Skip to main content


Below the Fold:

  • The Full Sunday Lineup
    In the Comment Section:

  • We honor a heroic American Soldier, who saved countless innocent lives at My Lai

  • A rare clip, from 1966, of Martin Luther Kingom

  • Terra Expert, Peter Bergen explains the war - too bad Shrub doesn't read

  • Jack Murtha, SuperStar!!!  Colonel Murtha's Full, tearful interview on Nightline

  • Sunday Funnies: Abramoff, Delay, Da War on X-mas, Scalito, Moron Tom Colburn, Cheney' Engine Malfunction, Shrub vs Reality, and "Secretary's Day"

     


  • 60 Minutes: Colonel Jack Murtha is featured, Oscar hopefull, Felicity Hottie,...I mean, Huffman; and Dan Rather interviews the North Korean High Command

    This Week: Specter on Scalito, and Gov. Mark Warner kicks off his 2008 Democratic Bid.  Also, Anthony Hopkins on his prior  roles as Richard Nixon and Adolf Hitler.

    Meet the Press: Paul Bremer sells his bunk, I mean book.  Can you believe the nerve of that guy?  Just go away, haven't you screw enough people.  Then MLK biographer, Taylor Branch, sellout, John McWhorter, and Marian Wright Edelman discuss M.L.K. legacy.

    Face the Nation: McCain and Feinstein on Scaltio and Abramoff

    CNN: Beaten down, Wolf invites 2008 hopefull, the SOFT spoken Evan Bayh (he gets major props for voting against Oil Can Rice).  Then, Trent Lott continues his vendetta against Rove and Shrub.  Also Gene Sperling and Steve Forbes discuss the recent anemic jobs report.  They'll probably also through something in about Iran

    Propaganda News: Brooklyn's Chuckie Schumer vs that meanie, Lindsey Graham: Then Goopers Roy Blunt,  John Boehner, and John Shadegg debate for the House Leadership position.  Also, Harry Johnson, president, M.L.K. National Memorial Project Foundation.


    Originally posted to Daily Kos on Sat Jan 14, 2006 at 09:20 PM PST.

    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

    •  Be with in ya in 15 minutes... (4.00)
      ..running late, as usuall.

      really sorry about that!! ;-]

    •  Congressman Murtha (4.00)
      Ooooh, Jack Murtha on 60 Minutes. I'll be watching. Hope he smacks down the swiftboaters just for fun!
      --
      How 'bout them Broncos!!!
      You can vote for the Broncos MVP of this game at the Broncos' site. To me, it's an easy choice. Not much of a contest but we Kossacks love our polls, don't we!!?

      Say no to hate, bigotry, and the author of the Fed. Marriage Amendment, Marilyn Musgrave. Please donate to Angie Paccione.

      by OLinda on Sat Jan 14, 2006 at 09:33:35 PM PST

    •  Looking forward to Warner (4.00)
      70%+ approval ratings.  Helluva way to leave office Gov. Warner.  If he plays his cards right, he can remain the stealth anti-Hillary candidate for awhile.  I say that with some irony because the only true anti-Hillary hopeful is Mr. Russ.

      I loathe REPUBLICAN John McCain.  It baffles me why so many liberals think this guy is swell.
      I think he has pathological Passive Aggressive Personality Disorder.

      As for Timmeh, I fucking would love for him to ask Bremer where in the hell that 1.9 Billion is.
      And why they handed out cash in bundles of thousands when they got to Iraq, without keeping track.  Cause that was OUR FUCKING MONEY.  And why he allowed the looting....etc.

      I like Evan Bayh.  I don't like some of his votes or statements about DEms being war pussies, but there's something about him.  I read he had hired a Hollywood speech coach to beef up the speaking skills.  And if I'm not mistaken, he's been doing quite well in PAC-raising $$$.  And he's just so...cute.

      •  Careful! (none)
        Making a positive comment about Bayh on dKos is just asking to get flamed. My first choice is still Gore, but I like Bayh a lot. If he's nominated--I could see him winning the Iowa caucus, which would set up a two-way race with Hillary--I just can't see how he loses.
        •  Bayh would be a good president (none)
          But I doubt he would do anything to actually GROW our party, much like Hillary & Biden wouldn't.

          Pappy Loomis is down for Bayh, having lived in Indiana.  I asked him the other day and he said Bayh was a really good governor.  I can't dispute that, but he needs to beef up the public speaking and put some more force into his voice.  Political or not, it was cool when he voted against Roberts.  On his website, he also has some really interesting plans and ideas about strengthening Fatherhood responsibility and talks a lot about the problem of fathers abandoning pregnant mothers to raise kids alone.  I like that.

          •  Excuse me? (none)
            You LIKE fathers abandoning pregnant mothers?? Dude, is their acid in that concoction you're drinking??
          •  Don't know any of the details or context, so (none)
            at the risk of getting nailed - let me say this.  I agree too many men walk away from their children.  However, too many women get pregnant and decide (without the man's consent) to have and keep the baby.  If the woman gets to decide this all alone, why can't the man decide not to support it?   Best way is to look at this in reverse.  IF the woman wanted an abortion or to give the child up for adoption, she could, would and wouldn't need anyone's permission, rightly so.  I just don't know why this isn't true for the man, too.   If he wants the baby aborted or adopted, and she doesn't - then let her pay for it and take care of it.  Why does she get to make his decision?

            If it talks like an R, VOTES like an R, it is an R even if it has a D after its name.

            by dkmich on Sun Jan 15, 2006 at 01:11:42 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  It's ok (none)
              Too many woman in Evan Bayh's state use kids as cash machines already.  I'm a woman living in Indiana myself.  I was raised in Michigan and we didn't do that there, like they do here.  Many women with kids by many different fathers and they don't want to get married. See if you collect enough checks from different fathers then you don't have to work, is how it was explained to me. They have it down to a science here, as they will even tell you that you can get more child support with different fathers than the same one. Apparently, the first child scores you more cash than the second or third.

              Why get married when you can get a check every week and do whatever you want?  That's what they told me when I was pregnant.  Even the hospital kept referring to my husband as "the boyfriend" even though we had the same last name...I found that ODD.  The nurses we also confused that I was having my first baby at age 28, they kept assuming I already had a bunch of kids so didn't want to give me the teaching that new Moms get in the hospital.  They wanted me to just sign off on it instead.  Being the oldest of 4 kids, I didn't really need it but I wanted to be treated like the new Mom I was.  

              My son will NOT be getting mixed up with an Indiana girl. I'll find him a nice Michigan girl who wants to go to college first then get married rather than just suck off his wallet.

              •  Phew, thanks. (4.00)
                I hear too many "girls" say, "Now I have a baby to love me".  They are nuts!!!  I have three grandsons (little, yet), but I worry about them.  Even if married, there is no guarantee that they won't lose their kids and become a check.  50% of all marriages end in divorce?  Staying married is not easy.  It takes a lot of commitment.  I get so tired of people justifying their lack of commitment to "their children" with " I just wasn't happy".  Who cares!  Should of thought of that before you had kids.  When there are no children, I don't care if people get married and divorced every other week.  But once you produce kids, you and your happiness really aren't that important.  I've been married for 40 years, and it still isn't easy.  Statistics show that children from single parent families are poorer and less likely to succeed in a multitude of ways.  Parents need to go back to be role models for their kids.

                If it talks like an R, VOTES like an R, it is an R even if it has a D after its name.

                by dkmich on Sun Jan 15, 2006 at 02:22:44 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  I'll get the 1s now (4.00)
                  I'll get the 1s now for agreeing with you.  ;)

                  First person who gives me a 1 has to move me out of Indiana to live with them so I don't have anymore "Indiana stories".  Any volunteers?  Or maybe we could trade spaces...you live in Indiana to see if I'm right while I happily live in your Blue State pad?  I'll warn you...I won't be moving back.  

                  •  Sorry...... (none)
                    ....I live in Virginia. Can't help you.

                    Somebody help ME!!!!!!!

                    Things fall apart-the center cannot hold...The best lack all conviction While the worst are full of passionate intensity (-9.25\-7.54)

                    by kestrel9000 on Sun Jan 15, 2006 at 05:48:32 AM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                  •  That won't work... (none)
                    ...  I did my time in Bloomington before escaping to Boston, thank you very much.  

                    Not that you need a 1 or anything.

                    •  See No Volunteers (none)
                      No volunteers...no one wants to live in Indiana.  I'm not surprised.  I'm trying to save up a safety cushion that will allow me to move back to Michigan, as I know it will take time to find a job there.  Every time I get close something happens where I have to use that money for car repairs or to live on while I have back surgery.  

                      I'll never be a Hoosier just a Michigander in exile.  

                •  a baby to love me (4.00)
                  some talk show host, I forget which one, used to have a great comeback for those "a baby to love me" girls.

                  when they'd say, "I want a baby so I'll have someone to love me" or "now I have a baby to love me," s/he would say back, "oh, really?  how do you treat your own mother?  do you behave in a loving way toward your mother all the time?"

                  that usually stopped them in their tracks, especially since most of them had broken their mothers' hearts by deciding to get pregnant at such a young age and without the social/economic support of marriage.

                  Politics is like driving. To go backward, put it in R. To go forward, put it in D. IMPEACH

                  by TrueBlueMajority on Sun Jan 15, 2006 at 05:03:49 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                •  Children represent hope (3.80)
                  They validate life.

                  The poor have children for the same reason those of means do, they want them. There aren't all that many women who have children simply to victimize men into paying child support.  Assuming a woman had one child with that motive in mind, the difficulties in child support enforcement against a father who wishes to avoid it would make a women quickly reconsider that strategy as a life plan.

                  Some young girls and women find themselves pregnant by accident, not every pregnancy is a means to manipulate the system or collect money from the father. Abortion is increasing difficult to obtain so unwanted children are born. Raising children is hard work for most mothers, there are some who do it poorly but for the most part it isn't worth the pay.

                  There is a way for every man to avoid paternity, many men only have children when and with whom they chose.  Men who chose to have sex assume the risk of fatherhood, they have nothing to complain about if that's what happens.

                  A man who parents a child without providing adequate financial and emotional support is contemptuous, not  an innocent. Your anger is misdirected, child support is the very least a man should provide his child.

                  •  asdf (none)
                    A man who parents a child without providing adequate financial and emotional support is contemptuous, not  an innocent.

                    What happens when they are 16, 17, 18 year old boys and girls?   Sort of like trying a juvenile as an adult, don't you think?

                    If it talks like an R, VOTES like an R, it is an R even if it has a D after its name.

                    by dkmich on Sun Jan 15, 2006 at 08:25:33 AM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Guess what.... (none)
                      nothing like having a kid to make you an adult.  Grandparents pay child support too in many states.  I think you would find very few 15 year old males are parents of the 15 year old girl's babies, on the average.  These girls are often seduced by men much older and more attractive.  http://www.darkness2light.org/...

                      Where are people charging the 18 and older males with rape when a girl shows up pregnant?  There was the Kansas AG who wanted the records of teens getting abortions so he could do that, but what about the girls who gave birth?

                      Of course, teens do become parents, but often they live with one or another family and keep going to school.  I know a recent "grandmother" with two 17-year olds living with her and new granddaughter.  That is actually working out OK so far.

                      You shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you mad. Aldous Huxley

                      by murrayewv on Sun Jan 15, 2006 at 08:37:55 AM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  Trust me, (none)
                        I doubt if Grandmas of the US want to back track into child rearing as a duty instead of a perk.  

                        Trying juveniles as adults.  Michigan tried a 12 year old as adult - for murder.  He was screwin around with a rickety old rifle, shot it, and it accidentally hit someone (he says).  On purpose or not, he's freakin 12.  Just saw some special on women in prison.  Most are there because they were being abused by "boyfriend/husband", finally had enough, and assaulted/killed (manslaughter).  They are in jail.  No one cares how much they got effed over (maybe rightly so)as kids or adults.  

                        If it talks like an R, VOTES like an R, it is an R even if it has a D after its name.

                        by dkmich on Sun Jan 15, 2006 at 09:01:43 AM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  She doesn't view it as a perk. (4.00)
                          She views it as a duty.  But like many grandmothers who love their children, she wants to take care of him and his girlfriend.  Girlfriend won't marry so she can stay going to school on father's military disability check.  So complex, when you deal with real people's lives.  

                          You shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you mad. Aldous Huxley

                          by murrayewv on Sun Jan 15, 2006 at 09:29:02 AM PST

                          [ Parent ]

                  •  Condoms (none)
                    STDs aren't the only things they protect against. They also protect men from unwanted child support payments.

