Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity
Posted at 6:42 PM ET, 02/ 1/2011

Happy Hour Roundup

By Greg Sargent

* Mubarak won't run for reelection, and Obama administration sources are now leaking that the President sent him a direct and blunt message letting him know that the party's over.

* By choosing Charlotte, North Carolina, as the site for the 2012 Dem convention, Obama and Dems are betting that the new south will be more receptive to Obama's "win the future" message than the old west.

* And David Axelrod tells Sam Stein in no uncertain terms that pundits who think Obama's going to play on a shrunken presidential map are dead wrong.

* A senior Dem official emails a bit more about the choice of Charlotte:

This selection should put to rest any notion that the Presidential map in 2012 is going to shrink. Ware going to go as big in 2012 as we did in 2008 -- and that means fighting hard for North Carolina, Virginia and all the states and more that helped elect President Obama in the first place.

* Senate Republicans will force a vote on repealing reform this week, and Harry Reid says Dems will go along, in order to help Repubicans "get this out of their system very quickly."

* The godfather of the individual mandate, who developed the idea for George H.W. Bush in order to reduce government involvement in health care, patiently explains that it is not a penalty for "economic inactivity," as many on the right insist.

* Knowing who butters their bread: Big business interests have plowed $2 million into the coffers of newly-elected House Republicans since election day.

* Inflammatory branding of the day: "The Rape Victims Punishment Act of 2011."

* Atrios, on Barbara Bush's support for gay marriage: "when did we start giving a crap about the political views of the progeny of politicians? It's really getting creepy."

* Takedown of the day: Jack Balkin deftly skewers that South Dakota lawmaker's "parody" proposal to require everyone to buy a gun. Just brutal, particularly the stuff about the 1792 militia act mandating the purchase of guns and ammo.

* Relatedly, the question of the day, from Adam Serwer:

What's the originalist case against laws signed by George Washington?

* Out-of-control megalomania and messianism a major turnoff? Keach Hagey notes that Glenn Beck last month boasted his worst ratings performance since his show began, though he still wins the 5 p.m. time slot.

* And you'll be stunned to hear that Fox News big Bill Sammon deliberately used the network to link Obama to socialism and Marxism.

What else is happening?

By Greg Sargent  | February 1, 2011; 6:42 PM ET
Categories:  Foreign policy and national security, Happy Hour Roundup, Health reform, Senate Dems, Senate Republicans  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Wisconsin attorney general: "Health care law is dead"
Next: The Morning Plum

Comments

OBAMA IS TALKING WITH THE MUSLIM BROTHERHOOD


You have no reason to trust Obama isn't implementing his "Muslim Agenda"


Another "Bait and Switch."


Report:


The Egyptian government has information a diplomat at the U.S. embassy in Cairo secretly met yesterday with a senior leader of the Muslim Brotherhood, the nation's major Islamist opposition group.

The topic of the meeting was the future of Egypt following the "fall" of President Hosni Mubarak, an Egyptian intelligence official says.


The claim comes amid charges from Cairo that the Obama administration has been encouraging the protests rocking Egypt and targeting the rule of Mubarak, a key U.S. ally in the Middle East.

The Egyptian intelligence official said his government has information of a meeting that took place yesterday between Issam El-Erian, a senior leader of the Muslim Brotherhood, and Frank Wisner, a former U.S. ambassador to Egypt.

The Obama administration dispatched Wisner to Egypt this past weekend to report to the State Department and White House a general sense of the situation in the embattled country

Posted by: RainForestRising | February 1, 2011 6:47 PM | Report abuse

From his statement just now, Obama to Mubarak: "Change begins now."

Posted by: suekzoo1 | February 1, 2011 6:50 PM | Report abuse

Greg,

What is your opinion of your fellow Washington Posters appearing on FOX News?

Do you think their appearance enhances or diminishes the reputation of the Post?

Would you appear on FOX News if invited?

Posted by: TrollMcWingnut | February 1, 2011 6:54 PM | Report abuse

ON one hand the democrats CLAIM the health care law takes effect in 2014, and on the other hand, the states have to do all this "implementing"


KILL THE BILL AND DRIVE A STAKE INTO IT !!!

.

Posted by: RainForestRising | February 1, 2011 6:55 PM | Report abuse

What is Mubarak doing? Refusing to leave? Holding out for a better deal? I hope the military expects Mubarak to clear out. Otherwise, things could get messy.

Posted by: wbgonne | February 1, 2011 6:55 PM | Report abuse

"Obama's "win the future" message"

Really? Is Obama really going with "Win the Future" as a campaign theme?

Posted by: sbj3 | February 1, 2011 7:02 PM | Report abuse

""Obama's "win the future" message"

Really? Is Obama really going with "Win the Future" as a campaign theme?"

Only because "It looks like the Carter Administration is going to be a Best Case Scenario" wouldn't fit on a bumpersticker.

Posted by: TrollMcWingnut | February 1, 2011 7:09 PM | Report abuse

Charlotte is a pretty good choice for the Dems' convention. The GOP, OTOH, is so confident that climate change isn't happening and doesn't affect weather if it is that they will stage their convention on the 7th anniversary of Katrina at a city on the Gulf Coast (Tampa) in a year that is predicted to see more record high temperatures.

Posted by: Mimikatz | February 1, 2011 7:15 PM | Report abuse

Scahill on US conceptions of Al Jazeera...

"For people who have followed Al Jazeera’s history with the United States, the fact that it is now perceived by the White House and the American public as a force for democracy and freedom is an ironic, some would say hypocritical, development. The contrast between Washington’s posture toward Al Jazeera from the Bush era to the Obama presidency could not be more stark.

During the Bush administration, nothing contradicted the absurd claim that the United States invaded Iraq to spread democracy throughout the Middle East more decisively than Washington’s ceaseless attacks on Al Jazeera, the institution that did more than any other to break the stranglehold over information previously held by authoritarian forces, whether monarchs, military strongmen, occupiers or ayatollahs. Yet, far from calling for its journalists to be respected and freed from imprisonment and unlawful detention, the Bush administration waged war against Al Jazeera and its journalists.

The United States bombed its offices in Afghanistan in 2001...."

http://www.thenation.com/blog/158183/washingtons-sudden-embrace-al-jazeera-wont-erase-past-us-crimes-against-network

Posted by: bernielatham | February 1, 2011 7:15 PM | Report abuse

Good job on Independently Coming Up With the Carter meme. Hahaha. Now maybe Independtly Come Up With another Darth Cheney joke. They made actual dolls. ACTUAL DOLLS!!! I CAN'T STOP LAUGHING. IT'S FUNNY BECAUSE HE ADVOCATES TORTURE, BAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

ok, serious time now.

re: the DNC being in Charlotte, Ezra Klein links to a study showing that neither the location of a convention nor party control of a governor's seat has an effect on which party wins the state in a Presidential election.

Posted by: DDAWD | February 1, 2011 7:15 PM | Report abuse

Conservative fiscal prudence and debt-hatred, chapter 278...

"The Republican National Committee announced yesterday it's now $23 million in debt, a budget hole with no modern precedent for a major political party."

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2011_02/027793.php

Posted by: bernielatham | February 1, 2011 7:19 PM | Report abuse

"when did we start giving a crap about the political views of the progeny of politicians? It's really getting creepy."

The left started at least with Patti and Ron Reagan. They only care about left-leaning offspring of Republicans.

Posted by: quarterback1 | February 1, 2011 7:21 PM | Report abuse

"reconciled with a limited government of enumerated powers"


I suppose that is EXACTLY THE QUESTION


Conservatives believe in a "limited government of enumerated powers."


Liberals do NOT believe that - they believe that the Federal government should be expanded - in an UNLIMITED WAY - to put in place their horrible "liberal agenda."

So - it seems we have a legitimate dispute - EXCEPT that the Constitution is a "limited government of enumerated powers" - and there really is no CONSTITUTIONAL way the liberals can expanded the Federal government in an unlimited way. The Conservatives are right - and it is that plain and simple.

.

Posted by: RainForestRising | February 1, 2011 7:25 PM | Report abuse

We note the concern from certain quarters of the right that Obama is, through in-action or over-action or talking or not talking, putting the Egypt-Israeli peace at risk and we also note that Jimmy Carter doesn't seem to appear in these commentaries.

We also note that there is no circumstance in which, for John Bolton, Iran shouldn't be bombed immediately...


"Bolton: Mubarak’s Downfall Would Mean We Need To Bomb Iran Sooner

HANNITY: Do you think that the Israelis are going to have to strike — they are going to have to take action. … As you pointed out, El Baradei, you know, ran cover for the Iranians for all those years that he was with the IAEA. And, I just don’t think the Israelis have much longer to wait…they’re going to have to act in fairly short order.

BOLTON: I think that’s right. I don’t think there’s much time to act. And I think the fall of a Egyptian government committed to the peace agreement will almost certainly speed that timetable up."

http://thinkprogress.org/2011/02/01/bolton-egypt-iran/

Posted by: bernielatham | February 1, 2011 7:28 PM | Report abuse

"Fox News big Bill Sammon deliberately used the network to link Obama to socialism and Marxism"

Strange locution. He "used" his network position to disseminate information -- 100% accurate -- about Obama from his research. Elsewhere I think this is just calling "doing your job."

Or perhaps you think Obama's admitted "links" to socialism were already being adequately reported elsewhere?

