90.9 WBUR - Boston's NPR news station
Top Stories:
PLEDGE NOW
Week In The News: Syria, March Anniversary, Fort Hood Sentence

All eyes on Syria. Remembering the March on Washington. The Fort Hood shooter sentenced to death. Our weekly news roundtable goes behind the headlines.

A Syrian refugee girl walks at a temporary refugee camp in the eastern Lebanese town of Marj near the border with Syria, Lebanon, Wednesday, Aug. 28, 2013. (AP)

A Syrian refugee girl walks at a temporary refugee camp in the eastern Lebanese town of Marj near the border with Syria, Lebanon, Wednesday, Aug. 28, 2013. (AP)

The Syrian government charged with using chemical weapons, killing more than a thousand.  President Obama moves towards strikes. UN chemical weapons inspectors are on the ground. Russia and Iran say back off. Great Britain waivers. Around the world, the stakes are raised.

And at home, the U.S. remembers the March on Washington and MLK’s “I Have a Dream” speech. The Fort Hood shooter is sentenced to death. Massive wildfires in Yosemite. The NFL settles their big concussion suit, but doesn’t admit fault.

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

Guests

Mark Mazzetti, national security correspondent for the New York Times. (@markmazzettinyt)

Margaret Talev, White House correspondent for Bloomberg News. (@margarettalev)

Jack Beatty, On Point news analyst.

From Tom’s Reading List

New York Times: U.S. Facing Test on Data to Back Action on Syria – ”With the botched intelligence about Iraq still casting a long shadow over decisions about waging war in the Middle East, the White House faces an American public deeply skeptical about being drawn into the Syrian conflict and a growing chorus of lawmakers from both parties angry about the prospect of an American president once again going to war without Congressional consultation or approval.”

Bloomberg News: King Speech 50 Years on Shows Black Distress Endures – ”The U.S. has a black president, millions of African-Americans have earned advanced degrees, and growing numbers hold professional and management jobs that were out of reach in 1963. Yet by almost every measure — income, economic mobility, housing, education, employment, standing in the criminal justice system and life expectancy — they’re lagging behind whites, according to census and other data compiled by Bloomberg.”

The Washington Post: Nidal Hasan sentenced to death for Fort Hood shooting rampage – ”Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan was sentenced to death Wednesday for killing 13 people and wounding 32 others in a 2009 shooting rampage at Fort Hood, Tex., the worst mass murder at a military installation in U.S. history. Dressed in Army fatigues, Hasan, who turns 43 next month, listened impassively as the death sentence was handed down by a panel of 13 senior military officers in a unanimous decision after less than two hours of deliberations.”

 

Please follow our community rules when engaging in comment discussion on this site.
  • 2Gary2

    if Obumer et al want to go to war then he needs to be on the front lines and lead from the front and not keep leading from behind.

    I would like to see the politicians send their kids to fight in syria if they think its such a good idea. Its too easy for these d-bags to send someone else’s kid.

    War is the enemy of the poor. The moderate republican obummer is the enemy of the poor. Bernie Sanders for president.

    • brettearle

      First, you’d be much better off–if you didn’t quote McCain.

      Second, if it can be proven, then Syria has violated, egregiously, an international moral code of conduct in warfare–which is strictly forbidden, across the Globe.

      If you wish to have that go unanswered, then you do so at humanity’s peril.

      But even more than that is the vacant notion that this surgical strike–if it happens–is going to lead to boots on the ground.

      The sorties will unlikely lead to any casualties.

      It is the mandate, within the White house, not to expand the US commitment.

      It is truly demoralizing and almost pathetic, to see this President undergoing all this criticism–every time he takes a critical position.

      Except for President Carter, every other President WOULD BE DOING THE SAME THING–if they were currently in office.

      • SteveTheTeacher

        “If you wish to have that go unanswered, then you do so at humanity’s peril.”

        Leaving aside the ample indications that the Syrian military were not responsible for the chemical attack, the answer to a inhumanity is not more inhumanity.

        A US or European led attack will inevitably lead to killing of more people. But, that will be considered OK, because the targets will likely be military or military personnel.

        When Gen. S. L. A. Marshall interviewed soldiers who fought in World War II, he found that only about 15 to 20% were willing to kill another human being, even if their own lives were in danger. Today, many in the West have become so depraved that they have no qualms about mass killing of people they consider “the enemy.”

        Other than advancing the opportunistic aims of a few political figures or assuaging the guilt of some in the West, what would a military attack accomplish. Human beings would be murdered, Assad would dig in his heals, Iran and Hezbollah would interpret this as an act war against them by the West, and the rebels would feel emboldened to fight to the finish. In the end, a peaceful solution will be put off for years.

        The only humane and reasonable action is to insist on peace talks, to work for a cease fire throughout the region, and to put the resources of the West into conceiving options whereby all parties can be represented in governance.

        • brettearle

          To be continued

        • Don_B1

          I give you an up vote, but some military action will almost certainly be required to get Bashir to a negotiating table in any other than simple delay mode.

          But brettearle is certainly wrong in assuming that civilian casualties will be negligible.

          Either way, it is a dicey choice.

      • 2Gary2

        how did I quote McShame?

        • brettearle

          Leading From Behind

  • hennorama

    The IRS did something logical. Is this a Sign Of The Apocalypse? No doubt some will say it is.

    “Treasury and IRS Announce That All Legal Same-Sex Marriages Will Be Recognized For Federal Tax Purposes; Ruling Provides Certainty, Benefits and Protections Under Federal Tax Law for Same-Sex Married Couples

    IR-2013-72, Aug. 29, 2013

    WASHINGTON — The U.S. Department of the Treasury and the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) today ruled that same-sex couples, legally married in jurisdictions that recognize their marriages, will be treated as married for federal tax purposes. The ruling applies regardless of whether the couple lives in a jurisdiction that recognizes same-sex marriage or a jurisdiction that does not recognize same-sex marriage.

    The ruling implements federal tax aspects of the June 26 Supreme Court decision invalidating a key provision of the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act.

    Under the ruling, same-sex couples will be treated as married for all federal tax purposes, including income and gift and estate taxes. The ruling applies to all federal tax provisions where marriage is a factor, including filing status, claiming personal and dependency exemptions, taking the standard deduction, employee benefits, contributing to an IRA and claiming the earned income tax credit or child tax credit.

    Any same-sex marriage legally entered into in one of the 50 states, the District of Columbia, a U.S. territory or a foreign country will be covered by the ruling. However, the ruling does not apply to registered domestic partnerships, civil unions or similar formal relationships recognized under state law.”

    See:
    http://www.irs.gov/uac/Newsroom/Treasury-and-IRS-Announce-That-All-Legal-Same-Sex-Marriages-Will-Be-Recognized-For-Federal-Tax-Purposes;-Ruling-Provides-Certainty,-Benefits-and-Protections-Under-Federal-Tax-Law-for-Same-Sex-Married-Couples

    http://www.irs.gov/uac/Answers-to-Frequently-Asked-Questions-for-Same-Sex-Married-Couples

    http://www.irs.gov/uac/Answers-to-Frequently-Asked-Questions-for-Registered-Domestic-Partners-and-Individuals-in-Civil-Unions

    Treasury Secretary Jack Lew said

    “Today’s ruling provides certainty and clear, coherent tax filing guidance for all legally married same-sex couples nationwide. It provides access to benefits, responsibilities and protections under federal tax law that all Americans deserve,” Treasury Secretary Jack Lew said in a statement.

    “This ruling also assures legally married same-sex couples that they can move freely throughout the country knowing that their federal filing status will not change.”

    See:
    http://www.businessinsider.com/gay-marriage-tax-returns-taxes-treasury-irs-2013-8

    It will be interesting to see the reactions, especially from those who talk about simplifying the tax code, and who say that businesses need tax code simplicity and predictability.

  • Fiscally_Responsible

    Comparing certain Supreme Court justices to white-robed Ku Klux Klan members and use of other very inflammatory rhetoric was not only a precipitous deterioration from the eloquence of MLK’s speech that was being commemorated, but was race-baiting and represented playing the race card at its finest. It also contained many inaccuracies, but let’s not allow facts to get in the way of emotional bellicosity.

    • Ray in VT

      What about this quote from Melanie Campbell is inaccurate?:

      “Today there are no white sheets, but there are judges in black robes in the U.S. Supreme Court who struck down Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act, opening the floodgates in many states to pass more voter ID laws to block people of color and young people from voting, ”

      Also, how meek should be the speech of those who feel that their basic civil rights are under attack?

      • jefe68

        It’s clear that some want people to shut up and sit down, as they “take their country back”.

        • Ray in VT

          The Take Back Vermont campaign reared its ugly head here back in 2000 in the wake of Civil Unions. It didn’t last too long, but it did get pretty nasty at times. I would like to see some of what I see of the ugliness in the current debate go away, as, I think, would some of the cooler heads.

          • jefe68

            Somehow I don’t think it will.

            Check out the stat posted above:
            Public Policy Polling reveals that 29 percent of the state’s Republicans blame Obama. Only 28 percent blame George W. Bush. The rest, according to the poll, don’t know who to blame.

            How can anyone even begin to have a any dialogue with people who think like this?

          • Ray in VT

            I did see that one a while ago, along with some other polls that showed beliefs in inaccurate, strange or just plain stupid positions. I guess that ultimately I am an optimist, and that I have continuing faith in my fellow man, despite available evidence.

          • Don_B1

            It is a hard thing to maintain, but somehow enough Americans in the past have risen to the occasion, and I, like you, continue to hope they will again.

            But when you read Thomas B. Edsell’s post in The New York Times:

            http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/07/17/has-the-g-o-p-gone-off-the-deep-end/

            it is not hard to see that the necessary defeats of Republican hard-right candidates will be difficult to come by.

          • Ray in VT

            There are, I think, at least a few people who could stand to have a Joseph Welch moment.

          • Don_B1

            More than a few!

          • nj_v2

            Wait, there’s thinking involved there?

          • jefe68

            Well I’m giving some of these rubes the benefit of the doubt. Mind you there are plenty of regressive right wingers on this forum who blame President Obama for everything down to their light bulbs not working.

          • Ray in VT

            You mean those old incandescent light bulbs that Obama outlawed?

          • jefe68

            No, any lightbulb and one might add if their car wont start.

          • Don_B1

            I get your point, but President Obama actually did not “outlaw” incandescent light bulbs.

            What was passed were efficiency standards that the current “cheap” incandescents do not meet, but bulb manufacturers have claimed to have technology in the lab that would allow making incandescents that meet the new standards.

            But it is interesting that I have not seen such bulbs for sale yet; it is possible that the manufacturers see the prices of LEDs coming down enough to not justify the development costs of new incandescents.

            While the “outlaw” meme is probably not going away, particularly with President Obama in office, I just have to try to reduce its effectiveness when I see it.

          • Ray in VT

            I was joking, Don. I was just using that as an example of the sort of irrational anti-Obama nonsense that gets aired quite often. Part of my point, which, of course, was unstated, is that those bulb efficiency standards were signed into law by former President Bush in 2007.

          • Don_B1

            I actually thought you were (“I get your point,…”) but I have seen subtlety like that come back to haunt one when others don’t perceive it that way.

            I regret not making my post clearer.

          • Ray in VT

            That’s okay, and I did figure that you knew that I was joking, but I also figured that it would be a good idea to clarify just in case.

          • Fiscally_Responsible

            Would cooler heads include racists such as Al Sharpton and Jessie Jackson, who throw molotov cocktails with their words?

          • Ray in VT

            No. Probably not in many cases, and it would also not include those who only seem to see racism when it comes from minorities who complain about getting the short end of the stick.

          • Don_B1

            While Mr. Sharpton has much to be ashamed of in his past, neither has made statements, to my knowledge, which fit the definition of racism.

      • Fiscally_Responsible

        The Supreme Court ruled that the formula/criteria needed to be updated to reflect the current situation. They had spoken to Congress several years ago about this. So Congress just needs to redefine the criteria as 50 year old criteria are out of date. There are plenty of cases where photo id is required and should be required (getting on an airplane, getting into the Democratic National Convention, etc.). State governments should set themselves up to issue photo id based on birth certificate,etc. so that everyone who wants to vote can get photo id and vote. But there is nothing wrong with requiring photo id.

        By the way, it was clearly insinuated that conservative supreme court justices are the equivalent of the ku klux klan. This is just a variation of Godwin’s Law, only with the Ku Klux Klan being substituted for Hitler and the Nazis. It is inflammatory, race card language.

        • Ray in VT

          Considering that the formula that addressed the preclearance requirements had mechanisms for both getting on to and off of the list, and seeing as how Shelby County, Alabama failed to pass muster on that from, and also considering the large amounts of evidence presented regarding cases of voting irregularities throughout the coverage areas that was presented when the Voting Rights Act was renewed several years ago, I am skeptical of the Court’s decision to declare that times have changed. I am also skeptical that, given the composition of the House, currently any sort of new preclearance formula will make it past the GOP leadership and to the floor.

          I do not particularly have any opposition to voter ID laws, and I think that there have been great differences in how those laws have been implemented in terms of how great of a burden they have placed on some segments of the population. I am, I think, rightly skeptical of moves, largely by one party, that have a vastly disproportionate affect on groups that tend to support their political opponent, which often include racial minorities.

          I dislike throwing around Klan or Nazi allegations, but what I took away from that quote is that at one time blatant, overt racism stood against the rights of minorities, but that today many of the factors and actors are much more subtle.

          • Don_B1

            And those, admittedly more subtle, actions to deny voting rights, particularly using claims of massive voter fraud when whatever fraud has been found has been in registration errors. And that is mostly by the states not maintaining good voter records that has prevented eligible voters from voting.

            It is sort of like earlier ways of restricting voting: require the voter to own a certain amount, by money value, of property, and then restrict classes of people, e.g., women and various minorities, from owning property.

            Today most of the “acts” are requiring people to have documents that certain classes of people, elderly minorities, lowest income workers with multiple jobs, etc., do not have (driver’s licenses or other government issued documents) and which are not easy to get for someone working long hours or without transportation to a remote city where the documents are issued.

    • hennorama

      Fiscally_Responsible – In order to avoid any misinterpretation of your comment, please define “race-baiting” and “playing the race card.”

      • Ray in VT

        Sometimes I think that it means minorities squawking about getting pushed around.

        • hennorama

          Ray in VT – TYFYR.

          These terms have been used quite often recently, and one is curious as to whether the users are able to articulate their meaning. None have thus far, despite numerous requests.

          • Ray in VT

            Have you received a response to the question regarding the definition of cultural decay? I have not.

          • hennorama

            Ray in VT -TYFYR.

            Not as yet. I have only asked once so this is not a surprise.

            In contrast, I’ve asked for a definition of “race hustler” and similar terms at least a half dozen times, to no avail.

            [CORRECTION]: One poster offered a definition of “race hustler” when asked.

  • Ed75

    Of course New York City is the locus of many serious crimes, but NYC is built on bedrock. How could God get it’s attention to turn away from its crimes? Then there was 9/11, and the blackout, and Sandy, and Indian Point is always there. I guess I lacked imagination.
    Then there is San Francisco, also promoting serious crimes. One figured that one day they would just do a slow walk to Tahiti, but now we see the fires. After the flood God promised not to destroy the world again with water, but it recalls James Baldwin’s book ‘The fire next time’. A call to repentance, individually and as a society.
    The MLK event in Washington was a success, too bad his neice Alvita King wasn’t allowed to speak or sing because she is pro-life, and the only African American congressman wasn’t invited because he is conservative, etc. MLK’s vision was a civilization of love, love of God and of one’s neighber, which was also the vision of Pope Paul VI and Vatican II: a civilization of love.

    • TFRX

      Your “etc” covers a multitude of sins against veracity.

      Strike that: You were well on the way to inveritas before “etc”.

      Why don’t you stick your religious promotion to your church bulletin?

      • StilllHere

        Is that you MLK?

    • jefe68

      Non te pudet!

    • Ray in VT

      How do any of the events that you mention impact the fact that crime rates in New York City crime rates have been dropping since the early 1990s? Should we also conclude that wild fires did not plague the Bay Area prior to the establishment of the gay community there?

      • Ed75

        Again I go back to a saying of Jesus. Asked about the falling of a tower that killed 18 people, he was asked if they were worse sinners than others. He said no, ‘by no means’, but if we do evil and do not repent (my wording), we would end likewise. Sometimes a disaster is just a result of a wounded creation. Perhaps it’s only in prayer that we can ask God to show us the difference and to show us the correct meaning of events.
        But these events are meant to move us to repent and to return to God, in any case.

    • Don_B1

      Ed75, if you are practicing to be a standup comedian, don’t give up your day job.

  • alsordi

    Evidently the BBC’s relentless war drumming propaganda has more effect in the US than in Great Britain. Europeans are generally more informed and cynical than Americans.

    Now it remains to be seem if the Nobel Peace Prize winning president and the spineless and corrupt US congress, will do the evil bidding for the Israel lobby and US defense contractors.

  • jefe68

    Some dispiriting news on the science and research front:

    http://www.asbmb.org/Advocacy/advocacy.aspx?id=22422

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/29/sequestration-scientists_n_3825128.html

    And then there is this fun fact, the US is 46th in terms of health care efficiency and #1 in cost. I’m not sure about this list though as Spain is # 5 and while they might be efficient there health care system leads a lot to be desired. I would take the Danish(38) or German(30) system over Spain’s in heart beat. Interesting study though. Our system is a mess no matter how you slice the data.

    http://www.bloomberg.com/visual-data/best-and-worst/most-efficient-health-care-countries

    • Ray in VT

      Sometimes I consider a down vote (you’re up to two now) to be either funny or a badge of honor.

    • hennorama

      jefe68 – one wonders who the bravely anonymous [Vote down]ers are.

      There seem to be some automatic votes, even for what could be described as neutral and innocuous comments.

      Any [Vote down]ers care to identify themselves?

      (Let’s see how quickly this comment gets a [Vote down]. The over/under is 60 seconds.)

      • Ray in VT

        If Disqus is taking suggestions, then I would suggest being able to identify who makes down votes.

        • hennorama

          Ray in VT – an interesting idea.

          Personally, I don’t care who votes down or up, or even if anyone votes at all. I just find it odd that some might [Vote down] for what seem to be innocuous comments.

          Perhaps it’s simply an expression of the voter’s opinion of the person making the comment.

          I seldom if ever click [Vote down], as I prefer to express myself in writing if time is available.

          Hope you took the “over.”

        • HonestDebate1

          I very rarely click dislike, I’ve maybe done it 3 times at the most. But I agree and find it odd the likes are identified and the dislikes are not.

          I sure would like to know who disliked the MLK quote.

          • Ray in VT

            I click it sometimes, but I try to do it only when I wholly disagree with a comment or if the comment is blatantly false.

          • HonestDebate1

            It’s just a feature and an available tool I suppose. It doesn’t mean much especially if it’s anonymous. I have the comfort of knowing my comments are disliked before I write them.

