MY ROB PORTMAN CODICIL

Recently I wrote of Ohio Sen. Rob Portman and his announcement that he now supports gay marriage. He changed his mind after learning, about two years ago, that his own college age son is gay. https://umoc193.wordpress.com/2013/03/16/true-compassion-or-playing-favorites/

My basic position was that it appeared to me he had made this change pretty strictly for family reasons, not because of holding a general compassion for gays.

Since that time several other prominent politicians have announced their support though some were no real surprise since they were Democrats/liberals.

I’ve had some chance to give this more thought in the intervening period and have come to the realization that my attitude was far too harsh.

Let’s face it, even the most strident advocates for gay marriage probably spent at least part of their lives in either opposition or apathy. And that may include members of the LGBT community themselves.

Certainly any history of gay rights I am familiar with seems to have seen any movement for equal rights/nondiscrimination focused on gaining…if not outright acceptance…at least tolerance  towards gays and removal of barriers in employment, housing and such.

And millions of the people who were not promulgating or even lending tacit backing to gay marriage were full of compassion for their fellow man, perhaps beyond what is normally expected of us all.

So as increasingly greater percentages of Americans polled favor gay marriage it is self-evident that such was not always the case.

Thus I should have embraced Portman’s conversion unconditionally and separated that from his other political positions.

Indeed I presume the majority of us who agree with Portman arrived at this point not by following the beeline but instead took circuitous routes, often traveling on unpaved roads, down one way streets, and dodging umpteen orange cones en route.

As long as we arrive at the same destination safely, that should be my concern.

Advertisements
Post a comment or leave a trackback: Trackback URL.

Comments

  • toadsly  On March 28, 2013 at 6:32 PM

    Yep!

  • Tourist  On March 28, 2013 at 6:38 PM

    All sex is bizarre. Without an overwhelming sex drive, “yucky” is a good a word as any. With a sex drive, it becomes “beautiful.” In the case of people whose sex drives are different from our own, their sex remains yucky. Like watching people eat tomatoes. Or thinking about it. Ew! Gross!

    You’ve got to learn to live with what you can’t rise above.

  • Devildog  On March 28, 2013 at 7:51 PM

    My only comment UMOC is that it takes a “big” man to write a ” gomenasai” column.

  • Devildog  On March 28, 2013 at 8:12 PM

    And you Toadsly, are to be commended for limiting your responses to one word. Domo!

  • Little_Minx  On March 28, 2013 at 8:22 PM

    Second!

  • Little_Minx  On March 28, 2013 at 8:25 PM

    (Apparently El Rushbo doesn’t view his three divorces as having in any way bastardized the matrimonial institution.)

    “Rush Limbaugh: Gay marriage ‘inevitable,’ conservatives ‘lost’”:
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2013/03/28/rush-limbaugh-gay-marriage-inevitable-conservatives-lost
    Posted by Aaron Blake on March 28, 2013 at 5:30 pm

    Conservative talk show how Rush Limbaugh said Thursday on his radio show that conservatives have lost the gay marriage debate and that it is now “inevitable.”

    “This issue is lost,” he said. “I don’t care what the Supreme Court does. This is inevitable. And it’s inevitable because we lost the language on this.”

    Limbaugh added that conservatives lost the debate because they allowed the term “marriage” to be “bastardized.”

    “As far as I’m concerned, once we started talking about gay marriage, traditional marriage, opposite-sex marriage, same-sex marriage, hetero marriage, we lost,” Limbaugh said. “It was over.”

    • umoc193  On March 28, 2013 at 9:17 PM

      Minx,

      I saw a brief clip of Limbaugh’s statement but didn’t catch it all save the substance. I hate to agree with the man but……?

      • Little_Minx  On March 28, 2013 at 10:34 PM

        Re Limbaugh, even a stopped clock is right twice a day.

  • Deke James  On March 28, 2013 at 9:34 PM

    Everyone have a safe and Happy Easter.

  • Tourist  On March 29, 2013 at 12:33 AM

    Limbaugh was not right. He was flipping it. The word “marriage” was not bastardized. The meaning of “marriage” is retained despite the right’s efforts to redefine it.

    When A and B go through the procedures to get married, they are a married couple. When A and B live together for 50 years, they are an unmarried couple. The issue was only whether same-sex couples could go through those procedures and become married. “Married” still means what it always did. It’s the right that tried to add an additional requirement.

    The party of “death taxes” and “death panels” and “unborn children” and “apology tours,” the people whose families have “family values” in contrast to families that do not, and who are, no less, the “real Americans,” are very good at this, co-opting the language.

    They failed this time. They’re still spinning it, is all.

    • Little_Minx  On March 29, 2013 at 10:21 AM

      Perhaps the answer is that Limbaugh is “correct,” but it’s for the wrong reasons.

  • Tourist  On March 29, 2013 at 6:39 AM

    Deke, elsewhere today you said: “No one should be appointed to a lifetime judgeship.” I think that’s huge. How should we do that? Appointed or elected, for-life or for a term, once or re-?

    Do we want judges to represent us (us-us, not them-us) or to rule from above, a.k.a., think for themselves? On crime, or on the Constitution? Does absolute power corrupt absolutely, or are some worth keeping?

    When President Nixon nominated G. Harrold Carswell to the supreme court, Carswell was widely branded “mediocre.” Republican Senator Roman Hruska of Nebraska famously defended him: “They [the mediocre] are entitled to a little representation, aren’t they, and a little chance? We can’t have all Brandeises, Frankfurters and Cardozos.”

    Today we have a lot of not-Brandeises, not-Frankfurters, not-Cardozos. Granted, the best and brightest have gotten it wrong more than once. Then there are the evil geniuses.

    The Senate rejected Carswell, 51-45: Republicans 28 for, 13 against; Democrats 17 for, 38 against. Nixon then nominated Harry Blackmun (Republican), who was confirmed, 94-0.

    That’s how we used to do the nation’s business.

    I know what I’d want.

    ===

    Louis Brandeis was a Democrat nominated by a Democrat (Wilson). Felix Frankfurter described himself as “politically homeless,” had supported Theodore Roosevelt (Republican/Bull Moose) over Wilson (Democrat), and was nominated by a Democrat (FDR). Benjamin Cardozo was a Democrat nominated by a Republican (Hoover).

    • Little_Minx  On March 29, 2013 at 10:24 AM

      Even at the time, I interpreted Hruska’s crack as thinly-disguised anti-Semitism. Nothing has occurred to change my impression. He must be spinning in his grave over the brilliance of Breyer, Ginsburg and Kagan.

    • Deke James  On March 29, 2013 at 11:02 AM

      I also said that Mr. Scalia is unfit to be on any court.
      In my mind no one is above the law, and no one should be appointed to a lifetime judgeship.
      How can it be done- have to wait until we get a truly bipartisan congress and work out a select committee. This congress is made up of carefully gerrymandered tea baggers.
      While were at it I would like to see Eric Holder step down. He’s nothing but a corporate suit who needs to go along with Harry “slinky” Reid.
      Grats UMOC on your 300th blog post and giving me the opportunity to rant. 🙂

    • Devildog  On March 29, 2013 at 12:00 PM

      Tourist, “that’s how we used to do the nation’s business” until a nominee, eminently qualified under previously accepted standards, got “borked”. Much of the venom that exists today can be traced to that event. “out of the mainstream” my ass.

      • Tourist  On March 29, 2013 at 3:39 PM

        Bork was rejected by the Senate, 58-42, with 52 Democrats and 6 Republicans against, 40 Republicans and 2 Democrats in favor. Reagan then named Douglas Ginsburg, who withdrew, and then Anthony Kennedy, who was confirmed 97-0.

        • Devildog  On March 29, 2013 at 3:54 PM

          And, Tourist, your point is? Numbers are not important in this case. What is important is that a man considered qualified by previous standards was rejected because of his beliefs and accused of being out of the mainstream-when he wasn’t. This was a clear case of the well being poisoned, as was Obamacare-especially how it was pushed through. Borked did not enter the vocabulary for no reason.

  • Little_Minx  On March 29, 2013 at 10:25 AM

    CONGRATULATIONS TO UMOC ON HIS 300TH BLOG POST! HERE’S TO (AT LEAST) 300 MORE.

  • Tourist  On March 29, 2013 at 4:04 PM

    Devildog, that’s twice you’ve said Bork was mainstream. I doubt everyone agrees. “Advise and consent” is the function. The Senate has a say. It poisoned the well? 97-0?

    • Devildog  On March 29, 2013 at 4:09 PM

      Tourist, that’s the way it goes. You “bork” Bork because he’s “too conservative” then you force a more moderate nominee and accept him to show people like you how reasonable they are. Republicans play that game too, when they have the numbers. But Bork was the start of using a different standard for nominees.

    • Devildog  On March 29, 2013 at 4:18 PM

      Hi, Tourist. Why not tell our readers that Bork received the highest ABA rating for his nominations to both SCOTUS and the U.S. Court of Appeals. And the ABA is not known to be conservative-is it. Don’t try to defend the indefensible.

  • Tourist  On March 29, 2013 at 4:29 PM

    Devildog, no one said Bork wasn’t smart or “qualified.” Was he the kind of judge the Senate wanted? Apparently not, and for reasons that had nothing to do with his party or who nominated him.

    • Devildog  On March 29, 2013 at 8:02 PM

      Tourist, maybe you’re right that Bork was not the kind of judge the Senate wanted and that the reasons had nothing to do with party and who nominated him. And maybe you would have been right if you said he was out of the mainstream. However, what he may have been out of the mainstream of was political/sociological beliefs of the Senate(including some squishy Republicans) but what he was not out of the mainstream of was legal jurisprudence, integrity, etc. best evidence-the two ratings given him by the left of center ABA. Whatever you say, whatever quotes you come up with, whatever numbers you provide, cannot supersede that. He was borked because his views did not coincide with liberal orthodoxy. And this unfair borking contributed to, if you believe that we now have it, the poisoning of the well. The ABA, with the approval/backing of the left, was the gold standard until then.

  • Tourist  On March 29, 2013 at 7:37 PM

    Devildog, you’ll enjoy this. It’s all a quote from the link:

    Probably the first use of “Bork” in this way was by the National Lampoon Radio Hour in 1973, to describe the firing of Watergate Special Prosecutor Archibald Cox by then-Solicitor General Bork. The meaning, with Bork as the Borker, was subsequently undermined by conservatives using the term as described in the following paragraphs, depicting Bork as an object of Borking.

    http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/bork#English

    • Devildog  On March 29, 2013 at 8:06 PM

      Tourist, so the true maning of borking was “undermined” by the right. Hmmmm, didn’t know the right was that powerful with the media.

      • Tourist  On March 29, 2013 at 8:14 PM

        Devildog, see mine above at March 29, 2013 at 12:33 AM. I said you guys “are very good at this, co-opting the language.”

        • Devildog  On March 29, 2013 at 8:43 PM

          Tourist, as I said to you at least once before (and I’m not about to research when), you’re too good to utter this kind of bullshit (and then cite it too).

          The gold standard, the left-leaning ABA, respond to their ratings please-and not to how the pols in the Senate “feel”.

  • Tourist  On March 29, 2013 at 8:59 PM

    Devildog, you appear to remember it better. I’m looking it up.

    (Quote)

    A key committee of the American Bar Association has voted to give Judge Robert H. Bork its highest rating, but the committee was sharply divided, with four members evaluating him as ”not qualified” for the Supreme Court . . . . Of the 15 members of the A.B.A.’s Standing Committee on Federal Judiciary, 10 gave Judge Bork the highest rating, ”well qualified,” four voted ”not qualified” and one ”not opposed,” . . . . The number of dissenters was highly unusual . . . . The committee has given unanimous approval to the professional credentials of the vast majority of Supreme Court nominees in the past three decades, including all three of President Reagan’s previous nominees . . . . The opponents also stressed that the A.B.A. committee excludes political and ideological criteria from its ratings. Therefore, they asserted, the vote indicated significant disagreement in the legal establishment about Judge Bork’s integrity or judicial temperament, which have been considered among his strongest assets . . . . Opponents have argued that he is so extreme in his conservative views that he is outside the legal mainstream . . . . The only previous occasion on which the A.B.A. committee had been so divided on a Supreme Court nominee was President Nixon’s nomination of Judge Clement Haynsworth in 1969 . . . .The Senate rejected the Haynsworth nomination . . . .
    Members of the committee have three options in voting on Supreme Court nominees: ”well qualified,” ”not opposed” or ”not qualified.” . . . . ”Not opposed” is used to rate ”minimally qualified” nominees who are ”not among the best available for appointment.”

    (Unquote)

    http://www.nytimes.com/1987/09/10/us/aba-panel-gives-bork-a-top-rating-but-vote-is-split.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm

    Again, no one said he wasn’t smart.

    • Devildog  On March 30, 2013 at 1:12 AM

      It is apparent, Tourist, that either you can’t read English or you can’t understand it. The leftist ABA (and most such professional organizations-AMA, APA, for example, have been so taken over) gave Bork the highest rating possible for both the US. court of Appeals and SCOTUS. That there was a significant dissent just shows that some voting members were able to overcome their political biases while others weren’t.

      You seem to admit that Bork was smart and qualified (3/29 at 4:29 P.M.) then go on to say he was not the kind of judge the Senate wanted. Really now-just as, since then, parties oppose those who espouse views different than theirs to varying degrees depending on circumstances no matter how highly qualified-the so-called poisoning of the well.

