home

Thursday Morning Open Thread

The National Spelling Bee is being televised on ESPN. Go spellers! The Finals will be televised live on ABC tonight at 8 pm EST.

This is an Open Thread.

< "Deference" To The President's Judicial Nominees | Sara Jane Moore, Now 80, on Her Freedom >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    IMO (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by lilburro on Thu May 28, 2009 at 12:09:24 PM EST
    story of the day.  Rape at Abu Ghraib.

    Children? (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by Cream City on Thu May 28, 2009 at 01:01:31 PM EST
    CHILDREN?  We raped children?  And now we don't want to talk about it. Somebody has got to tell Obama that the truth will out, and it's worse when it trickles out over time (see: Watergate).  

    We have to confront these horrors that we inflicted, even on children.  I am beyond appalled, I don't know where to go with this anger and disgust.

    Parent

    Over at DK (none / 0) (#12)
    by nycstray on Thu May 28, 2009 at 01:24:46 PM EST
    There was a time line diary of the abuses just recently. Reading through that was fairly horrifying, to say the least.

    We rape children, torture, and murder.

    Parent

    Didnt Hirsch discuss this (none / 0) (#13)
    by jondee on Thu May 28, 2009 at 01:30:15 PM EST
    like five years ago?

    Not for no reason does Gore Vidal use the term United States of Amnesia.

    Parent

    Well, if he did, I missed it (none / 0) (#22)
    by Cream City on Thu May 28, 2009 at 02:17:39 PM EST
    which does not mean amnesia.

    Nor would even Hersch have the ability to predict that Obama would block release of the photos, mmm?

    Parent

    I remember it well (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by jondee on Thu May 28, 2009 at 02:33:02 PM EST
    because one of the regular posters here drew alot of fire for refusing to tone down his in-graphic-detail recounting of the incidents in question. Of course, many an unpleasantness goes immediatly down the yawning memory hole in this country once the p.r damgage control mechanisms kick in; which was the case here, IMO.

    Parent
    Here's what I don't get: (5.00 / 2) (#17)
    by Anne on Thu May 28, 2009 at 01:45:49 PM EST
    One of the rationales for why releasing the photos would be bad is that they would put our troops in danger, but talking about what was done and providing vivid descriptions doesn't?

    I mean, I get that photos have a much more compelling effect, but am I the only one who thinks the fact that we are, through Taguba's comments and the bits and pieces of his report that are being printed and talked about, admitting that we tortured, what form that torture took and the age and gender of those upon whom it was inflicted - that THAT admission and THAT knowledge standing alone also puts our troops in danger???

    Do I want to see pictures of people being raped?  No, I really do not, but I don't think I need to see them because I already know that torture is wrong, rape is wrong, inhumane treatment is wrong - and illegal.

    Do those who want to excuse torture on the basis of its "effectiveness" need to see what torture actually looks like on the faces of those it is being inflicted on?  Yes, I think they do.  I think I would really like to hear the "but that's different and we already punished the people who did this" explanation side-by-side with some of these pictures.  If they want to keep downplaying it, and re-defining it so it isn't illegal, let them do it while America looks at what it is these people think is acceptable.

    I don't need to see the pictures, but those who think we did nothing wrong need to stand before the country they say they love, and let America see what was done in our names.

    And then we'll see what America really thinks about these people, and whether the best course is really to just "move forward."

    Parent

    "let them do it . . . (none / 0) (#18)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu May 28, 2009 at 01:52:58 PM EST
    . . . while America looks at what it is these people think is acceptable"

    I have to say I think the photos, sadly, would make it a whole new world. they should not.  as you rightly point out, we know what was being done.  but, we are very visual animals.  able to rationalize almost anything.  as they say, a picture is worth a thousand words.  the effect of publication of these images would be like an H bomb.
    an H bomb set off right in the middle of the wingers "we dont torture" church service.

    I agree.  let Hannity try to rationalize images of rape.

    Parent

    I have that same confusion (none / 0) (#21)
    by Inspector Gadget on Thu May 28, 2009 at 02:13:46 PM EST
    One of the rationales for why releasing the photos would be bad is that they would put our troops in danger, but talking about what was done and providing vivid descriptions doesn't?