No, you're just propagandizing and axe grinding now.

Posted by: quarterback1 | February 1, 2011 7:31 PM | Report abuse

Are you, or have you ever been... (Gaffney goes deeper into crazyland every day)

http://thinkprogress.org/2011/02/01/gaffney-muslim-brotherhood/

Posted by: bernielatham | February 1, 2011 7:33 PM | Report abuse

GREG SAYS HE IS STUNNED

And you'll be stunned to hear that Fox News big Bill Sammon deliberately used the network to link Obama to socialism and Marxism.


_____________________________


This is RIDICULOUS - and Greg is NOT A SERIOUS JOURNALIST


If you read carefully Greg's link, you will find the Bill Sammon was QUOTING FROM OBAMA'S OWN BOOK


So Fox is HORRIBLE, ESPECIALLY WHEN THEY QUOTE OBAMA'S OWN WORDS.


What a joke, Greg, you should be FIRED

Posted by: RainForestRising | February 1, 2011 7:33 PM | Report abuse

The left started at least with Patti and Ron Reagan. They only care about left-leaning offspring of Republicans.

Posted by: quarterback1 | February 1, 2011 7:21 PM | Report abuse

---

Yeah. Michael Reagan got a radio talk show on the basis of his silver tongue and quick wit.

Your later posts appear to be a bit confused. You've wandered into an opinion column.

BB

Posted by: FairlingtonBlade | February 1, 2011 7:36 PM | Report abuse

QB

It's worse than 100% accurate information - Fox used actual quotes from Obama himself !


OH that is so unfair, slanted BIASED,


How in the world could Fox be allowed to do that?


.

Posted by: RainForestRising | February 1, 2011 7:37 PM | Report abuse

Easy, RFR. You do realize that the more clicks you give Greg, the more likely the Post is to keep him, right?

BB

Posted by: FairlingtonBlade | February 1, 2011 7:39 PM | Report abuse

Greg Sargent

YOU are attempting to SMEAR Bill Sammon and Fox News

Here is the quote you should have used:


October 27, 2008, Sammon sent an email to colleagues highlighting what he described as "Obama's references to socialism, liberalism, Marxism and Marxists" in his 1995 autobiography Dreams From My Father. Shortly after sending the email, Sammon -- then the network's Washington deputy managing editor -- appeared on two Fox News programs to discuss his research and also wrote a FoxNews.com piece about Obama's "affinity to Marxists" that was disseminated throughout the conservative blogosphere.


____________________________


Greg, with people like you on the liberal side, liberalism will end up on the ASHHEAP OF HISTORY a whole lot faster.


.

Posted by: RainForestRising | February 1, 2011 7:41 PM | Report abuse

Worth repeating:
----------------

brigade -- "The trouble with democrats is they think money just falls from the sky. Republicans realize that money spent by the government comes off the backs of hard-working Americans." --Bob Dole

Posted by: ducksgirl | February 1, 2011 6:49 PM

Posted by: Brigade | February 1, 2011 7:42 PM | Report abuse


Authoritarian governments contain the seeds of their own destruction. So do democracies. Discuss.

Posted by: trey | February 1, 2011 7:43 PM | Report abuse

It is not a tax. We would not have come to this dilemma if it were a tax.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | February 1, 2011
===========================================

See. Only one sentence was needed to take down an entire Adam Serwer screed. As I said the other day, sometimes less is more.

Posted by: Brigade | February 1, 2011 7:45 PM | Report abuse

Fairlington

Does that mean that they will fire cillizza because he killed his own blog?


I don't think so.

Posted by: RainForestRising | February 1, 2011 7:45 PM | Report abuse

Also worth repeating:

Some people are born on third base and go through life thinking they hit a triple.

Barry Switzer

BB

Posted by: FairlingtonBlade | February 1, 2011 7:47 PM | Report abuse

Fairlington

Does that mean that they will fire cillizza because he killed his own blog?


I don't think so.

Posted by: RainForestRising | February 1, 2011 7:47 PM | Report abuse

Jennifer Rubin writes, the first two paragraphs from another article in the Post


Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) on Tuesday introduced a measure aimed at repealing the national health-care overhaul as an amendment to the first Senate bill of the new Congress.

McConnell proposed the repeal measure as an amendment to a Federal Aviation Administration funding bill. The move came one day after a federal judge in Florida ruled that Congress had overstepped its authority by mandating insurance for nearly all Americans. A vote could come as early as Wednesday, according to a Senate Democratic leadership aide.

According to my favorite Senate rule maven (hereinafter, "Rule Maven"), the amendment will prompt the Democrats to raise a point of order -- claiming, in effect, that "repealing a multi-trillion, multi-bureaucratic expansion of the government will add to the deficit." So, Rule Maven says, Republicans will move "to waive the point of order (or 'poo,' in Senate parlance), which is a 60-vote threshold." That vote likely will happen tomorrow.

____________________________


CLEARLY - this is what Greg Sargent should be focusing on -


Instead of some stupid "nuance" about something that everyone KNOWS he is wrong about.


.

Posted by: RainForestRising | February 1, 2011 7:50 PM | Report abuse

@RFR - It depends upon if you're interested in arguing about politics, in which case you've got the regular comments section.

The content of the Fix is still great. They just killed the comments section. If you look at his weekly chat, that's as lively as ever. I was happy about the new comments section initially, but it suffered from several serious problems. The worst two of these were the twits, which just filled up the space, and the fact that you have to keep clicking more. Even mibrooks gave up when he realized no one was listening anymore.

Incidentally, what's your take on Obama's uptick in popularity? I figure this will be mostly a time of consolidation, picking bipartisan themes and hoping for the economy to pick up. If it's a double dip, he's doubly done. If the economy returns to sustained growth, he's all but unbeatable.

BB

Posted by: FairlingtonBlade | February 1, 2011 7:53 PM | Report abuse

From his statement just now, Obama to Mubarak: "Change begins now."

Posted by: suekzoo1 | February 1, 2011 6:50 PM
=======================================

What a profound statement delivered, of course, AFTER Mubarak announces he's going to step aside. Whatever Barry proposes, you can bet it won't amount to anything more than he and Hillary beating their gums together. Maybe they'll break out the snuggle bunny if things don't work out. More likely they'll say things went just as planned, unless of course things are really bad---then it will be Bush's fault or maybe Reagan's.

Posted by: Brigade | February 1, 2011 7:53 PM | Report abuse

What saved Bill Clinton in 96 is that health care was off the table in 94. For Obama, this is dragging on.

Seriously folks, Obama would be wise to sign the repeal and get it behind him


Otherwise, Obama is set for "death by a thousand cuts" - health care will never get out of the papers over the next two years, and it will drag down Obama's re-election efforts.


HA


Obama did this to himself - it is really hilarious.


.

Posted by: RainForestRising | February 1, 2011 7:57 PM | Report abuse

Fairlington:
"Yeah. Michael Reagan got a radio talk show on the basis of his silver tongue and quick wit."
========================================

Absent those and a brain, he could have gotten a television talk show on MSNBC.

Posted by: Brigade | February 1, 2011 7:58 PM | Report abuse

Your contention that Shuster does not lie intentionally or obfuscate facts is very debatable!

Posted by: sbj3 | February 1, 2011
======================================

I wonder what he'll have to say about Hillary Clinton pimping out Chelsea.

Posted by: Brigade | February 1, 2011 7:59 PM | Report abuse

the legal expert I spoke to yesterday said, Kennedy might be more likely to rule
against the law if it's deemed to be a big mess that needs to be "put out of its misery"

Posted by: Greg Sargent | February 1, 2011
========================================

You're probably screwed then, because that's exactly what it is.

Posted by: Brigade | February 1, 2011 8:01 PM | Report abuse

That's about your usual standard Brigade. Well, I could be proved wrong. One can get lower than a snake's belly.

And with that, I'll bid you all adieu for awhile. Got some photoinduced absorption to write about.

BB

Posted by: FairlingtonBlade | February 1, 2011 8:01 PM | Report abuse

I don't know who "atrios" is but that's a pretty idiotic posting. Kudos to B. Bush for supporting marriage equality.

Posted by: wswest | February 1, 2011 8:12 PM | Report abuse

"Takedown of the day: Jack Balkin deftly skewers that South Dakota lawmaker's "parody" proposal to require everyone to buy a gun. Just brutal, particularly the stuff about the 1792 militia act mandating the purchase of guns and ammo"

The Militia Act didn't concern Commerce Clause power. Hence, completely irrelevant. How's that for brutal?

Whenever Greg says some liberal has "skewered" something, it can be reliably predicted that some liberal has merely skewered his own foot.

Posted by: quarterback1 | February 1, 2011 8:13 PM | Report abuse

Charlotte is a pretty good choice for the Dems' convention. The GOP, OTOH, is so confident that climate change isn't happening and doesn't affect weather if it is that they will stage their convention on the 7th anniversary of Katrina at a city on the Gulf Coast (Tampa) in a year that is predicted to see more record high temperatures.

Posted by: Mimikatz | February 1, 2011 7:15 PM
=========================================

I well remember the climate change experts telling us that beginning with Katrina we would see yearly increases in the number and severity of hurricanes hitting our southern shores---I think Harry Belafonte (or someone) even blamed it on Bush. It didn't happen, so I'm sure the old studies have by now mysteriously disappeared and been replaced with new ones which actually predict a decrease in number and severity
of storms as part of some grander scheme.

