-
It's that time of year again - our ISP is asking for money. If you have some spare change, please click the Donate link... Thanks!
- About Us
- Search
- Need Help?
- Donate
- Login/Register
Latest Entries
Actions Menu
Blog Roll
- 4F Facebook Page
- Turn Up The Night with Kenny Pick
- Stephanie Miller Show
- The Tim Corrimal Show
- The Rachel Maddow Show
- Angry Americans with Paul Rieckhoff
- Thom Hartmann Program
- Turnips! Fans of Turn Up the Night Facebook Page
- Snopes.com
- Factcheck.org
- Official White House Page, if you must.
- The Brad Blog / Green News Report
- The Poorly Written Political Blog (Joe Santorsa)
Droning On...
Author: BobR
Date: 03/11/2013 13:01:03
There is something about drones that is dominating the American psyche. Everywhere I look I see people discussing them, with emotions ranging anywhere from concern to mouth-foaming outrage. I don't understand why the fixation is on the drone itself.
When America first got into war in the Middle East (the most recent ones - Afghanistan and Iraq), and we started learning about soldiers dying and being maimed, we thought "this is not the proper approach". This was like trying to hit a fly with a baseball bat. Instead of a full-scale invasion of a sovereign country, we should be using covert operations and targeted strikes. That would mean less cost, less soldiers dying, and less money and power flowing to private contractors that were profiteering from the wars.
To some extent, that is what has happened. With the use of surveillance drones, we can find the targets, then send in the strike drones to "eliminate the target" (how's that for a euphemism?). So what's the problem? Occasionally, there is "collateral damage", that is - an innocent civilian, or - worse - a child gets killed, either because of bad intelligence or a change in position of people on the ground. That is certainly a terrible thing for the victims and their families when it happens, and worrisome for those who live where cells of al-Qaeda do.
One of those killed was an American who renounced the country of his birth and joined up with al-Qaeda to fight against us, In my mind, he lost his right to protection of the Constitution when he took up arms against us. During the American Civil War, many southern Americans were killed by U.S troops when they decided to take up arms against the U.S. How is this any different?
Within our borders, we have law enforcement in place to protect us. In some cases, criminals get killed by police. In most cases, that is because the public or the police are in imminent danger, and potentially deadly force needs to be used to prevent further tragedy. This is exactly the same thing that Eric Holder refers to when discussing using deadly force against Americans inside of America.
Except - it seems like a lot of American's don't get that. When he made his statement that he couldn't rule out a drone strike inside the U.S., the uproar was immediate:
In other words - let the police and FBI handle it like they always have, and use military force only when there's no other option to prevent massive loss to life and property. Can you imagine the outrage if we had another strike like 9/11 from within the U.S., and it was discovered that it could have been prevented had the President ordered that a military strike be used? What if fighter jets (or a drone) had shot down one of the planes before it had hit one of the WTC towers?
Rand Paul held the Senate floor for hours last week going on and on about drone strikes in the U.S. (rather than attend the hearings where Holder was answering questions about those things about which he was railing). The Attorney General was compelled to release a statement that further clarified that, no - we are not going to kill innocent Americans.
I am still genuinely confused as to why the military hardware seems to be the main concern. Why are drones the main focus? Anything a drone can do was already being done by helicopters and/or planes. Drones can do them, though, for cheaper, using less fuel, and eliminate danger to the pilot. Is that the problem? Do they think that less risk to military personnel means taking greater or bolder risks, or a blatant disregard to consequences? Do Americans want to feel like if they shoot their guns at an aircraft, they want to be able to hit a living thing?
Have they watched too many Terminator movies?
Perhaps it's the notion that we're being watched by drones, being spied on. Yet everyday, we are in front of cameras all the time. Traffic cameras, security cameras in and on stores, at the ATM. Then there's the GPS in our phones, the cookies on our computers, and our IP addresses. All of these combine to lessen our privacy (this doesn't include all the information we willingly divulge on Facebook, etc.). So I think that argument doesn't wash. The only way we have to truly be anonymous is to go off the grid entirely, something most of us are unwilling to do.
But that leads back to my original question: When it comes to deadly force being applied by the government, what does it matter what device they are using to apply it? Making the hardware the focus of the discussion distracts from the focus of what's really important - the policy.