  • SteveTheTeacher

    I’m glad to hear President Obama speak so eloquently regarding the US reprehension of the use of chemical weapons.

    When will former President Bush’s war crimes trial begin for his use of white Phosphorus in Fallujah and his use of depleted uranium in Iraq and Afghanistan. I hope the Iraqi parents of the cyclops children and the large numbers of Iraqi parents with children suffering other birth defects associated with depleted uranium get to have their voices heard.

    I also look forward to the war crimes trial for former President Clinton for initiating the use of depleted uranium weaponry in the Balkans.

    • TyroneJ

      Use of depleted uranium isn’t a war crime. As a matter of fact, it’s used in a lot of commercial products. Aircraft, for example. Every large airliner contains anywhere between 800 & 3000 pounds of DU as trim weights, depending on how the cargo and passenger space is configured.

      • SteveTheTeacher

        TyroneJ seems to forget the arrest, imprisonment without charge, and torture of the US citizen Jose Padilla based on the fear that he might try to detonate a “dirty bomb” (depleted Uranium bomb) in NYC.

        Just because US government officials decree that depleted uranium the US military use of depleted uranium weaponry is not a weapon of mass destruction does not make that a fact.

        Many, such as TyroneJ, seem unclear about what depleted uranium is. Depleted uranium consists of transuranic elements left over from the process of enriching (purified) natural uranium into a form containing 5% or more of the uranium 235 isotope. In addition to uranium 238, depleted uranium has been found to contain plutonium and neptunium.

        While the health effects of exposure to depleted uranium by processors and electron-microscopists, is under debate, the UN Environment Programme (UNEP) has raised concern for the health effects of the military use of depleted uranium.

        Depleted uranium is pyrophoric, it burns, becomes aersolized, and the deposited in the form of dust, on the ground. Years after there initial use, civilians of the areas in which these weapons of mass destruction were used risk inhalation of radioactive alpha and gamma emitters. In these cases, dosage rates must be calculated on a cellular, not whole body basis. For this reason, the UNEP has voted to require clean-up and decontamination of the areas where these weapons were used.

        http://www.wise-uranium.org/pdf/dumyths.pdf

        • Peter Duveen

          My understanding is that , besides being radioactive, depleted uranium is chemically toxic.

          • TyroneJ

            Everything is radioactive, and yes, DU is chemically toxic. About as toxic as lead. The LD50 for DU is about 14mg/kg. The LD50 for lead is about 5mg/kg.

            DU is about or less radioactive than your average piece of concrete. Depending on where in the US you live, a concrete building can dominate the radioactive landscape due to the radioisotopes in the sand. At a major University in the Southeastern US that I know of, the radiation level from the concrete used to make one of the Biology buildings actually is high enough that if it came from lab equipment, OSHA would require everyone in the building to have a radiation monitoring badge.

            Think about that every time you park in a concrete parking structure. I do.

          • SteveTheTeacher

            “DU is about or less radioactive than your average piece of concrete.”

            Bad analogy. Depleted uranium weapons are high kinetic energy devices. When they strike they combust upon impact. They form aerosolized particles that go into the air and eventually mix with dust on the ground. A significant hazard is from inhalation during which a alpha and gamma emitters are in close proximity to lung cells. A more appropriate analogy is radon (danger established at 4 pCi/L).

            By the way, what is the LD/50 for the white phosphorus that President Bush dropped in Fallujah?

        • TyroneJ

          SteveTheTeacher needs to do more than plagiarize wikipedia and it’s ilk, and make false claims such the one claiming that using DU constitutes a war crime. My “understanding” of DU is based on being a Physics Professor for 30+ years here in Cambridge and having worked with the material before. And I presently do medical research on pathogens and toxin detection, so I keep abreast of the actual Science of this type of thing.

          DU, like lead, has a lot of issues if it gets introduced into the body. No one has ever disputed that. It’s use in warfare however, does not constitute a war crime as it does not violate any treaties. Apparently SteveTheTeacher is an admirer of Joseph Goebbels as SteveTheTeacher clearly is an advocate of the tactic of “repeating a lie a thousand times makes it truth”.

          Here’s a little secret Steve that I tell my graduate students, and I won’t even charge you tuition to hear it: Some facts are true whether you believe them or not.

          • keltcrusader

            ouch

          • SteveTheTeacher

            TyroneJ’s poor conduct in this dialog is not reflective of those us involved in the fields of Physics or other sciences.

            While Physicists, and scientists in general, may disagree, they aim to refrain from ad-hominem attacks. They also seek to focus on the truth rather than obfuscating or misrepresenting the claims of those with whom they disagree.

            While at present, there is no scientific consensus on the public the health impact of depleted uranium weaponary, the World Health Organization, the International Atomic Energy Agency, and the UNEP have identified the need to reduce risks to
            human beings and the environment from the these weapons. The UN general assembly also voted to advise a “precautionary” approach to these weapons: http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N12/480/76/PDF/N1248076.pdf?OpenElement

            Rather than arguing the semantics or legalese of whether depleted uranium is a chemical weapon, a weapon of mass destruction, etc. I challenge those who asset that the use of depleted uranium weapons does not have an adverse effect on civilians or the environment to refute the facts presented in the report produced by Dan Fahey (http://www.wise-uranium.org/pdf/dumyths.pdf) or the findings of Dahr Jamail (http://www.democracynow.org/2013/3/20/ten_years_later_us_has_left).

            It also bears mentioning that former President Bush’s use of the international identified chemical weapon, white phosphorus, is without dispute.

            On what grounds does former President Bush get a pass for this war crime?

  • Coastghost

    Bluster Obomba may not be deterred from making a decision, given the rebuke of the British Parliament against waging humanitarian war, but acting after making a decision may yet take Obomba a few days . . . or a few weeks . . . maybe a few months. (Let’s call it “time-released moral indignation”.)
    On another hand: why didn’t Obomba mention the civil rights of Syrian citizens in his speech Wednesday? People once admired his ability to tie things together.

  • nj_v2

    Fifty years after…

    http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/08/26/south-carolina-charleston-wild-wing-cafe-black-americans/2704125/

    Reports: S.C. restaurant refused to seat black patrons
    Black S.C. man says Wild Wing Cafe refused to seat his group after woman said she felt threatened.

    A black South Carolina man says a restaurant in North Charleston refused to seat his party of 25 family and friends and asked the group to leave after a white customer complained of feeling threatened, according to reports.

    The man, Michael Brown, also known as Mike London, could not be reached but his Facebook post in which he gave details of this experience indicates the group waited two hours to be seated at the Wild Wing Cafe before a manager approached and later refused to seat the group.

    The chief marketing officer for the chain of restaurants based in Mount Pleasant, S.C., said the manager involved in the alleged incident is on leave until an investigation can be completed. She confirmed the group had been offered an apology and meals all around and said the restaurant has a meeting planned for later this week with some members of the restaurant party.…

    (snipped)

    • Coastghost

      Hard to imagine: Charleston is one of the state’s only remaining Democratic Party bastions (Mayor Riley has been in office at least since the last days of the first Mayor Daley in Chicago). Of course, Charleston Democrats may’ve gotten wind that elsewhere in SC, Obama himself intervened to suppress African American voting, so maybe someone down there felt emboldened. Sad news.

      • nj_v2

        Yeah, it’s always partisan with you conservocons.

        • Coastghost

          It’s just as easy to spot someone like you holding non-partisan credentials.

          • nj_v2

            It appears your brief spate of sensible posts is over.

        • pete18

          Hello kettle, meet pot.

          • nj_v2

            Don’t read the forum much, do you?

        • HonestDebate1

          Yea, partisanship is defined as opposing Obama’s disastrous fundamental transformation of America. Well, then count me in.

    • hennorama

      nj_v2 – This may simply be a case of a manager wilting under pressure, and/or overreacting to someone videotaping what was happening. From a local news account:

      [Brown says while he was talking to the shift manager, someone in his group began videotaping the conversation. Brown says that's when the manager became upset and refused to seat them.

      "I asked her I want to be clear with you," says Brown. "I said so you're telling me I have to leave. She said I have a right to deny you service. I said so you're asking me to leave because you're upset because he was recording you, after we've waited for two hours, and after you've already pretty much discriminated on us, and she answered yes."]

      See:
      http://www.live5news.com/story/23235524/complaint-of-racial-discrimination-at-n-chs-restaurant-taken-to-facebook

  • skelly74

    I think everyone is focused on admirable topics today; the Syria issue does remind of war crimes, past and present, which is a link to crime in general – What about the horrendous crimes committed in the U.S.? But we have a bigger question today?

    Yes the healthcare in the U.S. Is a racket — at best “the best care money can buy”…what’s new here? No, there is a greater question today.

    Am I talking about racial disparity in the U.S. Fifty years after the MLK dream speech? Does the U.S. Judicial code favor whites? If I’m a non-white I would think so…by the way if I am a white…will I write laws favoring people like me? Not necessarily, but I may make it so hard to interpret the law while inaccessible for the best council so that only people like me, my caste, can have a fighting chance to prosper…see the healthcare system…see the tax code.

    No, this is not the most important question today as we approach the weekend. As Americans, we focus are attention and passion on issues that give us credible insight…a sort of bragging right…the right to say: “I was right; you were wrong”. It is as old as the David vs. Goliath story…the underdog struggle…the question for the patriot within all of us. Shall we go to war again? Should we overhaul the tax code? Shall we pursue war crimes – past and present? No, this is not important today.

    What will be talked and thought all day today and until 4pm tomorrow will be the big story come Sunday; will Tim Tebow make the fifty-three man roster for Americas greatest professional football team…and what freakin position is he going to play…the mind is boggled in mysterious and masterful ways by puppet masters and strings of fancy deception…

    • Yar

      And they shall be entertained, lest they come together and build community which we must fight at all costs.

  • Yar

    Scenario: You are the commander in chief, you know beyond any doubt where a large supply of chemical weapons are stored, you have tested technology that could destroy those weapons with minimum loss of life using a thermonuclear device. What would you do? Would it start a third world war?
    Is the third world already at war?

    • Ray in VT

      Certainly parts of the Third World are and have been at war for some time (the Congo comes to mind). I don’t think that such a theoretical strike would start WWIII as it was once envisioned, or perhaps not even one at all, although I do think that there would likely be diplomatic and/or economic actions taken against a power that engaged in such an attack, and I am not at all interested in seeing nuclear weapons used on the battlefield for the first time since Nagasaki.

      • Yar

        What I seem to infer from your reply is that using such weapons would put us on the wrong side of history. If diplomatic or economic action we ever taken against the US by the world body, wouldn’t that start WWIII? If the world sees us as the enemy then we are in a state of war. We would be the cat the world is determined to tie a bell on.

    • TyroneJ

      Your scenario implies that “Might makes Right.” Which it does not.

      Syria is not a signatory of the “Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production, Stockpiling and Use of Chemical Weapons and on their Destruction” treaty, also called the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC). Syria’s chemical weapons stockpiles are perfectly legal under International Law.

      Currently 189 of the 196 states recognized by the United Nations are party to the CWC. Of the seven states that are not, two have signed but not yet ratified the treaty (Burma and Israel) and five states have not signed the treaty (Angola, North Korea, Egypt, South Sudan and Syria).

      Given the US’s failure to abide by our own Constitution, as revealed by the NSA’s behavior, the US isn’t in any moral position to be the Worlds self-appointed policeman.

      • Yar

        No, I am not, I am not advocating for any action. I am looking for discussion. I heard in the news this week that the US has investigated chemical weapons destruction technology. I believe we should be extremely careful in the role as world policeman. Use of force decision making should be in the UN, if we have a role it should be directed by the world body, not by us acting alone. Acting on our own makes us guilty of police brutality.

  • nj_v2

    Jackassery of the week…

    http://truth-out.org/buzzflash/commentary/item/18165-those-louisianans-who-blame-obama-for-hurricane-katrina-debacle-are-brain-dead-he-wasn-t-even-in-office

    Those Louisianans Who Blame Obama for Hurricane Katrina Debacle Are Brain Dead. He Wasn’t Even in Office.

    Almost one-third of Louisiana Republicans blame President Obama for the slow and largely ineffective response to Hurricane Katrina, which hit the Gulf Coast, Aug. 31, 2005. More than 1,800 were killed in Alabama, Mississippi, and Louisiana; estimates of property damage exceeded $100 billion.

    Public Policy Polling reveals that 29 percent of the state’s Republicans blame Obama. Only 28 percent blame George W. Bush. The rest, according to the poll, don’t know who to blame.

    The disaster occurred in the first year of George W. Bush’s second term. Barack Obama did not become president until more than three years later.…

    (snipped)

    http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/08/28/1234584/-Republican-leaders-asked-to-speak-at-March-on-Washington-anniversary-declined?detail=facebook#

    Republican leaders asked to speak at March on Washington anniversary, declined

    Conservatives complaining that the March on Washington anniversary celebration seems awfully partisan should note that they have only themselves to blame.

    Speaker John A. Boehner and Majority Leader Eric Cantor, the House’s two most senior Republicans, were invited to speak at the 50th anniversary of the historic March on Washington — but declined. […]

    “They asked a long list of Republicans to come,” [civil rights activist Julian Bond] continued, “and to a man and woman they said ‘no.’ And that they would turn their backs on this event was telling of them, and the fact that they seem to want to get black votes, they’re not gonna get ‘em this way.”Boehner instead spoke at a small Congressional ceremony. Eric Cantor’s reason for not being there, though, is rather odd:

    Cantor, meanwhile, was asked 12 days ago to participate in Wednesday’s event commemorating Martin Luther King Jr.’s delivery of the famous “I Have a Dream” speech, according to an aide. The Virginia Republican, however, is currently traveling in North Dakota and Ohio, touring energy sites with Rep. Kevin Cramer, R-N.D., and participating in “nonofficial events,” according to an aide.…

    (snipped)

    How do ignorant azzholes like this get to become a judge?

    Judge apologizes for remarks about teen rape victim

    http://billingsgazette.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/judge-apologizes-for-remarks-about-teen-rape-victim/article_b93f5062-d60b-5939-8b85-2a144d5e8a3c.html

    District Judge G. Todd Baugh issued an apology Wednesday morning for remarks he made about a 14-year-old rape victim.

    At the hearing on Monday, Baugh ordered Rambold to serve 15 years in prison, with all but 31 days suspended, for a single count of sexual intercourse without consent. Rambold received credit for one day already served.

    While explaining the sentence, Baugh said he had reviewed statements Moralez made to investigators before her death and determined that while she was a troubled youth, she also was “as much in control of the situation” as the teacher.

    Baugh also said Moralez was “older than her chronological age.”

    Moralez’s mother, Auliea Hanlon, was angered by the sentence and stormed out the courtroom, shouting “You people suck!” She testified at the hearing that the rapes of her daughter were a major reason for her suicide, and she asked the judge to send Rambold to prison.…

    (excerpts)

    Outrage leads to petition for removal and reconsideration of sentence…

    http://billingsgazette.com/news/local/judge-s-remarks-about-teenage-rape-victim-spark-outrage/article_07466a01-c9c1-5538-a9e0-41f296074b27.html

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2405280/Cherice-Moralez-case-Family-speak-living-hell-rape-Stacey-Rambold.html

    http://petitions.moveon.org/sign/resign-judge-g-todd-baugh?source=s.icn.tw&r_by=8646657

    http://billingsgazette.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/twito-says-rambold-sentence-will-be-reviewed/article_a3e16a0f-9b29-5259-ad4f-5903abc22ef1.html

    • jefe68

      One does wonder how these people survived to adulthood.

    • keltcrusader

      I signed the petition to have Judge Baugh removed and the decision overturned. He is a disgrace to the Judiciary and an immoral person if he believes a 14 yo is in control of a situation where she is targeted by an much older man and a TEACHER. Shame on him!

      I also heard Bilbo O’Reilly was spouting off about the lack of Republicans “invited” to the MLK celebration. Guess he wasn’t aware they were all invited and all declined to attend. Think he will make a retraction??? I highly doubt it.

      As for Louisiana {{SMH}} you can’t fix stupid, I guess. :(

      • Ray in VT
        • nj_v2

          Honestly, who gives a rodent’s hindquarter what Blowhard O’Really thinks about anything? It’s a sad commentary on the state of mass media that a bloviating gasbag like him is even allowed to comment on the weather, never mind having his own show.

          • Ray in VT

            I don’t care for him, but I don’t think that he is too bad sometimes with some things. At least he made the correction on the air, instead of just issuing one on his website where most of his viewers wouldn’t see it. I tend to think that that is at least worth something.

          • jefe68

            Ray I do admire your stance on one level, but O’Reilly is blowhard and the amount of awful things he says on his show far outweigh the odd retraction.

          • Ray in VT

            I can’t disagree with that, Jefe.

        • keltcrusader

          Well, I guess, miracles can still happen! But you & I know once a lie is out there, you can’t just take it back and there will be plenty of those who will continue to say no “R” was invited because they heard it on FOX.

          • Ray in VT

            Yup. I am pretty sure that that will indeed happen with some people.

        • hennorama

          Ray in VT – thanks for pointing that out. Mr. O’Reilly is to be commended for fessing up about, and apologizing for, his erroneous assumption.

          He followed his admission with this ‘Tip Of The Day’:

          “Always check out the facts before you make a definitive statement AND when you make a mistake, admit it.”

          I wholeheartedly agree.

          • Ray in VT

            One certainly should. For instance, if one is going to push some numbers on a topic, then one should check to see where those numbers come from so that, for instance, one isn’t hyping numbers put out a racist organization.

  • toc1234

    I’m guessing Tom will dutifully steer today’s show away from Syrian asap.. which I figure will be ok with guests from NYT, Bloomberg and Jack. Then again Jack is more of an ideologue than partisan so perhaps he will come down hard on Cowboy “Don’t cross my red line” Obama for going it alone (before the UN inspectors can even issue their report, b/c you know, he wants this little mess cleaned up before he heads to Sweden/USSR next wk… ),. we’ll see..

  • alsordi

    The Big Question: Will the USA attack Syria ??

    Well if it is true that 9-11 was an inside job to bury financial scandals in the demolition of Building 7, and to boost the economy and militarize the police to prepare for civil unrest, then attacking Syria is a certainty, regardless of public opinion. The PNAC is right on track.

    • 1Brett1

      Prove that your comment isn’t part of a false flag operation, an “inside job,” if you will, just to throw all of us off! How do we know YOU are not a field operative working for “THEM”?!??!

      • alsordi

        Maybe I;ll be standing next to a BBQ pit on Labor Day and all of a sudden just disintegrate down into a pile of dust… just like Building 7.

        • Ray in VT

          Let us know if you do.

  • nj_v2

    Proposal for a new hurricane naming system to name storms after politicians who deny climate change…

    http://climatenamechange.org/#

    (short video)

    • HonestDebate1

      So now climate change causes Hurricanes? Alrighty then. I just wish I could figure out if it causes floods or droughts.