      • Tourist  On March 30, 2013 at 2:11 AM

        Devildog, that’s a sad attempt. The ABA committee (“leftist”?) gives one of three evaluations: well qualified, not opposed, or not qualified. The committee rated Bork “well qualified” – yes, in your words, the “highest rating possible” – by a vote of 10 – 1 – 4 among the fifteen members. That’s four “not qualifieds” and one “not opposed.”

        You: “That there was a significant dissent just shows that some voting members were able to overcome their political biases while others weren’t.”

        There is almost never *any* dissent. It’s not political either way. According to the article, which is what I am going by, less that unanimous in favor is practically unheard of. If you’re a lawyer who’s made it far enough that the president of the United States has tapped you for the Supreme Court, it takes a lot for the ABA to say you don’t cut in the profession.

        Reagan nominated Bork. Reagan’s three previous nominees were all endorsed by the ABA unanimously. There was “significant disagreement in the legal establishment about Judge Bork’s integrity or judicial temperament.”

        (Quote)

        Although the dissenters’ exact reasons could not be determined, sources familiar with the vote suggested that at least one lawyer was troubled by Judge Bork’s vehement published attacks on the legitimacy of many major Supreme Court decisions. These sources said the dissenters were also troubled by what they considered evidence that the judge had not always practiced the ”judicial restraint” that he has so forcefully advocated.

        At least one dissenter also appeared troubled by purported contradictions between Judge Bork’s account of his actions as Solicitor General in 1973 after he dismissed Archibald Cox as the Watergate special prosecutor and other evidence studied by the committee, the sources said.

        (Unquote)

        A nominee to the Court who questions not just the correctness but the *legitimacy* of the Court’s decisions? “Contradictions between Judge Bork’s account . . . and other evidence”? Contradictions?

        The only previous occasion – I don’t know how long this has been the practice but the article says “the only previous occasion” – the ABA committee split that badly was over Haynesworth in 1969 and the Senate rejected Haynesworth, too.

        I can’t read?

        Did you?

        ===

        This began with an open question: How should we do it?

        ===

        This, titled “The Little Supremes,” is about “running” for the Supreme Court.

        http://observer.com/2005/11/the-little-supremes/

        • Devildog  On March 30, 2013 at 10:56 AM

          Tourist, that’s my point. Practically unheard of-the start of the poisoning of the well. Let’s look at the criticisms of those against him-as given in the article you cite.

          “vehement published attacks” on some major SC decisions. Something wrong with that? I guess the dissenter liked those decisions.

          Bork didn’t practice the “judicial restraint” he advocated. What’s that about? Activism is when you didn’t like the decision and claim it was judicial activism. Yes, both sides do it-I know it’s a mantra of the right and I don’t agree with it.

          “troubled by purported contradictions” re Cox. Yeah, right. Gimmee a break! That’s what it came down to, inter Alia. The left not only didn’t like Bork’s views but his participation(that’s participation not his “lying” in the Saturday night massacre.

          ABA leftist-most assuredly like all these other organizations. While the right goes about their business(es), leftist activists take over as they seek to save the world and make amends for past sins. I dropped out of th ABA and AARP many years ago-too lazy to try and change from within. I’ll bet UMOC is active in a number of such organizations. I prefer organizations that try to help people but don’t have political agendas.

          Okay, I will backtrack. You can read. Understand?

          • umoc193  On March 31, 2013 at 8:40 PM

            Anonymous

            Me, a member of the organizations of which you disapprove? Like Groucho Marx I refuse to join any club which would have me as a member.

            The ABA and AMA liberal? Laughably wrong.

            • Devildog  On April 1, 2013 at 12:17 AM

              So UMOC, in response to my claim/opinion that the ABA and the AMA are liberal, you respond with “laughably wrong. Is that your opinion or a fact?

              • umoc193  On April 1, 2013 at 3:11 AM

                DD

                You made the allegation that the ABA and AMA are liberal. YOU have the burden of proof. The ball is in your court.

                • Devildog  On April 1, 2013 at 10:06 AM

                  Well UMOC, “laughably wrong”, I ask again, is that merely your opinion (based on facts or not) or is it a fact? If it’s your opinion, so be it. If it’s a fact, let’s hear more about it.

                  To deny that about the AMA, ABA, AARP, APA, the political scientist and social scientist professional organizations, the Ford and Rockefeller organizations, and so many others is to deny a “truth that is self-evident”-just as it is to deny Saife, Koch, et.al are conservative. Why you would deny that or even demand facts is hard to understand.

  • Tourist  On March 30, 2013 at 5:01 PM

    Devildog,

    “Tourist, that’s my point. Practically unheard of-the start of the poisoning of the well.”

    +++ Practically unheard of to name such a mad professor to the top of the third co-equal branch of government. He gave them pause.

    “’vehement published attacks’ on some major SC decisions. Something wrong with that?”

    +++ That’s not quite what it says. It says “vehement published attacks on the legitimacy of many major Supreme Court decisions.” I even highlighted “legitimacy.” I think that’s Marbury v. Madison. Did anyone mention third co-equal branch? Questioning its legitimacy? Vehemently? That goes directly to undermining checks and balances. Please don’t say he was right. He should have run for Congress, then. I don’t know about the right, but on the left we like justices (and presidents and legislators) who are more respectful of and committed to the place and role of their own institution.

    “Bork didn’t practice the “judicial restraint” he advocated. What’s that about?”

    +++ Bork. One of the things he was about was “judicial restraint.” Practicing versus preaching go to his judicial temperament, I guess. You know, consistency, principles, as opposed to loose cannon or hypocrite.

    “troubled by purported contradictions” re Cox. Yeah, right. Gimmee a break! That’s what it came down to, inter Alia . . . . that’s participation not his ‘lying’ in the Saturday night massacre.”

    +++ I read it to be a statement that they thought he lied. If you thought that, how concerned would you be?

    As the article says, and as you have pointed out a couple of times, the ABA committee “unanimously gave Judge Bork himself its highest rating in 1981, when he was nominated for the seat he now holds on a Federal appeals court here. The committee’s standards for Supreme Court nominees are somewhat more exacting than those for other judicial nominees.”

    Hope so.

    • Devildog  On March 30, 2013 at 5:35 PM

      Tourist, you are just regurgitating the dissenters.

      Mad professor?-no comment deserved.

      Legitimacy of many major decisions-what does that mean? You imply the legitimacy of the court, which is certainly not the case. A professor writes a paper accepted by peer review in a journal questioning certain opinions and, all of a sudden, he’s a “mad professor”. Vehemently-excuse me. What the hell is that?

      The left-more respectful and committed to…-that’s a joke right?

      Judicial restraint-everyone preaches that and no one practices it. Remember, I told you every one of them are activists.

      Cox-yeah, lying implied but nothing to back it up.

      court of appeals vs. S.C.-standards may be a little strictor but the only thing that really changed was the political climate-the beginning of the poisoning of the well. Everything you say and everything the dissenters said was our b.s. but the media drove it to a “successful” outcome.

      • Tourist  On March 30, 2013 at 5:59 PM

        Devildog, for only the second time in history (the article) a nominee was rejected by the Senate after being less than unanimously approved by the profession, and because it was your nominee, we poisoned the well? I count you saying that five times, and I’m regurgitating?

        “Poisoning the well” means what, by the way? Revenge in perpetuity?

        Nothing to back it up? They cite “other evidence studied by the committee.” If you say “nothing” – may I ask I how you know? – that makes them the liars, I suppose.

        Did Bork once sign your T-shirt or something?

        • Devildog  On March 30, 2013 at 8:34 PM

          Poison the well- just regurgitating a term currently being used by liberals against conservatives. I like to hoist you guys on your own petard.

          “other evidence” is nothing if it’s not disclosed.

          Only second time in history, a rejection etc. does that not support my position. It certainly implies that there were (many) other non-unanimous rated nominees who were approved. Why Bork? In my “opinion”, strictly political.

          Bork personally means nothing to me. It’s just that what happened to him personally and professionally was outrageous and led to the well being poisoned.

          Luv ya.!

  • Tourist  On March 30, 2013 at 7:32 PM

    Oops! I forgot. “Mad professor.” I chose that over “legal lunatic,” which I decided was probably too harsh.

    What liberal ever favors a conservative appointment, and what conservative ever favors a liberal appointment? How cynical and self-limiting is it to insist it is always merely that?

    Bork was certainly not the only person who believed, or believes, the Constitutional standard should be: “What did James Madison know and when did he know it?” Students, for example, should be exposed to such views in order to better decide for themselves what they believe and why. Putting him on the Court was a different matter – at least in the minds of the Senators whose duty it was, and the ABA, which was asked.

    • Devildog  On March 30, 2013 at 7:40 PM

      In the minds of the ABA, Bork was highly qualified-and, therefore, should have been confirmed.

      Cynical and self-limiting-I plead guily.

      When I have time, I will find out, if I can, how many nominees were defeated with a highly qualified rating.

      He was borked and that played a big role in the poisoning of the well. And that’s a fact-not really but if UMOC can claim opinions to be facts, so can I- even if it is his blog.

      • umoc193  On March 31, 2013 at 8:51 PM

        “but if UMOC can claim opinions to be facts, so can I- even if it is his blog.”

        No, I never claim opinions to be facts…I claim to offer opinions based on facts. I have several conservative friends who read from time to time and often disagree with my conclusions, but they admire me because I do the research.

        • Devildog  On April 1, 2013 at 12:22 AM

          So UMOC, are opinions based on facts opinions or facts.

          And to claim that conservative friends of yours “admire” you, for whatever reason including that you do research, is a disgusting tooting of your own horn.

    • Devildog  On March 30, 2013 at 9:22 PM

      Tourist, off to dinner but don’t underestimate the political nature and effect of the Saturday Night Massacre in this vendetta against Bork.

      • Tourist  On March 30, 2013 at 9:41 PM

        Devildog, I don’t. I hope you’re not surprised. For any younger readers: Nixon’s attorney general, Elliot Richardson, appointed Archibald Cox as independent special prosecutor for Watergate. When Cox subpoenaed White House tape recordings, Nixon refused and ordered Richardson to fire Cox. Richardson refused and resigned. Nixon ordered Richardson’s deputy, William Ruckelshouse, to fire Cox. Ruckelshouse refused and resigned.

        Bork, the solicitor general, “having been brought to the White House by limousine and sworn in as Acting Attorney General, . . . wrote the letter firing Cox.”

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

        (Someone should really edit that. “Limousine” is irrelevant.)

        The United States Supreme Court.

        Yes, Devildog, that, too.

        • Devildog  On March 31, 2013 at 12:18 AM

          Tourist, au contrair (spelling?), limousine is not irrelevant-it’s part of the attack as is Saturday Night Massacre. Where in the article is there an implication that Bork lied? And wasn’t he the one who appointed Jaworski, who conducted a full investigation?

  • Tourist  On March 30, 2013 at 9:17 PM

    Devildog, if you could, maybe find out how many Supreme Court nominees were ever voted by a majority of the committee to be “not qualified.” Thanks. I don’t know. I’m taking it that *that* virtually never happens. Almost everyone is deemed “qualified” as a combination of “well qualified” and “not opposed.”

    I’m taking it also that *individual* “not qualified” votes are pretty rare, and I’m sure you’re right that one (or two?) of those does not sink a nominee in the Senate. “Second time in history” – Haynsworth and Bork – refers to the extent of the splint: four “not qualifieds” for each and they both went down. Maybe it was a coincidence.

    To the end of yours at March 30, 2013 at 8:34 PM: Back at ya!

    • Devildog  On March 31, 2013 at 12:22 AM

      Tourist, I might check out, as you requested, how many nominees received a not qualified from a majority of the panel but only if you can convince me of its relevance to our discussion.

      • Tourist  On March 31, 2013 at 2:35 AM

        Devildog, if you found some, it would help your argument: “See! They say ‘no’ when they mean ‘no.’”

        You keep saying Bork got the highest possible rating. My understanding is Supreme Court nominees “always” (in quotes) get the highest possible rating of “well qualified” FROM THE COMMITTEE. The devil is in the score: how many individual members voted something else instead. Bork got one “not opposed” and four “not qualifieds,” and we’re back to “second time in history.”

        It’s like a job applicant whose letter of recommendation from a previous boss says “sincere and works hard.”

  • Tourist  On March 31, 2013 at 2:34 AM

    Devildog, to yours at 12:18 AM:

    “Where in the article is there an implication that Bork lied?”

    The NYT article? Where it says “troubled by . . . contradictions between Judge Bork’s account . . . and other evidence studied by the committee.” Since the context was an assessment of Bork, I doubt that means they were doubting, based on his account, the other evidence. Granted, probably no one shouted at him: “You lie!”

    “And wasn’t he the one who appointed Jaworski, who conducted a full investigation?”

    After firing Cox for Nixon, yes, he did. Is this what they call jumping around, throwing dust in the air?

    • Devildog  On March 31, 2013 at 10:02 AM

      Tourist, I was talking about the Wikipedia article. All you have is four dissenters saying they were “troubled” without any indication of what it is they were troubled about.

      Anyway, I’ve said everything I have to say-more than once-on this subject so it’s time to move on (at least for me). I would say “you won” but I don’t think you are the type to be seeking a win so I won’t insult you by saying that, even facetiously.