When America first got into war in the Middle East (the most recent ones - Afghanistan and Iraq), and we started learning about soldiers dying and being maimed, we thought "this is not the proper approach". This was like trying to hit a fly with a baseball bat. Instead of a full-scale invasion of a sovereign country, we should be using covert operations and targeted strikes. That would mean less cost, less soldiers dying, and less money and power flowing to private contractors that were profiteering from the wars.
To some extent, that is what has happened. With the use of surveillance drones, we can find the targets, then send in the strike drones to "eliminate the target" (how's that for a euphemism?). So what's the problem? Occasionally, there is "collateral damage", that is - an innocent civilian, or - worse - a child gets killed, either because of bad intelligence or a change in position of people on the ground. That is certainly a terrible thing for the victims and their families when it happens, and worrisome for those who live where cells of al-Qaeda do.
One of those killed was an American who renounced the country of his birth and joined up with al-Qaeda to fight against us, In my mind, he lost his right to protection of the Constitution when he took up arms against us. During the American Civil War, many southern Americans were killed by U.S troops when they decided to take up arms against the U.S. How is this any different?
Within our borders, we have law enforcement in place to protect us. In some cases, criminals get killed by police. In most cases, that is because the public or the police are in imminent danger, and potentially deadly force needs to be used to prevent further tragedy. This is exactly the same thing that Eric Holder refers to when discussing using deadly force against Americans inside of America.
Except - it seems like a lot of American's don't get that. When he made his statement that he couldn't rule out a drone strike inside the U.S., the uproar was immediate:
Attorney General Eric Holder is not entirely ruling out a scenario under which a drone strike would be ordered against Americans on U.S. soil, but says it has never been done previously and he could only see it being considered in an extraordinary circumstance.
He began to winnow the list of those possible extraordinary circumstances Wednesday. In testimony Wednesday before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, pressed Holder whether he believed it would be constitutional to target an American terror suspect "sitting at a cafe" if the suspect didn't pose an imminent threat.
"No," Holder replied.
But he also said the government has no intention of carrying out drone strikes inside the United States. Echoing what he said in a letter to U.S. Sen. Rand Paul, R-Kentucky, he called the possibility of domestic drone strikes "entirely hypothetical."
[..]
Holder said a potential scenario might involve a president ordering such action "to protect the homeland" in a case like the 2001 al Qaeda attacks on New York and Washington or the Japanese bombing of Pearl Harbor in 1941.
But he said the administration rejects the use of military force where law enforcement authorities provide the best means for incapacitating a terrorist threat.
In other words - let the police and FBI handle it like they always have, and use military force only when there's no other option to prevent massive loss to life and property. Can you imagine the outrage if we had another strike like 9/11 from within the U.S., and it was discovered that it could have been prevented had the President ordered that a military strike be used? What if fighter jets (or a drone) had shot down one of the planes before it had hit one of the WTC towers?
Rand Paul held the Senate floor for hours last week going on and on about drone strikes in the U.S. (rather than attend the hearings where Holder was answering questions about those things about which he was railing). The Attorney General was compelled to release a statement that further clarified that, no - we are not going to kill innocent Americans.
I am still genuinely confused as to why the military hardware seems to be the main concern. Why are drones the main focus? Anything a drone can do was already being done by helicopters and/or planes. Drones can do them, though, for cheaper, using less fuel, and eliminate danger to the pilot. Is that the problem? Do they think that less risk to military personnel means taking greater or bolder risks, or a blatant disregard to consequences? Do Americans want to feel like if they shoot their guns at an aircraft, they want to be able to hit a living thing?
Have they watched too many Terminator movies?
Perhaps it's the notion that we're being watched by drones, being spied on. Yet everyday, we are in front of cameras all the time. Traffic cameras, security cameras in and on stores, at the ATM. Then there's the GPS in our phones, the cookies on our computers, and our IP addresses. All of these combine to lessen our privacy (this doesn't include all the information we willingly divulge on Facebook, etc.). So I think that argument doesn't wash. The only way we have to truly be anonymous is to go off the grid entirely, something most of us are unwilling to do.
But that leads back to my original question: When it comes to deadly force being applied by the government, what does it matter what device they are using to apply it? Making the hardware the focus of the discussion distracts from the focus of what's really important - the policy.
Comments:
Order comments Newest to Oldest Refresh Comments
Comment by 
Scoopster on 03/11/2013 13:14:12
Scoopster on 03/11/2013 13:14:12
Mornin' all & Happy Mondee - Firstee!! 