      • nj_v2

        The simple-minded trolling has begun.

        http://www.skepticalscience.com/hurricanes-global-warming-intermediate.htm

        Global satellite data since 1981 can be used to extend analysis of hurricane intensity to each ocean, looking for any trend in wind speed (Elsner 2008). Figure 3 plots the long term trend in maximum wind speed (eg – whether hurricanes are getting stronger or weaker) against different strength hurricanes. This tells us not only whether hurricanes are overall getting stronger but also how different strength hurricanes are being affected. Overall, there is a statistically significant upward trend (the horizontal red line). But more significantly, Elsner found weaker hurricanes showed little to no trend while stronger hurricanes showed a greater upward trend. In other words, stronger hurricanes are getting stronger. This means that as sea temperatures continue to rise, the number of Category 4 and 5 hurricanes hitting land will inevitably increase.

        • HonestDebate1

          1981 ooooo. So much history, so little time.

          Why is this year expected to be a abnormally mild hurricane season, smarty pants?

      • Ray in VT

        As if it could not do both. How can there be global warming if it is colder today than it was last year on this date in my location?

        • jefe68

          Careful, your dealing with a man of “impeccable character”, according to his friends by way of his own admission.

          • 1Brett1

            And here’s how history was made
            (In an unnaturally low-pitched voice):

            One of his friends while sitting around, said: “You, there, HonestDebate1, why, you are a man of impeccable character!”

            HonestDebate1: “why, thank you, friend, who admires me and recognizes my greatness.”

          • jefe68

            Cue in music: I`m Too Sexy…

            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=39YUXIKrOFk

          • HonestDebate1

            Thank you. It’s my cross to bear.

        • HonestDebate1

          You are confusing climate change with weather, I would never do that. But let there be a flood and OP will do a show on AGW. Let there be a drought and there’s another show. Let there be a hot summer, OP to the rescue with a show. Every hurricane, ditto. It’s all silly.

          • Ray in VT

            No, I am not. Climate is “the long-term manifestations of weather.” Weather is “the state of the atmosphere,
            mainly with respect to its effects upon life and human activities; as
            distinguished from climate, weather consists of the short-term (minutes
            to months) variations of the atmosphere.” You have in the past made the silly statement that “the climate changes every morning when the sun rises”. That isn’t even weather. Silly would be to suggest that some online petition fostered by a bunch of creationists and headlined by a guy who lied about the health affects of smoking is equivalent to major scientific bodies.

          • HonestDebate1

            It wasn’t me who asked the ridiculous question: “How can there be global warming if it is colder today than it was last year on this date in my location?”

            Snark bites.

            I know the difference and would never confuse the two. And I agree it would be silly to hold “The petition project” up as scientific fact. I’ve said so over and over and made that clear when I posted it. Why are you acting like I have not. That’s not honest, you do that a lot.

            Do you think a statement like “97% of climate scientist agree there is global warming:” is silly? It’s not, it’s insane and you did in fact write that. I didn’t have to make it up.

          • Ray in VT

            It’s called sarcasm, and I was paraphrasing Neil Cavuto, who has done it a number of times.

            Perhaps if you do not want to get stuff thrown back in your face, then you shouldn’t post total b.s. in the first place. I believe that you used it in response to a poll that I once posted from members of a major scientific group, because you said that you had 10xs the numbers or something.

            I would agree with the statement that a review of the scientific literature shows only 2-3% rejection of the notion that there is global warming. Care to provide a list of credible scientists publishing in the peer-reviewed scientific literature who do not believe that there has been a definite increase in the global temperatures. I don’t need to make anything up, either. I just need to look at the scientific literature.

          • HonestDebate1

            Look it up. I was clear.

            And no, I am not taking the bait and jumping into the weeds. You are changing the subject. You said 97% of climate scientist agree. That’s what you said. Are you standing by it without caveats? You said it.

          • Ray in VT

            That is what the Doran survey, among others, have said. I’ll stand by their research, as opposed to Heartland or Inhofe.

            Here is what you said I believe the first time that I saw it mentioned by you:

            Define “Scientist”. Here’s 30,000:

            http://www.petitionproject.org

            http://onpoint.wbur.org/2012/01/27/week-in-the-news-181

            What was your clear intention there? It seems to me that you were presenting it as a valid counterweight to the comment “Again, many thousands of scientists recognize global warming as a problem.”

          • HonestDebate1

            No it did not, show me any study anywhere that concludes 97% of climates scientist agree. You made no caveats until I called you on it.

            Regarding the petition, I am quite certain what my intent was. You gave me a link to a page of almost 500 comments. I don’t care enough about this to file through them to find the one you may or may not be referring to. If you want to feel free. If you right click the time of posting link and then open in a new tab and copy the address bar and post that it will take me to whatever comment you are referring to. Again feel free but you will lose that argument so I suggest you read carefully.

            Remember your claim: “Silly would be to suggest that some online petition fostered by a bunch of creationists and headlined by a guy who lied about the health affects of smoking is equivalent to major scientific bodies.”

            I took that as an accusation that I did that. I did not. I didn’t come close to it. that is all I am saying, I have no interest in debating AGW with you. You implied a lie and that is the only reason I even responded about it. You will not be able to make that case any more that you can make the case that 97% of climate scientist agree about AGW. No Ray, you are just trying to be snarky and contentious by putting words in my mouth. Prove me wrong but focus and quit trying to change the subject.

          • Ray in VT

            Yup. Doran’s did conclude just that. You might want to look it up before making comments that just make you look silly.

            Got it. You don’t have time to look into what you said, so you’re just going to make a statement about what you claim was your intent without looking to see whether or not it was or was not clearly such at the time. More honest debate, I guess. I also don’t have any interest in debating global warming with you, as you have been shown to cite bogus sources and manufacture misquotes to support a failing position.

    • thequietkid10

      I do hate the climate change debate in this country. It has been completely hijacked by extremist who either think the world is going to end unless we double the price of energy and of you disagree you are a science hating moron.and the extremist on the other hand who use words like “hoax” to describe it..

    • Ray in VT

      I just got around to watching the video. It was pretty funny. Thanks.

  • toc1234

    Cowboy “Don’t disrespect my red line” Obama’s checklist..
    1. no allies, check
    2. no evidence from UN inspectors, check
    3. no approval from Congress, check
    4. no defined goal, check
    5. no clue, check
    “ok, soldiers drive those ship things into the gulf and fire a couple bombs sort-of towards Syria but don’t really try to do any real damage.”

    • HonestDebate1

      5 years in, Syria should fear us, they don’t.

  • rogger2

    Here we go again! All these politicians are the same.

    Obama, Biden and Kerry sound exactly like Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld.

    • TomK_in_Boston

      Amen. Isn’t it time for the high-resolution photos with the circles and arrows (chemical weapons depot—>) etc?

      Also the corporate journalists are due to start beating the drum and telling scary stories. Where’s the new Judith Miller?

      “We don’t want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud”—C. Rice, 2003

    • nj_v2

      From the Irony-of-the-Day Dept.:

      http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/319269-rumsfeld-says-administration-hasnt-justified-syria-attack

      Rumsfeld says administration hasn’t justified Syria attack

      Former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, who ushered the U.S. into wars in Afghanistan and Iraq in 2001 and 2003, said the Obama administration has not clearly justified an attack on Syria.

      “One thing that is very interesting, it seems to me, is that there really hasn’t been any indication from the administration as to what our national interest is with respect to this particular situation,” Rumsfeld said in an interview with Fox News’s Neil Cavuto.…

      (snipped)

  • Ray in VT

    At least this time there is no talk of a slam dunk.

    • toc1234

      Right, Cowboy “Don’t disrespect my red line” Obama’s is basically only talking about backing up his rhetoric (saving his own face) evidence or no evidence…

  • Coastghost

    So John Kerry, already smirked at for his francophilia, puts the US shoulder to shoulder with the French? The Indochine Brothers, together in Syria? (By the way, are we clear yet that the Wikipedia entry is for the Syrian War, or should we hold out yet for the Syro-Iranian War entry? Surely Obomba knows by now.) Given the French history of Algeria, French public opinion may not support Obama’s reach much longer than the British Parliament. (Hollande was only losing public support last I heard: shades of Mollet.)

    How important is timing deemed here?

    • TomK_in_Boston

      Maybe it’s time to bring freedom ‘n democracy to the former French Indochine?

  • Bigtruck

    My kids are not the worlds cops. When a Cheney, A Bush child, a Clinton an Obama go to war then the discussion can start. Until then it must not be in our countries interest.

  • Coastghost

    How concerned is Obama that the Nobel Committee might want to revoke his Peace Medal?

  • Coastghost

    GEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE: whatever happened to NATO? (I have not heard Word One about NATO from National Public Radio, WBUR, or “On Point” [as of 10:30 am ET Friday, 30 Aug 2013].)

  • toc1234

    I think one thing everyone can agree on at least is that Obama is obviously in over his head here… btw – this is sort of like the Sequester… “oh, I only proposed that b/c I didn’t think it would happen..” “oh, I woulnt have mentioned anything about a red line if I actually thought Assad would cross it.” Amateur hour continues in the WH….

    • TomK_in_Boston

      No, we can’t agree. A cautious Obama is infinitely better than a macho nutcase rushing into war.

      You say “over his head”, I think of W starting the disastrous Iraq war over non-existent WMD. Can’t get in any deeper than that. You say “amateur hour”, I think “We know where they are, they’re around Tikrit….” Can’t get much more amateur than the clueless bush’ites.

      • toc1234

        who’s talking about W? come on, move forward (or lean? or, perhaps, stumble?).. isn’t that what progessives do? keep up, live in the now, ect…

        • TomK_in_Boston

          The OP said Obama was “over his head” and it was “amateur hour”. I’m talking abt W because his behavior showed what it really meant to be in over you head and have amateur hour.

          What’s your problem. Can’t you see that being hesitant is a hell of a lot more “professional” than spilling our blood and treasure over a mistake?

          • toc1234

            hesitant? he’s not even going to wait for the UN inspector report according to andrea Mitchell on msnbc last night.

          • TomK_in_Boston

            OK, more hesitant than W, anyway. Let’s see what he actually does. I still think there’s a chance he won’t initiate more stimulus spending for the mil/indu complex.

      • JGC

        Maybe the Obama National Security Team could balance a Ouija board over W’s gut, and get the real answers to their questions about Syria…

      • Labropotes

        Tom, are you satisfied merely by the fact that Obama is more competent than Bush ll? It is disappointing that you got so much approbation for that comment.

        A cautious Obama shot his mouth off, stated redlines that no democratic process had sanctioned, and started his country on yet another path to war. And we are a nation of chumps and fools if we follow him. Alas!

    • William

      A lot of Presidents get too big for their britches. Look at JFK and his failed invasion of Cuba and then he doubled down with his desire to win something and went big in Vietnam. LBJ kept true to the JFK doctrine and went bigger in Vietnam. Reagan got stupid in Lebanon and we lost over 200 Marines. Clinton with his Iraq Liberation Act and constant war drums against Iraq. Bush II with his Iraq War. Obama with is illegal war against Libya and now he is going at it again. All good examples of failed Presidential ideas and the danger of a big, powerful federal government.

      • Coastghost

        Yeah, but JFK was in his FIRST term . . .

        • William

          All that great education he received and he still went to war in Vietnam.

  • nj_v2

    Thumbs up to caller Jackie (sp?) who questioned the moral authority of the U.S. in reacting to alleged atrocities given the long history the country has in promulgating death and disaster in recent decades.

    Rather than examining, reflecting, or discussing the notion, Ms Clayton dismissed it with a quick, “Thank you for that perspective” and moved on.

    At least they gave the woman the air time.

    • rogger2

      Amen to that!

      2 big thumbs up to the Jackie caller.

      It would have been nice to continue that discussion.

      • TomK_in_Boston

        Not on our corporate media.

    • SteveTheTeacher

      Jackie’s comment was great.

      Glad the On Point screeners let her through.

      Not surprised at the lack of follow-up on her comments. Gotta love the “liberal media.”

  • Jeff

    What’s the point of international laws/rules if no one enforces them? At the same time I don’t want the US being the only nation enforcing these international rules/laws.

    • Labropotes

      What law? If there is some applicable law, why is the Obama administration not citing it? Even if there is a law or rule violated, who appointed not just the United States, but a single man, Obama, the arbiter of that law? So yeah, what’s the point of international law if the President is permitted by his nation to do just exactly what seems good to him without reference to ANY law?

      What Obama and his posse are citing is “international norms.” If that’s right, there must be a large international coalition eager to enforce their norms. Crickets.

      I’d like someone to cite the constitution of the United States, which very clearly gives congress the say-so in what wars America wages.

      • sickofthechit

        It also says the Pres can commit us for 60 days w/out CONgress’s approval.

        • Labropotes

          The constitution doesn’t say that. I mention it for the benefit of others.

    • sickofthechit

      France is ready to stand with us.

  • toc1234

    Has Stockholm already notified Cowboy Obama that they expect he will be returning his noble peace prize next week while he’s in town?

  • nj_v2

    I’ve bitched a lot about Disqus in the past, but credit where credit is due re. the recent revisions.

    Eliminated the skinny-post syndrome for the more layered threads. Good!

    Cut-and-pasted text no longer loses line-space formatting. Good!

    Overall interface and navigation (log-in, etc.) generally better. Good!

    Tracking new comments is much easier. Good!

    Eliminate the pop-up window, and all will be good.

    • hennorama

      nj_v2 – well said.

      However, I hope DISQUS does not roll out the version of the Dashboard that they beta-tested recently, which eliminated the search feature and imposed other unwanted changes.

    • hennorama

      nj_v2 – one notable consequence of the elimination of “the skinny-post syndrome” is the occasionally hilarious out-of-sequence juxtaposition of comments. But that’s a small price to pay for this vast improvement, and some might even consider such juxtapositions to be a feature, not a bug.

  • hennorama

    In my view, the evidence from the UN inspection team should be released publicly as soon as it’s available.

    International treaties on chemical weapons established strict standards of proof, and such proof has not yet been demonstrated regarding Syria. The U.N. inspection team is expected to finish their work this weekend, perhaps as early as tomorrow (Sat. Aug. 31st).

    It’s alleged that Sarin was used in Syria. Sarin itself presents a particular problem due to its volatility and rapid evaporation. This is why it was so important to get inspectors in ASAP, and why there were such significant efforts to delay their work, most conspicuously a sniper attack on their vehicles.

    One caller asked about who might be supplying the chemical weapons. An article on abcnews.go.com discusses the irony of how “THE SARIN-INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX COMES FULL-CIRCLE” on page 2 in the link below.

    FTA:

    “The [U.S.] Army’s main corporate partner in Sarin production, however, was a contractor called the Vitro Corporation, which produced the chemical at a leak-prone plant in northwestern Alabama. The deadly concoction was transported to Rocky Mountain Arsenal in special nickel-plated railroad cars.

    “After a series of acquisitions and bankruptcies, Vitro merged with British Aerospace to create BAE Systems, one of the largest defense contractors in the world.

    “BAE now helps produce most of the U.K.’s military ships and submarines and many of its aircraft, such as the Harrier fighter jet. BAE also supplies many of the U.S.’s land and naval guns, as well as systems on many of its fighter planes.

    “This means that if the U.S. and U.K. launch a military offensive against Syria, they will use BAE-supplied ships and aircraft to punish the Syrian regime for using Sarin nerve weapons, which a BAE subsidiary once perfected for the US military’s use decades ago.”

    See:
    http://abcnews.go.com/ABC_Univision/surprising-sordid-story-sarin-syrias-alleged-chemical-weapon/story?id=20096730

    • Labropotes

      I like your comments!

      Hey, as a bit of cross checking, I googled images of the Tokyo Sarin attack. None of the images show foam coming from noses or mouths. Doesn’t eliminate other agents, of course.

      I think this attack is very fishy, but I know that makes me one of the crazies. I always read up on these kinds of mass killings. Never have we gotten images faster, never have the victims been wrapped up in clean white sheets within an hour of the event in a setting like this.

      • hennorama

        Labropotes – Thank you for your response, and your kind words.

        Skepticism is healthy and warranted, and there are certainly some who put forward the theory that these deaths are not what they appear to be. The evidence from the UN inspectors will be available soon. In the interim, one can read the newly released unclassified assessment – “U.S. Government Assessment of the Syrian Government’s Use of Chemical Weapons on August 21, 2013” – here (and elsewhere):
        http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/white-house-report-on-syrian-governments-use-of-chemical-weapons/2013/08/30/4beed480-119d-11e3-85b6-d27422650fd5_story.html

        Americans can handle the evidence, and we deserve to be able to examine it. Waiting a short time for the U.N. inspectors to finish their work is reasonable and prudent, especially in light of recent history related to WMDs, or lack thereof.

  • Jon

    I totally sympathize the caller named Jackie who questions the morality of American empire. Pity she is just among the tiny minority whose view can really save America from becoming the latest empire in history marching into the grave yard in the middle east.

    • jimino

      Brings to mind this great song from one of the most insightful and entertaining songwriters around, James McMurtry. From his album “Just Us Kids”:

      Standin’ in the middle of a Roman street
      Marble dust all over my feet

      Bearded masses at the gates

      Dancin’ in the ruins while it’s not too late

      Drivin’ a Rolls through old Bombay

      Rickshaw driver’s in my way

      Well he’d better move over and he’d better move fast

      Dancin’ in the ruins of a golden past
      Dancin’ in the ruins of the Raj
      Queen and country’s noble cause

      Standin’ on banks of the river Seine
      I ain’t got tuppence to my name
      Stand my ground and I cast my net
      Dancin’ in the ruins where the sun don’t set
      Dancin’ in the ruins of the Crown
      Enfield rifles keepin’ us down

      I got a thirty-ought-six and a premium load
      In a shotgun shack on a two lane road
      Smack in the middle of the bible belt
      Dancin’ in the ruins all by myself

      We got the National Guard with the bayonets
      We got the ten commandments on the State House steps
      We shalt not steal and we shalt not kill
      Dancin’ in the ruins of our own free will
      Dancin’ in the ruins of the South
      Confederate flag taped over my mouth

      We thank thee lord for all we got
      While the multi-nationals call the shots
      So scrape them hides and clean that slate
      Dancin’ in the ruins of the nation-state

      We’ll fight ‘em in the land, we’ll fight ‘em in the air
      Little cowboy says we got to fight ‘em over there
      You ain’t seen nothing like it since Saigon fell
      Dancin’ in the ruins ’cause we might as well
      Dancin’ in the ruins of the realm
      A fool and a mad man at the helm
      Dancin’ in the ruins of the Reich
      Down in the bunker on a hunger strike.

      • Jon

        Have you watched Tom Cruse’s Oblivion? Here is the virtue of “what we’re fighting for” quoting Lays of Ancient Rome -

        “To every man upon this earth

        Death cometh soon or late.

        And how can man die better

        Than facing fearful odds,

        For the ashes of his fathers,

        And the temples of his Gods.”

        To die with honor and glory. And what is that honor and noble cause anyway – immortality?