                    The moral values crowd is a bunch of lazy people who deep down in their hearts want the government to do their job as parents.

                    by phinky on Sun Jan 15, 2006 at 08:49:01 AM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                  •  This is sexism, plain and simple (none)
                    There is asymmetry in the situation in that women bear the children and men do not.  Once the child has been born, however, this difference vanishes, and I would think that most feminists would argue that the child belongs equally to both parents.

                    So, suppose a woman has a child, and cannot afford to raise the child.  She puts the child up for adoption, and doesn't pay another cent towards the upkeep of the child.

                    Suppose a man has a child, and cannot afford to raise the child.  He has no recourse; his wages are garnished, he may be forced to live in poverty.

                    This is a gender-based asymmetry that is not inherent to biology, and so it is sexist.

                    You argue that if men didn't want to be put into this situation, they shouldn't have sex with people they don't trust.  I agree.  But this is the same argument that anti-abortion people use to oppose abortion.  Just like women should be allowed to make one mistake and not have it ruin their life, so should men.  And child support can ruin a man's life, particularly if he is poor.  To say that men should take responsibility for their actions but women don't have to infantilizes women, which feminism has fought against.

                    You also argue that most women would not be despicable enough to have a child simply to make money.  That is probably true, but there are always despicable people out there, of either gender.  Furthermore, you can't rule out women who want to have children AND get some man to pay for it, without providing any reciprocal benefit to him.  To assume that all women are virtuous is naive, and insulting since you accept that there are men despicable enough to duck out of child support due to malice.

                    Of course, if you are a person who believes that women are superior to men and deserve special treatment, then we have nothing further to discuss.

                    Please explain how this statement of yours:
                    There is a way for every man to avoid paternity, many men only have children when and with whom they chose.  Men who chose to have sex assume the risk of fatherhood, they have nothing to complain about if that's what happens.
                    A man who parents a child without providing adequate financial and emotional support is contemptuous, not  an innocent. Your anger is misdirected, child support is the very least a man should provide his child.

                    is different from
                    There is a way for every woman to avoid maternity, many women only have children when and with whom they choose.  Women who choose to have sex assume the risk of motherhood, they have nothing to complain about if that's what happens.  
                    A woman who gets pregnant without giving birth to that child is contemptuous, not an innocent.  Your anger is misdirected, life is the very least a woman should provide her child.

              •  What a great legal system they must have,,,, (4.00)
                most women I know have to take a former spouse to court to get child support and that is expensive and time consuming to enforce, what with garnishing the wages and tracking them down and all.  So imagine doing that with three or four different ex-spouses- practically a full-time job right there.  Well, and if they didn't marry them, they need to prove paternity.

                Excuse me if I think this sounds like an urban myth of sorts.  A version of the Welfare Cadillac story.  Hearing from the nurses at a hospital where you gave birth that women do this to support themselves (when the nurses could be republicans going to the local super conservative church) isn't good enough evidence for me.  I would like the names and adresses of 5 women you know who are making this work and how much thy make a month doing this job.  

                So, lets say they have four kids by different fathers and they get $350 a month child support per kid.  That puts them in POVERTY- with $1400 a month income for 5 people.  Try and feed a family of 5 and cloth them- so they get food stamps and lunch vouchers and they go down to Salvation Army to pick up clothes.  They still need diapers and a place to live- with for a 2 bedroom apartment adds up- more for 3 bedrooms.  Even working a crap, minimum wage job would give them more money.  

                More of these women with multiple partners having multiple kids are young and niave.  These parents are often in jail for alcohol, drugs or misc. crimes or just out of jail.  There is a whole underclass of people being left behind by our society and you are acting like there are no-count trash milking the system.    

                You shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you mad. Aldous Huxley

                by murrayewv on Sun Jan 15, 2006 at 05:53:54 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  Get off your high horse.... (none)
                  It isn't about the women or the money.  Its about the babies.  Have you ever heard of the "cycle of poverty"?  Christ, these kids didn't ask for it, and they don't deserve it.  Better dead than red.  Well sometimes its better dead then abused, neglected and then imprisoned for the rest of your life.  Get real.

                  If it talks like an R, VOTES like an R, it is an R even if it has a D after its name.

                  by dkmich on Sun Jan 15, 2006 at 06:32:05 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Of course babies don't need money. (none)
                    Families don't need money.  Women don't need money.  Children don't need money.  As long as they are loved, they can all live naked on the lawn in florida and drink rainwater.  That is the idea that leads 15 year old girls to keep their babies instead of giving them up for adoption or having an abortion.  No one needs money, the state will take care of them and their children.

                    Right.  Well, left really, but there is no more left left like that.  

                    We will be living soon in the land of Alito/ 5 male Catholics on the Supreme Court jurisprudence.  I grew up there in the 60s in catholic girl school.  You want sex, you get married.  You get pregnant, you give the baby away or you got an abortion- legally (D&C) or illegally.  To get birth control you had to be married or lie that you were engaged.  Worked for Alito- he has a happy marriage (maybe) and kids (suspiciously, only 2, so how happy was that marriage- or were they sneaking in bith control on the side).  

                    Actually, the barn door is open and we can't go back to that mythic world.  More moms will keep their kids than give them up for adoption out of societal pressure.  But count on fewer abortions and more unhappy families for sure.

                    You shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you mad. Aldous Huxley

                    by murrayewv on Sun Jan 15, 2006 at 08:50:08 AM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                •  I'm with ya (4.00)
                  On the other end of the spectrum, I know many divorced women who have trouble getting their spouse, the singular father of all their progeny, to even pay his support. For example, my best friend. She had to attach a lien on his home to even get some support. He owed her $5,000, back then. She got it when he refi'd.

                  Now he owes her $7500. He's learned how to game the system quite well, himself.

                  Support, even from a man making 75k is appx. $100 a week per child. That's $800.00 per month for a family of three. Think we can live on it? I don't.

                  More than likely, a woman whose children come from multiple sources have partners making various incomes, too. So figure less than the standard support levels.

                  Not to mention the cost of raising kids. Don't even get me started...

                  "As a woman, I have no country. As a woman I want no country. As a woman my country is the whole world."

                  by MissAnneThrope on Sun Jan 15, 2006 at 06:54:41 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  on the other other end (4.00)
                    a man making the minimum wage having half his wages taken by the State for welfare "re-imbursement" and child support (amount determined by computerized tables of assumed ability to pay). His drivers license suspended, his passport (if he has one) taken away, tax returns intercepted, any unpaid amounts accruing interest at 10%, credit trashed and, as someone posted upriver, no reproductive choice in the matter. Yea. "So don't have sex". Right.

                    I agree with the idea that if a woman has a baby against the man's will she will be made financially responsible. Either that or both parents should recieve the largesse and indebtedness to the State in equal measure.

                  •  Rates vary (4.00)
                    Support, even from a man making 75k is appx. $100 a week per child. That's $800.00 per month for a family of three. Think we can live on it? I don't.

                    I pay about 50% over that rate, plus medical and dental insurance, and it takes a lot of overtime before I hit $60k. Not arguing with your main point, but rates obviously vary from place to place. It should also be noted that the child support is intended to support the child, not the mother - alimony is another issue altogether.

                    My child support is voluntary, not court-ordered, but his mother and I worked out the amount using the official South Carolina Family Court guidelines we found online.

                    I've often thought that it would be helpful if child support payments were tax-deductible for those of us who can't claim the child deduction.

                    •  Child support's intention (none)
                      It is meant to provide the child, living with the mother, with electricity, living space, heat, clothing and other basic needs. Zero offense intended and I don't know how you meant that to sound, but realistically speaking, the child support has to help pay the bills for most single parents, mom or dad.

                      Just as example, my husband demanded we live in a "good" area of the state, with excellent schools. Obviously, that costs more money than living in a more urban area, and I don't much care where we're living. So it costs more, here, and I fully intend to move after the girls are grown to a more affordable area.

                      Is it the law you can't claim the deduction? Here in Ohio, by law the greater financial contributor gets the deduction, unless they're behind in support. I may have that wrong; we decided to split the kids for tax purposes.

                      I know what the purpose of support is. The point I was making was in response to a post far, far above that stated "women make a career out of having kids to live off the support.

                      Seems a bit of a stretch, to say the least.

                      "As a woman, I have no country. As a woman I want no country. As a woman my country is the whole world."

                      by MissAnneThrope on Sun Jan 15, 2006 at 02:23:18 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  No argument here (none)
                        As I said, I'm not denying your central point, in fact I totally agree with it. It is very much a stretch to suggest that a woman could live off child support - it isn't sufficient to maintain an adult in addition to the child, and isn't intended to be.

                        If a woman has been a homemaker for umpty years and has no other source of income, alimony is what is intended to support her. If she later gains another sufficient income, through employment or remarrying or whatever, the alimony stops, or should - the child support doesn't, and shouldn't.

                        As for deductions, the rule is as you state. I just think it would be a good policy to allow the child support payments to be deductible in cases where the father can't take that deduction - it's justified for exactly the reasons that the actual child deduction is, it might make it a bit less of a burden on fathers who do have a hard time affording it, and thus might even make it a little easier to persuade some of those reluctant fathers to step up to the plate and meet the responsibility.

                        (I admit, it'd be nice for me too, even though I don't really have a problem as is, or consider it a burden! ;)

                        •  Alimony (none)
                          Here it's pretty limited, and only a certain amount for every five years of marriage. I waived mine. Also waived daycare fees, as my parents watched the girls for free after school or when I had to work and they were small.

                          But the thing that got me, and the only thing that still to this day bugs me, ten years later, is that when he tried to fight a support increase he said he could get custody because my parents "were too old to watch them."  Then he got mad because the lawyer told him support would increase again to reflect half the day care costs he never had to pay in previous years.

                          He dropped the joint custody hearing like a potato after that. And never in five years before or five years after that point has he exercised his open visitation rights. Only sees them on Christmas and birthdays at this point, which really confused and hurt them.

                          That said, I try not to make any sweeping statements with regard to women or men as being 'this way' or 'that way' when it comes to parenting and divorce. You hear so many different cases where there are great and lousy people on both sides.

                           I don't see why the father can't deduct the yearly amount from taxes -- it's money that's being taxed, so if he's current on support, why not?

                          "As a woman, I have no country. As a woman I want no country. As a woman my country is the whole world."

                          by MissAnneThrope on Sun Jan 15, 2006 at 03:10:55 PM PST

                          [ Parent ]

                  •  Must be different where you are (none)
                    My ex paid $150 per week to his ex girlfriend for 2 kids (only one his biologically) and he made $35,000 per year in Indiana plus had to pay medical bills even if she did not submit them to insurance that he had to carry.  No tax deduction.  I believe that drops him below the poverty line with no help available because agencies go by gross before child support. He works at one of the many small non-union factories in NE Indiana.

                    I make my own way, requested no child support.  As I see it, I'm just as responsible as he was and since my income is higher...why make things worse?

                •  a ferinstance - my niece (4.00)
                  My sister had her first child at 19 and completely unplanned.  She tried to make sure her first daughter didn't make the same mistake she did and put her on the pill.  For whatever reason it didn't work and MyNiece ended up pregnant and had two children and married AJerk. They got divorced before too long and ended up with split custody which is far, far less ideal than it sounds and MyNiece ended up paying AJerk a little child support because she made more than he did.  AJerk is supposed to carry health insurance for the children.

                  Oops!  AJerk changed jobs and couldn't take the kids except on weekends.  There is a strong suspicion that he is no longer carrying health insurance either.  MyNiece is still paying child support and has the kids almost full time.  Until they go back to court to change the arrangement, MyNiece is stuck doing and paying more than her fair, court ordered share and praying that the kids don't have any medical emergencies.  It could take months to get the first court date and I'm not hopeful that MyNiece will get any compensation for the time that AJerk wasn't in compliance with the previous court order.

                  We must never lose it, or sell it, or give it away. We must never let them take it from us.

                  by Fabian on Sun Jan 15, 2006 at 07:30:32 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  This is more my reality.... (none)
                    I work with nice young women going to college with 1 or two kids- trying to better themselves and their kids lives.  Its hard.  They get loans.  They work.  Family helps and baby sits.  Their kids get sick and they have to get them to the dr. Sometimes the ex helps out a lot and sometimes young women don't want to be tied anymore to the ex for pretty good reasons.  I have a 30 year old man in class with custody of the kids doing the same thing. I have young married couples with kids struggling.  There is no rich life with 3 or 4 kids on child support or welfare, in my reality.  And it is about taking care of the kids so they have a healthy future.  

                    You shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you mad. Aldous Huxley

                    by murrayewv on Sun Jan 15, 2006 at 07:58:49 AM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Your story is a good one. (none)
                      Good parents, good role models trying to make a good life.  Too bad everyone doesn't have benefit of that.  

