90.9 WBUR - Boston's NPR news station
Top Stories:
PLEDGE NOW
Week In The News: Bloody Cairo, Stop And Frisk, Airline Merger Grounded

“Stop and frisk” ruled unconstitutional.  Big airline merger grounded.  Deadly clashes in Cairo.  Our weekly news roundtable goes behind the headlines.

Supporters of ousted Egyptian President Mohammed Morsi run from Egyptian security forces firing towards them during clashes in Cairo's Nasr City district, Egypt, Wednesday, Aug. 14, 2013. (AP)

Supporters of ousted Egyptian President Mohammed Morsi run from Egyptian security forces firing towards them during clashes in Cairo’s Nasr City district, Egypt, Wednesday, Aug. 14, 2013. (AP)

Bloody Egypt, overshadowing everything this week.  A huge death toll, shot down in the streets, and now big questions about American foreign policy and the unraveling of the Arab Spring.

In New York, a judge says “stop and frisk” police tactics have gone too far, too racial.  Mayor Bloomberg says he needs them.  In Washington, the Justice Department looks to pull back on mandatory minimum drug sentences and overcrowded prisons.

And in the Smoky Mountains, a judge says no to a mother naming her baby Messiah.

This hour, On Point: our weekly news roundtable goes behind the headlines.

- Tom Ashbrook

Guests

Devlin Barrett, justice department reporter at the Wall Street Journal. (@devlinbarrett)

Anne Gearan, diplomatic correspondent at the Washington Post. (@agearan)

Jack Beatty, On Point news analyst.

From Tom’s Reading List

Reuters: Protesters storm Cairo building after bloodbath; Obama cancels war games – “Supporters of Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood stormed and torched a government building in Cairo on Thursday, while families tried to identify hundreds of mutilated bodies piled in a Cairo mosque a day after they were shot dead by the security forces.”

New York Times: Judge Rejects New York’s Stop-and-Frisk Policy – “A federal judge ruled on Monday that the stop-and-frisk tactics of the New York Police Department violated the constitutional rights of minorities in the city, repudiating a major element in the Bloomberg administration’s crime-fighting legacy.”

CNN: US government seeks to block American-US Airways merger – “The Justice Department and attorneys general from six states and the District of Columbia filed a lawsuit Tuesday challenging the $11 billion merger of American Airlines and US Airways, saying the combination would lead to higher prices and less service for consumers.”

Please follow our community rules when engaging in comment discussion on this site.
  • Wm_James_from_Missouri

    Why isn’t this big news ?

    HydroInfra Technologies, of Sweden, claims to have solved the problem of unwanted greenhouse gas emissions. They say their process, “instantly neutralizes carbon fuel pollution emissions.”
    **
    http://www.hydroinfra.com/en/solutions/what-is-hng/

    **
    http://www.hydroinfra.com/en/about/

    **
    “CO2 Breakthrough? New Gas Apparently Eliminates All Carbon Emissions”

    **

    http://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/Governments-get-Excited-by-Hydro-Nano-Gas-which-Eliminates-all-Carbon-Emissions.html

    • WorriedfortheCountry

      Where does the carbon go and in what form? That wasn’t clear from your links.

      • John Cedar

        How does Algore make money off of that?
        There needs to be carbon trading and a market to manipulate.

        • Don_B1

          Snark does not contribute much to a learning discussion.

        • StilllHere

          Exactly, that guy has no credibility to talk about anything. Only the ignorant pay him any attention.

  • pete18

    Obama’s Unconstitutional Steps Worse than Nixon’s:

    And at last week’s news conference he offered inconvenience as a justification for illegality.

    Explaining his decision to unilaterally rewrite the Affordable Care Act (ACA), he said: “I didn’t simply choose to” ignore the statutory requirement for beginning in 2014 the employer mandate to provide employees with health care. No, “this was in consultation with businesses.”

    He continued: “In a normal political environment, it would have
    been easier for me to simply call up the speaker and say, you know what, this is a tweak that doesn’t go to the essence of the law. . . .
    “It looks like there may be some better ways to do this, let’s make a technical change to the law. That would be the normal thing that I would prefer to do. But we’re not in a normal atmosphere around here when it comes to Obamacare. We did have the executive authority to do so, and we did so.”

    Serving as props in the scripted charade of White House news conferences, journalists did not ask the pertinent question: “Where does the Constitution confer upon presidents the ‘executive authority’ to ignore the separation of powers by revising laws?” The question could have elicited an Obama rarity: brevity. Because there is no such authority.

    -George Will

    onpost.com/opinions/george-will-obamas-unconstitutional-steps-worse-than-nixons/2013/08/14/e0bd6cb2-044a-11e3-9259-e2aafe5a5f84_story.html

    • John_in_Amherst

      Can George Will point to the passage in the Constitution where it says the job of the Congressional minority is to thwart the will of the electorate and prevent the functioning of the government? Can he point to the passage elucidating the role of the filibuster? No? I thought so.

      • HonestDebate1

        The Constitution does not tell congress what it can do, it tells them what they can’t do. But you knew that.

        • Ray in VT

          That’s weird. I seem to recall a lot of “the Congress shall have the power to …” in the version of the Constitution that I read. Maybe you have a different one.

          • J__o__h__n

            Those don’t count. Hence the hostility to the post office.

          • HonestDebate1

            Point taken, there are some specific enumerated tasks. Perhaps I should have written “Bill of Rights” but I think you got my drift.

            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2jr9mLB3yKs

          • Ray in VT

            It’s a pretty substantial list that covers a pretty large amount of ground in society, especially when one gets into the realm of ensuring the rights guaranteed in the Bill of Rights.

            Sometimes it is hard to know what your drift might be, considering what I consider to be your somewhat whacky view of things. Given that you have made very nearly that exact statement previously, perhaps you did intend it to mean exactly what you said.

          • Don_B1

            Everyone can count on DishonestDebate to have his own version of anything he posts about.

      • pete18

        That’s called “divided government.” It’s the whole reason the founding fathers constructed three branches with limited powers.

        • John_in_Amherst

          check the number of bills killed by filibuster, the number of nominees denied any hearing at all, the tacit understanding that nothing will advance through the house unless it has a 2/3rds majority, as exhibited in the first 5 years of Obama’s presidency. Then check the record against that of ANY other president. The GOP knee jerk NO to Obama is wholly unprecedented. And it is NOT what the founding fathers had in mind. Spare us the supercilious bull.

          • pete18

            What can you point to in the Constitution or the Federalist papers that would back up your statement?
            Do I take it that you think it’s OK for Obama the break the Constitution as long as the Congress is giving him a hard time and not being cooperative?

  • Steve__T

    I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones.

    Albert Einstein

  • Steve__T

    GLENN GREENWALD:
    You know, it’s so ludicrous. For eight straight years, literally,
    Democrats, every time there was a terrorist alert or a terrorist
    advisory issued by the United States government in the middle of a debate over one of the Bush-Cheney civil liberties abuses, would accuse the United States government and the national security state of exaggerating terrorism threats, of manipulating advisories, of hyping the dangers of al-Qaeda, in order to distract attention away from their abuses and to scare the population into submitting to whatever it is they wanted to do. And so, here we are in the midst of, you know, one of the most intense debates and sustained debates that we’ve had in a very
    long time in this country over the dangers of excess surveillance, and suddenly an administration that has spent two years claiming that it has decimated al-Qaeda decides that there is this massive threat that involves the closing of embassies and consulates throughout the world. And within literally an amount of hours, the likes of Saxby Chambliss and Lindsey Graham join with the White House and Democrats in Congress—who, remember, are the leading defenders of the NSA at this point—to exploit that terrorist threat and to insist that it shows that the NSA and these programs are necessary.

    What that has to do with the ongoing controversy about the NSA
    is completely mystifying. Nobody has ever questioned or disputed that the U.S. government, like all governments around the world, ought to be eavesdropping and monitoring the conversations of people who pose an actual threat to the United States in terms of plotting terrorist attacks. The controversy is over the fact that they are sweeping up billions and billions of emails and telephone calls every single day from people around the world and in the United States who have absolutely nothing to do with terrorism. And, if anything, the only thing that that controversy—the warning has to do with the current controversy is that the argument that a lot of analysts have made, very
    persuasively, is that when you have an agency that collects everything, it actually becomes harder, not easier, to detect actual terrorist plots and to find the actual terrorists. And if this agency really were devoted, if these surveillance programs were really devoted to finding terrorism, they would be much more directed and discriminating. But they’re not. They’re indiscriminate and limitless, and that’s one of the problems.

    You can read the rest of this conversation below.

    http://www.democracynow.org/2013/8/5/greenwald_is_us_exaggerating_threat_to

    • PithHelmut

      Trying to solve terrorism with terrorism is the reasoning of fools, bribed monsters and men (as usual). Look at the progress in science and engineering, everything except one thing – politics. Look at the ones who occupy the seats of power they’re old fossils, inappropriate and dangerous. Obviously killing and warring is never a solution. If we didn’t use it as one, we would think of other ways that is for sure. Disengage from this system. Grow food close to home. Know your neighbor. Don’t support with your money anything associated with exploitation. A kind world is possible.

  • WorriedfortheCountry

    “Can Obama write his own laws?”

    “Yet this president is not only untroubled by what he’s doing, but
    open and rather proud. As he tells cheering crowds on his never-ending campaign-style tours: I am going to do X — and I’m not going to wait for Congress.

    That’s caudillo talk. That’s banana republic stuff. In this country, the president is required to win the consent of Congress first.

    At stake is not some constitutional curlicue. At stake is whether the laws are the law. And whether presidents get to write their own.”

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/charles-krauthammer-can-obama-write-his-own-laws/2013/08/15/81920842-05df-11e3-9259-e2aafe5a5f84_story.html

    • HonestDebate1

      What’s the difference between Obama and God? God doesn’t think he’s Obama.

      • John Cedar

        And God doesn’t worship himself.

      • J__o__h__n

        God has smaller ears?

        • HonestDebate1

          Okay, that’s funny.

    • John_in_Amherst

      After 6 years of NOTHING but GOP obstructionism in the congress it is about time he takes a more unilateral approach. The GOP stated almost on day 1 of his first term that their primary objective was to prevent Obama from succeeding. Screw the country, their election chances were better if he failed. And now the party and their apologists have the gall to whine about his non-co-operation?

      • PithHelmut

        So what the Democrats are wimps and just let them. What can they do? They can use their voice but they don’t. Know why? Because there really isn’t much difference between the two, What difference there is is purely cosmetic.

        • John_in_Amherst

          Oh?? I am tempted to agree with the wimp assessment. But if you think most of the policy differences are minor, you aren’t paying attention.

      • pete18

        You’ve got it wrong, they thought the country was screwed if Obama was able to pass his horrific policy ideas. Blocking his actions is completely constitutional and often the necessary and patriotic role of the minority. The complaint is not about Obama’s is “non-cooperation” but his unconstitutional actions.

        • John_in_Amherst

          the obstruction began long before the recent complaints about the “unconstitutionality” of his actions (which is questionable, especially in light of the fact that many of the things the GOP is bitching about began under Bush II

          • pete18

            I didn’t say the “obstruction” (valid check of power and bad policy by the minority, fulfilling their constitutional role as one of the three branches of government) came as a reaction to Obama’s unconstitutional actions, they came in reaction to his bad policy ideas. Whether you agree that Obama had bad policy ideas or not is irrelevant to the conversation. Republicans and conservative honestly believe most of his policies are destructive and have both a moral and constitutional right to block them if they view it that way. Although Republican’s, like democrats are certainly capable of a fair degree of hypocrisy, most of the things they have been trying to block in congress have to do with his economic actions, not his continuation of Bush’s terrorism policies.
            It is quite possible to have supported the Bush administrations’ handling of the NSA and criticized Obama’s given the leap Obama has taken in his collection of data.

            But even if you were right about the Republicans you still haven’t answered the question: Is Obama’s action on the ACA constitutional? If so, where do you find the justification for it in the constitution?

          • John_in_Amherst

            With regard to “Obamacare” aka: The Affordable Care act, ACA, Section 3, article 2 enumerates the power of the president to include The Recommendation Clause:[29] The president has the power and duty[30] to recommend to Congress’s consideration such measures which the president deems as “necessary and expedient”.
            Obama recommended a set of actions to deal with the crisis in healthcare regarding coverage and costs known as the ACA. It passed the congress. It is the law of the land, whether or not the right wing of the GOP insists to continually occupy the time of congress to repeal the ACA, what now? 40 separate times! Another friggin stalling tactic to bog down Washington so NOTHING can get done. Less government, GOP style.
            Obama has been elected twice. The right wing of the GOP is willing to sacrifice the welfare of the country to prosecute their vendetta against Obama. It borders on sedition, if not treason.

          • pete18

            You are not addressing the question. We are not talking about Obama’s recommendation to congress about passing the health care bill, we’re talking about his unilateral change to the bill after it was passed into law. This is not allowed by the Constitution. The Republican’s attempts to repeal it or prevent it’s implementation, whether wise or good policy, is completely constitutional. The law is disliked by the majority of Americans. What should bother you is not that a party that you don’t like is trying to repeal a bill you that you mistakenly think is in the best welfare of the country, it is that a President would have no qualms about ignoring the Constitution and rewriting a law based on his difficulties navigating the three branches of government. Think of the precedent that would set when there’s a president in office that you don’t fawn over.

