USA Track and Field, by way of the New York Times
Synchronized running at the U.S. Olympic trials (it's a tie).
Waiting, waiting, waiting on Supreme Court's health reform ruling -- could be this morning around 10.
SCOTUS Watch #3: Live sentences for juveniles.
After 2008 briefings on financial crisis, leaders in Congress minded their wallets.
NYT: Issa Says No Evidence of White House Cover-Up in Guns Case
University of Virginia rallies for ousted president.
Muslim Brotherhood candidate wins Egyptian presidency, says he'll represent everyone.
Syria says no hostility toward Turkey after shooting down Turkish plane.
Leave a Comment:
You guys keep ignoring the 3rd major SCOTUS decision we're still waiting on: constitutionality of juvenile life without parole sentences.
@TheRitaPhD -- actually, I just added that to the in-house note. I'll throw a link into the post, too.
You added the link but headed it "Live sentences" rather than "Life sentences." And, fir those who want to follow the discussion live, SCOTUSblog requests you use http://scotusblog.wpengine.com directly rather than linking through the site.
Juvenile life sentences were declared unconstitutional.
As far as we know, Nixon was the only President to use a claim of executive privilege to hide wrongdoing. We came to learn what he was trying to hide. What is it that Issa & Boehner even claim that DOJ is trying to hide? Are the republicans even able to articulate that much?
If the tactic was used three times under Bush, we can assume that those three times were successful, at least to some extent. And, given what's been going on in Mexico for the past several years, we can also assume that, if the gang that killed agent Terry hadn't used an F&F gun, they would have used another readily available gun to shoot him. THEREFORE, this F&F operation was F'ed up in the way it was carried out, not in it's goals or policy. What then, does Issa even claim to be the role of Congressional oversight? Why do they even claim that correction goes beyond ATF? That agency has already fired some supervisors, and may have revised their procedures or guidelines for conducting these types of operations. In other words, the law enforcement agency has addressed the way it conducts its own operations on the ground. Do legislators know more about undercover and/or tracking operations than the officers who do it professionally? How is Issa going to legislate corrective measures when he doesn't know the first thing about them? Is there any proper role for legislative oversight here? Has Issa even tried to articulate a proper goal for legislative oversight?
Are these ideas too arcane? Why aren't Democrats and political analysts asking these questions?
Darrell Issa took a nosedive into the shallow end of the politi-pool this weekend. He landed on the bottom of he shallow pool with such force that he'll just be seen as a leader of "The Flathead Society" henceforth. Cudos to "This Week" on ABC.
If it goes down, I am still in the same spot. Didn't have any before, won't have any now.
St. Louis, Mo. - Everyone can wait all they want for our ill-illustrious Supreme Court ruling on the AHCA. This is the worst USSC in the history of this country. Better than half of it is owned by the Koch brothers, Karl Rove and the like. There is no honor in that branch of government any longer since the Supreme Court ruled corporations could spend unlimited amounts of money to elect and defeat candidates.. They have an agenda that is driven by Republicans and their benefactors.
If I gave 5 or 10 dollars to a campaign, I would be giving because I believe in the message of the candidate. If I gave 100 million, I would definitely want something in return.
Waiting on the SC decision on the AHCA? Don't hold your breath. If you were a justice on the SC, and your decision would be based on your deep pocket friends, your Teapublican Party, and how they wanted you to vote, how would you vote?
And that's how the SC decision on the AHCA will turn out.
Interesting talk on CNBC about health care this morning. They were interviewing Scott Gottlieb MD, NY School of Medicine, Resident Fellow, American Enterprise Institute.
They were talking about the Supreme Court Decision - hoping it will strike down the individual mandate.
According to Dr. Gottlieb, innovations in health care only come out of venture backed companies and Obamacare penalizes the return of capital. If the "margin" is only 10%, the Venture capitalists won't get involved because they won't make enough money.
According to Dr. Gottlieb, most health care costs are taken up by services like being in the hospital when they should be for "innovation" and "technology". He also said people should be paying more for healthcare and should be making "tougher" choices.
The dingbat host, whatever her name is made the comment: "If innovation keeps people alive longer, doesn't that just increase costs?" (Meaning old people should just die and not use healthcare?) The doctor stated that hospitals don't do innovation, venture capital does.
She also said SHE never makes decisions about paying for healthcare, that her insurance company or the government does that. She also things that instead of paying "fees for services" we should pay "fees for outcomes"????? The doctor said you can only do that for certain situations.
They also talked about catastrophic insurance. Instead of providing it, people should have a choice on whether to buy it or go without it. (Now how many people do YOU know who will know in advance if they need "catastrophic" insurance???? Should we be polishing our ESP skills?)
The are also VERY MUCH in favor of vouchers. (If the voucher doesn't cover your costs, it will suck to be YOU!!)
Those Venture Capitalists (like Romney) HAVE to make their money and they REALLY DON'T care if YOU live or die!!!
Listening to major corporatist media discuss Healthcare Reform is an exercise in frustration. I cite the C. Hayes program this weekend and their discussion of "The Affordable Healthcare Act." It is no wonder that Americans don't understand the legislation because the media is almost clueless, beyond headline awareness, as to the inner workings of the legislation. It's also clear why Americans don't tend to respect major corporate "news" media. When it comes to Healthcare Reform , the major corporate media tends to be out to lunch ... supplied by their corporate sponsors. Gobama 2012!