                      If it talks like an R, VOTES like an R, it is an R even if it has a D after its name.

                      by dkmich on Sun Jan 15, 2006 at 08:28:08 AM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                  •  Oh, yeah. Health insurance (4.00)
                    Best friend's hubby dropped that too. Thankfully, she's in marketing for the local college after slaving eight years part-time as an academic advisor. So she doesn't really need the money. But the fact is she's an excellent money manager, light years opposite of me, and if he did his duty she could and would put the cash away for her girls' college funds.

                    Sounds like AJerk has figured out how to play it, too.

                    My ex pays his pretty faithfully. For awhile though, he thought that gave him the right to still control me, how and where we lived, and who was allowed to visit me, by gender. Sigh.

                    "As a woman, I have no country. As a woman I want no country. As a woman my country is the whole world."

                    by MissAnneThrope on Sun Jan 15, 2006 at 08:02:24 AM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Actually AJerk is a moran. (none)
                      AJerk set the trailer home the family had been living in on fire for the insurance money. (no one was living in it at the time.) He got caught.  And, yes, this did come up in the family court hearings.  

                      We must never lose it, or sell it, or give it away. We must never let them take it from us.

                      by Fabian on Sun Jan 15, 2006 at 10:50:47 AM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                •  Disbelieve if you choose.... (none)
                  Disbelieve if you choose but you don't have to live here in NE Indiana.  The nurses didn't tell me to collect a check from the guy and then do whatever I want.  They kept calling my husband..."The boyfriend" and assuming I already had several kids because of how OLD I was at 28.  The hospital in question was Cameron Memorial Hospital in Angola, IN.

                  The check advice came from my Indiana co-workers, most of whom were unmarried with kids.  It is from them that I heard about how it is most desirable to have a child with a man who doesn't already have kids as that first kid is the one that makes the most money.  This was their racket...they worked only part-time and had kids by several different fathers. I realize sometimes there is reasons for the several different fathers but planning it for financial reasons alone is more than I can handle.  It disgusted me, personally.  

                  I'm now divorced after 10 years of marriage, I did my best to make it work out.  I have one child and do not collect any child support as I opted out.  I have a college education and he's dyslexic with a 10th grade education.  I give him a food basket for Christmas still, as he needs it.

                  My ex was already was paying child support on two kids (only one that was his biologically).  I supported him instead because minus his child support he fell below the poverty line yet could get no help because agencies use the gross income before child support.  He got no tax deductions.  His ex-girlfriend ran up big medical bills whenever she was upset with him by using the hospital emergency to treat coughs.
                  No joke, he got the copies of the big folders when he was trying to get custody because she dumped the kids with her relatives while she lived with her new husband in another state. Her checks were forwarded to HER not the kids.

                  The first child was born before my ex was 18, they didn't have DNA testing then and the blood test was 50/50.  It was not his but he was told it was.  He moved in with the mother to raise this child and that's when the second happened (the biological one).  

                  Did you know if you accept responsibility for a child...then later find out it wasn't even yours...you must keep paying support for that child unless the real father is found?  It's true in Indiana anyway.    

                  •  Correction (none)
                    "He" meaning my ex has the 10th grade education.  

                    My son is a 4th grader who plans to become a Dr. and a politician. His hero is Dr. Dean.  He gets straight A's, which he will proudly tell you is much better than our current President got in school.  He's currently President of the Student Counsel at his elementary school.

              •  Whatever you want? (4.00)
                Why get married when you can get a check every week and do whatever you want?

                Oh, sure you can do exactly what you want just so long as you take the kids with you.  Hit the dance clubs with the kids?  Go to the local bar with the kids?  Go to the movies with the kids?  Go back to college with the kids?

                We must never lose it, or sell it, or give it away. We must never let them take it from us.

                by Fabian on Sun Jan 15, 2006 at 07:53:20 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  Ever hear of home alone? (none)
                  Some go anyway.......and just abandon the kids.  I don't know, but we could google the statistics on the huge increase in the number of "grandparents" who are raising their grand kids.  You assume that everyone "knows" and "will do" what is right.  Bad assumptions.  If it were true, our jails wouldn't be busting at the seams.  

                  If it talks like an R, VOTES like an R, it is an R even if it has a D after its name.

                  by dkmich on Sun Jan 15, 2006 at 08:30:29 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Yup, and welcome to foster care. (none)
                    Al asserted earlier that no one who ever chose to be a parent regretted it.  I didn't want to insult the host then but I'll say it now.  There are examples galore of parents who've lost custody or have done jail time for neglect or abuse.  People do choose to be parents who are not suited to the job.  This is why attempts to make raising children all warm, fuzzy and romantic tick me off.  We have plenty of cultural notions about the nobility of parenthood especially if you are a woman.  What we really need is a lot of hard uncomfortable truths about child raising so people won't think that falling accidentally into parenthood is okay.  It's not, it's incredibly irresponsible to play with your and somebody else's life that way.

                    We must never lose it, or sell it, or give it away. We must never let them take it from us.

                    by Fabian on Sun Jan 15, 2006 at 11:06:59 AM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Saw child abuse story in NYT yesterday (none)
                      Teachers reported that the little girl was starving, but nothing was done. It makes you astounded at the scope of evil in the world.
                    •  I'm sorry for causing a downer at his party. (none)
                      I didn't know I was at one.  I thought it was open thread, Sunday talk shows.  I tried to find an e-mail for him to apologize, but I couldn't.  I did apologize to him in the thread.  I hope he sees it.  

                      Young girls have very unrealistic views of life.  Knights on white horses, happily ever after, babies who will fill their emotional needs.  Talk about a disaster waiting to happen.  My concern is first for the babies and second for the person who has parenthood forced upon them.  You are soooo right.  It is hard enough when all the ingredients are in place (two parents, money, extended family to help).  I can't imagine doing it all alone and broke.   I had one and quit.  For her, I wish I had two.  For me, one was plenty and in a lot of ways, better.

                      If it talks like an R, VOTES like an R, it is an R even if it has a D after its name.

                      by dkmich on Sun Jan 15, 2006 at 02:27:40 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  Please don't apologize. (none)
                        This discussion has been very meaningful and enlightening, and I find your comments to be very thoughtful.  This is dKos for you...each thread is like a box of chocolates.
                      •  It was lighthearted at the top (none)
                        The thread didn't start out so serious.  Al commented that no person who chose to become a parent ever regretted it. In contrast to women who may or may not regret not having children.  It was all warm and cuddly, sweetness and light.

                        So I really didn't want to say right there that was complete and utter BS and there are people that not only would regret becoming parents, but they'd make the rest of us regret it as well.  This far down the thread, all the warm mushiness has been boiled out and we are down to the cold reality of it all.

                        So don't worry about it! :)

                        We must never lose it, or sell it, or give it away. We must never let them take it from us.

                        by Fabian on Sun Jan 15, 2006 at 04:40:55 PM PST

                        [ Parent ]

            •  Not true - (none)
              If a woman wants to give her child up for adoption she does indeed need the father's consent.  He must sign adoption consent forms along with the mother.  If she adopts the baby out without his consent, he can contest the adoption and is awarded the child (unless the court deems him an unfit parent).

              If she wants to abort the baby she can do so without his consent, because neither the state nor the father can force her to be an unwilling incubator for the child.  At least not yet.

              (-5.25, -7.95) "Self-respect is a question of recognizing that anything worth having has a price." - Joan Didion

              by SueDe on Sun Jan 15, 2006 at 03:22:07 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Yes, of course you are right... (none)
                However. If she wants to give it up for adoption and dad doesn't, dad would take the baby and, in effect,she would get her adoption.  The major difference might be that dad could go after her for child support payments at that point. This would give away her privilege but not her obligation.   This is gender neutral and patently unfair or nuts.  She can abort it and walk; but if dad gets it, she gets penalized.  This is gender neutral and screws both of them and the baby.  None of the policies/laws we have in this area makes any sense.  

                If it talks like an R, VOTES like an R, it is an R even if it has a D after its name.

                by dkmich on Sun Jan 15, 2006 at 03:39:45 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  Twisted logic (none)
                  If the woman bears the child and the husband takes the child, she does not, in effect, get her adoption.  She could still be held responsible, as you say, for paying child support.  I don't know what "privilege" you see her giving away.

                  As well, if she carries the pregnancy to term and bears the child, she most definitely retains an obligation to that child, despite the father's having custody.  She escapes an obligation to the child only if she consents to adoption of the baby, whether a singular adoption of that child by the father or an adoption by a third party.

                  Yes, she can abort the pregnancy and "walk," as you put it.  But the second part of your statement makes no sense: "but if dad gets it, she gets penalized."  Gets what?  The baby?  If she aborts, there is no baby.  She implicitly accepts responsibility for the baby if she gives birth to the baby, so there is no "penalty" there.  As long as giving birth to the baby is her choice, I don't see how you can say accepting responsibility for the child is penalizing her.

                  That is, as long as she had a choice.

                  (-5.25, -7.95) "Self-respect is a question of recognizing that anything worth having has a price." - Joan Didion

                  by SueDe on Sun Jan 15, 2006 at 05:11:15 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  I'm sorry if I'm confusing. (none)
                    The privilege (if you want it) is living with it. Getting to hold, touch, kiss, smell it.  Watching it grow and prosper, sharing its life, being with it every day, making it cookies, having grand children.  

                    Better explanation I hope:

                    I agree that a woman should not be forced to carry a pregnancy against her will.  However, I think a man should have his own version of a "legal" abortion that he alone gets to decide.

                    In all three of the circumstances listed below, the woman get the make the first choice, and the man gets to respond to what she decides.  Of course, there are always exceptions that prove the rule:

                    1.  Abortion - Woman chooses/no baby for either parent/no obligations or privileges for either parent.

                    2.  Adoption - Woman decides not to abort/Parents decide adoption/Baby given to loving family so no baby for either parent/no obligations or privileges for either parent because usually there is no contact between baby and biological parent(s).  

                    3.  Giving birth & keeping the baby - Woman decides not to abort/one parent decides to keep baby, usually the woman/obligations for both parents/privileges to custodial parent.  

                    Again my only point is that there needs to be a legal equivalent of an abortion for men.  Too many stupid, young females (and males) screwing up children who never asked to be born.  Maybe if men could walk away, some of these females would think twice about getting pregnant and keeping the baby they are not prepared or perhaps fit to parent.

                    If it talks like an R, VOTES like an R, it is an R even if it has a D after its name.

                    by dkmich on Sun Jan 15, 2006 at 06:27:18 AM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  When men carry children (4.00)
                      for nine months, I'm sure there will be a legal equivalent to abortion for men.

                      Maybe if men could walk away?  Many, if not most, of them do.  The perceived ability to walk away doesn't seem to slow down either men or women from having sex and procreating children.

                      Maybe if there were adequate sex education in schools (ALL schools), starting in grade school, the problems resulting from sexual activity wouldn't be so grave (girls start menstruating as early as 9 years old - 4th grade).  If birth control methods were made available for free to anyone who wanted them, maybe there would be fewer unwanted children.  Works in the Scandanavian countries and would be worth a try.

                      Meanwhile, boot the conservatives out of office.

                      (-5.25, -7.95) "Self-respect is a question of recognizing that anything worth having has a price." - Joan Didion

                      by SueDe on Sun Jan 15, 2006 at 07:24:06 AM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  I know, can you believe it? (none)
                        4th grade!  Do you think its all the growth hormones in our food?   Kids are certainly maturing, physically, much faster than before.

                        Having been pregnant and almost dying during delivery, I would say being pregnant is the easy part.  It's the next twenty, thirty years that are tough.  

                        If it talks like an R, VOTES like an R, it is an R even if it has a D after its name.

                        by dkmich on Sun Jan 15, 2006 at 07:32:35 AM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  Childhood obesity, too (none)
                          This is going to sound horrible, but -- the fat girls ALWAYS got their periods first.  This was when I was in elementary school in the early '90s.

                          The girls who were "normal"-weight certainly didn't start as 9-year-olds -- more like 11 or 12.  Meanwhile, I was on the cross-country team, a bunch of fit, active girls who regularly made it all the way through junior high without needing feminine hygiene products.  The funny thing is, back then it was a status symbol to "be a woman," so there would be many an XC practice where we'd lament about how "behind" we were.

                          I would say without a doubt that sedate lifestyles have a huge impact.

                          •  Lack of sufficient body fat can also (none)
                            interfere with getting pregnant.  I must be getting old, life seems more complicated then it use to.  

                            If it talks like an R, VOTES like an R, it is an R even if it has a D after its name.