    What all the talk and refusal to release is actually doing is giving the impression that we are protecting the perpetrators of these hideous acts. If they are truly being punished, we need to see their faces and hear how many years they are serving.

    As it stands, I've decided there are faces in those photos they don't want us to see and that no punishment has been handed down. So, they are really making everyone in the military into suspects by the public.

    Parent

    but its only us (none / 0) (#24)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu May 28, 2009 at 02:20:02 PM EST
    and print.  when these pics hit cable news it will hit the fan.
    sorry to admit people are so limited and stupid but I think they are.  they will rationalize it until they can see it happening.

    IMO.

    Parent

    Exactly. A la Watergate, again (none / 0) (#23)
    by Cream City on Thu May 28, 2009 at 02:19:52 PM EST
    or Vietnam atrocities, et al., when the steady trickle, trickle, trickle of stories only, eventually woke up the public -- which then was even more angered by the blocking of information.

    Obama is in danger of his actions being seen as part of a proverbial "cover-up."

    Parent

    They're (none / 0) (#26)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu May 28, 2009 at 02:26:16 PM EST
    already being seen as part of the coverup.

    Parent
    holy sh*t (none / 0) (#10)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu May 28, 2009 at 01:19:31 PM EST
    that is appalling.  will this make the release of the photos more or less likely?

    we have truly lost our way, and deserve to lose it,  if something is not done about this.


    Parent

    Yea (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by CST on Thu May 28, 2009 at 01:22:59 PM EST
    All the "waterboarding isn't torture" people will need to find a whole different approach.

    I think if people saw these photos it would definitely change public perception of whether there needs to be a formal inquiry.  Hopefully this story alone will be enough.  But I have lost a lot of faith in the moral bearings of this country lately.  I don't know how anyone can argue that there shouldn't be criminal prosecutions for this.

    To be honest - I don't really want to see the pictures.  But I do want to know what exactly was in them.

    Parent

    The most appalling thing was this (5.00 / 2) (#14)
    by jbindc on Thu May 28, 2009 at 01:31:06 PM EST
    Obama saying "these photos that were requested in this case are not particularly sensational, especially when compared to the painful images that we remember from Abu Ghraib."

    Not sensational?  WTF???

    Parent

    wonder (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu May 28, 2009 at 01:38:17 PM EST
    if he will "revise and extend" those comments?

    Parent
    Let us not act too shocked... (none / 0) (#45)
    by kdog on Thu May 28, 2009 at 03:44:28 PM EST
    when you go to war this unthinkably heinous sh*t happens...everytime.  I assumed as much.

    It is why you don't go to war unless your life depends on it...literally.  It brings out the worst of humanity like nothing else can.

    Parent

    Acting shocked.... (none / 0) (#57)
    by vml68 on Thu May 28, 2009 at 04:34:08 PM EST
    It is shocking because you always think it is the other side that will do these things not your own people.

    Parent
    Spoken like a true realist (none / 0) (#59)
    by jondee on Thu May 28, 2009 at 04:39:12 PM EST
    it aint a Saving Private Power Hollywood production or a folksy, homespun Ken Burns special.

    Parent
    Yes... (none / 0) (#62)
    by lilburro on Thu May 28, 2009 at 04:48:13 PM EST
    but the international community has developed laws to try, at least on the face of it, to minimize some of the horrors of war.  It is completely unacceptable in war or peace to be raping prisoners.  It's a monstrosity.

    Parent
    It sure is... (none / 0) (#64)
    by kdog on Thu May 28, 2009 at 04:53:36 PM EST
    a monstrosity...but also the norm in every war ever fought, every occupation ever undertaken, and in every prison ever built, despite the efforts of man to make rules for war....that's all I'm saying.  Let us not pretend it can be avoided when we go to warring and occupying and imprisoning.  And let us consider the monstrosity of our nature...consider it long and hard..before we invade or occupy or imprison.

    Sometimes war and imprisonment is unavoidable...but it can and must be avoided at every opportunity, at least if we care about limiting the monstrous elements of our nature.

    Parent

    I agree with you (none / 0) (#69)
    by lilburro on Thu May 28, 2009 at 05:00:45 PM EST
    but that same argument could easily be used to defend the actions of these rapists - "It's war!  What do you expect??"  I have heard torture defended that way.  We go to war, we become monsters, so what.  

