TampaYankee

She has blown me away. I figured she signed for 'the good of the country' and not for personal feeling. Totally blown away. Rock on Queeny!!

There will always be individual counterexamples to any circumstance highlighted whatever it may be. That does not in and of itself invalidate that the circumstance may be prevalent. I would be more impressed if the counterexample went the other way -- that only one or two anecdotal cases can be reported that the curches and the pius had neglected children in need of help and women unable to manage care for children they could not afford to have. If that were the case there would be few children in need of a roof over their head, or suffering malnutrion. The good samaritans should be thanked and applauded and maybe even raised to sainthood for their efforts but they cannot keep the whole national boat afloat by themselves. I am not saying that many in churches do not help their neighbors, only that there are so many in need of help in all corners of our nation that relying only on volunteerism is not meeting the need. Consider that poverty often occurs in pockets and that makes it difficult for neighbor to help neighbor. Also, consider that poverty also occurs in cities where many people live anonymous lives not having deep relationship with others in the community. It takes all of us to do what we can. For some that means offering a helping hand, for others that means offering financial support to others that can offer the help. That financial support can be private or public.

IMO your impressions seem to me to be rooted more in the wider American cultural sterotypes -- the straight community. Since the days of slavery the concept of the sexual prowess of the mandigo has inflamed the white male ideas of black malehood and flamed the fantasies of the fairer sex. This has survived in some sense, more or less, to present day. The idea of that latin lover was built in the forties and fifties with screenstars: Jose Ferrer, Ricky Ricardo, Cesar Romero, Ricardo Montalban and others. Again, the appeal was to the women, while nonlatin males tolerated the fantasies, those who did not resent it. That still exists today with the likes of Mario Lopez, Enrique Iglesias, William Levy and others. To distill it down to the very essence, mandigos represent torrid sex and latinos romantic lovers. The mandingo model is male driven by resentment and fear of comparison while the latino model is driven by female fantasies. As for the gay community, I have no idea what fanned the flames in the 40s and fifties but I suspect it was much the same as today, big dicks and insatiable bottoms. There does exist a streak of racial prejudice in the gay community much like the straight community. As for your distinction of latin men by geography, reports of the sexual prowess of Brazilians is often reported on this site as well as others, probably all sites that deal with the subject of sexual prowess. But the fact is that most contact with latinos in this country break down by coast with Cubans and Puerto Ricans on the East Coast and Mexicanos on the West Coast. The other nationalities make up a much smaller portion of the mix. This is all my opinion, of course, based on my limited observations. I wish I had more first hand experience with latinos all around.

So is John Stuart but if you do not believe they are opinion givers any less than David Brooks or Frank Rich then you don't watch the same Maher and Stuart I watch. The venue is different, and they have a broader act, that is all. You are right. I don't think his plan was to become a whistle blower just so he could get a cushy asylum in some paragon of democracy. I do believe he hoped for something close to that for asylum -- Iceland. But he could have gone there without blowing the whistle. I agree that he did not think things through as thoroughly as he should have. For one, Iceland was unwilling to decide on asylum before his landing on their territory. That probably restricted his chances to Iceland asylum or forced repatriation, a chance he seemed unwilling to take. Clearly he should have cemented his asylum oppourtunities before announcing his identity to the world. Going to Honk Kong was not a good call either. Once there, with the publicity, he has little choice about Russia, another unfortunate step. However, all of that preplanning would have been risky too. By leaving the government to out him as the leaker, they could portray his motives in any light they chose and it would not have been to his liking. By getting out in front, he initiates the public discussion with his side as the first volley, chosing to publicly admit his actions rather than skulking away in the night to be outed by the government. There was no pretty way to do this and the long lense of history will judge him a whistle blower or traitor after all the heated rhetoric has past and the government practices and damages come into focus.