  • Shag_Wevera

    I’m going on vacation to the northwoods this week, and I won’t be bringing much tech with me. So, keep up the arguing and partisanship. I expect that when I return to civilization, some things will still be the same. They are as follows: 1. The rich will still be rich. 2. The mid-east will be a rat nest with oil as the root cause 3. Righties will still despise our president. 4. We will not have national healthcare. 5. Ed will post about the Pope on Fridays.
    Peace be with you all.

    • keltcrusader

      I visit this site less and less because it appears to have been taken over by posters who cannot and will not see any side to their arguments except their own and are filled with hatred toward anyone who isn’t like them and doesn’t agree with them. 8 out of first 11 posts this morning are overwhelmingly hateful diatribes against our President and his administration as if he is the only one making decisions in this country and the country’s problems have only been in the making for the last 5 years. So long OnPoint, its been real, its been nice, but it hasn’t been real nice. :(

      • HonestDebate1

        I feel the same way, I get sick of legitimate thoughtful criticism being met with ad hominem name calling.

        • jefe68

          It might help if there was some thought put into those thoughtful critiques.
          I like the silly quip about President Obama and God, now that was real thoughtful criticism.

          Then there are those racially charged diatribes you posted a while back.
          A lot of thought went into those I’m sure, but were they thoughtful? Not so much.

          • HonestDebate1

            Clockwork, thank you.

          • jefe68

            So in your world anyone who dares to criticize you is making an ad hominem attack?

            This would be an ad hominem attack:
            You’re inane diatribes speak to your entitled world view through the lens of being a white man.

            Although I dare say that there is some truth to how your entitled white man position does inform what you post.

          • HonestDebate1

            I wouldn’t really say that but you do have a point. When someone criticizes me instead of addressing the particular issue then they are getting gratuitously personal.

            I would suggest you read the Dr. Krauthammer article linked to by WFTC and the George Will article link to by Pete. This is a real problem and it provides the necessary context to my joke. And regarding my views on race, they are rooted in a belief that all men are created equal. They are based on the notion that people should be judged by the content of their character and not the color of their skin. These ideas are in direct conflict with yours.

          • TomK_in_Boston

            Oh wow, links to articles by 2 beltway righty icons, how appealing.

          • jefe68

            Funny how your views on race don’t come off the way you think they do.

          • jefe68

            It’s called having a difference of opinion.

          • StilllHere

            Great suggestions. My guess is they won’t and will just insult the authors.

          • StilllHere

            You can set your watch by him.

        • TomK_in_Boston

          Why not try the high road, then?

          • HonestDebate1

            I do not engage in ad hominem attacks although I do occasionally swing back after being bloodied by bullies who cannot defend their arguments honestly.

          • Labropotes

            The woman whom Thou gavest to be with me, she gave to me of the tree, and I did eat.

            It has forever been someone else who started it.

          • HonestDebate1

            I’m on pretty solid ground along with Ed in that regard. But point taken.

          • StilllHere

            Exactly.

          • jefe68

            Oh, that’s rich.

        • hennorama

          He Debates Not – I believe the appropriate Southern colloquialism is “Don’t let the screen door hit ya where the Good Lord split ya.”

        • StilllHere

          They should just “vote down” and move on. The insults come because they know you are right.

      • Labropotes

        Come back, keltcrusader, and dilute the immoderation!

      • Steve / Lexington MA

        The hateful talk on this site comes from automated troll-bots that live on a server in the bowels of the Heritage Foundation. They should be ignored. The actual humans on this site need to hear from you. Keep talking to them.

    • John_in_Amherst

      “When you get down and quarrel every day, You’re saying prayers to the devil I say” – Bob Marley

      • Shag_Wevera

        I miss Nestah Robert!!

    • hennorama

      Shag_Wevera – enjoy your vacay, and mind the ticks.

      • http://profile.yahoo.com/JXSANCUDPIKQSPID5KT2U4XK5Y TF

        And blackflies.

  • alsordi

    Listening to John Kerry’s outrageous hypocrisy regarding Syria, Egypt and Palestine, I realized that Secretaries of State, like other politicians, are intentionally hand -picked for their provocative backgrounds, scandals and corruption.

    Like Hillary, Condoleeza, as well as the McConnells and McCains, these are repellent cartoon like characters, chosen specfically to be scorned and ridiculed by everyone.

    The strategy here is in transferring the frustration and anger of the masses, to one freaky looking arrogant out of touch rich dude, while the real culprits behind the disgraceful US foreign, getting rich on military contracts and stealing land, avoid being identified by the majority, who are to distracted to look beyond these political clowns.

  • Ed75

    Some posters are discouraged by the name calling or ad hominem arguments. I think the problem is that the events taking place right now are so complex that even if we had full information, which we don’t, it would be impossible to figure out the best course. In Egypt there doesn’t even appear to be a course to take. So sometimes one just resorts to personal attacks.
    We can, however, state our principles, respectfully. For example, the government is giving Planned Parenthood money to instruct people in Obamacare. For those of us who regard Planned Parenthood as an organization that makes money by killing chilldren, we don’t want the government to give them money for anything, and not tax money either (they get one million dollars a day). They just paid a multi-million dollar fine in Texas for illegal activity of some kind.

    • J__o__h__n

      How did god treat the first born Egyptian sons? Worse than anything Planned Parenthood has ever been accused of.

      • fun bobby

        yeah I think the biblical argument against abortion is weak at best. there is much sanctioned infanticide in the bible.

      • Ed75

        There isn’t evidence whether the first born males of the Egyptians suffered or not, as many unborn children do. But God warned the Egyptians – it was their hardness of heart that led to the continuation of the plagues. But it was all to show the goodness of God in calling His people out of slavery, which prefigures His call of us out of sin and alientaion from God.

    • HonestDebate1

      Ed, for what it’s worth (not much) I have a lot of respect for how you handle the attacks and ridicule so graciously. I don’t think I’ve ever seen you direct an unkind word to anyone. When someone is secure in their beliefs as a result of sober assessment and reflection, this is possible. When they are not, they attack. Keep up the good work.

      • Labropotes

        Right on guys. Ed just stated his view as mildly as possible and he gets down arrows? That’s not cool.

        • http://profile.yahoo.com/JXSANCUDPIKQSPID5KT2U4XK5Y TF

          I don’t go to some online Church Bulletin and start posting stuff about my politics.

          When Ed75 stops cramming his churchiness down my state, I’ll worry about his tone.

          • pete18

            That’s funny, last time I checked abortion was a political subject.

      • Ed75

        That’s a high compliment, thanks! All I can say is that, for me. I’ve found the pearl of great price and I hope not to lose it. And that is the Catholic Church, it is so beautiful and good. So, I try to give the Catholic view on these important questions at a time when our culture has left the Judeo-Christian tradition. So it seems new. My responsibility and ability isn’t to convince others, but to present a point of view that is not presented, and which I’m convinced is true and life-giving. (It’s usually not my view I present – it’s that of the Catholic Church, and people don’t accept or reject my ideas, but those of the Church, which I’m convinced are true and eternal.)

    • TomK_in_Boston

      You start by complaining abt name calling and continue with “Planned Parenthood as an organization that makes money by killing chilldren”. Apparently you don’t see anything bizarre or ironic there, and that’s part of the problem. No extremist will ever admit that expressing their radical views is anything but well justified.

      • fun bobby

        its not that its an untrue statement but it is one that could be said of so many organizations. Coca cola is an organization that makes money by killing children. the CIA is an organization that makes money by killing children. the manufacturers and distributors of flat screen tvs and tide packets and drones and swimming pools make money killing children. the people who are fired up about planned parenthood seem less concerned with those others for some reason. now that’s bizarre and ironic

    • John_in_Amherst

      On a child’s first birthday are they 1 year old, or 1 year 9 months?

      Aborting a fetus is a tragedy. It is not something that women undertake lightly, but even when and where abortion is illegal, women do, even at considerable risk, as they see it as a less-bad option than having a child that would face a life of profound disability, or carrying a fetus that endangers their health, or having a child they can’t care for.

      The vast majority of Planned Parenthood’s budget goes for family planning, not for abortion.

      If your religious beliefs include prohibition of birth control, don’t use it. If you believe a human life begins when a when a sperm penetrates an egg, and not when a child takes a first breath, don’t have an abortion. A woman’s personal health decisions are hers alone to make, and the moral judgements surrounding those decisions are God’s to make, NOT yours, not the government’s, and not the Pope’s.

      • http://profile.yahoo.com/JXSANCUDPIKQSPID5KT2U4XK5Y TF

        Tangent: It’s demonstrative how messed up the language on this subject is that nobody in the middle says “forced birth is a tragedy” for any of the reasons it can be.

      • Ed75

        Women agonize over this decision – or agonize afterward because of the decision they made – but men need to agonize too, a man who impregnates a woman is morally responsible to support that woman and that child until that child is 18. If men acted well, women would not be in such distress.
        (That’s what they said about slavery – if you don’t agree with slavery don’t own a slave. But their concern was for the slave, and our concern if for our unborn brothers and sisters.)
        On the contrary, God is the king of the universe, obviously. Everything comes under his reign. Morality is the science of human action, and sexual activity is one very important part of human action. So God, through the Church and the pope, teaches moral and good action, in all areas. But the society presents a different, and flawed, view.

        • John_in_Amherst

          Your view comports well for Catholics. For other Christians, let alone non-Christians, not so well. I’d start with: morality is not a science, and take off from their, but faith and reason are mutually exclusive. We are destined to disagree. I recognize the special status of a fetus – as living tissue, within the body of a mother until birth, where upon a fetus transitions from being intimately linked to the body of the mother, to a person of individual identity. The transition is birth – when a baby breathes its first independent breath. A fetus begins its existence at conception, and ends its existence at birth, when it becomes a person. I recognize the state’s authority over people. I do not recognize states having any legitimate business interfering with fetuses and the women who carry them.

          • Ed75

            On the one hand you’re right, the constitution speaks of citizens with rights as clearly post-birth. On the other hand Justice Blackmun in Roe v. Wade said that they ‘were not making this decision based on the idea that the law can’t tell a person what to do with his or her body … It has and it will.’ And he cited a few examples. And he said that the state could legitimately regulate abortion in the third trimester for purposes of the state.
            I would say that the fetus (little person) has individuality from the moment of conception because his or her dna is set at the moment of conception, and it’s different from the mother. It’s a philosophical question whether it’s a person or not a person, but it seems clear that it’s a distinct human being.

          • John_in_Amherst

            It’s not clear at all. with current technology we are at the point (or soon will be) where every stem cell, fetal or not, has the potential to become a human being.
            Third trimester fetuses can conceivably survive – take a first breath and thereby become a person – outside the mother’s body without extraordinary interventions, so long as the fetus is otherwise healthy or “normal”, hence the rationale for state intervention.

    • PithHelmut

      The world is full of violence and we’re handing money out to other countries’ militias and you’re worried about mothers and their fetuses and the money spent there. Alrighty then.

      • Ed75

        Well, you’re right, it’s getting positively scary. Makes me think of Revelation 19 and 20. But as Dr. King said, injustice anywhere is an attack on justice everywhere. Perhaps God is raising up or allowing nations to fight us because of the evil we are participating in.

    • fun bobby

      do you feel the same about Raytheon?

      • Ed75

        What is Raytheon?

        • fun bobby

          its a company that makes missiles that kill children and pregnant women alike. should we stop using tax payer dollars to support them?

  • Ed75

    “For our wrestling is not against flesh and blood; but against principalities and power, against the rulers of the world of this darkness, against the spirits of wickedness in the high places.” Saint Paul, Letter to the Ephesians 6:12, reminds us that the forces behind these wars and conflicts are not only human beings.

    • John_in_Amherst

      Zeus must be ticked off with us, eh?

      • Ed75

        Very ticked. No, really, God loves us. But he allows us to suffer the consequences if we make mistakes, and encourages us to reconsider what we are doing. It’s not God we have to worry about, but the prince of darkness, and human cooperation with him.

  • HonestDebate1

    Here’s the obligatory Ashton Kutcher clip. Kudos to him for taking advantage of the moment to speak to the youth.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zuBSRC1zpHw&feature=player_embedded

  • TomK_in_Boston

    I see we’re not cutting off aid to our weapons mfgrs….oh, my bad, I mean to Egypt :)

    Good thing we got rid of Assad and Murabak, huh?

    • HonestDebate1

      You’re right about the knee-jerk mistake to show Mubarek the door but have we gotten rid of Asaad? That’s news to me.

  • alsordi

    “ELYSIUM” Excellent movie !!!!

    QUESTION: But why no mainstream media promos and chatter??? ANSWER: Because it is not a mainstream hollywood dumbed-down propaganda production.

    For weeks before the Hunger Games, all I heard was great reviews and gratuitous promotion everywhere in the mainstream media. Hunger Games turned out to be the worst made, cheapest , horrible acting, terrible filmography, non-sensical movie,I have even seen. I should have left after ten minutes.

    On the other hand, ELYSIUM is action packed, well made, great scenes and great story-line. BUT its anti-establishment.
    Its anti-everything that is wrong in the USA today. Including Homeland security, elitism, income gaps, healthcare, intrusive technology, wars and the police state.

    ITS A MUST SEE !!!!

    • fun bobby

      ok Matt

  • hennorama

    Revolutions, whether successful or not, are seldom pretty.