    It's important to keep our eyes on the exact war crimes in front of us.  War is horrible enough.  We don't need war crimes on top of that.  And what transpired was clearly criminal.

    Parent

    I hear you too... (none / 0) (#73)
    by kdog on Thu May 28, 2009 at 05:15:34 PM EST
    I guess "war crimes" seems as oxymoronic as "military intelligence"...and as crazy as it sounds, I'll defend these sick sons of b*tches before I'll defend the architechts and enablers of the big crime(s).

    Parent
    which (none / 0) (#74)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu May 28, 2009 at 05:21:47 PM EST
    would be why the concept of war crimes was invented.
    by us I believe.

    Parent
    It would be impossible to deny (none / 0) (#72)
    by Inspector Gadget on Thu May 28, 2009 at 05:14:27 PM EST
    the monstrosity of our nature

    We classify horrible, violent acts as "entertainment" in movie after movie, TV program after TV program.

    Parent

    Minimize the horrors (none / 0) (#65)
    by jondee on Thu May 28, 2009 at 04:54:57 PM EST
    of horror itself, as it were.

    About as effective as eliminating "collateral casualties" with surgical strikes.

    Parent

    No one above the rank (none / 0) (#71)
    by jondee on Thu May 28, 2009 at 05:11:28 PM EST
    of Sargent will EVER have to answer for any of this. Guaranteed.

    The whole lot of them are scared sh*tless of the Pentagon, their corporate cronies and the media.

    Parent

    btw brother.... (none / 0) (#75)
    by kdog on Thu May 28, 2009 at 05:25:58 PM EST
    I finally picked up "You Can't Win" and am ripping through it...totally diggin' it, thanks man.

    Parent
    lol (none / 0) (#77)
    by jondee on Thu May 28, 2009 at 05:30:17 PM EST
    I'd been meaning to ask you about that. I think that was the last book I read that I "couldnt put down", as the cliche goes.

    Ah, the good old days. Glad you're diggin' it.

    Parent

    Yes sir... (none / 0) (#85)
    by kdog on Fri May 29, 2009 at 11:27:53 AM EST
    a harder life, to be sure...but they knew what freedom was in those days in ways in we can only imagine.

    A couple chapters to go...can't wait for old Jack's big finish!

    Parent

    No, no (none / 0) (#61)
    by NYShooter on Thu May 28, 2009 at 04:45:28 PM EST
    Story of the day.....Ted Olsen comes out big time, slamming California Supreme Court same sex marriage decision.

    Wowee!

    Parent

    this is when we know we are winning (5.00 / 0) (#54)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu May 28, 2009 at 04:27:32 PM EST
    Kmiec proposes end of legally recognized marriage

     Doug Kmiec, a prominent Catholic who backed Barack Obama's presidential bid, has endorsed replacing marriage with a neutral "civil license," a proposal law professor Robert P. George called a "terrible idea" that would make the government neglect a vital social institution.

    Speaking to CNSNews.com, Pepperdine University law professor Doug Kmiec said that although his solution to disputes over the definition of marriage might be "awkward," it would "untie the state from this problem" by creating a new terminology that would apply to everyone, homosexual or not. "Call it a `civil license'," he said.

    "The net effect of that, would be to turn over--quite appropriately, it seems to me, the concept of marriage to churches and a church understanding," he said.

    Senryu? (none / 0) (#2)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu May 28, 2009 at 12:12:01 PM EST
    Never heard the word until today. Girl spelled it perfectly. Impressive.

    I think only the late sesquipedalian (none / 0) (#28)
    by brodie on Thu May 28, 2009 at 02:38:18 PM EST
    Bill Buckley would be easily familiar with some of the obscure words these youngsters are required to spell.

    The Spelling bee seems like a lot of effort to learn a lot of words these kids will almost certainly never encounter again.  Just give me spell-check.

    I much prefer something broader and more practical, like the Geography contest.  A History competition might also be interesting.  

    And with high school students, who are a little better equipped emotionally to handle the competitive pressure.

