The Commentariat -- April 24, 2015
Internal links removed.
Scott Shane of the New York Times: "By most accounts, hundreds of dangerous militants have, indeed, been killed by drones, including some high-ranking Qaeda figures. But for six years, when the heavy cloak of secrecy has occasionally been breached, the results of some strikes have often turned out to be deeply troubling. Every independent investigation of the strikes has found far more civilian casualties than administration officials admit. Gradually, it has become clear that when operators in Nevada fire missiles into remote tribal territories on the other side of the world, they often do not know who they are killing, but are making an imperfect best guess." ...
... Greg Miller of the Washington Post: "... current and former U.S. counterterrorism officials said that Thursday’s disclosures [that U.S. drone had killed two Western hostages held by Al-Qaeda] undercut years of U.S. claims about the accuracy of the drone program and provided new ammunition for skeptics of administration policies that are supposed to require 'near certainty' that no civilians will be harmed. Despite [President] Obama’s equanimity in public, officials said that his reaction behind closed doors was considerably harsher. Obama’s advisers have for years told him that 'this would never happen, and now it did,' said a former senior U.S. counterterrorism official who spoke on the condition of anonymity. 'It is going to be a big deal.'” ...
... Juan Cole: "... as many as a fourth of those killed by US drone assassinations are non-combatants. Death by drone is inherently lawless. There is no constitutional or legal framework within which the US government can blow people away at will. For a while in the 1970s through 1990s, assassination was outlawed. Now it is back, but has taken this freakish form where bureaucrats thousands of miles away fire missiles from large toy airplanes." ...
... Jim Newell of Salon: "You would have thought yesterday, upon hearing President Obama’s admission that a U.S. drone strike in Pakistan killed an American held hostage by al-Qaida, would rank among the most serious (and legitimate) scandals of his presidency. A disaster of this nature was bound to happen, given the White House’s loose standards for green-lighting drone strikes. Yet the reaction was fairly ho-hum. Media coverage of the event and statements from members of Congress, allies and critics of the president alike, were basically, Well isn’t that sad. Also: It’s al-Qaida’s fault." ...
... CW: Why is Benghaaazi! -- where Libyans murdered four Americans -- a scandal of such magnitude that it has engendered a small industry of political & media "investigations" & hyperbole, but the U.S.'s drone-killings of three Americans & an Italian is not?
An Odd CYA Bill. Sahil Kapur of TPM: "The Senate's top five Republican leaders have cosponsored legislation to extend until 2017 the Obamacare insurance subsidies that may be struck down by the Supreme Court this summer. The legislation, offered by Sen. Ron Johnson (R-WI), one of the most politically vulnerable Senate incumbents in 2016, would maintain the federal HealthCare.gov tax credits at stake in King v. Burwell through the end of August 2017..... Such a move would seek to protect the GOP from political peril in the 2016 elections when Democrats would try to blame the party for stripping subsidies — and maybe insurance coverage — from millions of Americans in three dozen states.... The Johnson bill also contains sweeteners for conservatives which are non-starters for Democrats — it would repeal Obamacare's individual mandate and employer mandate, and remove federal rules requiring that insurance plans cover a minimum package of 'essential health benefits.'" ...
... Sarah Ferris of the Hill: "People who bought coverage through ObamaCare are generally more satisfied than those with other types of insurance, according to a new national survey." ... CW: That's funny, because Ron Johnson there says his bill as "a first step toward reversing the damage that Obamacare has inflicted on the American health care system." Because getting people coverage that they couldn't get before & that they like is pretty terrible.
Reuters: "Legislation to speed trade deals through the US Congress cleared a key [House] committee but low Democratic support signalled a looming battle over a Pacific trade pact central to President Barack Obama’s strategic shift toward Asia.... A companion 'fast-track' bill cleared a Senate panel on Wednesday and both are now ready for action in their respective chambers. Still, the way forward is likely to be treacherous with many of Obama’s fellow Democrats in opposition over worries that trade deals could harm jobs and the environment, leaving the White House to rely heavily on Republican support." ...