Posted by: Brigade | February 1, 2011 8:14 PM | Report abuse

Abortion isn't murder. It's a completely legal medical procedure. I don't feel a clump of cells is an ensouled human being.

Posted by: kindness1 | February 1, 2011

========================================

We're getting close to a compromise. Maybe we can now agree that abortion is only murder once the fetus has developed to a stage where it is no longer just a small clump of cells. Ultrasounds can tell the story.

Posted by: Brigade | February 1, 2011 8:18 PM | Report abuse

Kennedy needed no such cover, when he voted to hand the future of the nation over to Anonymous Plutocrats.
I don't think that the gang of five right wing judicial activists give a damn what the public thinks.

Posted by: Liam-still | February 1, 2011
========================================

They aren't running for office; why would they care what some dimwit like you thinks?
The legality of gay marriages in some states isn't dependent on "what the public thinks" but rather on how courts have ruled.

Try to keep up.

Posted by: Brigade | February 1, 2011 8:19 PM | Report abuse

Kinda naive to think that the Justices of the Supreme Court are not guided by ideology and subject to influence by their constituencies dontcha think?

Who needs to keep up?

Posted by: pragmaticagain | February 1, 2011 8:30 PM | Report abuse

We're getting close to a compromise. Maybe we can now agree that abortion is only murder once the fetus has developed to a stage where it is no longer just a small clump of cells. Ultrasounds can tell the story.


Posted by: Brigade
+++++++++++++

So what do you think is the appropriate punishment for a pregnant woman who intentionally "murders" her unborn child? Life in prison, or death?

Posted by: bearclaw1 | February 1, 2011 8:31 PM | Report abuse

"What's the originalist case against laws signed by George Washington?"

Interesting question. We could discuss that just as soon as you find one that mandated that citizens buy something under the Commerce Clause.

But the militia acts were enacted under the militia clauses (those are also in Art. I Sec. 8, if you care to read them).

The trio of Adam, Greg and Ezra seems to be doing all it can to make the public dumber about the Constitution on a daily basis.

Posted by: quarterback1 | February 1, 2011 8:33 PM | Report abuse

Bernie, can you give us your thoughts on whether or not this is a case of so called "rightwing violence?". Thanks in advance.

http://biggovernment.com/cjohnson/2011/01/30/have-the-chickens-come-home-to-roost/#more-221964

Posted by: TrollMcWingnut | February 1, 2011 8:44 PM | Report abuse

So what do you think is the appropriate punishment for a pregnant woman who intentionally "murders" her unborn child? Life in prison, or death?

Posted by: bearclaw1 | February 1, 2011 8:31 PM
=======================================

Punishments can be worked out as the process becomes illegal. It's the people who perform the abortions who likely would be the first target of law enforcement. Thanks for asking.

Posted by: Brigade | February 1, 2011 8:54 PM | Report abuse

Jeepers quarterback1, you are so smart! Is there anything you don't know like perfect? Golly how come you aren't President or something instead of just some anonymous troll agreeing with folks like brigade and that RFR guy on this little old website? Those guys really like you and you say all the right stuff they believe... maybe you should get a TV show like Glenn Beck or that Hannity guy. They're not nearly as smart as you.

Posted by: pragmaticagain | February 1, 2011 8:55 PM | Report abuse

Punishments can be worked out as the process becomes illegal. It's the people who perform the abortions who likely would be the first target of law enforcement. Thanks for asking.

Posted by: Brigade
++++++++++++++

B.S. I'm asking what YOU support. And as for the "punish the doctor" line, what would you say if a mother paid a gunman $500 to shoot her pesky 5 year old son? Punish the gunman, but not the mother?

If abortion is murder, how is it any different with respect to a mother who pays a doctor $500?

At least have a shred of courage to admit where "abortion is murder" leads in terms of punishment.

Thanks for playing the "chickensh*t conservative" game.

Posted by: bearclaw1 | February 1, 2011 8:59 PM | Report abuse

pragmaticagain:

"Kinda naive to think that the Justices of the Supreme Court are not guided by ideology"

Which may be why I didn't say or imply otherwise.

"and subject to influence by their constituencies dontcha think?"

What constituencies?

"Who needs to keep up?"

You do, evidently.

Posted by: Brigade | February 1, 2011 9:03 PM | Report abuse

"Jeepers quarterback1, you are so smart! Is there anything you don't know like perfect?"

You are easily impressed. The fallacy in the militia act argument is pretty obvious. Knocking down Greg's and Adam's legal confusions is simple stuff. They rely on people's (your) ignorance.

Posted by: quarterback1 | February 1, 2011 9:12 PM | Report abuse

GOLLY, that quarterback1 guy and you mr. brigade ... you're both way smarter than almost anybody. Maybe you and him should get a tv show together or something ... like sonny and cher ... don't why why you waste all your smarts and stuff trollin on this dumb place with all us dumb folks. That was so cool how you schooled me and stuff.

Posted by: pragmaticagain | February 1, 2011 9:13 PM | Report abuse

Punishments can be worked out as the process becomes illegal. It's the people who perform the abortions who likely would be the first target of law enforcement. Thanks for asking.

Posted by: Brigade
++++++++++++++

B.S. I'm asking what YOU support. And as for the "punish the doctor" line, what would you say if a mother paid a gunman $500 to shoot her pesky 5 year old son? Punish the gunman, but not the mother?

If abortion is murder, how is it any different with respect to a mother who pays a doctor $500?

At least have a shred of courage to admit where "abortion is murder" leads in terms of punishment.

Thanks for playing the "chickensh*t conservative" game.

Posted by: bearclaw1 | February 1, 2011 8:59 PM
=======================================

Read my post again. "First target" does not mean "only target". If abortion beyond a certain stage of pregnancy becomes ONCE MORE illegal, then obviously someone who obtains an abortion would be breaking the law and subject to whatever punishment the law required.

If you were serious, I might ask you the difference, other than legality, between killing a 5 year old and killing an 8 month old. The abortionist recently arrested in Philadelphia obviously thought there was a difference.

What would I support? How about 3 years in prison for the person receiving the abortion and 15 years in prison for the abortionist? Sort of like manslaughter. Gives us somewhere to start.

Don't bother with a snarky response. You've already demonstrated that you're an idiot.

Posted by: Brigade | February 1, 2011 9:15 PM | Report abuse

Authoritarian governments contain the seeds of their own destruction. So do democracies. Discuss.

==

Once the citizens of a democracy figure they can vote to not pay taxes even for necessities or that they can vote to get their hands on the treasury, it's over.

I think both these formulations are obsolete in the age of neurolinguistic programming. In the USA we have a powerful "conservative" movement whose members believe and advocate passionately against their own self-interest, and without access to accurate information and the ability to candidly appraise where one's self-interest lies, it all breaks down.

Posted by: caothien9 | February 1, 2011 9:19 PM | Report abuse

But jeepers mr quarterback1, we're just so lucky that such an important and smart person as you and mr. brigade and mr. rfr would take such time to teach us all this stuff. I woulda thought a person as smart and important as you would have way more important stuff to do than troll around with us dumb peons.

Posted by: pragmaticagain | February 1, 2011 9:20 PM | Report abuse

GOLLY, that quarterback1 guy and you mr. brigade ... you're both way smarter than almost anybody. . . That was so cool how you schooled me and stuff.

Posted by: pragmaticagain | February 1, 2011 9:13 PM
========================================

Thank you. Good to know you appreciate it.

Posted by: Brigade | February 1, 2011 9:24 PM | Report abuse

Oh boy, the commie's here. Time to move on.

Posted by: Brigade | February 1, 2011 9:27 PM | Report abuse

Make abortion illegal again and women will still get abortions, the only difference is that a lot more of them will die in the process. And of course that's perfectly fine with these utterly rotten subhumans on here.

back room procedures with coat hangers. Throwing themselves down stairs. Clorox d0uches. A woman who doesn't want a child will find a way to get rid of it just like a bear will gnaw off its own foot to get out of a trap.

Anyone who thinks abortion is tantamount to murder is scientifically illiterate.

Posted by: caothien9 | February 1, 2011 9:29 PM | Report abuse

Re the Debbie Wasserman Schulz story and some of the followup on the blog.

Once again when the topic is abortion all the smug self assured religious folks jump on the bandwagon to assure those on the left that abortion is murder. Sometimes they even post preposterous stuff like...

"A fertilized human egg is a human life. That is simply a scientific fact."

No it is not simply scientific fact! Just because Evangelicals believe God tells them something doesn't make it "simple science". There is really nothing simple about when "human" life begins and in fact there is a very, strong case, just as strong as the "human" life begins at conception" argument that "human" life doesn't begin until much later. The question of when a human life begins is a profoundly intricate one. For those whose minds are open enough to deal with the other side honestly please read....this link examines ALL sides of the argument and doesn't just rely on simple religious dogma but in fact also does look at logic and science.

http://8e.devbio.com/article.php?id=162

Neurological view:

"Although most cultures identify the qualities of humanity as different from other living organisms, there is also a universal view that all forms of life on earth are finite. Implicit in the later view is the reality that all life has both a beginning and an end, usually identified as some form of death. The debate surrounding the exact moment marking the beginning of a human life contrasts the certainty and consistency with which the instant of death is described. Contemporary American (and Japanese) society defines death as the loss of the pattern produced by a cerebral electroencephalogram (EEG). If life and death are based upon the same standard of measurement, then the beginning of human life should be recognized as the time when a fetus acquires a recognizable EEG pattern. This acquisition occurs approximately 24- 27 weeks after the conception of the fetus and is the basis for the neurological view of the beginning of human life. "

In other words logically speaking it makes no sense to define "human life" one way at the end of life but a totally different way at the beginning of life. Sp&rm and Eggs are both living organisms. Does anyone contend that mast&rbation is murder? Perhaps that noted scientific wiz Christine O'Donnell.