                            by dkmich on Sun Jan 15, 2006 at 08:16:53 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                    •  What about d)? (none)
                      d) Woman decides to give birth but decided not to inform or involve the father because it would be hazardous to her health.  Woman gets all the obligations/benefits and guy gets to walk.  

                      We must never lose it, or sell it, or give it away. We must never let them take it from us.

                      by Fabian on Sun Jan 15, 2006 at 07:34:24 AM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  I know it is possible and has happened, (none)
                        but about as many times as George W. Bush passed a test in Yale. I work with regulations for a living.  I know the more you try to clarify something, the more complicated and confused it gets.  All I'm talking about is equal rights for gender.  Woman need to be protected from asshole men, and men need to be protected from asshole females.  We each do our share of hard.  Right?

                        If it talks like an R, VOTES like an R, it is an R even if it has a D after its name.

                        by dkmich on Sun Jan 15, 2006 at 08:20:18 AM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                    •  Dear dkmich.... (none)
                      I applaud you effort to take that plan to any state legislature in the country to get it passed.  (snark, but reality).  

                      Soon, men need to accept that they better know if their partner is using birth control if they want to "hook up" a lot.  Get a vasectomy.  Use condoms seriously- maybe with a built-in spermicide or a spermicidal lubricant.  Enjoy other alternative means of sexual gratification, with a partner or without.  Because unless partner's life is in danger, partner won't be getting an abortion in most states.  OK maybe Massachusetts, New York or California will hold out.  Get ready for a conversation about birth control at the bar.  

                      Funny story-

                      In Wisconsin, to get ADC you need to say the baby's dad.  They do a paternity test.  That may be the Indiana Bayh model we are referring to in the original post.  If that man isn't the dad, they do another.  The 17 year old son of my friend had this happen after a one night stand.  He was her third choice as "dad".  So, the woman could easily have had the child and not know who the dad was, dkmich.  Jerry Springer isn't all fiction.

                      This story had a happy ending.  He pays child support, and has visitation.  His girl friend he cheated on kept him and they married.  The little girl is accepted by the dad's family 100% and has stability in her life with a loving dad.  A dad with a college education (now) and a good income and a bond to the little girl.  Who will be more whole and emtionally healthy because she has a dad who loves her.  Mom had a second child with another man and isn't very stable role model.  So, a happy ending of sorts, and maybe proof of the original poster's contention that for some women, this serial child support thing could be a good thing.  But this young mom nexer got much from the guy who was in school and earning little.  The award was based on ability to pay and he couldn't pay much

                      Don't ding me about how bad a bad dad is for a little girl, or how great your extended families are to your kids, single dkos moms.  I am sure bad dads are truly worse, and extended families are great, and in many cases, an excellent and healthy substitute.  But a good dad is an extra source of income, insurance and loving child care, even when not a married dad.  Being loved by two people is great when you are a little kid.  And a good dad, well, that is a great thing for children to have.

                      You shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you mad. Aldous Huxley

                      by murrayewv on Sun Jan 15, 2006 at 08:21:47 AM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  What are you suggesting? (none)
                        Soon, men need to accept that they better know if their partner is using birth control if they want to "hook up" a lot.  Get a vasectomy.  Use condoms seriously- maybe with a built-in spermicide or a spermicidal lubricant.  Enjoy other alternative means of sexual gratification, with a partner or without.  Because unless partner's life is in danger, partner won't be getting an abortion in most states.  OK maybe Massachusetts, New York or California will hold out.  Get ready for a conversation about birth control at the bar.  

                        Why should anyone not be taking those precautions now?  Regardless of what you believe should be legal with respect to abortion, do you believe that it is morally acceptable to use abortion as a form of birth control?

                        [Bush's] cult of personality is dead - and the inscription on the tombstone reads, "Brownie, you're doing a heck of a job." - Paul Krugman

                        by democracy inaction on Sun Jan 15, 2006 at 08:54:13 AM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  Yes and no. (none)
                          No, not as your primary form.  Get something else and use it to prevent unwanted births.  Jeeze, this is surgery.  Not something you should have over and over.  I think RU486 and hormonal treatments could have unanticipated risks, but will become increasingly more popular if abortion is really outlawed.

                          Yes as an extreme choice when another method fails.  

                          Yes if the child will have a serious genetic illness or will be born with a serious birth defect leading to early/painful death and the parents feel they can't make that choice.  

                          Yes for rape.  

                          Yes for incest.  

                          Yes for underage girls, especially if parents consent- I think under 16.  

                          I also think it is a private and personal choice, and no-one should ever force a woman to have an abortion against her will.  Emotional and financial blackmail to have an abortion happens all the time from men who just don't want the responsibility of a child in their life at a particular time.  As for a woman expecting a man to contribute financially to a child he doesn't want her to have- that is a very difficult moral and legal choice.  Legally, I think the man should contribute financially.  Morally, I can see where it could be used in a manipulative way.  

                          You shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you mad. Aldous Huxley

                          by murrayewv on Sun Jan 15, 2006 at 09:03:44 AM PST

                          [ Parent ]

                    •  Condoms and vasectomies (none)
                      If men don't want their partner to have an unplanned pregnancy they need to protect themselves. Either by wearing a condom or getting a vasectomy. Yes, I knew a male (I won't give him the dignity of calling him a man)who knocked up three different women and was fighting a paternity suit from a fourth woman when I was in the Army. I told him he should look into getting vasectomy in order to protect himself from unwanted child support payments. Or at a minimum wear a condom, they're not just for STDs you know.

                      IF you refuse to protect yourself, don't whine about the consequences.

                      The moral values crowd is a bunch of lazy people who deep down in their hearts want the government to do their job as parents.

                      by phinky on Sun Jan 15, 2006 at 09:01:53 AM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                    •  Reminds me...... (none)
                      of a men's right's advocate (wearing a skirt) I saw on Donahue many, many years ago. His argument went a little sumthin' like this:
                      "If a woman can get an abortion without the man's consent, then a man should be able to walk into a courthouse and sign off all of his rights and all of his responsibilities, and walk away."
                      The logical flaw I can't get past is this: in the first instance (woman has abortion) no child exists. Not so in the second.
                      Hmmmmmmm. Biology trumps ethical egalitarianism?...or something.......

                      Things fall apart-the center cannot hold...The best lack all conviction While the worst are full of passionate intensity (-9.25\-7.54)

                      by kestrel9000 on Sun Jan 15, 2006 at 09:21:46 AM PST

                      [ Parent ]

            •  Fuck That Abstract bullshit !! (3.88)
              This diary has always been fun.  I could make everyone cry if I wanted.  Or I could easy rant and take a dump on some lamo, gooper's head, every week.  But hell with that, let laugh, it's the weekend.

              But that said, you sound like a lawyer.  Full disclosure, some of best friends are lawyers.  And I've dated a number of lawyers...atleast I think they were lawyers,...when in bed, they kept objecting.

              But let me tell you something...life isn't a chalkboard and a child isn't a widget...it's your own effing flesh and blood.  

              I'll tell you what, if you never ever become a parent, you might one day regret that decision or an unfair fate - on the other hand, if you ever do become a parent, you will never regret that experience.

              Jeez, what wrong with you guys, money, money, money...you sound like those whinny libertarians, who always cry about their taxes.   Think about the kid, didn't you guys start like as kids?  Or did you come from the same assembly line the produced Cheney?

            •  You took the risk... (4.00)
              ...of getting nailed for saying something stupid so I will oblige and nail you appropriately.  It's called taking responsibility for your own actions.

              First, I am shocked to hear such ignorance on a "progressive" web site, I find it hard to believe that anyone who thinks of themselves as liberal, progressive, or just a responsible person would advocate such an indefensible position.

              Every man who has ever made a child with a woman had a chioce to make.  If he did not want a child, he did not have to have a child.  He could have either used protection or he could have abstained from having sex.

              You say that "too many women get pregnant" as if they do so by themselves in a vacuum without men.  You do know that it takes two to make a baby, don't you?

              Any the woman does not make any "decision" for the man as far as whether or not to have a baby.  The man makes that decision when he takes the risk of having sex, expecially without protection.  No protection is 100% effective and every man knows full well that even with protection there is still a risk of pregnancy.  If a man does not want a child and that is a risk he is not willing to take, he can abstain from having sex.

              If he makes the decision to have sex and a baby is made, even if he used protection, the man is absolutely responsible for that baby, regardless of what the mother decides to do, and rightly so.

              To advocate that people should not be required to take responsibility for their own actions sounds more like something I would expect to hear out of a Republican's mouth than someone posting on DKos.

              [Bush's] cult of personality is dead - and the inscription on the tombstone reads, "Brownie, you're doing a heck of a job." - Paul Krugman

              by democracy inaction on Sun Jan 15, 2006 at 05:13:55 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  THANK YOU! (none)
                I found myself seriously irked but incoherent.  Have a 4 !

                We must never lose it, or sell it, or give it away. We must never let them take it from us.

                by Fabian on Sun Jan 15, 2006 at 05:56:26 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

              •  Okay, dissect this hypothetical can of worms. (none)
                Boy meets girl. Boy jumps girl's bones, multiple times. Girl and boy move in together. Girl has baby. Girl dumps boy. Five years later, girl meets another boy. Girl and new boy get married. New hubby and wife take child to social workers and have him recite coerced allegations of sexual abuse, the goal being to remove visitation rights of father. Father indignantly, after search of home and interrogation by police, demands polygraph test and passes. Police investigation over.
                Unfortunately, father has, in the intervening five years, acquired some out-of the mainstream religious beliefs, which he refuses to disavow. Although there is no criminal case, the family court matter proceeds, where the standard is a 51% likelihood as opposed to "beyond a doubt." Child recites his lines fed to him by mom and stepdad. Judge is fundie. Investigating detective is fundie and makes false statements in Malinda S. petition in re. father's characterization of his religious beliefs. Social worker also attributes statements to father in petition that he did not make. Father's court-appointed attorney is a joke. Prosecutor rumored to be fundie. Father ordered to undergo sex offender's program in order to regain visitation rights. Father refuses on principle. Four or five years later, second husband has divorced mother. Mother becomes crack-smoking prostitute in Las vegas. Son placed in group home. Nothing father can do but pay child support.
                More intervening time. Father has married, career on track, marriage has produced two sons. First son's eighteenth birthday approaches. NOW number-one son is repeatedly and vociferously recanting to social workers and father's godmother. Father's mother is dead, and his father and stepmother have been scared off due to number one son's obtaining internet porn in the middle of the night during visit to grandparent's home, printing it up, taking it back to the group home, getting caught with it, and saying he got it at his grandparents. (Grandmother is elementary-school teacher.) Now almost-eighteen-year-old number-one-son thinks he's going to show up on father's doorstep a week after his birthday.
                What is father to do? Father has two boys, one six, one seven, who have healthy minds and bodies, and are being raised well. Family lives in 2 bedroom apartment; makes 30k a year. Options? Decisions? Suggestions?  
                Strictly a hypothetical situation, of course. I'm working on a screenplay.

                Things fall apart-the center cannot hold...The best lack all conviction While the worst are full of passionate intensity (-9.25\-7.54)

                by kestrel9000 on Sun Jan 15, 2006 at 06:21:04 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  employ 18 year old son (4.00)
                  Minimum wage, no benefits.  40 hours a week minimum.   Restrictions - must behave, must go to counseling.  6 month contract, with subsequent monthly extensions.

                  We must never lose it, or sell it, or give it away. We must never let them take it from us.

                  by Fabian on Sun Jan 15, 2006 at 07:40:17 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  That would fit the plotline just fine........ (none)
                    except, as dkmich points out below, for the two characters who are the six and seven year old sons of the hypothetical father. It would be an incredible strain of the suspension of disbelief required for a plausible work of fiction to suppose that Number One Son, after years in group homes, would arrive at father's doorstep, suitcases in hand, perfectly well-adjusted and a constructive influence on Little Boys A and B. If the father in the story were single, and otherwise childless, it'd be an easy script to write. It'd follow the plotline you suggest and it might even have a Hallmark Channel ending.
                    Unfortunately, I'm too far along in the treatment to undertake a major rewrite at this point. And casting's already finished, and shooting begins as early as April.
                    Quite the quandary.

