Stop giving them money. Hold it in a trust fund for all I care. Let them fight it out and when we judge them to be stable again, we'll give them their free money again. I just don't see how giving them money is a value-add right now.

+1

We just can't give them money after the past two days.

We all know why they are doing this, but what is their justification they use while keeping a straight face?

The same, "We're just trying to stop voter fraud," claim that goes along with every other law that's an attempt to keep certain people from voting.

And then you have Texas, which is going to try a JiMGA defense: We aren't disenfranchising minorities, we are disenfranchising Democrats.

Mitt Romney is obviously racist?

Reince Priebus just looks like a made up name some politician used when trying to book a hotel room with a hooker. It's the Ron Mexico of politics... but real.

I think a better comparison would be to say it sounds like the conservative Carlos Danger.

Why go Ron Mexico when you have an already awesome Carlos Danger already in the same field?

SI

Business Insider is a real quality news outlet. So did they just mishear him, or did they just decide the story had more "zing" if they replaced "it hurts us" with "it's racist"?

I was all prepared to rip whomever at any outlet chose to cite Business Insider as the source for such a rather large story until I saw the change side by side.
I can actually see where that could have been a BI writer legitimately mishearing the remark & taking it down wrong.

In this instance, I actually think the MSNBC analysis (which was linked) of even the less harsh version comment is actually worth more than worrying too much about the misquote. Their take on what either comment signifies seems pretty spot on to me.

Sure its not great but seems relatively benign violations of the privacy rules.

Obama faces Dem backlash over latest NSA revelations | Fox News

It sure makes me feel better that only a minority of the 2776 incidents were intentional significant violations of law that involved inappropriate surveillance of Americans.

Yeah, I mean if it were only a thousand, no big deal, right?

SI

I know the analogy is not perfect but its interesting how we condemn Syria, Assad's massacre of civilians, and draw a line in the sand but nothing forthcoming (as of yet) with Egypt and its massacre of civilians.

I don't think some/many countries are ready for US type democracy and don't think we should push for such. I'm happy with relatively free speech, free elections etc. albeit with corruption and crackdowns if the regime is relatively pro-US (or at least not vehemently anti-US).

This does seem to be a regional Muslim civil war between Sunnis and Shites and Military sectarian regimes.

Attacks on Protesters in Cairo Were Calculated to Provoke, Some Say - NYTimes.com

N.J. Gov. Christie signs ban on gay conversion therapy

Nice job, Christie. :)

I am in 100% agreement with Christie on a personal level with gay conversion therapy being a bunch of sad losers who can't handle their kids being gay or gay people in general. However I am not sure how NJ can do this. I am thinking of psychics, chiropractors, acupuncture, clergy (IMO on this one)... who offer a completely made up service and aren't banned by the government. If somebody wants to waste their money on this how is it any of Christie or the state of New Jersey's business? (I honestly have no idea so please fill me in on the legal side if you do know)

And the "children" are involved in most of the other services I listed so I'm not sure that is a good enough reason.

I'm sure he would argue (and I would agree) that gay conversion therapy is more harmful than all of those things.

Not sure I'd put chiropractors and acupuncture under "completely made up" services to equate them with something like psychics.

One should create a time machine if they want to change people, my mom and sister had hazel eyes and I'll never find a hazel eyed girl attractive. Just can't talk with her like I would other girls.

Almost everyone who go to these, psychics, chiropractors, acupuncture, clergy, go because they want to.

Almost everyone who goes to a gay conversion therapist goes because they were coerced or forced to.

I think we can both agree that this move is to try and offset his vetoes when he thought the wind was blowing the other way on these issues and not because he actually feels some sort of outrage.

I don't think it's impossible for someone to be against gay conversion therapy and against gay marriage. That may or may not be Christie's real position, but it's definitely consistent with the type of politician he presents himself as. Now I'm not a Christie fan at all and I was really upset with his veto of the gay marriage bill, but his motivations have nothing to do with whether the law is a good idea or not.

You said the government shouldn't ban it because it was no different than other services. I was just pointing out how it is different.

As for Christie's motives, I don't know and don't care. The end result is good for the public, IMO.

Good to see them jump in and commit. Looks like they are taking a really a leadership position and strong stance against militants. The US will still be blamed for it regardless of how it turns out.

