically motivated fraud. Perhaps the major political parties have a vested interest in keeping the process pretty straight.
It is relatively easy to vote in Australia, on a Saturday, early, by post, or absentee at any of many polling station. There just doesn't seem to be much voter fraud or panic about voter fraud.
There are so many simple solutions to the issues the confederates bring up. Compulsory voting, or compulsory registration and getting your name ticked off, as it really is, is a solution to many. In Australia, people just seem to accept that one should vote. And most people do - about 95% of registered voters according to the AEC. If somewhat fewer than 10% of people aren't registered, it's still high. You receive a letter from the AEC on your 18th birthday saying Happy Birthday, here's your voter registration form. The more people register and vote, the harder it is to get away with the kind of fraud that cons are "worried" about. I am a big fan of "compulsory voting".
I also agree with a sentiment expressed here recently that non citizen residents should be entitled to vote, as my son was in the UK. I am often a non citizen resident in one country or another, and feel my taxes and community involvement justify an opportunity to vote (no taxation without representation). I can see both sides of that argument though.
I am sorry this is so long and so late. I wanted to do some homework before replying. I hope it is not too obtuse or boring.
@ Gloria: To vote in either the UK or Australia one must register.
To register in the UK you need a national health insurance number.
To register in Australia you need a driver's licence or Australian passport.
Did you register to vote in Australia? What did you use for identification?
If you just walk up to a polling station and vote, how do they determine who you are? Just take your word for it? After all it is quite possible another Gloria, an Australian citizen, is going to be fined if she doesn't vote.
Thx