    Parent

    You think the only thing they (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by Inspector Gadget on Thu May 28, 2009 at 02:54:49 PM EST
    get from the preparation for a spelling bee is the correct spelling of a bunch of rarely used words?

    It's analytical skills that see them through. Listen to their questions....word origin, use it in a sentence. Most of us could ask those questions, but few have a clue what the answers tell us about the spelling of the word.


    Parent

    Akeelah and the Bee (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by Anne on Thu May 28, 2009 at 03:12:54 PM EST
    A really good movie about a young girl studying to get to the national spelling bee; Laurence Fishburne plays her coach.

    It really highlights how much one has to know in order to spell the kinds of words that come up in the National Bee - sure, I suppose you could memorize the dictionary, but as is highlighted in the film, the more you know about the languages of origin, the better equipped you are to break down a new word and be able to spell it.

    It helps with crossword puzzles, too!  Gotta keep the brain muscle working as long as possible...

    Parent

    Well (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by jbindc on Thu May 28, 2009 at 02:57:59 PM EST
    You have to learn to do math before you can use a calculator (I can't believe I'm about to quote my father here: "What if the calculator breaks in the middle of the test? That's why you need to learn to do it the long way.")  Same with spelling - you have to recognize when spell-check is wrong.  

    Spelling is also important to teach parts of English and vocabulary use.

    "There's no substitute for good spelling and good writing," Raga Ramachandran, the 1988 champion who is now a physician, said in a USA Today article. "I've seen very educated people produce documents full of errors, and it just doesn't look good. I think Americans have an obligation to spell correctly and use good grammar because our language is being spread around the world."

    Although there is no single approach to teaching spelling, many of today's educators believe the traditional model, which involves memorizing a long list of words followed by a weekly quiz, isn't the most effective to promote good spelling. Instead, many schools utilize a curriculum specifically dedicated to spelling or provide reading book supplements that offer spelling guidance and word lists for students.

    Some educators see spelling as a foundation and gateway to advanced erudition. In fact, Richard Gentry, author of "The Science of Spelling," stresses that spelling is more important than once thought. "Spelling, instead of being treated as a supplementary subject, should be put on a pedestal," Gentry stated. To Gentry, spelling bees underscore the notion that word-specific knowledge is important. And research suggests that early writing helps children with their reading.

    Particularly, in our age of the Internet where spelling takes on a bizarre world of its own (such as where "later" becomes "l8er," "aight" means "all right" and "G'nite" stands for "good night"), spelling is an important skill to emphasize in our children. Perhaps to my sons' initial chagrin, I have insisted their e-mails do not include e-words that shorten proper words, such as "u" for "you" or "r" for "are." I'm less apt to complain when they send me a text message that uses some of these catchy little shortcuts, but they know I'll be up in arms when I see it in other electronic communications.



    Parent
    I can't spell for sh*t (none / 0) (#3)
    by andgarden on Thu May 28, 2009 at 12:49:04 PM EST
    The thing I would like to do most today is to have a long conversation with Ted "Arkansas Project" Olson. I need to get into his head.

    henceforth (none / 0) (#29)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu May 28, 2009 at 02:40:22 PM EST
    known as Ted "I have a rocket in my pocket" Olson.

    Parent
    If dinner rolls are outlawed.... (none / 0) (#4)
    by jbindc on Thu May 28, 2009 at 12:54:12 PM EST
    then only outlaws will have dinner rolls.

    (I know - I shouldn't make fun of a serious situation)

    Went to bostonglobe.com looking for gloom and (none / 0) (#5)
    by vicndabx on Thu May 28, 2009 at 12:54:35 PM EST
    doom stories about the Wet Sox and the fact they are now tied w/the Yanks for 1st in the AL East and came across this article about healthcare costs and their impact on healthcare reforms in Massachussets.

    No doom and gloom yet (none / 0) (#9)
    by CST on Thu May 28, 2009 at 01:19:02 PM EST
    we don't start that till later in the season.  Not since 2004 at least.  besides, it's not like we've been sitting in first place this whole time.  The Jays were there for a while.