    • HonestDebate1

      I am more concerned that the sausage is nutritional.

    • PithHelmut

      We’ll do it differently here. We’ll use love. Get on board! Doing nothing means you’re on their side (their side being continuing the same power structures and remaining mired in the same mess). Sociocracy/Dynamic Governance is the upgrade of Democracy. Here’s one of several websites that give an overview: http://www.adeeperdemocracy.org/sociocracy-dynamic-governance/

  • Coastghost

    IF the US winds up suspending economic assistance to the Egyptian military, would the US simultaneously suspend foreign aid to Israel, even as peace talks with Palestinians proceed? Is US underwriting of $2 billion+ annually to Israel and Egypt a formal part of the Camp David Accords or has it simply become customary since 1978? Would current regional perception of US even-handedness lead to a dual suspension of foreign aid and assistance to Israel and Egypt both?

  • alsordi

    I can see by the dearth of posts that the sheepish pseudo-liberal NPR listeners are too squirmy and uncomfortable to post today.

    Hmmm?
    US Military Aid???
    You mean transfer payments to General Dynamics employees and their families. Can’t stop that gravy train.

    Along with all the other military contractors who get the all the Egyptian “aid”. More like “kool-aid”.

    With “aid” like that who needs enemies. Why not just send just a half billion directly to the extremely poor Egyptian people?
    Instead of backing a ruthless military regime to keep the israeli apartheid regime happy and safe.

    • John_in_Amherst

      some days it’s amusing to just sit back and let the pseudo right (what the hell is pseudo left??) rave and watch the spittle froth….

      • Labropotes

        Hi John, my guess is that pseudo-liberal means one who takes the meaning of liberalism to be government control of just about everything.

        But I think your term pseudo-right is correct, as alsordi is advocating the redirection of military spending to feeding needy people. I.e., left.

        • alsordi

          wrong and wrong…. government control is not a good thing.

      • alsordi

        The “pseudo-left” are those warm and fuzzy types that extol the virtues of gay-marriage and the environment, while letting Wall Street, Defense Contractors, the US media, and ISRAEL get away with murder.

        They compartmentalize their vested interests.

    • Labropotes

      Ship the poor of Egypt free money so we can corrode their society just like we have our own. Brilliantly diabolical, alsordi!

      • alsordi

        Rather keep them poor so the best jobs are in the military in police where they can repress their own countrymen while protecting the elites.
        And then the US can supply the bombs, guns and teargas…. as “aid” of course.

  • Michiganjf

    What?!!!!

    The Administration seems to lack “foresight” as to the direction of the chaos in the Middle East??

    Is that comment supposed to draw a contrast with, say, the Bush Administration, which made call after call correctly????

    • alsordi

      They do not lack “foresight”. The plan is to destabilize the middle east and they are batting a thousand.

      • J__o__h__n

        What do we gain by destabilizing the region? The price of oil goes up and we can spend more lives and money on this mess? We put stabilizing the region above nearly all priorities for this region. We propped up dictators and then when they topple get caught in the resulting mess.

        • alsordi

          Good question John.

          It is just amazing what AIPAC and the media can get the citizens of the USA involved in to protect ISRAEL.

        • fun bobby

          that’s what the military industrial complex would benefit most from right?

  • J__o__h__n

    I predicted this in my post of Feb 2011: Without an orderly transition, there is going to be a power vacuum which will be filled by an already existing organization like the military or the Muslim Brotherhood and not leaderless individuals connected by Facebook.

    Sadly I was correct that the Arab Spring would not result in a functioning democracy.

    • HonestDebate1

      Many were thinking the same thing.

      It’s the second revolution that counts. So I don’t know whoever’s behind this, if they don’t survive, and the military’s aligned with them, if they don’t survive this, is it the Muslim Brotherhood waiting in line to then overthrow whatever happens here? And it may take years for all this to play out. We don’t really know. Despite the efforts of our media. I know what they want. What do they want? They want, by tonight, by the evening news tonight, the US media wants to be able to say that Barack Obama has transformed Egypt into a democracy of-peace-loving people and that their economy is going great, that the joblessness numbers are going down. They want to be able to wrap this up in a pretty little bow and say Egypt’s fixed by the evening news, certainly by the Sunday shows on Sunday. And that’s what they’re all angling for. But there hasn’t been any consistency from the White House on what their message is and what their position here is.

      http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2013/08/15/the_obama_regime_bungled_egypt

      • alsordi

        Dude, The plan of the NEOCONS was DESTABILIZATION from the very beginning.

        MISSION ACCOMPLISHED !! Get it? .

        • HonestDebate1

          Alrighty then.

          • alsordi

            Hey Smugness,
            See the pattern?
            Iraq, Afghanistan, Tunisia, Libya, Syria, Egypt…destabilized…. get it ??? ….
            …..Alrighty then.

    • PithHelmut

      It’s not over yet. Believe in people. It looks totally disheartening but more of this is not an option. One thing’s for sure, the usual players are nothing but savages.

      • Labropotes

        Yeah. Democracy in Egypt is like Brigadoon.

        PithHelmut, your treakly rap is vapid and rather unconvincing.

  • Jon

    The Egypt dilemma is the result of failed US foreign policy and Obama is the one to blame. He supported Arab spring with whole-heart without foreseeing that Muslims would rule after democratic election. Democracy is the system of ruling of the majority not morality. He took the pragmatic approach now ignoring the fact of military coup (continuing the US aid) for fearing the loss of control of Egypt and the middle east. Pragmatism is amoral and it’s the dark side of this culture who self claims as the beacon of morality.

    • J__o__h__n

      He waited until the last minute to support it.

      • Jon

        one thing is for sure for the americans – Obama is definitely not a Muslim.

    • jimino

      So you’re contending our policy should have been what? Backing what ever was necessary, including militant dictatorship, to subdue those who were participating in the Arab spring? What should or could our country have done to achieve what you want?

      As to who or what is to blame:
      “The demise of repressive governments in Tunisia, Egypt and elsewhere during this year’s ‘Arab spring,’ she says, stemmed in part from Bush’s ‘freedom agenda,’ which promoted democracy in the Middle East. “The
      change in the conversation about the Middle East, where people now routinely talk about democratization is something that I’m very grateful for and I think we had a role in that,” Condolezza Rice .

      • Jon

        You right Obama is just another agent of failed foreign policy. The true alternative is zero intervention like Ron Paul’s policy. What others want is not US business.

      • Jon

        Foreign policy like Ron Paul’s is OUR policy as well.

      • Jon

        Ron Paul – Foreign policy should follow Founding Fathers’ ideals

        http://rawstory.com/news/2007/Ron_Paul_Foreign_policy_should_follow_1008.html

  • PithHelmut

    You know what the problem is really? Men. Yes that’s right. Humanity has been having wars and atrocities almost always perpetrated by men. Look at today – same thing. It seems the problem is the combination of two deadly elements – testosterone and power. Can the world ever be free of this toxic force? Fortunately yes. If power were to go exclusively to women, the probability for peace becomes exponentially higher. Men commit 97% of violent crime even though women have as much access to weaponry as they do. Think about it. That is a quick and simple way of disarming the maniacs. Not all men are maniacs however the probability is high. You either play it their way or they shoot you in the face. Or punch you. Or strip you of your life’s savings. Almost always men. Women can start the practice of taking responsibility more frequently, stepping forward more often, not being afraid of making mistakes. Yes, mistakes will be made but rest assured stats show they will be nowhere as monumental as the mistakes of men. Stand up to your man when he speaks threateningly to you or about others. Start using your voice more often and louder. Good men, please help and support your women. Whoever thinks this idea has merit, pass it around. It’s going to take some pretty fast and fancy footwork to stop what is happening in Egypt and to stop it from starting up somewhere else as well. A better world is possible.

    • John_in_Amherst

      Ever read Lysistrata?

    • fun bobby

      yes we should all be subject to the whims of benevolent amazons. lets not forget women brought us prohibition! how has that affected violence levels? it seems our society had been demonizing men for some time. we have several generations in America that have been raised by women. this is a side effect of industrialization. now the tables are turning as this generation currently being born will be the first in over a hundred years raised by men.

  • J__o__h__n

    Why is Messiah, any worse than naming the kid, Mohammad, Jesus, Mary, etc.? At least it wasn’t a creative spelling of it.

    • hennorama

      J__o__h__n – it’s not.

      I’d be telling the magistrate judge to KMA, and to refer to the 1st Amendment.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=32606540 Brian Belgard

    I think dismissing out of hand the high incarceration rate’s impact on crime is a bit naïve.
    I don’t really think that locking up huge segments of our population
    is a good way or cost effective way of cutting crime, but putting away lots of
    young men (who are most likely to commit violent crime) is likely to lead to
    changes in crime rates. I do
    n’t think it’s been the primary driver of the drop in violent crime, but most
    who have studied the problem give it some amount of credit.

    • fun bobby

      I think it has lead to changes in crime rates. it has increased them exponentially

      • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=32606540 Brian Belgard

        Bobby, you couldn’t be further from the truth. I suspect you’ve never actually read the data on this (or any data for that matter), but here’s what the FBI has to say.

        http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr

        Here’s an excerp pulled from overview reports.

        “Crime rates have varied over time in the United States. American crime rates generally rose after World War II, and peaked between the 1970s and early 1990s. Since the early 1990s, crime has declined in the United States,[5] and current crime rates are approximately the same as those of the 1960s.”

        I don’t mean to sound smug, but I would really encourage you and anyone else who falsely believes that crime is increasing to read some data on the matter, not just rely on gut instincts.

        • fun bobby

          the history of crime in America did not start after ww2 I am talking about going back much further that that. prohibition has caused mass incarceration which has lead to breakdown in family units which perpetuates crime and incarceration. crime has dropped steadily since the 90s. I read the article also on ‘bur on how people believe crime rates have increased but they have in fact decreased in the past few years so your smugness I misplaced here. perhaps I could remind you what happens when you assume?

          • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=32606540 Brian Belgard

            I assumed you had no idea what the data says because your statement showed that and your continued lack of awareness proves it.

            Incarceration rates ticked up in the 70′s and 80′s as politicians wanted to look tough on crime in the face of the increases seen then. The idea that increased rates of incarceration have caused crime to increase is just laughable. We have the highest rate of incarceration ever now, and crime rates are lower than they have been since 1900.

            I in no way endorse the idea that this is a good way to combat crime, but ignoring its impact is absurd. So as long as you falsely believe that we are in an age of elevated crime, I’m going to continue to assume you don’t knwo what you’re talking about.

          • fun bobby

            I never said that. you just made an assumption and instead of owning up to it you persist in making an ass of u and me. the same as when you assume that incarcerating the highest percent of people in the world is responsible for the downward trend in crime statistics.

            tell me more about the FBI crime statistics from 1900.

          • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=32606540 Brian Belgard

            I didn’t accuse you of saying anything, I accused your statement of being wrong, which it is.Your statement was “I think it has lead to changes in crime rates. it has increased them exponentially”

            That statement is empirically wrong, and cliched platitudes about assuming won’t help your case.

            Crime is down due to a variety of factors and an increased incarceration rates is undoubtedly one of them. If young men are being removed from the population for drug offenses they will not be able to commit violent crimes. What percent of the drop is related to incarceration levels? I can’t say. Are there better, less socially disruptive ways of combating crimes? Probably. You’ve done nothing to disprove my statement that dismissing the connection between crime decreases and incarceration is naive.

            Also, you really think you’re gunna catch me on when the FBI was created? Seriously, show me some data that begins to prove your statement about exponential crime increases caused by incarceration and I’ll gladly listen.

          • fun bobby

            saying crime is up or down is always BS because it depends on what time frame you look at. is that simple enough?
            my point was that incarceration is not effective to reduce crime. that’s all.
            I am sorry I was not more clear

          • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=32606540 Brian Belgard

            I’m confused as to why you’ve dismissed my argument about
            crime and incarceration being correlated in the 90’s and 00’s considering it
            is.

            But what really baffles me is your inability to construct a fact based argument
            to counter my point.

            You’re insistence on “crime goes up when incarceration goes up” and
            unwillingness to provide any data to prove this is hilarious. I understand that’s
            your hunch, and hunches are good ways to start an investigation but believing something
            is true isn’t proof that it is.

            As for the statement that we cannot compare crime over periods
            of time, this is so stupid I shouldn’t even bother, but I will anyway.
            Basically this statement is a catch 22 where you’re either an idiot because it’s
            true, or you’re an idiot because it’s false.

            1. First scenario, your statement that there is no way of comparing crime over
            time is true. This means that the statement “crime goes up due to incarceration”
            is either false or unknowable. In which case your first statement proves you’re
            an idiot.

            2. Second scenario, your statement that there is no way of comparing crime over
            time is false. In this scenario my statement that crime is negatively
            correlated with incarceration in the 90’s and 00’s is right because crime is
            correlated negatively with incarceration in the 90’s and 00’s. In which case
            your second statement proves you’re an idiot.

            Either way you’re an idiot.

            PS, adults generally capitalize the first word of a new
            sentence.

          • fun bobby

            you are too confused. its funny you are now talking in terms of correlation when you started off by saying this:
            “I think dismissing out of hand the high incarceration rate’s impact on crime is a bit naïve” You are saying there is a causal relationship. then you proceeded to act like quite a fool building and knocking down strawmen like a monkey in the wizard of oz.
            perhaps next time you could pull your head out of your rear end and things might smell different

          • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=32606540 Brian Belgard

            Instead of sidestepping the issue at hand, can you just
            answer my request for data or at least qualitative information to back up your
            assertion.