Sp&rm, depending on environmental conditions, can survive 5 days without ever implanting an egg...then they die...of course when they combine with the egg they form a different life form called a zygote...but again that's not the same as "human life", at least logically. Zygotes fare no better outside the womb than sp&rm which generally dies between minutes and hours of ejaculation if not ensconced in the safe warm environment of the womb.

Calling a zygote human life makes no more logical sense than calling sp&rm, or ovum a human life.

Posted by: rukidding7 | February 1, 2011 9:30 PM | Report abuse

One correction to the 9:15 response: an "unborn" 8 month old. The Philadelphia doctor learned the hard way that killing the baby before extraction is acceptable but killing the baby after extraction is unacceptable. The law regards one as a medical procedure and the other as murder. Morally, I don't see much difference.

Posted by: Brigade | February 1, 2011 9:32 PM | Report abuse

Yeah cuz gosh mr. brigade I should have known that those federal judges aren't politicians or anything. They can't possibly have any constituencies that they would go give speeches to or anything. I bet they don't even hang out with the politicians and give them any lessons on the constitution or anything like that.

So, yeah, thanks again for spending all your important time being important and smart and stuff trollin with a bunch of folks that really need all your learning and brains to teach us all this stuff we wouldn't know about without you trolling with us and ... you know .. teaching us.

Do you and mr. quarterback1 and mr. rfr have a book or something that you wrote where we can learn all this great stuff you teach us so you can use all your smarts and importance on stuff more smart and important than trollin here with us?

Posted by: pragmaticagain | February 1, 2011 9:33 PM | Report abuse

BTW Religious nuts...there IS a difference between simple science and science for simple people.

Posted by: rukidding7 | February 1, 2011 9:35 PM | Report abuse

"But jeepers mr quarterback1, we're just so lucky that such an important and smart person as you and mr. brigade and mr. rfr would take such time to teach us all this stuff. I woulda thought a person as smart and important as you would have way more important stuff to do than troll around with us dumb peons."

I try to make time for the little people. But truthfully it's mainly just amusement for me.

Posted by: quarterback1 | February 1, 2011 9:36 PM | Report abuse

caothien9:
"Make abortion illegal again and women will still get abortions, the only difference is that a lot more of them will die in the process."
======================================

I doubt it. Not when you consider that half of aborted children are female. More of them will have a chance at life. Anyone who would throw herself down the stairs or use a coathanger would probably murder the child after it was born anyway.
Pity cao's mother didn't exercise her consitutional right.

Posted by: Brigade | February 1, 2011 9:37 PM | Report abuse

See... there you go mr. brigade ... that's just so smart and funny ... cao's mother ... I get it ... murder for everybody else but ... not cao's mother ... I get it ... you don't like him so abortion woulda been ok for his mom ... that so funny and smart.

We're so lucky you're here.

Posted by: pragmaticagain | February 1, 2011 9:43 PM | Report abuse

Read the following RUK:

My original post spoke of compromise. Not gibberish about clumps of cells and what happens at conception, but the lives of unborn children whom some people feel more comfortable calling fetuses.

=======================================

abortionfacts.com:

"Testimony of abortion survivor Gianna Jessen before the Constitution Subcommittee of the House Judiciary Committee on April 22, 1996.

"My name is Gianna Jessen. I am 19 years of age. I am originally from California, but now reside in Franklin, Tennessee. I am adopted. I have cerebral palsy. My biological mother was 17 years old and seven and one-half months pregnant when she made the decision to have a saline abortion. I am the person she aborted. I lived instead of died.

"Fortunately for me the abortionist was not in the clinic when I arrived alive, instead of dead, at 6:00 a.m. on the morning of April 6, 1977. I was early, my death was not expected to be seen until about 9 a.m., when he would probably be arriving for his office hours. I am sure I would not be here today if the abortionist would have been in the clinic as his job is to take life, not sustain it. Some have said I am a "botched abortion", a result of a job not well done.

"There were many witnesses to my entry into this world. My biological mother and other young girls in the clinic, who also awaited the death of their babies, were the first to greet me. I am told this was a hysterical moment. Next was a staff nurse who apparently called emergency medical services and had me transferred to a hospital.

"I remained in the hospital for almost three months. There was not much hope for me in the beginning. I weighed only two pounds. Today, babies smaller than I was have survived.

"A doctor once said I had a great will to live and that I fought for my life. I eventually was able to leave the hospital and be placed in foster care. I was diagnosed with cerebral palsy as a result of the abortion."

prolife.com:

"Pictured here are Sarah Smith and her mother Betty. In 1970, Betty tried to abort Sarah in Los Angeles. At the time, Betty did not know she was pregnant with twins. One baby was aborted, but miraculously, Sarah survived. Sarah has forgiven her mother -- and for five years they traveled the world speaking together about the pain and suffering caused by abortion. Below is Sarah's story, followed by the speech she gave in Rome in 1996."

. . .

==========================================

Save the nonsense for functioning illiterates like caothein9.

Posted by: Brigade | February 1, 2011 9:48 PM | Report abuse

@Brigade....

"Pity cao's mother didn't exercise her consitutional right."

I see you're still staying as classy as ever, and such a proud display of intellectual prowess. We're all pretty bedazzled. :-)

Posted by: rukidding7 | February 1, 2011 9:49 PM | Report abuse

prag:
"Yeah cuz gosh mr. brigade I should have known that those federal judges aren't politicians or anything. They can't possibly have any constituencies that they would go give speeches to or anything. I bet they don't even hang out with the politicians and give them any lessons on the constitution or anything like that."
=======================================

con·stit·u·en·cy   /kənˈstɪtʃuənsi/
[kuhn-stich-oo-uhn-see]

–noun, plural -cies.
1. a body of constituents; the voters or residents in a district represented by an elective officer.
2. the district itself.
3. any body of supporters, customers, etc.; clientele.

------

Since some of you liberals seem to have your own language, I thought I'd help you out. But keep it up; someone may yet drop by that thinks you know what you're talking about.

Oh, and don't bother to thank me. I could have been a teacher, if only they got better paid.

Posted by: Brigade | February 1, 2011 9:54 PM | Report abuse

@Brigade....

"Pity cao's mother didn't exercise her consitutional right."

I see you're still staying as classy as ever, and such a proud display of intellectual prowess. We're all pretty bedazzled. :-)

Posted by: rukidding7 | February 1, 2011 9:49 PM
========================================

I always like to leave you a way out. Some little thing you can grab onto when you don't have a reasonable response to the issue at hand. You don't have to become cao's protector; he can take care of himself. His comments about other posters have gotten him banned many times.
But I notice you never seem to see any of his remarks about gassing or killing people. Nothing like lack of principle.

Posted by: Brigade | February 1, 2011 10:00 PM | Report abuse

I'm out. Welcome to the echo chamber. Play nice. Don't talk about me when I gone.

Posted by: Brigade | February 1, 2011 10:03 PM | Report abuse

Wasn't the first and won't be the last time that MSNBC misreports satire as fact.

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/258605/maddow-uses-satirical-piece-source-katrina-trinko

Next they'll be putting the Panama Canal in Egypt.

Posted by: quarterback1 | February 1, 2011 10:04 PM | Report abuse

@Brigade

You're really starting to embarrass yourself dude and I hate that for a fellow vet.

The 3rd definition for constituency that you just listed describes EXACTLY what pramatic was talking about.

For review...

3. any body of supporters, customers, etc.; clientele.

Do you suppose the Koch brothers support Scalia/Thomas/Alito Since all their meetings are held in secret it's actually impossible to know who is calling what shots. Do you suppose the Koch brothers, or George Soros if you wish to be bi-partisan, have enough power to actually influence a nomination to the Supreme Court? Influence the confirmation hearings? If you answered no to any of those hypotheticals I have some stock in the Sunshine Skyway Bridge and I can offer you a terrific deal. :-)

Posted by: rukidding7 | February 1, 2011 10:05 PM | Report abuse

"Next they'll be putting the Panama Canal in Egypt."

You mean like Faux News did when they literally place Egypt in Saudi Arabia on their map.

Posted by: rukidding7 | February 1, 2011 10:07 PM | Report abuse

Yeehaa Battle of NHL Conference leaders..

Tampa Bay Lightning 4
Philadelphia Flyers 0

Posted by: rukidding7 | February 1, 2011 10:11 PM | Report abuse

A constituency is any cohesive body of people bound by shared identity, goals, or loyalty. Constituency can be used to describe a business's customer base and shareholders, or a charity's donors or those it serves. In politics, a constituency can mean either the people from whom an individual or organization hopes to attract support, or geographical area that a particular elected official represents.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constituency

But gosh mr. brigade ... I woulda thunk a guy as smart and important and you would know to read the whole definition and maybe, you know, use all them smarts to understand and stuff.

