Skip to main content

memorial ad sampler from local Newtown paper

Ad sampler from last week's local Newtown paper, the Newtown Bee

Charles Blow:

This time, nearly a month after the horrible mass shooting in Newtown, Conn., the public attention hasn’t ricocheted to the next story. On the contrary, sorrow has hardened into resolve.

This time, something can and must be done. And it looks as if something will...

Second, more reasonable people of good conscience and good faith, including responsible gun owners, need to talk openly, honestly and forcefully about the need for additional, reasonable regulations.

There is power in speaking up. We know the face of unfettered gun proliferation. Now it’s time to see more faces of regulation and restraint.

We do that here.

Greg Sargent:

If Republicans continue with their debt ceiling brinksmanship, you’re likely to hear powerful GOP-aligned voices from the business community calling for Congress to cut the nonsense and raise the debt ceiling without delay. Even some Republicans and conservatives, such as Newt Gingrich and the Wall Street Journal editorial board, have warned this will compound the GOP’s political problem.

And here we go: The powerful Financial Services Roundtable — which is headed by former GOP presidential candidate Tim Pawlenty and represents nearly 100 of the largest financial service firms in the country — is set to increase pressure on Congress to raise the debt limit, warning that failure to do so will make the markets go “haywire.”

AP on CT responses to gun law change:
State Senate Majority Leader Martin Looney, a Republican [sic] and a longtime proponent of tougher gun laws, said he is hoping the political climate has changed since the tragedy.

"I'm hopeful that some people will recognize that not every gun regulation bill is a serious threat to the Second Amendment and that people will be a little more reasonable about accepting some reasonable regulation," he said.

Ahh, sweet reason. [PS he's a proud Democrat]

HuffPost:

On the eve of a potential confirmation battle for secretary of defense nominee Chuck Hagel that may hinge on his opposition to the Iraq war, most Americans continue to think the war was a mistake and was not worth fighting, according to a new HuffPost/YouGov poll.

According to the survey, 52 percent of Americans think it was a mistake for the U.S. to send troops to Iraq in 2008, while 31 percent say it was not. In addition, 55 percent of respondents said the war was not worth fighting, and only 27 percent said it was.

"Most Americans" agree with Daily Kos and Chuck Hagel? Neo-cons are so wrong, and so out of touch.

The Fix:

Obama knew that in picking Hagel, he was picking a fight — particularly with Senate Republicans, many of whom loathe their former colleague for his move toward the Democratic party in recent years.

But, Obama — and his team — clearly believed that the Hagel fight was a) worth having and b) winnable even without the majority of Republicans on board. And so, he did it — knowing full well that it was going to be a battle.

(The decision by Obama to go forward with Hagel when he backed away from pushing Susan Rice, a personal friend, for the State Department amid a similar avalanche of criticism is telling. Obama is underrated as a political pragmatist; he walked away from nominating Rice because he knew it was a fight he would lose.)

That willingness to pick fights with Republicans under the belief that the other party has largely pre-determined that they won’t work with Obama also underlies how differently the president now approaches his legislative priorities.

Hagel is hardly a progressive paragon.  But fight for this one, and win, guys. It's good for the country for the Republicans in Congress to lose a few more.

Jonathan Chait:

The two parties are currently at loggerheads over the manufactured crises of budget sequestration and the debt ceiling. President Obama’s position is that the two parties should enact a mix of cuts to retirement programs and revenue increases through tax reform. The Republican position is that no more revenue can be considered, and further deficit reduction must consist entirely of domestic spending cuts.

The merits of the two positions can of course be debated. What is beyond dispute is that Obama’s negotiating position is exactly the same as the centrists. If they believed that the $600 billion in revenue Obama secured, on top of the $1.5 trillion in spending cuts agreed to in 2011, was enough revenue, and Obama was demanding an excessively revenue-heavy solution to the deficit issue, then obviously they should argue as much. But they do not believe that. In fact, the Bowles-Simpson plan would raise far more revenue than Obama is asking for. One party stands completely in accord with their position, and it has not happened entirely because the other party stands against it.

Why, then, don’t they say this? Part of the answer is careerist. The elite centrist drone is emitted by people who deem non-partisanship an essential part of their job description. If they concede that one party is advocating their agenda, then you could flip the sentiment around and correctly conclude that they are advocating the agenda of a party; therefore, they would be partisan and have thus forfeited the entire basis of their claim to respectability.

More on this from David Atkins, who dug up this Greg Sargent column from 2011:
Self-styled “centrist” columnists have a perennial problem on their hands. They have built reputations by calling for middle-of-the-road solutions to our problems. Yet they can’t acknowledge that Obama and Democrats are the ones who are offering solutions that are genuinely centrist, because that would constitute “taking sides.” This would imperil their “brand,” which rests heavily on transcending partisanship, and on their ongoing insistence that the future depends on following a middle ground between the parties.
From Chait, and Atkins, and Sargent, a very appropriate look at the "both sides do it" garbage you read in the press. And it is garbage. And it's been said here.