                    Things fall apart-the center cannot hold...The best lack all conviction While the worst are full of passionate intensity (-9.25\-7.54)

                    by kestrel9000 on Sun Jan 15, 2006 at 08:57:57 AM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                •  Tough spot. (none)
                  He is your son.  You do have a responsibility.  You also have two other kids you need to protect.   I'm sure the 18 year old won't be much of a role model to them.  I'm sure he is also one very angry young man.  I think the post about taking him in on contingency is something to consider.  However, I'm sure he'll blow it - how could he help not to.   Not to mention, I'll help you as long as you do as I say.  Bet he would like and needs some "unconditional love", or is that hoken in the first place.  After all, your spouse would bounce you on your ass in a flash if you crossed the wrong lines.  Whatever you do, try.  You'll feel guilt your entire life if you don't even make an effort.  Good luck with the plot for your story.

                  If it talks like an R, VOTES like an R, it is an R even if it has a D after its name.

                  by dkmich on Sun Jan 15, 2006 at 08:40:44 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

              •  Oh it's not that simple (none)
                I'm a single mom so I'm not exactly down on us as a subgroup, but I think there are women out there who are either using a baby to get a paycheck--though they are rare, or get pregnant with men they barely know and force a guy into a situation he doesn't deserve to be forced into, again, really rare when compared to Dads who don't own up to their responsibilities, but still, let's not pretend that women always act in a saintly manner when it comes to children.
                •  That's a non sequitur... (none)
                  I am not defending women that make stupid decisions and bad choices.

                  And no one can "force" a guy into a situation they don't deserve, assuming that no one forced the guy to have sex in the first place.  Actions have consequences and a man doesn't get a free pass if the woman happens to be a bad person.  If she's a bad person, he shouldn't have made a baby with her.

                  [Bush's] cult of personality is dead - and the inscription on the tombstone reads, "Brownie, you're doing a heck of a job." - Paul Krugman

                  by democracy inaction on Sun Jan 15, 2006 at 08:19:14 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  That's just not true (none)
                    Birth control doesn't always work. The ole "actions have consequences" argument is the same one folks on the right use against women seeking abortions. Sometimes we all do stupid things, many of us even have casual sex without doing a background check on the person. Again, it is rare--in large part cause guys who don't want to be fathers usually find ways not to be--but there absolutely are guys who end up in bullshit child support situations that they don't deserve to be in.

                    But whatever, life's not always fair and if a small percentage of guys get screwed to protect the vast majority of women with children then so be it. There are worse things in the world then becoming a father.

                    •  You're exactly right. (none)
                      Birth control doesn't always work.  And everyone knows that.  No one engages in protected sex without knowing that there is still a risk that they will concieve a child, that they are still rolling the dice.

                      And just because Republicans like to say that actions have consequences doesn't mean that they don't.  If someone makes a baby, they may end up in a bad situation but it is a situation of their own making.  No one else is responsible for their decision to have sex, casual or otherwise.  They may be a really great person that made one bad decision but, with all due respect, in what universe does that make it someone else's responsibility?

                      [Bush's] cult of personality is dead - and the inscription on the tombstone reads, "Brownie, you're doing a heck of a job." - Paul Krugman

                      by democracy inaction on Sun Jan 15, 2006 at 09:41:28 AM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  Now we're getting into minutia (none)
                        I'm going to leave it at this--I think if you get pregnant by a guy you barely know and he is not at all interested in participating, then (if you are pro-choice), you should either get the abortion or be a woman, and take on the responsibity yourself.

                        I am NOT, however, advocating for law change to protect this small percentage of men who get screwed. Okay? I'm just talking about what I personally think is right and wrong. Jane's personal guide-to-life if you will.

                        Note to angry ex-husbands and boyfriends reading along and cheering me on: I am not talking about you. You were in a relationship and it's a different deal altogether.

                      •  And as for the Republican's assertion (none)
                        that actions have consequences, well duh! That's not exactly a sentiment embraced only by wingnuts. However, the Republican talking point just happens to be rooted in cowshit--in other words, you have to be responsible, however, we are not going to teach you how to be responsible and we're not going to allow you easy access to the birth control and morning after pills that would make it possible for you to control life-changing outcomes.

                        And that is because what they preach and attempt to legislate is not about empowering all people, it's based on keeping men in a position of power when it come to controlling a woman's fertility.

            •  Ever hear of Condoms? (4.00)
              However, too many women get pregnant and decide (without the man's consent) to have and keep the baby.  If the woman gets to decide this all alone, why can't the man decide not to support it?

              Why is contraception solely a woman's responsibility? Since it takes two as my father used to say, don't you think men have some responsibility in this area?

              JESUS H CHRIST

              IF the woman wanted an abortion or to give the child up for adoption, she could, would and wouldn't need anyone's permission, rightly so.  I just don't know why this isn't true for the man, too.

              Because the same idiotic men who don't take personal responisibility for contraception would always claim "she trapped me and I while I was too stupid or irresponsible to use birthcontrol on my own, I shouldn't have to pay any price for my irresponsibility".

              JESUS H CHRIST ON A CRUTCH

              "Once in a while you get shown the light In the strangest of places if you look at it right"

              by molly bloom on Sun Jan 15, 2006 at 06:01:39 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

            •  Term pregnancy is a risky endeavor (4.00)
              The mother's health is often adversely effected and her life is imperiled. The kids are almost always hers. The father has to agree to participate in any non financial way, she has a lifetime commitment.

              The reality playing field can't be leveled so the mama gets some small privileges for her trouble.  Live with it.

          •  Careful #2 (4.00)
            Just checked out Bayh's Fatherhood page and am compelled to say it's photocopied out of the Father's Rights brochure. Not saying men should be able to abandon children without consequences, but it's not as simple as it looks from this information.

            The stats he uses about fatherless children apply alarmingly in low-income and socioeconomic groups, but they've been used to force joint custody in middle and upper income families regardless of circumstance.

            For a look at how conservatives have used statistics to marginalize single and divorced women as mothers see a new book called Raising Boys Without Men: How Maverick Moms are Creating the Next Generation of Exceptional Men.

            I won't belabor the point further in this way fun thread. See my diary about my abusive husband getting rights and responsibilities he is utterly unprepared to exercise, if you're interested in how this point of view has altered children's lives. The law of unintended consequences has allowed too many men to continue to control their wives lives through No Move Away laws and "reverse" child support.

            In the practice of tolerance, one's enemy is the best teacher. Dalai Lama

            by leolabeth on Sun Jan 15, 2006 at 04:34:44 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Thanks (4.00)
              People always love to natter on like being the child of a single mom is a death sentence. This is right-wing propaganda people. Studies have shown that a child's success is very much related to income. I don't know the exact cut-off, but I'm pretty sure that children of middle-class and above single mothers perform as well as the children of two-parent families with the same income.

              I am a single mom, for example, and my son is a strong athlete AND he was just invited into honors level classes at a school for kids that are already high-performing.

              And no, my point is not to brag, my message is to all the other single mothers out there who get dragged down by the all unfair and bad press we receive.

              •  Absolutely (4.00)
                I always go to anthropology for a truly historic perspective. Primates gain status via their mothers. If mothers have high community status, offspring succeed. Period. (Not saying fathers' status in insignificant, just that mothers' can be proven easily.)

                The current craze for joint custody in some states does NOTHING to address the certain loss of income and housing level for mothers after divorce, the fact that some 50% of child support is ever paid, or the way manipulative, tyrannical men game the system to perpetuate the problems that led to the divorce in the first place.

                Al, sorry to get all serious and shit here at your party.

                In the practice of tolerance, one's enemy is the best teacher. Dalai Lama

                by leolabeth on Sun Jan 15, 2006 at 07:07:51 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  Oh please any time, you're always welcome (4.00)
                  Bashing women makes ill.  I've been called the worst things here and I just laugh (really do), but it's different when it's somebody else...ya,know.
                •  I'm sorry. I didn't know you were having (none)
                  a party here.   I'll give myself a one.

                  If it talks like an R, VOTES like an R, it is an R even if it has a D after its name.

                  by dkmich on Sun Jan 15, 2006 at 08:42:13 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Feel free to have a discussion. (none)
                    Of course I won't always agree with you, but I will hope to reason with you respectfully.  This thread is usually the folks making fun of republicans.  I read it for a laugh too.  I am feeling sort of discouraged with that today.  I don't want to make fun of anyone grappling with life's real problems as you are trying to do.  If this sort of thing didn't happen, we wouldn't have soap operas and Oprah.  

                    You shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you mad. Aldous Huxley

                    by murrayewv on Sun Jan 15, 2006 at 09:10:24 AM PST

                    [ Parent ]

              •  Two more things: (4.00)
                You'll love Raising Boys Without Men, though it sounds like you could've written it.

                Those rotten fatherless child statistics don't take into account income or education level. <horrible cliche alert> Nor do they measure the reasons for the fathers' absence, too often restraining orders and other criminal activities.

                In the practice of tolerance, one's enemy is the best teacher. Dalai Lama

                by leolabeth on Sun Jan 15, 2006 at 07:14:41 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

              •  Money and fear (4.00)
                I was thinking about how the religious right is uptight about sex and female self determination, so they employ various propaganda.

                which led me to remember how Moynihan and others used the same song to bash single Black parents with their eugenic attacks in 1965.

                Same rotten song, but with a different arrangment.

                And as we saw in the M.L.K. clip, he correctly focused on income and not on parental numbers.

                as a teen, I saw alot of kids suffer through a domestic chaos (catholic hood - low divorce rate).  They would have much better off with just one parent and no terror to hide from or pain to kill.  The kids with only one parent (moms) were so happy, so productive, so successful.   Gee, kinda reminds me of the last elected president of the United States.  And how the future president of the United States was raised by single mom.  From what we can tell, shrub's dysfunctional because of his parental unit.

                •  Thanks for getting it, Al. (none)
                  Bayh's web page is a paen to the rigid fundamentalists who would have mothers marry, or at the very least be tied firmly to the fathers of their children regardless of circumstance. I exaggerate only slightly.

                  The trend toward joint custody is part of a backlash against feminsts and unfortunately we've played right into their hands.

                  In the practice of tolerance, one's enemy is the best teacher. Dalai Lama

                  by leolabeth on Sun Jan 15, 2006 at 07:59:03 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Speaking of... (none)
                    How is everything with your situation, leolabeth? Last I recall was that diary with the ex and being forced to move. Anything improve?

                    "As a woman, I have no country. As a woman I want no country. As a woman my country is the whole world."

                    by MissAnneThrope on Sun Jan 15, 2006 at 08:08:41 AM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Thanks for asking, MissA. (4.00)
                      Things are the same only more so. The judge's decision that I have our boy Th-Mon may be problematic as I got an announcing job in local public radio and work weekends. Not a problem now, but when he starts kindergarten, unless my ex decides to "nest," i.e. have the two of us move in and out of the family home, I may have to think about moving. As I said in last night's WYFP thread, the fretting is the real problem. My hunch is the boy will be fine in the long run, whatever happens.

                      When my friends ask, "How can you think of sharing a house with a guy who choked you?," I say, the judge says I made it up. He's a judge, he must be right. Also, I'd be sharing space with the boy, not the man.

                      The job is great. I've dreamt of working in public radio for longer than I'd like to say.

                      In the practice of tolerance, one's enemy is the best teacher. Dalai Lama

                      by leolabeth on Sun Jan 15, 2006 at 08:25:20 AM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  Leolabeth (4.00)
                        Been there.  Still getting through the legal hell.  My email address is in my profile if you ever want to talk.  You're right, the fretting and not knowing where you'll be in a month, 6 months, is probably the worst part.  Not to mention the fear that crops up unwantedly.  Restraining orders don't make the fear go away.  Four days before Christmas my soon-to-be-ex presented my lawyer with a threat of petitioning to put the house on the market immediately.  We were able to convince them not to, but still it caused more than a little worrying, and is a constant threat.  Not to mention that I'm the one who worked for and paid for the house all these years while putting him through school, which he quit before finishing.

                        Take care, friend.

                        "Let him that would move the world first move himself." --Socrates

                        by joanneleon on Sun Jan 15, 2006 at 11:35:07 AM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  Unbelievable. I'm so sorry. It hasn't helped... (none)
                          me so far, well not a lot anyway, that all the really heinous things my ex has done he did out of his own cavernous insecurity and fear. It has all been his own pathetic attempts to make me share his own agony.

                          My goal is to make this experience change things for other women. We must find another way to deal with threatening, intolerable men. (Yeah, yeah, so I should've said threatening, intolerable people. So, sue me.)

                          Thanks for the kind words. You and MissA really brought a big smile to my face tonight.

                          You take care too, friend. Keep us posted.

                          In the practice of tolerance, one's enemy is the best teacher. Dalai Lama

                          by leolabeth on Sun Jan 15, 2006 at 06:00:42 PM PST

                          [ Parent ]

                      •  Crap (none)
                        What a lousy situation for you, even though you sound both resigned and enlightened about why you might have to go that far. Hopefully not.