To be honest, I think I prefer a military dictatorship somewhat aligned to the US than a "democracy" of muslim extremists.

Backing Egypt’s generals, Saudi Arabia promises to fill financial void - The Washington Post

In the Muslim world, they will find a conspiracy theory to blame the US. Are they really at odds with the US position? I don't see Obama or the US government saying to bring back Morsi.

yeah - i deleted my post the more I thought about what you were saying - seemed a bit harsh.

and yes, the islamists will of course find a way to blame us (just like they blame us for the saudi government), and i imagine the US foreign policy establishment privately is happier with the military then with the Brotherhood in control.

I love the Ted Cruz is crazy enough to renounce his Canadian citizenship.

I love that Ted Cruz is crazy enough to think he can win a Presidential election.

:::breaks out the popcorn:::

If the higher numbers are validated by the UN, Obama will have a tough decision to make on escalation.

Syrian activists accuse government of deadly chemical attack near Damascus - The Washington Post

Saw the video on TV. Absolutely brutal.

Obama is looking for a coalition. I don't see the US leading the way here to build the coalition and if he is waiting on the UN it'll never happen with Russia and China.

France and Saudi Arabia seem eager after the past couple days.

Obama tells CNN key decisions nearing on Syria, Egypt - CNN.com

No way he commits to something there. It's easier to deal with the shitty aftermath than get involved right now and stake your claim when you may end up on the wrong side.

We are just a country of the world and he really doesn't want the moniker that Bush carried. Let the rest of the world decide when they have had enough and we can jump in and help, but we are done setting the table for everyone else just to be ridiculed.

If the Middle East wants something different they are going to have to figure out a way to do it and decide what they want and how they want it. Growing pains are always hard.

Yeah after that '08 election we completely stopped meddling in the Middle East.

That's a completely different direction than full on war don't you think? In no way are totally stepping aside or trying to be isolationists (Well the Paul's are), but that policy fails fast. Of course we are there@ We have a lot invested there financially as well as intelligence. We stand to lose a lot by just taking the ball and going home. But there is no way we should be dictating what is going on over there. The phrase "work smarter, not harder" applies.

I would think that except for the calculated "red line" speech he gave. It seems like the Syrians tested the waters after that, and with no response, military or otherwise, they've increased the intensity of the attacks. Obama tried to use his words as a deterrent, but his bluff was called. That was not a speech of a guy who was planning to stand on the sidelines and see what happens.

There are 3 general groups in the civil war (1) Assad regime (2) Muslim extremists e.g. AQ like (3) anti-Assad secular/moderates.

We should be supporting (3) and in worse case, settle for (1). Considering the lack of news on (3), I suspect that (3) is not doing well. And is (3) even a "trusted partner" (no)? Therefore (1) is better than (2).

Easy to say and obviously the situation is more complex and muddy.

Lack of strong US direction here (or at least so far), I think Obama is okay with just settling for a long drawn out civil war of Muslim vs. Muslim - to keep the Muslim extremists distracted (yay), Israel out of the news, Saudi vs. Iran/Syria (unexpected bonus).

Hopefully Israel and Fatah will take this news breather to negotiate a compromise.

Do we really know if the gas attack wasn't AQ guys working on a dispersal system for a larger attack elsewhere? Do we know what chemical was used? Both sides point fingers, but the waters are so muddy you can't see who is who. At this point you can't take anything off the table. I really don't think we need to take a leap before you look mentality again. We tried that, and it didn't work so well.

Obama is really waiting for a general international consensus on the matter. Essentially, the US tried to be the international leader. Tried to strike out on an ideological campaign and even in the areas where we were supported the most, we were criticized and lost tons of international value. Once bit, twice shy.

The US isn't the only one with a dog in this fight. Why are we being pressed to take the reigns again? We are trying to give voices to the other people of the world, but they just aren't stepping up yet.

Kosovo, forgot about that. Wonder what their view of US is?

Air War in Kosovo Seen as Precedent in Possible Response to Syria Chemical Attack - NYTimes.com

Easy enough to find. This must be the only Muslim country that really like us!

http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepu...llner0831.html

This always goes through my mind at some point in situations like this.