    Parent
    Yes, but to ensure (none / 0) (#7)
    by KeysDan on Thu May 28, 2009 at 01:03:22 PM EST
    that this is more than the day's story, it seems to me that the photos now  need to be released.  If there was general agreement among Americans that the so called enhanced interrogation techniques were torture, a crime in the eyes of U.S. law and the Geneva Conventions (which we crafted, in large measure, to protect our troops) the risks of dissemination would outweigh the benefits of transparency.  And, it would be unnecessary.  However, the resonance of efforts by wingers to not only justify these "techniques", but also, to deny them as being torture tilts the scales, in my mind,  toward graphic depiction of the horrors.

    Intended as a reply to Lilburro (#1) (none / 0) (#8)
    by KeysDan on Thu May 28, 2009 at 01:06:35 PM EST
    Stupid woman goes to Disney World (none / 0) (#16)
    by samtaylor2 on Thu May 28, 2009 at 01:42:02 PM EST
    Tons of press on evil black guys that kidnapped white mother and child- and there should be.  That is a serious crime.  But then we find out it just wasn't true.  It is just plane disgusting, and there is nothing we can do about it.

    That's (none / 0) (#19)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu May 28, 2009 at 02:00:48 PM EST
    the shape of today's media and why I don't think that "having the media on your side" is worth a bucket of spit.

    Parent
    GM plans for bankruptcy (none / 0) (#20)
    by jbindc on Thu May 28, 2009 at 02:07:47 PM EST
    on Monday

    General Motors, which today unveiled a sweetened deal to shed billions in debt, plans to file for bankruptcy reorganization Monday, the Free Press has learned.
    Advertisement

    The Obama administration today offered General Motors Corp. creditors carrying $27.2 billion of the company's bonds up to 25% of a reworked GM if they vowed not to oppose its bankruptcy -- a deal that officials said had the backing of at least one-third of the bondholders.

    GM also revealed that the U.S. Treasury plans to give GM at least an additional $30 billion to pay for the bankruptcy on top of the $19.4 billion already lent to keep the automaker in business, with all but $8 billion of that about $50 billion swapped for an initial 72.5% stake in the new GM.



    put Marge in Charge (none / 0) (#25)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu May 28, 2009 at 02:22:00 PM EST
    and lets see what happens:

    How does a matriarchy really work? Argentinian writer Ricardo Coler decided to find out and spent two months with the Mosuo in southern China. "Women have a different way of dominating," the researcher told SPIEGEL ONLINE.

    SPIEGEL ONLINE: What astonished you the most?

    Coler: That there is no violence in a matriarchal society. I know that quickly slips into idealization -- every human society has its problems. But it simply doesn't make sense to the Mosuo women to solve conflicts with violence. Because they are in charge, nobody fights. They don't know feelings of guilt or vengeance -- it is simply shameful to fight. They are ashamed if they do and it even can threaten their social standing.

    Heh.... (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by Inspector Gadget on Thu May 28, 2009 at 03:31:50 PM EST
    my niece has a cat named, Large Marge, the Barge in Charge.


    Parent
    Your niece rocks! (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by nycstray on Thu May 28, 2009 at 03:38:34 PM EST
    great cat name!

    Parent
    may Pee Wee (none / 0) (#51)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu May 28, 2009 at 03:56:24 PM EST
    live on in our memories.

    Parent
    Is that where she got it? (none / 0) (#66)
    by Inspector Gadget on Thu May 28, 2009 at 04:56:57 PM EST
    Was it also a cat's name?

    Parent
    if I remember correctly (none / 0) (#70)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu May 28, 2009 at 05:08:49 PM EST
    Large Marge was one of Pee Wee friends.  a (cough)truck driver(cough) I believe.  

    Parent
    Joe Biden (none / 0) (#30)
    by lilburro on Thu May 28, 2009 at 02:46:47 PM EST
    just asked me to sign a pledge to "Stand with Sotomayor."  

    I'm a little creeped out by this.  I am absolutely not signing.  Joe Biden provided NO issue based evidence to support her nomination whatsoever.

    The number of signatures this gets - certainly at the present moment when we know little about her record - will indicate what the nature of Obama's support is.  As if we didn't know...

    Obama thinks gay rights (none / 0) (#31)
    by dk on Thu May 28, 2009 at 02:51:54 PM EST
    are good for a laugh (or, he thinks protesters in general are good for a laugh, and doesn't even bother to find out what they are protesting before making fun of them...not sure which is worse).