  • Tourist  On March 31, 2013 at 5:31 AM

    Timely. For the history. Burn before reading.

    (Quote)

    . . . four decades after the Watergate break-in scandal . . . [u]p on stage was Daniel Ellsberg of Pentagon Papers fame, one of the first victims of Nixon’s infamous “plumbers,” the burglars who went skulking into the night to attempt illegal break-ins — including one at the office of Ellsberg’s psychiatrist. “I want to add something to the history here that I’ve never told,” Ellsberg said, then asked[:] “Is Alex Butterfield still alive?”

    A voice shouted from a corner of the room, “I’m over here.”

    And sure enough, it was Alexander Butterfield, former deputy to Nixon chief of staff H.R. “Bob” Haldeman, and a pivotal if accidental notable in the Watergate saga. In July 1973, Butterfield let slip to the Senate Watergate committee that Nixon made secret audiotapes of all his meetings at the White House, a revelation that cracked the scandal wide open.

    ***

    . . . Just moments before Ellsberg spoke, I had been chatting with former Brooklyn Congresswoman Liz Holtzman, when Butterfield walked over, introduced himself and told Holtzman, “I was in love with you even when I was at the White House.” Holtzman was a prominent member of the House Judiciary Committee that in July 1974 passed three articles of impeachment against Nixon. He resigned less than two weeks later.

    ***

    Yet make no mistake — for all the general hilarity (and remember, to many, Richard Nixon had been the butt of jokes for decades before; Watergate was just the ultimate punchline), this was a true constitutional crisis . . . . Watergate shook the public’s confidence in government as it hadn’t been since the bleakest days of secession and the Civil War.

    But as several participants at the conference noted, the nation and its institutions did something about it . . . . People went to jail, lots of them — even the former attorney general of the United States, John Mitchell. Think about that. Many of them did hard time. Today, we couldn’t even get miscreant bankers to resign in exchange for their billions in bailouts, much less prosecute them for criminal behavior.

    . . . Many believe it will take another scandal the size of Watergate, or worse, to get us back on track. Let’s hope not.

    (Unquote)

    http://truth-out.org/opinion/item/15430-watergates-lessons-washed-away

    I’m not sure about even that. Oh, I think we could. I’m not sure we would. For too many, it would just be another opportunity.

    ===

    I took an ethics course once, taught by the dean. He began the semester by pointing to the seat where, just a few years before, a convicted Watergate felon had sat through the same material.

  • Tourist  On March 31, 2013 at 6:44 PM

    Devildog, to yours at 10:02 AM: The world would do well to have more of us. We argued our positions with the facts we had. We stayed on track. That’s how it’s supposed to be. Then the electorate/court/decision-maker decides and we move on to the next one.

    What I got to thinking about from it was milestone events – historically, not personally, and not this or that war or storm or earthquake, which there will always be, but that changed things or ways of thinking. I quickly came up with Apollo, 9/11, JFK in Dallas, Watergate and the Munich Olympics. I would readily add the fall of the Wall/Soviet Union; I’m just not sure that would be categorizing it right.

    What then occurred to me (has before) is that, except for 9/11, a large number of people have little or no actual memory of any of them; and also that, except for Apollo, they were all bad things.

    What this means is beyond me.

  • Tourist  On March 31, 2013 at 7:42 PM

    I failed to state that I meant “in my lifetime.” I did say, “not this or that war.”

    • Devildog  On March 31, 2013 at 8:26 PM

      Tourist, I’m sure you did not intend to exclude the fall of the wall/Soviet Union as a good thing.    

      Thanks, Tourist, does that mean I’m no longer a troll?

      • Tourist  On March 31, 2013 at 8:34 PM

        Devildog, nope, sure didn’t! The fall of the Wall was a fine thing — in fact, maybe at the top of my list of happenings I wish I had been at. As structured, it was simply not on the list in the first place. I did wonder if anyone would mention it that way.

        If I’ve called you a troll, it must have been to one of your other screen names.

        • Devildog  On April 1, 2013 at 12:06 AM

          Tourist, I’m fairly certain it was someone other than you who called me a troll on Reg’s blog. I have no other screen names and I barely have time for this blog. Maybe it was UMOC.

  • Tourist  On April 1, 2013 at 6:14 PM

    Devildog, UMOC,

    Re the ABA, facts and opinions, of course UMOC presents his opinions as facts – “laughably wrong” or “huge step forward” and “the fact . . . it is a huge step forward,” for example. He does this by silently defining for us, “forward.” I said “of course” because, don’t we all?

    I, too, questioned Devildog’s claim of “liberal.” Just a few days ago there was a headline story to the effect that the left thinks the Supreme Court leans right, and the right thinks the Supreme Court leans left. Maybe it’s relative and depends on which issues you have in mind. With the ABA’s official positions on abortion, gun control and same-sex marriage, it would seem Devildog has a point. Devildog, even today (not just historically), surely the ABA is more conservative than the National Lawyers Guild or the ACLU.

    Hey, did anybody read the “Little Supremes” article? It’s interesting, really.

    I found these. The rest of this is quotations.

    American Bar Association
    Criticisms
    The ABA has been criticized for perceived elitism and overrepresentation of white male corporate defense lawyers among its membership; . . . in 1925, African-American lawyers formed the National Bar Association at a time when ABA would not allow them to be members . . . . in recent years, the ABA has also drawn some criticism, mainly from the conservative side of the political spectrum, for taking positions on controversial public policy topics such as abortion, gun control, and same-sex marriage. The ABA’s official position in favor of abortion rights led to the formation of a (much smaller) alternative organization for lawyers, the National Lawyers Association. The Federalist Society sponsors a twice-a-year publication called “ABA Watch” that reports on the political activities of the ABA.

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

    National Lawyers Guild

    The National Lawyers Guild (NLG) . . . was founded in 1937 as an alternative to the American Bar Association (ABA) in protest of that organization’s exclusionary membership practices and conservative political orientation. They were the first US bar association to allow the admission of minorities to their ranks.

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

    • Devildog  On April 1, 2013 at 10:03 PM

      I’m so pissed. I wrote a response and before I could send it, I must have tapped something on my iPad and something else came on I lost it. Help!,,

      Anyway, the ABA were controlled by white male conservatives until the cultural revolution when left-wing activists took over.

      And, yes, the current SC leans right. I can admit that but apparently left-wingers can’t recognize or admit the obvious.

      • Tourist  On April 1, 2013 at 10:56 PM

        Devildog, iPad: Does that happen a lot? I mentioned a while back that I was close to getting one (mini) and still will. I’m mired now in “the next model will be out soon.” The objective is to learn all that modern stuff infants on the internet seem to handle intuitively, but I hope it will also be useful as a typewriter on the fly.

        Seriously, does anybody – ANYBODY – have an informed view on buying extra/maximum storage? I know the additions to basic are overpriced, and there is lots of advice on how to make do on the Cloud. My laptop experience points to the contrary – i.e., get as much as I can. Is my thinking on that also out of date?

        • Devildog  On April 2, 2013 at 1:56 AM

          Tourist, it happens too often but I still like my iPad.

          • Tourist  On April 2, 2013 at 2:36 AM

            Devildog, thanks. Do you type here in UMOC’s box, or elsewhere and paste it in? (I do both. It depends.) If the latter, which program, and is there no “saving” along the way?

            • Devildog  On April 2, 2013 at 2:44 AM

              Not only do I not paste, I haven’t the slightest idea how to do that. I get a post as an email, hit either reply or comment, type in my reply and send it on its way.

              • Tourist  On April 2, 2013 at 3:05 AM

                Devildog, you don’t know how in theory, or on the iPad? How much of a computer guy were you before this?

                I DON’T KNOW what “get a post as an email” means! I’m typing right now in a box on his website. Sometimes I write in a Microsoft Word document and copy/paste that into the box.

                I ALSO DON’T KNOW *much* about writing on an iPad, other than playing a bit in the store.

                • Devildog  On April 2, 2013 at 11:37 AM

                  Tourist, I’m a simpleton. I have never had a computer-I have webtv and my daughter bought me an iPad (her idea). I get an email which contains someone’s comment, I hit reply type in something on a box and hit a couple of boxes that say notify me of other peoples comments and by email and then hit send.

                  I know you learn a lot from me but computers/iPad you better learn from someone else. My grand kids just left after a weeks visit but their efforts to teach me a thing or two were to no avail either because I didn’t understand or forgot.

                  Good luck!

  • Tourist  On April 1, 2013 at 6:16 PM

    Awaiting moderation. The last time that happened, the comment also had two links in it. Could that be a trigger?

  • Tourist  On April 2, 2013 at 8:08 PM

    I cannot see myself ever being on Facebook. I understand some of what I’m depriving myself of, and I’m okay with it. But occasionally . . . .

    Today’s Rob Rogers cartoon is about the cold weather for the Pirates’ opening day. A commenter writes in barely a variation on their theme: “Man is causing cooling AND warming? Heh. Well, we’re fresh out of witches, so I guess we’ll burn an oil executive or two.”

    At any point in time (historical, not o’clock), the Earth has an average temperature, broken down into a PATTERN of warm places and cold places, warm seasons and cold seasons, and airflows. “Global warming” refers to an increasing average temperature, which is happening. The consequence is that the PATTERN is changing: warmer there, colder here; seasons; extremes, storms.

    Comments like “Hah, hah! Look at the snow! How’s that old ‘global warming’ working for ya?” really aren’t that clever.

    • Devildog  On April 2, 2013 at 10:39 PM

      And, my friend Tourist, what of any significance does it tell us if we know that we have “global warming” because we have an increase in average temperature other than we have an increase in average temperature that some have called global warming?

      • Tourist  On April 2, 2013 at 11:09 PM

        My friend Devildog, the target of my ire is the idiots who seem to believe that unseasonably cold weather proves that global warming is a hoax. I know that isn’t you.

        • Devildog  On April 2, 2013 at 11:44 PM

          Well, my distinguished colleague, we need to clarify a few matters. So, we agree (assuming the statistics are correct and I am assuming they are for this discussion) that there is global warming. What portion of “global warming” is man-induced? Is that portion, if known (which I don’t think it is) sufficient enough to take “drastic” action at this time (without more knowledge). Are people who believe that a short-term increase (which may not be the case) in hurricanes, earthquakes, etc. are caused by (man-made) global warming also idiots deserving of your ire?

          I suppose that people (idiots) would draw your ire if they believed that unseasonably warm weather proves that global warming is not a hoax. Why do you call either or both of those kinds of people idiots just because they are not as knowledgeable as you or because they merely disagree with you. Sounds more like UMOC than you-are you really you?

          • Tourist  On April 3, 2013 at 12:10 AM

            Devildog, My Only Sunshine,

            I hadn’t brought “human-induced” into it yet.

            “Why do you call either or both of those kinds of people idiots just because they are not as knowledgeable as you or because they merely disagree with you.”

            Because they disagree with me.

            Not.

            I do hold those who choose to expression themselves on the subject of “global warming” to the standard of – not understanding it; I don’t claim to – knowing what the two words mean. That much is not beyond them. Of course, if they do understand and elect to make politicized “snow” comments anyway, that’s worse than “idiot.” On this I know you agree.

            I remember as a small child watching my father work on our car, blowing the gunk out of the engine with STP, producing amazing clouds of thick black smoke. He’d let me gun the engine in the driveway. I remember asking: “Daddy, where does the smoke go?”

            “It goes up and up, spreading out, getting thinner and thinner, until it isn’t there anymore.”

            We can dam and divert rivers, remove mountains, excavate and extract minerals until towns collapse, drill a few miles down and bust up the bedrock with toxic chemicals to get at the gas more cheaply (if you’re lucky, home delivery through your very own kitchen faucet), and fill the atmosphere not only with *gases* but particulate solids, and then what, let nature take its course?

            Maybe.

            • Devildog  On April 3, 2013 at 12:39 AM

              Maybe “Father knows best”. And don’t underestimate “Mother Nature”.

              • Little_Minx  On April 3, 2013 at 8:56 PM

                Tourist, the problem lies with people who are utterly convinced that beliefs unsubstantiated (if not actually disproven) by scientific evidence are entitled to as much credence as scientifically proven facts. It’s like that scene on “Big Bang Theory” where Penny’s affable but dimwitted quondam-boyfriend Curt tells the gang that what he likes about science is that everybody’s entitled to their own opinion.

  • Little_Minx  On April 3, 2013 at 8:51 PM

    Tourist, we saw the following good-news story (in much greater detail) on “NHK World” TV news tonight, and naturally I thought of you.
    “Tsunami-hit railway resumes service”:
    http://www3.nhk.or.jp/nhkworld/english/news/20130403_25.html

    • Tourist  On April 3, 2013 at 9:21 PM

      Thanks, Minx. On your other, it’s not quite the facts-versus-opinion point, but Josh Marshall put this well the other day, something to the effect: “To some people ‘free speech’ means the right to say what you believe and not have others think worse of you for it.”

      • Devildog  On April 4, 2013 at 12:53 AM

        Ah, Tourist. Glad you continue your diplomatic ways by saying “it’s not quite the facts-versus-opinion point”. Not quite as strong as your UMOC facts vs. opinion point.

        I would say that to some, like college administrators and students, free speech for others is the right to utter things with which you agree.

        On another matter, help me to respond to a friend who asks whether we can have good without having evil. What say you? Thanks.