Michael Tomasky:

I see that Brent Bozell, who never runs out of ways to spend rich conservatives’ money, now has an outfit called For America, which is mounting a pressure campaign against Mitch McConnell over his role in the fiscal cliff deal. The online ad buy will be targeted to Kentucky and will ask, “Mitch McConnell, which side are you on?”—that of socialism or that of Kentuckyism? What struck me when I read this was: How come there isn’t a group that is taking out ads against Rand Paul, McConnell’s junior colleague, one of just five GOP senators who voted against the bill, asking him which side he’s on—the side of bare-minimum fiscal sanity or the side of ruining the economy for the sake of making an ideological point? Of course there isn’t. But there must be. In fact there is nothing—nothing—our political system needs more than a strong and well-financed moderate-Republican pressure organization.
Now that's what the centrists should be writing. Their inability to label the Republicans as the radicals they are is hurting America.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  great minds think alike (8+ / 0-)

    I the Charles M. Blow column on gun violence and gun control in This time things are different. for which I request your attention

    "We didn't set out to save the world; we set out to wonder how other people are doing and to reflect on how our actions affect other people's hearts." - Pema Chodron

    by teacherken on Thu Jan 10, 2013 at 04:33:01 AM PST

    •  GOP hopes large quantity of losses = win? nt (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      jay1c
    •  Charles Blow got all the required buzzwords (0+ / 0-)

      into a single sentence!

      Second, more reasonable people of good conscience and good faith, including responsible gun owners, need to talk openly, honestly and forcefully about the need for additional, reasonable regulations.
      I can just imagine him going over the "talking points" list..

      "Reasonable" - check!

      "Responsible" - check!  twice in one sentence!  double check!

      Hmmm.. "good conscience" and "good faith".. great additions!

      ................

      My only question is.. who sends out these lists?

  •  Those Who Want Armed Occupation of America (5+ / 0-)


    Mention taxes and the mentality, lack of, of that group of (T)'s, there are no (R)'s nor frankly any conservatives and haven't been for a couple of decades, is clearly shown with his remark about "higher taxes will infringe on their 2nd amendment rights!"! This while the over the line with fear and paranoia, talk about mental problems and connected to weapons ownership and use, think the Sandy Hook shooters mom, have the flock rushing out to stock up their private arsenals with more guns and even more rounds and clips of ammunition while that rush has prices rising quickly, better easy money bottom lines for the gun merchants and manufacturers, and they don't mind at all ponying up the extra costs, just don't like taxes that they want others to pay so they get to use everything done from for free for themselves!!

    Meanwhile, once again: Police Facing Shortage Of Ammunition For Training.
    9 January 2013 - Officers at the Greer Police Department are part of a growing group nationwide dealing with an ammunition shortage.  "It's never easy to get ammo, but since the tragedy in Connecticut, it's become even more difficult," says Sgt. Chris Forrester.  Forrester heads up the training division for Greer PD.  He says they started noticing problems ordering ammunition a little less than a month ago.  "You'll call and they say sorry we're out, or it's on back order," he says.


    The trained and constantly retrained and qualified for use on the weapons assigned or in the regulated armories, even those with desk jobs, just one area of a experienced regulated citizens militias, the law enforcement professions, along with the state National Guards, under the leadership of the state Governors!

    And the flocks rushing out and individually buying thousands of rounds actually think they're not 'nuts' nor have growing mental issues while they fondle, with that orgasm gleam in their eyes, their booty and occasionally even fire off some of those thousands of rounds on a firing range, hopefully, thinking they're the real patriots who protect and defend the now no longer Civilized nor even United States!!

    Vets On FLOTUS and SLOTUS, "Best - Ever": "We haven't had this kind of visibility from the White House—ever." Joyce Raezer - Dec. 30, 2011

    by jimstaro on Thu Jan 10, 2013 at 04:37:25 AM PST

    •  We had a guy diary here a week or so ago. (4+ / 0-)

      The gist of his diary was "I don't have guns for hunting or self-protection, I have guns to stop the government from taking over. So no gun regulations are acceptable."

      "Michael Moore, who was filming a movie about corporate welfare called 'Capitalism: A Love Story,' sought and received incentives."

      by Bush Bites on Thu Jan 10, 2013 at 04:50:21 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  That guy needs to be on a (6+ / 0-)

        "don't sell another gun to this nut" list that every gun dealer should have to consult before making a sale.

        "In this world of sin and sorrow there is always something to be thankful for; as for me, I rejoice that I am not a Republican." - H. L. Mencken

        by SueDe on Thu Jan 10, 2013 at 04:54:20 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  He was a self-proclaimed militia member. (5+ / 0-)

          So, yeah: He was off his rails.

          I worked with a couple militia members at one job and they were pretty buffoonish, though I guess you don't need much of a brain to run around in the forest shooting things.

          "Michael Moore, who was filming a movie about corporate welfare called 'Capitalism: A Love Story,' sought and received incentives."

          by Bush Bites on Thu Jan 10, 2013 at 05:01:08 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Well, one was buffoonish. (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            jimstaro, wishingwell

            The other was goofy but nobody could really tell where his fuse was either.