    First question (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by nycstray on Thu May 28, 2009 at 03:37:08 PM EST
    HOW could he NOT know what they were protesting?!?! If he wants us to believe he's that clueless, I guess I may just have to.

    Comments at the link are interesting  . . .

    Anyway you look at it it's bad, imo.


    Parent

    So insensitive. (5.00 / 0) (#48)
    by KeysDan on Thu May 28, 2009 at 03:51:11 PM EST
    He needs a new speech writer who knows an appropriate joke from an inappropriate one.  We  know, from the Hillary cardboard cut-out caper,  that his 16-year old chief speech writer, Jon Favereau, is clueless in this department.  Jokes about Special Olympians, "threatening" to have the IRS audit Arizona State officials over the honorary degree flap, and, now, making a joke at the expense of gay women and men in the wake of the California Supreme Court ruling on marriage equity. Even the talents of Joe Biden would be an improvement.

    Parent
    Well, given that he just (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by dk on Thu May 28, 2009 at 03:54:54 PM EST
    saw it as he walked into the building, it was actually probably an ad lib.  So it probably wasn't Favreau.  It goes to show more that he and Favreau are of the same mind.

    Parent
    I think it (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu May 28, 2009 at 03:57:01 PM EST
    was a rare moment of candor.

    Parent
    Probably right on; (none / 0) (#67)
    by KeysDan on Thu May 28, 2009 at 04:57:57 PM EST
    we know, without a tele-prompter, he choses his words carefully and slowly as if dictating to a stonecutter.  And, if this was an extemporaneous and candid joke, he sure needs sensitivity training along with a more diverse staff--too much locker room mentality.  Unless, of course, it is all calculated, and then we have something else on our hands

    Parent
    as vile as it is (none / 0) (#34)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu May 28, 2009 at 02:59:30 PM EST
    "'One of them said, 'Obama keep your promise,' ' the president said. 'I thought that's fair. I don't know which promise he was talking about.'

    he has a point.  he made no promises to us.
    I remember Gibbs saying he would end DODT.  we see today how much "intellectual weight" (a new term I just learned) Gibbs has.

    I seem to remember him equivocating at every opportunity when it came to promises to us.

    Parent

    You're (none / 0) (#80)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu May 28, 2009 at 07:37:16 PM EST
    right. Obama never promised anything to gay people that I recall and was actually acted pretty hostile to them with the McClurkin tour.

    Parent
    dinner. with the President? (none / 0) (#36)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu May 28, 2009 at 03:24:12 PM EST
    I just got an email from James Carville.  here is what it said:

    There is less than a week left for your chance to win a free trip to Washington, DC on June 18th to meet President Obama, have dinner and go home with a photograph with him.

    help me out here.  does this say I will have dinner WITH the president as the subject of the email suggests or does it say I will meet the president AND have dinner.

    plain english please.  in many areas.
    really sick of trying to figure out WORM.

    I deleted mine without even pondering (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by nycstray on Thu May 28, 2009 at 03:39:51 PM EST
    what they meant.

    Parent
    Me too. (none / 0) (#81)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu May 28, 2009 at 07:38:39 PM EST
    I really don't think that Obama wants to hear what I would say to him.

    Parent
    Think it through, Capt.... (none / 0) (#37)
    by Inspector Gadget on Thu May 28, 2009 at 03:30:46 PM EST
    you honestly believe Obama would sit down and have dinner with the winner? I'm pretty sure it is listed in order of the things the winner will experience and there will be no chatting over the dinner table.

    Parent
    no (none / 0) (#43)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu May 28, 2009 at 03:41:44 PM EST
    but this was the subject line:

    Dinner with President Obama

    just dont lie about it.  thats all I ask.  is that so much?


    Parent

    Apparently (none / 0) (#82)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu May 28, 2009 at 07:39:13 PM EST
    not.

    Parent
    Just Curious (none / 0) (#44)
    by gtesta on Thu May 28, 2009 at 03:42:29 PM EST
    How is this not an illegal lottery?  There is consideration (a donation), an element of chance, and a prize.
    And my uncle got busted years ago for making book.  Go figure.