  • Tourist  On April 4, 2013 at 1:32 AM

    Devildog, if you had to be completely blind, would you rather it had been always, or that you had once been able to see? Can there be good without evil? Sure, but how would we know to call it good? The six blind men and the elephant – are they each right or each wrong? What the hell are you asking me for?

    • Devildog  On April 4, 2013 at 1:49 AM

      Tourist, who else is awake at this time? Who else is worth communicating with?

      • Tourist  On April 4, 2013 at 2:02 AM

        Let me do a few tricks,
        Some old and then some new tricks;
        I’m very versatile.
        And if you’re real good,
        I’ll make you feel good;
        I want your spirit to climb.
        So let me entertain you,
        We’ll have a real good time,
        Yes sir!
        We’ll have a real good time!

        • Devildog  On April 4, 2013 at 2:18 AM

          What the hell!

          • Tourist  On April 4, 2013 at 2:25 AM

            Please don’t tell me that’s a question.

            • Devildog  On April 4, 2013 at 6:41 PM

              Tourist, it is a question-but a rhetorical one.

  • Tourist  On April 4, 2013 at 7:35 AM

    (Quote)

    Of course, activists concerned with campaign finance reform and the undue influence of money in politics will not welcome Steyer’s pledge. Others might be pleased . . . .

    (Unquote)

    Money is speech. (Citizens United.) Billionaires are people, too, my friends.

    (Quote)

    California billionaire Tom Steyer is setting himself up as a sort of anti-Koch. The retired hedge fund manager told the Hill that he will dedicate a fortune to fighting climate change through political donations . . . .

    . . . In the parlance appropriate to an aggressive financier, the green capitalist told the Hill that he planned to “destroy” climate skeptics and sought a “smashing victory.” Via the Hill:

    Steyer, whose wealth is estimated at $1.4 billion, last year quit the hedge fund he founded to devote his energy and resources to environmental causes . . . .

    . . . he’s planning to invest millions in races at every level, both primary and general, to boost leaders on environmental issues and to “destroy” those perceived as anti-environment.

    (Unquote)

    http://www.salon.com/2013/04/03/billionaire_pledges_to_destroy_climate_skeptics/

    Meanwhile, in other parlance:

    http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2013/04/hillary_clinton_s_white_house_ambitions_speculation_about_the_2016_presidential.html

    The link is a waste of time – an article by John Dickerson at Slate on 2013 speculation about 2016 – but it makes a couple of points: that the actual candidates then will avoid substance, whereas potential candidates have to be substantive now to try to distinguish themselves; and that, in the present circumstances, this helps Republicans. A commenter, Woking, continues:

    “John is right, that horse race speculation helps the GOP now. No GOP candidate has sufficient name recognition to show up in polls today, but floating names and speculating will ultimately create name recognition for a (presumably small) set of potential candidates.”

    Name recognition? This is not partisan. It just happens to be about Republicans right now, and what is being said is that people will be voting in our next election of a president of the United States who do not, today, know who Marco Rubio, Rand Paul or Chris Christie is. Of course it’s a little more than literally “don’t know.” It includes “heard the name somewhere.” This is conventional wisdom when it comes to the American electorate.

    Thus, we spend when we should be embarrassed.

    • Devildog  On April 4, 2013 at 6:19 PM

      Surely, the author of the column was joshing when she wrote that activists concerned with campaign finance and the undue influence of money in politics will not welcome Steyer’s pledge (though acknowledging others might welcome it). In my OPINION, nthat’s pure baloney. Almost every one of those “activists” are lefties who only cry about money in politics when it comes from the right (not when it comes from unions, Hollywood ans Wall Street-don’t send me links about their objections to all big money because, once again, I don’t believe a “fact”.

      I welcome Steyer’s money for two reasons, one because I believe it is free speech and the second is that I believe it’s influence is overstated.

      As for the 2016 election, would someone out there be kind enough to educate me of two accomplishments by Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State. Ok, how about one accomplishment.

      • Tourist  On April 4, 2013 at 6:43 PM

        Devildog, what is it you expect secretaries of state to do? Google “hillary clinton accomplishments secretary of state.” You’ll find various views.

        Beyond this, duty calls. Can’t play today.

        • Devildog  On April 4, 2013 at 7:11 PM

          Thanks Tourist for recommending Google but I would really like to hear from my colleagues here in their own words what they think are her major accomplishments. You ask what I expect of a secretary of state. My answer is very little and I don’t mean to imply that she has been bad/terrible-though just about everything in the world has gone downhill during The Obama administration.

          It’s just that she has been put up to the public (mostly women) as “one of our greatest” worthy of being president, on her accomplishments as SoS alone. And I say to myself, I must be missing something.

  • Tourist  On April 4, 2013 at 7:36 AM

    What a surprise. Awaiting moderation.

    • Tourist  On April 4, 2013 at 7:40 AM

      UMOC, I know it’s just technical. I’m just being snarky. I learned that here.

  • Tourist  On April 5, 2013 at 7:37 AM

    Deke,

    I like your comment to the P-G editorial on Caroline Kennedy for ambassador to Japan. While you both acknowledge that there is no way to know in advance, I think you are on much firmer ground than the paper is. Indeed, the paper contradicts itself and basically says nothing for the sake of saying something.

    You are 100% right that the Japanese put a lot of stock in getting a well-known ambassador, preferably an elder statesman. That string was broken with Bush-buddy Thomas Schieffer. I would not hesitate to say that Schieffer was the recent worst, but that’s not honestly the point. Obama’s John Roos (who?) has been so low-key it’s impossible (for me) to say whether he has been effective or not. Raising the question: What is effective? What does the ambassador matter when heads of government have cellphones?

    Thus, when I agree with you that “the Japanese put a lot of stock in,” we might have to recognize that as past tense – that they have gotten over it.

    I personally think Caroline Kennedy would be well received and regarded here. My wonder in terms of effectiveness is whether she would ever get beyond being “Caroline Kennedy.” But we’re back to, what is an effective ambassador these days?

  • Devildog  On April 5, 2013 at 3:48 PM

    Great news about the unemployment rate going down to 7.6%. All the Obama administration has to do to get it down to what’s considered “full employment” (4%?) is to stay the course. Pretty soon, enough people will drop out and not seek employment (while getting government benefits) and we’ll be at 4%-on the way even lower.

  • Devildog  On April 5, 2013 at 4:14 PM

    Just read that if the participation rate last month was the same as it was when Obama took office, the unemployment rate would be 10.9%. How come the number of people on disability has gone up so much? What the hell is going on? Is it still Bush’s fault or has the torch been passed to the Tea Party, or has it passed on further to House Republicans? Does Obama share even a little blame, or is everything going so swimmingly that there’s only credit to be shared?

    • Tourist  On April 6, 2013 at 8:48 PM

      Yeah, with the whole nation pulling together the way we have, the slow pace is a bit of a surprise.

      • anonymous  On April 6, 2013 at 9:17 PM

        Pulling together has nothing to do with it. Firms aren’t hiring because of the increased costs of regulation. higher taxes and Obamacare. The jobs ‘created’ by the failed stimulus are low paying jobs with no multiplier effects. Keynesian has only short-run effects. Put it all together and you have no GDP growth. To think that anybody is doing anything that is not in their self interest is beyond ridiculous. Who the president is doesn’t matter. And don’t give me any BS about what the tea party is doing. I could care less about anything that doesn’t benefit me.

        The stock market is part truth and part mirage. Yes, profits are high but the reason the Dow is increasing so much is that the Fed is dumping money into the economy by selling bonds – decreasing the value of bonds. The price of bonds and stocks are inversely related.

        I have said this before. Progressivism is a failure whose last chapters are currently being written. Obama’s re-election will only quicken its death. It is only a matter of time.

        • Tourist  On April 6, 2013 at 9:30 PM

          Anonymous,

          “I have said this before. Progressivism is a failure whose last chapters are currently being written. Obama’s re-election will only quicken its death. It is only a matter of time.”

          In fact, you have said little else, but including some gems, such as this *after* Obama was reelected, on “pulling together”:

          “If a recession is avoided, O can take the credit. The only hope is that between UCA, regulations and European recessions will limit growth and the urate increases anyway.”

          Hoping for limited growth and that unemployment “increases anyway.”

          Nice.

          • anonymous  On April 6, 2013 at 9:53 PM

            It’s all coming together pretty well, don’t you think?

            • anonymous  On April 6, 2013 at 10:12 PM

              Liberalism is a failure. I know the end here – stagnant economy, relatively high unemployment and a large welfare state. Just like Europe. I was hoping the mirage that O managed to vreate for 4 years would be revealed quickly. If this mirage lasted another couple of years, lefties may have been able to blame the GOP (I don’t know how they would have but the MSM would have helped them find a way).

              That it is falling apart now reveals the true cause. Even the low info, Dem voters are starting to figure it out.

              • Devildog  On April 6, 2013 at 11:32 PM

                Tourist, hate to get between you and Anonymous but it sounds like you are blaming “it” on “all not coming together”. I’m not going to infer from your facetious “coming together” comment that you are blaming the Tea Party/Republicans but nevertheless, you are missing the point. It all comes down to one word, which I shall repeat three times-leadership, leadership, leadership. Tourist, you are an intelligent, honorable person (I think). Has there not been an abysmal lack of leadership from the top?

                • Tourist  On April 7, 2013 at 1:02 AM

                  Devildog,

                  “It all comes down to one word, which I shall repeat three times-leadership, leadership, leadership . . . . Has there not been an abysmal lack of leadership from the top?”

                  I try to ask first what I would have done differently. Answer: many things. So I cannot stand in the abstract and defend Obama’s “leadership.” But that’s against the potential. It has not been nothing. Thus, no, there has not been an “abysmal lack.”

                  Moreover, it does not come down to “one word.” You should know that from your earlier line of work. “Want him to fail!” “Not one vote!” “George W. Bush is my commander in chief.”

                  “Anything conceded to them was taken, but they conceded nothing. Anything up for negotiation was met with ever heightening demands. Every offer of compromise was met with an angry rhetoric of denial. Repeated rounds or negotiations . . . have seen little change. And their public rhetoric has always been harsh and hyperbolic.”

                  That’s from this link, written about North Korea:

                  http://us.cnn.com/2013/04/05/opinion/clark-north-korea/index.html?hpt=hp_t3

                  Now it’s the president’s lack of leadership, you say. Haven’t you been complaining that he’s forced everything through?

                  • Devildog  On April 7, 2013 at 1:53 AM

                    Tourist:

                    I’m not going to play the game of what I would do, or would have done differently, because it’s beyond my pay grade and because I don’t have enough “true”information.

                    All this talk about making O a one-term president and wanting him to fail is mere rhetoric. All opposition parties want its party to win the next election and it takes a leader to forge bipartisan agreements. Which brings us to ” forcing through”. O was able to force through things only when he had the absolute power to do so-first two years and through regs. Otherwise, you come back again to blaming the Repubs for the failure of the economy and whatever else and I say it’s because of a failure of leadership. Okay, you don’t like the word “abysmal”. Do you have a more appropriate word.

                    Sanguine about the economy and the future? Will the Dems capture the House, which will solve our problems? Will Obamacare be a success? Is Obama the person for the job? I’m neither a Pollyanna nor a Chicken Little and “we will survive” but looking at his record before and after he became president does not make me overconfident as to our future-not to mention those clowns who lead his party in the House and Senate.

                    • Tourist  On April 7, 2013 at 2:40 AM

                      “I’m not going to play the game of what I would do, or would have done differently, because it’s beyond my pay grade I and because I don’t have enough ‘true’ information.”

                      Play the game? Pay grade? Dog, either give yourself some credit or shut up. (Yellow smiling thingie.) You don’t have the information to say what you’d do, but you have enough to say it wouldn’t be that?

                      Oops. Sorry. My mistake. You didn’t actually say that either.

                      ===

                      If the president “was able to force through things . . . when he had the absolute power to do so” – you know, no compromises, no concessions, no attempts at bipartisanship – why don’t we have single-payer?

                    • Tourist  On April 7, 2013 at 3:18 AM

                      Yellow smiling thingie notwithstanding, I would like to amend my serious point to: “Give yourself some credit or keep your two-cents’ worth out of the kitchen.”

                    • Devildog  On April 7, 2013 at 11:27 AM

                      Tourist, I’m results oriented. Do the job or get someone else in there to do it. The results-not so godd here and around the world. I have enough info/results to have an opinion but an opinion is merely like an asshole. So far at least-a failure.

                      That O couldn’t get through a single payer system only shows his failure as a leader since he had the House and almost 60 in the Senate-then proceeded to lose th House and several in the Senate. anonymous may be right about 2014.

                      I thought UMOC was the only one who had all the facts but nown you imply that you have them too-enough to offer your opinions anyway. I take back what i’vem said about leadership being the operative word-i’vem changed it to results, results results-and I have enough info to offer an opinion on that without having to say what I would haven done differently.

                      No excuses-he hasn’t done the job! What would you have donem differently is a lame responses. Besides, I already commented that forcing through Obamacare poisoned the well (even more and seemingly irreparably).

  • anonymous  On April 5, 2013 at 11:17 PM

    While there would be no doubt that conservatives would not acknowledge this as a good thing if it was happening, the urate should be increasing during a ‘recovery’. This would happen as people re-enter the robust labor market to look for a job. Instead people are leaving the labor market as their benefits run out because they know they can’t find a job. Disability and food stamps baby!!! The American Dream lives!!!!!!