... David Nakamura of the Washington Post: "President Obama rallied his staunchest allies Thursday to support his free trade push in the face of stout Democratic opposition, arguing that his critics are wrong to say the deal will harm the middle class. Appearing before 200 members of Organizing for Action, the progressive advocacy group born from his campaign apparatus, Obama said the 12-nation Pacific Rim trade pact his administration is pushing for is far superior to past trade deals that labor unions have blamed for job losses. Specifically, he cited the North American Free Trade Agreement, signed by President Bill Clinton in 1993."
Emily Wax-Thibodeaux of the Washington Post: "One year after the largest scandal in the Department of Veterans Affairs history, a congressman says he will introduce the VA Accountability Act, which would give the new VA secretary sweeping authority to fire corrupt or incompetent employees. Rep. Jeff Miller’s (R-Fla.) bill comes in response to increasing frustration from lawmakers and veterans service organizations over the slow pace of reform in holding VA employees accountable for a litany of problems, from patient wait times to delays in benefits."
Emily Steel, et al., of the New York Times: "Facing intense regulatory scrutiny, Comcast is planning to abandon its $45 billion takeover of Time Warner Cable, people briefed on the matter said on Thursday, ending a bid that would have united the country’s two largest cable operators and reshaped the rapidly evolving video and broadband markets.... Had the deal been approved, the combined company would have controlled as much as 57 percent of the nation’s broadband market and just under 30 percent of pay television." ...
... Jonathan Mahler of the New York Times: "At the end of the day, the government’s commitment to maintaining a free and open Internet did not square with the prospect of a single company controlling as much as 40 percent of the public’s access to it. All the more so given the accelerating shift in viewing habits, with increasing numbers of consumers choosing streaming services like Netflix over traditional TV. In this sense, it didn’t really matter if Comcast and Time Warner’s cable markets overlapped. The real issue was broadband." Oh, P.S. Thank you again, John Oliver.
Mike DeBonis of the Washington Post: "Loretta E. Lynch’s long wait to become U.S. attorney general ended Thursday, with the Senate voting to confirm the veteran New York prosecutor’s nomination five months after President Obama submitted it to Congress. Ten Republicans joined the Senate’s 44 Democrats and two independents in supporting Lynch’s confirmation, a margin slightly wider than expected ahead of the vote.... Twenty Republicans supported a procedural move earlier Thursday to close debate and proceed to Lynch’s confirmation. But only half of them voted to confirm her in the final vote: Kelly Ayotte (N.H.) Thad Cochran (Miss.), Susan Collins (Maine), Jeff Flake (Ariz.), Lindsey O. Graham (S.C.), Orrin G. Hatch (Utah), Ron Johnson (Wis.), Mark Kirk (Ill.) and Rob Portman (Ohio). [Leader Mitch] McConnell joined them after expressing reservations in the weeks leading up to the vote." (Also linked yesterday afternoon.) ...
... The New York Times story, by Jennifer Steinhauer, is here. ...
... Tom McCarthy of the Guardian: Democrats react to Lynch's confirmation.
Adam Goldman of the Washington Post: "David H. Petraeus ... pleaded guilty Thursday afternoon to a misdemeanor charge of mishandling classified materials he provided to his former mistress and biographer. Petraeus will be spared prison time but will face a two-year probationary period and a $100,000 fine.... The deal angered FBI agents who worked on the two-year investigation and who thought Petraeus should have been treated more harshly because of the information in the notebooks and what they considered his lack of candor while running the CIA. When FBI agents confronted him in his CIA office in October 2012, Petraeus said he had never provided classified information to [his lover Paula] Broadwell, prosecutors said. Making a false statement to a federal law enforcement agent during an investigation is a felony, a crime punishable by up to five years in prison." (Also linked yesterday afternoon.) ...