If we were in the middle of a civil war, what would we think of other nations questioning our choices about how to prevent a violent overthrow?

(Yes, I'm aware of the various historical precedents, I'm just thinking aloud here)

Is there anyone who really believes that if, let's say an armed militia (and leave its political ideology out of it, seems irrelevant here) were actively engaged in an attempt to unseat the U.S. government by something other than the election process that the government would refuse to use every means at its disposal to remain in power?

Seriously, does anyone actually believe that?

Because Obama gives speeches saying that the U.S. is going to take the reigns again.

Maybe he doesn't want to get involved yet because he's not 100% sure who gassed who (though I tend to doubt the U.S. doesn't know exactly what's going on), but my point is, the tone of the speech was not one from the leader of a country who is looking to take a supporting role, or who is looking for others to step up.

Nope. We would use means that would be condemned by other countries. Fortunately we are still #1 militarily.

Something is going to happen. The French have the Foreign Legion to manage backlash if there are casulties.

France says ‘proportionate response’ brewing after Syria chemical arms attack - The Washington Post

Key U.S. lawmakers: Expect strike in Syria – CNN Political Ticker - CNN.com Blogs

The complaints about the lunch situation in schools is honestly ridiculous.

The Harlan Daily Enterprise - School lunches creating a stir

With leaders like this lady, it's a wonder anything gets done.


Myra, I have two kids. They say stupid sh#t to draw a reaction. Don't use their comments as a justification. There's a reason your state is one of the fattest in the nation.

FWIW.....I have a first grader and have gone to eat with her on multiple occasions. While they do get a certain amount of protein and carbs, they get unlimited fruit, veggies and salad bar. When I eat at school, I get full in a hurry. There's no shortage of food for these kids and it's honestly far better quality than anything I ever ate in school.

Kentucky students to first lady Michelle Obama: Your food ‘tastes like vomit’ - Yahoo! News

If the U.S. intervenes in Syria, will oil prices skyrocket?

The whole school lunch thing has been one of the most annoying social justice crusades I've seen in a long time. It's the perfect mix of overbearing parents with pseudo-scientific health nuts. I feel bad for anyone on any school board who has to deal with this.

The one funny thing I see in this is how many people assume kids will just eat whatever you put out there. All this talk about throwing a bunch of steamed veggies on their plate and watching them chow down is laughable to anyone with a kid. Not saying that schools should cater to every bad eating habit around, but kids are fickle eaters.

Schools are definitely way better than I remember them. And even better than what our parents got. My only real gripe is with schools flooding themselves with pop machines and fast food restaurants. I was blown away by how many schools now have Pizza Huts and other joints inside. As well as how many elementary and junior highs that have deals with soda companies. I'd much rather the focus be on getting rid of those and forcing kids to *gasp* drink water for a few hours a day.

Six score and five months ago, I found myself wondering why in the world we would want to invade Iraq. And why Congress seemed almost 100% in favor of engaging in this folly.

Congress seems to have learned its lesson, at least on this issue. Why hasn't Obama? This needs to come to a vote.

We rightfully faulted Bush 43 for his ill-considered ego rampage when handed the keys to the family fleet of B-52s. Now we're going to lob missiles at Syria in support of groups who are never going to be on our side in anything?

It's certainly terrible what's going on in Syria. Beyond terrible. But the only thing guaranteed to be more terrible than civil war is intervening in someone else's civil war.

I realize Obama's ego will take a beating if he has to back down from the "red line" comments. He needs to stop massaging his ego and learn from his predecessor's mistakes. Both are/were neophytes when it comes to global aggression, and irrational and aggressive behavior, with no real end-game in mind, comes at a huge cost.

Kids are remarkably stubborn when it comes to food. And if they're growing up in a household where the adults glean their knowledge of nutritional value from a bag of potato chips, they're simply not going to eat these lunches.

I think this is a case where we're trying to do too much. Kids are resilient little machines. They can process junk food a lot better than we can. Focus on getting them outside and running around, and the machines will work just fine.

I'm not saying replace the salads and fruits with a table full of twinkies and ding-dongs. But slightly junkier and tastier will do the job - get their tummies full so they can learn.