    That people are receiving 2 years of benefits likely means labor force participation is overstated. If you’ve been unemployed for 2 years, you likely stopped looking for work a long time ago.

  • Tourist  On April 7, 2013 at 5:05 PM

    Devildog,

    “I’m results oriented. Do the job or get someone else in there to do it. The results-not so good here.”

    Not good, or you don’t like them? What results are you looking for? You haven’t said. Except “leadership.” But you took that back.

    Getting someone else in isn’t too helpful either, at least for four more years.

    “No excuses-he hasn’t done the job! What would you have done differently is a lame responses.”

    Right. No need to think beyond mumbling about results.

    Were you a sniper?

    • Devildog  On April 7, 2013 at 6:12 PM

      Tourist, I’m not going to get into foreign affairs (where-see comments previously re Hillary) but (and don’t take this personally) “it’s the economy, stupid).

      Obama has taken care of his Wall Street and oil patch friends but not Main Street, where, despite spending/wasting a great deal of money, people have dropped out and, when UC becomes unavailable, gone on disability and food stamps (and in record numbers). Tepid or lousy or even non-existent recovery after more than four years. Could someone else have done better-don’t know, don’t care. Is Obamacare the reason. Don’t know, don’t care- but it is a distinct possibility.

      Closing argument-results unsatisfactory. What can be done about this-Nothing but a Republican Senate and House in 2014 might help (just a little).

    • Devildog  On April 7, 2013 at 7:13 PM

      Actually, Tourist, I am in the Air Force and drone people whose opinions I don’t like.

      • Tourist  On April 7, 2013 at 7:36 PM

        Then your argument is with UMOC. He thinks too many mid-level staffers are doing that already.

        • Devildog  On April 7, 2013 at 7:50 PM

          I don’t have arguments with anyone-just disagreements (on occasion).

  • Tourist  On April 7, 2013 at 7:41 PM

    “It’s the economy, stupid.” And: “results unsatisfactory.”

    Same with the Pirates. Also the Yankees.

    (Quote)

    In this fragile global environment, has America become a beacon of hope? The U.S. is experiencing several positive economic trends: housing is recovering; shale gas and oil will reduce energy costs and boost competitiveness; job creation is improving; rising labor costs in Asia and the advent of robotics and automation are underpinning a manufacturing resurgence; and aggressive quantitative easing is helping both the real economy and financial markets.

    ***

    In sum, among advanced economies, the U.S. is in the best relative shape, followed by Japan, where Abenomics is boosting confidence. The eurozone and the U.K. remain mired in recessions made worse by tight monetary and fiscal policies. Among emerging economies, China could face a hard landing by late 2014 if critical structural reforms are postponed, and the other BRICs need to turn away from state capitalism. While other emerging markets in Asia and Latin America are showing more dynamism than the BRICs, their strength will not be enough to turn the global tide.

    (Unquote)

    That’s from “A Rose Among Thorns: The U.S. economy has its problems, but it’s still better than everywhere else.”

    http://www.slate.com/articles/business/project_syndicate/2013/04/eurozone_crisis_as_austerity_fatigue_sets_in_the_u_s_economy_looks_pretty.html

    So by all means, let’s get someone who can do the job – now that we’ve clarified what “the job” is.

    • Devildog  On April 7, 2013 at 8:43 PM

      Tourist, did you check out Roubini before you urged me/us to read what he said. If I knew how to do it, I would link his comments but not knowing how, people can google him and I’m going to give a few recent ones.

      Tax increases on the wealthy and reduced government spending will have a severe impact on economic growth in the U.S.

      Even without U.S. politics, we’ve stolen growth from the future and now there needs to be payback for the mistakes made in the past. The U.S. needs to start some austerity.

      The power of QE was now becoming ineffective.

      Investors should brace for a shock in the latter half of the year as revenues begin to disappoint.

      Roubini, Dr. Doom to some is in the business of generating revenues from people who think he knows what the hell is going to happen (he knows no more or less than anyone else).

      Anyway, hope springs eternal, and that goes for the Pirates too-if they’re not already eliminated. As for the Yankees, i wish them nothing but the worst-as someone who spent his first 20 years of life living in The Bronx as a Red Sox fan (even then i was a contrarian including being raised in a Roosevelt Democratic family and supporting Eisenhower in 1952 when i was 13).

      And your rating for O after four years is? On a scale of 1-10 with 10 being saviour like.

      • anonymous  On April 7, 2013 at 8:57 PM

        I never heard of Roubini before I read Tourist’s post but it appears he had a different view of what was going to happen in the US in 2013 a couple of years ago. Most of what he said in this post occured – higher taxes, lower spending…. In 2011, he said this was going to lead to a Perfect Storm. Why will 2013 be different now?

        http://www.cnbc.com/id/43659234

        • Devildog  On April 7, 2013 at 9:08 PM

          Anonymous, if you care to, read and link Roubini’s comments on CNBC this past Friday.

      • Tourist  On April 7, 2013 at 9:20 PM

        Devildog,

        Did I check out Roubini? Sure didn’t! You’ve got me. Now watch me get out of it.

        You mean that despite all the “doom” in your quotations, in the article dated today he thinks the U.S. is in the best shape of all?

        Or, in the alternative, I could fall back on what I think is *your* comment (i.e., not a quotation): that “he knows no more or less than anyone else.”

        My point – serious one – still is, what’s the job you think the president isn’t doing?

        ===

        As you explain it, it’s likely you hate the Yankees more than I do. I have been a fan since last July. For a limited time only, I swear. For Ichiro. I’ve blocked out the rest. He deserves a Series.

        • Devildog  On April 7, 2013 at 9:51 PM

          Tourist, my point about Roubini is that, IMHO, he doesn’t know shit from shinola,including what he said in your link and what he said previous to that (or may say in the future-though he may be like a broken clock. You didn’t get out of it.

          You still what to know what the job is that O (is that disrectful?-loved the Big O-know who that was) isn’t doing? Well,try this on for size. Oversee a recovery at least equal to the norm for past recoveries, oversee the future of our country through entitlement reform, oversee the situation in the world that better ensures our security and economic well-being, oversees the “illegal immigrant” situation so that our laws are obeyed, our economic needs are satisfied and within that, the needs of good, otherwise law-abiding residents are treated with a path to permanent residency without a path to citizenship other than getting to the back of the line. There are more if you want them.

          The use of the word oversee is to equate the job of president to that of a CEO.
          Get the job done, don’t explain, don’t complain, just produce.

          ichiro “deserves” a World Series. What he (and others in other areas) deserve is opportunity, and he has that. Is this personal with Ichiro or are you the Japanese equivalent of an Anglophile? oh ago gazaimous on this Monday morning. Finished your coffee yet?

          • Tourist  On April 7, 2013 at 10:16 PM

            Devildog, do I know who the “Big O” is? Sure. Is it disrespectful for Obama? Not until he asks that it not be used. That was “Barry.”

            In everything you list as “the job,” you assume without proof that it needs to be done and/or that he hasn’t or isn’t doing it. Is his job to do what you want done? What if he disagrees? Or I do?

            “The use of the word oversee is to equate the job of president to that of a CEO. Get the job done, don’t explain, don’t complain, just produce.”

            The parallel to the power to fire is? (For starters, maybe just elected legislators.) The parallel to the power to close a factory is? (“Texas” would be fun.)

            Ichiro shortly.

            • Devildog  On April 7, 2013 at 10:35 PM

              Tourist, you ask, “what’s the job YOU THINK the president isn’t doing”. I give you my opinion, what I think, you write that I “assume without proof…”. Now you’re sounding too much like UMOC. What job I think the president isn’t doing has nothing to do with the possibilities you inject. And if you disagree, so be it. You can either leave it at that or propound your views. Can’t imagine, though, that you disagree with what I said-except, perhaps, by asking what he could have done or asking who could have done better or by blaming others. All of which are lame.

              The bully pulpit??? Arm twisting??? Promises, benefits to Districts??? See LBJ! Poor President O, helpless in the face of a recalcitrant House. He “deserves” better.

            • Tourist  On April 7, 2013 at 11:16 PM

              “ichiro ‘deserves’ a World Series”?

              As a European once noted, contrasting the sports culture there with the one in the United States: “When we stage a world championship in a particular sport, we invite teams from other countries.”

              You loved the Big O, you said. Yeah, good story. Ichiro? Good story. O.J. Simpson, he of the Heisman – *before* the bad movies and some other stuff – gets drafted by (‘cause they start at the bottom) and spends a decade with Buffalo Bills before finally being traded to what everyone hoped for him would be a contender.

              Ichiro signed with Mariners in 2001, the year they went 116-46, losing to the Yankees in the championship playoff. The team never won 100 again, promptly relocating to the cellar, as Ichiro collected ten golden gloves, two batting championships, season MVP and all-star MVP (10-time all-star). And he inspires children.

              You hate the Yankees. I hate the Yankees. Seattle hates the Yankees. Ichiro was traded to the Yankees on a day when the Yankees were in Seattle. He appeared that night to a standing ovation in his new uniform.

              Yeah, he deserves a Series. Sorry to you don’t think so.

              • Devildog  On April 8, 2013 at 12:05 AM

                Tourist, Nothing personal re Ichiro. Have to say that lest you think or say I am a racist. It’s just that I believe people “deserve” opportunities not outcomes. You, as a liberal, would not understand that. How long is your list of players in all sports who deserve championships. Personally, my list is headed by Ted Williams, not only a better player than even Ichiro but a U.S Marine Corps war (two) hero.

                • Tourist  On April 8, 2013 at 12:22 AM

                  Devildog, you don’t really misunderstand me, do you? I would like to see Ichiro have an opportunity to play in the Series. So would many people. That’s why Seattle cheered him in a Yankee uniform — because that’s his best chance.

                  May your grandkids continue to walk you through the technology and may it bring you joy and fulfillment each day. You deserve it.

                  • Devildog  On April 8, 2013 at 12:57 AM

                    Fair enough, Tourist. No problem with “wanting” to see him in the W.S. it just that some words, including deserve and fair, make me cringe. They are words of the left, used to take from some and give to others at the whim of those not doing the giving.

                  • Devildog  On April 8, 2013 at 1:20 AM

                    Tourist, I forgot to mention this little tidbit. I was at the home run hitting contest when the all-star game was held at PNC Park and surprisingly at least to me, Ichiro was in it. I don’t remember if he won it but he was magnificent-his home run stroke was as good as any I have ever seen as he lined one after another into the right field stands.my son-in-law and I agreed that if he went for more homers at the risk of a loss of points in his batting average, he could hit 50.

                    And maybe if he did, Seattle might have gotten into the W.S. sometimes it’s best in sports to be selfish.

                    • Tourist  On April 8, 2013 at 2:23 AM

                      Devildog, I never saw him live. I agree with you, though, that he could probably do anything he wanted, because everything he does is pure, and mastered. It was noted once that, whatever the situation, he runs to first in exactly the same number of steps and hits on the front edge of the bag exactly the same way every time. And he plays the final game of the season with the same commitment as the first.

                      A couple months ago he was back here, visiting, and working out, of course. The news showed him taking batting practice with the pitcher seven meters away. I’d never seen that as a training technique. I asked a few knowledgeable people and they hadn’t either.

                      One that still bothers me, though – “puzzles” might be better – was one of his early seasons in Japan. Late in the season he was hitting above .390 and had a shot at 200 hits. All the talk was on which he would go for – and the nation wanted the 200. (200 was magic; the season was 130 games then.) He went for the hits, got 210 (!), and finished at .385.

                      To me, 200 hits is only great as a function of the season. .400 is forever.

                      Just found this on his wiki page (I was looking for something else):

                      (Quote)

                      Sportswriter Bruce Jenkins, writing in the San Francisco Chronicle, described Ichiro’s distinctive style of play:

                      “There’s nobody like Ichiro in either league—now or ever. He exists strictly within his own world, playing a game 100 percent unfamiliar to everyone else. The game has known plenty of ‘slap’ hitters, but none who sacrifice so much natural ability for the sake of the art… Ichiro, a man of wondrous strength, puts on impressive power-hitting displays almost nightly in batting practice. And he’ll go deep occasionally in games, looking very much like someone who could do it again, often… [but] the man lives for hits, little tiny ones, and the glory of standing atop the world in that category. Every spring, scouts or media types write him off, swearing that opposing pitchers have found the key, and they are embarrassingly wrong.

                      (Unquote)

                    • Devildog  On April 8, 2013 at 12:39 PM

                      Tourist, there’s a disconnect in your puzzlement between going for 200 hits or .400 batting average. The way to get to .400 is by getting hits (in his style, singles or doubles. That his average “dropped” to .385 means he didn’t get enough hits. So what’s your “puzzlement”. Was Ichiro ever above .400 at the end and decided to continue playing, risking that, to achieve 200 hits also. If so, he must have gone 0 for a bundle

                      And now I get to a real demonstration of class involving my childhood idol, the Splendid Splinter. The last day of the 1941 season, a doubleheader, Bosox out of it and Ted hitting .3995 which was rounded to .400. He was offered the opportunity by his manager to sit both games out. Ted declined, played both games, went 6for 8 and finished at .406-72 years later, still the last one to hit .400.