... The New York Times story, by Michael Schmidt & Matt Apuzzo, is here. "The sentencing was the end of a leak investigation that embarrassed Mr. Petraeus and created bitter disputes inside the Justice Department about whether he was receiving too much leniency from Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr.... Giving special treatment to Mr. Petraeus was a double standard, some argued, particularly when the Justice Department has led an unprecedented crackdown on leaks and prosecuted several low- and midlevel officials for disclosing secrets to reporters." (Also linked yesterday afternoon.) ...
... CW: Pardon my conspiratorial musings, but I wonder if the delay in Lynch's confirmation had something to do with Holder's decision to go easy on the GOP's favorite general. Maybe they feared Lynch would throw the book at loverboy.
** Tom Donnelly, in Slate, on John Bingham, who edited the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment to protect "any person."
Annals of "Journalism," Ctd.
Charles Pierce: "It appears that the 'exclusive' ratfking arrangement entered into by The New York Times and Washington Post has brought us all back to the Mena Airport again, and that it has done so by strict application of the Clinton Rules, first devised in the mid-1990's, as the nation's elite political press turned laundering oppo research into a smoothly running machine. The very first Clinton Rule, established by most of the original reporting into the Whitewater non-scandal, is that if you can blow enough smoke, you can say there's fire." Pierce raps the Washington Post story, linked here yesterday, about Bill Clinton's big speaking fees, some of which came from contributors to the Clinton Foundation WHILE HILLARY CLINTON WAS SECRETARY OF STATE. "Wealthy interests might use their wealth to 'build friendly relations' with politicians? In 2015? Has anyone told Anthony Kennedy?"
Susie Madrak in Crooks & Liars on the New York Times story, linked here yesterday, about Russians taking over a Canadian uranium company that operates in the U.S.: "This story (and the ones that will surely follow) has no solid evidence. It is nothing but innuendo. The Times has taken a book written by someone who is quite specifically paid to bring down Democrats, and has a long history of distorting and making up facts, and they're using it as a template -- adding no informed context (like the number of agencies who had to sign off on this deal) and no evidence that Hillary Clinton did anything to get this deal passed."
Presidential Race
Lauren Gambino of the Guardian: "Having pledged to be the champion of everyday Americans, presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton came out swinging during a speech in New York on Thursday night that expanded her personal doctrine – 'women’s rights are human rights' – to the plight of mothers, fast food workers, immigrants, retirees, students, gay and transgender people and victims of sexual abuse. In her first big speech since declaring her presidential run, Clinton took jabs at Hobby Lobby for opposing employer-covered contraception, chided the World Economic Forum for not exactly being a 'hotbed of feminist thought' and slammed Republicans for stalling the nomination of Loretta Lynch, whom the US Senate confirmed on Thursday after a lengthy delay." ...
... New York Times Editors: "The increasing scrutiny of the [Clinton] foundation has raised several points that need to be addressed by Mrs. Clinton and the former president. These relate most importantly to the flow of multimillions in donations from foreigners and others to the foundation, how Mrs. Clinton dealt with potential conflicts as secretary of state and how she intends to guard against such conflicts should she win the White House." ...
... Jonathan Chait on "the disastrous Clinton post-presidency": "... the best-case scenario is bad enough: The Clintons have been disorganized and greedy. The news today about the Clintons all fleshes out, in one way or another, their lack of interest in policing serious conflict-of-interest problems that arise in their overlapping roles.... The Obama administration wanted Hillary Clinton to use official government email. She didn’t. The Obama administration also demanded that the Clinton Foundation disclose all its donors while she served as Secretary of State. It didn’t comply with that request, either.... The Clintons’ charitable initiatives were a kind of quasi-government run by themselves, which was staffed by their own loyalists and made up the rules as it went along.... Their experience running their own privatized mini-state has been a fiasco." ...