Looks like Obama is tapping a hardcore civil rights advocate to be the new Labor Secretary..
Looks like Obama is tapping a hardcore civil rights advocate to be the new Labor Secretary..
Comment by 
Raine on 03/11/2013 13:19:30
A great choice.
good morning!
Bob and I are trading blog days for a few weeks. I am officially on Monday burn out.
Raine on 03/11/2013 13:19:30
Quote by Scoopster:
Mornin' all & Happy Mondee - Firstee!!
Looks like Obama is tapping a hardcore civil rights advocate to be the new Labor Secretary..
good morning! Bob and I are trading blog days for a few weeks. I am officially on Monday burn out.
Comment by 
Mondobubba on 03/11/2013 13:23:18
Ohhhh! Ohhh! He lives in the People's Republic of Takoma Park!
Mondobubba on 03/11/2013 13:23:18
Quote by Scoopster:
Mornin' all & Happy Mondee - Firstee!!
Looks like Obama is tapping a hardcore civil rights advocate to be the new Labor Secretary..
Ohhhh! Ohhh! He lives in the People's Republic of Takoma Park!
Comment by 
TriSec on 03/11/2013 13:25:28
TriSec on 03/11/2013 13:25:28
Bah, thpth, Blecch, etc.
Comment by Scoopster on 03/11/2013 13:26:03
Hey chief.. how ya been doin' lately?
Scoopster on 03/11/2013 13:26:03
Quote by TriSec:
Bah, thpth, Blecch, etc.
Hey chief.. how ya been doin' lately?
Comment by Mondobubba on 03/11/2013 13:27:47
Phlegmy today I see.
Mondobubba on 03/11/2013 13:27:47
Quote by TriSec:
Bah, thpth, Blecch, etc.
Phlegmy today I see.
Comment by 
BobR on 03/11/2013 13:40:45
BobR on 03/11/2013 13:40:45
The blog is up. Sorry for the delay.
Comment by 
wickedpam on 03/11/2013 13:47:44
wickedpam on 03/11/2013 13:47:44
Morning 
Comment by Raine on 03/11/2013 13:53:12
Raine on 03/11/2013 13:53:12
Thank you for this BobR. I am still befuddled that we have an Senator (or two or 40) that insist that we discuss "entirely hypothetical." policies. In other words, Holder has been asked to answer questions about something tat doesn't exist.
Comment by Mondobubba on 03/11/2013 14:01:25
Mondobubba on 03/11/2013 14:01:25
Nice, blog, Bobber.
Comment by Will in Chicago on 03/11/2013 14:10:23
Will in Chicago on 03/11/2013 14:10:23
Good morning, bloggers!!
BobR, I think that there is some concern about how the drones are used. I think part of the confusion is that the fight against terrorism encompasses aspects of both war and police work. I would prefer to treat terrorists as criminals, not warriors. (Can we really have a war on a tactic, such as terrorism?) So, in the case of law enforcement actions, a judge should rule on the state killing someone save when there is a great and imminent risk of an attack.
BobR, I think that there is some concern about how the drones are used. I think part of the confusion is that the fight against terrorism encompasses aspects of both war and police work. I would prefer to treat terrorists as criminals, not warriors. (Can we really have a war on a tactic, such as terrorism?) So, in the case of law enforcement actions, a judge should rule on the state killing someone save when there is a great and imminent risk of an attack.
Comment by TriSec on 03/11/2013 14:12:29
TriSec on 03/11/2013 14:12:29
Well gang, TriSec seems to have had a setback over the weekend.
With all the snow on the ground, it was our "last gasp" for snowshoeing this season, so we saddled up and headed out to the Battle Road in Concord Saturday.
I think I hurt something....I can walk with difficulty today, and all my stretchy-exercises hurt like hell to do right now.
Curiously, I wasn't in this much distress Sunday; we had a pretty good day yesterday also.
With all the snow on the ground, it was our "last gasp" for snowshoeing this season, so we saddled up and headed out to the Battle Road in Concord Saturday.
I think I hurt something....I can walk with difficulty today, and all my stretchy-exercises hurt like hell to do right now.
Curiously, I wasn't in this much distress Sunday; we had a pretty good day yesterday also.