But still mr. brigade, if it wasn't for all you smart people like you and and mr. rfr and mr. quarterback1 wasting all your important time teaching us for not nearly as much as teachers get paid (you don't get paid for trolling here do you mr. brigade), how would all us dumb people ever learn anything or get all you're really really smart jokes like that one about cao's mother.

That was a good one mr. brigade. Her constitutional rights ... I'm still laughing at that one. So darn funny!

Posted by: pragmaticagain | February 1, 2011 10:12 PM | Report abuse

"You mean like Faux News did when they literally place Egypt in Saudi Arabia on their map."

No, actually I meant like Chris Matthews' saying that the Panama Canal is in Egypt.

Posted by: quarterback1 | February 1, 2011 10:14 PM | Report abuse

""I'm out. Welcome to the echo chamber. Play nice. Don't talk about me when I gone.""

Judging by the post count, it looks like a Brigade/Rain Man echo chamber.

From C&L, they got their health insurance today. Whooppeeee

""Beginning today, a new Republican Member of Congress with high blood pressure, diabetes, or any chronic condition is immediately covered at the same premium cost as 8 million other federal employees. The same is true for his or her spouse and dependent children, regardless of age, gender or prior illness.

So, no pre-existing conditions, no rate hikes, and best of all, the government pays about $700/month for each enrollee. Isn't that nice of them? Let it sink in: Taxpayers are paying $700 per month for Congressmen like Darrell Issa, and Virginia Foxx to have access to quality health care while they go about the business of repealing it through the courts and Congress for the rest of us.

In the this-is-no-surprise category, we have current polls which say a majority of Americans think those who seek to repeal the Affordable Care Act should decline their own government-subsidized health insurance.

Most Americans think incoming Congressmen who campaigned against the health care bill should put their money where their mouth is and decline government provided health care now that they're in office. Only 33% think they should accept the health care they get for being a member of Congress while 53% think they should decline it and 15% have no opinion.""

Posted by: lmsinca | February 1, 2011 10:19 PM | Report abuse

OMG mr. quarterback! More learning from you. So cool! Now you're teaching us about Chris Matthews and how dumb he is. See! I told you you should have you're own TV show. You and mr. brigade ... the new Sonny and Cher ... teaching us all about how Chris Matthews really thinks the Panama Canal is in Egypt.

Another really good one! You are so entertaining and smart and ... gosh ... you just know everything and never get anything wrong ... not like that Chris Matthews ... saying Panama Canal ... how dumb is he?

Posted by: pragmaticagain | February 1, 2011 10:22 PM | Report abuse

ruk:

I left you a post on the morning plum, but since you've carried part of it forward:

""Calling a zygote human life makes no more logical sense than calling sp&rm, or ovum a human life. "

Is that so? Well perhaps you could answer a couple of questions.

1) Is it the consensus of biologists that a zygote is or is not a living organism?

2) Is the zygote that results from the fusion of a human egg and a human sperm a human zygote? If not, what kind of zygote is it? A canine zygote? A feline zygote? Or some other classification zygote?

3) Does a flower show an cerebral EEG pattern? If not, does that mean it does not have life?

Posted by: ScottC3 | February 1, 2011 10:27 PM | Report abuse

"3) Does a flower show an cerebral EEG pattern? If not, does that mean it does not have life?"

Yes, when he made that statement, he was clearly referring to ALL living organisms. Not human beings.

You know damn well what he meant. Why the dishonesty?

Posted by: DDAWD | February 1, 2011 10:36 PM | Report abuse

Who Knew?

""Isobel Coleman, a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, is hesitant to generalize too broadly about the economic challenges in Arab countries. Not all of their challenges are the same, she says. But she agrees with El-Erian that growth rates have been very respectable in Egypt recently — around 6 percent a year. The problem, she says, is that most Egyptians live on about $2 a day and they aren't benefiting from the country's growth.

"Its economic gains have really been concentrated among the wealthy elite — and you've just not seen the trickle-down that people are looking for," she says.""

Posted by: lmsinca | February 1, 2011 10:37 PM | Report abuse

Can/should the US do anything about this?


An activist for Egyptian democracy uses Facebook to respond to Mubarak:

What has Mubarak left out in his speech:

1. Emergency law is still effective, which means oppression, brutality, arrests, and torture will continue. How can you have any hope for fair democratic elections under emergency law where the police have absolute power?

2. Internet is still not working, no talks of lifting censorship.

3. No talks of allowing freedom of speech, freedom to create political parties, freedom to participate in politics without the risk of getting arrested. FYI to start a political party you need the government's permission. How do you expect democracy to come out of this?

4. He said he will put anyone responsible for corruption to trial right? What about putting the police who killed 300+ to trial? What about members of NDP who are the most corrupt businessmen/politicians in the country. Do you think he'll put those to trial? Think again.

5. He didn't even take responsibility for anything that went wrong in the last 30 years. Not even his condolences to the martyrs who have fallen in this revolution.

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2011/02/the-wisdom-of-the-crowd.html

Posted by: pragmaticagain | February 1, 2011 10:40 PM | Report abuse

Are you saying, Scott, that a fetus prior to it's first brain wave is the equivalent of a flower or that having cut flowers in your home is tantamount to murder? Or maybe it's that women should not be allowed to decide whether they want to have plants in their home?

Posted by: pragmaticagain | February 1, 2011 10:46 PM | Report abuse

The Muslim Brotherhood is making its move in the Middle East......


Al Queda has NUCLEAR DIRTY BOMBS......


And all the liberals want to do is screw around talking about irrelevant topics....


.

Interesting.......


.

Posted by: RainForestRising | February 1, 2011 10:53 PM | Report abuse

Is there anyway the liberals can be more RESPONSIBLE with their country?


Forcing Obama on the country - just to lash out their anger on account of the Florida recount and Bush, and Iraq - that is just SILLY AND CHILDISH.


However, millions of adults have apparently bought into this SILLY AND CHILDISH attitude.

.

Posted by: RainForestRising | February 1, 2011 11:04 PM | Report abuse

The problem, she says, is that most Egyptians live on about $2 a day and they aren't benefiting from the country's growth.

"Its economic gains have really been concentrated among the wealthy elite — and you've just not seen the trickle-down that people are looking for," she says."
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Amazing how trickle down economics doesn't work in Egypt any better than it works here.

Posted by: 12BarBluesAgain | February 1, 2011 11:04 PM | Report abuse

So if Obama supports marching in the streets to get rid of Mubarak -

THEN can the American People march to demand that Obama leave office???


That works, LET'S DO IT !!!

.

Posted by: RainForestRising | February 1, 2011 11:08 PM | Report abuse

12Bar

And some people tell us not to worry our pretty little heads about wealth disparity.

Posted by: lmsinca | February 1, 2011 11:11 PM | Report abuse

Funny how the democrats want democracy in OTHER countries but in this country


Once the liberals are in power, they do not want to follow procedures...


Gay groups want to push their agenda in place without votes, or public knowledge of what they are doing.....


Obama wants the UNDEMOCRATIC RECONCILIATION...


Whenever the liberals want to bypass the AMERICAN PEOPLE, they do.....


The liberals want a DICTATORSHIP here....

Give us a break, that you actually CARE about democracy in Egypt - ACT like that HERE IN THE UNITED STATES.


Liberals are such hypocrites...


.

Posted by: RainForestRising | February 1, 2011 11:13 PM | Report abuse

And some people tell us not to worry our pretty little heads about wealth disparity.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'll bet none of those people are Egyptian. They've learned the hard way that when it doesn't trickle down the people blow a gasket. Too bad we're not as smart as the Egyptians. We just keep believing one of two stories: 1) the bankers are worth every bit of that $100 million a year they make or 2) trickle down is going to start any minute now.

Posted by: 12BarBluesAgain | February 1, 2011 11:17 PM | Report abuse

A BIG DEAL was made today about Wisconsin - and perhaps the liberals were saying that they should be implementing a law which they believe to be unConstitutional -

AND a law which has been struck down by the Courts.


______________________

Well, what do you EXPECT?


EVERYONE TOLD THE LIBERALS THAT THE BILL WAS UNCONSTITUTIONAL


The liberals and Obama REFUSED to negotiate the differences with the Republicans.


THAT WAS ARROGANCE THAT NOW IS DESTROYING THE HEALTH CARE BILL

Arrogance, arrogance which DRIPS from Greg Sargent's attitude as well.


That is the TRUTH -


And it is about time the liberals start to take a long look at themselves - and they UNDERSTAND WHY THEY ARE GETTING VOTED OUT. THIS ELECTION WAS JUST THE BEGINNING. MORE LIBERALS ARE OUT.


.

Posted by: RainForestRising | February 1, 2011 11:22 PM | Report abuse

Scott

The question is whether the liberals are human

1) they have no sense of self-awareness

2) they are unable to understand budgets

3) they are unable to restrain their spending - an essential element of continuing to live

4) they lack the ability to think ahead

5) they are more irresponsible than some species of monkeys.


Conclusion: Liberals are not humans


Case closed.


.

Posted by: RainForestRising | February 1, 2011 11:31 PM | Report abuse

OBAMA IS TALKING WITH THE MUSLIM BROTHERHOOD


You have no reason to trust Obama isn't implementing his "Muslim Agenda"


Another "Bait and Switch."