... Alan Rappeport of the New York Times: "Representative Trey Gowdy, chairman of the House committee investigating the 2012 Benghazi attacks, is pushing ahead with plans to make Hillary Rodham Clinton testify further about the attacks and her use of a private email account as secretary of state." (Also linked yesterday afternoon.)
** ... Zombies! Paul Krugman: "A deep attachment to long-refuted ideas seems to be required of all prominent Republicans.... In the world of Republican politics ... voodoo’s grip has never been stronger.... Pundits will try to pretend that we’re having a serious policy debate, but, as far as issues go, 2016 is already set up to be the election of the living dead."
Russell Berman of the Atlantic provides a handy list of billionaire donors & their favorite puppet presidential candidates. ...
... Digby, in Salon: "The only problem for the billionaires is that these candidates all have to eventually perform in a series of tryouts we call 'party primaries' where the audience, also known as voters, gets a chance to weigh in. They may not agree with the billionaires’ choice, no matter which lucky fella they anoint in their auditions. Democracy is such an inconvenience that way. These rich donors obviously believe that founder John Jay had it right when he said, 'Those who own the country ought to govern it.' Unfortunately for them, he was outvoted." ...
... The Two Faces of Marco. McKay Coppins of BuzzFeed: "Even as Rubio labors to publicly distance himself from the [immigration] legislation [which he initiated & is] so loathed by conservative primary voters, he and his aides have privately highlighted [his immigration reform initiative] in his resume when soliciting support from the deep-pocketed donors in the party’s more moderate business wing."
Maggie Haberman of the New York Times: "Senator Ted Cruz has positioned himself as a strong opponent of same-sex marriage, urging pastors nationwide to preach in support of marriage as an institution between a man and a woman, which he said was 'ordained by God.' But on Monday night, at a reception for him at the Manhattan apartment of two prominent gay hoteliers, the Texas senator and Republican presidential hopeful struck quite a different tone. During the gathering, according to two people present, Mr. Cruz said he would not love his daughters any differently if one of them was gay. He did not mention his opposition to same-sex marriage, saying only that marriage is an issue that should be left to the states." ...
... Digby: "I get why some rich gay people would be Republicans. They are clearly rich first and gay second. But why any of them would support a nutcase like Ted Cruz is beyond me.... It's not a problem for someone like Ted Cruz to do this, however, because his voters all know that he really truly hates gay people and they are happy for him to take their money to use against them." ...
... Colby Itkowitz of the Washington Post: "So far this year, Cruz has missed 25 percent of all Senate votes, according to data tracked by Congressional Quarterly. He has a voting participation score of 74.8 percent. By comparison, Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), who also has his eye on the White House, has voted 81.6 percent of the time. And Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), another presidential candidate, has managed to vote 98.9 percent of the time this year. If Paul can juggle both, why can’t Cruz?"
Walker Finds Another Way to Keep His Foot out of His Mouth. Jason Stein of the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel: "Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker said Wednesday that he won't discuss how to pay for federal programs for retirees unless and until he becomes a formally declared presidential candidate."
CW: As a result of my linking to stories on Li'l Randy's uncool Ray Ban eyegear, Ray Ban has latched onto me & is now e-mailing me promotional material. If libertarian Randy were really serious about freeeedom! he would not have let Ray Ban find & harass me.
Beyond the Beltway
Peter Hermann & Josh Hicks of the Washington Post: "Protests over the arrest and death of Baltimore resident Freddie Gray continued for a sixth day on Thursday, with about 200 people circling the grassy plaza in front of a cordoned-off City Hall and then marching in the streets at the evening rush hour."
Elliot Hannon of Slate: "Marissa Holcomb, the five-months-pregnant manager of [a Popeyes franchise in Houston, Texas], was fired from her job this week for refusing to pay back money taken from the cash register during an armed robbery three weeks ago." Under public pressure, the franchisee later offered to un-fire her. CW: If only Popeyes were unionized.