            I looked at some of your other posts and it’s like you took a half semester of logic
            and you’re just saying the concepts you remember regardless of whether they’re
            relevant… “correlation isn’t causation”, “that’s an ad hominem attack”, “you’re
            making a straw man argument”.

            Instead of regurgitating your notes from Philosophy 101, could you address
            the source of our original disagreement. Show me the evidence that my comment was
            wrong. Prove to me using data (or atleast some qualitative argument other then I’m
            right because I know I’m right) that crime is increased exponentially by incarcerating larger numbers of people.

            If you can’t do that then you should just man up and admit that your original statement
            is either categorically wrong, or at the very least completely unsupported by
            facts.

          • fun bobby

            thanks for providing an image to demonstrate that you have little desire for discussion and are more interested in playing games.

          • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=32606540 Brian Belgard

            Thanks for sidestepping the issue again and proving my point that your statement was wrong or unfounded.

            In the future its best to stay on point and actually address what other people are discussing.

          • fun bobby

            I don’t really have any inclination to discuss anything with someone with open contempt for logic

          • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=32606540 Brian Belgard

            My contempt is for lazy arguments. Quoting wikipedia entries on philosophical logic, or philosophy 101 notes, or wherever you got your half assed understanding of philosophical logic is a lazy argument.

            But feel free to continue ignoring the fact that your statement is wrong. Mask your ineptitude in whatever convoluted explanation you need to feel better about getting rhetorically bitch slapped for the past 2 weeks.

            I mean it’s not even really your fault. The fact is that I’m probably smarter than you, I have obviously read more on the topic than you, and I have a better understanding of rhetoric and the basics of staging an argument.

            The irony of this whole conversation is that my position has serious flaws. I mean, I’m still right, and you’re still an idiot but you could point out serious issues with my conclusions. Instead you’re too dead set on flexing your “logic” muscles to just analyze the data surrounding my argument and point out its short comings.

            In short, answer my question. How am I Wrong? If you can’t do that, just admit that you’ve spent the last 2 weeks losing an argument with an online stranger. I at least have the satisfaction of knowing that I’ve digitally embarrassed you.

          • fun bobby

            my bad, I guess it took me to long to notice you were a narcissist. sorry I wasted my time.

          • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=32606540 Brian Belgard

            An here we go again. Prove that I’m wrong, or admit that you are. It’s really that simple.

          • fun bobby

            is there an emoticon for pointing and laughing?

          • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=32606540 Brian Belgard

            Yes there is. But it’s next to the button you push to compose a sound argument. Good like finding either one.

  • Yar

    On mandatory sentencing, we need a review of records. Has this practice of omitting the quantity in a person’s possession been selectively used in the past? Review all drug related sentencing, and then do a comparison by race and class. I bet if you are wealthy or white and charged with drug possession you are less likely to have the quantity of the drug listed in your sentence. I hope that I am wrong, but selective enforcement of laws are a major problem with our judicial system. Justice has never been blind, at least not colorblind.

    • Steve__T

      This is an extract of a very lengthy report on Race,Drugs and Law Enforcement in the US.

      Published in the Stanford Law and Policy Review

      Author: Jamie Fellner, senior counsel to the US program

      Since the mid-1980s, the United States has pursued aggressive law enforcement strategies to curtail the use and distribution of illegal drugs. The costs and benefits of this national “war on drugs” remain fiercely debated. What is not debatable, however, is that this ostensibly race-neutral effort has been waged primarily against black Americans. Relative to their numbers in the general population and among drug offenders, black Americans are disproportionately arrested, convicted, and incarcerated on drug charges.

      http://www.hrw.org/news/2009/06/19/race-drugs-and-law-enforcement-united-states

  • Steve / Lexington MA

    Re: Egypt:

    The military government have revealed themselves as brutal thugs.

    Let’s remember that the Muslim Brothers also revealed themselves as thugs and tyrants during President Morsi’s ugly rule.

    Morsi was elected. But he governed as a tyrant. He declared his unwillingness to obey judicial rulings. He included no opposition members in his cabinet. He imposed a new Islamist constitution that favored only his Islamist faction. His Muslim Brotherhood colleagues perpetrated bloody violence against the Christian minority, and his government failed to prevent it.

    James Madison warned against the tyranny of the majority in Federalist Papers #10. Morsi’s rule was a classic case of Madison’s tyranny.

    The US should support liberal democracy. It should oppose illiberal democracy, and tyrannical democracy. Morsi’s rule was illiberal and tyrannical. Hence despite being elected the Morsi government deserved to be viewed and treated as illegitimate.

    The problem in Egypt is not that a coup was mounted against Morsi. It is that the officers who mounted the coup apparently have no more belief in democracy than the Islamist thugs they ousted, and are now feeding a growing cycle of violence by their mindless brutality.

    • fun bobby

      the solution has to be to send them a few billion worth of military hardware for free right?

  • hennorama

    Ralph – what a stupid comment, sir. “It only makes sense that most of the people being stopped are black.”

    That’s profiling, not policing.

    • John_in_Amherst

      And Ralph, does it make sense that at least 90% of the time, the cops find nothing?

  • J__o__h__n

    Are the Lutherans annoyed at the Messiah judge?

  • thequietkid10

    Holy **** those stop of frisk numbers are insane. I’m sure they are helping, but there has GOT to be better way.

    Sad it is so popular, too many people in this country want a police state to protect them from any small threat that the Islamic/urban populations (aka right wing boogie man) or corporations (aka the left wing boogie man) might possibly pose to them.

    When in reality the threats that these groups actually pose is statistically insignificant. And no government on Earth can guaranteed your safety.

    • Labropotes

      In 2009, 4.6% of mortalities among black males were homicide. Is that insignificant?

      One death is a tragedy, a million is a statistic, eh?

      http://www.cdc.gov/men/lcod/2009/LCODBlackmales2009.pdf

      • hennorama

        Labropotes – indeed the homicide rate among black males is appalling. But let’s not exaggerate the problem, and let’s not fool ourselves into thinking that a) stop and frisk policies will impact this rate significantly, and b) the ends justify the means.

        In 2010, the total number of deaths of black males, per the CDC, was 145,802, with 6,704 due to “Assault (homicide) (*U01-*U02,X85-Y09,Y87.1).”

        (Those alphanumeric combinations above are codes from the International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision (ICD–10). The asterisk indicates “ * Figure does not meet standards of reliability or precision,” so it’s possible that there are some imperfections in the data.)

        Based on these figures, it would take more than 149 years to reach “a million” deaths due to these causes.

        See:

        http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/dvs/LCWK1_2010.pdf (page 78)

        • Labropotes

          I think ‘stop and frisk’ is illegal and wrong. I also think the policy prevented a lot of killing. Still, the law’s the law, especially when it’s good, and the highest law here is the US constitution.

          Citing the rate was to challenge the description of the risk as insignificant. The exaggeration wasn’t meant to be taken literally. Though it easily could be. A million deaths being a statistic is a reference to a supposed comment by Stalin.

          We are agreed! Thanks for doing the research.

      • fun bobby

        oh? is the law designed to keep black people safe? silly, ungrateful black people don’t they know they are being target and harassed for their own good?

        • Labropotes

          No. Stop and frisk is a violation of the law. I am amazed it’s still going on, dismayed that Bloomberg has promulgated a policy so contrary to the character of American law, and disappointed that the policy might be deemed legit just because the cop will have a camera on his shoulder. My only point was that the threats being addressed by Stop and Frisk are not statistically insignificant.

          • fun bobby

            why defend it if you know its wrong? at this point I would be surprised if Bloomberg proposed any thing that was constitutional. he is a scumbag who hates America and freedom

          • Labropotes

            Look at the last sentence in my first reply to you. I only wanted to point out that there is a serious violent crime problem that has a vastly disproportionate effect on black males. I found describing this situation as insignificant inappropriate.

            Wouldn’t it be great if, over time, conversations like this lead to a sense of community, of common purpose and understanding? 211 to access NYC government services is constitutional and a good program. Bloomberg’s initiative. He’s not a scumbag or a hater of America. He just has a theory of the good that isn’t exactly like yours or mine.

          • fun bobby

            clearly violating peoples rights is not the solution to the problem you have identified. the situation is a feature of the war on drugs, not a bug. we could reduce the murder rate in America 99% by ending prohibition of drugs. I feel confident in this as this is exactly what happened when alcohol prohibition ended. it would save tens or hundreds of billions of dollars and countless lives. it would make it possible to secure our borders. it would reduce if not end poverty. yet it does not happen because we have scumbag politicians and elite billionaires making decisions that benefit them and not the general public.

            I don’t know what 211 is. I know he spends millions of his own money to try to strip us of our guns. he imposes racist unconstitutional searches on those in his city. he tried to take away big sodas. he runs ads in states he does not live in slandering public officials years before they are due for reelection. I can’t abide by any American who can’t abide by the bill of rights, if you don’t like the bill of rights you can get the eff out of this “community”.

  • Jeff Hughes

    Please ask Jack Beatty to refrain from thumping his microphone or the table when he speaks. Very annoying!

    • StilllHere

      Might have been his teeth falling out.

      • nj_v2

        Pathetic, even by your already low standards.

        • StilllHere

          LOL, it was only a question, don’t get your panties all in a bunch.

      • jefe68

        Oh the little troll is squawking.

  • WorriedfortheCountry

    One has to ask if the Messiah naming trend was inspired by Obama.

    • John_in_Amherst

      because he is the source of all diabolical ills, is he not?

      • WorriedfortheCountry

        Oh no, but he is the Messiah to many. In fact he wrote two memoirs before he did anything and received the Nobel prize before he did anything. Yes, to many he is divine.

        • HonestDebate1

          “…this was the moment when we began to provide care for the sick and good jobs to the jobless; this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal; this was the moment when we ended a war and secured our nation and restored our image as the last, best hope on Earth. This was the moment – this was the time – when we came together to remake this great nation so that it may always reflect our very best selves, and our highest ideals.”

        • jimino

          It’s similar to Ronald Reagan, deified for doing what he actually didn’t do. There’s no accounting for taste or deification.

          • HonestDebate1

            Your comment makes me think about what could have been if Obama had not foisted Obamacare on us, racked up enormous debt with the failed “stimulus”, imposed regulations out the wazoo, put a moratorium on offshore drilling, and targeted the Tea Party with the IRS.

          • jimino

            Very satiric recitation of things that really weren’t done for which someone is blamed by many. I didn’t think you had such satiric wit in you.

            That was your attempt, right?

          • HonestDebate1

            There can be no meaningful recovery with Obamacare on the books,

        • John_in_Amherst

          at least in your estimation, and perhaps FOX & Rush, etc…
          He wrote hie memoirs because he has led a unique and interesting life, even before being elected President. He did not give himself the NPP. That was done by the committee who chooses the winner, and they did it largely in hopes that Obama would be the antithesis of his cowboy predecessor and his bellicose neocon buddies who regularly flouted international laws and our own.

          • WorriedfortheCountry

            Has the Nobel committee asked for the prize back? They must be sorely disappointed.

          • fun bobby

            how is that working out?

    • http://profile.yahoo.com/JXSANCUDPIKQSPID5KT2U4XK5Y TF

      Do I have to link to all those self-identified Christians putting images of Bush II and the Cross together for their own amusement?

      • WorriedfortheCountry

        Come on. The comment was clearly ‘tongue in cheek’. However, it must of struck a chord.

        • jimino

          Please make up what passes for your mind. Was it “tongue in cheek” or is Obama really “the Messiah to many”. Since you said them both I’ll let you choose.

          And if you’re offended, just consider my comment to be tongue in cheek.

          • WorriedfortheCountry

            OK.

            Have they stopped bringing smelling salts to his campaign events to revive everyone who faints?

          • jimino

            You didn’t choose. I must have, as they say, struck a chord. So which is it?

          • WorriedfortheCountry

            Well the obvious answer is: BOTH.

          • http://profile.yahoo.com/JXSANCUDPIKQSPID5KT2U4XK5Y TF

            Smelling salts? From you, a guy who can’t stop regurgitating all the poutrage the right makes up?

  • Luke Held

    Matt Rothschild, editor of The Progressive, was arrested for covering a protest at the Wisconsin State Capitol. This is what Fascism looks like. Please talk about this creeping fascism, or at least this case.

    “You can’t be here,” they said.
    “I’m with the press,” I said. “I have a right to be here.”

    http://www.progressive.org/walker-cop-nabs-me-for-being-a-reporter#.Ug44owZiM-Z.facebook

    • jefe68

      That’s how the Walker administration rolls, they ignore the 1st Amendment but endorse the 2nd.

    • StilllHere

      Trespassing is trespassing, press or no.

      • jefe68

        Trespassing at a state capital building?
        The one payed for by the tax payers?

        This comment is a great example of the inanity of the right. 1st Amendment rights mean nothing to them. Only the 2nd.

  • Jim

    if the parents in tennessee cannot get the name Messiah for the child, i would recommend Judge Lu Ann Ballew to ban her name Lu and Ann. This judge has absolutely NO rights to dictate the name of a person.