Report:


The Egyptian government has information a diplomat at the U.S. embassy in Cairo secretly met yesterday with a senior leader of the Muslim Brotherhood, the nation's major Islamist opposition group.

The topic of the meeting was the future of Egypt following the "fall" of President Hosni Mubarak, an Egyptian intelligence official says.

Posted by: RainForestRising | February 1, 2011 11:34 PM | Report abuse

Imsinca

Your thinking is flawed


When people get jobs, they get health care.


so the Republicans in Congress got a job, they get health care.


You are trying to distinquish - saying that it is government-health care -


But they are getting the health care as a result of their job.

_________________

This is the problem with the liberals - they twist things around to a point where it makes no sense to talk to them.

RIGHT NOW OBAMA'S HEALTH CARE BILL IS VOID

Never should have done that stupid Reconciliation - it was the POISON APPLE.


.

Posted by: RainForestRising | February 1, 2011 11:39 PM | Report abuse

"Are you saying, Scott, that a fetus prior to it's first brain wave is the equivalent of a flower or that having cut flowers in your home is tantamount to murder? Or maybe it's that women should not be allowed to decide whether they want to have plants in their home? "

Well, Scott certainly won't be back until this topic is buried,

But like, these people want to be considered an intellectually equal party with ideas that deserve equal standing with non-Conservative ideas. But it's really hard to reach that status if half the discussion with them is on their dishonesties. Sure, ideologues who fetishize being bipartisan may do so, but non-ideologues won't.

Posted by: DDAWD | February 2, 2011 12:12 AM | Report abuse

Pragmatic:

""Are you saying, Scott...""

Nope. I am simply saying that, manifestly, the existence if life is not dependent upon the existence of brainwaves. Therefore, to declare that human life depends upon the existence of brainwaves is simply to beg the question. Why is it that a human organism needs brainwaves to be a human life? Because you (or someone) says so, that's why. There is no thought or logic behind it. It is "true" only by definition.

If the product of human reproduction is not, in fact, another human, what is it? A dog? A cat?

Posted by: ScottC3 | February 2, 2011 12:15 AM | Report abuse

"There is no thought or logic behind it."

hahahaha, yeah. It was just a vital sign chosen at random. I think it was narrowed down to flatlining or tachycardia. I'm glad they chose flatlining. I'd hate to think I'd be buried the next time I went out for a jog.

Posted by: DDAWD | February 2, 2011 12:32 AM | Report abuse

Hey fetus-warriors. Try this one on for size.

About 70% of fertiized embryos fail to implant in the enodemtrium wall and are menstruated away. These aren't gametes, they're zygotes, potential humans! As far as Jake and Scot and the rest of the knuckewalkers are concerned these are lives more worthy than any child or adult.

Wjy they fail to implant is unknown; they may have unsurvivavle developmental defects, or it may just be the luck of the draw. Maybe if women were completely immobilized more of these precious lives would survive to be born as as skinless nets of internal organs without cerebrums, but hey, they're HUMAN BEINGS.

The fact that no conscious decision is made to abort them is irrelevant, they need protection.

So what are you kommandos of the unborn going to do about this?

BTW I do accept that there are so pro-lifers life 12Bar whose concern is morally consistent, but the vast majority of prolifers are morally rotten conservatves who don't care if the child starves to death a week after birth or grows up stunted by malnutrition and unemployable by virtue of being home-schooled by illterates.

Posted by: caothien9 | February 2, 2011 1:41 AM | Report abuse

If people want to waste their tme engaging with an obvious hunk of psychotherapy meat like Brigade, knock yourselves out, but I'd appreciate it if you'd refrain from quoting that warped stuff he writes.

Nice of you to drag my mother into the discussion, Brigade. That's really classy. I won't speculate about whatever the wh*re who squatted and grunted and expelled you into the pile of fish guts she was busy cleaning thought about while she caught her breath, perhaps it was an idle speculation about which of the hundreds of seven dollar clients contributed the curdled tapioca that included the other half of your genes.

Posted by: caothien9 | February 2, 2011 1:58 AM | Report abuse

If the product of human reproduction is not, in fact, another human, what is it? A dog? A cat?

==

Genetically, it's human. Is having human DNA your definition of legal protection? Well, that includes a couple trillion skin and epithelial cells you shed every day, they too bear human DNA. Are they too worthy of protection? A laboratory procedure could turn every one of them into a copy of you. Just imagine the benefit to the world of another few trillion humans every day. Why, one of them may come up with some new financial instrument.

It's tempting to believe you really are as stupid as you try to appear but experience says you're just being pointlessly argumentative for its own sake.

The hallmke of humanity isn't human DNA, you silly ass, it's human consciousness. It's our awareness of the world and our ability to think of moments other than the present one that distinguishes us from a dog or a cat, and any definition of human protection not predicated on the dawn of seff-awareness is just ill-conceived and stupid.

And since that dawning is impossible to determine safely, we err very generously at the moment of parturition, which is a perfectly fine and simple compromise.

Yeah, save the hangnails. Save the shed epidermis. Save the unimplanted zygotes.

Why don't you, you know, THINK about this stuff you post?

Posted by: caothien9 | February 2, 2011 2:08 AM | Report abuse

"not like that Chris Matthews ... saying Panama Canal ... how dumb is he?"

Pretty dumb, but apparently smarter than you.

Posted by: quarterback1 | February 2, 2011 5:38 AM | Report abuse

"Most Americans think incoming Congressmen who campaigned against the health care bill should put their money where their mouth is and decline government provided health care now that they're in office."

Rather a foolish, knee-jerk reaction, given that the gov is their employer. If they shouldn't accept subsidized insurance, they shouldn't accept their salaries, either.

Which could be a great idea. We could return to citizen legislators. Unpaid. Not wedded to careers in Congress.

Of course, that might mean that only independently wealthy people could serve. That would probably ba a vast improvement over what we have now, particularly the Dem party pim*s and who*es whose livelihood is bribing A with B's money.

Posted by: quarterback1 | February 2, 2011 5:54 AM | Report abuse

Question to Scott... have you ever, or would you ever, recommend or condone an abortion by a lover, wife, daughter, friend or even someone you have no relationship with?

Another (unrelated) question to you. Did you watch the 60 Minutes interview with Assange and what's your opinion on the Wikileaks enterprise? Parts one and two below...

http://www.cbsnews.com/sections/60minutes/main3415.shtml

It's quite impossible to have a worthwhile discussion on abortion where a certain sort of religious ideology is in place. God knows how many times I've tried. Terms are defined and differentiations asserted which beg all questions. Given that circumstance, it really becomes a matter of political activism to work to work towards protecting a woman's right to make this decision for herself.

Posted by: bernielatham | February 2, 2011 6:25 AM | Report abuse

Good to see the phone hacking scandal by the Brit Murdoch-owned tabloid getting some press over here...

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/02/world/europe/02hacking.html?hp

It looks to be getting serious for Murdoch and his business plans (a very, very good thing) over there. Best coverage in the Guardian, for those interested.

Posted by: bernielatham | February 2, 2011 6:37 AM | Report abuse

{...}
In a baby, heaven and earth touch, and the circle is yet unbroken. The child, by virtue of his im-maturity, is "an incomplete state which points toward its own completion" (Schuon). The child represents what was and is "before," that is, "what is simple, pure, innocent, primordial, and close to the Essence, and this is what its beauty expresses; this beauty has all the charm of promise, of hope and of blossoming, at the same time that of a Paradise not yet lost; it combines the proximity of the Origin with the tension towards the Goal" (ibid.).

Thus, "The man who is fully mature always keeps, in equilibrium with wisdom, the qualities of simplicity and freshness, of gratitude and trust, that he possessed in the springtime of his life" (Schuon).
http://onecosmos.blogspot.com/2011/01/child-is-father-of-evolving-man.html
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Schuon vita here:
http://www.sunypress.edu/p-3995-frithjof-schuon.aspx

Posted by: tao9 | February 2, 2011 6:37 AM | Report abuse

Now here's a Baptist pastor I'd like... (see photo)

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/02/us/02storm.html?hp

Posted by: bernielatham | February 2, 2011 6:39 AM | Report abuse

Of course, that might mean that only independently wealthy people could serve. That would probably ba a vast improvement over what we have now

==

And there you have it.

Posted by: caothien9 | February 2, 2011 6:52 AM | Report abuse

@tao - That's good. I find a poetic address to the issue compelling. I find a particular moral address compelling as well - that we've come a long ways in the direction of "moral progress" in our communities and institutions (don't bother, Scott) through heaving our default over to favoring or valuing some sense of the "sacredness" of "life".

I've been lucky in never having had to confront the issue personally, either with lovers or with my daughter. But if I had (or if I might have to) it will be a decision made by the woman involved and I'll feel free to express my notions (they won't be punitive regardless of her decision). The lady's neighbors will have no determination in this matter.

Posted by: bernielatham | February 2, 2011 6:53 AM | Report abuse

"1) Is it the consensus of biologists that a zygote is or is not a living organism?

Is it the consensus of biologists that sp&rm is a living organism with a life span of minutes to hours out of the womb and five days in the womb. Is it the consensus of biologists that ovum are living organisms? So both sperm and ovum are like zygotes. Therefore following your hypothesis to logical conclusion..male mast&rbation is murder!