                        Good luck and congrats on the job. Email's still here if you're so inclined.

                        --Anne

                        "As a woman, I have no country. As a woman I want no country. As a woman my country is the whole world."

                        by MissAnneThrope on Sun Jan 15, 2006 at 12:30:11 PM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  Resigned enlightment, lol. I'm all over it. (none)
                          Anne,
                          It did my heart good to see you and joanneleon this evening. Thanks for the kindness. I suspect you know how much a few words can mean. <smiling, sniffing a little>
                          Lee

                          In the practice of tolerance, one's enemy is the best teacher. Dalai Lama

                          by leolabeth on Sun Jan 15, 2006 at 06:05:22 PM PST

                          [ Parent ]

                  •  damn (none)
                    I'm sorry I brought it up.
                    I was just making an observation that Bayh has some different ideas that some other candidates don't even mention.

                    Shit, why do you feminists gotta be all angry and shit all the time?
                    It's like you can't tolerate anyone with a differing opinion or something.
                    Geesh.
                    Lighten up, life's too short.

                    •  Talk slower, Sam. You're turning me on.. (none)
                      ..can you go over the passionate, fiery feminist thing one more time....please... ;^P

                      and throw in "intense," "vigorous," and "energetic" also (scrabble dude, here)

                    •  Hope you're feeling better this a.m., SL. (none)
                      And I'm not meaning to be "all angry and shit." I do hate to see a politician who otherwise has reasonable, even terrific viewpoints, possibly swayed by apparently well meaning people with quite another agenda.

                      If you want angry, check out a few Fathers' Rights sites. They make the most rabid feminists look like potted plants.

                      In the practice of tolerance, one's enemy is the best teacher. Dalai Lama

                      by leolabeth on Sun Jan 15, 2006 at 08:40:24 AM PST

                      [ Parent ]

            •  Thanks for doing the research.. (none)
              ...so easy, yet foot work is boring and "hard work"

              ...I haven't seen anything from Bayh, though his dad was cool.

              I wish you all the best..really.

          •  That's why I like Bayh too (none)
            Because he was a good governor. He would be an effective, competent leader, but I agree with you: whether he would grow the party, I dont know. But apparently he did some amazing things as Governor of Indiana(fixed Medicare, created jobs despite the recession in the earlier 90s, created a surplus while cutting taxes). He also voted against Condi and Gonzalez.

            As if the CIA leak case wasnt complicated enough, now it turns out there are 2 reporters named 'Novak' involved -Maureen Dowd(paraphrased)

            by jj32 on Sun Jan 15, 2006 at 07:28:06 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

        •  how does he win Iowa if Vilsack runs? (none)
          or if Vilsack doesn't, Feingold does (WI does border IA)?

          Do not interpret title as a statement of support.  I am just asking the obvious.

          Remember, that in 1992 no one paid any attention to Iowa because Harkin was in the race, and it was a foregone conclusion that he would win, so none of the other majors (Clinton, Tsongas) even bothered to compete seriously.

          And also remember, it was Vilsack's organization through his wife (he was officially "neutral") that helped deliver the state to Kerry.

          Granted, Vilsack won't be in office in Jan of 2008.   But if, and this is still a big if, he is able to pull a Warner and deliver a democratic successor in Des Moines, how then can anyone else hope to compete successfully in Iowa?

          Just asking.

          Those who can, do. Those who can do more, TEACH!

          by teacherken on Sun Jan 15, 2006 at 06:23:19 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Very very true... (none)
            which is why as a candidate you have to ask yourself, "do I stay out of it, let Vilsack have it and wait for the next primary/caucus or do I invest the money and compete for 2nd place?"  Correct me if I'm wrong, but it really hurt Wes Clark for skipping Iowa this past election.  I think when it comes down to Mark Warner (my candidate), Russ Feingold, and the other hopefuls, you should invest the money, rally your base, and hopefully get some momentum going into the rest of the primaries.

            Warner/Richardson '08

            by DemBrock on Sun Jan 15, 2006 at 07:01:43 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  yeah (none)
            I think if Vilsack runs, he wins Iowa probably, unless, Harkin endorses someone else, in which it might get interesting. Vilsack's entry into the race makes NH very important. As I understand it, Hilary has not been to NH in a long time. If she is running, maybe she is thinking about skipping NH. I think Feingold could win there though. In the South, I think it will be a battle between Hillary and Warner.

            As if the CIA leak case wasnt complicated enough, now it turns out there are 2 reporters named 'Novak' involved -Maureen Dowd(paraphrased)

            by jj32 on Sun Jan 15, 2006 at 07:31:35 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  The reason why... (none)
              Hillary doesn't go to NH as often as other politicians is because she has high name recognition.  People like Bayh, Vilsack, and Richardson need to go to get their name out to the voters there.  More known people like Hillary, Kerry, and Edwards don't have that problem.  From what I remember, she only went once last year.  

              Warner/Richardson '08

              by DemBrock on Mon Jan 16, 2006 at 02:15:20 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  I read somewhere (none)
                that she hasnt been since she was first lady. I think 1997. Supposedly Kerry/Edwards didnt want her there. But, yeah, that's true, name recognition is certainly a factor.

                As if the CIA leak case wasnt complicated enough, now it turns out there are 2 reporters named 'Novak' involved -Maureen Dowd(paraphrased)

                by jj32 on Mon Jan 16, 2006 at 04:52:18 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

          •  Vilsack (none)
            That same sounds like some anatomical term for part of one's scrotum or something.

            Anyway, Vilsack makes Bayh look like MLK in the area of charisma.  Both have a charisma defecit, but Vilsack is just flat out boring.

            Branding and image are important.
            For the moment, that's why I still lean towards Edwards.  He fulfills my 4 point litmus test.

            He has charisma and enthusiasm.
            He would actively take on republican institutes of power, such as corrupt lobbyists.
            He won't take any shit.
            He speaks from the heart with CLARITY.

          •  If Vilsack runs, Iowa doesn't matter (none)
            much like when Tom Harkin ran, whatever year that was...Iowa was basically taken out of the equation.
            •  Though you're probably right (none)
              I can think of counterexamples--for example, Arizona for the GOPs in 2000. Even though McCain ran, Bush was endorsed by the Governor and by former U.S. House GOP Leader John Rhodes, who was McCain's predecessor in the House.
      •  We like McCain.... (4.00)
        because he wouldve been oh-so-much-better than Bush in 2000...  Sigh.  As we know things turned out differently

        "He keeps saying 'sacrifice' and the 'war on terror,' and you turn around and he's in a field of poppies with Lance Armstrong." --Jon Stewart

        by laurenpatrizi on Sat Jan 14, 2006 at 10:22:51 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  McCain is good on a few issues (none)
        For example, he was a large reason the anti-torture legislation got rammed through despite Cheney's lobbying.

        "See a world of tanks, ruled by a world of banks." —Sol Invictus

        by Delirium on Sat Jan 14, 2006 at 10:34:25 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  And, tell me.... (4.00)
          just what exactly did he do after Bush put his "signing statement" on it?  He wrote a LETTER stating he will provide strict oversight! OOOOOOOOOoooooohhh!  Not Strict Oversight!  Bush is really screwed now!

          Please.
          McCain is the one who caved on that, first by letting them put in a broad and vague exemption for the CIA who "believe they are acting within the law" and then by dropping the subject when Bush gave him the finger after signing it.  So as long as the CIA just say they thought it was legal to stick a tohrn bush up your ass, they're not guilty of torture.

          Seriously though , just do ten minutes of research on his record and votes, and compare that with his image and public statements and you will quickly find he has more flip-flops than your local IHOP.

          •  And then there's this: (4.00)
            REPUBLICAN McCain, who happens to be a REPUBLICAN, sat in on the Abu ghraib classified briefings with the rest of the senate last year, where they showed the videos of those boys being raped off camera and such.  Yiu know, the ones where Sen. GRaham said "we're talking about rape and murder here..."

            He saw the tapes and pictures we haven't seen yet.
            He knew this went on, he knew the policies of our leader led to this.

            And yet, when it was time for him to do a gut check last summer and fall, who did REPUBLICAN McCain campaign for?  Yeah, you'd think a guy who spent five years in some shithole being tortured would not support the guy who authorizes torture.  Unless of course, he was a Passive Aggressive.

            •  I absolutely agree. (4.00)
              McCain is all show and no go.  If he had any principles whatsoever, he would NOT have supported Bush in 04.  He did it because he stupidly believes the party will support him back in 08.  This also calls his intelligence into question.

              If it talks like an R, VOTES like an R, it is an R even if it has a D after its name.

              by dkmich on Sun Jan 15, 2006 at 01:14:30 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

      •  Bremer (4.00)
        Want to watch a better interview with Bremer than what you'll see with Russert?

        Bremer will be on The Daily Show Tuesday night.  No doubt, Jon Stewart will ask better questions than Timmeh will.

        "Whatever you do will be insignificant, but it is very important that you do it." -Gandhi

        by midvalley on Sat Jan 14, 2006 at 11:46:08 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  OMG. Sam Loomis, you are so right about McCain. (4.00)
        He will finally show his hands on Alito. I hope most liberals who think very highly of him will take note. Your diagnosis of McCain is on point. Are you a psychiatrist? Some of my right wing friends agree with you also. The Man is sick.

        I will love to see Warner/Clark or Clark/Warner ticket in 08. I hope you will be in our camp.

        •  Of course I am right! (none)
          Sam knows McCain.

          Unfortunately, most liberals don't.
          And that is a problem.
          Check this out:

          Today on Face The Nation he again displayed his wishy-washy passive aggressive personality disorder.

          On Iran, he said twice that military action "is the last resort".  He also said that we are going right to the security council "for sanctions", and if they didn't work and we couldn't get the Europeans on the same page "we will go with the willing".  He actually fucking said this.  WAR!!!!!!  But only as a last resort.

          War is the last resort, but only after we skip right over any kind of diplomacy or international diplomatic pressure.

          McCain is a fucking asshole.

      •  Wasn't it 8.8 billion? n/t (none)
      •  I think the reason liberals like McCain (none)
        is because at the core, we want to like at least one Republican, and he seems...well, he's convinced many that he's a 'straight shooter' which would be better than Bushco's lies...BUT

        sooner or later we have to accept that there are really NO good republicans left.  The old breed of republican is nearly extinct, and what has replaced them is a mutant species that is dangerous to our nation (and the world) at its roots.

        the sooner we embrace that knowledge, the better for everyone.  McCain is as bad as any, he just has one of those crisp shiny labels that mask the actual contents.

        "Every act of becoming conscious is an unnatural act." - Adrienne Rich

        by marjo on Sun Jan 15, 2006 at 09:19:44 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  I say Warner/Bayh in 2008. (none)
    •  While we're waiting (4.00)
      How about a little eye-candy?

      The ever-gorgeous Vanessa Williams out and about with the latest hotty in her life:

      Image hosted by Photobucket.com

      Also, this week's Boondocks is a tribute to MLK. You can stream the entire episode here. I have mixed feelings on it, but hey, that's Boondocks!

    •  My fervent hope: (4.00)
      I pray to God and all His angels that nothing on the Sunday talk lineup makes Samuel Alito's wife cry.

      Because that was a tragedy of Biblical proportions.  She cried... real tears!... it seemed.  I will never forget it.  It made me question every single thing I believe in, seeing this poor, poor, poor woman so... (choke!)...so SAD.  

      (Oh, and a buncha soldiers got blown to pieces in Iraq this week, and the victims of Katrina have mostly been left to die, but...)

      Mrs. Alito was ... sad!!!!  ...For a few seconds.    GOD HELP US ALL.

      •  EMO (none)
        tears!

        "Rovus Vulgaris Americanus" nasty soon-to-be-indicted co-conspirator -7.63, -9.59

        by shpilk on Sat Jan 14, 2006 at 10:12:45 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  How about that media narcissism and logic (4.00)
        The GOP Schmaltzito tears were a better 10 second soundbyte than the DEM soundbyte of Sen Ted blowing his stack therefore ...
        .
        THE GOP WINS!!!! THE GOP WINS!!!! scALITO IS CONFIRMED!!!! CONSTITUTIONAL GOVERNMENT IS DEAD!!!! EIN VOLK! EIN REICH! EIN DOOFUS!
        .
        Also, note that the Missus floated out into the welcoming arms of a PR firm waiting there with a media spokesperson to tell her story to the press. And the next day, 'concerned' scAlito ran not into the arms of his still-damp wife, who he dumped like a sack of spuds, but straight out the door with his handlers.
        .
        What. A. Class. Act.
        .