Comment by BobR on 03/11/2013 14:24:35
Within the United States, the administration has made it pretty clear that this was their policy.
Outside of the U.S., that becomes more difficult to accomplish. Capturing a member of a terrorist organization in a foreign country that isn't willing to work with us to help is nearly impossible. Is it worth risking the lives of one or more U.S. military/CIA personnel to capture them, if it's even possible? If not - then you have to decide whether to leave them be or eliminate them before they can attack us again. The citizenship of that member of the terrorist organization is - to me - moot.
BobR on 03/11/2013 14:24:35
Quote by Will in Chicago:
Good morning, bloggers!!
BobR, I think that there is some concern about how the drones are used. I think part of the confusion is that the fight against terrorism encompasses aspects of both war and police work. I would prefer to treat terrorists as criminals, not warriors. (Can we really have a war on a tactic, such as terrorism?) So, in the case of law enforcement actions, a judge should rule on the state killing someone save when there is a great and imminent risk of an attack.
Within the United States, the administration has made it pretty clear that this was their policy.
Outside of the U.S., that becomes more difficult to accomplish. Capturing a member of a terrorist organization in a foreign country that isn't willing to work with us to help is nearly impossible. Is it worth risking the lives of one or more U.S. military/CIA personnel to capture them, if it's even possible? If not - then you have to decide whether to leave them be or eliminate them before they can attack us again. The citizenship of that member of the terrorist organization is - to me - moot.
Comment by TriSec on 03/11/2013 14:56:33
TriSec on 03/11/2013 14:56:33
Oh, and finally reading the blog now....
It's not the drone - it's just a tool. It's the same logic that allows me to admire the FW-200 "Condor" or an Arado Blitz as some of the most beautiful aircraft ever built in Germany.
I can separate the machines from the policies they were built to enforce.
Drones are the same way...the technology is pretty freakin' cool. Do I want one orbiting over Downtown Worcester? Well....maybe not.
(And speaking of Facebook, I"ve decided to take a break. I posted a cryptic message a few days ago, and I haven't been back. Not reading the posts from my Teabag cousins in Texas has done wonders for me, BTW.)
It's not the drone - it's just a tool. It's the same logic that allows me to admire the FW-200 "Condor" or an Arado Blitz as some of the most beautiful aircraft ever built in Germany.
I can separate the machines from the policies they were built to enforce.
Drones are the same way...the technology is pretty freakin' cool. Do I want one orbiting over Downtown Worcester? Well....maybe not.
(And speaking of Facebook, I"ve decided to take a break. I posted a cryptic message a few days ago, and I haven't been back. Not reading the posts from my Teabag cousins in Texas has done wonders for me, BTW.)
Comment by Will in Chicago on 03/11/2013 15:11:53
It is very difficult to cooperate with law enforcement in some parts of various countries, due to local problems. I think that a discussion on these issues is important, but I think that Rand Paul tends to grandstand a lot.
Will in Chicago on 03/11/2013 15:11:53
Quote by BobR:Quote by Will in Chicago:
Good morning, bloggers!!
BobR, I think that there is some concern about how the drones are used. I think part of the confusion is that the fight against terrorism encompasses aspects of both war and police work. I would prefer to treat terrorists as criminals, not warriors. (Can we really have a war on a tactic, such as terrorism?) So, in the case of law enforcement actions, a judge should rule on the state killing someone save when there is a great and imminent risk of an attack.
Within the United States, the administration has made it pretty clear that this was their policy.
Outside of the U.S., that becomes more difficult to accomplish. Capturing a member of a terrorist organization in a foreign country that isn't willing to work with us to help is nearly impossible. Is it worth risking the lives of one or more U.S. military/CIA personnel to capture them, if it's even possible? If not - then you have to decide whether to leave them be or eliminate them before they can attack us again. The citizenship of that member of the terrorist organization is - to me - moot.
It is very difficult to cooperate with law enforcement in some parts of various countries, due to local problems. I think that a discussion on these issues is important, but I think that Rand Paul tends to grandstand a lot.
Comment by Raine on 03/11/2013 15:22:17
We captured Faisal Shahzad and he was tried in Federal court.
So here on American soil, Law enforcement actions are taken. As I pointed out last week, if a warrant is needed it can -- and has been -- obtained. I;m personally not confused, but I think the likes of Rand Paul and Glen Greenwald wish for people to be confused. Holder said there would be no Federal Government attack of Americans on America soil.