    I remember this government forced my parents to change my name ‘cos it is not american. now, i do not choose any “American” names for my children.

  • WorriedfortheCountry

    I get the civil rights concerns with stop and frisk but I do find it ironic that many legal gun ownership foes seem troubled with the most effective way to stop usage of illegal guns in high crime areas.

    • fun bobby

      both are bloombergs ideas

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/JXSANCUDPIKQSPID5KT2U4XK5Y TF

    Re: Caller who said Nixon’s DoJ went hard on drug sentencinng because liberals were the drug users:

    In the last 44 years, is the country simply getting to the point where the mainstream can no longer pretend recreational drugs are used only by those bongo-playing beats spouting non-rhyming poetry in Greenwich Village or the tie-dyed hippies listening to Dead wannabes in San Francisco?

    • fun bobby

      the real threat was jazz musicians

  • TVPC58

    Stop & Frisk: This policy is obviously unlawful. It goes against the English Law concept of “presumed innocence.” It may work. It is not right. It is racist in how it is implemented in NYC. It has been objected to organizations as diverse as the NRA and the ACLU. The intention is not to find concealed weapons or contraband, as evidenced by the high frisk rate and low arrest rate. It is designed to instill a state of apprehension among anyone on the streets of NYC.

    The big issue is the slippery slope: these kind of policies become to be viewed as normal and then they are extended to other jurisdictions or become national policy through DHS. As sanctioned by the Patriot Act, the U.S. Border Patrol already has routine traffic blockades withing 100 miles of the Canadian border on interstate highways in northern border states, NY I-87 and NH 93, for example. They stop ALL of the traffic to check vehicles for illegal aliens, etc. Inconvenient at the least and Orwellian at the most.

    • OnPointComments

      We are told that the ‘ends justify the means’ when it comes to NSA spying on American citizens, and that we must allow the government to collect our personal information, without a warrant or probable cause, to thwart terrorist attacks and save lives, even though NSA “has broken privacy rules or overstepped its legal authority thousands of times each year…” http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/nsa-broke-privacy-rules-thousands-of-times-per-year-audit-finds/2013/08/15/3310e554-05ca-11e3-a07f-49ddc7417125_story_1.html
      Yet when it comes to “Stop and Frisk,” a radical federal judge says that the ends don’t justify the means even if it saves 7,300 lives (Mayor Bloomberg’s estimate). If “Stop and Frisk” is unlawful because of “presumed innocence,” then is the collection of data by the NSA also unlawful?

      • Steve__T

        To answer your question: YES it’s unlawful.

      • fun bobby

        The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
        yup it seems to be

    • fun bobby

      I cant understand how people cant see that. how can so many people be so cowardly and stupid?
      BTW there are some great videos of people objecting to the checkpoints on youtube. wonder why it never ever makes “the news”? remember most Americans are cowards who will let their children be fondled by strangers and photographed naked in the face of a concocted threat

  • WorriedfortheCountry

    Obama is here in MA for a family vacation. His Auntie Zeituni and Uncle Omar live here in MA. Did he invite them down for some family bonding time at the $7.8M mansion? It is only a few short miles. He helicoptered in the dog after all.

    http://bostonherald.com/news_opinion/columnists/howie_carr/2013/08/carr_os_family_devalues

    • John_in_Amherst

      FYI, even a saltbox cottage on the Vineyard can cost $1M. And judging from your snarky comment, I assume you always vacation with your extended family…

      • WorriedfortheCountry

        yeah, but how often is your extended family the core of your voting block — welfare recipients and illegal immigrants.

        • northeaster17

          Can you explain about how Obama’s core constituency is welfare recipients and illegal immigrants.

        • John_in_Amherst

          implying a person is not authentically American unless they trace ancestry to the Mayflower and never took a dime of government largesse, right? Your veneer of patriotism and concern for the country is fairly transparent, you know…

          • jefe68

            It’s called false patriotism. That’s how the regressive right rolls.

        • Labropotes

          WftC, you are not being nice. Put a guy down because you don’t like his family? Mister Clever would be disappointed. Though in general I am sympathetic to you views.

          • WorriedfortheCountry

            I have nothing against Obama’s family.

          • John_in_Amherst

            OH. Just canon fodder for bad jokes, huh.

        • HonestDebate1

          You are getting beat up but for humor to work there needs to be an element of truth. I thought your comment was funny, some folks need to lighten up a bit.

          • John_in_Amherst

            ya. What’s not funny about a lack of compassion and racism?

          • WorriedfortheCountry

            Racism? That never came into play. Get a grip.

          • John_in_Amherst

            the ellipsis was clear enough

          • jefe68

            You’re going above his head.

          • HonestDebate1

            Racism?!

          • StilllHere

            Laughable really. Their racism of low expectations is the worst.

          • Labropotes

            I’m enjoying this page today. John, compassion is multifaceted. It’s not just about giving people stuff. If you make being opposed to illegal immigration equivalent to racism, you’re watering down the righteous opprobrium that should be directed at actual racism.

          • John_in_Amherst

            Actually, it is not about “giving people stuff” either.
            compassion:

            a feeling of deep sympathy and sorrow for another who is stricken by misfortune, accompanied by a strong desire to alleviate the suffering. Synonyms:
            1. commiseration, mercy, tenderness, heart, clemency.

          • WorriedfortheCountry

            Compassion? Wouldn’t it be compassionate for Obama to invite his Aunt and Uncle down for a family picnic prepared by the White House chef?

          • John_in_Amherst

            wouldn’t it be nice if the guy could take a week off with his wife and kids without being the brunt of every right wing crank’s attempt at humor? Ever notice how the presidency ages those who hold the office? Even guys like Bush who took a quarter of his time in office off on the Ranch?

          • WorriedfortheCountry

            The inconvenient elitist imagery is too much to resist. One thing I’ll give Jimmy Carter is he didn’t have the elitist problem. And brother Billy was invited to the picnic.

            Obama appears to be aging quite well. Good for him.

          • http://profile.yahoo.com/JXSANCUDPIKQSPID5KT2U4XK5Y TF

            What did Howie the hack have to say about the pig farm and “cuttin’ brush”?

          • WorriedfortheCountry

            Thank you. Actually I stole the idea from the Howie Carr article I linked. Of course it is humor but it must be touching a real nerve from the reaction.

            The problem is Obama is yet another elitist and yet his Aunt and Uncle ARE the core of his voting block. He will never rub shoulders with his family let alone his constituents. That is how the elitists play.

          • jefe68

            Howie Carr? That man is a bottom feeder at best. Real low life.

            What is it with the right wingers liking all these repugnant white guys with radio shows who feed off of the ignorance of society to make a living?

          • StilllHere

            These guys hate reality, and fear it as well. Some of them are as racist as they are ignorant, especially the guy just below.
            Good thread on your part.

    • http://profile.yahoo.com/JXSANCUDPIKQSPID5KT2U4XK5Y TF

      Remember when a President just took a vacation and needed some rest because he works hard and earned it?

      Whatever changed to cause the shat to fly about it from half the media?

      I guess if Obama pretended to be a pretend cowboy like Reagan or Shrub you’d think differently.

      • Labropotes

        I am frightened that the president is not at the controls, pulling the levers of the American Economy. /sarc

      • HonestDebate1

        Maybe what changed was a President who is on vacation when he’s not on vacation.

        • StilllHere

          He’ll still be listening to your telephone calls while on vacation.

      • jefe68

        Be careful now, you’re not on the topic of Obama.
        It’s only about him and not any other presidents.

    • jefe68

      President George W. Bush. During his two terms, Bush took 879 vacation days, which included 77 total trips to his Crawford, Tex., ranch. Nine of those trips were taken in his first year as president.

      While Bush holds the record for the longest modern presidential vacation for his five-week recess in 2005 in Crawford, the all-time record holder is John Adams who took eight months off in 1799.

      • WorriedfortheCountry

        Thanks for advancing the conversation.

        When things get a bit uncomfortable and all else fails: “blame it on Bush”.

        • jimino

          The idea that you are remotely interested in a conversation is ludicrous. He must have struck a chord for you to respond like you did.

          • WorriedfortheCountry

            Well, Mr. Jefe was a bit off point so I thought the response was warranted.

            We were complaining about Obama’s excessive vacations when he spent $100M on a family safari to Africa last month but not for this one.

          • jefe68

            Oh the stupidity of the regressive right.

          • StilllHere

            Completely, but ignoring him is healthier. He offers nothing.

        • jefe68

          I’m not blaming Bush for anything.
          Just noting he went on more vacations.
          You are beginning to act like an f’n troll buddy.

          • WorriedfortheCountry

            What part of “Week in the News” don’t you get?

            And regarding the deficit, that is movement in the right direction but we still have a long way to go. Just wait until interest rates spike.

            http://www.usdebtclock.org/

          • jefe68

            What part of the subject of presidential vacations don’t you get?
            You’re the one who brought it up in context to how long presidents spend going on vacations, not me.

            Funny how you did not mention John Adams.

          • StilllHere

            He doesn’t get much, but he loves to put down people, so much insecurity from a life wasted.

        • StilllHere

          Then when that fails, commence with the personal insults.
          See below … clockwork.

          • jefe68

            Troll. Like clockwork you load on the personal insults. Pathetic.

        • fun bobby

          Adams did it! lol too bad he did not have his own private jet

    • StilllHere

      Here come the relativists!

      • Ray in VT

        You mean that ones that are horrified by things that Obama does but aren’t or weren’t when Bush did the same or worse? I think that they’re already here.

        • nj_v2

          No, they’re still here.

  • WorriedfortheCountry

    “New EPA boss promises dictatorial action on global warming”

    Incredible!! What ever happened to the rule of law?

    http://www.examiner.com/article/new-epa-boss-promises-dictatorial-action-on-global-warming

    • Ray in VT

      So where in there did the head of the EPA promise “dictatorial action”? If the administration has authority under existing law and precedent to take certain actions, is doing so “dictatorial action”?

      • WorriedfortheCountry

        OK, let’s wait and see what she actually proposes. That is a fair response.

        However, we know that activist courts have ruled that clean air act can apply to CO2 even though the authors of the law in congress say that was never the intent.

        • Ray in VT

          Perhaps they did not, but did they specifically list what the regulated pollutants were to be, and how was pollution defined. If something is deemed to be a pollutant based upon the language of the act, then why would it not be valid to apply the act to that thing, unless, of course, the act specifically only lists what items can be regulated by name.

          • WorriedfortheCountry

            CO2 is not a pollutant by any traditional definition — if you think otherwise then stop exhaling. Why isn’t water vapor considered a pollutant by the EPA since it is a much more potent green-house gas?

          • Ray in VT

            In the sense that contributes to climate change, which definitely has negative environmental impacts, then one can certainly make the argument that it is, and considering that “traditional definition” can lock a term into an outdated or imprecise understanding, I don’t particularly like it. Brown v. Board of Education or Loving v. Virginia could both certainly be said to have gone against the “traditional definitions” of social organization and marriage, but we would not consider those past definitions regarding racial segregation or the mixing of the races to be presently relevant, would we?

            As to what I consider to be your rather flip reply and suggestion that if I am concerned then perhaps I should stop breathing, I think that there are plenty of steps that we can take as a society to reduce emissions and pollution of all sorts without resorting to exterminating people, but that’s just my view. Perhaps you disagree.

            Also, thank you from last week (?) for your vacation suggestions. Vacation planning can be difficult with small children. I’d love to take the to D.C. in order to see things like the Smithsonian, but at least two of them are of the age where I do not think that they would properly appreciate all that there is to see there, and that is true for many significant historical sites.

          • WorriedfortheCountry

            Yes, it was a flip reply but it was to make a point that CO2 is different. I consider any attempt to regulate CO2 under existing law an attempt to find a ‘loophole’. They should make their case case the American people and congress for a new law. Yes, it will be difficult but it should be. btw – I do think there could be further improvements in coal emissions — not CO2 — but mercury, soot, uranium, etc. So maybe we can find something to agree on.

            The kid issue is always tricky. You have to hit the window just right. Hopefully, they’ll develop a life long love of history. We brought our kids to Williamsburg when they were kind of young. Unfortunately, it was very hot and humid that day and they didn’t get much out of it.

          • Ray in VT

            We’ve tried to do as much educational stuff with the kids as possible, while keeping it fun so that they will be interested, so we’ve been to a planetarium, the New England Aquarium, the Boston Children’s Museum and such.

            My wife and I went to Colonial Williamsburg on our honeymoon (4 days in the Colonial, 3 days in the amusement parks). We didn’t have kids, and we were in fact jokingly advised to not have them by a young couple whose picture we took for them on the green outside of the old governor’s mansion. We sat in on a mock witch trial in the House of Burgesses. It was at dusk, and it was pretty eerie. It would have been something to have seen that slave auction that they did back in the 1980s (I think) that caused so much uproar.

          • J__o__h__n

            “Trees cause more pollution than automobiles do.” – Ronald Reagan

          • WorriedfortheCountry

            …and ketchup is a vegetable.

          • Steve__T

            That’s vegetable sauce.

          • WorriedfortheCountry

            “Yes, just as president Ronald Reagan said in 1981. “Trees cause more
            pollution than automobiles do,” he opined. A little later, environmental
            scientists ruefully confirmed he was partially right.”

            http://www.theguardian.com/science/2004/may/13/thisweekssciencequestions3

          • StilllHere

            Thanks.