            Funny, because they were both lousy workers, and all the managers were afraid to fire the guy they couldn't figure out.

            They eventually bought him out with a pretty big package and promised him some consulting work that they kept dragging out and eventually didn't delivered on.

            "Michael Moore, who was filming a movie about corporate welfare called 'Capitalism: A Love Story,' sought and received incentives."

            by Bush Bites on Thu Jan 10, 2013 at 05:12:56 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

  •  Blackburn to introduce new defund Planned (6+ / 0-)

    Parenthood legislation.....I'm sure it will be moved to the head of this list.

  •  please let it be so... (8+ / 0-)

    'more reasonable people of good conscience and good faith, including responsible gun owners, need to talk openly, honestly and forcefully about the need for additional, reasonable regulations.'

    I prefer pie on a plate, sometimes with a scoop of vanilla ice cream.

    by dear occupant on Thu Jan 10, 2013 at 04:46:02 AM PST

  •  Dems should start telling 401k holders.... (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    RJDixon74135, jay1c, tb mare, DSPS owl

    .....what a debt crisis will do to their accounts.

    "Michael Moore, who was filming a movie about corporate welfare called 'Capitalism: A Love Story,' sought and received incentives."

    by Bush Bites on Thu Jan 10, 2013 at 04:46:45 AM PST

    •  I remember what Bush's economy did to (10+ / 0-)

      the savings I had back in 2002

      Layoff + no job X 1 year + sinking markets = depleted savings

      The path of the righteous man is beset on all sides by the inequities of the selfish and the tyranny of evil men.

      by xxdr zombiexx on Thu Jan 10, 2013 at 04:50:45 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  When you're loathed more than cockroaches..... (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      glitterscale, Calamity Jean

      you should watch your step.....just sayin.

    •  They don't care (4+ / 0-)

      The GOP is comprised of their poor white base that believes its riches are right around the corner and their rich white base that would drink the blood of babies to save an extra dollar on taxes. One has no stake in the markets and the other is inoculated from crashes by the tax code that will allow them to make money even if they lose it.

      The GOP cares about nothing more than winning elections, so they do what the basest of their base wants.

    •  I doubt that most people even understand (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Laconic Lib

      that the interest being earned by their pension fund or their Social Security account or their military retirement fund or their state's "rainy day fund" are part of the national debt.

      "In this world of sin and sorrow there is always something to be thankful for; as for me, I rejoice that I am not a Republican." - H. L. Mencken

      by SueDe on Thu Jan 10, 2013 at 05:03:53 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Not a good idea. (6+ / 0-)

      First of all, measuring anything by the casino of the stock market is an awful idea that has stifled actual investment in the nation's economic health.  Instead, stocks rise as profits rise from outsourcing and layoffs.

      Second, the message is not clear.  Does the debt endanger the economy (the Wall Street version of the debate), or does the austerity that they demand to reduce the debt endanger the economy (the Keynesian version)?

      Frankly, the whole concept of 401k's was one that was meant to entrap workers, making them believe they shared a stake in profits and thus defend every plutocrat's efforts to increase those profits, even to the workers' own detriment as they see themselves or their coworkers laid off and unions busted.  In fact, workers own a miniscule percentage of the equities they are so desperate to prop up when they attempt to protect their 401k's.  Who's really benefiting from propping stocks up?  The principal owners of those stocks, the wealthy, and the top managements who use stock prices to justify high salaries and bonuses.

      •  A lot of average people got hurt in the Bush Crash (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        wishingwell

        I'm sure they don't want to go through it again.

        I know I don't.

        "Michael Moore, who was filming a movie about corporate welfare called 'Capitalism: A Love Story,' sought and received incentives."

        by Bush Bites on Thu Jan 10, 2013 at 05:18:36 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  I get that, really. (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Egalitare, SueDe, Laconic Lib

          But by concentrating on this measure you would reinforce the means of their entrapment.

          The real health of the economy as far as most Americans are concerned is not measured in retirement portfolios that many will not see but in their employment here and now, the source from which current living expenses (and incidentally also 401k contributions, if that's their choice) are derived.  Keep the focus on jobs, on stimulus.

      •  Wall St. is the demon only when convenient (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        dance you monster

        It is amusing to see progressives aggressively defending stock market investments only when debt ceiling "crises" come around.

      •  And it opened up the markets (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        dance you monster

        for these financial products to a wider swath of the population, thus benefiting the financial industry rather than, necessarily, the 401K holder or the government.

        Words can sometimes, in moments of grace, attain the quality of deeds. --Elie Wiesel

        by a gilas girl on Thu Jan 10, 2013 at 01:20:25 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  How many are they prepared to lose? (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Mustellus, jay1c

    Think like a Republican --- a "Latter Day Republican" like the ones currently in Congress who seek gratification from making others hurt --- and you'll see that there's no such thing as "a losing battle."  The only way for them to see themselves as actually losing is if they lose, and everyone else wins.  They've made that politically impossible.

    What we now need to do is to adopt their strategy, and invert it:  Damage them as much as we can, with as little damage to everyone else as is "humanely" possible....