Raine on 03/11/2013 15:22:17
Quote by Will in Chicago:
Good morning, bloggers!!
BobR, I think that there is some concern about how the drones are used. I think part of the confusion is that the fight against terrorism encompasses aspects of both war and police work. I would prefer to treat terrorists as criminals, not warriors. (Can we really have a war on a tactic, such as terrorism?) So, in the case of law enforcement actions, a judge should rule on the state killing someone save when there is a great and imminent risk of an attack.
So here on American soil, Law enforcement actions are taken. As I pointed out last week, if a warrant is needed it can -- and has been -- obtained. I;m personally not confused, but I think the likes of Rand Paul and Glen Greenwald wish for people to be confused. Holder said there would be no Federal Government attack of Americans on America soil.
Comment by TriSec on 03/11/2013 15:32:19
TriSec on 03/11/2013 15:32:19
Rhetorical Question of the Day:
"Does Medical Marijuana work to improve the symptoms of Chemotherapy-Induced Peripheral Neuropathy?"
Inquiring minds want to know.
"Does Medical Marijuana work to improve the symptoms of Chemotherapy-Induced Peripheral Neuropathy?"
Inquiring minds want to know.
Comment by Mondobubba on 03/11/2013 15:34:02
You don't want to see the posts from tea baggin' family defriend them. Blood always doesn't need to be thicker than water.
Mondobubba on 03/11/2013 15:34:02
Quote by TriSec:
Oh, and finally reading the blog now....
It's not the drone - it's just a tool. It's the same logic that allows me to admire the FW-200 "Condor" or an Arado Blitz as some of the most beautiful aircraft ever built in Germany.
I can separate the machines from the policies they were built to enforce.
Drones are the same way...the technology is pretty freakin' cool. Do I want one orbiting over Downtown Worcester? Well....maybe not.
(And speaking of Facebook, I"ve decided to take a break. I posted a cryptic message a few days ago, and I haven't been back. Not reading the posts from my Teabag cousins in Texas has done wonders for me, BTW.)
You don't want to see the posts from tea baggin' family defriend them. Blood always doesn't need to be thicker than water.
Comment by wickedpam on 03/11/2013 15:37:17
wickedpam on 03/11/2013 15:37:17
I so wanted to be Wonder Woman or at least like her sidekick when I was a kid.
Comment by Mondobubba on 03/11/2013 15:37:27
Mondobubba on 03/11/2013 15:37:27
Speaking of FB, the RWLMs seem to be up in arms about foreign aid again. I just checked the total amount of foreign aid, it is still about 1% of discretionary spending. I think what is pissing them off is the increased aid to Egypt.
Comment by Raine on 03/11/2013 15:40:55
Or you can block from seeing their posts and disallow them from posting on your page.
Raine on 03/11/2013 15:40:55
Quote by Mondobubba:Quote by TriSec:
Oh, and finally reading the blog now....
It's not the drone - it's just a tool. It's the same logic that allows me to admire the FW-200 "Condor" or an Arado Blitz as some of the most beautiful aircraft ever built in Germany.
I can separate the machines from the policies they were built to enforce.
Drones are the same way...the technology is pretty freakin' cool. Do I want one orbiting over Downtown Worcester? Well....maybe not.
(And speaking of Facebook, I"ve decided to take a break. I posted a cryptic message a few days ago, and I haven't been back. Not reading the posts from my Teabag cousins in Texas has done wonders for me, BTW.)
You don't want to see the posts from tea baggin' family defriend them. Blood always doesn't need to be thicker than water.
Comment by Raine on 03/11/2013 15:41:50
me too!
Raine on 03/11/2013 15:41:50
Quote by wickedpam:
I so wanted to be Wonder Woman or at least like her sidekick when I was a kid.
me too!
Comment by wickedpam on 03/11/2013 15:41:54
people hear we're giving millions or billions to X country and assume its a huge amount, they have no real scope of how large the budget for the US is. I think that comes from places like Fox comparing it to your home budget which is an entirely different thing. People don't get that.
wickedpam on 03/11/2013 15:41:54
Quote by Mondobubba:
Speaking of FB, the RWLMs seem to be up in arms about foreign aid again. I just checked the total amount of foreign aid, it is still about 1% of discretionary spending. I think what is pissing them off is the increased aid to Egypt.
people hear we're giving millions or billions to X country and assume its a huge amount, they have no real scope of how large the budget for the US is. I think that comes from places like Fox comparing it to your home budget which is an entirely different thing. People don't get that.