What a great photo, it depicts an enormous amount of strength.
Extreme right people say this form of being Christian is something new. I don’t think so. When Jesus was walking around teaching, it is a fact Mary Magdalene traveled with Jesus and knew more about what Jesus meant than the men did. And in reading her gospel that is true and she would be known as keeping Christianity going. In addition, to be known as the Apostle of the Apostles. Plus the other women, who went around to teach about Jesus thus these women were disciples of Jesus. Women had a very major role in Christianity. And than of course there was the Cathars, which was based on equality, rights, and freedoms of all people, especially women. It was only when narrow-minded men looked to corrupt what it was to be Christian, which is the acceptance of all people. Plus these narrow-minded men craved power, were arrogant, hypocrites, greedy, deceivers, and corrupt. These men are the ones who sought to take from the Cathars what was theirs by violence, misery, despair, and death. This is just a revival and bringing back what is really meant to be that people have really needed for too long, instead of blind narrow-mindedness.
Deb: I gather that you have posted here by mistake, that you wanted to post under the Bill Donahue thread in "TWIG." At any rate, the whole Mary Magdalene hypothesis is highly attractive. Certainly a very strong case can be made that women had a lot more power and authority in early Christianity than the organized Church later wanted to acknowledge. It is just about universally admitted (outside the evangelical world) that the so-called "Pastoral Epistles" written under Paul's name--which describe the church as "man's world--were written after Paul. Likewise the notorious "women should keep silent in church" passage (I Corinthians 14:34) is probably a later interpolation (this conclusion is based on the writing styles used in the Greek text). And it is an historical fact that the identification of Mary Magdalene as a penitent prostitute was codified only in the 6th century (and was retracted by the Roman Catholic Church in 1969).
I'll also grant that the very existence of the Gospel of Mary Magdalene (which has, regrettably, only survived in incomplete form) testifies that women enjoyed a high place in at least some early Christian communities. How authoritative this ancient text is as history, however, may be a matter of debate (as is true, to be honest, of the four canonical gospels).
I don't know a whole lot about the Cathars, although I have stuck my nose in some Cathar writings (found in Barnstone's "Gnostic Bible") and am familiar with the common interpretation that they were (in a sense) progressives who got crushed by armed force.
I suppose what is really interesting is how ancient history (and legends) continually get reinterpreted in order to meet modern needs.
Modern needs would not be the issue here, since if someone had direct experience of certain religious or spiritual aspects than they could speak the truth on what it was about. Thus this would be nothing to do with modern needs, but dwelled in the truth and to look for further truth.
“I suppose what is really interesting is how ancient history (and legends) continually get reinterpreted in order to meet modern needs.” Yea, you see that is the point of this also in which certain Christian church’s have re-interpreted to a very narrow-minded view of how things really were with Jesus and that there was women that were Apostles and disciples of Jesus. And it is high time we really do get down to the truth of how it was. Because how can one sit there and condemn groups of people, when they have had spiritual or religious experiences. It would be hypocritical of these churches to deny these people and act like they were bad, especially when Jesus has never said anything bad about them. Jesus stated what he liked and disliked, you cannot get anymore simpler than that, because he has said it right out. And that repeating pattern of craving power, greed, arrogance, deceivers, hypocrites, and corruption keeps happening. Why is that? Could it be we do hopefully finally get down to how to be a good Christian, instead of causing hatred. I find it funny that every time the issue comes up to who and what Jesus had a dislike for excuses are made to keep justifying their bad behavior.
On the Bill Maher program last week Doctor Maddow finally came out and admitted "Dude, I'm not even a Democrat." With all due respect this confirms what Dems. have known since 2010. Dude, Maddow's not a Democrat. She has stated that she's a progressive but dude, she's not a progressive either. It has been speculated that she's more like a 1950's Republican. Maddow herself quipped that she's "Left of Mao." She also said she's gonna meet her real self in a dark alley sometime, and there's gonna be a fight. So, the question remains, Who the heck ... is... Doctor Maddow. Does she know? I think she just enjoys smacking politicos around of all stripes. Lately she's been relegated to her own private and secluded island. Doctor Maddow at this point is a corporate enigma, who is mostly on the left and doesn't much discuss her leanings to the right. She enjoys being mysterious, and frankly imperious. At any rate, now we know. Dude, she ain't a Democrat. She's an enigma who leans to the left. I think she's "The Catbird."
Reveal,
OK, I think I understand now. You are trying to "peg" Rachel into some group you can understand. I really don't think that's possible with Rachel. She's ONE SMART lady and pretty much a "freethinker"! Rhodes Scholars typically are! I watch her show because she brings up interesting issues but I don't let her make up my mind for me!! I prefer to consider what she says and then agree or disagree!
I'm pretty easy to peg - I'm pretty much a Rockefeller Republican which means I can no longer call myself a Republican given what this party stands for today, but that DOES NOT make me a Democrat or a "liberal" - pretty much it makes me an independent!! If you REALLY NEED to peg Rachel - independent works as good as anything else!!
Well, now we know she's not a Democrat. Doctor Rachel Maddow is not a Democrat, and she lives in the magic box in MSNBC Land. She's finally informed America of what Democrats allready know. She's not a Democrat.