    Proponents of gun violence own guns. Opponents of gun violence do not own guns. What part of this do you not understand?

    by Liberal Panzer on Thu Jan 10, 2013 at 04:47:10 AM PST

  •  OK... I am having a rough time..... (5+ / 0-)

    First, I have a really crazy lady client that I must deal with in groups.

    honestly, she's a fun person and I truly like her....but JESUS....she is NUTS! High-quality stuff.

    Earlier this week, had her in group. She waits for ANY lapse in the conversation to lauch into her rants predicated on huge selusions of persecution. She manages to have conspiracies against her and her family that involve God, Jesus, Satan, the White House, Jimmy Carter AND Hitler, all in 1-2 sentences.

    So she was going off on one of these tireades and it morphed....into the lyrics for "Fool for the city" by Foghat....

    I love my client but I can't handle her  - 60+ years of age and 1 tooth sticking out - reciting classic rock lyrics.... I just can't.

    Also can't handle a Republican named LOONEY who speaks rationally about thundersticks.

    My brain hurts.

    The path of the righteous man is beset on all sides by the inequities of the selfish and the tyranny of evil men.

    by xxdr zombiexx on Thu Jan 10, 2013 at 04:48:34 AM PST

    •  I have a question, xxdr zombiexx (5+ / 0-)

      As a clinical pro, do you think there's a way to develop regulations to reliably exclude the mentally ill from legal gun ownership, or are we kidding ourselves when we think/talk about "gun control" in that way?

      “Social Security has nothing to do with balancing a budget or erasing or lowering the deficit.” -- Ronald Reagan, 1984 debate with Walter Mondale

      by RJDixon74135 on Thu Jan 10, 2013 at 05:10:43 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I think we already have 'some' - perhaps someone (7+ / 0-)

        in the know can shed some light on that.

        I have little doubt that screening tools can be enhanced - sort of a national database adding insights into the screening forms over time. (Insights being something like useful information gleaned from exhaustive reviews of these massacre-style incidents.

        But in a way, it is all about language. One of the vehemently anti-gun folks is promoting a scare-mongering and rather offensive tactic of pleading with the government to keep guns "out of the hands of  America's 50000 'paranoid schizophrenics", a rude and generally offensive term that denigrates some amazing sick and usually very poor people. I kinda think that's a recipe for being discounted, at least on this kind of issue.

        that said, I do fully believe a lot of people are hurting and traumatized by these events and Sandy Hook in glaring particularity is hardening resolve to do something.

        I think we can put a lot more pressure on people who want to own guns to secure them as a way to curtail thefts AND accidents. people DO, I think, very often get lackadaisical about gun security and that's why we have so  many accidents.

        We cannot stop these sorts of events wherein a person with some sort of disturbance (or whatever people want to lable it) who intend to do certain things. We could stop one that we'd never know about and still suffer others.

        While the anti-gun people don't like hearing this, guns don't shoot themselves. They just don't. This is how we can have 88 guns per 100 adults in America without having 88 murders per 100 adults. MOST people do not hurt others with their guns.

        So what makes 1 person in 20 million go off? How are we supposed to predict them?

        These events such as Sandy Hook, Colombine, Aurora and even the Brevic massacre in Norway represent the actions of one or two people, who planned their crimes in private, over time.

        I think it is important to remember as we find ways of improving things that gun owner does NOT equal "mass murderer" and that "mentally ill" does not mean "about to kill you".

        then we have the 'emotionally impulsive issue' - the people who shoot their spouses for cheating, for example: a 'crime of passion'. we're they nuts when they shot the wife or the husband or the cheating spouse?

        I'm not comfortable calling them "not guilty by reason of insanity' any more than I would want a drunk let off for a killing "because I was drunk'.

        The path of the righteous man is beset on all sides by the inequities of the selfish and the tyranny of evil men.

        by xxdr zombiexx on Thu Jan 10, 2013 at 05:29:44 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  thanks for this. I've said since the beginning (6+ / 0-)

          that if we want to do something to actually reduce the level of gun violence and deaths in this country, we ought to first and logically identify the cause of the majority of those deaths.

          While the mass murders are shocking, they are uncommon. The very next day, just as many people were killed with firearms. Probably even some were minors.

          Whatever we do to reduce the incidence of mass shootings, we must understand, will mostly be symbolic. I'm okay with symbolism. I think it can be important in society. But we will probably still see mass shootings nonetheless and overall the number of gun deaths will not be dented as a result.

          Domestic disturbances like the ones that happen everyday in homes across the country are the leading cause of these deaths. And, if we're honest, we'll admit that the gun shooting part is not usually the first sign of abuse. But it's often the last. We have far more gun deaths that look like the one that took Marvin Gaye out than we have of the ones that disabled Congresswoman Gifford or killed those schoolchildren in Connecticut.

          These are the base facts. Maybe someone with too many assault convictions or domestic violence charges ought to be disallowed from owning a gun period. Those are the people most  likely to use a gun irrationally and kill someone.