I wish Obama had a much clearer vision of the utility of any strikes. I also wish Congress would demand a formal declaration.

Neither of these will happen.

I think the one place where Obama has really shined is foreign policy and that's making this misstep really stand out. Was there ever really a "winning" side or a side you even pretend to want to back? I guess you could say the same about Libya and we'll always find someone coming out of the woodwork who is "better" than the last guy. But I think the politically easy thing would, frankly, have been to downplay Syria and act all surprised when the inevitable genocide happened and then bring out the handwringing and "if only we had known"s. Or can you only go to the Darfur card once per decade?

SI

Really? So you'd be fine with just sitting around while a genocide happened?

There needs to be a world-wide response. Right now, there's no structure in place to handle Russia's block of any substantial intervention. If Obama strikes, the result is uncertain.

We know Russia's government identifies with the Syrian government, and sees the conflict through glasses colored by their wars with Chechnya. Obama should understand exactly why Russia has taken its current position.

I know the ICC is hopelessly political and not even, not sure how to put this, active at the moment. But a structure like the ICC, combined with the forceful extraction of leaders who are determined to have supported genocide, could be a solution.

But we have a policy against targeting specific leaders, probably out of fear of having our leaders targeted by others. Even though there are many entities out there that would leap at the chance to even get close to Obama.

Unfortunately, sitting around is all we can do because unilateral action inevitably makes the situation worse and there's no structure in place for effective world-wide response. The ICC was in the process of running around Africa to bring people like Ahmed Haroun to justice, but it simply isn't effective. With a better international structure in place, it could be quite effective.

I said politically easy- I didn't say right or wrong. Libraries of books have been written about which international conflicts we should or shouldn't get involved in from all angles including political, strategic, moral, and others.

While, morally, we should strive to stop all genocide, I'd hazard that if I had an hour to think about it, I could probably find at least 10 genocides going on in the world today so this is not as simple as "intervene in every genocide".

So, c'mon, you know
A) I was speaking solely to the political nature of the decision as I still think that's Obama's guiding principle.
and B) it's not as simple as "yeah, I'm cool with sitting by watching genocide happen".

SI

I didn't realize (a) - I must not have read your post that quickly.

Not so sure that's his guiding principle though. Maybe he has a moral compass?

I think he does have a moral compass but I think he's very much a pragmatist. I don't think he'd much rather find a compromising diplomatic solution than push too hard for a moralistic one. I think he'd much rather get 60% of what he wants than significantly risk getting 0% (tho he sometimes misreads the situation and doesn't do well with "all or nothing" propositions as they go against what he understands).

EDIT: In short, I think personal Obama fairly regularly finds it difficult to sleep at night because of the decisions political Obama has to make.

SI

I'm glad possible mocking is what's driving our policy.

The rates of juvenile obesity and diabetes beg to differ. Not saying the fault is the school lunches, but for some of these kids it's the only "actual" meal of the day.

If it's the only actual meal of the day, they wouldn't be so fat.

Well, that's pretty intelligent. I know you are smarter than that.

Where's Damascus?

http://toys.usvsth3m.com/damascus/

I was off by fifteen miles east.

For some reason I thought it was near whatever some of those bodies of water are in the northeastern part of the country.

I know that's true, but when I think about what I ate as a teenager, and how life at my parents' house just revolved around food, and how we went to McDonald's fairly often, and how wiry and thin I was, it's just had to comprehend how it's even possible to be obese as a teenager. I mean, there were real dinners at my house, but I would also throw down a box of oreos afterwards like they were nothing.

Now what? UK lawmakers reject military action

British leader loses vote on Syria response - CNN.com

We can depend on the French to come through.

That's our big plan?

How quaint. Don't they know their job is to make a public fuss but take no action that will share responsibility? Silly British parliament.

It's not just food. I blame central air and video games for obesity. More so. Kids just don't go outside and play. That's the biggest problem.

.

Totally agree. The Congress wants to complain about the president but doesn't want any of responsibility for anything. Doesn't mean I think the president can just do what he wants but it certainly should be up for a vote that the lawmakers can be held accountable for.

A symbolic vote of approval/disapproval? Or one that carries actual weight?

I guess I'm asking whether you're proposing to make Congress, rather than the President, Commander-In-Chief.