                      Now, back to Ichiro. If he wasn’t such a purist (and was more team oriented), would Seattle have achieved more success if he focused more on home runs than hits and average. Was it against his psyche to change his style? We’ll never know but, again, IMHO, he could have hit 50 or more rather easily. But, I agree, Ichiro was great in all aspects of the game-except hitting home runs.

                    • Tourist  On April 8, 2013 at 5:15 AM

                      Devildog,

                      The first in the first link is the one known as “The Throw.” I saw it live on TV. The third baseman said afterward, “He threw it on a low trajectory and I kept waiting for it to bounce. It never bounced.”

                      Not that he had to watch it. It hit him in the glove.

                      This when Ichiro was new in the U.S. Everyone had seen that he could manage those hits. Could he play the rest of the game?

                    • Devildog  On April 8, 2013 at 12:18 PM

                      Wow, Tourist, never saw a throw like that. Your memory seems to have faded a little. Why does the picture show the catcher when you saw the ball go into the third baseman’s glove?

                    • Devildog  On April 8, 2013 at 12:50 PM

                      Sorry, Tourist, I now pulled up the “throw”. Nice throw (from short right field).

      • anonymous  On April 7, 2013 at 11:11 PM

        DD – I think he made the comments you refer to about a month ago.

        http://www.cnbc.com/id/100535764

        To post a link, just cut and paste it – when you hit enter to post it, it will become active.

        • Devildog  On April 8, 2013 at 12:10 AM

          Thanks Anonymous. I stand corrected. I have no idea how to cut and paste. I have an iPad and not a computer and no printer so is it still possible for me under those circumstances to cut, paste and link?

          • anonymous  On April 8, 2013 at 12:22 AM

            From eHow re: cut and paste

            http://www.ehow.com/how_5948054_copy-paste-ipad.html

            • Devildog  On April 8, 2013 at 1:02 AM

              Thanks Anonymous (and Tourist). I’ve looked over the cut and paste instructions and decided that since I’ll be back in the ‘burgh in 10 days, I better wait until then so I can go over it with my grand kids.

  • anonymous  On April 7, 2013 at 8:37 PM

    I think the question is ‘Do we want to become just like everybody else?” The answer to that is yes if O’s vision is realized. Europe has had a 60 year head start and they were hit really hard by the recession because many European countries never developed industries after WWII. The govt took over and drove what production they had (esp. true in southern Europe). When the recession hit, their economies (what there were of them) fell apart. Now they need to develop their private sectors. This takes time. Saying that austerity is a failure is specious – most countries have only been doing it for less than 5 years. It took 60 years to get into the mess their in. It is going to take awhile for them to get out of it. Going back to the same failed policies may put a short term bandage on it but it will just be kicking the can down the road.

    The stimulus is a failed short term policy – let’s see where we are all at 5 years from now. Of course, I am saying this knowing that if the GOP regains the Oval Office and our economy is still stagnant for a few years while they clean up O’s mess, lefties will blame the GOP for it.

    • Little_Minx  On April 8, 2013 at 11:52 AM

      “…if the GOP regains the Oval Office and our economy is still stagnant for a few years while they clean up O’s mess, lefties will blame the GOP for it.”

      I can understand how you’d think this way, because it’s like when the Obama administration took office on 20 Jan 2009 and had to start cleaning up the Augean Stables left behind by 8 years of Bush-Cheney economic mismanagement plus two wars — and that very night a group of Republican honchos gathered for dinner at a fancy DC restaurant in order to plot how to obstruct Obama as much as possible, and make him a one-term president.

      Ever since, the GOP has tried to blame the Obama administration for not cleaning up the Republican-made mess soon enough. That didn’t fly in 2012, when Obama was reelected, and the prospect of the GOP trying to perpetrate the same canard in 2016 seems unlikely, since too many voters are wise to this game. (Cue another round of Republican-backed voter-suppression efforts).

      • anonymous  On April 9, 2013 at 2:53 PM

        Wow, I thought the recession occurred as a result of the financial and housing markets collapse and the Bush administration had only tangential responsibility for it. After all, it was Bubba’s deregulation that was mostly responsible for the collapse. See how the leftist MSM is able to brainwash low info. voters.

  • Tourist  On April 8, 2013 at 12:10 AM

    Devildog, we recently discussed our host’s saying “the fact that Obamacare is a huge step forward,” and how “fact” was premised on his view of “forward.” He meant coverage. To those who think “liberty,” not so.

    You are doing the equivalent when you list the jobs the president isn’t doing – except your first one.

    Your first is “Oversee a recovery at least equal to the norm for past recoveries.” Someone (not me) could get into it that way: the criteria, the starting point, the usefulness of the approach as a standard of evaluation. The conclusion could very well then be that the president is not doing the job. I don’t know.

    But your second: “oversee the future of our country through entitlement reform.” (1) You are assuming a need for entitlement reform. Actually, probably, you have an image of reform that you want to see. (2) You are assuming the president is doing nothing about it. Unlike your first one, there is nothing to measure or judge, except by the standard of impressing you. Fine, you are not impressed. But that’s all you are saying.

    Your third: “oversee the situation in the world that better ensures our security and economic well-being.” Do better? Yes, Mom. Others might think he is doing well in the circumstances.

    Your fourth: “oversees the ‘illegal immigrant’ situation . . . .”

    +++ Just that much and the answer would again be, you are assuming he isn’t. But then:

    “. . . so that our laws are obeyed, our economic needs are satisfied and within that, the needs of good, otherwise law-abiding residents are treated with a path to permanent residency without a path to citizenship other than getting to the back of the line.”

    +++ That’s pure policy and it’s yours.

    THAT’S FINE, TOO. Want what you want. Be unhappy. Be unimpressed.

    Don’t define the job as doing it your way.

    • Devildog  On April 8, 2013 at 12:50 AM

      Tourist, sorry I didn’t express myself better. I told you I am results oriented so in some of the areas, such as entitlement and immigration reforms, there has not been a result to judge or form an opinion so, in my mind, it’s a failure. What I am not impressed by is that there is no result-nothing to judge. I have no image of what there should be and I’m not impressed if he is trying or not.

      As for “foreign affairs”, that’s more subjective and won’t really be known in the short run so it’s just my opinion but in the others, I believe it’s almost universally believed that something should be done though not agreed what that needs to be done but the failure to pass something is a failure-though I strongly believe that it is not necessarily better in all cases to do something rather than nothing.

      I don’t believe I defined the job as doing it my way; my position is act in an area that needs acting and I will decide whether you did the job(IMHO). Don’t produce a result and you have failed.

      • Little_Minx  On April 8, 2013 at 12:05 PM

        “I believe it’s almost universally believed that something should be done though not agreed what that needs to be done but the failure to pass something is a failure…”

        By this logic you necessarily disapprove of the obstructionist practices of Congressional Republicans, including real or threatened Senate filibusters, ever since President Obama took office, right? Or is that only for the other party?

        • Devildog  On April 8, 2013 at 12:13 PM

          Minx, I blame the CEO. That’s where the buck stops. Remember that saying? Never explain, never complain, just get the job done. Lead “from the front”! Find a way. It’s been done by former CEO’s but, so far, not by the current one.

  • Little_Minx  On April 8, 2013 at 5:50 PM

    How long is Obama allowed to undo Bush’s 8 years of economic damage? Was FDR entitled to 12 years to undo what Harding-Coolidge-Hoover did, or should he have gotten it all cleaned up during his first Presidential term?

    • Devildog  On April 8, 2013 at 6:49 PM

      Are you equating O’s first term performance with that of FDR-just asking, not making a judgement. God, ihope we don’t have to wait nine years and then a war before we see an acceptable recovery

      • Little_Minx  On April 9, 2013 at 1:25 PM

        As opposed to the celerity with which Dubya got us into TWO wars, as part of his (and Cheney’s) mission to “undo” Clinton’s “damage”???

        • Devildog  On April 9, 2013 at 6:27 PM

          And, Minx, please refresh my recollection as to what was the vote in the Senate to go into Iraq, including that of your leading 2016 candidate. Also, what president said Afghanistan was the true” (or something like that) war and increased our presence by 30,000 or so.

  • Anonymous  On April 8, 2013 at 7:28 PM

    Re: Devildog On April 8, 2013 at 12:39 PM

    Sorry, Devildog, I almost missed that one.

    I had heard the .3995 story about Williams. I could not agree with you more. That’s the way you do it. I also heard another one. Apparently his vision was remarkable. This wasn’t a game; he’d apparently talked about hitting the ball on the seams versus hitting it on the white, and whoever he said that to thought it was crazy talk. So he demonstrated. He rubbed something like coal dust (I don’t know) on his bat, to leave a mark, and then hit balls pitched to him – declaring each time whether he’d hit a seam or the white. He was right.

    Back to Ichiro. You said this: “The way to get to .400 is by getting hits (in his style, singles or doubles. That his average “dropped” to .385 means he didn’t get enough hits.”

    Not exactly. If you’re going for hits – more hits, maximum hits – and a pitch is a little out of the strike zone, you swing. Maybe you miss or strike out, but you don’t want to walk either. A walk isn’t a hit. If you’re going for average, you wait for the good pitches and hit those, but you don’t want to strike out unnecessarily. If the pitches aren’t there, a walk doesn’t hurt you.

    By the way, at some point in the latter part of that season – not the final week, but earlier; I don’t remember exactly – Ichiro was bouncing back and forth around .400. It was doable. That’s when the whole 200-or-.400 debate began.

    But, man, Dog! To try to paint him as not a team player for not focusing on home runs! He was the lead-off hitter for Seattle, hitting .350, .372, .371 and .352, and in the other years mostly above .320. Then he’d steal second. Or third. With the power hitters behind him. If you think he could have helped the team more, you’re the only one.

    Somebody once described the American idea of baseball as two walks and a homerun. (Smiling thingie.)

    • umoc193  On April 8, 2013 at 11:37 PM

      Remember Williams was an ace Marine pilot in both WW II and Korea so his vision was excellent.

      • Devildog  On April 8, 2013 at 11:59 PM

        UMOC, how could I forget even though at the time of Korea, when I was old enough to know a little of what was going on, I had no idea I would be a Marine. That Ted was a Marine only adds icing to him being my childhood idol.

        A slight quibble though with what you wrote. If by “ace” you mean five kills, I’m pretty certain that Ted not only didn’t have five kills in total for both wars but I don’t think he had even one confirmed kill. But I remember a picture of him bringing back a plane that was in flames.

        • Little_Minx  On April 9, 2013 at 1:35 PM

          Did you know that über-left former Congressman and Oakland Mayor Ron Dellums was also a Marine?
          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_Dellums
          So were, inter alii, journalist Jim Lehrer, political analyst Mark Shields and political satirist Mark Russell. Still proud?

          • Devildog  On April 9, 2013 at 6:21 PM

            Minx, of course. Your question indicates that you know nothing what it is to be a Marine. But you are excused not having been one. The guys you cited are my brothers.

  • Tourist  On April 8, 2013 at 7:30 PM

    Re: Devildog On April 8, 2013 at 12:39 PM

    Sorry, Devildog, I almost missed that one.

    I had heard the .3995 story about Williams. I could not agree with you more. That’s the way you do it. I also heard another one. Apparently his vision was remarkable. This wasn’t a game; he’d apparently talked about hitting the ball on the seams versus hitting it on the white, and whoever he said that to thought it was crazy talk. So he demonstrated. He rubbed something like coal dust (I don’t know) on his bat, to leave a mark, and then hit balls pitched to him – declaring each time whether he’d hit a seam or the white. He was right.

    Back to Ichiro. You said this: “The way to get to .400 is by getting hits (in his style, singles or doubles. That his average “dropped” to .385 means he didn’t get enough hits.”

    Not exactly. If you’re going for hits – more hits, maximum hits – and a pitch is a little out of the strike zone, you swing. Maybe you miss or strike out, but you don’t want to walk either. A walk isn’t a hit. If you’re going for average, you wait for the good pitches and hit those, but you don’t want to strike out unnecessarily. If the pitches aren’t there, a walk doesn’t hurt you.

    By the way, at some point in the latter part of that season – not the final week, but earlier; I don’t remember exactly – Ichiro was bouncing back and forth around .400. It was doable. That’s when the whole 200-or-.400 debate began.

    But, man, Dog! To try to paint him as not a team player for not focusing on home runs! He was the lead-off hitter for Seattle, hitting .350, .372, .371 and .352, and in the other years mostly above .320. Then he’d steal second. Or third. With the power hitters behind him. If you think he could have helped the team more, you’re the only one.

    Somebody once described the American idea of baseball as two walks and a homerun. (Smiling thingie.)

    • Devildog  On April 8, 2013 at 8:00 PM

      Tourist, you’re correct that going for 200 hits might cause you to swing at pitches outside the strike zone thereby possibly causing your average to suffer. Actually, Ted Williams said he wouldn’t swing at pitchers outside the zone and was accused of not being a team player because he was more value to the team swinging at some of those pitches than accepting a walk.

      So be it maybe with Ichiro not going for home runs-who I did not accuse of not being a team player. Maybe, just maybe, if the mgr. had him hitting third and told him his job was to go for home runs, he would have done so.

      So, Tourist, I don’t think we disagree on anything re Ichiro or Ted-remember the genesis of our discussion is your use of the word “deserved”.