        If conservatives are today's mainstream, why all the weaseling? Anyone? Bueller? scAlito?

        by Peanut on Sat Jan 14, 2006 at 10:57:08 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Real (4.00)
        Real salt crocodile tears, they were!  My little sister used to do that when she was a toddler.  Mrs. Alito needs to GROW UP!  I think it was staged when they had their meetings prior to the hearings...she had to know THEN what would be covered.  Did she cry during the meetings with her fellow republicans?
      •  Ya gotta see (none)
        How Alito behave after the hearing ending. C&L has the video

        He basically stomped out of there and left his wife behind. Note how the press person who had sat to her left realizes how bad it looks and is basically running after Sam. So much for appreciation.

    •  Al, Al, Al,,,, (4.00)
      I told ya last week you were keeping me from my beauty sleep.  I'm getting uglier by the week here Al.  Give a girl a break, will ya?

      I am waiting Al.  Tapping my foot too.  Cmon.

      "But your flag decal won't get you into heaven anymore"--Prine Pay attention Georgie - 2200+ dead Americans. Jesus Christ, make it stop already.

      by Miss Blue on Sat Jan 14, 2006 at 09:43:09 PM PST

      •  Tease.. (4.00)
        ..no fair, you know how I'm a sucka for a  strong and/or Bi-polar woman.

        You also caught me at a bad time.  I'm in a real slump (no pun intended).  I've been throwing more bad pitches then mike mussina.

        When I come home, my cats give me a bronx cheer!  Then at the breakfeast table, they openly say I'm washed up or that I should be shipped to the minors.  

        Well, atleast you didn't fold your arms.  Now if you jump up on a table (see the kate moss photo in the film loop below), I'm bringin' ya down.

        So....what kinda shoes are tapping?  your leopord print pradas or your betsey johnson, jeweled strappy??? ha, ha?  It's the same old story, ha Bee, so many shoes, not enough feet.

    •  I actually enjoyed SNL tonight... (4.00)

      ...what a surprise! Scarlett Johansson and "Fly High Duluth" might have had something to do with it.

      Al Rodgers is a wunnerful guy. Thanks!

      What will survive of us is love

      by howth of murph on Sat Jan 14, 2006 at 09:44:22 PM PST

    •  Josh Marshall has something delicious (4.00)
      You remember defense contractor Brent Wilkes. He was the ur-briber at the heart of the soon-to-expand Duke Cunningham scandal...
      Anyway, one of the choice nuggets from the Wilkes-Duke saga was the fact that Wilkes set up an actual airline that at one point owned no more than a mere 1/16th of a plane...And it existed for pretty much the exclusive purpose of ferrying members of Congress around the country on a Lear Jet.
      ...the San Diego Union-Tribune that broke the story notes that Tom DeLay repeatedly flew the friendly skies of Air Wilkes.
      And one other member of Congress flew Air Wilkes too.
      Who would that be? None other than Rep. Roy Blunt.
      Just the man to clean up the House.

      <div style="color: #a00000;"> Our... constitutional heritage rebels at the thought of giving government the power to control men's minds. Thurgood Marshal

      by bronte17 on Sat Jan 14, 2006 at 09:52:33 PM PST

      •  More information on Brent Wilkes (4.00)
        Poway military contractor Brent Wilkes - whom Justice Department officials identify as the co-conspirator - has long been active in local political circles, serving as the San Diego County finance co-chairman of Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's campaign and the state finance co-chairman for President Bush.
        ...
        Over the past 20 years, Wilkes has devoted much of his career to developing political contacts in Washington. He and his associates have spent at least $600,000 on political contributions and $1.1 million on lobbying beyond the gifts mentioned in the Cunningham plea agreement, as they cultivated such politicians as House Majority Leader Tom DeLay and Appropriations Committee Chairman Jerry Lewis.

        And since 1996, he has received at least $95 million in government contracts for the small family of firms based in his $11 million headquarters in Poway, including ADCS Inc. and Group W.

        Contractor 'knew how to grease the wheels'

        •  I was astounded what I read (none)
          and I only read half of the article.

          It is jaw-dropping how deep the ties go amongst these guys-Wilkes, the Dukester, DeLay, Hunter, Roy Blunt, all the Californian Republicans (or at least four so far), MZM and the rest of the lobbyist/military contractor web of corporations, the CIA, and I can't think of any others right now.  All these guys have been doing business for more thant 20 years. It goes back to at least Reagan and his wars in Central America.  

          There is a nice story about how the GAO studied the money Congress spent on "automated documentation" that was lobbied for and approved via these channels.  The GAO (or another watchdog group) concluded that the Pentagon didn't need the software or whatever it was they were selling because the Defense Department already had its own.  To top it all off, you got Duncan Hunter, aka Mr. Guantanamo is a Carribbean vacation, says "NOT all good ideas come out of the Pentagon."  

          I guess I will go read the rest.

          •  Further reading (none)
            From the same newspaper:

            www.signonsandiego.com/news/education/20060112-9999-7m12wilkes.html

            www.signonsandiego.com/news/politics/cunningham/20051005-9999-1n5quid.html

            www.signonsandiego.com/news/politics/20051005-9999-1n5quid.html

            more Brent Wilkes stories

            Kudos to Union-Tribune reporter Dean Calbreath and the Copley News Service's Jerry Kammer.

            •  Pariahs (none)
              An ongoing federal investigation into business dealings involving Wilkes has clouded his future as a significant source of money for SDSU and has cast an unwanted shadow over his generosity. The investigation stems from his relationship with former Rep. Randy "Duke" Cunningham, who pleaded guilty in November to taking $2.4 million in bribes to steer defense contracts to companies.

              "He's done nothing but positive at San Diego State and helped keep San Diego State alive the last few years (in athletics)," said Dennis Wise, a longtime SDSU athletics booster and the co-founder of ADCS with Wilkes. "We're talking about big money we have raised for San Diego State, and at times when they weren't winning a lot."

              Brent Wilkes at SDSU

              Director's Cabinet member

              Athletic Director's office named after him (the commemorative plaque wasn't there yesterday, though)

              Operates The Aztec Classic, a golf fundraiser

              Business hosts football banquet and basketball fundraiser

              Major benefactor to College of Business Administration

              Former member of Campanile Foundation board of directors (he resigned last month)

              Personalized parking spot and courtside seat for basketball

              Other athletic boosters this week said they are not concerned about their association with Wilkes because they view the federal case as an issue unrelated to his involvement with the university.

              Wilkes resigned last month from the board of directors of SDSU's major fundraising organization, the Campanile Foundation. The plaque with the name of Wilkes and his wife outside the athletic director's suite was not there yesterday.

      •  How about the 30+ front companies to funnel money? (4.00)
        The scandal of Duke Cunningham taking extravagant bribes was eventually covered by the national "paper of record," but the much bigger scandal behind the simple bribery scandal is still being completely ignored.  

        There is abundant evidence that the companies that bribed Mr. Cunningham apparently existed only to funnel money from the Department of Defense into Republic pockets.  Cunningham and other Republican Congressmen serving on the House Armed Services Committee and the House Appropriations Committee made sure that millions of dollars were issued in contracts to companies that apparently don't do anything but donate money to Republican candidates.  Millions of taxpayer dollars were being laundered through phoney defense contractors and used to pay for party politics.  

        A huge amount of evidence is available just by cruising the Internet, but there is absolutely no mention of it in any major newspaper.  This has the potential to be one of the most important stories in decades, yet national press seems to be ignoring it.

        http://www.dailykos.com/...

        http://cannonfire.blogspot.com/...

        http://cannonfire.blogspot.com/...

        http://www.signonsandiego.com/...
        Why is no one covering this story?  

        •  I just wrote on the same topic (none)
          and I forgot to mention:  why haven't any of the people who "contributed" to these guys been accused of bribing them?  

          I know you would have to prove intent and all, but gimme a break.  There has got to be proof of what these hoods were doing and what they were trying to do.  

          I loved that REpublican hack who claimed that Abramoff will ensnare "less than five Republicans."   I think they already have five, but I guess it depends how you count 'em.

          If you asked any reasonable person if the Democrats are going to take back the House in November, it has to be an unqualified "Yes."  This will require them being able to effectively take credit for getting the troops home.  

        •  please work up a diary about this (none)
          It's important &, yes, it's news to me (where've I been, you ask?  Here, more of the time than I should be.  Don't know how I missed it if it's been diaried But if I missed it, others have)

          Dkos is a big megaphone.  A lot of the media goes fishing here, after all.

          Do you think the Cunningham/Abramoff investigations are covering this?

          •  diaries go by so fast (none)
            it's REALLY REALLY easy to miss them.  Don't feel bad...

            Have to wonder if there's a way to have tabs to click on pick a particular topic, to avoid the search function.  By maybe it's that I don't know how to use this blog that well...

            "God grant that not only the love of liberty but a thorough knowledge of the rights of man may pervade all the nations of the earth." -- Benj. Franklin

            by billlaurelMD on Sun Jan 15, 2006 at 10:37:35 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

    •  Aw, fuck! (4.00)
      I thought by "Waaaaaaahine," you meant "wahine," the Hawaiian word for woman.
      •  I thought the same thing... (none)
        I thought he was having an affair. I lived in Hawaii for several years, and wahine is a Hawaiin word that's used and known by everyone on the islands.

        Be ashamed to die until you have won some victory for humanity. Horace Mann

        by Kayakbiker on Sun Jan 15, 2006 at 08:18:55 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  A Courageous Hero - may he rest in peace (4.00)

      A True American Hero was lost this week. He save countless civilians from death at My Lai

      Click the Photo


      •  I read this story (4.00)
        earlier in the week.  Took me back to my 8th grade civics (they should really go back to teaching that to kids) class debating what happened in My Lai.  

        I grew up in a really small town and there were the usual group of "they deserved to die" guys.  The most vivid memory of that debate was my teacher standing in disbelief hearing the crap coming out of the mouths of those boys.  "He was just obeying orders!"  "They were probably aiding the Viet Cong."  He was amazing dashing all their narrow minded, bigotted speech.  

        Just because a person has faith doesn't mean that he isn't full of crap.-- Pastordan

        by Maggie Mae on Sat Jan 14, 2006 at 10:10:28 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  I forgot (4.00)
          speaking of things that they should be teaching in school.  I heard a story on MSNBC today that people don't know the words to our National Anthem and the reason given was that so many schools have dropped music from their curriculum that kids don't learn it as a matter of course these days.  

          Maybe we should tell the Preznit so he'll add the National Anthem to those mandatory No Child Left Behind tests kids are forced to take.

          Just because a person has faith doesn't mean that he isn't full of crap.-- Pastordan

          by Maggie Mae on Sat Jan 14, 2006 at 10:18:13 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Funny you should mention that (none)
            Funny you should mention that...  

            Yesterday when my son and I were baking one of our special cakes for a bake sale today for one of his classmates that has leukemia, he dropped a bomb on me.  Danny said that the new kid from Nebraska copied his paper during a music quiz. He explained that the kid didn't know what any of the notes were because he didn't have music in Nebraska.  

            No music in Nebraska, does that mean they only have Rush and local preachers on their radio? ;)

            •  I feel bad for the kids in Nebraska (none)
              I suppose if had been exclusively teaching hymns in music classes all over Nebraska, the Dobson's of the world would have been fighting getting rid of music in Nebraska's schools.  

              I still can't imagine not having art, music, comparative literature and composition classes.  I thrived in them.

              Just because a person has faith doesn't mean that he isn't full of crap.-- Pastordan

              by Maggie Mae on Sun Jan 15, 2006 at 08:47:50 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  There are music classes in Nebraska. (4.00)
                There are also gym, art, and literature classes.  In fact, I think in most schools districts, students are mandated to take those classes in order to graduate.  Even in tiny rural schools with 150 students, there is almost always a band.  When a Nebraska student transfers, it's very easy to pull somebody's leg, because they will invariably be totally ignorant. "Oh no, I can't possibly do multiplication , we just didn't do that in Nebraska."

                Also, while certainly morally conservative, Nebraskans are not evangelical.  Public pronouncements of religious conviction are viewed with extreme suspicion.  

                •  Good to know (none)
                  I kept thinking about this after reading the OP's post and I just couldn't imagine an entire state getting rid of the arts in their public schools.  

                  Thanks for the clarification.

                  Just because a person has faith doesn't mean that he isn't full of crap.-- Pastordan

                  by Maggie Mae on Sun Jan 15, 2006 at 10:24:43 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                •  Not talking about high school students here (none)
                  You mean a 4th grader would lie about not knowing any music?  This wasn't a high school student.  If he indeed had music class at his former school then why didn't he know anything?  Perhaps they don't start music until later like middle school or high school? Is that possible?
      •  Was great to see this story again but... (none)
        Too bad they didn't air it on "60 Minutes" again in his honor.