I'm in no position to refute your observations as you have many years of legal experience (including litigation I assume) behind you. I also believe that you practiced in a big city where the legal system is under stress from the number of cases it is presented. That certainly must have a day-to-day affect on the system. I have only anecdotal information to the contrary. My son was a public defender in a small city of maybe 200,000 including the suburbs. He became very disillusioned with the system he worked in and left the profession for a life in the software industry. His disillusion sprang, in part, from watching young prosecutors railroad the young and the poor, either naive or in desperate circumstances, into jail time that was disproportionate, in my son's opinion, to what was fair and prudent given the circumstances and their previous records. Let me also say that my son is no bleeding-heart liberal but has always been rather conservative in his perspective. He certainly new hardened criminals from the poor, the desperate, and the naive. He defended both as public defenders are charged to do. On several occasions he would overhear the young prosecutors comparing or otherwise discussing with each other their conviction rates. They were looking ahead to advancing their careers in his opinion. Did it happen all the time or with all prosecutors? No, but it happened enough to sicken him to the system. The primary piece of advice my son gave me after his experience in the legal system was: If I ever get involved with it, hire the very best attorney I can afford even if I have to stretch to do it. Don't count on any mercy or even reasonableness in the system. It all depends on who you draw and who defends you.

Not guilty in no way represents justice, just the contrary, it means justice is denied, for the innocent as well as the guilty. Not guilty is the mechanism for our system to minimize (not eliminate) the conviction of an innocent man. That mechanism does not arrive at justice but tries to forestall injustice.

I believe it someone takes the life of another either through malice or negligence then there ought to be some serious penalty. 9+ years as you put it seems damn little. If there is an incongruence with the penalties for the two crimes then it seems to me that the improper balance lies with the minimum for 2nd degree murder, not manslaughter.

Ummm... can you work that math out on a bottle of aspirin for me?

Does anyone believe that Texans will elect anyone dumber or more corrupt? Dumber? Doubtful. More corrupt? Requires no stretch of imagination.

Like continental drift, that will take time to have effect. It may happen eventually. The fact is nothing much will change anywhere in the US, other than get worse, until the 2020 elections with new reapportionment legislatures. Even that will require overcoming the existing gerrymandered districts. Those who don't vote in off-year elections shall reap the wild wind. Forgive the literary excess.

Russia's Anti-Gay Law Will Impact Foreign Tourists, Possible Olympic Athletes Posted: 07/11/2013 2:44 pm EDT Bad news for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) travelers hoping to visit Russia, as foreign tourists will now be subjected to the same "gay propaganda" fines and sentences as residents. Travel site Skift reports that the new law, signed into law by Russian President Vladimir Putin on June 30, contains a provision that allows the government to arrest and detain gay (or "pro-gay") foreigners for up to 14 days before they would then be expelled from Russia. As far as what is considered "pro-gay," the laws specifics are somewhat vague, butCanadian site Travel and Escape suggests "gay-affirmative" speech, displaying a rainbow flag and same-sex partners holding hands are among the prohibited actions. The move comes at a particularly critical time as the nation is currently gearing up to host the 2014 Winter Olympics in Sochi. Boris O. Dittrich, Advocacy Director of the LGBT Rights Program at Human Rights Watch, blasted the law in a letter to the International Olympics Committee's (IOC) Director General Christophe De Kepper, noting, "Human Rights Watch’s long-standing position is that there cannot be a successful Olympics where there is discrimination or human rights abuses ... Foreigners -- possibly including athletes -- who violate the law, including possibly by speaking about their sexual orientation in public, run the risk of being fined, arrested for up to 15 days, and deported from Russia." Dittrich then recommended "that the IOC establish a standing mechanism to establish human rights benchmarks among Olympic host countries and monitor human rights in the preparations for and during the Olympic Games." Last month, the IOC vowed to support LGBT athletes during the upcoming Olympics despite Russia's ruling. IOC officials released a statement to Gay Star News, which noted: "The IOC would like to reiterate our long commitment to non-discrimination against those taking part in the Olympic Games, the IOC is an open organization and athletes of all orientations will be welcome at the Games." A number of celebrities, including Madonna and Lady Gaga, have sparked controversy by speaking out on behalf of Russia's beleaguered LGBT community over the past year. Earlier this month, a photograph of Oscar-winning actress Tilda Swinton holding a rainbow flag in front of Moscow's Kremlin and St. Basil's Cathedral went viral on Twitter, Facebook and other social media outlets. See original article at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/11/russia-gay-law-tourists-_n_3581217.html?utm_hp_ref=gay-voices

A shining example.

