Today's edition of quick hits:
* With Sen. Rand Paul's (R-Ky.) old-school filibuster of John Brennan's CIA nomination approaching its sixth hour, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) has delayed the confirmation vote until tomorrow.
* Gabrille Giffords' simple, powerful message: "Be bold. Be courageous. Please support background checks."
* Syria: "Syria's civil war entangled the United Nations peacekeeping operation in the disputed Golan Heights between Syria and Israel on Wednesday, when 30 armed fighters for the insurgency seized a group of 20 peacekeepers investigating a damaged observation post and threatened to treat them as enemy prisoners if Syrian forces remained in the area."
* Arkansas: "In the sharpest challenge yet to Roe v. Wade, Arkansas adopted Wednesday what is by far the country's most restrictive ban on abortion, at 12 weeks of pregnancy, around the time that a fetal heartbeat can be detected by abdominal ultrasound."
* Be afraid: "The amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere underwent one of its biggest single-year jumps ever in 2012, according to researchers at the National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration."
* A surprising loosening of air-travel restrictions: "TSA Administrator John Pistole announced Tuesday that airline passengers will be able to carry pocketknives with blades less than 2.36 inches long and less than half an inch wide. Souvenir baseball bats, golf clubs and other sports equipment also will be permitted starting next month."
* Ta-Nehisi Coates turned down a New York Times offer to become a regular columnist. That's a shame -- he's one of the greatest writers I've ever seen and the more influence he has, the better.
* It's awfully tough to take that new "Republican-friendly sequestration poll" from ABC seriously.
* Jon Kyl becoming a lobbyist is one of the least surprising stories I've seen in a while.
* Remember when Tucker Carlson said senators soliciting prostitutes was "none of our business"? Simon Maloy does.
* There are at least two remarkable things about Bill O'Reilly's on-air conniption last night. One, while he was screaming about "lies," he was in fact lying. Two, as Jon Chait noted, it "captures the essence of [Fox News] so perfectly that you need never watch anything on it again. It's all here. At the center, you have an old conservative white guy who is enraged about a fact that exists only in his addled brain. At his side, there's a blonde sidekick who nods along with him but doesn't get in the way. And ready to absorb his anger is the network's Emmanuel Goldstein figure, feebly attempting a rebuttal that quickly devolves into a sniveling plea for civility."
Anything to add? Consider this an open thread.
Leave a Comment:
We can argue to death (death) the hypothetical, remote possibility that law enforcement would use whatever means (drone) to end a criminal or terrorist situation. Once we follow the laws we have, and the proceedings needed, as we hope to always consistently do, the law enforcement can take whatever means available to terminate the situation. There are no if, and, or, or buts about it.
Thus to engage in false debate, a debate that has but one side, is an act against civilization. Why? It not just a matter of wasting time, it is wasting time, the intention is only to waste time, because the one sided debate cannot preempt such an action! The hypothetical question answers itself, yes we can end a situation, and everyone accepts that the deed had to be done. It is no different than any other law enforcement activity.
This is always the nature of one sided arguments, one side states an absurd, unrealistic, unachievable position and the rest of world can argue the issue to eternity, just to waste time.
If you choose biblical restrictions, or humanitarian restrictions, or morally superior positions, but none of those meets the needs of enforcement apprehension. So the argument against killing varies against that of murder, no difference between fists, clubs, knifes, and firearms or any other means available (drone).
So what is your position? The constitution has rules reflected in criminal law enforcement, do you really expect that any details in law could be created that would anticipate every situation? If so then I am pleased to inform you that laws have never been written this form of open-end-ness.
So this drone debate is false, and can never even be considered useful, but is there another constitutional debate that occurs constantly that might, just might save a few thousands of real lives, that is not so very far is beyond reason?
Yes, it perfectly reasonable to have restrictions and reregulation on fire arms, and the same (anarchical) crowd that rises falsely against drone armaments for law enforcement allows, encourages and proves the means of killing, mayhem and murder in false defense of the same constitution. The blood is everywhere, innocents, infants, grandparents sleeping in bed?
So far we have the hypothetical case of a natural (technological) extension to law enforcement with no current examples, and the case of tens of thousands of dead or maimed people, without the slightest chance of being addressed, while it is on the congressional plate before us.