Jenna Portnoy of the Washington Post: "Thomas K. Norment Jr., the majority leader of the Virginia Senate, has acknowledged a relationship with a lobbyist whose firm regularly pushed for legislation that Norment voted for and, in two cases, sponsored directly. Norment ... admitted the relationship while defending himself against allegations of wrongdoing made by a former legal client who tried to blackmail him. The allegations prompted federal investigators to review the relationship, but they closed the matter without bringing criminal charges."
Way Beyond
Daniela Deane of the Washington Post: "This tidal wave of humanity landing in Italy, seeking shelter, is now a daily occurrence — and the country is struggling under the enormous weight. Italian officials are deeply concerned that the approaching summer, with its calmer weather, could bring tens of thousands more migrants to their beleaguered shores."
Share Article
Reader Comments (17)
Politicians are certain that Hillary has been influenced by foreign donations to the Clinton Foundation that is dedicated to helping people.
These same politicians would have you believe that they are not influenced by secret donation to them by organizations wanting influence.
They should whisper their accusations to each other and hope none of the stenographer press points out their hypocrisy.
Here's an interesting piece by Ahmed Benchemsi: Indivisible Atheists: The Spread of disbelief in the Arab world.
http://www.newrepublic.com/article/121559/rise-arab-atheists
I read the Charlie Pierce piece (linked above) which took apart the hypocrisy of the press in implying that because the Clinton's might have gained some material advantage from the Foundation, this made them unique. Because no other politicians campaigns are benefitting from wealthy donors (!). I continued from the article to read some of the comments and learned an interesting fact that I had never known: the original name of Citizens United. Recall that the case was about the amount of money spent on a movie targeting Hillary Clinton. But the full name of the group as originally founded by Roger Stone was longer: Citizens United Not Timid (think of the acronym). I did confirm this on Wikipedia. The point is, there is a whole industry of people, many of them pretty slimy, devoted to bringing the Clintons down. As Pierce says, the game is to blow lots of smoke to the point were people begin to write/think, "there must be fire." The fact the Bill Clinton, as Marie pointed out yesterday, has long had a "sleaze factor" has merely eased the path of the anti-Clinton groups.
Victoria,
I think the commenter on Charlie's site is a bit confused by the myriad hate groups aligned against the Clintons. I wouldn't be surprised if there were dozens of groups collecting money to smear Chelsea's baby, just to stay in practice.
The group Citizens United Not Timid (yeah, douchebags, we get it) is separate from the other hate group Citizens United, which got the Supreme Court to support its goals of spreading disinformation and lies and, of course, pretending that the First Amendment somehow supports the buying and selling of elections.
Citizens United is the group created by hypocritical asshole David Bossie, who once criticized the Democratic Party for catering to special interests, this from the guy who handed the Republican Party on a solid gold platter to special interests to buy off piecemeal.
Citizens United Not Timid was created by perennial GOP prolapsed hemorrhoid Roger Stone who got his political start working for CREEP. His claim to fame was sending money to Nixon's political foes from invented groups like "Young Socialists of America" then calling in the scoop to right leaning newspapers. He was fired by Bob Dole when his role as a Nixon dirty tricks artist came out, but guess who was thrilled to hire him? Saint Ronnie, of course. Genial, horse back riding asshat himself.
I've been on a balancing kick of late against the "Both Sides Do It" meme. Yesterday I mentioned how if a Democrat stubs his toe, it's a scandal, but if a Republican crashes the economy, it's no big deal. I defy anyone to point out to me anyone remotely like David Bossie and Roger Stone working for the Democrats. I don't mean tough in-fighters, I mean out and out lying sacks of shit who work day and night coming up with dirty tricks and insidious, evil-ass bullshit to throw at their opponents. Can you name me one--a single one--Democratic talk radio or TV personality who goes out day after day and lies their ass off about the other side? There aren't any. But on the Republican side, there are hordes and hordes of these guys. You can't even cross the room without stumbling over half a dozen of them.