Comment by Scoopster on 03/11/2013 15:42:17
Hey that reminds me I got a pretty big batch this time around.. want some?
Scoopster on 03/11/2013 15:42:17
Quote by TriSec:
Rhetorical Question of the Day:
"Does Medical Marijuana work to improve the symptoms of Chemotherapy-Induced Peripheral Neuropathy?"
Inquiring minds want to know.
Hey that reminds me I got a pretty big batch this time around.. want some?
Comment by wickedpam on 03/11/2013 15:44:19
But then I grew up and wanted to be Buffy
wickedpam on 03/11/2013 15:44:19
Quote by Raine:Quote by wickedpam:
I so wanted to be Wonder Woman or at least like her sidekick when I was a kid.
But then I grew up and wanted to be Buffy
Comment by Mondobubba on 03/11/2013 16:13:40
Yep, sounds about right. Plus they have no clue about how diplomacy works. They think that if Murica says so, you do it. Because you know we are America, fuck yeah!
Mondobubba on 03/11/2013 16:13:40
Quote by wickedpam:Quote by Mondobubba:
Speaking of FB, the RWLMs seem to be up in arms about foreign aid again. I just checked the total amount of foreign aid, it is still about 1% of discretionary spending. I think what is pissing them off is the increased aid to Egypt.
people hear we're giving millions or billions to X country and assume its a huge amount, they have no real scope of how large the budget for the US is. I think that comes from places like Fox comparing it to your home budget which is an entirely different thing. People don't get that.
Yep, sounds about right. Plus they have no clue about how diplomacy works. They think that if Murica says so, you do it. Because you know we are America, fuck yeah!
Comment by TriSec on 03/11/2013 16:15:04
TriSec on 03/11/2013 16:15:04
I find it fascinating that the Cardinal O'malley story is starting to get some legs.
Do I think it will happen? Well, no....but it is interesting.
I would be very happy to see a Franciscan there instead of a Jesuit...
Do I think it will happen? Well, no....but it is interesting.
I would be very happy to see a Franciscan there instead of a Jesuit...
Comment by Raine on 03/11/2013 16:27:59
Personally, I think the only place the story is getting legs is in America.
Bob reminded me of a scene from the movie Angels and Demons where they showed the media talking -- every country was pushing the meme that a pope from their country would be chosen.
I think that the old USA and the gay marriage thing is a big thorn in the side of the Vatican.
Raine on 03/11/2013 16:27:59
Quote by TriSec:
I find it fascinating that the Cardinal O'malley story is starting to get some legs.
Do I think it will happen? Well, no....but it is interesting.
I would be very happy to see a Franciscan there instead of a Jesuit...
Bob reminded me of a scene from the movie Angels and Demons where they showed the media talking -- every country was pushing the meme that a pope from their country would be chosen.
I think that the old USA and the gay marriage thing is a big thorn in the side of the Vatican.
Comment by TriSec on 03/11/2013 16:33:56
In response:
Lockheed/Martin awarded billions after sequestration cuts
TriSec on 03/11/2013 16:33:56
Quote by Mondobubba:
Ohh Tri, a really interesting article on the C130.
In response:
Lockheed/Martin awarded billions after sequestration cuts
Comment by wickedpam on 03/11/2013 16:33:57
I still don't think the next pope is going to be anyone outside of Europe.
wickedpam on 03/11/2013 16:33:57
Quote by Raine:Personally, I think the only place the story is getting legs is in America.Quote by TriSec:
I find it fascinating that the Cardinal O'malley story is starting to get some legs.
Do I think it will happen? Well, no....but it is interesting.
I would be very happy to see a Franciscan there instead of a Jesuit...
Bob reminded me of a scene from the movie Angels and Demons where they showed the media talking -- every country was pushing the meme that a pope from their country would be chosen.
I think that the old USA and the gay marriage thing is a big thorn in the side of the Vatican.
I still don't think the next pope is going to be anyone outside of Europe.
Comment by Mondobubba on 03/11/2013 16:34:28
Mondobubba on 03/11/2013 16:34:28
Krugman piles on the pwnage of Brietbart.com. 