    Parent
    because (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu May 28, 2009 at 03:47:56 PM EST
    when the president does it its not illegal.


    Parent
    actually (none / 0) (#47)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu May 28, 2009 at 03:50:53 PM EST
    the whole think will be fixed.  they would never actually put someone like me in that position.

    they know we would ask some very uncomfortable questions that the press will not.  camera phone in hand.


    Parent

    Will the entries to the contest (none / 0) (#68)
    by Inspector Gadget on Thu May 28, 2009 at 04:58:24 PM EST
    allow them, though, to tap your phone, photograph your activities, and do a deep and thorough background check?

    Be careful what you sign up for :)

    Parent

    Good question.... (none / 0) (#49)
    by kdog on Thu May 28, 2009 at 03:51:47 PM EST
    I'd bet your uncle knows the answer better than most...different rules for different fools, it all depends on who collects that vig.  

    Parent
    How about . . . . (none / 0) (#53)
    by nycstray on Thu May 28, 2009 at 04:26:31 PM EST
    "Lunch with Arianna Huffington" just landed in my inbox, LOLOLOLOL!~ yeah, right. That would be a freakin' NIGHTMARE!

    Parent
    Arianna - Obama (none / 0) (#55)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu May 28, 2009 at 04:29:38 PM EST
    personally I think dinner with Arianna sounds more interesting.

    actually no, dinner with Obama SOUNDS more interesting but dinner with Arianna would probably BE more interesting.


    Parent

    She grates on me something fierce. (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by nycstray on Thu May 28, 2009 at 04:33:45 PM EST
    It would be more interesting for you if I actually went  ;)

    Parent
    LOL, Where can I contribute (none / 0) (#58)
    by vml68 on Thu May 28, 2009 at 04:37:31 PM EST
    to see that?!

    Parent
    no doubt (none / 0) (#63)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu May 28, 2009 at 04:48:51 PM EST
    yes, she grates. like he doesnt?

    Parent
    Lakers vs. Nuggets (none / 0) (#42)
    by Dadler on Thu May 28, 2009 at 03:41:23 PM EST
    Good to see the dirty-playing Nuggets with their backs against the wall now, but yet again the NBA officiating is baffling beyond reason.  The foul that put Nene out of the game, for one, was such a horrendous, and easy call, I could hardly believe it.  Then again, in Denver friday night it'll all be reversed.  

    Not the way the game sould be played, or called.

    Sotomayor on abortion (none / 0) (#60)
    by lilburro on Thu May 28, 2009 at 04:44:46 PM EST
    The Hill:

    The White House signaled Thursday that President Obama is confident that Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor won't vote to overturn abortion rights.

    It's all very vague though.  I'm a little bewildered by this tradition of not asking direct questions of your nominees.  

    More from the (none / 0) (#76)
    by nycstray on Thu May 28, 2009 at 05:27:21 PM EST
    AP

    And Gibson just mentioned it in the teaser for the upcoming news.

    Parent

    Must See TV Tonight (none / 0) (#78)
    by CoralGables on Thu May 28, 2009 at 06:19:31 PM EST
    Spelling Bee Finals on ABC at 8 ET
    Women's College World Series on ESPN at 9 ET (Go Gators)


    Are you suprised? (none / 0) (#83)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Thu May 28, 2009 at 07:39:39 PM EST
    I'm not.

    No, I'm not at all surprised. (none / 0) (#84)
    by Anne on Thu May 28, 2009 at 08:22:02 PM EST
    I read Glenn today, and his anecdote about his experience with Judge Sotomayor, and also read a follow up in the Washington Independent on the same case, and what it may reveal about her approach to the law.  If anyone was worried about the whole empathy thing, they shouldn't, because at least in this case, there wasn't much of it on display.

    Obama isn't the proponent of reproductive choice or the right to privacy that people want to think he is, and I don't think he would be all that upset if the Court set Roe aside.  I don't think he likes women, I don't think he trusts women and I think he is decidedly passive-aggressive in his attitude.

    I wish he had ventured outside his mushy-middle, pragmatic comfort zone and nominated a true liberal - he's not ever going to be able to do it again.

    Parent