  • Coastghost

    Does America really possess a teleological sense of history? I have to wonder and keep wondering . . . .

    • TomK_in_Boston

      Very short memory, in any event.

    • StilllHere

      What does history show?

      • jefe68

        That you’ll make some inane comment.

    • fun bobby

      sure, they remember a whole 24 hour news cycle ago

  • Peter Duveen

    Americans do not want intervention. Dont try to shape the facts to support intervention. We are on to it.

  • skelly74

    If you can climb off the couch and go vote, you can surely do the same to go get a government ID. The humanity!

    Be proud of who you are. Get a card and be counted. Don’t let someone easily become you by rolling off the couch. It works both ways.

    Don’t discriminate; just laminate…

  • brian copeland

    My former home state deserves to be pronounced the hill billy way, “Missoura” if they nullify federal gun laws.

    • fun bobby

      I bet they would appreciate that. god bless them

  • hennorama

    Information on international law in regard to chemical and biological weapons can be accessed here:

    http://www.icrc.org/eng/war-and-law/weapons/chemical-biological-weapons/index.jsp

    http://www.icrc.org/customary-ihl/eng/docs/v1_rul_rule74 (specific to chemical weapons)

    FTA, above:

    “Non-international armed conflicts

    “The prohibition of the use of chemical weapons contained in the Chemical Weapons Convention applies in all circumstances, including in non-international armed conflicts.[18] In addition, the prohibition is contained in several other instruments pertaining also to non-international armed conflicts.[19]”

    http://www.opcw.org/chemical-weapons-convention/ (also specific to chemical weapons)

  • Yar

    Button idea: Why should my mom subsidise the cost of your hamburger?

    The idea that workers should move to a better job is false logic for paying a less than a living wage. Maybe I need to help mom with the rent, where is the justice in not paying a living wage to every worker? Now, lets talk about immigration.

    • thequietkid10

      So would you endorse a 15 dollar minimum wage if minimum wage workers weren’t allowed to collect Medicaid, Food Stamps, Welfare, and housing subsides,

      • Ray in VT

        If their incomes rose above the levels allowed by those programs.

      • Yar

        Setting a number for the minimum wage is a trap. Cost of living is connected to energy housing and healthcare. By linking wages to those our society will work for the long haul. I advocate for setting wages for members of congress to no more than 5 times the minimum wage.

    • HonestDebate1

      Living wage is a meaningless emotional phrase. Raising the minimum wage ALWAYS disproportionately hurts the poor. It should be abolished all together.

      • Ray in VT

        Except that it doesn’t and that it shouldn’t.

        • HonestDebate1

          Every study in the history of mankind has shown it hurts the poor. What evidence do you have to say it doesn’t hurt the poor? And what does “shouldn’t” have to do with anything? It is what it is. We have to deal with reality.

          • Ray in VT

            Yeah, except that that is not true. This is an example that I would cite:

            http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/02/14/why-economists-are-so-puzzled-by-the-minimum-wage/

            What does your opinion that it should be abolished have to do with anything as well? Indeed, we do need to deal with reality, and reality has shown that the economic day dreams of the neo-liberals don’t work.

          • HonestDebate1

            I’m talking about analysis of what has happened when we’ve raised it. I am not talking about speculation of what employers should do.

            Abolishing it is would be good for the economy, that’s my view. I’m here to express my views.

            I also think raising it right now is the last thing this economy or the poor need.

          • Ray in VT

            And one of the articles cites research from changes from 1990-2006, so how is that speculation. I think that the last thing that we need is a race to the bottom and a further eroding of the position of labor and workers. I am willing to bet that many people working in low wage jobs would not conclude that a raise is the last thing that they need right now, given the stagnation of purchasing power that so many have experienced over the past 30 years.

          • Ray in VT

            Wow, that got a down vote within seconds.

          • Yar

            I have been noticing that. Maybe someone has a script to vote down our comments. It is a shame vote down doesn’t publish the username.

          • jefe68

            Me too, something weird about that.

          • HonestDebate1

            Ask the low wage earners at any particular company which one or two should lose their job so the others can get a raise.

            I blame Obama and especially Obamacare for the horrendous plight of the worker, so I’m not saying it’s their fault.

          • Ray in VT

            Your former point might be valid if all studies showed such as effect, which they do not, but feel free to allow your ideology to blind you to the facts.

          • TomK_in_Boston

            The race to the bottom is very effective class warfare.

          • Labropotes

            By your argument, not just one of of your hypothetical low wage workers, but all of them will lose their jobs, if minimum wage is set at a level greater than the value those workers each provide the employer. If any one of them is now able to provide value greater than minimum wage, by your theory, he is already paid above minimum wage.

            Both parties have been bribing Americans with their own money for several decades. Many are disappointed by Obama, perhaps, but he’s not solely responsible for the plight of the American worker.

          • HonestDebate1

            True, there is plenty of blame to be spread around but Obama has a huge hand in it. Obamacare is a killer. Ditto new regulations. Ditto energy and immigration policies. I would even point to his first year when he did not extend the tax cuts. There was never any doubt he would but he waited and waited. People did not have a clue what their tax liability would be with only a few weeks left in the fiscal year. Businesses cannot plan under that scenario. Obama is President, he put jobs on the back burner. It’s his policies and his leadership (or lack thereof). He owns it.

          • jefe68

            Your views are reprehensible, regressive, repugnant, and retched.

          • jefe68

            Every study in the history of mankind has shown it hurts the poor.

            The henchman of hyperbole is telling the masses how it is…

          • hennorama

            jefe68 – that gets a [Vote up] for the phrase “henchman of hyperbole.”

            Well done.

          • jefe68

            Ta.

          • hennorama

            De nada.

          • hennorama

            Debates Not, He – You wrote “Every study in the history of mankind has shown it hurts the poor.”

            From the heritage.org link in your comment above:

            “Heritage economist James Sherk finds that “two-thirds of all recent studies show that raising the minimum wage reduces jobs.”

            What about the other one-third? Are they not part of “Every study in the history of mankind”?

            Please explain this apparent contradiction.

          • Ray in VT

            He may just have an alternate version of “every” that allows him to be correct.

          • hennorama

            Ray in VT – I really need to remember to not drink while reading comments in here. My poor monitor now needs a good cleaning.

            Thanks for that, I think.

          • Ray in VT

            You’re welcome. Maybe we should start a drinking game for when we see terms that lack definitions or have alternate ones.

          • hennorama

            Ray in VT – that would be a very dangerous game, and might lead to typing under the influence, which is rarely advisable.

          • Ray in VT

            As some show here on a frequent basis.

          • HonestDebate1

            When one sees a phrase like “every study in the history of mankind” it can safely be assumed to be an exaggeration. So I’ll confess, I did not read every study in the history of mankind. I am sorry I misled you.

            How about “most of the studies in the universe”? Or the “vast majority of the brain trust of the earth”? Or “no one but ideologue do-gooders dispute”?

            Maybe just change my presumption to “ostensibly”. That works for some.

          • hennorama

            Debates Not, He – TYFYR, and your explanation of your hyperbole.

            It is unsurprising that you “did not read every study in the history of mankind,” as your aversion to reading lengthy passages is well-documented. It is also unsurprising that the link you provided contained evidence contrary to your hyperbolic claim, as you have a history of providing such contrary evidence as well.

            You wrote “Raising the minimum wage ALWAYS disproportionately hurts the poor,” and “Every study in the history of mankind has shown it hurts the poor.”

            A more accurate representation of of the studies on the effects of raising the Federal minimum wage is “Research about minimum wage increases is mixed, but generally the conclusions are that impacts on employment are small.”

            TYAFYR.

          • HonestDebate1

            Research is weighted heavily towards my point but one thing’s for sure, raising the minimum wage always hurts the poor.

          • hennorama

            Debates Not, He – TYFYR.

            Your statement lacks evidence, and you mischaracterize your conclusion as “certain.”

          • TomK_in_Boston

            Standard class warfare argument is that if it seems to be good for you, it’s really bad for you, and vice-versa. Black is white, truth is slavery, etc in the HD scripts.

      • TomK_in_Boston

        Pathetic class warfare canned talking point.

        • Yar

          HonestDebate is like Sanitary Sewer, a term of compensation. Maybe the input helps others find truth but isn’t truth in itself, just as the sewer isn’t sanitary.

          • HonestDebate1

            Well, that’s cute but the fact remains. I am reminded of when Obama was confronted with the fact that cutting cap gains taxes brings in more revenue and he said it was a matter of fairness. Choking the economy is not fair. Ditto Minimum wage, hurting the poor and cloaking the pain with compassion makes no sense on any level.

            http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/economic-intelligence/2013/03/11/raising-the-minimum-wage-wont-help-the-poor

            http://blog.heritage.org/2012/04/25/raising-the-minimum-wage-hurts-low-income-workers/

          • jefe68

            More regressive prattle from the naive of ignorance and intolerance.

          • hennorama

            Debates Not, He – You wrote “…the fact that cutting cap gains taxes brings in more revenue…”

            This may be true in the short term, but not over the long term. Over time, revenue from capital gains more closely tracks the changes in stock markets.

            I think that one could better argue this about capital gains tax rates – transactional timing has much more to do with any near-term increase/decrease in revenue from capital gains. When a rate changes, whether up or down, it prompts those sitting on gains to either accelerate sales to avoid a higher rate, or delay sales to take advantage of a lower rate.

            In other words, people adapt to rate changes, and their behavior reverts to the norm over time. They sell when it makes sense for them to do so, with relatively little regard to capital gains tax rates.

            Here’s an OLD CBO study on the topic, from 1988, titled “How Capital Gains Tax Rates Affect Revenues: The Historical Evidence. The Summary is on pages 13 through 19 of the .pdf.

            http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/ftpdocs/84xx/doc8449/88-cbo-007.pdf

          • Labropotes

            I agree. Yet, if someone is sitting on capital gains because he expects the capital gains tax rate to decline, that means that he thinks the invested capital could be more profitably allocated. But he won’t optimize the allocation of his capital due to a transitory market distortion caused by tax.

            But hey, we have to collect taxes. Taxes always cause market distortions. I hate that.

          • hennorama

            Labropotes – Thank you for your response.

            Often reductions in capital gains tax rates are “telegraphed” ahead of time, making the decision to wait or not much easier. As to profitable allocations, one might also simply lock in gains, swap one specific asset for another very similar asset, pay the CG taxes, and move forward with a higher cost basis that won’t be taxed in the future, and which will be useful for tax purposes should the new/similar asset later decline in value.

            TY again for your response.

          • HonestDebate1

            So what? In 2008 when Obama said that we could have used the revenue but he was concerned about being fair (soaking the rich). That’s cutting off your nose to spite your face. That is piss poor economic policy.

          • TomK_in_Boston

            Maybe it’s really a script with a library of talking points and a random number generator that picks which one to spew out at random.

      • jefe68

        Well you should make haste and inform the CEO of Costco’s that their business model is flawed.

        That paying decent wages with benefits is wasted on the common rabble that are needed to run his business. That Walmart is indeed the the shinning example of regressive, oh I mean business practices.

        Wait, I suppose this headline in Forbes should set it strait: Walmart Pays Workers Poorly And Sinks While Costco Pays Workers Well And Sails-Proof That You Get What You Pay For

        http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2013/04/17/walmart-pays-workers-poorly-and-sinks-while-costco-pays-workers-well-and-sails-proof-that-you-get-what-you-pay-for/

        • Ray in VT

          Not wanting to waste something on the “common rabble” is probably what caused the GOP invitees to attend an MLK event at their own private club instead of mixing with the unwashed masses out on the Mall.

          • HonestDebate1

            You guys just make up your own story,

          • jefe68

            You are really pathetic.

        • HonestDebate1

          Do you have a point? What are you assuming I think?

          • jefe68

            This is what you posted: “Living wage is a meaningless emotional phrase. Raising the minimum wage ALWAYS disproportionately hurts the poor. It should be abolished all together.”

            If you think that the minimum wage should be abolished, clearly the article I lined to is relevant as it is dealing with real companies and two different approaches to the subject being discussed. That you don’t see the connection or the point of the article proving that paying workers a decent wage has a direct effect on the productivity and fortunes of both Walmart and Costco, then that’s your problem. Even Henry Ford realized this.
            That you don’t speaks volumes.

          • HonestDebate1

            Why do you assume anyone would get paid less if the minimum wage were abolished?

      • hennorama

        Debates Not, He – you wrote “Living wage is a meaningless emotional phrase.”

        Please allow me to enlighten you. Per investopedia.com:

        “Definition of ‘Living Wage

        “A theoretical wage level that allows the earner to afford adequate shelter, food and the other necessities of life. The living wage should be substantial enough to ensure that no more than 30% of it needs to be spent on housing. The goal of the living wage is to allow employees to earn enough income for a satisfactory standard of living.”

        http://www.investopedia.com/terms/l/living_wage.asp

        Now I invite you sir, a Southern gentleman, to return the favor. Please define the following phrase that you’ve used repeatedly, and that you’ve been asked to define numerous times:

        “race hustler”

        • Labropotes

          Who decides what is “satisfactory?” I think that definition is unsatisfactory.

          To me, Honestdebate seems to have a valid point. I know it’s freemarket gibberish if you don’t buy in, but what a worker earns should be roughly equal to the value they provide the employer. Who can decide that better than the employer?

          If you believe that you can run a successful burger joint paying workers $15 dollars an hour, plus SSI, Workers Comp, etc, why is the moral obligation not yours to provide those jobs?

          • hennorama

            Labropotes – Thank you for your response.

            The definition cited is from an independent source. If you find it unsatisfactory, perhaps you would prefer one of these:

            http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/living%20wage
            http://www.thefreedictionary.com/living+wage
            http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/living-wage?q=living+wage

            Or you might simply go down the list of more than twenty dictionaries that that include the term “living wage” presented here:

            http://wordthatmeans.com/?loc=rescb&refclue=salary&w=living+wage

            Rather than posit a conditional as to my beliefs, you might instead read my prior posts on the topic of the minimum wage, in a thread beginning here:

            http://onpoint.wbur.org/2013/02/15/week-in-the-news-232#comment-801542116

            I have not indicated anything was “freemarket gibberish.” I have not put forward any views specific to the idea of a “living wage.” I merely was assisting someone who seemed to be unaware that the term does, in fact, have meaning.

            As such, I shall treat your questions as rhetorical, and allow them to pass unremarked upon.

            Thank you again for your response.

          • Labropotes

            All of these definitions fail in essentially the same way. Each one of us is going to have a different idea of what’s adequate or satisfactory. The fluid vagueness of the term “living wage” is real.

            If by sustenance we actually mean caloric requirements, now we’re getting somewhere. Because what is going to satisfy a person will always be a little more than he has.

            But I take your point, and I didn’t mean to attribute a view to you. By gibberish, I only meant to acknowledge that many will just not accept the view the markets operate with some degree of efficiency, and I wanted to debase my views to not offend them.

          • hennorama

            Labropotes – TYFYR.

            I am not unsympathetic to your position. Indeed, the ideas of “satisfactory” and “normal” are subjective. My simple point is that the term “living wage” has meaning, vague or otherwise. This is undeniable.

            TY again for your response.

          • HonestDebate1

            It has a definition but no meaning. The word wage needs a number to have meaning. “Living” adds the emotional component to the phrase. What are “other necessities in life”? Answer: anything you want it to be to evoke sympathy.

          • hennorama

            Debates Not, He – TYFYR.

            “Schoolmarm Says”: One common definition of the word “definition” is (per m-w.com)

            [2b : a statement of the meaning of a word or word group or a sign or symbol ]

            See: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/definition

            You wrote about “the emotional component to the phrase.” This indicates some level of understanding of the MEANING, does it not?

            Please explain these apparent contradictions.

            TYAFYR.

          • HonestDebate1

            A definition can be meaningless with interpretations inferred through emotion. “Fair share” is a good example.

            Hope that helps.

          • hennorama

            Debates Not, He – TYFYR.

            A definition, by definition, cannot be meaningless. One can interpret and infer, but those actions are outside the realm of “definition” and are instead in the realms of connotation and context.

            This is exactly why I continue to ask you to define the term “race hustler.” It is clear from the context that the term is a pejorative, as previously stated. I am particularly interested in YOUR definition of the term “race hustler,” as you have previously written “You [hennorama] are a race hustler.”

            Please help everyone to understand exactly what you mean, and simply define the term.

            Absent your clear and concise definition, one must conclude that you too do not know exactly what you mean when you use the term “race hustler.” Your prior attempts at a definition consisted solely of the names of a few individuals, and some circular reasoning, which are clearly insufficient.

            Again, please present YOUR definition of the term “race hustler,” or, if you prefer, a dictionary definition of the term, if you can find one.

            Thank you in advance for your polite courtesy, and TYAFYR,

          • HonestDebate1

            The definition of “insignificant” is meaningless.

          • hennorama

            Debates Not, He – TYFYR.

            “My book (m-w.com) defines” ‘insignificant’ as follows:

            “Definition of INSIGNIFICANT

            : not significant: as
            a : lacking meaning or import
            b : not worth considering : unimportant
            c : lacking weight, position, or influence : contemptible
            d : small in size, quantity, or number

            Synonyms
            fiddling, foolish, frivolous, [Gregg Smith,] incidental, inconsequential, inconsiderable, unimportant, little, Mickey Mouse, minor, minute, negligible, nugatory, slight, small, small-fry, trifling, trivial”

            I particularly enjoy the word “nugatory.”

            One question – Why do you keep writing “you’re welcome” in your replies?

          • HonestDebate1

            You didn’t see this one:

            “without meaning; meaningless.”

            http://www.thefreedictionary.com/insignificant

            But you knew that, you just din’t want to hat tip my cleverness, that’s cool.

            I interpret TYAFYR to be Thank You Again For Your Response. Hence, “You’re Welcome”. It’s the gentlemanly thing to do. I assumed you were sincere. Surely you wouldn’t be disingenuous… would you?

          • hennorama

            Debates Not, He – Thank you for your response.

            Touché. That’s pretty funny.

            I misunderstood your intended meaning, as you did not enclose your punchline in quotation marks. My brain tends toward the literal, and produced the idea that you had misread the word “insufficient” from the post to which you replied, and were riffing on your prior “meaningless” theme.

            This is yet another example of the writer’s and reader’s need for clear writing, and well-defined terms. Without them, misunderstandings abound. One notes that you used the 13th definition from the source you cited, which further explains the misunderstanding.

            Regardless, now that your intended meaning is clear, one acknowledges the humor. Well done, sir.

            As you have indicated that you know what at least one “gentlemanly thing to do” is, and will act in a gentlemanly manner, one hopes you act on yet another “gentlemanly thing to do.” Again, in an effort to avoid misunderstanding and/or misinterpretation, I renew my polite request for you do the “gentlemanly thing,” and define the term “race hustler.”

            As to the acronym TYAFYR – your interpretation of it is indeed one of its meanings.