We will now illustrate the two issues together. We have another perennial debate in this country, again it is the "one sided" argument, where there is a position on one side and an endless resolved, indeterminate, discussion on the other that does not show any sign of being satisfied. This debate goes even beyond its own bounds because; if the wishes of the proponents would win the day; the argument would resume the very next day without one bit of progress.
Let's be gentile in a rough sort of way. It has been said that having wide spread availability of guns without restrictions, without registrations, without notice of conditions and without limits is just version of legal post birth abortion or death panels for the aged? This is classical one sided debate that rages and will never ever be resolved. The protagonist and the antagonist will simple exploit the situation, for political gain and never ever advance a solution that addressed the problem.
Exploiting a perennial unresolved situation just for political gain, this is corruption of politics far beyond the usefulness of politics.
Advancing the abortion argument, would require the possibility of personhood not just during embryogenesis, but include the unfertilized. Hardly approach of maturity or sanity.
So at the center is this spectacle is Rand Paul, Mike Lee, Ted Cruz, John Cornyn, Jerry Moran, Saxby Chambliss, Pat Toomey, Marco Rubio, and fellow traveler Ron Wyden of Oregon.
Who have more interest in this issue than perpetuate their existence? They should fight their own demons and windmills while we have better things to do.
When the media gets out of juvenile detention, they might see the trap that has been lain on these three one side issues.
Remember when Tucker Carlson had a show on MSNBC in 2006 and he was doing this same crap? (youtube)
Remember when Rachel Maddow would knock the intellectual stuffing out of his absurd propaganda with such regularity it almost became ritual? I still cringe watching the little weasel. I don't know how she could bear it. Guess that what's make her a pro. Me? I would probably have gone the other direction and lunged at him, using that bowtie for good effect.* The only thing that would stop me is that he would probably enjoy the whole thing knowing the network security would get there in time to pull me off him.
* (Actually I did hurtle myself across a table once during a business meeting as a half joke when I was working for the Evil Empire.)
I suspect he "would enjoy the whole thing" especially if security didn't "get there in time".
Oh well, if you are suggesting some sort of Realm of the Senses autoerotic asphyxia, that would make it even more icky for people such as Rachel and I who find the idea of arousing guys kind of icky in the extreme.
.
Admittedly, it is kind of fun if you are with someone of the correct gender for you. Children, don't try this at home- imho not worth the risks.
Yeah back in the day when media was bipartisan. Now, people are too stupid to know to know the difference. It's either hard left or hard right.
The Guardian UK revisits the American ties to sectarian police commando units in Iraq that set up secret detention and torture centers to get information from insurgents, and how Colonel James Steele was involved in both this project and 1980's era "dirty wars" in Central America.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/mar/06/pentagon-iraqi-torture-centres-link
The natural reaction of mainstream Americans to such reports is belief that these are leftist exaggerations. Yet the factual basis of this reporting is US government documents released by Manning to Wikileaks.
It's a conversation ender when people use over the top terms like "war crimes" associated with our military. The fact of the matter is the documents are describing torture that the US Military was, if not directly involved in, were irrefutably tolerating if not operationally relying on for intelligence gathering.
And the fact is that torture is a war crime.
Even if it is our forces doing it.
So where are the court martials of the US military who knew of the tortures and yet did nothing to stop them?
Or do we have to post a fricking petition to get the White House to do what is right?
Well the Major was dead wrong. Just ask Lt. Calley, who served just 3.5 years house arrest, Oliver North (with million dollar proceeds due to his celebrity on the far right), or any number of Wall Street executives none of whom have even been prosecuted for the trillion dollar fraud leading to the 2008 meltdown.
.
It is not a cynical, but a factual statement that it doesn't matter if you get caught. What matters is if powerful interests are smiling on you. That is what our system of justice has devolved to. Glenn Greenwald over at the Guardian has been chronicling the two tiered justice system- wrote a book on it and has written numerous articles such as this one- he is always well worth reading.
Oh yeah, rest assured that some of our newly combat-authorized GI Janes will be treated with only the utmost respect and civility should they be unfortunate enough to be caught behind enemy lines.
Gotta protect our little women and keep 'em up on that pedestal! :-)
Any Major who has no respect for the rule of law has no business being in the Armed Forces. His loyalty is obviously not with the country he is supposed to be defending.