          •  How many times does a lady take out a restraining (6+ / 0-)

            order on her stalker boyfriend/ex-hubby and end up dead?

            Quite often. It's a PATTERN. Here in Georgia, at least.

            If a judge can rule that somebody has been 'stalking' and a restraining order CAN be granted, that guy should be under extra scrutiny. It would make sense to review their ability to own firearms to ensure the safety of the woman as the restraining orders clearly fail to protect people when their stalker/aggressor has no intentions of following the law.

            But no: American Law Enforcement is far more concerned about me smoking pot in my shop at night.

            The path of the righteous man is beset on all sides by the inequities of the selfish and the tyranny of evil men.

            by xxdr zombiexx on Thu Jan 10, 2013 at 05:58:28 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  A Domestic Violence conviction (6+ / 0-)

              precludes legal ownership of firearms.

              http://www.atf.gov/...

              •  But prior to the conviction? (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                43north, Calamity Jean, mdmslle

                Guy went smashing through his wife's window a couple years ago and shot her to death. She had sought a divorce and he made threats. Restraining order issued.

                Rest is history.

                Conversely, I knew of a lady in North Georgia who's husband was stalking her after she filed for divorce. She kept a gun for protection.

                He charged her late one night as she got home from work. She ventilated him.  

                It would be nice - unconstitutional perhaps - but desirable to have people who are the focus of a restraining order to have their weapons somehow impounded for the duration of the order.

                Though, of course many of those will just use another gun.

                Where there is a will....

                The path of the righteous man is beset on all sides by the inequities of the selfish and the tyranny of evil men.

                by xxdr zombiexx on Thu Jan 10, 2013 at 08:09:49 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  I agree, and have dealt with D.V. for years (5+ / 0-)

                  You'd hate to be dispatched to a known address.
                  Fuck.  Again?

                  I think it would be reasonable to have all guns put into a bailment situation, while a divorce is pending.
                  A part of the divorce adjudication, I believe both spouses should be interviewed, and suitability for return of firearms established.  While it's fresh and raw.

                  It won't end the "borrow a gun" or buy something on the black market, nor charge through the door with a baseball bat.
                  (Ventilation of the assailant evidently worked.)

                  It might eliminate the worst offenders, and add them to the list of persons denied via the NICS.

            •  exactly. a person prone to violence and with (0+ / 0-)

              impulse control issues is a person who is...prone to violence and has impulse control issues.

              It's completely predictable.

              A guy who can beat me until I need to be hospitalized will also shoot me. This is not a surprise and we've studied domestic violence enough that we understand perpetrators (men and women) and victims very very well. We understand the escalation continuum enough that we even are able to warn women (mostly women, but also men) of warning signs that your partner or mate might be an abusive person.

              It's NEVER a shock when we learn that some husband or wife or boyfriend or girlfriend is now dead. Friends and family (and sometime neighbors) witness escalating violence first hand. these are the folks who should be kept from guns. It wont solve the problem. These abusers will use anything. But we would see gun death go down.

        •  Exactly and very few paranoid schizophrenics (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          xxdr zombiexx, 43north, Calamity Jean

          have violent tendencies. I worry more about accidental or deliberate overdoses of medications or when they refuse to comply with their medication schedules.

          But having worked with schizophrenics and now with my sister in law being one,  I see very few violent tendencies or thoughts that are violent even when she has decompensated somewhat.   We worry more about her taking off and becoming homeless. She is stable now and complying but she has a caseworker and therapist who are both quite good and keep tabs on her and assess her regularly in  addition to her VA psychiatrist.

          My friend  lives with her schizophrenic sister and she gets so upset when people fear her sister who is now a woman over 60 and very sweet and mostly docile.  She says she hates that the media portray the mentally ill as mostly violent when the opposite is often true, especially among women.

          Follow PA Keystone Liberals on Twitter: @KeystoneLibs

          by wishingwell on Thu Jan 10, 2013 at 06:03:29 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  yeah...it costs money to treat people effectively (7+ / 0-)

            Jobs have to be created.

            It's why America hates mental health.

            Americans are happier, it seems, cutting mental health funding.

            They have been cutting it my entire life - I am surprised there's a nickle left for mental illness treatment.

            So yeah, she's doing well because she has plenty of support.

            And this is why I want to encourage people to use the term "person with mental illness" versus 'paranoid schizophrenic'.

            they are still real people with names and lives and problems.

            The path of the righteous man is beset on all sides by the inequities of the selfish and the tyranny of evil men.

            by xxdr zombiexx on Thu Jan 10, 2013 at 06:20:28 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Yes, my dh and I have a friend who was (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              xxdr zombiexx, 43north, DSPS owl

              diagnosed about 40 years ago with paranoid schizoprenia. He's explained how hurtful it is to him to be labeled "a paranoid schizophrenic," or worse, "a schizo" as his mother refers to him. His analogy is that we would never label a person who has cancer as "a canceric" or "a canceroid." In the case of a person with cancer, we can all clearly differentiate between the person and a disease the person has. He feels we should be able to do the same wrt a person with a mental illness.