But both sides do it, right?
Marie - why Benghazi but not the droning of Weinstein? Rhetorical question, right? But just for fun, the answer is- Ms. Rodham Clinton was not in the decision loop in January when the "fire for effect" go-ahead went ahead.
PD,
The article you link on atheism amongst Arabs calls to mind the unnatural horrors wrought by religion. For all the good things religious impulses have done for humans, organized religion has largely bequeathed us pain, suffering, bigotry, chaos, wars, and bloodshed, and scant little of the love, harmony, acceptance, and generosity of spirit most religions promise in their ad copy.
Not to be overly John Lennon-ish here (not that there's anything wrong with that), but just imagine a world without organized religion. No cutting off heads for Allah. No Shocking and Awe-ing for Jesus. No groups telling other people they can't marry the one they love, how to live their life, or whether they'll be damned for all eternity if they don't knuckle under right fucking now.
It wouldn't be a perfect plan for peace, of course; terrible things are born of other groups which have no truck with religion, but we wouldn't have religious wars or the kind of inane legislative battles that attempt to force one particular set of religious beliefs on everyone else.
But then again, what would we do for something as entertaining as the War on Christmas every year?
Thanks for setting me straight Akhileus! And going on to make an excellent point :-)
Whoa, whoa, hold on there Hoss.
So I see where wingers are pulling their hair out because the Clintons are taking money from people who might want a favor or two down the line.
Yeah, that surely looks pretty bad. Especially because no Republicans, repeat NO Republicans would ever think of doing that. I mean, that shit is Just Not Done!
It all must be a coincidence.
Here's where I consult the Scale of Funny. Situations and statements are tested against this hierarchy of humorosity to see exactly what level of guffawment they might incur. So you have your mildly amusing stuff, which moves up to droll, then risible, followed by knee slappingly funny, to ludicrously stupid hilarity, and finally to sweeping gales of uncontrollable cachinnation.
The last is what you get when you compare phony Confederate horror at any possibility of a quid pro quo on their side for the billions their marionettes rake in from plutocratic puppet masters.
To wit:
The Kochs: engines of environmental death on a par with burnt off ozone layers. Years of offenses for which they've been forced to pay millions in penalties.
Scott Walker: Bought-off Koch stooge.
Now, Confederates, let's see if we can follow the bouncing ball of cash, shall we? Kochs give Walker buckets of money. Kochs hate environmentalists. This week on Earth Day, Walker announces that he's going to fire a large chunk of Wisconsin's environmental monitoring staff. 57 positions cut for....something, something, budget, something. Get it?
Still can't see it? Well then, can you hear this?
(Howls of derisive laughter, Bruce.)
Oh, and by the way, thank you Marie, for the link to the Slate story about John Bingham and his role in setting up Nino, Slammin' Sammy, Killer Clarence, and any other Supreme who might have tried playing word games with their reading of the Fourteenth Amendment (probably the Confederates' most despised amendment) to deny the Constitutionality of marriage (as a reminder, I don't use "same-sex" as a descriptor of marriage anymore. It's either marriage or it's not. Let's not play their bullshit word games anymore).
Without Bingham's prescient and very humanistic editing, the haters might have had themselves a big victory. That's not to say that the above named begrudgers won't vote against marriage, but they should have a time of it getting anyone else to go along with them based on the exact wording of the Fourteenth.
It was a most satisfying addition to our knowledge base of Constitutional lore.
Thankee!
Very interesting (and disturbing) article from NYT regarding how one wounded European Muslim immigrant is sucked into understanding the lure of ISIS.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/25/world/europe/victim-of-extremists-comes-to-understand-the-siren-song-of-isis.html?ref=world
The man appears to be someone we would all value as an immigrant and/or a fellow citizen who is on his way to making a very good life in the West. But then he tells us that things are not so simple...