2) Is the zygote that results from the fusion of a human egg and a human sperm a human zygote? If not, what kind of zygote is it? A canine zygote? A feline zygote? Or some other classification zygote?

What kind of sp&rm comes from a man...is hit human sperm? Canine sp&erm? Feline sp&rm or some other classification of sperm? Again following your "logic" male mast&rbation is murder! I'm sure the ladies will get a kick out of that as all of the sudden this question is answered by not only placing the burden of abortion totally on their shoulders, it creates a new class of murderers...men who mast&rbate.

3) Does a flower show an cerebral EEG pattern? If not, does that mean it does not have life?

Ohh and you save the best for last. LMAO
No the absence of a cerebral EEG does not mean a flower does not have life...it means it doesn't have HUMAN life..you know the same as a zygote...the same as sperm...the same as ovum...the three of which..exactly like the flower..are living organisms.

Given there is a clear definition of death, the end of "human" life; why wouldn't we use that same definition for the beginning "human" life. Wouldn't it be logical and scientific to have consistent definitions? Isn't also true that those who wish to make conception the beginning of "human" life...CLEARLY it's not the beginning of life...sp&rm are alive...ovum are alive..a zygote is alive.

Then again..and I'm sure Brigade will wish to use his juvenile mind to have fun with this...knock yourself out....According to the definition of "human life" for the religious conservatives...which they conflate with simple life as in sp&rm and ovum...I must confess I'm a mass murderer.:-)


Posted by: rukidding7 | February 2, 2011 6:58 AM | Report abuse

DDAWD:

""Yeah, it was just a vital sign chosen at random""

The fact that you understand that it was "chosen" ought to tell you something. You are talking about a legal definition of brain death, while I am talking about a biological definition of life.

But let's be clear. Are you claiming that a zygote is not a living organism, but is instead a dead one? Really?

cao:

""As far as Jake and Scot...are concerned, these lives are more worthy than any child or adult.""

Wrong. Again. Shocker.

Posted by: ScottC3 | February 2, 2011 7:04 AM | Report abuse

DDAWD:

""Yeah, it was just a vital sign chosen at random""

The fact that you understand that it was "chosen" ought to tell you something. You are talking about a legal definition of brain death, while I am talking about a biological definition of life.

But let's be clear. Are you claiming that a zygote is not a living organism, but is instead a dead one? Really?

cao:

""As far as Jake and Scot...are concerned, these lives are more worthy than any child or adult.""

Wrong. Again. Shocker.

Posted by: ScottC3 | February 2, 2011 7:05 AM | Report abuse

Uh, ova and sperm are haploid, they don't have compete human DNA.

Posted by: caothien9 | February 2, 2011 7:06 AM | Report abuse

@Brigade

"But I notice you never seem to see any of his remarks about gassing or killing people. Nothing like lack of principle."

As you might, then again might not, be aware I took a three month break from the blog. It was during that time that Cao appeared.
When I returned you all were fuming about the type of comments you just suggested. I never read anything like this from Cao.

I'm not saying he didn't post it...I'm saying I didn't see it. In fact however when I first returned I found Cao to be an incredibly bright, insightful, and talented person. However he was definitely strident!!! In one of my first posts back I said as much directly to Cao.
That I appreciated his prodigious brain but that he was too strident and wasting his talent getting down in the gutter with you guys.

Now I certainly am not arrogant enough to suggest that my post resulted in a change in Cao. I am going to say however that since I've returned Cao has not really crossed the line in terms of "gassing people" or as in your case Brigade..."wishing somebody's mother would have used their constitutional right for an abortion."

Rest assured however...when I read Cao posting in such a fashion I'll respond as quickly as I can...just as I would do with you Brigade....

Because at the end of the day I do agree with your basic point...you certainly have the right to question the consistency of my principles if I react to you but not Cao.

Posted by: rukidding7 | February 2, 2011 7:07 AM | Report abuse

@Cao

But are they "living" organisms like a flower?

If your point is that a zygote does have a human DNA and therefore one could define the beginning of "human" life as the beginning of DNA then I accept your point and that at least gives our religious friends something to fall back on...but certainly doesn't explain the inconsistency between how we define the beginning of "human" life and the end of "human" life.

We in Florida are really sensitive about this since a Republican Congress deigned to interfere in a family's "personal" end of life decision. The Schiavo controversy was one of the lowest moments of the R party IMHO..especially considering the hypocrites run around screaming about getting Government our of our lives and then continually inject the Gov't into our lives in the most personal gut wrenching decisions. That kind of harkens back to Brigades point about consistency.

Posted by: rukidding7 | February 2, 2011 7:12 AM | Report abuse

B,

Schuon is quite the cat.

One foot/new on the ground; foot and a half more in the pipeline.

I may actually have my first "snow day" in 35 years!

Posted by: tao9 | February 2, 2011 7:17 AM | Report abuse

@Cao

Sorry you've already answered my question in an earlier post. When I arise in the morning I start working my way back through the thread...going backwards makes it a lot easier to scroll past rain man since I don't have troll blocker. :-)

In the future....wait in the future the Wapo will have a version of Troll Blocker and I'll be able to return where I left off. Hooray...I think...if Greg's techies ever get off their...

Posted by: rukidding7 | February 2, 2011 7:18 AM | Report abuse

I'm not saying he didn't post it...I'm saying I didn't see it.

==

I'm sure quarterback and Jake have it bookmarked and would be happy tom paste it excised from context.

(1) I noted that the Bolsheviks got rid of the financial caste and grew at a dramatic pace into a major power. The trolls decided to present this as "cao thinks we should kill the rich.". Nobody else read it that way.

(2) I wrote some easily identifiable hyperbolic exasperation, something like "these guys should be gassed." the trolls decided to play it as serious advocacy. Again, everyone else recognized a sarcastic remark.

And that's the alpha and the omega of all this phony outrage.

Thanks for the compliments. And I did take your admonition to heart.

Posted by: caothien9 | February 2, 2011 7:20 AM | Report abuse

Bernie:

""...have you ever, or would you ever, recommend or condone an abortion by a lover, wife, daughter, friend or even someone you have no relationship with?""

When I was in college a highschool friend of mine got his girlfriend pregnant. He didn't have any money, and he didn't want to go to his parents. I had a decent summer job that paid good money, so he asked me for money to pay for an abortion. I gave it to him.

My purpose in discussing this has not been to condemn anyone who has had or considered an abortion, or to minimize the moral dilemmas that sometimes, perhaps often, are attached to the decision. I am simply pointing out that to deny that there are any moral implications to the "choice", the proclamation that what is being aborted is not a human life and is no different from a hangnail or a sperm, is absurd.

Pro-choice people often speak of the painful and difficult decision that women considering an abortion face. I agree, it can be a difficult and painful decision, but that is precisely because we all know, at least at some intuitional level, that what is being done is the taking of a human life. People who cut their fingernails do not fret and ponder over whether it is the right thing to do. People who get abortions do, and for obvious reasons, despite the absurd denial of the likes of cao, DDAWD, and ruk.

Posted by: ScottC3 | February 2, 2011 7:27 AM | Report abuse

NRO decides to carry the failed attempt to deceive and smear Planned Parenthood video without reporting on the editing or asking to see the unedited version or without reporting that the PP staffs all immediately reported the interactions to authorities. As if I need more reason to despise that operation.

Posted by: bernielatham | February 2, 2011 7:28 AM | Report abuse

tao - Will you be able to get up to the hill?

Posted by: bernielatham | February 2, 2011 7:31 AM | Report abuse

"The fact that you understand that it was "chosen" ought to tell you something. You are talking about a legal definition of brain death, while I am talking about a biological definition of life."

Yeah, it tells me that a LOT of little slips of paper were tossed into the hat so that one could be chosen at random.

But if you are talking about a biological definition of life, then don't waste time talking to me. You've pretty much got to respond to all of Cao's points. Because there's a hell of a lot of death of human life going on by your own idiotic definition of sentient human life.

So if I electrophorese a bunch of PCR products on a gel, is that gel now a human? Because it sure aint a cat or a dog! hahahahaha.

Oh yeah, I took pictures of it then aborted it.

I can see why you are so against brain activity as a requirement to be considered a sentient human life. I'm guessing you don't score so well in that category.

Posted by: DDAWD | February 2, 2011 7:36 AM | Report abuse

@Scott

It's clear from your screed at the end of yesterday's morning plum that you do not consider me a friend. :-)

That's OK. It's also clear that my "stream of consciousness" posting offends you...that too is understandable..I'm sure many others feel the same way.

However if I may respectfully inject a point in this current debate. IMHO you keep confusing the issue by jumping back and forth between "life" and "human life"
You have conflated them repeatedly...perhaps only through a simple typo or lapse in memory...but it does confuse the debate. Because..and I'm going waaaaay out on a limb here Scott by "assuming" something YOU think...but I'm just guessing that you would agree there is a difference between "life" and "human life" in the context of this discussion.

Posted by: rukidding7 | February 2, 2011 7:37 AM | Report abuse

@Scott - Thanks for the clear and honest answer. It seems as if our personal notions are pretty much the same on this (I figured so).