          • HonestDebate1

            Wait till they start going after water vapor.

      • jefe68

        Some of the regressive right think anything that this administration does is dictatorial.

        Remember that not to long ago a lot the right wingers posting on the forum would call Obama a fascist and a socialist. Sometimes in the same sentence.

    • OnPointComments

      There is no rule of law under The Imperial Presidency of Barack Obama:

      “CAN OBAMA WRITE HIS OWN LAWS?”

      http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/charles-krauthammer-can-obama-write-his-own-laws/2013/08/15/81920842-05df-11e3-9259-e2aafe5a5f84_story.html

      ● Attorney General Eric Holder ordered all U.S. attorneys to simply stop charging nonviolent, non-gang-related drug defendants with crimes that, while fitting the offense, carry mandatory sentences.

      ● The Obama administration unilaterally waived Obamacare’s cap on a patient’s annual out-of-pocket expenses — a one-year exemption for selected health insurers that is nowhere permitted in the law.

      ● President Obama directed a 70-plus percent subsidy for the insurance premiums paid by congressmen and their personal staffs — under a law that denies subsidies for anyone that well-off.

      ● The Obama administration lawlessly suspended one of the cornerstones of Obamacare: the employer mandate.

      ● The immigration service was ordered to cease proceedings against young illegal immigrants brought here as children. Congress had refused to pass such a law (the DREAM Act) just 18 months earlier.

      “The point is whether a president, charged with faithfully executing the laws that Congress enacts, may create, ignore, suspend and/or amend the law at will. Presidents are arguably permitted to refuse to enforce laws they consider unconstitutional (the basis for so many of George W. Bush’s so-called signing statements). But presidents are forbidden from doing so for reasons of mere policy — the reason for every Obama violation listed above.

      “Such gross executive usurpation disdains the Constitution. It mocks the separation of powers. And most consequentially, it introduces a fatal instability into law itself. If the law is not what is plainly written, but is whatever the president and his agents decide, what’s left of the law?”

  • WorriedfortheCountry

    According to the latest poll, only 35% believe Obamanomics is working.

    Who are these 35%? What world are they living in?

    http://hotair.com/archives/2013/08/15/obamas-magical-economy-tour-going-about-as-well-as-youd-expect/

    • disqus_fw2Bu1dEsd

      The one that is round.

    • fun bobby

      one would think it would be 47% if romneys math was right

  • marygrav

    Today’s show was like reading a newspaper when they still printed news. Ever since NPR decided to remove Talk of the Nation in favor of the pop-news of Here and Now, things have been going downhill for radio broadcast daily news magazines.

    This is not to take away from the talents of H&N, but 5 to 10 minutes on a news story, and 20 minutes on pop-culture idol is not my idea about what the Empire should be concerned with. This is propaganda, not news, and with the blackout before the Invasion of Iraq, the media should have learned a singular lesson.

    It is because a show like TOTN is removed, by a so-called, national public news organization, that I and numerous others are forced to listen and trust the BBC more than NPR. If it were not for a show on NPR like On Point Radio, I doubt if we could get the in depth news that we do get. Yes, it has an element of pop, but pop as culture, not as news.

    The only reason that I would be willing to support my local NPR affiliate is because of shows like OPR and the Diane Rehm Show. Somehow the station managers at IPR think that we all are hicks and heyseeds only needing to know the temperature in Des Moines, and not what is going on in the world that WE AMERICANS HAVE CREATED OUT OF FEAR AND GREED.

    My only problem with OPR is that you post most of the time without sound.

    • J__o__h__n

      I’d rather have On Point followed by two hours of the Diane Rehm Show instead of the midday news highlights. Here and Now was OK for an hour and often has some good segments, but two hours of it is too much and makes me weary of news updates by the time the more substative All Things Considered comes on. I also miss the Political Junkie (not just because I won the no prize three times) and hope they have that back for the next election cycle.

      • marygrav

        Maybe if we all got together and threaten NPR like the Right-wing Republicans did, they can hear US roar. News to me is not to be tampered with. Too many lives are at stake.

        • http://profile.yahoo.com/JXSANCUDPIKQSPID5KT2U4XK5Y TF

          You don’t know enough about NPR. They’re called “Nice Polite Republicans” for a reason.

    • http://profile.yahoo.com/JXSANCUDPIKQSPID5KT2U4XK5Y TF

      Talk of The Nation devoted an hour (minimum) every week to “Inbred Now”, a.k.a. “Political Junkie”, where everything goes through the lens of Politico, it seems.

      Losing TOTN is addition by subraction.

  • woodsrow

    Tom Ashbrook is an awful host. A high school social studies student could add more to the discussion. Please bring back Neil Conan.

    • WorriedfortheCountry

      He’s busy hosting Obama for cocktails on the Vineyard (or was that a different NPR host?).

      • http://profile.yahoo.com/JXSANCUDPIKQSPID5KT2U4XK5Y TF

        You’re slipping: You forgot some bullsht TelePrompter joke.

        • WorriedfortheCountry

          Aw shucks! Elitists unite!!

          • StilllHere

            Is Conan stupid without a teleprompter too? Who knew?

    • http://neilblanchard.blogspot.com/ Neil Blanchard

      Different show, I think?

    • tbphkm33

      When the rest of us want to hear a kindergartner host OnPoint, we will call you.

      Please, until you have walked in someone’s shoes, don’t knock them. It is too easy to be the drunk heckler.

      • woodsrow

        How did you know I was drunk? Are you with the NSA or something…

        But seriously, Tom Ashbrook does very little to advance the conversation. He does little more than pander to the lowest common denominator in my opinion. Don’t misunderstand me though, I’m not saying he got to where he’s gone because he’s stupid. I believe he intentionally dumbs it down as directed by NPR executives.

  • StilllHere

    Racial profiling is a myth.

    In NYC, there are approximately 33% whites, 52% people of color (23% blacks, 29% hispanics). In the first half of 2012 in NYC, 11% of murder arrests were white. 85% were black or hispanic. 5% of rape arrests were white, 91% were black or hispanic. 12% of other sex crime arrests were white, 84% were black or hispanic. 6% of robbery arrests were white, 91% were black or hispanic.

    • OnPointComments

      Political correctness run amok.

      Safe Streets, Overruled

      http://www.city-journal.org/2013/eon0813hm.html

      “A judge’s appalling decision will endanger New York’s most vulnerable residents.”

      Excerpt:

      Officer Edgar Gonzalez of Brooklyn’s 88th Precinct conducted 134 stops, 128 of which involved black or Hispanic subjects. That stop ratio is consistent not only with the specific crime patterns then afflicting Fort Greene, but also with the overall crime rate in Gonzalez’s precinct. Blacks and Hispanics commit nearly 99 percent of all violent crime in the 88th Precinct and over 93 percent of all crime.

      [Judge] Scheindlin, however, apparently believes that population ratios are the proper benchmark for measuring the legality of stop activity…In other words, though whites and Asians commit less than 1 percent of violent crime in the 88th Precinct and less than 6 percent of all crime, they should make up 40 percent of all stops—to match their representation in the local population. Never mind that the suspect descriptions that Gonzalez was given identified blacks and Hispanics as the robbery, burglary, and shooting suspects. To avoid an accusation of racial profiling, he should have stopped whites and Asians for crimes committed—according to their victims—exclusively by blacks and Hispanics.”

      • fun bobby

        or how bout this? maybe we should pass a law that says this:

        The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
        and maybe some law that says that laws apply to all citizens equally. that’s a good solution right?

        • fun bobby

          wow someone down voted the 4th amendment. care to explain yourself?

    • hennorama

      StilllHere – Exactly what level of outcomes/ends is sufficient to justify the means?

      According to the Opinion and Order in the case against NYC:

      “6% of all stops resulted in an arrest, and 6% resulted in a summons. The remaining 88% of 4.4 million stops [3,872,000 stops] resulted in no further law enforcement action.”

      See:

      http://www.npr.org/2013/08/12/211410292/read-the-juiciest-bits-from-the-stop-and-frisk-ruling (Page 9 of 198)

      Per the NY Civil Liberties Union:

      “Comparing police stops to violent crime suspects is bad math. Only 11 percent of stops in 2011 were based on a description of a violent crime suspect. On the other hand, from 2002 to 2011, black and Latino residents made up close to 90 percent of people stopped, and about 88 percent of stops – more than 3.8 million – were of innocent New Yorkers. Even in neighborhoods that are predominantly white, black and Latino New Yorkers face the disproportionate brunt. For example, in 2011, Black and Latino New Yorkers made up 24 percent of the population in Park Slope, but 79 percent of stops. This, on its face, is discriminatory.”

      http://www.nyclu.org/node/1598

    • fun bobby

      see white people are getting away with all sorts of things because they are not being stopped and frisked enough by the racist NYPD

      • StilllHere

        They get frisked all the time by the TSA though.

  • WorriedfortheCountry

    How long before Tom has Mark Levin on to discuss the “Liberty Ammendments”?

    “Levin’s thesis is that the balance of power between the three branches of the federal government, the states, and the American people has been distorted beyond the ability of conventional politics to repair.”

    http://www.humanevents.com/2013/08/15/mark-levins-liberty-amendments/

    • HonestDebate1

      That would be a great show!

    • OnPointComments

      The Liberty Amendments
      (FNC 9PM, Aug 16 – Hannity Studio Audience)
      A studio audience joins Sean tonight as he takes viewers step-by-step through each of Mark Levin’s ‘Liberty Amendments.’

  • OnPointComments

    On 8/9/2013, the US District Court ruled against the EEOC’s pseudo-science of disparate impact in a case where an employer used criminal background checks. The EEOC has claimed (in cases against BMW, Dollar General, and others) that criminal background checks, by their very nature, discriminate against minorities since minorities disproportionately commit crimes.

    http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCOURTS-mdd-8_09-cv-02573/pdf/USCOURTS-mdd-8_09-cv-02573-4.pdf

    From the judge: “By bringing actions of this nature, the EEOC has placed many employers in the “Hobson’s choice” of ignoring criminal history and credit background, thus exposing themselves to potential liability for criminal and fraudulent acts committed by employees, on the one hand, or incurring the wrath of the EEOC for having utilized information deemed fundamental by most employers.”

    It surprises me that civil rights activists quietly assent to these types of actions by the government. The government has said that criminal background checks are discriminatory, that there should be different student academic standards, student discipline standards, and lending standards for minorities, among other different standards, because it is wrong to expect minorities to meet standards applicable to non-minorities. The civil rights community goes along with the government’s low expectations of minorities.

    • StilllHere

      Very sad.

      • OnPointComments

        I agree. The government loves ‘disparate impact’ theory where the only thing that matters, THE ONLY THING, is statistics; nothing else has to be proven. Based on disparate impact, if the government observed you saying hello to 13 white persons and 1 black person, it would conclude that you were racist because you didn’t greet blacks in a percentage equal to their population percentage. Only the statistics matter.

    • Steve__T

      The employer’s decision was upheld by the court. What the hell are you bitchin’ about? Would you stop trying to start sh!t.

      • OnPointComments

        Because the case should have never been brought in the first place.

  • OnPointComments

    President Obama wants the FCC to levy a new tax (or fee, if that makes you feel better) to fund his $4-$6 billion dollar spending program to put the internet in schools. According to White House deputy press secretary Josh Earnest, “The president has advocated an administrative, unilateral action to get this done.” So much for the Constitution stating that only the House of Representatives is empowered to raise revenue or introduce spending bills. And I suppose even President Obama admits that he has abandoned his promise to not raise taxes on the middle class — he’ll just call it a fee instead of a tax.

    http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2013-08-13/politics/41355498_1_president-obama-rob-nabors-julius-genachowski

    • fun bobby

      he never said anything about not raising fees. c’mon

  • OnPointComments

    As the number of instances of President Obama ignoring the Constitution and laws grows longer, it makes me wonder at what point he will be impeached.

    “OBAMA PRESIDENCY A LENGTHENING LEGACY OF LAWLESSNESS”

    http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/081613-667885-obama-presidency-leaves-a-lawless-legacy.htm?p=full

    Excerpt:

    Last time we checked, the Constitution requires the president to “faithfully execute the law.” That’s no editorial opinion, but Article 2, Section 3, Clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution, which states that “(The President) shall take care that the Laws be faithfully executed.”

    The article lists 13 examples of the Obama administration violating the law.

    • http://profile.yahoo.com/JXSANCUDPIKQSPID5KT2U4XK5Y TF

      Jeezus, we’ve got to the point of just pasting shat up here.

      • jefe68

        It’s pathetic, it really is.

      • HonestDebate1

        A President who is lawless is reason for concern.

        • jefe68

          Were you this concerned when there were Republican presidents?

          • HonestDebate1

            Oh no, heck no. I never get concerned about nothing Republicans do, ever. I’m the biggest hypocrite this side of the Mississippi, if that’s what you’re getting at. And for that reason it does not matter if Obama lies…. and lies and lies. Good point.

      • fun bobby

        I did not read the link. none of the 13 things were examples of oboma administration violating the law? I bet anyone could come up with at least a few examples

        • http://profile.yahoo.com/JXSANCUDPIKQSPID5KT2U4XK5Y TF

          Simple: “IBD editorials” and “reality” don’t often intersect.

          And the IBD editorial section are for people who can’t pretend to be “bipartisan” enough to even pass muster at the WaPo’s crap right-wing extravaganza.