              Good on you, dr zombie, for agreeing to work with a person with schizophrenia. My dh and I have another friend who is a clinical neuropsychologist with two post docs working on schizophrenia. He wouldn't do what you're doing. So, allow me to thank you on her behalf in the likely case that she doesn't.

              “Social Security has nothing to do with balancing a budget or erasing or lowering the deficit.” -- Ronald Reagan, 1984 debate with Walter Mondale

              by RJDixon74135 on Thu Jan 10, 2013 at 07:43:27 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Doc usually does what others are unwilling to do (4+ / 0-)

                Back in the 80s, it was workign with teenagers. Nobody wanted to do it, but I was good at it and it was 'job security'.

                Now, a lot of 'professional counselors' want to work with the "worried well": people who are high functioning, employed, pay their bills and aren't about to commit suicide, but they are really anxious. Counselors can meet with them is posh offices and have warm human conversations and pat themselves on the back but they HATE working with genuinely t0 disasterously ill people.

                can't always have that awesome deep conversation with them.

                It's real work.

                The path of the righteous man is beset on all sides by the inequities of the selfish and the tyranny of evil men.

                by xxdr zombiexx on Thu Jan 10, 2013 at 07:49:01 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

    •  I can ease your sore brain on one count (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      mdmslle, Laconic Lib

      Martin Looney is no Republican.  He's a Democrat from New Haven, where they don't elect Republicans.

      "Ears have walls." - Graffiti, Paris 1968

      by houndcat on Thu Jan 10, 2013 at 05:21:20 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  "Air pollution, here I come........" (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      xxdr zombiexx

      "Michael Moore, who was filming a movie about corporate welfare called 'Capitalism: A Love Story,' sought and received incentives."

      by Bush Bites on Thu Jan 10, 2013 at 05:28:44 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  I can so relate, about 20 yrs ago, I was a (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      xxdr zombiexx

      behavior therapist in a residential setting for the mentally ill.  Lapses in conversations were difficult as the delusional clients would take that chance to share their delusional conspiracy theories and paranoia.  I was told by my bossy to try to steer the conversation back into more sane territory even if that meant discussing a trivial matter for a while.  But it was very difficult to do. It was not an easy job.  

      Follow PA Keystone Liberals on Twitter: @KeystoneLibs

      by wishingwell on Thu Jan 10, 2013 at 05:59:51 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Regarding Michael Tomasky's appeal (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Remediator, mdmslle, Egalitare

    for centrist Republicans to engage in a campaign to ask radical Republicans "which side are you on?", apparently there aren't a sufficient number of centrist Republicans to mount such a campaign.  Or perhaps centrist Republicans believe they are reaping some benefit by letting radical Republicans be as publicly radical as they can.

    Actually, both centrist Democrats and progressive Democrats are reaping the benefits of the country's witnessing the contortions of logic and childish hissy-fits of the radical Republicans, so both the Democrats and centrist Republicans may be correct that they are benefiting by letting the radical lunatics rave.

    "In this world of sin and sorrow there is always something to be thankful for; as for me, I rejoice that I am not a Republican." - H. L. Mencken

    by SueDe on Thu Jan 10, 2013 at 04:48:54 AM PST

  •  I dont think Rice would have lost (5+ / 0-)

    But it would have been ugly, and it would have given people like John McCain an opportunity to drag the administration through the mud over Benghazi. In the send she would have been confirmed, but only after the GOP had taken their pound of political flesh, and he's going to need all the political capital he has to get through the debt ceiling and gun control.

  •  If Dems make Hagel a relitigation of the Iraq War. (9+ / 0-)

    ....the Dems win in more ways than one.

    "Michael Moore, who was filming a movie about corporate welfare called 'Capitalism: A Love Story,' sought and received incentives."

    by Bush Bites on Thu Jan 10, 2013 at 04:52:44 AM PST

  •  No, Hagel isn't a Liberal Democrat.... (8+ / 0-)

    ... but he's on the right side of the Iraq war, showed you are permitted to change your mind when facts prove you wrong, and is publicly questioning our next HoooHaaaaa War with Iran.

        Working alongside reasonable Republicans shows just how far the Tea Party has gone over the cliff.

  •  A new normal in gun control debate (3+ / 0-)

    The sustained national reaction and demand for a substantive path forward on common sense regulations after the massacre in Newtown has shocked the GOP and its NRA allies. This is not like the other shootings, where the press and the politicians seek to quickly move on to whatever manufactured story is deemed more important than the lives of innocent Americans. No one outside the Republican Party and the most extreme elements of the gun manufacturing lobby thinks that any citizens has a right to collect military weapons or use 100-round ammunition magazines to kill people. Americans are ready to embrace real gun control. The president must act decisively.   -  progressive

  •  One other thing about the "centrist" pundits. (5+ / 0-)

    They're mostly in the top tax bracket.

    Never forget that they have their own personal motives, and they're not always dedicated to getting at the truth.

    "Michael Moore, who was filming a movie about corporate welfare called 'Capitalism: A Love Story,' sought and received incentives."

    by Bush Bites on Thu Jan 10, 2013 at 05:03:30 AM PST

  •  On the Tomasky excerpt -- (6+ / 0-)

    I think Mitch McConnell remains well to the right of "socialism," and doubt that he can even define it.  