But I'll wager that if we were to engage ruk, DDAWD and cao outside of the framing that many religious conservatives bring to the issue we'd find their positions close to ours. Words like "life" or "living" or even "human" gain boundaries only where we, for whatever reason, insist such boundaries exist. More than anything else, I think, the three are rejecting this language and framing.

Posted by: bernielatham | February 2, 2011 7:43 AM | Report abuse

Bernie:

""Another (unrelated) question to you. Did you watch the 60 Minutes interview with Assange and what's your opinion on the Wikileaks enterprise?""

I did not watch it, and I confess that I have not focused on the wikileaks issue as much as I would like to or should have. I do not have a solid view on it at the moment. I believe that all organizations, particularly governments, have a legitimate need to keep some information non-public, but I also think that all organizations, particularly governments, abuse this need fairly regularly. I kind of doubt, however, that a single international vagabond with a computer is a particularly good arbiter of what should and should not be kept from the public.

I started reading an article by Bill Keller yesterday in the NYT magazine about Assange, and it seemed pretty interesting, but I was barely a third of the way into it when domestic responsibilities pulled me away. So I have yet to finish it.

BTW....I found it the height of irony when Assange's lawyer came out and announced that his client was being victimized by the "leaking" of the police report on which the rape charges against him were based. That was amusing.

Posted by: ScottC3 | February 2, 2011 7:44 AM | Report abuse

"People who cut their fingernails do not fret and ponder over whether it is the right thing to do. People who get abortions do, and for obvious reasons, despite the absurd denial of the likes of cao, DDAWD, and ruk. "

You're not even going to TRY and have an honest discussion, are you? Go on, point me to the time where any one of the three of us called abortion a trivial decision.

Posted by: DDAWD | February 2, 2011 7:54 AM | Report abuse

ruk7, over at the Fix, caothien9 did indeed say that Palin should have aborted Trig. There's no doubt he meant it at the time, even if he lies about it being easily identifiable hyperbolic exasperation.

ScottC3, thank you for proving DDAWD wrong.

Posted by: clawrence12 | February 2, 2011 8:09 AM | Report abuse

@Scott - Assange acknowledges that there's justifiable cause for some secrecy.

I am extremely impressed by this man's intelligence and his social ethics. The project - enabling whistleblowers inside government and other powerful entities to have some means of revealing information they deem, as a matter of conscience, necessary knowledge for the community at large to possess - is one I think of the greatest importance. Through the urges and mechanisms which you and I and others understand, centers of power and dominance commonly act to retain and expand such power/dominance and very often to the detriment of those outside. You and I have differing notions re where such problems tend to occur but I think we have common ground on the dangers to liberty and community well-being that commonly result. So, I recommend you do put some attention to this phenomenon and enterprise. I find it very hopeful. (ps I also find it very valuable as a metric for establishing the "bad guys" - who it is that wants him stopped).

Posted by: bernielatham | February 2, 2011 8:13 AM | Report abuse

STRAWMAN ALERT:

". . . point me to the time where any one of the three of us called abortion a trivial decision."

The ABSURD DENIAL is that the zygote, embryo, or fetus is not a human life.

Posted by: clawrence12 | February 2, 2011 8:16 AM | Report abuse

ruk:

""It's clear from your screed at the end of yesterday's morning plum that you do not consider me a friend.""

I don't, but that is not really a reflection on you. I just don't use the word "friend" as casually or cavalierly as many people do. That's on me, not you.

It wasn't my intent to cut off friendly interaction with you here. It was simply to point out that it only makes sense to begin a converstaion with "you are usually sensible, but not this time" if you actually believe that the person is usually sensible. Your interaction with me suggests precisely the opposite...you almost never think that I am sensible. So why pretend? Especially so repeatedly?

Posted by: ScottC3 | February 2, 2011 8:20 AM | Report abuse

Bernie:

""I also find it very valuable as a metric for establishing the "bad guys" - who it is that wants him stopped...""

Doesn't Obama want him stopped?

Posted by: ScottC3 | February 2, 2011 8:25 AM | Report abuse

@Scott

I take your last point and understand your feelings. Quite honestly it saddens me that you find me insincere in my respect for you or praise of your intelligence. Like you I could suggest you go back through the archives and count the number of times I have spoke highly of you (in the 3rd person) when I have referred to or described folks on this blog who I truly respect.

Aside from that, I can only say that I do respect you Scott. Yes you obviously come from a totally different perspective, but as I shared with Q.B. yesterday there was a ten year period of my life where I was a "screaming" libertarian. I do get the libertarian philosophy and in "theory" it makes great sense to me, in "reality" not so much. But that is a persistent area that we both know we're not going to agree.

I don't have to agree with you Scott to respect you. I think one of the reasons Bernie and I engage with you is because of the respect for your manifest intellect. And I don't mean to toss that compliment off insincerely or cavalierly.

I am certainly guilty of snark..poor choice of words...bad posts...and yes even the dreaded "name calling" But in candor I suspect we all have our own "judgments' about which posters we find bright and erudite and which posters are a waste.
Bernie(and obviously this is opinion..Bernie can speak for himself) and I engage you because we respect you. Bernie is far better than me at discipline...I never catch him wasting his time on non serious posters...unlike me..which is why I brought him into the conversation. The fact that I do engage even the rainman occasionally, and am free with my praise for those I do enjoy or respect, may understandably cheapen my compliments in your eyes, (OK I can be a compliment sl$t :-), but it shouldn't cause you to doubt their sincerity or honesty.

And so Scott...I'm sorry they appear cavalier..or insincere..but I do honestly believe you are a very bright man indeed.

But again as I shared yesterday with Q.B.
I DO respect you Scott, but the next time you post something that drives me nuckin futs I'll probably be back to "calling you names". Probably sometime later today. :-)

Posted by: rukidding7 | February 2, 2011 8:41 AM | Report abuse

All, Morning Roundup posted:

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/plum-line/2011/02/the_morning_plum_178.html

Posted by: Greg Sargent | February 2, 2011 8:43 AM | Report abuse

DDAWD:

""Go on, point me to the time where any one of the three of us called abortion a trivial decision."

The issue is whether it is a morally trivial decision. cao has equated a zygote to a hangnail, the point being that removing a hangnail is a trivial event with no moral implications.

ruk has compared the destruction of a zygote to the destruction of a sperm, the point being that the destruction of a sperm is trivial event with no moral implications.

So perhaps you will answer this question, despite your refusal to answer the questions I posed earlier:

Assuming that your question above is an admission that you believe abortion to be morally significant event, then if a zygote or an embryo or a fetus is not a human life, then why wouldn't its destruction be trivial?

Posted by: ScottC3 | February 2, 2011 8:49 AM | Report abuse

Final thoughts...from me anyway on the Abortion debate...

@12Bar, Tao and any other "religious" folks who might be offended by my position or feels I approached the subject to cavalierly or without respect. I apologize.

My intent was not to mock your beliefs or diminish them in any way. I truly respect the spirituality that informs your decision. My point is simply that it is YOUR view and not mine nor many others.
I believe the nation to be divided 50-50 in round numbers.

And remember we are not trying to CHANGE your beliefs, we are simply defending our OWN beliefs.

In conclusion..scientifically, biologically I come down on the side of Cao who is far better at the science of the discussion than me...I defer to him because he expressed my thoughts more cogently.

Emotionally and politically I'll let Bernie's excellent post speak for me...again he posted a thoughtful take on the politics and emotions behind the issue.

And finally on a personal level...I'll return to Cao's sensitive phrase...
"BTW I do accept that there are so pro-lifers life 12Bar whose concern is morally consistent"

I would add Tao and many others to that list but in honesty I believe it is up to each of you to look into your own hearts to see if you are morally consistent..it's certainly not for me to judge...as I said I come down on Bernie's side.

And Cao...I stopped with that phrase because you fell off that stridency cliff again with the rest of the sentence. Just sayin' :-)

Now it's off to the Morning Plum.....

Posted by: rukidding7 | February 2, 2011 8:57 AM | Report abuse

If I may be so bold ..

At the developmental point of most abortions the fetus doesn't even have a nervous system yet. Even with the most fanciful flights it is months from having a mind, and given that, i say that abortion at thAt stage is a morally trivial decision.it differs from epithelial sloughing only in that it's a mixture of two contributors.

To claim that terminating the development of something with less brain than nematode is morally equivalent to the murder of a human being endowed with self-awareness, memory, and individuality is just plain absurd.

Posted by: caothien9 | February 2, 2011 9:14 AM | Report abuse

Cat got your tongue, Scott?

Posted by: caothien9 | February 2, 2011 10:12 AM | Report abuse

OBAMA IS TALKING WITH THE MUSLIM BROTHERHOOD


You have no reason to trust Obama isn't implementing his "Muslim Agenda"


Another "Bait and Switch."

.

Posted by: RainForestRising | February 2, 2011 10:35 AM | Report abuse

"Bernie:
""I also find it very valuable as a metric for establishing the "bad guys" - who it is that wants him stopped...""

Doesn't Obama want him stopped?"

Yup, looks like it. And surely the Canadian PM as well. And the French PM. And the C of C and the corporations they represent. And the banks.

Posted by: bernielatham | February 2, 2011 4:31 PM | Report abuse

Post a Comment

We encourage users to analyze, comment on and even challenge washingtonpost.com's articles, blogs, reviews and multimedia features.

User reviews and comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions.




characters remaining

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2011 The Washington Post Company