“I decided not to post anything about it; instead, I wanted to wait and see which right-wing media outlets would fall for the hoax,†Krugman wrote on his blog. “And Breitbart.com came through!â€
“Now, if you’ll excuse me, I have to go give a lavishly paid speech to Friends of Hamas,†he continued, poking fun at Breitbart’s recent invention of a group that doesn’t exist.
Comment by Mondobubba on 03/11/2013 16:35:17
The plane that refused to die?
Mondobubba on 03/11/2013 16:35:17
Quote by TriSec:Quote by Mondobubba:
Ohh Tri, a really interesting article on the C130.
In response:
Lockheed/Martin awarded billions after sequestration cuts
The plane that refused to die?
Comment by Raine on 03/11/2013 16:40:19
I get that feeling too.
Afrika or South America.
Raine on 03/11/2013 16:40:19
Quote by wickedpam:Quote by Raine:Personally, I think the only place the story is getting legs is in America.Quote by TriSec:
I find it fascinating that the Cardinal O'malley story is starting to get some legs.
Do I think it will happen? Well, no....but it is interesting.
I would be very happy to see a Franciscan there instead of a Jesuit...
Bob reminded me of a scene from the movie Angels and Demons where they showed the media talking -- every country was pushing the meme that a pope from their country would be chosen.
I think that the old USA and the gay marriage thing is a big thorn in the side of the Vatican.
I still don't think the next pope is going to be anyone outside of Europe.
Afrika or South America.
Comment by Mondobubba on 03/11/2013 16:48:34
:sigh: Headline from the same article at Alternet: "The Disturbing History of One of the Pentagon's Most Expensive Flying Turkeys." This would imply that the entire C130 program has been a boondoggle. New rule, liberals and progressives need to learn a smig about military history.
Mondobubba on 03/11/2013 16:48:34
Quote by TriSec:Quote by Mondobubba:
Ohh Tri, a really interesting article on the C130.
In response:
Lockheed/Martin awarded billions after sequestration cuts
:sigh: Headline from the same article at Alternet: "The Disturbing History of One of the Pentagon's Most Expensive Flying Turkeys." This would imply that the entire C130 program has been a boondoggle. New rule, liberals and progressives need to learn a smig about military history.
Comment by Mondobubba on 03/11/2013 16:49:03
Mondobubba on 03/11/2013 16:49:03
Raine, what is the recipe for the rainetini?
Comment by TriSec on 03/11/2013 16:49:40
TriSec on 03/11/2013 16:49:40
Comment by TriSec on 03/11/2013 16:51:54
Mmmmm, I'm sorry. The C-130 is one of the most hard-working and reliable aircraft in our entire arsenal.
After the DC-3 makes a century in revenue service (2035), the next in line is going to be the C-130, and probably the B-52 and 707, too.
TriSec on 03/11/2013 16:51:54
Quote by Mondobubba:
:sigh: Headline from the same article at Alternet: "The Disturbing History of One of the Pentagon's Most Expensive Flying Turkeys." This would imply that the entire C130 program has been a boondoggle. New rule, liberals and progressives need to learn a smig about military history.
Mmmmm, I'm sorry. The C-130 is one of the most hard-working and reliable aircraft in our entire arsenal.
After the DC-3 makes a century in revenue service (2035), the next in line is going to be the C-130, and probably the B-52 and 707, too.
Comment by wickedpam on 03/11/2013 16:55:56
all I remember is vanilla vodka
wickedpam on 03/11/2013 16:55:56
Quote by Mondobubba:
Raine, what is the recipe for the rainetini?
all I remember is vanilla vodka
Comment by Raine on 03/11/2013 17:45:35
Doesn't she still need to set up residency in Kentucky?
(Considering she and her Husband are divorcing, I suspect that should make things easy as far as that is concerned.)
Howard Kurtz has been talking about his sources as well -- And Howie ain't the man he used to be imo. I think he relied more on Greg Mitchel and the old Editor and Publisher than he ever wanted to admit. (I really miss that publication, I REALLY do )
To be really honest, I'm gonna wait until she says so herself. From that link: There is much speculation... and this reminds me a bit of the Hillary for VPotus rumors we had around this time last year.
When she officially changes residency, I'll take this a bit more seriously.
( kinda remember taking this tact when the Elizabeth Warren rumors were going around as well...