    As for "Kentuckyism," I've never heard of that as a formal movement or principle, but if that state's U.S. Senators are any measure, I don't want any.

  •  Take the sequestration. (0+ / 0-)

    It's starting to sound like Not Such a Bad Thing.

    A meat cleaver approach?

    Yup.

    But it hits defense and it hits domestic entitlements.
    It gores everybody's oxen.

    Let the stupid axe swing one time.
    And negotiate back from there.

    We seem to willing to avoid temporary discomfort, even if we screw over some undetermined group of Americans for a very long time. (See TARP, and the supposed depression avoidance, which was really avoid the sniffles for a lot, infect millions with the plague)

    LG: You know what? You got spunk. MR: Well, Yes... LG: I hate spunk!

    by dinotrac on Thu Jan 10, 2013 at 05:15:38 AM PST

    •  Secretly the GOP love the sequester (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Laconic Lib

      They won't say it in public, but they see it as their meal ticket to 2014. They get to blame Obama for the economic effects of removing billions of dollars from the economy AND say that he doesnt want to keep America safe because he cut the military AND that they cut spending by billions (although they'll never say on what)

      The sequester is Obama's baby now, unfortunately.

      •  It's not as bad as made out to be. (0+ / 0-)

        Much of the social safety net is actually outside the sequester, but defense isn't.

        Given the strong bipartisan network of Congressional support built up by defense contractors over the year, the sequester may be the only way to start taming that beast.

        LG: You know what? You got spunk. MR: Well, Yes... LG: I hate spunk!

        by dinotrac on Thu Jan 10, 2013 at 05:25:24 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  It does need to be cut (0+ / 0-)

          The problem is a democrat doing it. Hagel will give cover though, which should help. And to be honest whatever is cut by the sequester will probably be put back by the end of the year anyway in piecemeal form.

        •  It is as bad as it's made out to be. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Laconic Lib

          Not because it curtails spending (although some of the cuts will be devastating to the poor), but because the cuts are way too much, way too soon.  The sequester will cause even more unemployment, put an enormous number of small businesses out of business and stop in its tracks what little recovery the economy is currently experiencing.  Worse yet, it's completely unnecessary.  Focus on tax reform, although a bigger and longer fight, would be much more satisfying and rewarding in terms of economic recovery and economic inequality.

          "In this world of sin and sorrow there is always something to be thankful for; as for me, I rejoice that I am not a Republican." - H. L. Mencken

          by SueDe on Thu Jan 10, 2013 at 06:13:49 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  A lot of that is on the way anyway, thanks (0+ / 0-)

            to this wonderful booming economy we have.

            Lots of small businesses (the "regular people" definition, not the Wall Street Journal $100 million or less definition) are badly extended right now, and struggling because

            a) their business isn't what it should be, and
            b) their clients aren't paying their bills

            You're talking about a worst case scenario of merciful death vs slow and painful death.

            And I say worst case to mean that nobody comes to their senses and fixes the worst of the problems after the sequester hits.

            LG: You know what? You got spunk. MR: Well, Yes... LG: I hate spunk!

            by dinotrac on Thu Jan 10, 2013 at 06:18:53 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

  •  Pres. Obama (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    SueDe

    is going to announce the Lew nomination at 1:30ET  today.

  •  I personally favor the Hagel nomination. (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    skohayes, SueDe, R30A, 43north

    If for no other reason than his circumspection and his position on I/P.

    I think if we're every going to move toward peace in the middle east and attempt to broker talks between Israelis and Palestinians, especially as an increasingly toxic political leadership emerges in Israel, we're going to need to have some real serious truth telling.

    As a partisan Democrat, I'm smart enough to know that the TRUTH TELLER in this case, politically speaking, will have to be a republican if we're going to 1) make progress and 2) not suffer politically as a party because of it.

    Hagel's career really cannot be questioned. He is beyond qualified for this.

    The middle east is going to become more crazy than ever in the coming years. I think Obama is making not only the right choice, but a very astute political one.

  •  Martin Looney is a Democrat (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    houndcat, Laconic Lib

    There seems to be a problem with your cut and paste function, as the passage entitled "AP on CT responses to gun law change:" changes the word Democrat to Republican.  It's as if your word processor were re-prrogrammed by Ken Blackwell.

    •  I just hope poor Marty (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Laconic Lib

      doesn't read DailyKos first thing in the morning.  Imagine waking up and finding yourself described as a "Republican" in the world's largest and greatest political blog.  That's heart attack material is what that is.

      "Ears have walls." - Graffiti, Paris 1968

      by houndcat on Thu Jan 10, 2013 at 05:25:47 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Excellent roundup,Greg. (0+ / 0-)

    Pediatricians rock. ;-)

    My lady binder is killing me.

    by surfermom on Thu Jan 10, 2013 at 05:24:01 AM PST

  •  Thanks for the roundup, Greg! (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    SueDe

    Ruth Marcus, whose columns I usually skip because she's such an Obama-and-Democrat scold, has an interesting one this morning to the effect that Obama needs "binders of women."