Only Congress can declare war. Planning and executing a strike on a sovereign nation that has not attacked the U.S. shouldn't be decided by the President.

But as I said earlier, Congress doesn't want the responsibility. Most of them would rather keep their options open so they can say "Told Ya" regardless of outcome.

Is this actually a sentence in this article?

I'm asking the Congress to make a declaration of war. None of this skirting around with words like conflict or military action or strike. Sure it would be mostly symbolic but then come 2016 if Syria goes to shit the congressmen can defned their vote or if things go wonderfully Congressmen can run on their votes. Right now all we have is nonsense like this...

"Absolutely. I want to stand by that comment I made. The reason I made the comment was as a warning. I don't say those things lightly, Chris. you've known me for a long time. I was Chairman of the Judiciary Committee for 17 years. I teach separation of powers in Constitutional law. This is something I know. So I brought a group of Constitutional scholars together to write a piece that I'm going to deliver to the whole United States Senate pointing out that the president HAS NO CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY to take this country to war against a country of 70 million people unless we're attacked or unless there is proof that we are about to be attacked. And if he does, I would move to impeach him. The House obviously has to do that, but I would lead an effort to impeach him. The reason for my doing that -- and I don't say it lightly, I don't say it lightly."

Joe Biden 2007


I realize its all political threatre and there are quotes from GOP members doing to exact opposite thing supporting Bush. All I am asking is to add a layer to the political threatre and put a vote next to their name.

I'm surprised at how excited the American press seem to be at the prospect of going to war - isn't America just on the verge of getting out of a very expensive war and finally getting its economy (and the deficit) slowly back on track? ...

(especially as nothing has been proved with regards to who used chemical weapons on whom and frankly from where I'm standing the US wading in will do little but generate deaths and dislike of the US in the region)

The biggest difference to me is what kids do these days - eating habits have gone awol to some extent, but thats nothing compared to the ill effects of the media on kids exercise.

Very few parents seem comfortable with their kids going out and roaming the neighborhood or cycling off for miles in a random direction- when I was a teenager I cycled a minimum of 15 miles a day (distance to my local town and back) and spent most of the rest of the time running around with my friends .... I probably burnt off 2,000 calories a day through exercise, as such it didn't matter much what I ate - it'd be near impossible to get overly fat with that much exercise.

Today I have to argue with my wife in order to give my kids the freedom to walk around a store in the mall without being under constant supervision ...

Since 1960, roughly every 40 months we embark on a military campaign. It's just what we do. Think of the poor defense contractors.

Yes the military industrial complex has sadly become a jobs program. Kill a few more brown people? We would hate for a guy in St. Louis to have his Boeing hours cut back. WMD's in Iraq? War. WMD's in Iran. Didn't take we tried too soon. WMD's in Syria? Check, time to go to war again.

Depending upon your location/neighborhood (or that of the store moreso), I'd say she could have a pretty reasonable argument.

So I have no idea who this particular news agency is and I notice that a lot of the other agencies giving it play are places like infowars which I am aware of their credibility. Howver this guy is an AP reporter so take it for what it's worth. It's at least worth a discussion IMO...

EXCLUSIVE: Syrians In Ghouta Claim Saudi-Supplied Rebels Behind Chemical Attack

(The best I can tell mint press seems to be a humanitarian anti-war type outfit but not out to lunch like Alex Jones etc)

None of the neighborhoods we frequent are half as rough as some of the places I hung out as a kid ... plus my kids have a modicum of common sense and the ability to shout loudly (and kick people in the testicles) if the need arises ...

Bear in mind my boys are 14 and 10, hardly toddlers at this stage (in England my daughter was walking herself to school at the age of 10, it amazes me how restrictive America is towards kids having responsibilities for their own actions).

We've had too many Jerry Sandusky types.