Just because things have been intense of late and this is after all an open thread I thought I'd post about the mysterious disappearance and reappearance of Guido the Racing Italian Sausage. Behold Guido the Racing Italian Sausage!
http://www.jsonline.com/news/ozwash/after-a-night-of-barhopping-in-cedarburg-the-racing-italian-sausage-is-missing-am8uuq1-193584041.html
Enjoy
I miss going and doing stuff like that. Not stealing a Guido Sausage costume, but the old days of going to a ball game on pubic transportation and having some beers, eating hot dogs or a more Midwest favorite, the Sheboygen!
There used to be a local minor league baseball team. It was an affordable thing for families or groups of friends to go. One friend got into the activities, donning a Sumo Wrestler suit and winning. So much fun for kids, racing the mascot and other games.
Thanks, I needed the relief! Reward- a year's supply of mustard- funny!
Drone Strikes on US soil
Sorry to "Comment Bomb" this blog entry - but there is no other place for it on this blog.
The ONE thing that it totally under reported in the TV Media is this
Blog Headlines:
- Holder does not rule out drone strike scenario in U.S.
- Barack Obama 'has authority to use drone strikes to kill Americans on US soil'
- Drone Strikes To Kill US Citizens Are Legal On American Soil Says Eric Holder
Read more at http://www.inquisitr.com/559422/drone-strikes-kill-us-citizens-legal-american-soil-eric-holder/#L5QhohquCHxrvxrJ.99
and - Eric Holder: Drone Strike To Kill U.S. Citizen On American Soil Legal, Hypothetically
Seriously - I don't think this will be a problem as long as Obama is in the White House - but *WHEN* another Nixon or Cheney take power, they now have a precedent to kill American citizens without trial. That is terrifying.
Seriously, he doesn't have the balls....
They talk about President Obama about being lazy. What was Bush Junior and is the Republican Congress than with their constant vacations? If you want lazy Bush Junior and the Republican Congress goes off the charts of laziness. Or is it they just want President Obama to be so tired that he can’t even think and just does what some rich bastards want?
I bet Chenney had a near death experience and realized he is going to hell. He is pretty much in denial there and the looks Chenney gave, he is covering something up.
Cheney is a war criminal. That simple. Nothing that criminal has ever done makes him any sort of any kind of hero.
I'm very pleased to know you're OK with someone lying us into war, authorizing torture.....
There are 7 countries with warrants out for him and GWB. There are many criminal walking around that have never been charged.
He's a lying war criminal. Plain and simple. Right along with GWB
Actually, Cheney is very much a war criminal, but we never seem to get justice at times do we.
Deb,
Those on the right are always doing their worst to prevent justice.
I agree EntropyRules.
I watch part of Morning Joe most mornings. [But I try not to throw anything at the TV - Joe makes me really mad sometimes.]
Ah Mika .... sometimes you just ... nod along with him but don't get in the way. Except for the eye-roll.....
Gabby Giffords is a hero of mine.
I applaud her and her husband for getting out there to show, we are gun owners, we do not want to take your gun, but we do want to regulate who is allowed to buy guns.
The straw purchaser loophole and lack of background check needs to be dealt with.
We have heard all the slippery slope stuff, but nobody is going to take your guns unless maybe if you point it at someone and shoot.
I believe Ny city is working on a drone that can detect and destroy
1) loud headphones
2) 2nd rate cheesedoodles
3) 17 oz or larger sodas
4) people wearing baggie pants and or hoodies and or carrying personal use quantities of marijuana
5)people who support the 2nd amendment
6) occupy wall streeters exercising the 1st amendment
7)Just keep taking that money to elect "more pure" folks who want to ban guns they go over just as well nationally as people who want to ban abortion
Petulant, whining Neo-Confederate self-pity.
Those golems for the cliff-hangers; Bill O'Really, Glenn Blank, Sean Insanity, and Lush Rumballs are all the real deal. They have crossed the threshold that Rod Serling talked about, and none of them can ever come back.
Jeb can't go for citizenship for immigrants, they vote D. Green cards get them to pay taxes and fica but no vote. When they bump the enrollment age they may die before they make a claim or are enrolled. It's like the southern anti-civil rights, immigrants are assigned the servant's entrance. Maybe when they accrue 40 work credits in fica they will get to vote locally, not nationally.