          It’s sheer shtfilled advocacy media with the fake sheen of knowledge.

          • fun bobby

            would it not just be easier to just say you did not read it either?

          • StilllHere

            LOL! He only reads what reinforces his fixed worldview.

        • StilllHere

          Must be media-source approved, a moving target. LOL

  • hennorama

    QUESTION: Which agency-to-be-named-later’s controversial “selective enforcement” actions do you prefer, based on the following information?

    Outside observers examined a group of controversial actions taken by each agency, and determined the following:

    Agency A’s cases justified further enforcement action 69% of the time.

    Agency B’s cases justified further enforcement action 12% of the time.

    The identity of each agency will be revealed later.

    Please play along by voting for Agency A, Agency B, both, or neither. Questions are allowed, but only one per moniker.

    • OnPointComments

      As I was watching the enforcement actions against the JPMorgan traders this week in its $6 billion dollar loss, I found myself thinking about the regulators. What penalty did the regulators pay for not detecting the problem? In every major case that I can recall (think about the regulators who visited Bernie Madoff and gave him a pass), the regulators never pay a price, either professionally or financially, for failing to do their jobs. I think its about time that the regulators are hauled to court for negligence along with the traders.

      It’s tough to make a decision about your agencies based on scant facts. With no further information, I’d have to go with Agency A, but I feel like it’s likely a trick question.

      • hennorama

        OPC – TY for your response. The issues around regulatory action/inaction can indeed be frustrating. Unfortunately, politics gets involved with agency funding and resources, and influences how agencies conduct business. This makes the assigning of blame for enforcement failures difficult at best.

        Here’s more information about my QUESTION – both agencies interact with thousands of US residents weekly, and millions annually. Agency A’s “selective enforcement” actions have been changed after the review, but Agency B’s have not.

        It’s not really a trick question, but it is intended to be illustrative of how relative statistical outcomes may not influence one’s opinion.

      • fun bobby

        lets give them a cell next to the regulators who went to coke and prostitute parties who were inspecting the deep water horizon

        • HonestDebate1

          It’s not the regulators fault, Obama exempted BP from oversight. He even gave them an award.

          • fun bobby

            I am sure we can find a prison that could also accommodate him. plenty of room for all of them

    • Steve__T

      Neither. A, probably needs an overhaul. and B needs one two. But both in different ways.

      • hennorama

        Steve__T – TY for your response.

        • Steve__T

          That has to be the shortest reply you have ever given.

          • hennorama

            Steve__T – HA! You may be correct, although my “TYFYR” acronym is likely the winner. My reply was brief as your response did not allow for much argument.

    • HonestDebate1

      “Questions are allowed, but only one per moniker.”

      Submitted without comment. (h/t TF)

      • hennorama

        One Detest 1 Bah – TY for not voting. Did you forget your North Carolina state-issued I.D.?

    • OnPointComments

      I wonder what the TSA’s percentages are, i.e., % of travelers screened vs. % of travelers that warrant further investigation.

      • hennorama

        OPC – TYFYR. It would indeed be interesting to see the stats for secondary passenger screenings at airports, but this data is not at all easy to find. One suspects this is purposeful, as the data might encourage those trying to avoid detection.

        In the same way, the IRS doesn’t really want the general public to know the percentage of returns that are audited, nor the existence of Audit Techniques Guides (ATGs).

        Thanks again for your response.

      • fun bobby

        I wonder how much junk they have to touch before they find a terra-ist or people wise up? the TSA has not found one terra-ist yet they have touched my junk several times

  • OnPointComments

    A Spring 2007 study from the Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy is getting press coverage again:

    “Would Banning Firearms Reduce Murder and Suicide? A Review of International and Some Domestic Evidence.”
    http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf

    The study’s conclusion? Nations with stringent anti-gun laws generally have substantially higher murder rates than those that do not.

    • hennorama

      OPC – TY for bringing that six-year old published study, based on data that is more than a decade old, to our attention.

      In addition to the issue of the age of the data and the study, the sentence (actual a sentence fragment) that you characterize as “The study’s conclusion” appears nowhere in the authors’ actual Conclusion.

      This is the entire paragraph containing the sentence fragment [[in brackets]], from pages 16 & 17 of the linked pdf:

      “Once again, we are not arguing that the data in Table 2 shows that gun control causes nations to have much higher murder rates than neighboring nations that permit handgun ownership. Rather, we assert a political causation for the observed correlation that [[nations with stringent gun controls tend to have much higher murder rates than nations that allow guns.]] The political causation is that nations which have violence problems tend to adopt severe gun controls, but these do not reduce violence, which is determined by basic sociocultural and economic factors.”

      And here’s the actual Conclusion of the authors:

      “CONCLUSION

      This Article has reviewed a significant amount of evidence from a wide variety of international sources. Each individual portion of evidence is subject to cavil—at the very least the general objection that the persuasiveness of social scientific evidence cannot remotely approach the persuasiveness of conclusions in the physical sciences. Nevertheless, the burden of proof rests on the proponents of the more guns equal more death and fewer guns equal less death mantra, especially since they argue public policy ought to be based on that mantra.149 To bear that burden would at the very least require showing that a large number of nations with more guns have more death and that nations that have imposed stringent gun controls have achieved substantial reductions in criminal violence (or suicide). But those correlations are not observed when a large number of nations are compared across the world.”

      See:
      http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf (pages 16, 17 & 45 of the linked article)

      • fun bobby

        have things changed in six years? or 10?
        do you think all they needed was newer data?
        why do you think they could not find any correlation between strict gun control and a reduction in criminal violence or suicide?

        • hennorama

          FB – TY for your response. I am not a criminologist, and do not know whether “things [have' changed in six years...or 10...or [whether] all [the authors] needed was newer data.” I merely pointed out the age of both the study and the data, and made no other comments about the study.

          The main issue in OPC’s post was the inaccuracy of what was characterized as “The study’s conclusion,” as that sentence fragment appears nowhere in the authors’ actual Conclusion.

          TY again for your response.

          • fun bobby

            why point out something irrelevant?
            inevitably laymen will oversimplify the results of scientific research. it happens to so called reporters constantly

          • hennorama

            FB – TYFYR. I didn’t say the age of the data or the study was irrelevant, but only that it was an “issue.”

            One likely reason the data is relatively old is that it is difficult to get data on firearms in the US due to the Tiahrt Amendment, which since 1996 has restricted the activities of the CDC in the area of firearms research. The Tiahrt Amendment has also restricted the ATF from publicly disclosing both firearms trace data (on firearms used in crimes), and analysis of patterns of sales of firearms used in crimes.

            One might also point to the issue of the fact that the study excluded Japan, which has a near-total firearms ban.

            Thanks again for your response.

          • fun bobby

            one might point to that but you choose instead to say the study is old when it is only 6 years old. its “an issue”? why exactly?
            since this is an international study the Tiahrt amendment is pretty irrelevant since America is only one data point and there are plenty of data that do not come from the ATF.
            since you mentioned it, it would be a riot to throw japan in since they are #4 for suicide and have an almost total ban on guns. I am sure that would be another case where gun control does not lead to lower suicides.

          • hennorama

            FB – TYAFYR. Perhaps you misunderstood. I did not say that either the study or the data were were “old.” I wrote “the data is relatively old,” and gave one likely reason for this.

            OPC’s original post said “A Spring 2007 study from the Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy is getting press coverage again:” This implied that some were looking at this six-year old study again, perhaps implying that the findings didn’t get sufficient attention in 2007, or that the findings were newly significant.

            No evidence of renewed “press coverage” was given, and none was found when a brief Web search was performed. Then the study’s “conclusion” was completely mischaracterized.

            As stated previously, I am not a criminologist, and I have not read this study in its entirety. However, if it is NOT in fact “getting press coverage again,” and its actual conclusion is different than what OPC had indicated, it is fair to point this out.

            In addition, if the study does not even mention the major exemplar of Japan, a country that has a near-total firearms ban, it is difficult for one to take such a study seriously.

            As to summarizing the study’s finding, allow me to quote Supreme Court Justice Stephen G. Breyer, who wrote the following, in his dissent in Heller:

            “What about the fact that foreign nations with strict gun laws have higher crime rates? Which is the cause and which the effect? The proposition that strict gun laws cause crime is harder to accept than the proposition that strict gun laws in part grow out of the fact that a nation already has a higher crime rate.”

            This is in line with the thinking of the authors of the study, who wrote “The political causation is that nations which have violence problems tend to adopt severe gun controls, but these do not reduce violence, which is determined by basic sociocultural and economic factors.”

            See:
            http://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/07-290#writing-ZD1

          • fun bobby

            “these do not reduce violence”
            that’s all you had to say

          • hennorama

            FB – that is the authors’ claim, not mine.

          • fun bobby

            sure, but we were trying to find a summery that you would find accurate

      • OnPointComments

        You’re welcome.

        As the study says in the section you quoted, if the purpose of gun control legislation is fewer deaths, the data in this study shows that this correlation is not observed in a comparison of a large number of nations across the world.

        My guess is that if the study had shown there was a clear correlation that nations with stringent gun controls have fewer deaths, gun control advocates would be touting the study from the mountain top to support their cause, regardless of the age of the data.

        • hennorama

          OPC – TYFYR.

          Disclaimer – I have not read the subject study in its entirety, but have read both the introduction and the conclusion, and scanned the remainder.

          What is also interesting is the sentence just after the one you partially quoted, that points to a bit of a “chicken v. egg” conundrum:

          “The political causation is that nations which have violence problems tend to adopt severe gun controls, but these do not reduce violence, which is determined by basic sociocultural and economic factors.”

          The authors seem to indicate that high amounts of violence leads to adoption of “severe gun controls,” despite the authors’ claim that “these do not reduce violence…”

          However, one must point to the authors’ question, which is the title of their study – “Would Banning Firearms Reduce Murder and Suicide?” It does not appear that the authors could actually answer this question, as they point to no countries where firearms have been banned entirely.

          Japan comes very close to a complete ban, and rarely experiences more than ten firearms-related homicides annually. The authors do not even mention Japan, despite it being an example of a nearly complete firearms ban. Why do you suppose that is? While Japan has a relatively high suicide rate, it has a homicide rate very close to zero (0.4/100,000 in 2009, per the UNODC). Cultural tolerance of suicide may explain the high rate of suicide, but why such a low homicide rate?

          See:
          http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2012/07/a-land-without-guns-how-japan-has-virtually-eliminated-shooting-deaths/260189/

          One must also point out that one of the the authors – Gary Mauser – has worked for and represented Canada’s equivalent of the NRA – the National Firearms Association.

          Thanks again for your response.

    • fun bobby

      I wonder why that upsets people so?

  • pete18

    There may be some reading and research that would be edifying for you to undertake. George Will, hammered Nixon and Spiro Agnew during Watergate, drawing the wrath of National Review readers and the praise of liberals at that time. He is completely consistent on the

    point of the constitutional powers of the President.

    But outside of bashing the messengers, do you actually have any opinions on the constitutionality of Obama’s actions in changing the law on ACA without going to congress?

  • HonestDebate1

    The “phony scandals” all seem to be getting worse. It turns out an internal audit shows the NSA broke privacy laws thousands of times per year. The IRS is still targeting the Tea Partiers and Lois Lerner was using private email for government work. Hillary was yelling at Congressmen for daring to suggest the Benghazi terrorist attack was a terrorist attack days out. Carter Ham, the AFRICOM Commander testified he knew almost immediately, duh. Emperor Obama keeps defying the law of the land in delaying elements of Obamacare. It’s awful.

    • WorriedfortheCountry

      More Fast and Furious guns found at Mexican crime scenes. Another phony scandal.

      http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-57598487/more-fast-and-furious-guns-surface-at-crimes-in-mexico/

      And regarding Hillary, we have the words that will always haunt her regarding the 4 dead Americans: “What difference does it make”

      It’s OK, Obama is having cocktails on the Vineyard with Brian Roberts, CEO of Comcast, and owner of NBC news and MSNBC..

      • http://profile.yahoo.com/JXSANCUDPIKQSPID5KT2U4XK5Y TF

        More horsesht.

        I’m sorry, I guess I meant to say “If only Obama was surrounded by horses, like fake cowboy white Presidents.”

      • StilllHere

        Excellent, difficult to refute.
        Easier just to call you names.

    • Steve__T

      Phony? this aint, it’s real. Scandalous dam right!

      The Washington Post has revealed the National Security Agency has broken privacy rules or overstepped its legal authority thousands of times each year since Congress granted the agency broad new powers in 2008.
      According to an NSA audit from May 2012 leaked
      by Edward Snowden, there were 2,776 incidents in the preceding 12 months of unauthorized collection, storage, access to or distribution of legally protected communications. In one case, the NSA intercepted a “large number” of calls placed from Washington when a programming error confused the U.S. area code 202 for 20, the international dialing code for Egypt. The audit only counted violations committed at the NSA’s Fort Meade headquarters and other facilities in the Washington area.

      The report comes out less than a week after President Obama told reporters abuses have not been committed at the NSA.

  • WorriedfortheCountry

    “Obama Suspends the Law. What Would Lincoln Say?”
    by NICHOLAS ROSENKRANZ professor of law at Georgetown

    “The current president’s hero tried to abide by the Constitution and enlist Congress’s support.”