One need venture no further than the title to know all one needs to know about the quality of this movie. It screams out "skip it".

I think raced played a part. It shouldn't have had to but without it this case was being deep-sixed by the local authorities. The parents raised a stink that it wasn't even going to be investigated beyond the cursory attention it was given at the scene. We see how serious that was given how the evidence and body was treated. Anytime a seventeen year old kid on the way home from a local convenience store is gunned down there ought to be a serious investigation undertaken no matter where the fault lies. One of the local high ranking detectives recommended one. He was overturned by the Chief. One can damn sure guarantee that if a white kid, a son of a local citizen, was gunned down under the same circumstances there would have been an investigation, doubly so if the shooter was black. Yeah, raced played a part, coming and going, and it was shameful that it had to.

FWIW, I think a case is there for manslaughter. Zimmerman clearly was the armed aggressor. If anyone was standing his own ground it was Treyvon. I think there is enough circumstantial evidence to believe that beyond a reasonable doubt. The stalking by an armed Zimmerman even after 911 urged him to back off, the lack of blood or DNA on Trayvon supposedly after an intense body-to-body tussel, the limited injury to Zimmerman in contrast to his story of a life-threatening beating, the contradictions in Zimerman's story to police and on Hannity with those presented in court by his attorneys. That said, I expect a hung jury or acquital. There is just too much noise woven into the facts as presented. I doubt the jury has the analytical chops to separate the wheat from the chaff, which would take a lot of time. The prosecution did not have a slam dunk. Their main witness was shaky. IMO the defense did not present a cogent defense but did throw up a lot of dust and mud to obscure a circumstantial case with a weak main witness. As always, it depends on the jury analysis and emotions, and character too. One fact is unassailable IMO. The Sanford Police and Sherif, organizations, labs and individuals, deserve a lot of credit for the facts of this case being so clouded and screwed up. Heads should roll. I know some have but I suspect more should. Also, I think the bald-headed defense attorney ought to be sanctioned after the trial. IMO he attempted, not too discretely, to create chaos and grounds for an appeal by his numerous idiotic attempts to object to the court procedure as laid out by the judge, as it unfolded, to provoke either judicial error or prosecution error that would be grounds for appeal, if not grounds for mistrial. His courtroom behavior was unacceptable on several occasions, most especially in the last few days IMO.

I find the premise of this poll somewhat lacking. This question is not so black and white. I believe some of what he accomplished is to the good. I also believe some of it, not so much. Where to draw the line and weigh the sides. I do not have enough visibility to know how to do that. I do believe he did significant good and it will be seen as that in the long run. I also believe he did some short term damage to some of our interests. IMO a more black and white value question to ask is: Is Edward Snowden a whistle blower or a traitor? That reduces the question not to his actions which may have unintended consequences but to his motives: good or bad. That choice is also subjective but less gray. Did he act out of concern for the constitutional principles of our Republic or for the benefit of our adversaries? I believe the former. If on the other hand one sees no significant benefit to what he did short term or long, or alternatively no significant harm, then I guess the original question is more pointed.

This is a rather stupid remark for Bill. It is not exactly Snowden's choice alone. He has to find a country willing to accept him given the political pressures involved. File this in the category of 'Blow it out your ass'. Sorry Bill but you did. In another thread on news reporters I remarked that even smart people say stupid things. The same holds for opinion givers which fits Bill to a T.