            Thank you again for your response, and the explanation of your remarks. I look forward to your reply.

          • jefe68

            That’s a load of hogwash.
            You can’t have a definition if it means nothing. It might mean nothing to you, but that does not mean it’s meaningless.

          • jefe68

            Why should we pay anyone anything at all.
            Lets go back to company stores and people being paid with company scrip.

            Do you believe in the idea of a civil society?

        • HonestDebate1

          “A theoretical wage….”

          As I said, meaningless.

          • hennorama

            Debates Not, He – TYFYR. Objection noted.

            Also noted is your lack of courtesy in not granting the favor of defining “race hustler.” Please do the Southern gentlemanly thing, and return the favor. To wit:

            Please define the following phrase that you’ve used repeatedly, and that you’ve been asked to define numerous times:

            “race hustler”

          • HonestDebate1

            No.

          • hennorama

            Debates Not, He – TYFYR.

            Your stubborn refusal dishonors you, sir. It is further proof of the lie of your moniker, and that you are not in any way concerned about “honest debate.”

            TYAFYR.

          • HonestDebate1

            Please explain how refusing to answer your silly question has anything to do with honest debate. Anything at all. Does honest debate require I do your homework assignments and be ordered around? No. My moniker is perfect.

          • hennorama

            Debates Not, He – Thank you for your response, and your query.

            Apologies for the delayed response. I somehow missed your comment, and have been dealing with what I have previously described as The Six Sigma Conundrum, which today has morphed into the Seven Sigma Conundrum due to the addition of Sunday newspapers.

            To answer your question – debates have different formats, but generally involve some direct examination and cross-examination via questioning. Failure to answer a question in a debate demonstrates the weakness of one’s argument, especially failure to answer a question so basic and essential as “what do you mean by that term?”

            That you consider such questions and polite requests to be “homework assignments” calls into question your concepts of what is involved in a debate.

            Repeated inquiries as to your standards for research studies, “open and honest debate,” refutation, etc. have been directed to you under both your former and present monikers, and have all gone unanswered. This alone demonstrates the inappropriateness of your present moniker.

            I renew the question – what are your standards for what you describe as “open and honest debate,” sir?

            Thanks anew for your response, and your query. I look forward to your candid reply.

          • jefe68

            As is everything you post.

      • jefe68

        Funny, I’m constantly amazed at how you seem to post a lot meaningless emotional phrases.

        • HonestDebate1

          Have you no shame?

          “Ta.

          That you’ll make some inane comment.

          The henchman of hyperbole is telling the masses how it is…

          Your views are reprehensible, regressive, repugnant, and repulsive.
          I’m just voicing my opinion…

          More regressive prattle from the naive of ignorance and intolerance.

          Cue in music: I`m Too Sexy…

          One does wonder how these people survived to adulthood.

          The stench of this rabid regressive is a bit much.

          Pathetic

          Troll

          He wont. It’s all about smear tactics with this lot at an 8th grade level, if that.

          You denigrate humanity”

          • jefe68

            These are mere observations, not emotional at all, just quips about you and your regressive ideology.
            Hitting a nerve I see.

      • ExcellentNews

        Yep. And LOWERING the minimum wage ALWAYS benefits the poor. We need to cut the minimum wage to $0.25 per hour. Also, the billionaire bankers and job-exporting CEOs can really use another inheritance tax cut. It is PROVEN that giving them tax cuts really gets our economy going (as in going abroad…). Also, it is PROVEN that capitalizing non-sense makes it real..,

        • HonestDebate1

          I didn’t say that.

    • OnPointComments

      Why hasn’t 45-year-old Kyle King, who has worked as a cashier at Burger King in Boston for the past nine years and earns $8.15 an hour, gotten another job that pays more during his nine year tenure? My guess is that his skills, or lack thereof, are not worth more than $8.15 an hour to any business. I wonder what Kyle has done to improve his skills, and make himself more valuable to employers, during nine years. My guess is nothing.

      Maybe Kyle needs to help mom with the rent. I’ve got news for you, Kyle: wages are based on how much you are worth to the business, not how much you need.

      Button idea: Why should my mom subsidize you for your lack of skills and initiative?

      • Yar

        So when you give your drive through order to a telephone operator in India, it is just global competition for jobs? Someone, somewhere will do any job in America cheaper and maybe even better than those of us who have the privilege to live here. Exploitation hurts everyone. The shrewd business person usually loses everything in a revolution. Why do say the skill of a Burger King worker is below that which deserves a living wage? Maybe you just like cheap hamburgers. If so you are short sighted.

  • Jon

    It’s the American virtue “do something” that gets Americans wrong. Doing things in the middle east has been only for the west to make things worse there.

    • TomK_in_Boston

      Exactly. What we do NOT want is a macho “strong leader” who will start a war and spill our blood and treasure.

      • Jon

        I bet people like your reasoning better

  • Coastghost

    Just curious, no one tells us these things: is “Obama” Luo for “flounder” (the verb, not the noun)?

  • Coastghost

    Whose credibility, Mr Kerry: the US’s or Mr Obama’s? Do tell. (Is Obama just waiting now for his “Cameron moment”?)

  • StilllHere

    He naively drew a couple of red lines. They’ve been crossed. Now he’s got to do something. Maybe he can get some cover and look for a Congressional vote against him. But Democrats won’t cross him so probably no hope there.
    It’s interesting to note he dialed up his language on Syria the same day he was pontificating at a political event celebrating MLK.

  • Ray in VT

    I wonder who would consider an annual income of $38k for a family of two to be low wage?

    • hennorama

      Depends. Are both of the two persons working?

      • Ray in VT

        I think that that is just the salary from one half of the couple.

        • hennorama

          So – OINKs? (One Income No Kids)

          Perhaps you might give us a clue about the significance of the $38K figure.

          • Ray in VT

            Maybe a second income, but that does not appear to be included in the 38k figure, and no kids.

          • hennorama

            Ray – I missed the relevance/reference as to the $38K. Please advise, so that I may comment in a more comprehensive fashion.

          • Ray in VT

            Just a critic of people fighting for better wages thinks that his equivalent of 38k back in the day apparently made him “low wage”. Gotta go. Have a good one, and let me know if you can figure out the speaker. It is one of the usual suspects.

          • hennorama

            Ray in VT – TYFYR.

            Regardless of the identity of the speaker, $38K at present, or the “equivalent of 38k back in the day” is not “low wage” for a couple with no children, and who may also have a second income.

            Perhaps this was an allusion to the outdated idea of “Earning your age.” Decades ago, one was considered to be doing pretty well financially if one’s salary was at least one’s age multiplied by one thousand, e.g., earning $30,000 at age 30, or earlier.

            Today one would need to modify that outdated rule of thumb to “Earning twice/thrice your age.”

          • Ray in VT

            I just wanted to see what people thought. I thought that it is a decent wage, and certainly not “low wage”.

    • thequietkid10

      yeah no, that’s good money. That being said $30,000 a year minimum wage (assuming these fast food workers get the minimum wage they wanted and work full time) is a joke. That’s what I would expect a kid fresh out of college to get paid.

    • jefe68

      In the Metro-Boston area that wont cut it.
      You’ll be paying upwards of $1500 per month for rent plus utilities which would put in the $18000 to $19000 range in living expenses before food, car and other transportation expenses. One could do it, but add to that health insurance and it would be tight. If it’s two people working then you have to add childcare ( full-time infant daycare in the U.S. at an average $14,980 per year, and that top expense continues through age 4) if they are preschool or to young to be latchkey kids.
      The Boston area is at the top of this figure and more in the tune of $15000 to $16000 per year.

      • HonestDebate1

        Easy, move out of Boston and and don’t have kids if you can’t afford them.

        • jefe68

          Surly it would be better to bring back indentured servitude and work houses.

          • HonestDebate1

            Yea, that’s what I want.

          • jefe68

            Walmart workers, as a group, are the largest food stamp recipients in the country totaling $2.66 billion annually. Walmart is a company that makes more than $400,000,000,000 a year is taking more than $2,660,000,000 out of tax payers pockets annually because they have refused to pay their workers a living wage. Walmart’s intentionally low wages and lack of covered benefits cost taxpayers over $1.02 BILLION a year in healthcare costs.

            There are other low wage companies that are doing the same thing, Dunken Donuts and McDonalds are up there in the list.

            Your idea on wages is flawed, period.

          • HonestDebate1

            So make Walmart give everyone a raise to save taxpayer’s money? You can’t be serious.

          • Ray in VT

            Why allow a major, highly profitable company continue to short change its workers and pass the buck along to the American public?

          • Steve__T

            We know, we know.

      • fun bobby

        how much is a T pass?

        • jefe68

          It depends on where you live and what the use is. For most it’s $70 per month.

          • fun bobby

            oh so then for $70 a month you can live in Shirley MA in a rented house for $600-$700 a month and commute like everyone else

    • HonestDebate1

      You must be referring to something on the show I missed. Consider minimum wage is $7.25/hour and in 35 states being on welfare pays about $15/hour. I’m curious, assuming government should do anything at all, do you think the solution is a higher minimum wage or lower welfare? Or both or neither?

      Whether $38K is good money depends on where you live as well as your perspective. It barely buys a purse for Oprah.

    • fun bobby

      that would be pretty rough

  • ExcellentNews

    A government using chemical weapons on its own citizens should burn in Hell.

    Odds are that some 8-year old somewhere in Syria is vomiting her spleen out in agony as you listen to this show (yep, that’s how you die from exposure to some weaponized agents). Too bad for her though, because Halliburton, Exxon, Blackwater, News Corp, and the rest of the corporate aristocracy have decided an intervention in Syria is not worth it. Their drones – who were chomping at the bit for going into Iraq – are now demurely pontificating “let’s not do it”. Their new-found affection for middle-eastern dictators is quite comic. I would be laughing at it, were it not for these distracting gut-wrenching retching sounds in the background…

    Now, on a less emotional note – our interest in it. For anyone who is following the news, it should be apparent that populist, islamist movements are sweeping the Middle East. We can prop the current bloody dictators a bit longer – either actively or passively (e.g. by doing nothing in Syria). Nevertheless, they will be swept away, and this is happening sooner rather than later. There is nothing we can do to stop it.

    The reality is that islamists movements will take control of the middle east, and thus WILL get the WMD. The difference will be in how they will see the US then. The worst possible outcome for us is to be remembered as supporters of the old dictatorships. We will be best served by standing on our principles (the right of people to seek self-determination, human rights…etc). Had we done this in Iran 40 years ago, we would not have a bloody enemy there today. We should not make the same mistake again in the Middle East, because it will be amplified ten-fold this time.

    • StilllHere

      Get your fables straight. The MIC would love a free commercial of American weaponry; available for sale to anyone, operators are waiting.

      • TomK_in_Boston

        Not just a commercial, an actual program of economic stimulus spending, or, as Krugman calls it, “weaponized Keynesianism”. We need to create more jobs at Raytheon and General Dynamics! We don’t want those cruise missile workers out on the street and getting food stamps.

        • pete18

          Yeah, ’cause that Keynesianism worked out so well domestically. Those weapons manufacturers will be rolling in the dough.

          • TomK_in_Boston

            It does work great. Unfortunately the class warriors won’t let us do it. That’s why recovery from the Bush crash is so slow. Cutting spending after a crash, when gvt should be spending like crazy, is economic suicide.

          • HonestDebate1

            You are actually serious aren’t you? poor Obama, he’s doing the best he can.

          • TomK_in_Boston

            No 9/11, no worst econ crash since 1929, no $1 trillion war over nonexistent WMD, is just a little tiny bit of an improvement, LOL. And yeah, with everyone else who is not blinded by ideology, I realize that cutting spending in the wreckage of a huge crash is insane.

            Now you can go back to your top priority of the unfair treatment of poor privileged white people.

          • pete18

            That’s funny, according to the White House’s own table ( http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2012/assets/hist.pdf)
            total federal outlays are higher in 2013 than they were in 2009, both in current
            dollars (3,770.9 trillion in 2013 vs. 3,517 trillion in 2009) and constant dollars (3,190 trill in 2013 vs. 3,172 trill in 2009). So where are the draconian cuts that are ruining the Keynesian miracle?

          • pete18

            I’m trying to figure out if the down vote is for pointing out a fact or using the White House’s own figures to do so?

    • TomK_in_Boston

      I’m afraid a lot of that is correct. Islam, which I grew up thinking was quaint medieval history, is back, along with toxic gilded age capitalism. Get me out of this time machine, dammit!

      Should a government (US) burn in hell for being complicit in the use of chem weapons by a pawn (Iraq) against an enemy (Iran)? It is estimated that 20,000 iranians died from chem attacks during the period of the Saddam-Rumsfeld bromance.

      We’re not sure the gas came from Assad.

  • Outside_of_the_Box

    The evidence is pointing at Assad.
    You ask why would he do it?
    Remember this is the 14th (at least) reported case of chemical use.
    It is an effective tool for clearing out an area.
    It also sends a clear message to the rebels, the people, and outside influences that he is not going anywhere, that he is willing to do what he must to win, and also that the US and allies are not going to come to the rescue, even in the
    face of an atrocious chemical attack.
    Some have said do nothing, or that this missile plan is too much.
    But imo, no response, or this missile strike which I feel is basically the same as no response, is exactly what he was counting on.
    So for this reason, I think the only effective solution is full intervention.
    Secure the borders, arm the rebels, beef up intelligence, setup a no fly zone, and only if necessary, send in troops.
    It’s the only way Assad will be stopped.
    If this sounds like a really bad idea, consider the following:
    If those 14 or so smaller chemical attacks was him testing the waters for this bigger attack, what will the next one be like?
    You may be prepared to sit back when 800 children and women are gassed.
    I don’t know how, but for argument’s sake.
    Can you do the same for 5,000?
    That is what Saddam did to the Kurds. (Yes I know the US backed him at the time)
    Why shouldn’t Assad do the same?
    There are already over 100,000 dead, and he’s clearly ok with using chemical weapons and other brutal means.
    Just think about it.

    • fun bobby

      100,000 dead already. cant say that I would really want to go to war over another 5000. its a civil war they have to work it out. how many Syrians do we have to kill with cruise missiles to get them to stop killing each other?

  • TomK_in_Boston

    Sometimes an old nut job nails it. What more can I say? Read the rest

    http://rt.com/usa/ron-paul-qaeda-side-syria-216/

    “Former congressman Ron Paul says the United States should avoid escalating its involvement in the Syrian civil war any further because the US will be on the way to aiding Al-Qaeda if it continues to assist opposition fighters.

    “We are not really positive who set off the gas,” Paul, a long-time Republican lawmaker for Texas in the US House of Representatives, said during a Fox News interview filmed Wednesday about the reported use of chemical weapons by Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.

    “The group that is most likely to benefit from that is Al-Qaeda. They ignite some gas, some people die and blame it on Assad,” he said.”

    • fun bobby

      when he is right he is right

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Cacimbo-Smith/1142235495 Cacimbo Smith

    Margie Talev has a mad crush on President Obama.

    • StilllHere

      So does the rest of the media, that’s why the expectations are so low and the questions such softballs.

  • fun bobby

    how does Obama have time to make elitist executive orders and start wars and play golf?

    • TFRX

      Now watch this drive!

      (h/t The Decider)

      • fun bobby

        and he manages to shoot skeet ” all the time”

        • TFRX

          Yawn. Go on, FB, argue with the picture that takes the steam out of your fright-mongering “Gonna take our gunz!!”.

          • fun bobby

            ? you aren’t making much sense bro

    • hennorama

      fun bobby – your rhetorical question shall pass unanswered.

      Now a question for you:

      Are these executive orders examples of what you described as “elitist”?

      “Today, the Obama administration announced two new common-sense executive actions to keep the most dangerous firearms out of the wrong hands and ban almost all re-imports of military surplus firearms to private entities.”

      See:

      http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2013/08/29/fact-sheet-new-executive-actions-reduce-gun-violence

      • fun bobby

        once again you dodge the question but want me to entertain yours?
        the first EO is more bizarre than elitist. Any hard figures available on the number of trusts formed by gangbangers or other “wrong hands” in order to procure weapons? how would an individual who in unable to possess such weapons legally carry them were they to form a trust for the purposes of purchasing “the most dangerous firearms”? It seems like solving problem that does not exist.
        The second is the elitist one. It is the one banning reimport of military antiques. The market for these firearms are entry level shooters who have budget constraints. Historically these firearms were subsidized or provided by the government for civilian marksmanship training. The CMP is now independent but still provides discounted reimported military rifles so that people could engage in marksmanship competitions. I do not know how they will continue to be able to operate now. This will make it impossible to get the excellent quality surplus rifles that are available very inexpensively from many sources. Any firearms laws designed to make guns more expensive or rare are elitist. Both things, especially given the timing, seem like a distraction more than anything.
        Thank you for asking for clarification.

        • hennorama

          fun bobby – TY for your thoughtful response.

          I didn’t dodge your question – I deemed your question to be rhetorical, asked only for effect and without expectation of an answer. Please correct any inaccuracy.

          As I don’t follow the issues surrounding firearms as closely as you seem to, I bow to your superior knowledge. As such, I am unable to provide the answers to the questions you posed in your response.

          As to the issue of what you described as “banning reimport of military antiques,” you make some good points, and I suggest you express your opinion to the President and/or your Congressional representatives. The Civilian Marksmanship Program (CMP) sounds like what the NRA used to be. Are the two organizations affiliated with each other?

          As to your statement “Any firearms laws designed to make guns more expensive or rare are elitist,” that is one interpretation of the President’s Executive Orders, but one needs to point out that EOs are not laws. The stated “design” of these particular EOs, quoting from the Fact Sheet, is “to keep the most dangerous firearms out of the wrong hands and ban almost all re-imports of military surplus firearms to private entities” and “ to make progress toward reducing gun violence.”

          Thanks again for your thoughtful response.

          • fun bobby

            You were incorrect. I would love to know how oboma manages his time to get so many things done. he must have some secret
            The NRA and CMP are not directly related to each other. The CMP began as a government program.
            “Executive orders are regulations issued by the President. Provided that they are based either on his constitutional powers or laws passed by Congress, they have the force of law. Federal courts will enforce them just as if they had been enacted by Congress, provided that they do not conflict with federal laws.”

            Read more: http://www.answers.com/topic/executive-order-1#ixzz2dhGb2rvW
            perhaps the “fact sheet” you refer to would better be called a “lie sheet” or at best “propaganda sheet” or “spin sheet”. It clearly smells of sheet. Antique military rifles are almost never used in crimes compared to the most dangerous types of guns which statistically are overwhelmingly handguns. since rifles of all kinds are used in roughly 3% of gun homicides banning the import of a small subset of them could not possibly have an appreciable impact on those statistics. The people who this will impact are poor, entry level shooters and collectors. in other words it could not possibly make any progress towards reducing “gun violence”. it is a great distraction while obama’s secret police funnel information illegally to the DEA and withhold exculpatory evidence.