        Then again, no doubt Bushco don't want the troops in Iraq getting 'any ideas'.

    •  Sunday Funnies #1 (4.00)


      Reality vs Bush + Cheney has heart? Jury still out!!

      Click the Photo


    •  Peter Bergen on The Daily Show (4.00)

      Terrorism expert explains the war. Funny, his reality based reasoning was completely different than the Shrub-Cheney-MSM propaganda

      Click the Photo


      •  Peter Bergen has the (4.00)
        funniest laugh.  

        It was a really good interview.  One of the most interesting parts for me was when he said that alot of Bin Laden's followers left after 9/11 because they were disgusted by it.  

        Just because a person has faith doesn't mean that he isn't full of crap.-- Pastordan

        by Maggie Mae on Sat Jan 14, 2006 at 10:21:15 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  FP (none)
      Al, you are frontpaged already. Yay. Thank you to the powers that be. Georgia10?

      Say no to hate, bigotry, and the author of the Fed. Marriage Amendment, Marilyn Musgrave. Please donate to Angie Paccione.

      by OLinda on Sat Jan 14, 2006 at 10:07:01 PM PST

    •  Murtha's Full Nightline Interview !!! (4.00)


      Murtha starts out with a BANG! The burden a soldier carries for taking life in combat and how the White House has become the Chicken Coop. Then he finishs off the interview with a bombshell.

      Click the Photo


    •  The Unbearable Loonyness of Colburn (4.00)


      Bringin' Honor and Decency to the Supremes and 'da Senate

      Click the Photo


    •  Sunday Funnies #2 (4.00)

      Delay/Abramoff + 'Da War on X-mas continues, and a new Rap Star is Born.

      Click the Photo


      •  The Colbert Report (4.00)
        has only gotten better and better if you ask me.
        But the best part of his show is still "The Word".
        •  I don't know, man (none)
          I used to think that Colbert was the funniest man on TV. Now, I agree that Chapelle is probably the best.

          From the beginning, his show almost wasn't even funny.  Yes, he has had so-called moments, but he never should have left The Daily Show.  

          I want to give him the benefit of the doubt that he is doing parody, but often it comes off as bland and counterproductive.  His show could be a heck of a lot better.  

    •  I've often wondered... (4.00)
      Why didn't the Dems make this woman "the face" of the GOP in 2004?

      Wars always bring bigger problems then they settle... It's up to us to have such a good democracy that other people want it too. -Woody Hayes 1986

      by Irrelevant Prolixity on Sat Jan 14, 2006 at 10:14:24 PM PST

    •  "Everyone Hates Scalito..." (4.00)


      "Whaaaaaaaa, Whaaaaaa, Riiiiicky!!!!!

      Hilarious (Must See) SCALITO COVERAGE!!!


      •  Wearing her couch remark (none)
        was lifted straight out of dkos chatter! That IS hilarious. Wish I could remember who said that so they could know. I hope someone knows. Hee, hee, hee.

        "That story is not worth the paper it's rotten on"--Dorothy Parker

        by martyc35 on Sun Jan 15, 2006 at 03:23:52 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  M.L.K. with Mike Wallace (4.00)


      A rare clip, from 1966, with Martin Luther King's view on violence and the US condition (At the time, MLK was only 37 years old !!!)

      Click the Photo


    •  Thanks again Al (4.00)
      I love ending my week with your Sunday Talk diary.  I really appreciate your dedication to bringing us the best round up on the web!

      Just because a person has faith doesn't mean that he isn't full of crap.-- Pastordan

      by Maggie Mae on Sat Jan 14, 2006 at 10:30:07 PM PST

    •  Sorry for being a drag... (4.00)
      ..I don't know why I've been so slow.

      Really, as if my arms were are covered in molasses, I'm responding that slow.

      I still have one more to go: it's on WireGate.  I'm just waiting for the server' "all's ready" signal (which really has a random sense of time).

    •  Frank Rich (4.00)
      Sunday is not complete without Frank Rich's Sunday column.

      Don't know what happened to Maccabee, but I'm glad dKos member muledriver posted a bit of it. Muledriver notes that Rich incorrectly agrees some Dems received Abramoff money. Muledriver's right but all in all it's another excellent column.

      Say no to hate, bigotry, and the author of the Fed. Marriage Amendment, Marilyn Musgrave. Please donate to Angie Paccione.

      by OLinda on Sat Jan 14, 2006 at 10:37:41 PM PST

    •  Like It Is (none)
      Is "Like It Is" a national program, or is it limited to New York? or is it limited to relatively small number of Urban areas?

      "Like It IS" is often the most refreshing thing to watch on NY television after Meet The Press/Face the Nation and The Mclaughlin Group.

      THey will probably show an MLK speech or actual interview on Sunday. While elsewhere, talking heads will give empty shallow praises to the legacy of this greatest American. The anchors will nod and say "great man" "yes he was Bob. Back to you...." while some freepers will sit at home and say "there's no holiday Ronald Raygun!"

      I cant tell if its a West End musical or Marxism in action.

      by Evolution on Sat Jan 14, 2006 at 11:38:52 PM PST

    •  WIREGATE (4.00)


      Ah, remember the good ole days when warrantless, "Presidental" wire taps were illegal and a Constitutionl violation?...Carl Bernstein does..

      Click the Photo


      •  "Does the president have the right (none)
        or the duty?"  (A question akin to "When did you stop beating your wife?")

        The Colbert Report makes me roll on the floor.

        (-5.25, -7.95) "Self-respect is a question of recognizing that anything worth having has a price." - Joan Didion

        by SueDe on Sun Jan 15, 2006 at 04:29:22 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  Candy Store (4.00)

      Here's a link to Web Photo Gallery - 56 photos in all.  

      Guys,Let me know if you like it...it's a new gizmo (and emphasis on the word "like")  

      Remember...Jane started it!!!  If you toss me overboard, then she's next! - and this ain't no party without Jane, - she 'da one who spikes 'da punch!!!..
       

      Click the Photo

      •  What a fun program! (none)
        Now if I can just figure out how to add my own photos to the Loop....

        (-5.25, -7.95) "Self-respect is a question of recognizing that anything worth having has a price." - Joan Didion

        by SueDe on Sun Jan 15, 2006 at 04:33:01 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Try this (none)
          place your cursor over one of the frams.  the loop will pause and the frame with have a yellow border.  right click, and the very first function should read "Add Photo"

           you can also save and magnify the photos and it turns into a tradition click gallery, with the controls on bottom, left side of your screen

      •  I just add more FUN FOTOS and you guys are (none)
        ...more than welcomed to add shots to the loop

        Try this

        place your cursor over one of the frams.  the loop will pause and the frame with have a yellow border.  right click, and the very first function should read "Add Photo"

         you can also save and magnify the photos and it turns into a tradition click gallery, with the controls on bottom, left side of your screen
         


    •  Some Sunday silliness (4.00)
      I just uploaded a new cartoon.  Here's a small version.  Click the image for a larger one if you need it.

    •  New Show on Air America Radio (4.00)
      AAR has a new show premiering today.

      5PM ET - State of Belief

      Host -  Rev. Dr. C. Welton Gaddy
      Guest - Walter Cronkite

      The Interfaith Alliance Foundation is so excited to be bringing this innovative, groundbreaking new programming to Air America Radio.  It's politics & faith & civil liberties & religious pluralism - all while going head to head against the Religious Right to try to save our democracy!  And we're doing it all in one jam-packed hour a week, starting this Sunday!

      Also on this week's State of Belief:


      • Religion and the Alito hearings - get your holy oil out of my hearing room!

      • Pat Robertson is totally losing it.

      • We hand out awards at the intersection of politics and religion.

      Stream and see more program listings here.

      Check for a local station here.

      Your local station programming may be different.

      Say no to hate, bigotry, and the author of the Fed. Marriage Amendment, Marilyn Musgrave. Please donate to Angie Paccione.

      by OLinda on Sun Jan 15, 2006 at 05:13:46 AM PST

    •  Sunday funnies go political (4.00)
      Image hosted by Photobucket.com
      Click on image to see the larger original

      Conlige suspectos semper habitos

      by Marcus Junius Brutus on Sun Jan 15, 2006 at 05:59:17 AM PST

    •  where is that (none)
      I know where to find those shows except Propaganda News  so where is that shown on?
    •  Thanks Al (3.50)
      Great show today. No TV up here in the mountains. Without you on Sunday morning, I'd be a mess.
    •  Warner Was a Disappointment (4.00)
      Thought I normally disagree with Donna Brazile, she was right on when she said Mark Warner has a "lot to learn" if he's going to be a serious candidate.

      He hemmed, haw, and danced around every question George S. asked him.  He better grasp some core principles soon, because we don't need another wishy-washy candidate.

      Absolute Horror: The Best in Bad Horror Movies

      by dansac on Sun Jan 15, 2006 at 08:00:04 AM PST

      •  completely agree. (none)
        Wow, utter disappointment. I hadn't seen Warner speak much if at all, but I'd heard so many good and hopeful things about him.

        If he used to speak out more strongly, it is sure obvious he's a candidate now. Won't commit to anything. Can't acknowledge the pres. broke the law; might upset a potential voter. Can't even take a stand on Alito. Tries to be convincing that he hasn't looked at either issue thoroughly yet. Gave the excuse that he has been concentrating on being Governor, but it didn't quite fly.

        Say no to hate, bigotry, and the author of the Fed. Marriage Amendment, Marilyn Musgrave. Please donate to Angie Paccione.

        by OLinda on Sun Jan 15, 2006 at 09:16:15 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Now (none)
          He must now be taking advice from the Beltway paid campaign consultant cabal that so exquisitely trained Kerry to say nothing and then reverse himself. Warner's nonresponsiveness is considered an effective strategy with this bunch. They could reduce Patrick Henry to saying "Give me liberty or, ahem, well, I'll change my definition of liberty to match yours."
        •  He's been hyped, and won't get far, I predict (none)
          He's been popular in VA, and VA happens to be a southern state, so a lot of Dems think that alone is a winning combination for a presidential campaign.  But Hillary, Bayh, Feingold, to name a few, are far superior candidates personally.  
      •  Give him time (none)
        He's got two years to learn. Give him time, he's a quick study. His governorship got off to a rocky start too. But he turned it around. He needs to learn from Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton. Of course Bill might be in Hilary's camp.

        The moral values crowd is a bunch of lazy people who deep down in their hearts want the government to do their job as parents.

        by phinky on Sun Jan 15, 2006 at 09:23:58 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Totally agree (none)
        As my signature at the bottom says, I've been in the Warner camp for a while now.  However, this was before I saw him in "action."  He's noncommittal and he waffles more than Kerry did on the Iraq question.  I don't remember one solid 5-10 second answer that would work during a campaign.  Very disappointing for me personally.  I think I was more in love with the concept of a popular democrat of a southern governor heading the '08 ticket than I was with the acutal candidate.  

        Warner/Richardson '08

        by DemBrock on Mon Jan 16, 2006 at 02:35:12 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  Don't jump on a Warner bandwagon (none)
      No style;  no new substance.  I first saw him during the primaries at the Virginia Jefferson Jackson Dinner.  Another stiff who is even more pro old boys club and pro big business than Kerry.
      Please listen to the speeches Of Martin Luther King today.  Look for someone with passion, clarity and conviction.

      "Don't step back; step up." John Edwards - The politics of hope not cynicism

      by Cowqueen on Sun Jan 15, 2006 at 08:16:41 AM PST

      •  It wasn't a great performance (none)
        He was on shaky ground -- George kept the focus on foreign policy, and Warner probably would have preferred to focus on domestic issues, where he would have come off a lot better.

        I have high hopes for him, but he definitely needs to refine his answers to foreign policy questions.  And should I decide to support him, I'll look forward to being described as a "bandwagon"-er.  Why is it that the term bandwagon is always invoked to describe those who support a different candidate from one's own?    

        "If we abandon our ideals in the face of adversity and aggression, then those ideals were never really in our possession." -- Army Capt. Ian Fishback

        by sansho1 on Sun Jan 15, 2006 at 09:06:13 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  I don't know if he has substance (none)
        but from the little I've seen of him, he's definitely got some style...
      •  Yes, i think I watched (none)
        and he was not so energizing. Of course, I would vote for him; I would vote for any fucker. But, he was completely unimpressive.  
    •  dreadful (none)
      THIS is the guy so many Kossacks are promoting?

      another weasel mushmouthed white guy.

      he couldn't even defend the f'ng Constitution???

      what a loser.

    Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

    Click here for the mobile view of the site