Many corporations are greedy and the drug companies definitely are and that aggravates the health care system cost but the main cause is the way the system is set up. But even not-for-profit hospitals have unbelievably high charges. Hospitals have to cover their costs even though many people cannot pay. Hence the $14 dollar aspirin and $1500 ER charge for basic bumps and scratches. Also hospitals unnecessarily compete with each other causing resources to go under utilized and therefore not paying their own freight. Other charges are inflated to carry that extra weight. Add to that a lack of information sharing causing unnecessary duplication of tests and procedures. That is aggravated by doctors who cross the line between physicians and labs by owning their own test and lab facilities making it doubly convenient to get that new test. Then there is the army of litigation lawyers that support a healthy malpractice insurance industry. Actually they support each other. And yeah, a lot of American doctors drive fancier cars and live in bigger mansions that the Thai doctors do but Wall St makes them look like paupers. Doctors train longer and more arduously than Wall Streeters and provide a much more valuable and valued service on a day to day basis. So yes, some, maybe many doctors could reign in fees a little but so could CEOs and lawyers and investment bankers. That isn't the American Way though, and I doubt any doctor makes 200 times the salary of his average patient as many CEOs do relative to his workers. I'm not saying that doctors don't add weight to the scale just that, by themselves, they are far from the elephant in the room when it comes to the overall cost of health care.

Its one thing to deny airspace rights for a military mission or for tit-for-tat economic tussles, quite another to deny a head of state overflight or refueling stops. The former is being circumspect about being drawn into military action as an accomplice or retaliation for some perceived economic slight, the other a straightforward slap in the face to the state and its head. This will not be forgotten for decades south of the border.

Airline Fees Keep Climbing Some Carriers Bundle Charges for Former Freebies, Framing Them as a Service Read all about it: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323689204578569653054627258.html?ru=yahoo?mod=yahoo_itp

Fair and democratic elections are often in the eyes of the beholder. Some countries make up the results to achieve the desired end. Others stuff the ballot boxes to overwhelm the opponent. We have had more than a few instances of fishy voting machine failures and missing ballots in the U.S. (Subtracting ballots is effectively equivalent to stuffing ballots as far as influencing outcome.) One County Elections Supervisor in Wisconsin has presided over mysteriously missing ballots in more than one election. She is also A GOP party functionary in the state. Others install thugs at the polls to intimidate voters. The GOP has been enjoined by the courts to prohibit poll watchers in national elections from intimidating voters arriving to vote. Still others allow everyone, more or less, to vote and only count the 'proper' ballots. See Dade County, Florida, 2000 Presidential election for an example of the 'hanging chads'.. Then there are those cases where the courts decide the people didn't know what they were doing and decide how the count goes or if it goes. (See Dade County...) File this under democracy of the people, by the people, for the people... um, well no, democracy by the courts actually. Then there are instances where states impose hardships on voters to discourage voters. In OH they 'under provided' voting machines in democratic leaning districts while more than sufficient machines were found in GOP leaning districts. In Florida the Governor cut back early voting and precinct voting places causing waits of up to eight hours to cast a vote. Six hours was not unusual. And this after the courts made him restore some of his cuts. Then there are examples where states impose election security measures to guard against anarchists and imaginary fraudulent behavior by 'others', which has the impact of effectively disenfranchising major segments of the population who have the basic right to vote, with most of them having long voting histories. File this under state sponsored electorate profile shaping. The U.S. has 32 GOP controlled states undertaking such measures. Other examples of lesser attempts to thwart democracy include robo-calls to wrong leaning districts informing people to be sure to vote on election day giving the wrong date two days after the real election day, or informing people they can register at the polls in states where registration closes days ahead of the election. These happen every four years and almost always by one party. Or registering people and then throwing in dumpsters the democratic registrations leaving those people with the impression that they are registered, that is until they show up to vote. I have had Quebecois ask me how these things can happen in America? They always thought America to be the paragon of free and fair democracy by the people. They were mightily disillusioned to find out we too have election corruption. Was the Egyptian election fair and democratic? Probably by the standards we seem to accept for US elections. What the Egyptian election was not, was that it was not 'representative'. The opposition made the same mistake in Egypt that the Sunni opposition made in Iraq. In the lead up to the first election the Sunnis did not like some of how the 'democracy architecture' was shaping up. So they boycotted that first election. That left the shiites in nearly total power to call the shots and pour concrete. That is exactly what they did. The Egyptian opposition did the same as the Sunnis did, they called for a boycott of the initial election. They stayed home in droves out of protest. Election rigging was unnecessary. The opposition had fallen on its own sword. So that election was probably as free and democratic as ours, maybe more so. Those who wanted to vote did and those who did not did not. The first rule of winning is that you have to show up. Regarding Obama and the word coup, what is it that you are taking exception to? That we provide aid the to the Egyptians? Or that Obama has to observe the technicalities of the law to achieve U.S. international interests? As for Egyptians only hating Obama, I suspect a few might consider either of us an acceptable substitute if they had us by the collar. Just a guess. As for words coming out of a cable impromptu talking heads, I'm never surprised at the low quality that is often dispensed. First, not all talking heads are that smart. Even if they are, some of the people that back them up are not all that sharp. Even if they are, add in the uncertainties of a breaking news story (if it really is breaking news) and the pressure to keep the words rolling on live air even if there isn't anything new to say. I hear dumb things all the time, some times even from smart people. What gets me the most are reporters who ask someone who has just lost their home or a loved one to a tornado or hurricane or fire 'how they feel' or 'what they will do' . These are truly brain dead idiots with a microphone in their hand. I do not watch CNN all that much. Don't much care for their line-up style. A little Wolf Blitzer goes a long way. I like Reliable Sources and Fareed Zarkaria GPS. The latter is must see TV if you are interested in international affairs -- politics, economics, news in general. First class guests and content you get nowhere else. The only cable news I refuse to watch, Fox, is the only one that I feel deliberately dispenses, otherwise fosters and perpetuates untruths. That does not mean they get everything wrong or that there not any ethical and truthful people. Shep Smith comes to mind as the standout. Mostly tripe though - rank disinformation and propaganda. Nothing more than an unethical Conservative political mouth organ that dispenses some news to provide it cover as a news organization staffed by more than a few cretans. Tune in on the morning show to see three of them. They come off as the Three Stooges Lite.