43 years ago Clarence David Moore rejected the North Carolina state teat preferring, as a true American, to strike out on his own and be self-supporting thru good times and bad. His self sufficiency saved the tax payers of North Carolina over $1,000,000 during his absence. Today, sick and bedridden by stroke he asks only for the same consideration he would have received as a state prisoner. Medical care to alleviate the pain of his afflictions. Surely no budget conscious American could deny his request. If only more Americans emulated Mr Moore the future of your social programs would be secure.
cowichan
Can you fill in the story of Mr. Moore's opting out?
Cowichan,
I have to admit to some confusion here. I can't tell if you're serious or not about this guy Moore, who has been a fugitive since 1975. His decision to, as you say, eschew the public teat, involved several jail breaks. This is your idea of the actions of a true American? And where does that million dollar figure come from? According to the North Carolina Dept. of Public Safety, it costs the state an average of just under $30K to house an inmate, and that's current cost. Since Moore was sentenced to 7 years back in the early 70's I'll go out on a limb and guess his incarceration, had he stuck around (and I'm not so sure about describing a prison stay as living off the public teat) his court ordered "housing" would have been a lot less than $100K at 70's prices.
Don't get me wrong, I feel bad for the guy. Sounds like he's had a tough time, especially lately, and the charge of larceny over $200 certainly doesn't seem to lump him in with murderers and rapists, but I'm still not sure what your point is. At this point he will most likely get the "same consideration as a state prisoner" since that's what he is now.
Which is why I'm thinking that your suggestion that more Americans emulate Mr. Moore (go on the lam for 40 years?) must be an attempt at humor.
It's just not all that clear. Maybe my Scale of Funny is on the fritz today.
If so, I apologize for not getting the joke.
@cowichan: You must be kidding. During his entire life on the lam, Moore was not contributing to society the way most of us do. Of course he paid some taxes, like sales & gas taxes, but he wasn't paying income tax, he wasn't paying into Social Security, he wasn't paying into Medicare. He didn't have a driver's license, so he didn't carry liability insurance as we all are required to do. I'm sure others can think of other civic contributions we make -- whether we want to or not -- that Moore didn't make. Ever.
Now he wants us to take care of him. And we will. Mind you, we're not just paying for his medical care -- services he didn't pay for thru FICA deductions as the rest of us do -- but for his room & board, too, & any other sundry goods or services he might need. Moore didn't save taxpayers a dime -- and he certainly didn't save us $1MM, as you claim. People like Moore are a drain on society, in more ways than one. Your assertions don't make sense. The guy's a leech, as I suggested.
Marie
I assume cowichan's tongue was firmly in his cheek; if not I have to join Marie's and Akhilleus' stance.
@Ak: re: your response to Arab's invisible atheists: I often think what this world would be like without religion, but it was inevitable that man needed something higher than himself from the very beginning when scientific discoveries were still centuries away. Remember the Mel Brooks' bit from his 2000 Year Old Man when asked to explain the origin of God.
He admits that early humans first adored "a guy named Phil, and for a time
we worshipped him. Phil "was big, and mean, and he could break you in two
with his bare hands!" One day, a thunder storm came up and a lightening bolt
hit Phil. "We gathered around and saw that he was dead. then we said to one
another, 'There's something bigger than Phil!"
and thus it began–––and lo, the heavens opened and....
By the way--I responded to your last comment on yesterday's thread.
Speaking of leeches, how about a little meth for sex plan concocted by a GOP staffer? How low can your go?
http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/citydesk/2015/04/24/feds-senate-staffer-confesses-in-alleged-sex-for-drugs-scheme/
There has been a great deal of concern over the collateral damage of drone attacks indicating a strong feel for the value of human lives by society and the media.
We carpet bombed the women and children of Vietnam for several years and probably killed a million of them. Only a few of us protested. Is that because they were "slopes"?
Considering Guantanamo and the "rendition" of prisoners to foreign torture and the destruction of Iraq, we certainly have selective morality.