    “Faced with military exigencies, Lincoln did everything possible to enlist Congress’s support—and thus to follow the Constitution. Mr. Obama, faced with mere political and bureaucratic inconveniences, spurned Congress’s support and flouted the Constitution. ”

    The difference in leadership is stark.

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324769704579006594068764238.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop

    • Steve__T

      “The difference in leadership is stark”. So is the difference in time and reason. I am not a defender of the President. I just don’t like false deference’s.

      • WorriedfortheCountry

        So you think Obama has been a good leader?

        Wow

        • Steve__T

          Don’t even go their. I know that reading is hard for you but go twist some where else.
          re-read the post a couple of times, maybe you’ll understand what I wrote.

          • WorriedfortheCountry

            Imagine Obama trying to solve the problems Lincoln had to deal and then get back to me. Apparently you are the one with a reading skill issue since Mr. Rosencranz laid out the case very clearly.

          • Steve__T

            You are thick as a brick.

          • StilllHere

            Excellent point, but you’ll get insulted.

  • jefe68

    Very interesting speech by Noam Chomsky:

    http://www.alternet.org/visions/chomsky-us-poses-number-threats-future-humanity-our-youll-never-hear-about-it-our-free-press?page=0%2C0

    From Noam Chomsky August 15, 2013:
    The distinguished conservative commentator, one of the most respected – Norman Ornstein – describes today’s Republican Party as, in his words, “a radical insurgency – ideologically extreme, scornful of facts and compromise, dismissive of its political opposition” – a serious danger to the society, as he points out.

    I agree, Mr. Ornstein is spot on in his critique of the GOP.
    Mr. Chomsky has plenty of negative criticism against liberals as well, so it’s not all a critique of the right. Bottom line, we live in a plutocracy.

    • nj_v2

      Related: CIA admits to snooping on Chomsky…

      http://www.salon.com/2013/08/14/chomsky_my_cia_file_minor_peccadillo_compared_to_today/

      “As we noted Tuesday, after years of denial, the CIA finally admitted with the release of a document to Foreign Policy that a surveillance file had been kept on Noam Chomsky, especially during his days as a robust anti-war activist in the 1970′s. The CIA admitted too to having wiped Chomsky’s file from Langley’s record — a legally tenuous action.…”

      (snipped)

      • jefe68

        I read about the other day.

        He’s been pretty much ostracized by the media in this country. Not in Europe, where the talk I posted was given. The Headline: The U.S. Behaves Nothing Like a Democracy, But You’ll Never Hear About It in Our ‘Free Press’

    • brettearle

      jefe68–

      I know it’s extra work [and maybe I, or someone else, should be doing this]; but it might help to print, here, what Chomsky has to say about the far Left or progressive Left; and/or what Mr. Ornstein has to say about these factions, as well.

      I have always seen Chomsky to be a charter member of the Far Left.

      Can he, indeed, criticize his brethren?

      If so, wouldn’t that give us a fairer picture, and dull the clamor of Chomsky’s detractors–and to some degree or to a fair degree–our detractors?

      Moreover, it seems to me that to categorically marginalize a major political party in the United States–even if we think that the party has become RADICALIZED–is to do ourselves a disservice:

      It means we tune them out, which only makes them angrier; and, in reaction, they tune us out.
      It seems to me that this is what Chomsky and Ornstein are doing–unless they point out some of the problems and/or eschewed views of the Left.

      It is quite possible that some views, from the Right, might be viable….

      …..whether we wish to believe it or not.

      What’s more, simply because we might agree with one or two views, from the other side, does not make us into them–nor should we be branded like them, because of one or two agreements.

      And if others, from our own political point of view, judge us this way, then they are almost as deplorable (at least for the moment) in their subjectivity, as their, and our, political adversaries are.

      For example, Robert Reich is for school vouchers, normally a GOP policy. I, too, am for school vouchers.

      Robert Reich, of course, is a venerable member of the progressive Left.

      • jefe68

        Chomsk’s speech has plenty of criticism of the left. Personally I’m kind of done with this idea of fair and balanced. The GOP has in my opinion gone off the rails and the media does nothing to stand up to them. Nor do they stand up to Obama’s drone policy.

        You have commenters from the right such as Bill O’Reilly accusing Robert Reich of being a communist. That kind of rhetoric pretty much tells me that a lot on the right are pretty out there.

        I’m not for school vouchers as they seem to undermine the entire idea of public education.

        If we want to have serious discussions in this country about education, health care and the kind of society we want then as Noam Chomsky say’s the US does not behave like Democracy and the ‘Free Press’ never really takes on the serious issues. Just watch any of the main Sunday morning news show’s they are a joke.

        • brettearle

          If you have the chance, you might like Jonathan Alter’s, THE CENTER HOLDS–about Obama and his enemies.

          You and I may have different ways of looking at views that we agree on.

          Maybe that is true; maybe it isn’t.

          But I don’t always agree that Media ignore substantive issues.

          I sometimes hear debate and dimension.

          What I don’t hear is more countering, by Media, against outrageous comments, such as what you reference above, about O’Reilly.

          But I do think that MSNBC does some of that, do they not?…..

          I think that the antediluvian quality of public education–where the potential for change is so often intractable–might need to force a kind of free-enterprise system…until the Institution corrects itself. That will force deprived school systems of bucking up, significantly.

          I don’t like to support vouchers–but I can understand the necessity.

          The so-called Darwinian principle can force the hand of an entrenched and outdated bureaucracy.

          • jefe68

            MSNBC seems more like a counter point to Fox. What I’m talking about is how the mainstream media never counters anything anyone says on the right or the left. Noam Chomsky has stated the Democrats are really like the GOP from about 30 or more years ago. That there is no real progressive element left in the party and what is left is told to keep in lock step with the party line. Same with the GOP which is now having a schism between the older right wing and the new tea party who are even more extremist.

            I have to agree with this statement: In the past, the United States has sometimes, kind of sardonically, been described as a one-party state: the business party with two factions called Democrats and Republicans.

            That’s no longer true. It’s still a one-party state, the business party. But it only has one faction. The faction is moderate Republicans, who are now called Democrats. There are virtually no moderate Republicans in what’s called the Republican Party and virtually no liberal Democrats in what’s called the Democratic [sic] Party. It’s basically a party of what would be moderate Republicans and similarly, Richard Nixon would be way at the left of the political spectrum today. Eisenhower would be in outer space.

  • ExcellentNews

    RED ALERT !! This forum is infested by paid and volunteer right-wing trolls who spam it with the same nonsense you can hear on Pox News (Benghazi, Obumbo is bad…etc).

    So, let me save you reading time and give you the REAL story, as reported by Pox News “reporter” Mary Lou Sweetheart. Here it is: “Obama kills kittens in the basement of the White House and string their skins next to his Kenyan birth certificate. He then consults with his Muslim terrorist handlers on how to destroy America today”. Really! Breaking news!

    So, are you truly righteously outraged now? Yes? Ok! Now vote republican, so that Chinese industrialists and global bankers can get their badly needed tax cut, and so that the likes of Paris Hilton get an inheritance tax cut. But please do NOT THINK too hard about that part…

    • pete18

      Uh oh, he’s on o us!

    • TVPC58

      Excellent News: You’re conflating Americans worried about the direction of their country with the GOP and their people such as Romney, Rove, et. al.

      Obama Inc. has lots of financial and moral support from Wall Street. He definitely does not take Pete Seeger’s advice of “If I can’t change them, then at least I don’t have to be like them.” He is like “them.”

      Too bad everyone cannot see through both of the party’s propaganda and get together to use the idealistic founding principles of the U.S. to make us a better nation.

    • fun bobby

      where do I sign up?

    • StilllHere

      LOL, red alert! Is this on the Obama scale of CYA/trying desperately to look presidential red terror alert?

  • Steve__T

    “Did an 8-Year-Old Spy for America?”
    Written by Gregory Johnsen for The Atlantic magazine.

    Johnsen writes that the United States was able to target an alleged al-Qaeda operative named Adnan al-Qadhi for an American drone strike after U.S. allies in Yemen convinced an eight-year-old boy to place a tracking chip in the pocket of a man he considered to be his surrogate father. Shortly after the child planted the device, a U.S. drone tracked and killed al-Qadhi with a missile.

    http://www.democracynow.org/2013/8/16/did_an_8_year_old_spy

  • Steve__T

    Don’t hold your breath.

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/JXSANCUDPIKQSPID5KT2U4XK5Y TF

    The NYT paints a coating of bothsides over everything, and it gets really funny: The same people who had their marching orders from the right now piss and moan that “We’ve lost that Rockwell image” (depicted in the painting “Freedom of Speech”).

    The Times cordailly downplays the Teabaggers’ orders from 2010 to:

    Artificially Inflate Your Numbers: Spread out in the hall and try to be in the front half. The objective is to put the Rep on the defensive with your questions and follow-up. The Rep should be made to feel that a majority, and if not, a significant portion of at least the audience, opposes the socialist agenda of Washington.

    Be Disruptive Early And Often: You need to rock-the-boat early in the Rep?s presentation, Watch for an opportunity to yell out and challenge the Rep?s statements early.

    Try To Rattle Him, Not Have An Intelligent Debate:

    I’ve seen Rockwell’s “Freedom of Speech”. Any resemblance between that and what the Tea Party wants is purely coincidental. Please, NYT, spare us the fake astroturf right-wing “Don’t Tread on Me” hacks, and stop making molehills out of 2010′s mountains of threats, violence, verbal attacks and Not Have An Intelligent Debate.

    • jefe68

      Funny how this feeds into Mr. Chomsky’ critique of the press.

    • HonestDebate1

      That’s sad. The Town Hall meetings that led to the Tea Party movement were the true examples of democracy at its best. They were spontaneous and fizzed up out of discontent. That led to the magnificent, huge, historical, gargantuan Republican victories in 2010. The peaceful and clean tea party protesters were quite a contrast with the defecating, violent and selfish astro-turf occupiers.

      It goes to show you what a demonization by the press and some targeting by the IRS can do. The tea partiers are trues patriots. You hang with a nasty crowd.

      • http://profile.yahoo.com/JXSANCUDPIKQSPID5KT2U4XK5Y TF

        Hahahah.

        You’re rich.

        You’ve got delusions only a professional can fix.

        • pete18

          It’s because he doesn’t get enough Balloon Juice.

  • fun bobby

    you are going to go blind and crazy

  • OnPointComments

    I’ve had discussions on here about incompetent, dangerous government employees, and how those employees never pay a price for their misdeeds. It’s the reason why the SEC could investigate Bernie Madoff eight times and find nothing, yet no employee loses their job, even when SEC employees are caught viewing pornography on the Internet for eight hours a day. NBC News is reporting that all of the State Department employees who were furloughed for their negligent, reckless, and fatal decisions on Benghazi have been reinstated.

    “Secretary of State John Kerry has cleared four State Department employees who were put on administrative leave last December by Hillary Clinton after the terrorist attack on the U.S. mission in Benghazi, Libya, a senior department official said Tuesday.”

    “Instead of accountability, the State Department offered a charade that included false reports of firings and resignations and now ends in a game of musical chairs where no one misses a single day on the State Department payroll,” said Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., the chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform panel who has spearheaded Benghazi investigations. “It is now clear that the personnel actions taken by the Department in response to the Benghazi terrorist attacks was more of a public relations strategy than a measured response to a failure in leadership.”

    http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/08/20/20105141-kerry-clears-four-state-dept-employees-put-on-benghazi-related-leave?lite

ONPOINT
TODAY
Aug 1, 2014
A close up of newspaper front pages focusing on the Ebola outbreak, including a newspaper, left, reading 'Burn all bodies' in the city of Monrovia, Liberia, Thursday, July 31, 2014. The worst recorded Ebola outbreak in history surpassed 700 deaths in West Africa. (AP)

Israel-Gaza conflict heats up. The House votes to sue Obama. Ebola spreads in Africa. Our weekly news roundtable goes behind the headlines.

Aug 1, 2014
Rodrigo Sanchez and Gabriela Quintero make up the popular rhythmic guitar duo, Rodrigo y Gabriela. (Peter O'Neill)

Mexican duo Rodrigo y Gabriela bring a heavy metal flavor to flamenco guitar. We’ll listen.

RECENT
SHOWS
Jul 31, 2014
A comical sign suggest the modern workplace is anything but collegial . (KW Reinsch / Flickr)

When the boss is a bad apple. How some pretty dark traits can push some to the top.

 
Jul 31, 2014
Russian President Vladimir Putin heads the Cabinet meeting in the Novo-Ogaryovo residence, outside Moscow, Russia, Wednesday, July 30, 2014.  (AP)

The US and Europe face off against Russia. Are we looking at Cold War II? Something hotter?

On Point Blog
On Point Blog
Criticism, Conservatism And Dinesh D’Souza
Thursday, Jul 31, 2014

Best-selling conservative author and filmmaker Dinesh D’Souza and On Point host Tom Ashbrook disagree about what makes America great…or do they?

More »
7 Comments
 
This 15-Year-Old Caller Is Really Disappointed With Congress
Tuesday, Jul 29, 2014

In which a 15-year-old caller from Nashville expertly and elegantly analyzes our bickering, mostly ineffective 113th Congress.

More »
7 Comments
 
Our Week In The Web: July 25, 2014
Friday, Jul 25, 2014

Why the key to web victory is often taking a break and looking around, and more pie for your viewing (not eating) pleasure.

More »
Comment