    Obama's all-white-team-of-retros

    As an aging female, I'm disappointed.  I'd hoped to see more women in the cabinet--come to that, exactly why is Hilda Solis leaving?  It would be nice to point to the President's cabinet and tell my granddaughter, "See--you can be part of your country's policy-making process."

    With respect to women's rights, it seems to be one step forward, three steps back.  We thought we had the right to reproductive choice--but presto change-O, it's about to disappear!

    What's next, the right to vote that we think we have?

    "Religion is what keeps the poor from murdering the rich."--Napoleon

    by Diana in NoVa on Thu Jan 10, 2013 at 05:37:05 AM PST

    •  The Democrats' bench is lacking (0+ / 0-)

      women in almost all positions, but it's much deeper than the Republicans'.  In order to put as many women in high government positions as Obama did in his first term, a Republican president would have to consider people like Jan Brewer, Nikki Haley, Michele Bachmann and Kelly Ayotte.  If a Republican president deigned to put a Democratic woman in his cabinet, it would be someone like Mary Landrieu as energy secretary.

      "In this world of sin and sorrow there is always something to be thankful for; as for me, I rejoice that I am not a Republican." - H. L. Mencken

      by SueDe on Thu Jan 10, 2013 at 06:29:22 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Are? (0+ / 0-)

    How many battles are the Grand Old Party preparing to lose?

    Oh it are preparing to lose lots, I'm sure. Not intentionally of course, but still.

    Okay I'm only teasing, but it is teasable.

  •  Correction for the AP:Martin Looney in CT (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    houndcat, Greg Dworkin

    is no Republican. He is my State Senator and is a Democrat.

    Victory is sweet-November 6, 2012

    by al23 on Thu Jan 10, 2013 at 05:48:12 AM PST

  •  About this (0+ / 0-)
    On the eve of a potential confirmation battle for secretary of defense nominee Chuck Hagel that may hinge on his opposition to the Iraq war

    Obama opposed the Iraq war, and was elected because of it. Why wouldn't the president be allowed to pick a defense secretary that also opposed the war?

    "It is easier to fool people, than to convince them they've been fooled" - Mark Twain

    by Sarge in Seattle on Thu Jan 10, 2013 at 07:09:41 AM PST

  •  "The Fix" quote ... (0+ / 0-)

    So we have a President who only goes to battle when he's sure he can win.  That's really heartening and inspiring.

    The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt. Bertrand Russell

    by accumbens on Thu Jan 10, 2013 at 07:16:46 AM PST

    •  it's pragmatic and practical (0+ / 0-)

      win the fights you pick and be sure to pick the fights you win.

      "Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies." - Groucho Marx

      by Greg Dworkin on Thu Jan 10, 2013 at 07:21:22 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Ah, yes, pragmatic and practical. (0+ / 0-)

        Pragmatic and practical to never take a strong stand because you actually believe in something.  Pragmatic and practical to capitulate in advance of negotiations.  Yep, that's real pragmatic.  Obama is a politician - not a statesman - who operates expediently.  You can call that pragmatic.  I think it's politics as usual.

        The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt. Bertrand Russell

        by accumbens on Fri Jan 11, 2013 at 04:10:43 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  huh? (0+ / 0-)

          why would you think they are different? pragmatic = politics.

          "Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies." - Groucho Marx

          by Greg Dworkin on Sat Jan 12, 2013 at 04:24:16 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  btw this article is for you (0+ / 0-)
          Here’s my New Year’s resolution: I’m going to read less liberal grousing about Barack Obama. At the moment, we have a number of critics of the deal Obama just cut with the Republicans to avert the fiscal cliff. They make some fair points, about the deal and about Obama. But if there’s a style of criticism that really bugs me, it’s that which reproves him for failing to be Captain Liberal while refusing to recognize that the guy has to be Mister President. Here’s what I mean.
          http://www.thedailybeast.com/...

          You don't have to like it (and you shouldn't). You should push him as hard as possible. But to not recognize the truth and necessity of pragmatism is to not know anything whatsoever about politics and getting things done.

          "Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies." - Groucho Marx

          by Greg Dworkin on Sat Jan 12, 2013 at 04:27:18 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

  •  You Mean They're SERIOUS? (0+ / 0-)

    "...most Americans continue to think the war was a mistake and was not worth fighting, according to a new HuffPost/YouGov poll."

    You mean the YouGov polls are serious, legitimate polls??  Who would have known it?  I take the YouGov polls, and all I ever get asked is my opinion about this business or that business.  Because of this, I have come to see YouGov as nothing but a farce without an ounce of legitimacy.

    It would be nice if for once they would ask me legitimate questions that mean something.  Until that happens, I'll just go along with the joke.

  •  Thanks for the PS on the CT State Senator (0+ / 0-)

    ... I saw the [sic] but assumed that was just because his last name was Looney, so of course he HAD to be Republican!  Without the PS I was just assuming you were being hilariously pithy.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site