  • HonestDebate1
    • hennorama

      Debates Not, He – you wrote “White people are not safe on the streets,” then provided a link to an online news article. One notes the following from the text of the linked article:

      “Police said King admitted to killing Paul for no reason other than he had a hard day with his family that night of January 6, and “just wanted to kill the first person he saw.”

      And one notes the following quote from the police office depicted in the video in the link (@ ~ 1:10):

      “King was upset, and he just decided that he was going to kill the first person he saw, and that’s the person he saw coming down Glenwood.”

      Given that the alleged murderer reportedly indicated to police that he “just wanted to kill the first person he saw,” please explain the reasoning behind your statement “White people are not safe on the streets.”

      • HonestDebate1

        It’s always a pop quiz with you. Okay, yes ma’am.

        My comment begins with “Another”, thereby linking it back to other senseless crimes of late by young people. I have posted a few. We had one because of boredom; We had a baby in a stroller shot in the face; Now we have someone stabbed with a knife over and over until he bled out because of bad day. Add to that the revenge for Trayvon beatings inspired by the race hustlers.

        And “white people are not safe” is a conclusion based solely on the color of skin as viewed through the lens of recent events. We heard the conventional wisdom that Skittle eating, black kids wearing hoodies were not safe. We saw commenters on this very blog pitifully hoping their half-black kid would grow up and pass for white so he will be safe. We heard the comparisons between Trayvon and Emmett Till by the race hustlers. So if that’s the standard where no racism was ever established then why factor it? Let’s go by the color of skin. That’s what happened, deny it.

        • hennorama

          Debates Not, He – TYFYR.

          I believe the appropriate selection from the Gregg Smith Response-O-Matic is [That's sick].

          I renew my polite request that you define the term “race hustler.”

          My response to your remarks are three simple questions, the first two of which I’ve posed to you before, and which you have thus far bravely left unanswered:

          1. What is your fascination with crimes that have victims of one race and offenders of another race?
          2. Do you think such interracial crimes are indicative of racism on the part of each and every one of the offenders?
          3. Where, specifically, do you first find out about this stuff (that you describe as “senseless crimes of late by young people”)?

          Allow me to add some information. “Whites are more than 4 times as likely to die from suicide as homicide.”

          If you are actually concerned about the risk of “White people” being killed by a human being, you should be more concerned about “White people” murdering themselves, rather than whether or not “White people are not safe on the streets.”

          According to [EDIT: Dr. Alex B. Berezow, the founding editor of RealClearScience], based on CDC “data … in regard to (age-adjusted) homicide and suicide rates among white and black U.S. residents”:

          “There are seven points worth noting:

          (1) Whites are more than 4 times as likely to die from suicide as homicide.
          (2) Blacks are nearly 3.5 times as likely to die from homicide as suicide.
          (3) Whites are more than 2.5 times as likely to die from suicide as blacks.
          (4) Blacks are more than 5 times as likely to die from homicide as whites.
          (5) The data give no indication about race-on-race crimes (i.e., black-on-black, white-on-white, white-on-black, black-on-white).
          (6) The suicide rate is notably increasing for whites.
          (7) The homicide rate is notably decreasing for blacks.

          “Data on race is always a very sensitive issue in America, but understanding the specific problems which differentially affect various communities is important for public health policy.”

          See:
          http://www./journal_club/2013/04/05/us_homicide__suicide_rates_in_whites__blacks_106500.html

    • jefe68

      Approximately eighty-five Americans are shot dead every day. Of those about 53 — or 62 percent — are suicides.

      Suicide is the 10th leading cause of death in America. You’re more likely to die in an accident and much more likely to die in a hospital suffering from heart disease or cancer. But if you’re going to die by a firearm, it will probably be the result of suicide.

  • HonestDebate1

    It’s good to see the race hustlers get called out:

    “We saw of course the coronation of the bonafide house negro of the Obama plantation, our dear brother Al Sharpton, supported by the Michael Dysons and others who’ve really prostituted themselves intellectually in a very ugly and vicious way”

    • hennorama

      Debates Not, He – please do the Southern gentlemanly thing and define “race hustler.”

      Please also cite the speaker/writer/source of your quote, if it’s not too much trouble.

      • HonestDebate1

        Who said I was a gentleman? You know what I mean and if dictionary definitions are your thing then you also know how to use one. My book defines race hustler as “Al Sharpton, Michael Dyson and their ilk”. If that’s not good enough look it up. You were able to find a definition of “living wage”, try that source. BTW, did that glossary of goblety gook have a definition of “Fair share”?

        I think it must have been Rush who said it.

        • hennorama

          Debates Not, He – TYFYR.

          You asked “Who said I was a gentleman?”

          No one that I am aware of. Some have certainly implied otherwise.

          My custom is to give everyone the benefit of the doubt. As you have publicly revealed that you are both from the South, and male, one concludes, absent contrary evidence or specific denial, that you are indeed a Southern gentleman. You have had ample opportunity to deny that conclusion. If the intention of your question is to deny that you are a gentleman, please say so.

          Absent your denial, I will continue to conclude that you are indeed a Southern gentleman.

          As such, your lack of courtesy in the customary returning of a small favor is unfortunate, and a mark against your Southern honor. This is unfortunate.

          One notes that the term “race hustler” appears in no formal dictionary. The alternative source, urbandictionary.com, say the following:

          “1. Race Hustler

          “A term coined to describe those individuals of a particular race who project themselves into the media spotlight as spokespersons whenever there is an alledged racial incident which involves their race. The use of the word “Hustler”, included as a part of the term, also implies that these individuals expliot a racial situation to serve their own interests.

          “Recently, this term has often been used to describe the Reverends Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton as “Race Hustlers”.

          “by Roger W. Dawson Apr 13, 2007”

          See:
          http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Race%20Hustler

          The notable misspellings of “alleged” and “exploit” do not inspire confidence.

          As repeatedly stated, I have asked you to define the term “race hustler” to avoid misunderstanding. As you claim to promote “honest debate,” one assumes you would support any such effort. That you refuse to define your terms is significant evidence against your claims about “honest debate.”

          TYAFYR.

          • jefe68

            You know where he’s getting this from.
            I’m not sure but the first time I heard this derogatory term it was used by Bill O’Reilly. It’s also used by Rush Limbaugh.
            It’s a new buzz word designed to degrade people of color who stand up to these bullies and the social injustices that in society. That Gregg is now using it is not surprising as he pretty much rehashes the daily meme’s that both of these cowards dish out.

          • HonestDebate1

            There is nothing new about the term.

          • jefe68

            No, bigotry and the language that is used to spew reprehensible ideas is not new.

          • hennorama

            jefe68 – Thank you for your response.

            The term “race hustler” has been thrown around a great deal of late. Whenever I read or hear it, I visualize a tout at a racetrack, or a scalper at the Daytona 500. When I read the seemingly related term “race baiter,” I visualize the person at the greyhound dog racetrack who operates and/or maintains the mechanical rabbit.

            But that’s just me.

            It just seems strange that someone who uses a term cannot define it, or refuses to define it as would a peevish child.

            As to the “down arrows” – A) fuggedaboutit, B) such “slings and arrows” carry as much weight as a hydrogen atom, and C) “brave anonymity” is an oxymoron.

          • HonestDebate1

            You’re welcome.

        • jefe68

          You are clearly no gentleman, your don’t even qualify to be a cad.

    • nj_v2

      More vile, clueless jackassery from the usual suspect.

      DisHonestMisdebatorGreggg quotes Cornell West, as if he has any real awareness of the scope of the man’s critique or intellect.

      West advocates for ideas that DisHonestMisdebatorGreggg either doesn’t understand or are in direct opposition to DisHonestMisdebatorGreggg’s vacuous, regressive, ignorant world view.

      “He would want the people to talk about Wall Street criminality,” West said of King. “He wants people to talk about war crimes, or drones dropping bombs on innocent people. He wants people to talk about the new Jim Crow and the privatization of education and the various ways in which the well-to-do — the oligarchs and plutocrats — are getting away with murder. You didn’t hear that whatsoever.”

      • HonestDebate1

        See here, I just can’t relate to this lock step view but I seem to always get tagged with it around here. I guess it makes sense to an ideologue. I can agree with Cornell West on one thing and disagree with him ’til the cows come home on something else. And yes, I know who he is and what he’s about thank you. I agree with him more often than you may think.

        I agree with him about Sharpton and Dyson. It was a profound point actually. You can comment on it or make up some story about how rotten I am while pretending Cornell West wasn’t dead on right. That’s all I was trying to say.

    • jefe68

      Are you aware that Cornell West is an advocate for the poor and middle classes. The level of your intellectual dishonesty, (calling what you post intellectual is by and large a huge stretch) is proving yet again how low you are willing to go. All the way to the cesspit.

      • HonestDebate1

        And that’s the rub my dear Jefe, it’s all in what you consider advocacy. I proudly stand with Mr. West on this, you can stand over there with the race hustlers.

        • jefe68

          I’ll stand with those who advocate for justice. You want to call them hustlers, go right ahead.

          • HonestDebate1

            What do Sharpton and Dyson have to do with justice? They are setting race relations back decades and laughing all the way to the bank. They’re despicable.

          • jefe68

            Gregg, I’ve had enough.
            You represent all that is ugly to me about the right in this country. I’m not really into going around and around on issues it’s clear that we will never see eye to eye.

          • HonestDebate1

            Dude, a large portion of your total comments are gratuitous nastiness directed at me. I will reiterate my point every time. You don’t have to stalk me.

            Here’s a clue, the notion that race hustlers are denigrating the legacy of the great Martin Luther King Jr. is not a bigoted view. It’s gut wrenching truth. Cornell West is not alone and he is not full of bigoted hate. You guys are not interested in honest debate. All you want to do is call names and pitch hissies.

          • jefe68

            Yeah they are directed at you good of you to notice. The reason is you post a lot garbage and right wing propaganda that I feel deserves the highest level of contempt.

            All you do is twist facts to forward your regressive right wing agenda. It’s not even original as you mostly rehash what you pick up from the blowhard Rush Limbaugh.

            I don’t care what you think by the way.
            all i see in you is the worst of the right as I’ve already said. You don’t like what I post to bad. Don’t read it, don’t respond. Go find another forum to pollute with you bigotry.

            That you would use Martin Luther King Jr’s namesake to forward your bigotry (“white people are not safe anymore”, yes you posted this for all the world to see) is alone a good reason to heap as much scorn as one can muster onto your sorry small minded head.

          • northeaster17

            Sending race relations back decades? For who? The white water fountain crowd seems to be the only concern for you.

  • hennorama

    President Obama has just announced that he “will seek authorization for the use of force from the American people’s representatives in Congress.”

    I urge everyone to express their views to the President, and to their Senators and Representative. The President and members of Congress do take contact from the public into account when acting on controversial issues, at least to some extent.

    It’s very easy to voice one’s opinions. Here’s how:

    Corresponding with the White House:

    http://www.whitehouse.gov/contact

    Here’s an easy way to find out who your Representative is, and who your Senators are, and how to contact them:

    http://www.contactingthecongress.org/

    Just enter your Zip Code or your full address.

    Alternatively, you can go to

    http://www.senate.gov/reference/common/faq/How_to_contact_senators.htm

    There’s a [Find Your Senators] dropdown menu in the upper righthand corner.

    http://www.house.gov/

    There’s a [Find Your Representative] search box (by Zip Code) in the upper righthand corner

    • fun bobby

      how many have you called so far?

      • hennorama

        fun bobby – TY for your question.

        I have sent emails to the White House, both of the Senators from my state, and my Representative. And yourself?

        • HonestDebate1

          What did you advise? What’s your position?

          • hennorama

            Debates Not, He – TY for your reply, and your question.

            As I feel unqualified to advise the President Of The United States, I offered no advice.

            I expressed my support to the President, as well as my preference for waiting for information from the UN inspectors.

            As to my Senators and my Representative, I also expressed my support of the President, expressed my hope that they put politics completely aside, to follow their conscience, and simply answer this question that President Obama asked (and which the President said was his “… question for every member of Congress and every member of the global community”:

            “What message will we send if a dictator can gas hundreds of children to death in plain sight and pay no price?”

            See:
            http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/transcript-president-obamas-aug-31-statement-on-syria/2013/08/31/3019213c-125d-11e3-b4cb-fd7ce041d814_story_1.html

            My thoughts on Syria are conflicted, but I ultimately agree that, as the President said “the United States should take military action against Syrian regime targets.”

            Thank you again for your reply, and your question.

          • fun bobby

            so you came out on the pro-war side then?

        • fun bobby

          I accosted my congressperson last thanksgiving. if I see him or any of those other bums around I will give them a piece of my mind. I don’t need to be on any more NSA lists than I am on already so I like to interact in person.

  • JONBOSTON

    Now I understand why Obama has Biden as VP. With Biden next in line, no one would be calling for Obama to resign as president. But they should be. His sheer incompetence is simply astounding. I’m almost beginning to feel sorry for him. It’s like watching someone perform on stage who is overwhelmed by the experience and melting before your eyes. When I’ve accused Obama for leading from behind I’ve given him too much credit. He’s incapable of demonstrating any leadership–be it in front or behind.

    • fun bobby

      you are just figuring that out?

    • HonestDebate1

      At this point he is just flailing. There is no coalition because there is no leadership, no clarity. He shot off his mouth about a red line and is shamed into doing something, anything, but not too much or so he promises the enemy… whoever that is.

      • JONBOSTON

        I couldn’t agree more. Why would any country commit political capital and accept leadership from a dithering, hesitant , bumbling president incapable of making any forceful, strategic decisions. The more the situation calls for seizing the moment and making a momentous decision, the more Obama vacillates. The result is further destabilization in a region that cries out for leadership and stability. The message to Iran is to proceed with their bomb since we have a president incapable of taking any decisive action against Damascus , let alone Tehran. And what about our ally Israel? If I were an Israeli, the message I will have received is that this president will not back his words with tough actions and that if Iran is to be stopped, it will have to be Israelis who do it.

        • northeaster17

          So let the bombing begin…Right?

          • HonestDebate1

            Not necessarily.

          • JONBOSTON

            Yours is a very simplistic comment.

            Obama should never have put America’s credibility on the line by issuing a red line to Assad in the first instance. But once done , he needs to back it up with action. By doing nothing , he diminishes US credibility in the region and furthers instability. Do you think our adversaries will ever listen again to idle threats from Obama? What message do you think Syria, Iran, China, Russia, North Korea, Pakistan , etc take from Obama’s dithering and weakness?

            Do you even think about any of this?

    • brettearle

      You, and a few other hopeless zealots who fester on this thread, would go after Obama if employment rose 5%; if Obama personally brokered a permanent peace agreement between the Israelis and the Palestinians; and even if he harnessed a new energy source as plentiful as petroleum, but at tenth the price.

      Your game is to scapegoat, no matter what.

      The last time you were bipartisan or objective was before you were born.

      Because right now, you’re Brain Dead.

      • HonestDebate1

        You can’t make the case that Obama has handled the Syrian situation with competence and clarity. Or at least you haven’t. You just made stuff up.

        • brettearle

          Oh, I agree that he could have handled it better.

          THAT I agree with.

          But the basic justification, for what he wants to do, is morally sound and may be strategically sound.

          Doesn’t mean, HOWEVER, that he should go forward unless it’s an international effort.

          That’s how I felt about Iraq, incidentally–as did “The New York Times” and “The New Yorker”.

          • HonestDebate1

            Coalition Countries – Iraq – 2003

            Afghanistan,
            Albania
            Australia
            Azerbaijan
            Bulgaria
            Colombia
            Czech Republic
            Denmark
            El Salvador
            Eritrea
            Estonia
            Ethiopia
            Georgia
            Hungary
            Italy
            Japan
            South Korea
            Latvia
            Lithuania
            Macedonia
            Netherlands
            Nicaragua
            Philippines
            Poland
            Romania
            Slovakia
            Spain
            Turkey
            United Kingdom
            Uzbekistan

            The vote in the security council was 15-0.

          • brettearle

            Gregg–

            I do NOT know where you are coming up with your revisionist History.

            In the first place, the US refused to go back to the Security Council in 2003, after resolution 1441 was passed.

            They refused to do so–because they discovered that FRANCE would VETO any resolution put before the Council.

            Additionally–and EVEN MORE important is that the majority of the Security Council Members, after Resolution 1441, stated that it is up to the Security Council to determine how any resolution was to be enforced.

            These comments were made in conjunction with the US’s CLEAR reluctance to seek a final vote for 100% compliance, with an invasion.

            In the aftermath, Kofi Annan, who was UN Secretary General, at the time, stated publicly that from the standpoint of the UN Charter, what the US did was ILLEGAL.

            I will address the International Support, in a subsequent comment.

            You are presenting REVISIONIST and ABRIDGED history.

            And by your silence, we will know ye.

            The Gregg Smith Silence Watch shall commence, after my next comment.

      • fun bobby

        lets see if those things happen first. let me know when the rise of the oceans begins to slow.

      • JONBOSTON

        I usually ignore responding to idiots but I’ll make an exception in your case. The reason I believe Obama is awful is because by any objective reasonable standard, he’s an unmitigated disaster. If you think any of the events you’ve cited will ever happen under Obama’s presidency, then you truly are a joke. My issue with Obama deals with his programs , policies, and complete absence of leadership [the Syria fiasco just the latest example]. Egypt and Syria are in flames , Iran is laughing at Obama and continuing to build the bomb, Russia’s Putin is joining the laughter. And our allies must feel abandoned and dispirited. If you can’t open your eyes and see the obvious there’s nothing I can do. You’re hopeless.

        • brettearle

          Firstly, for you not to see that my theoretical examples–of Employment/ Middle East peace /Oil–were not an OBVIOUS exaggeration to shore up how ignorant your bias actually is, then you not only have a problem in basic reading comprehension but you are also in full, and UTTER Incompetent Denial.

          If your own insipid bias were not so glaring to your own political brethren–which, God saves us, even they see through your idiocy– then they would be as guilty, as you are, for being pathetic accomplices to your PROPGANDISTIC DRIVEL.

          When was the last time you EVER saw two sides to any issue?

          When you were on a 1,000 foot high cliff, when you had only six inches of wiggle room on either side of you?

          Do me a favor:

          Go get yourself a lobotomy–that is if you can find a neurosurgeon who is willing to work on an individual who is vomiting, while drowning, in his own Ideological Gutter.

          • jefe68

            Ouch!

          • JONBOSTON

            It must be frustrating that you can’t offer a single intelligent point to counter anything I’ve said about Obama’s complete and utter incompetency other than posit some straw man argument and attack me. You’re just a sad and pathetic individual who frankly sounds very dumb. By the way, I measure Obama by results , not by the number of worthless forgettable speeches he gives in front of 18 year olds or public sector parasites.

          • hennorama

            ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ.

          • northeaster17

            Please provide examples.