I thought this was pretty ballsy of the U.S. to ask the European countries to do this but not surprising given the present tenor of the Admin and Congress. However, for the Europeans to accede to this over-the-top request was a major international relations faux pas that is most embarrassing to them. It paints them as toadies of the U.S., shows gross disrespect for Evo Morales, President of Colombia, and to Latin American nations in general. Can one imagine that China, Russia, Germany, or France, to name a few, would be treated this way by the U.S. and any other 'major' countries? Any apology to Evo Morales is insufficient short of a complete confession to the whole sordid affair and a mea culpa from the head of state of each offending country. It would be surprising to see that treatment extended to a Latin American Head of State. Certainly not without intense international pressure and who will bring that to bear since many of the players are the offenders? BTW, I'm surprised this has gotten so little play in the U.S. so far. Unlikely to get any more given the holiday, when the news and the people take a long weekend leaving the reporting to photographers, parades and fireworks displays. By Monday that story will be wrapping the catch-of-the-day in your local supermarket. You can bet it hasn't gone unnoticed in Latin America. Just one more high profile example of the US and Europe exhibiting their colonial powers credentials to those who already remember them well. The U.S. cannot get out of its own way when dealing with Latin American nations. It doesn't depend on who the party is or the President. We are just incapable of dealing with them without bullying or insulting them.

Life is full of choices. If one finds a site to be an experience more negative than positive then it would not be surprising to choose to move on. I did that over seven years ago. If one lets one or two posters turn his view of a site mostly negative then that is a choice too. If the positive contributions of everyone else do not outweigh the few negative, who can be ignored, then the positive contributions were not all that meaningful in any sense, so nothing of value is lost. It's all about choices.

I think the community on the whole is full of good personalities and great contributors. I certainly would not let someone push me out so easily. I'm really disappointed that two great contributors value this community of posters so little that they abandon it because of one or two abrasive posts or posters. Do they really feel it is better to punish themselves and their friends in the community by withdrawing, especially when their nemesis is so easy to ignore?

Townie, I wish everyone who has issues with a particular poster would do what you do. It is just so logical to do and so satisfying for you to do it. As I have said on other occasions, the internet is so full of people that complain of wet feet but are so unwilling to step around or over a small puddle when they encounter one. What grieves me more is that these sensitive individuals are so willing to give up the whole community which is full of great people and contributors than click a little button. What does that say about how they are appreciated? Know that I and many others appreciate your contributions when you come by.