That's quite an ironic statement given what is going on in the UK right now, I suggest looking up Operation Yewtree if you get a second

Generally I agree with Marc but everything in the US is just on such a bigger scale than the UK I don't know if its an apples to apples discussion. Back home we went everywhere on buses from the age of 7 or 8, there's no way I let my kid ride a bus in LA until they are at least 16

Yeah, my kids are as skinny as sticks, yet eat constantly. We eat fairly well, but I think them being outside and active most of the day is a big part. We really curtail screen time, so while they do like to sit and read, they don't spend any significant portion of their day sitting. That's a real difference with most of their peers who are putting in hours every day on video games and TV. We live in a safe place, but that culture of fear has certainly infiltrated here. In reality though the chances that my kid's going to get kidnapped or molested because he's out of my sight are infinitesimal compared to the chances that he's going to develop serious health conditions if he sits around the house.

But Jerry Sandusky didn't molest kids he found running around. :confused:

If anything Jerry Sandusky types should make parents afraid of leaving their kids with family members or family friends.

Then again, I live in a county where there have been multiple sexual assaults in the past 12-18 months involving school kids attacked by strangers who made their way onto middle/high school campuses.

Even the whole 'my kids don't play video games and watch TV all the time' thing is overplayed IMO. My kids play games and watch TV quite a bit, but it's what they play that matters. We have multiple PS Move games that are very active games that the kids love to play. They get good exercise, but they just don't know it. Similarly, we let my kids watch 'Bo on the Go' as much as they want on Netflix. It's a show that encourages lots of exercise in the plot and they love to do all the actions. It's all about targeting their activities even when watching TV or playing video games.

My kids sit on their butts a lot and are on the heavy-ish side. They also eat their fair share of crap. They do not burn through their food like little efficient engines.

They just don't have much they want to do outside. We live on a 1/4 acre, and the back yard real estate is made even smaller with trees, swing sets, and the trampoline (there is only so much they can do on the trampoline). They don't really play with kids on our or neighboring steets, and aren't comfortable riding their bikes to friends' houses.

I used to ride my bike all the time, but then there were all sorts of residential cross streets and back roads that had little traffic, so riding was pretty darned safe. Were we are now just isn't built for bike travel. When I got to my destination, I'd usually be playing football, or baseball, or basketball, or street hockey, or...etc. (all this and I still wore "husky" sizes, even though weighed considerably less than my kids at the same ages). My kids aren't sporting types, so they have no interest in doing any of that.

Oh I stay up to date with UK news and am well aware of it, however such things are very rare incidents despite what the press might try and convince people of.


I'm more restrictive than my parents were with me - but I am trying hard to give my kids some independence and a chance to build up character by making their own decisions at times ... otherwise they'll turn 18 and have no capability for dealing with the real-world, at some point they're going to be out in it without my support ... so better to let them dip their toes while I'm close by for advice when required.

(just my take - your milage may vary and obviously each parent knows their own kids best, mine are (by and large) fairly sensible ...)

My kids prefer inside activities - although I do encourage them to exercise and play outside its just not 'common' over here, rather than kids their age playing outside and them just doing it I find it takes me saying "I'm going to do x, want to join me" to get them out there.

That first comment wasn't aimed at you Marc, the person after you who suggested the US was less safe bc of Sandusky :) I was supporting your point (I think)

Yeah I think it's an uphill battle because it's now what hte mass of kids do anymore. We're really lucky because our kids' best friends live a few houses down and also spend their time out here riding bikes or playing in our yards. But when they get with their cousins, for instance, the go-to activities are sedentary. The idea of playing team sports like a lot of us spent a good deal of time doing as kids, informally, is almost mythical at this point. Kids are not only more likely to be indoors, but they're more likely to be in structured activities or afterschool care because parents are working. So they're not even available.

Physical activity can be defined as vacuuming, cleaning windows, and lots of other household chores.
One of 2 things will happen. You will drive them outside to play or you will have a really clean house.
Win-win.

Other than for UK, nothing public yet on other allies. It will suck for US to do this unilaterally. US has to do this either way due to Obama's line in the sand and future credibility ... I wish he hadn't said it and let other countries take the lead.

U.S. officials’ strong words on Syria signal that attack is near - The Washington Post

As bad as the whole chemical weapon thing is, I'm really leery of entering this conflict. It seems pretty clear that both sides are not people we're really interested in hanging out with any time soon.

If we attack, does Iran get frisky? What about Russia? Does Russia do something in response?
This isnt Afghanistan or Iraq. This is a different animal.

He takes his only way out to put it to Congress.

I guess he is showing his respect for congress ...

What a fubar.