          • JONBOSTON

            See if you can understand any of the following:
            1.real median annual household income has fallen by 4.4% during the “recovery” ( (June 2009) than during the recession1.8%
            2. when Obama entered the White House 60.6% of working age Americans had a job; today 58.7%
            3.since he’s been president, 7 of 8 jobs “created” in the US have been part-time jobs
            4 during the recession , 8.7m jobs were lost. The recovery has generated only 6.7m, a loss of 2.0m jobs
            5.an astounding 53% of all Americans now earn less than $30k/yr
            6.40% of all workers actually make less than what a full-time minmum wage earner made in 1968
            7.when Obama took office the average length of unemployment was 19.8 weeks; today it’s 36.6 weeks
            8.during his first term , the number of Americans leaving the workforce was 8.3m. Had they remained , our unemployment rate today would be over 12%
            9. poverty rate today is 16.1%; that’s higher than when the War on Poverty began in 1965
            10.during his first term the number of Americans on food stamps increased by 11,000/day.
            11. when Obama started 32millionAmericans were on food stamps ; today 47million
            12. today more than a million public school kids are homeless for the first time in US history. This is a 57% increase from 2007.
            13. Social security disability has increased 18% during Obama’s first term and is approaching insolvency in 4 years
            14. $17 trillion debt
            15. $1 trillion annual deficits last three years
            16. US census reports that over $100m people are enrolled in at least one welfare program
            17 the total amount of $ that the Fed govt gives to US households has increased by 32% since Obama took office
            18. student loan debt was $440billion in 2008. Today it’s about $1trillion
            19. health insurance costs will sky rocket in the future. They’ve already risen by 29% since Obama took office.
            20. According to one survey 76% of all Americans are living paycheck to paycheck

            I could go on but won’t.

          • pete18

            Hello pot, meet kettle.

      • JONBOSTON

        Richard Haas, president of the Council on Foreign Relations and ex officio of the foreign policy establishment tweeted on saturday that Obama “has gone from behind to not leading” and said the president’s apparent reversal of policy on Friday ” raises doubts about US reliability [and } determination.”

        Haas has advised Republican and Democratic presidents. I guess he’s brain dead as well.

  • 1Brett1

    Al Sharpton’s role, at many times in his life, has been questionable and opportunistic. Jesse Jackson, while having had a much more long and distinguished career as a legitimate civil rights activist, has also had his share of controversial/questionable moments that have seemed opportunistic, and he has benefitted from racial conflict, disparity, and unrest. Both men, it would seem, have enhanced their “celebrity” status at certain times through strained relationships between white and black America. These moments in each man’s life have, I’m sure, translated into personal gain, e.g., increased public speaking fees, tv shows, and so on.

    Neither man would be considered “great” in the MLK sense of the notion, irrespective of the fact that MLK also benefitted from various issues between the two races. In fact, each of the three would have simply been pastors in their respective churches, living a modest life within their respective congregational communities/general society, if there had never been any tension and inequality within the two races. If there had been peace, harmony, and equality between the two races, we never would have heard of either Al Sharpton or Jesse Jackson; we never would have heard of the Rev. Martin Luther King, for that matter.

    Neither Sharpton nor Jackson are even close to being in the same ballpark as Cornell West when it comes to intellectual prowess. Each man is simply an intellectual little person compared to West (especially Sharpton). However, West has also benefitted in his own status as a “celebrity” due to not only his overall controversial way of speaking (and sometimes his ability to buck conventional stances in the black community), but also in his criticism of white power structures. (West also has a style that shoots from the hip first and asks questions later, which I would argue is not necessarily analytical–it’s even anti-intellectual–but that’s another topic.)

    While in his own right, each man has played the role of activist and has benefitted personally from that role. Of any of the men mentioned, has any one of them ever exploited race relations, benefitting from such exploitation? I suppose one could make such an argument, even with respect to MLK, without using a broad brush and without using such charged terms as “race baiting” that reduce the multidimensional aspects of each man. The term “race baiting” is one of those simplistic characterizations that serves to reduce people and complex issues, falsifying truly examined opinion, and it otherwise renders discussion diminished to its lowest common denominator.

    LIke all of us, each man mentioned is a complex being of complements and contradictions, including MLK. I would argue that if such a term as “race baiting” were a reasonable term to apply in cases where people have used race to emphasize certain injustices, or to even further an ideology (the latter considers the undesirable aspects of racial activism), the people using such terms are engaging in a repugnantly anti-intellectual discussion and are using such terms as a dirty, underhanded weapon to fight against perceived opponents to one’s beliefs.

    This is especially true if one counts such public figures as Rush Limbaugh, Bill O’Reilly, etc., as being on one’s “side” and who refuses to apply the term “race baiting” to these men as readily as one bandies the term about when it comes to figures like Sharpton and Jackson. (What would be particularly offensive about some of these celebrities’ words and actions is that their only tangible objectives have been to garner a larger listening/viewing audience for entertainment purposes.)

    While all of the men mentioned, from Al Sharpton to Rush Limbaugh, have benefitted personally from some of their positions on race, neither Limbaugh nor O’Reilly have done any “activism” in the real sense. Perhaps each man at one time or another has held an event that is tied in to his show about an issue or general belief, but what tangible changes to any issue/event has either Limbaugh or O’Reilly initiated that would qualify him as an “activist”? “None” would be the most accurate answer. No, these men are just tv/radio personalities.

    Perhaps celebrities such as Limbaugh or O’Reilly have served to produce a few self-proclaimed armchair activists who fritter away their time on Internet discussion forums and blog sites, using whatever detestable tactics they can to further an idea, opinion or ideology. As bloated and self-serving as this practice is, however, it becomes nothing more than vile ranting when such terms as “race baiting” become commonplace.

    • pete18

      Although I think this is generally a very thoughtful post, the answer to your question, “Of any of the men mentioned, has any one of them ever exploited race relations, benefiting from such exploitation?” is “yes,” Jackson in particular:

      http://www.oregonmag.net/JesseReview402.htm

      http://judicialwatch.org/archive/2006/jackson-report.pdf

      • 1Brett1

        Thanks for your reply, Pete. My question was rhetorical in nature, to which I answered, “one could make such an argument, even with respect to MLK, without using a broad brush and without using such charged terms as “race baiting” that reduce the multidimensional aspects of each man.”

        My comment was mostly about the use of the term “race baiting.”

        Would you go farther and agree that people like Limbaugh and O’Reilly engage in exploiting race relations (and for the purposes of personal gain)?

        • pete18

          While I agree with you that all people are complex and multi-faceted
          and often the use of simplistic phrases like, “race baiters” doesn’t do justice
          to all the various dimensions of an individual, there are instances when the
          pointed shorthand fits.

          I think this is true in both Sharpton’s and Jackson’s case. If you are only arguing about the term “race baiter,” sure, maybe there’s a better term– I think “race charlatan” is more on target–but if you’re trying to submit that both men benefitted from the existence of racial tensions in a way that is somehow similar to MLK then I think you are completely belittling him and the civil rights movement of the 50s and 60s. MLK was certainly a flawed man, however the totality of his life, writings and actions and how that
          changed civil rights in America puts him on a rare platform in history that
          separates him from everyone else that you mentioned. I think people like
          Sharpton and Jackson need to be described with more belittling pejorative
          monikers because the totality of their actions have been self-aggrandizing,
          self-enriching and mostly destructive to race relations. Rich Lowery, in his
          excellent op-ed about the current day civil rights movement, (http://www.nationalreview.com/article/357190/new-civil-rights-movement-rich-lowry) has it right when he describes the distinction between MLK and Sharpton and Jackson as being the difference between a “calling and a career.” The fact that the media usually treats Sharpton and Jackson with kid gloves is further cause for others to point out their flaws, which I don’t believe are off-set by any of the good work that either of them do (Tawana Brawley is enough to forever condemn Sharpton), or the complexity of their personas.

          Outside of the fact that liberals hate them and conservatives like them, I’m not sure why you are making the comparison of Sharp and Jack to Limbaugh and O’Reilly since they do completely different things. However, even if you want to argue that either them is deserving of the insulting attacks and names that liberals splatter them with daily, and are destructive to America, it can’t be argued that Limbaugh (I don’t listen to
          O’Reilly so I can’t speak to him) uses race to garner more listeners or pump up
          ratings. He gathers his audiences by presenting a conservative opinion, which
          is long held and very consistent, in a succinct and entertaining fashion. Race
          only comes up when it’s in the news and he uses it to poke fun at and attack
          liberal culture and politics and promote conservatives views on equality and
          race. Is there some specific thing that ether of them has done that you are
          basing this comparison on?

          • 1Brett1

            See my reply above to northeaster17…

            While I don’t agree with many of your points, I respect your way of expressing your viewpoints, and even agree with a couple of your points.

            I first want to reiterate that I have made a distinction between King and people like Sharpton and Jackson; I’m not going to continue to rehash that distinction with every person who replies to my comment. I also don’t want to repeat the same reply to replies toward my comment, over and over; I do stand by my comment.

            I don’t agree with your assessment of Limbaugh. It would be too much of a stretch to elevate him to the status of satirist or humorist, and your defense of him didn’t seem all that compelling to me, sorry. I also don’t agree with your view that gives Sharpton and Jackson the gravity you do in being the destructive forces you make them out to be; neither man is that powerful. Each man has been exploitive, though, on that we can agree.

            Limbaugh, and to a lesser extent O’Reilly (and others I could offer an opinion about), exploits issues of the day/news events, that’s how he “gathers” his audience; he, I feel, panders to his listener base, those who would have a certain commonality in their beliefs/ideologies. It’s what radio talk show people do (and TV people). I don’t fault him for carving out a living/having a “how-ya-gonna-act” justification for doing what he does. I just don’t think he is particularly insightful nor does anything than feed his base on the junk food they crave. His (and others on radio and TV) only really serve to diminish discourse on issues of the day.

          • pete18

            While I again find agreement with your generalized assessment about how the various actors (Malcolm X, Black Panthers etc.) all played different roles using different methods in the civil rights movement and may have all contributed to moving the ball forward, as well as your instinct to not deify King, I think that still doesn’t relive you from drawing distinctions between them. I’m not sure charlatan’s deserve the polite and measured language that you are arguing for. I don’t see how that furthers the discussion or cause either. But obviously we disagree about the nature of Jackson and Sharpton.

            As to Limbaugh, whether you think he’s a good satirist or diminishes
            the discourse is quite a different claim than saying he “exploits race” for personal benefit. I’m still not sure what you are using to make that case. With Jackson and Sharpton, race is their main currency, with Limbaugh attacking liberalism and promoting conservatism is
            the main trade, in which race is one of 1000 topics. There is no equivalency.

            He also doesn’t cater to his audience, his listeners found him because he offered a point of view that was nowhere to be seen or heard in the media when he started his show. They were attracted to someone who confirmed and articulated THEIR world view, not the other way around. Limbaugh’s views have been consistent from the beginning and he often will hold positions that are in contrast to the bulk of his listeners and he uses his talent for
            argument to win them to his side, which he often does. It’s fine that you think
            he’s the devil, but you need to be accurate about what he does with his
            pitchfork and flames.

          • 1Brett1

            I’ve heard both Limbaugh and O’Reily opportunistically use news events as platforms to characterize black people as lazy, having a sense of entitlement, expecting the government to completely take care of them without their needing to work, that racism does still exist but the problem is black people being racist against white people, that this has caused an avalanche of violence against whites by blacks, that liberal policy and white guilt has given blacks a pass and has caused this problem, that black people are docile and easily riled toward violence and dependancy because of a combination of liberal policy and black leaders inciting them. That, to me, is a simplistic, inaccurate picture, is racially charged, opportunistically pandering to both men’s bases, relies on fear, hysteria, and takes complex relationships and reduces them to their most ugly form, pitting people against each other; that, Pete, is exploitive of race issues.

          • pete18

            Yes, some of your summations of their quotes sure sound simplistic and racially charged but based on my listening of Limbaugh (your on your own with O’Reilly) and how often liberals misquote or mischaracterize his statements, I’m guessing you don’t have them quite right or are missing the totality of what he said.

            If you can give us an actual quote that is in context there might be something for us to discuss.

          • Bill_GKD
          • 1Brett1

            Thanks, Bill.

          • Bill_GKD

            You’re welcome. It’s pretty easy to dig up dirt on dips like Limbaugh, but of course we always just don’t understand him or take him out of context or some other idiotic nonsense.

          • HonestDebate1

            Exactly.

          • HonestDebate1

            That’s funny!

          • Bill_GKD

            Not nearly as funny as the half-witted rubes in his audience who can only see racism when it comes from minorities complaining about getting shafted. I thought that this was good:

            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K-Gfb3cwHIw

          • 1Brett1

            You guys always claim Limbaugh is just misunderstood, that he’s taken out of context, that unless one listens to his every breath one can’t understand him, that he’s a highly sophisticated satirist, so on and ad nauseam. Sorry, I’ve listened to him enough to know that your CLAIM is an incorrect characterization of Limbaugh.

            I do thank Bill GKD below for taking care of my light work…wait, don’t tell me: Media Matters can’t be trusted as a legitimate source, they have smeared Limbaugh by taking him out of context, etc….whatever.

            Thanks for saying I was admitting to being simplistic and racially charged in my assessment of my characterization of Limbaugh and O’Reilly; I guess my hope of having an actual, reasonable conversation with a neocon was naive.

            Our resident Limbaugh devotee has espoused many of Limbaugh’s views as well; he has also said many times that Sharpton and Jackson (as well as liberal media and liberal policy) have incited blacks to violence, laziness, wanting free stuff, a sense of entitlement, etc. He has also said that white guilt/political correctness has given black people a pass for their violence and problems within their communities. He has also said black on white crime is at epidemic levels, etc. While I have listened to him a little more than Limbaugh, I’ve listened to Limbaugh enough to know he’s mouthing the same schtick as Limbaugh. Are you saying you disagree with these views? If you are refuting what I’m saying (which you have been since your first reply, albeit in a nice way until now), then it is incumbent upon you to show quotes of Limbaugh’s to the contrary, now that would not only change my mind but anybody’s mind about Limbaugh.

          • pete18

            “You guys always claim Limbaugh is just
            misunderstood, that he’s taken out of context, that unless one listens to his
            every breath one can’t understand him, that he’s a highly sophisticated
            satirist, so on and ad nauseam. Sorry, I’ve listened to him enough to know that
            your CLAIM is an incorrect mischaracterization of Limbaugh.”

            Yes, I believe that to be true and
            disagree with you, however I will certainly look over GKD’s post.

            “wait, don’t tell me: Media Matters
            can’t be trusted as a legitimate source, they have smeared Limbaugh by taking
            him out of context, etc….whatever.”

            Sorry, that’s not my shtick, you’re confusing me with TF, who regularly traffics in that kind of non-argument. If they have actual sourced quotes, in context, it’s good enough for me.

            “Thanks for saying I was admitting to
            being simplistic and racially charged in my assessment of my characterization
            of Limbaugh and O’Reilly; I guess my hope of having an actual, reasonable
            conversation with a neocon was naive.”

            Not sure where you’re going with this
            one. All I asked from you was actual quotes so we could have something tangible to discuss. That is hardly unreasonable. Don’t take my skepticism of your summations personally.

            “Our resident Limbaugh devotee has espoused many of Limbaugh’s views as
            well; he has also said many times that Sharpton and Jackson (as well as
            liberal media and liberal policy) have incited blacks to violence,
            laziness, wanting free stuff, a sense of entitlement, etc. Are you saying you disagree with these
            views? If you are refuting what I’m saying (which you have been since your
            first reply, albeit in a nice way until now), then it is incumbent upon you to
            show quotes of Limbaugh’s to the contrary, now that would not only change my mind but anybody’s mind about Limbaugh.”

            I must not follow all these threads as much as you do so I’m not up to speed
            on everyone else’s posts in that sort of detail, you’ll have to take that up with him. It is also not incumbent on me, nor is it my goal to change your mind on Limbaugh. I have only taken issue with your idea that he exploits race for his personal benefit, which I believe is demonstrably inaccurate and that he is regularly misinterpreted by his critics, but I will certainly give you my two-cents on the posted quotes once I read them all.

          • 1Brett1

            You: “Yes, some of your summations of their quotes sure sound simplistic and racially charged…”

            Me: ““Thanks for saying I was admitting to being simplistic and racially charged in my assessment of my characterization of Limbaugh and O’Reilly…”

            You: “Not sure where you’re going with this one. All I asked from you was actual quotes so we could have something tangible to discuss.”

            You are being obliquely dishonest, there. You knew what I was speaking of, and I wasn’t going anywhere with it just saying that you were attempting to feign agreement (“yes”) to something I wasn’t saying and say that I was admitting I am being racially charged when all I was saying was that Limbaugh and O’Reilly were being racially charged. You were at least doing more than simply “ask[ing]” for “actual quotes so we could have something tangible to discuss.”

            Sorry, Pete, but I feel you are feigning ignorance of Limbaugh’s baiting nature at times and that he says racially charged things if you say you listen to him all the time. If the deal from you is that Sharpton and Jackson are absolute “race baiters” but Limbaugh NEVER says anything racially charged or NEVER panders to his listeners because he knows that is good for his ratings, then you are being coy about your observations (either that or exceedingly naive or tone deaf).

            Also, it is disappointing to hear you say you are ignorant of the dynamic on this forum; I’d say some of your comments shoot from the hip if you are indeed ignorant (just partisan if you were actually attuned to the dynamic; you sure seem to be willing to quickly characterize what say is TF’s nature to be unaware, as you say, of what others say on here). You never did answer my questions, however, about whether or not you agreed with the sentiments of the other person I outlined. Your reply is to skirt around either agreeing or disagreeing by saying you aren’t aware of the person’s comments. (As much as I think that’s BS, you don’t have to be aware of the other person to comment on what I said about his opinions. To comment on the opinions I mentioned is not to agree or disagree with him, so I think you are copping out there a bit.)

          • pete18

            Brett, you are trying way to hard to start a fight. You totally misunderstood my statement, the accusation wasn’t that you were being simplistic and racially charged, but that your summations did make Limbaugh sound that way. I took issue with your summations. Direct quotes I can respond to, subjective interpretations are a waste of time.

            That also goes for other comments on the board. You obviously
            have much more time than I do to read and follow all the epic exchanges here. I
            skim and pick my spots. TF is a brief, Johnny one-note, not too much effort is needed to follow along. I’ll freely comment on things I’ve actually read but not on things that you sum up for me. Sorry.

            I was enjoying the exchange with you up until the last two posts, where you’ve strayed from a substantive exchange of ideas and clarification of differences to nonsense about “neocons” and presumed motives. Hardy worth the time if that’s where you’re going to go.

          • 1Brett1

            Sorry, Pete, but I feel you are being passive-aggressive in your responses. And, while it was “hardly worth the time…” for you to have composed your reply, you could have continued on by replying to quotes of Limbaugh’s (Bill_GKD’s comment just below); it seems more like frittering one’s time away with “subjective interpretations” than commenting on actual quotes would have been.