      Btw, “that’s the way you do it” applies only if you do it. I don’t know if I wouldn’t have sat it out with a sore elbow suffered the night before from lifting a pitcher of beer. If I could have known that no one else would have hit .400 in 72 years and counting, history calls and classless or not, I hope I would have sat. Being a class act would be only a footnote in history had he not made it.

  • Tourist  On April 9, 2013 at 1:02 AM

    UMOC, housekeeping – just trying to help. You may have noticed that my comment from a little earlier that begins, “Sorry, Devildog, I almost missed that one,” is up twice, one as me (7:30 PM) and one as Anonymous (7:28 PM). Don’t worry about it. I think it’s my fault.

    I cleared my cookies today. When I hit “Post Comment” for that comment, I did not notice that the my name and e-mail address were not automatically shown, as they normally are. Without them, when I clicked, it said “Posting,” but my comment seemed then to have disappeared. I re-pasted it, re-entered my identification, and sent it.

    I do think that second one appeared first, but that’s not important either. Just be aware that you do NOT have a problem.

    • umoc193  On April 11, 2013 at 3:30 PM

      Tourist

      Yours of 4-9 at 1:02 a.m. re: housekeeping. I made some adjustments in the settings for comments on Monday but still have the disadvantage of not knowing what you all see.

      On the P-G blogs under the old comment system, a thread would be maintained for each blog entry and usually the crowd would migrate to a new entry after a time. For me I see all comments with a reference to which blog it was made on and see them in order of posting. Is that what you all can see or is it something different?

      If I know this perhaps I can make further adjustments to improve your experience.

      Frankly there are some options available on my site that may be too sophisticated for me to use properly. I think I may be somewhat ahead of DevilDog in my tech knowledge but still lag most of the rest of the world, especially four-year-olds.

  • Tourist  On April 9, 2013 at 7:44 AM

    Now I remember. This is the gay-marriage thread.

    (Quote)

    Tortious interference

    Tortious interference, . . . in the common law of torts, occurs when a person intentionally damages the plaintiff’s contractual or other business relationships. This tort is broadly divided into two categories, one specific to contractual relationships . . . and the other specific to business relationships or activities (irrespective of whether they involve a contract).

    . . . Such conduct is termed tortious interference with prospective business relations, expectations, or advantage or with prospective economic advantage.

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

    (Quote)

    Former senator and failed Republican presidential candidate Rick Santorum [said] . . . that Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz “made this bombastic statement, he said: ‘if you are a shareholder of Starbucks and you support traditional marriage then sell your shares, we don’t want you as a shareholder.’”

    (Unquote)

    Of course, Santorum wasn’t speaking to too many Starbucks shareholders. He was speaking on the radio to American coffee drinkers, who decide daily whose coffee to buy.

    (Quote)

    What Schultz actually said — and we have the video, was:

    “We did provide a 38 percent shareholder return. I would suspect not many companies provided a 38 percent return over the past twelve months. Having said that it’s not an economic decision. The lens we use to make decisions is the lens of our people. We employ over 200,000 people in this company, and we want to embrace diversity. If you feel, respectfully, that you can get a higher return than the 38 percent you got last year, it’s a free country. You can sell your shares in Starbucks and buy shares in another company.”

    Santorum is lying, plain and simple.

    (Unquote)

    http://thenewcivilrightsmovement.com/santorum-starbucks-ceo-wants-all-shareholders-who-dont-support-gay-marriage-to-sell-their-stock/politics/2013/04/08/64815

    ===

    No, it probably wouldn’t work. Too bad.

    Still: “lying, plain and simple.”

    • anonymous  On April 9, 2013 at 2:48 PM

      Is this anything like O claiming he said Benghazi was an act of terror in the Rose Garden?

    • Devildog  On April 9, 2013 at 7:03 PM

      Tourist, a question for you. Why would anyone waste their time researching a lie by Santorum and waste our time by posting it?

      • Tourist  On April 9, 2013 at 7:16 PM

        Devildog, are you evolving? You acknowledged he – a once and possibly future presidential candidate – lied. The last few times anything like this came up, you found ways to say they weren’t lies if the second person believed that’s what the first person really meant, notwithstanding that what the first person actually said.

        This is why. And because people believe it.

        • anonymous  On April 9, 2013 at 7:24 PM

          Second person? About 51% of the voting population believed O’s lies. You don’t seem to have a problem with that.

          • umoc193  On April 11, 2013 at 3:42 PM

            “Second person? About 51% of the voting population believed O’s lies. You don’t seem to have a problem with that.”

            Geez, you believe all of your own lies and nothing of the truth or proveable facts.

        • Devildog  On April 9, 2013 at 8:00 PM

          Evolving, Tourist, if you say so. Possible future candidate-are you kidding-I don’t think so-relevant then but not now so I haven’t considered whether he lied or not. Same for the Limbaugh posts. Now Obama, he’s relevant so his lies “count”. Do you really think there are any/many people on this blog site who “believe it”? If you want to publish those who lie, how about sticking to relevant people.

          Value in bad headlines-that may be all some people read and the bad in these leading papers almost always seem to favor “the other side” when it concerns a political matter-but I claim nothing.

          After hearing Sibelious today, a thought came to mind re Obamacare. Obama pushed this through without a Republican vote. Did he anticipate this degree of so-called Republican obstructionism. If yes, with Obamacare being in disarray and arming the economy in so many ways, why did he go ahead with it. If not, a gross misreading of the political tea leaves causing the damage to the economy and the healthcare system.

          So which is it-anticipate or not. That is my question and you need not go into the merits but, of course, do what you want.

  • Tourist  On April 9, 2013 at 7:45 AM

    Awaiting moderation.

  • Little_Minx  On April 9, 2013 at 5:44 PM

    Uh-oh, Senate Republicans might not succeed after all in filibustering the gun control act that the NRA and their ilk believe will deprive red-blooded gun-toting Americans of some of their “liberty.” That could make Devildog and Anonymous verklempt!

    “Gun vote set for Thursday as Democrats beat back GOP-led filibuster”:
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2013/04/09/democrats-on-verge-of-beating-back-gop-led-gun-filibuster

    “…Thus far, at least eight GOP senators — John McCain (Ariz.), Lindsey Graham (S.C.), Mark Kirk (Ill.), Johnny Isakson (Ga.), Tom Coburn (Okla.), Saxby Chambliss (R-Ga.), Kelly Ayotte (N.H.) and Susan Collins (Maine) — have said they will not join in a filibuster being planned by a handful of the party’s more conservative senators…

    “The filibuster is being led by the new conservative wing of the GOP, including Sens. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), Mike Lee (R-Utah) and Ted Cruz (R-Tex.), whom McCain and Graham have clashed with in recent weeks. Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) and 10 other senators have signed on, including Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), whose involvement has lent the opposition more credibility…”

    • Devildog  On April 9, 2013 at 6:42 PM

      One of the things I do on occasion is write the editor of a newspaper when a headline does not reflect the underlying article. I suggest you read the underlying article and ask yourself what the headline writer was smoking when he used ” Democratic beat back”. It is obvious there was nothing of the sort.

      • Tourist  On April 9, 2013 at 7:08 PM

        Devildog, you said “newspaper.” When it’s paper, except for tabloid headlines, I tend to think it’s just sloppy – I salute you for calling them on it – because I don’t see much value in it for them. On the other hand, writing misleading headlines must be one of the best-paying jobs on the internet. The undisputed champ is Huffington Post, a site I can’t stand for that reason alone. I go to the front page there once or maybe twice a day, just to make sure I haven’t missed any of our talking points, but I never click on a story. I put a fair amount of time – extra seconds per day – figuring out where I can find the item somewhere else, just so I don’t give Huff Po another click.

        That said, few things are more irritating than clicking on a story only to discover that I’ve already read it on the same site under another title. That would be Slate.

        • umoc193  On April 11, 2013 at 3:41 PM

          Re: misleading headlines in newspapers and online. That’s not just a new phenomenon. The old print world was well-known for such long before Al Gore invented the internet.

          Where I find the practice frustrating is when I see a headline suggesting a point of view that interests me, positive or negative, but which turns out to be nothing of the kind. A good many simply promise more than they can deliver.

          When I am researching for my blog or just as an exercise of interest on a particular topic, far too often I find Google entries which at first seem relevant from the head but end up providing nothing useful and sometimes not even really mentioning the searched info within the text.

    • Devildog  On April 9, 2013 at 6:51 PM

      Minx’s, please don’t attribute to me positions that I have not taken. I am referring to your concern that I might go verklemt over the gun/filibuster issue. If I’m wrong about that, please point it out. If you can’t do so, a gomenasai will be accepted. Your suggestion that “Senate republicans might not succeed” is not a good choice of words since the filibuster would succeed without Republican votes.

      • Little_Minx  On April 9, 2013 at 8:37 PM

        Are you saying that you oppose this possible filibuster? Or do you support it?

      • Little_Minx  On April 9, 2013 at 9:11 PM

        Don’t play word games. Senate GOP leader Mitch McConnell has signed on for the filibuster, so the definition of success is him getting his way. Those 8 Republican Senators (thus far) who oppose it are , via-à-vis their leader, trying to make the GOP stance fail.

        • Devildog  On April 9, 2013 at 11:07 PM

          I neither support nor oppose the filibuster because frankly “my dear”, I don’t give a damn. It’s mere political posturing on both sides. Putting aside slippery slope, which I don’t believe in, a bill that might be passed now will neither have an effect on gun violence nor will it infringe on second Amendment rights. So you can get worked up about what’s going on but, in the immortal words of Sam Goldwyn (a Yogi type), include me out.

          And, btw, where’s my gomenasai?

          • Little_Minx  On April 9, 2013 at 11:42 PM

            It wouldn’t be “political posturing” if the House followed the Senate’s — not to mention the President’s, since you’re on this “CEO” kick — lead and passed the gun control act. It would be, ya know, action.

            • anonymous  On April 10, 2013 at 12:36 AM

              A law which I think everybody agrees would not have prevented Newtown. Passing a non-effective law just to pass a law is quintessentially liberal and is what restrains this county’s ability to form that more perfect union. O’care is a perfect example of this. Just pass it, liberals say, we’ll figure out what ‘s in it later. By the time everybody realizes how much of a train wreck it is, it will be too late to reverse course. So what will liberals want to do? Fix it again.

              DD – Listen to Sebelius. I really think she is surprised at how difficult it was going to be to implement it. Like it would happen because of O himself, To liberals, he is the 1st coming. It would happen because he said it would. And people believe it.

  • Tourist  On April 9, 2013 at 9:15 PM

    Devildog,

    Let’s belabor it. Santorum told a broadcast audience that the CEO of Starbucks “made this bombastic statement.” Santorum said the Starbucks CEO said: “If you support traditional marriage then sell your shares, we don’t want you as a shareholder.”

    Santorum was lying, plain and simple. Not only did Santorum potentially damage – actually damage, without much doubt, though difficult to calculate – Starbucks’ business; he slandered the CEO.

    You yourself said elsewhere that, like all Marines, you have no respect for anyone in the Navy.

    You said in this thread that Santorum is “irrelevant” and by implication in contrasting him with the “relevant” Obama whose lies “count,” that Santorum’s lies don’t count.

    You said in this thread: “Please don’t attribute to me positions that I have not taken.”

    ===

    “I cannot tell a lie. I did it with my little hatchet.”

    “I will not lie, cheat or steal, or tolerate those who do.”

    “The Pens are going to win it all. I know it.”

    • Devildog  On April 9, 2013 at 10:59 PM

      Ok, Tourist, let’s belabor it because I cannot believe such bullshit can come from the “pen” of someone I do respect.

      My point was I don’t care about Santorum because he is a non-entity now. Also, you and your ilk have no idea what a lie is; that is, you would call it a lie if someone was mistaken and believed what he said but it turned out to be not true. Best example, Bush and WMD’s. I have no idea whether Santorum lied and I don’t care one way or the other.

      You must have too much sake to write that I said that I, like all Marines, have no respect for anyone in the Navy and if I did say that, I had too much sake because it is not what I believe. Show me the proof and I will issue a gomenasai. I have nothing against, and have respect all military personnel but especially for Navy corpsman (tell our Commander-in-Chief that is with a silent p) who serve with the Marines and are considered our brothers equal to Marines.

      P.S., let Schultz sue for slander and loss of business-that should be his issue not yours.

      Now you can answer my question about Obamacare and what did Obama anticipate when he pushed it through.

      • Tourist  On April 10, 2013 at 12:17 AM

        Back from lunch.

        “My point was I don’t care about Santorum because he is a non-entity now” . . . “and if I did say that [about having no respect for anyone in the Navy] . . . .”

        The non-entity is lying on an issue of the day to people who listen and what does it matter to you if someone says you said something you didn’t?

        “Now you can answer my question about Obamacare and what did Obama anticipate when he pushed it through.” The question was originally this: “Obama pushed this through without a Republican vote. Did he anticipate this degree of so-called Republican obstructionism. If yes, with Obamacare being in disarray and harming the economy in so many ways, why did he go ahead with it. If not, a gross misreading of the political tea leaves causing the damage to the economy and the healthcare system.”

        Why did he go ahead? Leadership. Anticipate the degree of obstructionism? Nope. Gross misreading? Yep. Who knew?

        Causing? Harming? Disarray? The United States has the beginnings of universal healthcare.

        ===

        When Lame Duck Luke decided to sue UPMC, the news itself seemed well received, editorials supported it (“Pittsburgh is right to press its case”), and columnists praised it (“Mayor Ravenstahl can show his chops . . . a genius move”).