)
Raine on 03/11/2013 17:45:35
Quote by Scoopster:
Looks like Ashley Judd is in the race..
(Considering she and her Husband are divorcing, I suspect that should make things easy as far as that is concerned.)
Howard Kurtz has been talking about his sources as well -- And Howie ain't the man he used to be imo. I think he relied more on Greg Mitchel and the old Editor and Publisher than he ever wanted to admit. (I really miss that publication, I REALLY do )
To be really honest, I'm gonna wait until she says so herself. From that link:
Ashley Judd, the 44-year-old actress and social activist, has told key advisers and political figures that she is planning to announce her candidacy for U.S. Senate here this spring.
Judd told one close ally that she plans to announce her run for the Democratic nomination for the 2014 race "around Derby" - meaning in early May when the Kentucky Derby brings national attention to Louisville and the Bluegrass State.
Reached for comment by email Saturday, Judd offered a not-quite-ironclad denial to The Huffington Post. "I am not sure who is saying this stuff, but it is not I! I'd prefer as a fan of your journalism that you stay accurate and credible. We told everyone who called us yesterday these stories are fabrications."
But she declined to specify which "stories," did not say what wasn't "accurate," and did not respond when asked directly whether she had, in fact, decided to run or chosen a time to declare her intentions.
When she officially changes residency, I'll take this a bit more seriously.
( kinda remember taking this tact when the Elizabeth Warren rumors were going around as well...
)
Comment by Raine on 03/11/2013 18:03:03
Iced in a martini glass. Set aside.
WAIT. It is DAMN time we bump this 4F blog.
Raine on 03/11/2013 18:03:03
Quote by Mondobubba:
Raine, what is the recipe for the rainetini?
WAIT. It is DAMN time we bump this 4F blog.
The Raintini
Get Stoli Vanilla, (or your fave vanilla wodka) count to 5 while pouring in shaker over ice. Add a splash of Seltzer and shake.
The key to this is make sure you don't use too much seltzer... or it will explode, which was historically a good way to see how rough or soft you bartender is, if you are having them make one for you...
Put three marichino cherries in a chilled glass, and if you'd like, a few drops of the juice... strain the liquid as you pour!
Comment by TriSec on 03/11/2013 18:29:16
TriSec on 03/11/2013 18:29:16
God Damn SONOFABITCH!!!!
I think I'm going to start whacking myself in the forehead with a sledgehammer every day. It's less painful.
I think I'm going to start whacking myself in the forehead with a sledgehammer every day. It's less painful.
Comment by TriSec on 03/11/2013 18:55:47
TriSec on 03/11/2013 18:55:47
Comment by Mondobubba on 03/11/2013 19:33:16
I was buying lunch at the local Akbar & Jeff's Burrito Hut yesterday. There is a big sign on the door about doing fundraising for a local BSA troop. I was sorely temped to ask if they knew what the local council's policy on LGBT issues.
Mondobubba on 03/11/2013 19:33:16
Quote by TriSec:
God Damn SONOFABITCH!!!!
I think I'm going to start whacking myself in the forehead with a sledgehammer every day. It's less painful.
I was buying lunch at the local Akbar & Jeff's Burrito Hut yesterday. There is a big sign on the door about doing fundraising for a local BSA troop. I was sorely temped to ask if they knew what the local council's policy on LGBT issues.
Comment by Raine on 03/11/2013 19:34:29
Raine on 03/11/2013 19:34:29
Bloomberg loses the Big Drink rule -- so far. Judge rules against his ban.
The regulations are "fraught with arbitrary and capricious consequences," the judge wrote. "The simple reading of the rule leads to the earlier acknowledged uneven enforcement even within a particular city block, much less the city as a whole….the loopholes in this rule effectively defeat the state purpose of the rule."
Comment by Scoopster on 03/11/2013 19:35:07
Scoopster on 03/11/2013 19:35:07
Comment by Raine on 03/11/2013 19:36:06
Let's put a face to the name:
Raine on 03/11/2013 19:36:06
Quote by TriSec:
God Damn SONOFABITCH!!!!
I think I'm going to start whacking myself in the forehead with a sledgehammer every day. It's less painful.
Comment by Scoopster on 03/11/2013 19:36:51
Scoopster on 03/11/2013 19:36:51
I want one of these!!