            If defending Limbaugh absolutely and denying that he gins people up sometimes with racially charged rhetoric is your thing, and If you are not willing to concede at least some of that re: Limbaugh is true, you are either not being honest or are not being observant.

          • pete18

            Further evidence that my initial idea that you were someone willing to engage in a straightforward conversation about ideas was wrong. Too bad. I’ll be posting a response to Bill below in due time. Feel free to read it.

          • 1Brett1

            If I am wrong about your unwillingness to offer any criticism whatsoever toward Limbaugh, than I truly apologize. I respect your views in that you have been, for the most part, polite. if I am wrong about your mildly-deliberate obtuse approach to at least seeing how Limbaugh has expressed some racially-charged and disrespectful sentiments in his commentary, then I apologize about that also.

            While you and I will never find common ground if you offer nothing to modify you views on Limbaugh, I am fine with your sense that he is a satirist, offers valuable commentary, and so on. I find that view ridiculous. but to each his own. I don’t see our interactions as a free exchange of ideas, however, if you are not willing to see anything wrong with Limbaugh’s purposely charged commentary.

            If you read through all of my comments in this entire thread, you’ll see that I have not had anything tangibly good to say about Sharpton. You’ll also see that I have little more good to say about Jackson, although I respect his longevity and some of his activism throughout his career (mostly early on in his public life; if he were to be judged purely on his last 25 years or so, I’d put him squarely with Sharpton). Neither man has lived up to expectations in terms of bringing races together, nor has either been fair in his ability to separate true racial problems from something he has participated in trumping up, and I feel I am being kind in that assessment. You and I can agree on some general assessments of each man.

            I feel as though you have understood my not wanting to deify/mythologize King, although he was a great historical figure, yet flawed as all people in history are.

            Obviously you and I are on opposite sides of the spectrum with respect to socio-political issues, yet the real sticking point in our interactions has been your complete lack of finding even the most remote criticism of Limbaugh. My criticisms of your replies have pertained purely to that deliberate unwillingness on your part.

          • HonestDebate1

            There isn’t a bigoted bone in Rush’s body. But then again, you call me a racist which is such a lie it will likely keep you out of heaven.

          • 1Brett1

            Aww, I’m going to get kept out of heaven, how perfectly Christian of you, you non-Christian, non-sectarian agnostic, you.

            http://newsone.com/16051/top-10-racist-limbaugh-quotes/

            http://www.alternet.org/20-most-racist-things-rush-limbaugh-has-ever-said

            http://www.newser.com/story/127223/rush-limbaugh-melanin-is-thicker-than-water-and-colin-powell-will-vote-for-president-obama.html

            http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/rush-limbaugh-racist-quotes-070710

            Oh, and there are tons more…wait, don’t tell me these liberal links are distorting his words, manipulating the image of who he is to get liberalzzz to all hate him…’bout right?

          • HonestDebate1

            So you actually see racism in those quotes? That’s sick.

          • 1Brett1

            This reply is also not surprising considering you have demonstrated over and over on this forum that you have a profound tone-deafness when it comes to talking about race.

          • HonestDebate1

            No dude, there are a host of blacks of all political persuasions like Larry Elder, Bill Cosby, Cornell West, Herman Cain, Elbert Gullory, Thomas Sowell and many others that say the same things as I about the race baiters. We think the victimization of blacks is sick. If you want to scream racism because you are uncomfortable, fine but it’s you that can’t face the truth.

          • HonestDebate1

            It’s not about me.

          • HonestDebate1

            Limbaugh rarely talks about race, my views are my own.

          • HonestDebate1

            You won’t hear any of that on Rush.

          • 1Brett1

            “Gosh, golly, certainly not, y’all, why, that mean old nasty Brett is just making things up about Rush like he does about poor little old me, y’all. Why, I listen to that cute, fuzzy wuzzy teddy bear every day and he doesn’t have a racist bone in his little old body, y’all. I just don’t know why Brett is being ever so mean…y’all”

            http://newsone.com/16051/top-10-racist-limbaugh-quotes/

            http://www.alternet.org/20-most-racist-things-rush-limbaugh-has-ever-said

            http://www.newser.com/story/127223/rush-limbaugh-melanin-is-thicker-than-water-and-colin-powell-will-vote-for-president-obama.html

            http://mediamatters.org/resear

            http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/rush-limbaugh-racist-quotes-070710

          • HonestDebate1

            You talk funny. You’re barking up the wrong tree. There isn’t a racist bone in his body… as you said. What’s it like to see everything through the lens of race?

          • 1Brett1

            Not surprising that you would pretend as if I was saying Limbaugh doesn’t have a racist bone in his body when it was obvious even for the less comprehending among us that I was mocking you.

            It’s also not surprising that you accuse me of only looking through a lens of race when the main thrust of your commentary over the past couple of months has been a constant pulse of reporting your views on race.

          • HonestDebate1

            I didn’t pretend, dude. It’s right there, you wrote it.

            Were you mocking me? You can’t be serious, really?

      • HonestDebate1

        I agree and obviously Sharpton is no slouch.

        http://redalertpolitics.com/2012/03/28/al-sharpton-race-baiting-opportunist-of-the-worst-sort/

        It is so damaging, And it’s not just that they are exploiting race relations, it’s more sinister than that. They are exploiting individuals who are black to increase racial tensions and sabotage race relations. It is antithetical to MLK Jr.’s dream.

        • 1Brett1

          What you’re saying is that black people can’t think for themselves and are easily riled because of someone else’s language and that black people are mob oriented…there is a great hypocrisy in such an opinion, as it is emphasized by the very perpetuator who espouses an opinion that liberals have developed policies and mindsets that indicate blacks are inferior and need coddling/need to be guided by others because they can’t make positive decisions themselves.

          • jefe68

            Watch, he’s going to call you the bigot next.

    • HonestDebate1

      What do Rush or O’Reilly have to do with race-baiting? They’ve never exploited race to their benefit. They have not injected race into situations where it wasn’t an issue to inflame tensions. They haven’t used detestable tactics to further an agenda.

      I don’t see that the gratuitous use of the term race-baiting is common place. I use it very carefully but to not call it out is a sin. However I do see the term racist bandied about willy nilly reducing it’s meaning to zip. It’s astonishing and when it’s not overtly stated it’s implied as evidenced by the charges of the GOP declining invitations to the 50 year dream speech anniversary. This is done by the race baiters. There are a lot of people highly invested in the notion of judging people by the color of their skin.

      • 1Brett1

        Here’s what I wrote re: the term…

        “The term “race baiting” is one of those simplistic characterizations that serves to reduce people and complex issues, falsifying truly examined opinion, and it otherwise renders discussion diminished to its lowest common denominator.”

        Your reply ignores that sentiment entirely and doubles down on the use of the terms.

        As far as the GOP declining invitations, those ACTUALLY HAPPENED and were reported directly without any charges of racism by media. You can say there was an “implied” charge of racism against the GOP for declining invitations, but your saying so doesn’t make it so. All of the media outlets I heard from on the matter gave the same commentary I did on what transpired: that it would politically behoove the GOP to show up at some of these events to show that they are inclusive in their view of the their Party, to which you replied that this is “pandering.”

        I’d say you are projecting racism into what happened; I was speaking about political inclusiveness (for the purposes of at least being a little intelligent in trying to win national elections). But, hey, “I’m here to express my views.”

        • HonestDebate1

          No, it was implied.

    • hennorama

      1Brett1 – Hear, hear!

      VERY well said, sir.

      One teeny tiny suggestion – change “hip” to “lip” in your parenthetical comment “West also has a style that shoots from the hip first …”

      • 1Brett1

        Brilliant! ;-)

        • hennorama

          Merci bien, monsieur.

          Again, VERY well said.

    • jefe68

      Well said.

      However you will get the typical response from the right wingers here, just repeating the same regressive rhetoric and round and round we all go. The Gregg’s of this world are not interested in debate, or even parsing things with any rational thought. You use the term anti-intellectual and that’s what it is pure and simple. You can’t reason with zealots, it’s a waste of time.

    • northeaster17

      The civil rights movement was and is not about celebrity and race baiting. It’s all about discrimination by a society towards a minority people of color. By placing the movement along side race baiting and a celebrity fixation you overlook the crimes committed by the powerful and the deprivations suffered by the victims. Race baiting is cable news trash talk. What King fought was the racism backed by the law, guns,dogs, bombs and murder. Along with other tactics. Please don’t insult the civil rights movement and all those who died fighting to bring about equality by equating them with a few folks on cable t.v.

      • jefe68

        I don’t think he’s doing that. He’s pointing out that Al Sharpton has in the past done some pretty outlandish things in the name of civil rights.
        The Tawana Brawley rape allegations were a breech of the public trust by Sharpton.

        • 1Brett1

          Thanks, jefe, and I will also say, as you’ve pointed out, that Sharpton has gotten in front of more than a few false stories of crimes against blacks and has wrongfully ginned up a false narrative; I fault him absolutely for that. He has mellowed a bit with age, but I don’t think many of his actions can be forgiven, particularly since he’s not apologized for them. I have never liked Sharpton, and while I dislike him less now than when he was younger, my feelings about him haven’t changed much.

          The problem with neocons is that they want to roundly condemn ALL leaders in the African-American community who are not conservative for ALL of their actions as participating in “race baiting.” No, I can condemn something Al Sharpton does, or Jesse Jackson, etc., without broad-brushing with my condemnation.

          It’s a shame because neocons will not allow a conversation because they want absolutes, they want broad, absolute condemnation of liberals, public figures who aren’t conservative mouthpieces, and all liberal policies. The little bit of reply I’ve had has been somewhat interesting (and even predictable). I guess my condemnation of both Jackson and Sharpton wasn’t harsh enough, and I guess I trampled on the venerable Limbaugh by saying he can legitimately be criticized too. Shame on me!

      • 1Brett1

        I wasn’t putting the civil rights movement/activism alongside “race baiting” at all. In fact, I don’t like the term “race baiting,” for one thing. One small point I was making about the term itself is that if one is going to call Sharpton and Jackson “race baiters” (which I think diminishes any chance of intelligent discussion) one should be willing to apply such a term to people like Limbaugh and O’Reilly who use racially-charged concepts and expressions in their commentary (and for the pathetic purpose of getting ratings).

        As far as MLK, I was saying he is very separate from someone like Sharpton or Jackson, or West. Each man HAS, however, used controversy, even in worthy pursuits of activism and commentary. Sharpton, while perhaps doing some good activism in his career, has also exploited race relations in some circumstances to further his own objectives, I feel. Jackson, as I said, has been much more of a legitimate activist in his life (his presence does go back to the late ’60s and early ’70s), but he too has sounded foolish and has been reactive to the the point of being exploitive at times. West, has also used controversy and the power of his own personality–in ways that many would argue are too “in your face”–and his celebrity to make some interesting points about race, crossing the line into actual divisiveness at times. He too has benefitted like the others in his personal/professional life from strains in race relations.

        While you and I might agree that in MLK there was greatness (and this may be controversial to some, but I am not inclined to deify and mythologize historical figures, no matter their greatness), and he was instrumental in bringing about civil rights legislation. He was brave, and he was powerful. But, he also took a lot risks with other peoples’ lives in the process of dong his work; it’s pretty risky to ask ordinary people to put themselves in danger of either getting severely injured or even being killed to support a cause. He also benefitted personally/professionally from inequality and tension between the black and white races (as a byproduct of his work, and deliberately in some cases to get people to really pay attention to him). If there had been equality and harmony between the two races, MLK would never have been an activist. I don’t criticize him, I just point out that he was exploitive in his own way, and he wasn’t perfect, nor was he a saint; he was a man who approached his task in life the way he did. Others might have approached things a little differently, and did even. Malcolm X approached his activism very differently than King. The Black Panthers approached their activism differently than King. I am in agreement with King’s approach, but it would be dishonest to say both Malcolm X and the Black Panthers did nothing to force change. It would be dishonest, or at least non-analytical, to say King was pitch perfect in his approach every time too.

        Another point I made was that for people like Limbaugh and O’Reilly, in the process of riling people (which is something Sharpton, Jackson, West, Malcolm X, the Black Panthers, and even in much more acceptable ways, so did MLK) neither celebrity has done any activism, nor has either man promoted any social change (although one might argue that Limbaugh has served to cheapen the national conversation about race, as well as many other topics).

  • fun bobby

    I guess if white people were poorer, more stuck in poverty, more homeless, less educated, more unemployed, more in prison and die sooner then bloombergs news will be happy

  • Coastghost

    Our media dutifully inform us: Obomba won his re-election, so he is free of having his decision-making complicated by re-election politics, now he petitions Congress to give the imprimatur of representatives facing election/re-election in only a matter of months to endorse his “leadership”, to approve his “decision”?
    I would not cross the street where this traffic cop is on duty.
    WHAT is he doing, by the way: punting a hole in one? or striking out at the free throw line?

  • Coastghost

    Secretary of State Kerry assures us that President Obama will gain the support of Congress and the American people in his moral crusade against Assad’s Syria.
    Translation: President Obama was certain that he would not need Congressional authorization or public approval for his “limited strike” on Syria prior to the British Parliament’s rebuff to PM Cameron.
    Uncertain leadership looks remarkably like uncertain leadership, whether the context is post-modern or post-postmodern.

    • HonestDebate1

      Viva La France!

    • Steve__T

      Russia is sending two ships one large anti-submarine ship and a missile cruiser into the Eastern Mediterranean, as the U.S. moves toward a military response in Syria. Putin says the naval deployment is required for protecting Russian national security interests and not a threat to any nation. They already have about sixteen ships in the area pulse a land base.
      Lee Willet, editor of IHS Jane’s Navy International, told Reuters that this is gunboat diplomacy meant to have a political impact.

      Russia is one of the biggest suppliers of weapons to the Syrian regime and it has resisted international calls for sanctions and other Western interventions in the Syrian crisis.

      So why would Obama want to be seen with Putin? Who would really be embarrassed?

  • Imran Nasrullah

    I feel US foreign policy has been so skewed for the past 60 years, that like a pendulum, we tightened the spring so tight to maintain “stability” in the region, that now the spring has unsprung violently, swinging the pendulum in the opposite direction.

  • hennorama

    Every time I listen to and watch Rep. Mike Rogers, Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, my respect for him grows. He’s a major player in Congress who recently passed on the opportunity to run for a Senate seat in Michigan. That made sense, as he would have been on the lowest rung of the Senate’s seniority ladder, and rather than being head of one of the most influential and powerful committees in all of Congress, he would have become “the junior senator from Michigan.” (Assuming he won, of course.)

    I wonder if he has any higher political aspirations. I for one am intrigued, and am adding him to one of my news alert lists

    • JONBOSTON

      I agree. He’s one of the few politicians in Congress that routinely puts country ahead of party.

  • pete18
    • jefe68

      Funny you left out this part of the article: Similar concerns were raised in 2006, when Massachusetts passed its health reform law on which the federal legislation was modeled.

      At the time, businesses worried that costs would skyrocket and eat into their bottom lines. Consumer advocates worried employers would drop coverage.

      The fears proved unfounded. The number of employers offering health insurance grew from 70 percent in 2005 to 76 percent in 2011 — compared to a stagnant 60 percent nationally, according to a report by the Blue Cross Blue Shield of Massachusetts Foundation.

      In my opinion it’s well past the time when we should have a single payer system. The ACA is a band-aid on the gangrenous wound our market based health care system is. It’s failing. The thing is the GOP has no plan for health care other than tore reform and letting the market prevail. Well, we have a market based system now and it’s failed.
      This is about cost and that’s the it. That fact that UPS and Delta Airlines are threatening to lessen coverage is a problem that in my view speaks to the our dysfunctional health care system. The ACA might just fail, but how is that going to solve our health care problem?

      We spend more money than any other industrial nation and get the worst results per dollar. Doing nothing is not an answer. Letting the market prevail is not an answer.

      • pete18

        “The ACA might just fail, but how is that going to solve our health care problem?”

        Yes, exactly. That is the question its supporters should have been asking before they enacted the law. These problems were all obvious and predictable to anyone with a brain. Doing nothing is always better than doing something that makes things worse.

        • jefe68

          You don’t know if things will be worse.
          That’s conjecture on your part.
          THey said the same things when the new health care law was passed in Massachusetts. And nothing happened.
          Is it perfect, no, far from it.

          I don’t like the ACA, but I dislike what we have now even more. Doing nothing would only make things worse.

          • HonestDebate1

            We know things ARE worse. We know we are hemorrhaging jobs, we know premiums are through the roof. We know emperor Obama is delaying by decree it’s implementation. It’s a disaster.

ONPOINT
TODAY
Apr 16, 2014
A woman walks past a CVS store window in Foxborough, Mass., Tuesday, Feb. 7, 2012. The nation’s major drugstore chains are opening more in-store clinics in response to the massive U.S. health care overhaul, which is expected to add about 25 million newly insured people who will need medical care and prescriptions, as well as offering more services as a way to boost revenue in the face of competition from stores like Safeway and Wal-Mart. (AP)

Retailers from Walgreens to Wal-Mart to CVS are looking to turn into health care outlets. It’s convenient. Is it good medicine? Plus: using tech to disrupt the healthcare market.

Apr 16, 2014
Harvard Business School is one of the top-ranked MBA programs in the country. Our guest today suggests those kinds of degrees aren't necessary for business success. (HBS / Facebook)

Humorist and longtime Fortune columnist Stanley Bing says, “forget the MBA.” He’s got the low-down on what you really need to master in business. Plus: the sky-high state of executive salaries.

RECENT
SHOWS
Apr 15, 2014
In this file photo, author and journalist Matt Taibbi speaks to a crowd of Occupy Wall Street protestors after a march on the offices of pharmaceutical giant Pfizer, Wednesday, Feb. 29, 2012, in New York. There was a heavy police presence around the 42nd Street area as the demonstration began Wednesday morning outside. (AP)

Muckraking journalist Matt Taibbi sees a huge and growing divide in the US justice system, where big money buys innocence and poverty means guilt. He joins us.

 
Apr 15, 2014
A crowd gathers at the finish line of the Boston Marathon in Boston for a Sports Illustrated photo shoot before the one-year anniversary of the Boston Marathon bombings, Saturday, April 12, 2014. (AP)

One year after the Boston Marathon bombing, we look at national and local security on the terrorism front now, and what we’ve learned.

On Point Blog
On Point Blog
How Boston Is Getting Ready For the 2014 Boston Marathon
Tuesday, Apr 15, 2014

Boston Globe metro reporter Maria Cramer explains how the 2014 Boston Marathon will be different than races in the past.

More »
Comment
 
WBUR’s David Boeri: ‘There’s Still Much We Don’t Know’
Tuesday, Apr 15, 2014

WBUR’s senior reporter David Boeri details the ongoing investigation into the alleged Boston Marathon Bombing perpetrators.

More »
Comment
 
Remembering The Boston Marathon Bombing, One Year Later
Tuesday, Apr 15, 2014

One year after the Boston Marathon Bombing, we look back at our own coverage of the attacks and the community’s response from April 2013.

More »
Comment