        Today: “A consortium of the city’s largest colleges and universities sent a strongly-worded letter to Pittsburgh Mayor Luke Ravenstahl, saying his decision to sue nonprofit giant UPMC has endangered the relationship between the city and institutions of higher education.”

        http://www.post-gazette.com/stories/local/neighborhoods-city/pittsburgh-universities-tell-ravenstahl-upmc-lawsuit-harms-higher-education-682630/

        I don’t know. Maybe they have a point. Maybe everyone has a point. Maybe someone will always have a point against whatever it is. Maybe what we need is a system for deciding.

        Government, maybe – something like that.

        • Devildog  On April 10, 2013 at 12:35 AM

          Ok, Tourist, now I get it. I’m not a public figure and it might be libel per se so you can expect receipt of the Complaint shortly.

          The beginning of universal healthcare? Perhaps. But this plan will be such a disaster that it might be the delay of universal healthcare well beyond its otherwise beginning.

          The “issue of the day”? Really? In your vocabulary, are lying and erroneous synonymous, not specific to any individual or statement but in general?

          Who knew? Not a single Republican vote and “who knew. The shadow!

          • Tourist  On April 10, 2013 at 12:40 AM

            “In your vocabulary, are lying and erroneous synonymous, not specific to any individual or statement but in general?”

            No. I’m pretty sure we agree on that. We seem to disagree on whether certain examples are one or the other.

            • Devildog  On April 10, 2013 at 12:47 AM

              Okay then Tourist, what is that you know about the Santorum statement and his knowledge that I don’t-other than, of course, that he is an MF n liar.

              And Bush, was he lying or mistaken about WMD’s. Careful now-this is a test of your credibility with me-not that that would matter to you.

              • Tourist  On April 10, 2013 at 1:34 AM

                Devildog,

                Santorum and the CEO: I read the transcript of what the CEO said and then watched and listened to him say it – all on the internet via the link I posted – and compared what I had read and heard to what Santorum said (read, not heard).

                Bush and WMD’s: Everyone thought there were WMD’s. I thought there were WMD’s. The line at the time was: “How do we know? We have the receipts.” (Me: chemical, probably bio, probably not nukes). Was Bush personally lying or mistaken? I don’t know. Were most of the insiders lying or mistaken? I don’t know. By which I mean, they may have convinced themselves of it. Some may have believed it in their guts and sought evidence. Others may have accepted that evidence.

                You know what I just did? I read the transcript of Powell’s UN speech. You ought to, with the full benefit of 20-20 hindsight.

                http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2003/feb/05/iraq.usa

                Powell: “Saddam Hussein has not verifiably accounted for even one teaspoon-full of this deadly material. And that is my third point. And it is key. The Iraqis have never accounted for all of the biological weapons they admitted they had and we know they had. They have never accounted for all the organic material used to make them. And they have not accounted for many of the weapons filled with these agents such as there are 400 bombs. This is evidence, not conjecture. This is true. This is all well-documented.”

                “Never accounted for” was well documented, and that was evidence, not conjecture, and true.

                He believed it. I believed it.

                Bush in the State of the Union: “The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.”

                Maybe nobody lied. The evidence was wrong. How’d that happen?

                Rumsfeld: “We know where they are.”

                • Devildog  On April 10, 2013 at 2:03 AM

                  Tourist, is it more likely that Santorum read the transcript and watched and listened to the CEO (as did you) or that someone wrote his speech for him or gave him talking points. Are we going to continue belaboring this point?

                  • Tourist  On April 10, 2013 at 2:16 AM

                    ??? Continue to belabor? Not me. You asked what I knew. I answered.

                    But now . . . . I think someone certainly brought the CEO’s comments to Santorum’s attention. He either then composed or directed composition of his own comments thereon.

                    Gave him his talking points? Does that mean, put words in his mouth?

                    • Devildog  On April 10, 2013 at 2:26 AM

                      Whatever. I would have thought you would know how it usually works. But, again, whatever. Good night!

                  • Tourist  On April 10, 2013 at 2:28 AM

                    Sleep tight!

      • Little_Minx  On April 10, 2013 at 12:24 AM

        Santorum apparently doesn’t regard himself as a political nonentity yet. “Gingrich and Santorum open to running again in 2016”:
        http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2013/04/04/gingrich-and-santorum-open-to-running-again-in-2016

        “…I’m certainly leaving the door open for that,’’ Santorum told Newsmax. “I’m making no commitments at this point, but we’re not doing anything inconsistent with running in 2016.’’

        • Devildog  On April 10, 2013 at 1:31 AM

          Doesn’t it (shouldn’t it) matter more whether you(or Tourist) consider Santorum a non-entity rather than what he thinks?

      • umoc193  On April 11, 2013 at 3:46 PM

        No, Santorum lied. The Starbucks quote was readily available so for Santorum to say what he did, not a mistaken interpretation or misunderstood, but a lie pure and simple. A deliberate misstatement of what the CEO said and its plain meaning.

        • Devildog  On April 11, 2013 at 3:54 PM

          Okay UMOC, Santorum lied! Once again, you win. Amazing how you know everything, even this. Most amazing though is your ability to know what’s in someone else’s head.

  • Tourist  On April 10, 2013 at 7:23 AM

    Whom It May Concern:

    As I write this, there is an article that has drawn ten comments so far. Omitting one rebuttal to one comment, here are the nine:

    More spending and higher taxes. In what way is this the middle ground?

    Obama wants to reduce the deficit. Delayed April Fools’ joke?

    So Obama thinks increasing spending on mental health treatment will help spur the economy??? It’s becoming hilarious.

    More psychiatrists, on more corporate wellness committees, prescribing more serotonin pills, means happier docile workers and increased productivity. A very creative MBA solution.

    BARRY!!!! Read my lips, NO MORE SPENDING!!!!! You MO-r0N!

    Increase spending by 6% and increase taxes on the rich. Sounds like a compromise to me only a Democrat could love.

    A 6% spending increase in an era of allegedly 2% inflation – this is ‘middle ground’? No, it’s a mental disorder.

    The Idiot-In-Chief is so reminiscent of pre-Thatcher Britain. Income redistribution is all the matters; lip service is paid to growing the economy. Over 100 million people have left the work force. Rather than paying taxes, they are on the dole. As long as the neo-Marxist is in power, this country will continue its decline. Sooner or later the Progressive Zombies will join the conversation, flinging insults and lies around with equal abandon. One wonders if anyone them are employed.

    Right in the middle of the left, I guess.

    ===

    The article is in The Wall Street Journal and is titled: “Obama Reaches for Middle Ground With New Budget Plan.”

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324050304578413421108874266.html

    ===

    As it was from the beginning.

  • Tourist  On April 10, 2013 at 7:52 AM

    “The Key Contrasts in the Budget Debate”

    http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2013/04/10/obama_fy_2014_budget.html

    Very short. Very clear.

    • anonymous  On April 10, 2013 at 10:32 AM

      ‘Middle’ is a relative term

  • Tourist  On April 10, 2013 at 7:10 PM

    Okay, it’s being cast as the Democrats’ war on the rich versus the Republicans’ war on the poor. I’m not at war with anybody. I would rather we talked in terms – this is seen in the two budget proposals themselves – of the Democrats’ desire to help the poor versus the Republicans’ desire to help the rich.

    Let us stipulate that the rich have earned every penny. They built it. They’re the makers. It’s insulting to suggest that they need *anybody’s* help.

    What sense does it make to help those who don’t need it?

    • anonymous  On April 10, 2013 at 7:20 PM

      I think that your ridiculous belief that what Republicans desire is to ‘help the rich’ is easily the first hurdle we have to clear

      • anonymous  On April 10, 2013 at 8:05 PM

        The second hurdle would be for liberals to realize their policies are counter-productive and actually limit the poor’s (everybody’s) ability to grow economically.

  • Tourist  On April 10, 2013 at 7:47 PM

    It gets better.

    – Republicans say cut Social Security.

    – Obama proposes doing that. (Boo, hiss, but anyway.)

    – Republicans say Obama is attacking seniors.

    We were talking about Obama’s “unwillingness to work with Republicans.” What *is* their idea of “middle ground”? Obamacare is supposed to be something evil, so there is none. They will fight that to the bitter end, on principle – “liberty,” I think. But now *not* cutting Social Security? They don’t want to? Because he does? Honestly, I’m beginning to think it’s personal for them.

    • Devildog  On April 10, 2013 at 8:44 PM

      anonymous and Tourist, I’m going to be on the sideline in this debate (probably not but I’ll try) with the following-which I’ve said at least once before.

      The Republicsns think Democratic policies(general statement) are for the most part either unproductive or, even worse, counter-productive.

      Democrats believe Republicans are evil people.

      That explains a lot.

      • Tourist  On April 10, 2013 at 10:04 PM

        Devildog, I gotta be me. Where there’s smoke, there’s fire. They don’t stick unless there is something to them in the first place.

        Do as I say, not as I do.
        Practice what you preach.
        Absence makes the heart grow fonder.
        Out of sight, out of mind.
        Birds of a feather flock together.
        Opposites attract.
        Innovate or perish.
        If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.
        Focus on the long term.
        Without a short term, there is no long term.
        Take charge; take action; be decisive; do something.
        If you don’t know what to do, don’t do anything.

        All true.

        Trust me.

        ===

        You: “Republicans think Democratic policies (general statement) are for the most part either unproductive or, even worse, counter-productive. Democrats believe Republicans are evil people.”

        That’s interesting. For you it’s our policies. For us it’s you as people. I think you’re correct and it means you’re going to win. Because as hard as we try to avoid it, some of us will be required by circumstances get to know a few of you (in-laws, for example) and, if pressed, will be forced to admit that you’re not as evil as we’d believed – or at least give you the benefit of the doubt. The natural consequence is that slowly some of the things you are saying will actually register and will have to consider them. See me above at 12:17 AM: “Maybe everyone has a point.”

        But if for you it’s only our policies, and you believe them to be wrong, what’s ever going to change your mind?

        Now that I think about it, though, I’ve also heard that we (people, not policies) are naïve do-gooders while your policies (advanced in good faith) are relics of the jungle, so maybe this works both ways.

        • Devildog  On April 10, 2013 at 10:36 PM

          Tourist, I’ve said many times that there is truth in old sayings because otherwise they wouldn’t survive (not necessarily true of course). Are you implying that “evil Republicans” is a “saying”. Not what I think of as being a saying-a charge or personal belief doesn’t rise to the status of a saying.

          If you people encounter enough of us and back away from evil, then you will be where we are now with you-naive do-gooders.

          Time and evidence can change my mind. How about yours?

          • Tourist  On April 10, 2013 at 11:28 PM

            Devildog, we’re having fun now, right?

            I looked up “evil” on Dictionary.com. The first definition is “morally wrong or bad; immoral; wicked.” The second is “harmful; injurious.” We think your policies produce some harmful, injurious results.

            “I didn’t intend to hurt him. I only wanted to watch him bounce down the stairs.”

            That does not fly as a defense because one is presumed to intend the natural and probable consequences of one’s acts. Granted, calling you “evil” is probably counterproductive at bringing us together if you insist on taking it personally.

            Tony Norman has written at least twice on the American male’s preference for being thought evil, rather than naïve.

            Do time and evidence change my mind? It’s been known to happen. But only when I give the thing a chance – time, so I can see.

            • Devildog  On April 11, 2013 at 12:00 AM

              Tourist-fun-no comment. I have the time but not inclination to do things such as checking evil in the dictionary. Besides which, youse guys intend the first definition.

              So Norman thinks that American men prefer evil to naive. I suppose he has some social science study to back him up.

              So you want time in addition to evidence. Is almost 50 years enough time. Education, drugs, poverty, etc. how are we doing? Should we change policies or is insufficient funding the problem?

              • Tourist  On April 11, 2013 at 12:22 AM

                Okay, I’m pretty sure you aren’t having fun.

                “youse guys intend”? That’s a hurdle. As opposed to what we say?

                Social science on “evil versus naïve”? I think it was a dorm consensus on how to get girls.

                As for giving it time, I meant Obamacare.

                Time to shake the Etch A Sketch.

                • Devildog  On April 11, 2013 at 1:48 AM

                  Tourist, you say it, I interpret it.

                  Naive definitely lower than evil. Maybe the lowest, like schmuck is.

                  I’ll give Obamacare time-it will either be scrapped in large measure or turn into single payer.

                  Have you given the Great Society enough time? A lot of failures, eh? I know, it would have been worse.

                  • Tourist  On April 11, 2013 at 5:25 AM

                    Dog,

                    I take the blame/credit/accept the responsibility when people do not understand me. When people say that what I say is subject to their further interpretation . . . ??? . . . different.

                    There are great gaps in small areas, and so much hangs.

                    I need a break.

                    It’s Happy Hour and we have Pizza Hut (delivery).

  • anonymous  On April 10, 2013 at 8:12 PM

    Please, the chained cpi BS is not a cut or even a significant decrease in the growth of SS. It reflects reality. It has been on the table for 20 years. That O is even suggesting this change has resulted in the AARP mobilizing their ground troops like it’s Iwo Jima.

    And in exchange for this? 1.6 trillion in more taxes that will onlly stunt economic growth further.

    The question is: What is the possibility of a Grand Bargain?

Please give me your thoughts.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: