I loved that and that he got emotional about the victims.

To me, beyond the horrific loss of life and limbs, this terrorist attack really backfired in a major way.

What the world saw was:
- many Americans beyond first responders run towards the explosion to help
- marathon runners keep running to the hospital to give blood
- very brave cops face these guys outgunned at the outset in Watertown and a massive determination to bring them down and keep their people safe while the local residents fed them in the lockdown
- people who lost limbs declaring they're running in the marathon next year
- millions donating to One Fund .. and even towards replacing this guy's boat
- and this guy as another of many examples of American compassion & decency
- etc - you could create a long list beyond the above

The world saw a couple of heartless fanatics representing one extreme cause answered by an incredible culture of millions of 'strangers' rushing to pull out all the stops and care for each other.

Typical Americans have been doing this my whole life. When real trouble hits, the real character of Americans comes out and it's heart is so formidable. Once again, you should be so proud of yourselves.

All the best.

A Canadian

http://www.torontosun.com/2013/04/22/muslim-community-tipped-off-rcmp-about-terror-plot

Muslims want a safe Canada, too.

That's what Muhammad Robert Heft, a Muslim community leader in Scarborough, wants his fellow Torontonians to know as the RCMP arrested a Muslim man in the GTA for allegedly plotting a rail attack that would have taken innocent lives. Not only do Muslims in the city condemn the attack, they turned over information in a bid to help foil it.

"There is going to be backlash," he said, alluding to those who will blame the Muslim community. "But I want to reiterate. Who was the one who tipped the RCMP off? It was our community."

Heft said Muslim leaders are often criticized for not speaking up or not turning over information about radicalized community members. They are cooperating, he said.

"We have to be on the front lines," he said. "To either nip it in the bud in the very beginning or co-operate with authorities so they can be brought to justice."

Heft himself runs an out-reach program for youth who are at risk of being radicalized.

"At the end of the day, it's not how you dress, it's how you think," he said. "In our community we may look a little different, but in our hearts we love Canada. It's our country. It's our tribe. We want safety for all Canadians regardless of their religion."

I wonder how many needed a big magazine or nasty assault rifle to do the deed.

I expect it would be a small fraction of that number.

http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/10/A/II/47A/I/948a

http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/10/A/II/47A/I/948b

This chapter establishes procedures governing the
use of military commissions to try alien unlawful enemy combatants
engaged in hostilities against the United States for violations of
the law of war and other offenses triable by military commission.

Boston Bomb Suspect Became a U.S. Citizen on 9/11 Last Year
http://abcnews.go.com/US/boston-marathon-bombing-suspected-tsarnaev-brothers/story?id=19000426#.UXQKVaKG2So

The Boston suspect is not an alien and therefore, cannot be tried as an "unlawful enemy combatant" .

"The term 'lawful enemy combatant' means a person who is —
(A) a member of the regular forces of a State party engaged in hostilities against the United States;
(B) a member of a militia, volunteer corps, or organized resistance movement belonging to a State party engaged in such hostilities, which are under responsible command, wear a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance, carry their arms openly, and abide by the law of war; or
(C) a member of a regular armed force who professes allegiance to a government engaged in such hostilities, but not recognized by the United States."

And he isn't a "lawful enemy combatant" either based upon my reading of the law above. Therefore, the GOP is advocating something that does not seem to be allowed by the 2006 law they designed and implemented in that he cannot be tried by a military commission.

As well, on CNN yesterday, someone was discussing the comparison of successful prosecutions via military commissions like Guantanamo (only 3? convictions) vs US civilian courts (500 convictions of terrorists) and maintained that it's a landslide in favor of the US civilian courts in terms of getting a successful prosecution.

http://www.humanrightsfirst.org/2010/02/03/terrorist-prosecutions-by-the-numbers/

The recent hysteria about how we shouldn’t be giving constitutional rights to non-U.S. citizens is a red herring. (It’s also worth noting, as Glenn Greenwald explained in an excellent post on Salon on Monday, that the Constitution requires according foreigners detained in the U.S. Constitutional rights – as the Supreme Court ruled as far back as 1886 and recently reaffirmed in its decision in Boumedienne v. Bush.)
Not only does the U.S. Constitution confer those rights, but based on the experience of our own time-tested federal justice system, sound national security policy demands it.

I don't understand beyond scoring political points why this is a debate

http://gawker.com/5973255/
From Texas:
Mike Conaway (R-TX)
Bill Flores (R-TX)
Louie Gohmert (R-TX)
Kenny Marchant (R-TX)
Randy Neugebauer (R-TX)
Mac Thornberry (R-TX)
Randy Weber (R-TX)
Roger Williams (R-TX)

Senators Cruz & Cornyn also voted against it.

Canadian politics just got turned upside down
http://brighterlife.ca/2013/03/27/canadian-politics-just-got-turned-upside-down/?wt.mc_id=en-ca:digital_adv:paid:Outbrain:BrighterLife:SEP:MONEY:Canadian-politics-just-got-turned-upside

Fundamental to our understanding of democratic politics across the developed world is that conservative parties stand for relatively low levels of government spending, while those on the left of the political spectrum are prone to higher spending. A new study, released yesterday by the Montreal Economic Institute (MEI), blows a hole through that conventional wisdom.

It's a story many of us have heard before yet another chunk of credible evidence provided to debunk GOP claims they provide "smaller government".

When 45,000 people are dying without healthcare, I don't need the capitalism argument to motivate me but for those running into the socialism rebuttal, it might be handy. I do believe in the economic benefits that I pointed out though.

Obamacare isn't a perfect solution. Single payer has flaws too but I think it can work pretty well.

The big thing about Obamacare is that it's going forward. They don't have to try to get a 60 seat majority in the Senate, a majority in the House and a sympathetic president to go through that terrible argument again.

When America finds out that there are no death panels, etc, and see some encouraging numbers in health care costs, I think Obamacare will appeal much more over time and it will become more like Medicare - they won't be able to get rid of it. And the focus will become how this imperfect legislation can be improved - which will likely move it towards Medicare for all - with a few stages of amendments.

My sister's initial reaction to my comments about healthcare was to suggest shock that I'd become a socialist.

List of countries by total health expenditure (PPP) per capita
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_total_health_expenditure_(PPP)_per_capita
US $7,960
Canada $4,363
Difference = 7,960-4363 = $3,597 heath care savings per person

If the US went to Canada's system (which from what I've seen is better than Medicare), the US would save:

311,591,917 US people x $3,597 per person = $1.12 Trillion health care savings per year.
Some of those savings would be saved by the government, some by business and some by the people who pay for their health care.

And the part overlooked in a lot of health care discussions and number crunching is the economic impact that concerns capitalists:
- The work force would be healthier and therefore, more productive.
- Companies would make more money because cost of employment of their labor would be reduced
- US citizens would have more disposable income that would boost the US economy
- Each job would cost about $7,200 less which would make employment in the US more competitive in the world and bring jobs back to the US.
- Because more jobs would come back to the US, more value add would be done in the US and reduce the US trade deficit as more products made or services performed in the US would be purchased by Americans and more products made or services performed in the US would be sold to other countries.
- And of course, the federal and state deficits would be significantly reduced with lower health care costs.
- bankruptcies and court costs would go way down
- cost of borrowing/mortgages would go down because the risk of loaning is reduced with the elimination of most healthcare bankruptcies. As a result, more capital would flow into the economy to give it a boost

The major losers would be the health care insurance companies and those health care professionals who thought the Hippocratic Oath meant making an absurd bundle off sick people.

Aside from a general improvement in the quality of life of the average American:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_life_expectancy
US Life Expectancy 78.2 (38th ranked)
Canada Life Expectancy 80.7 years (12th ranked)
US citizens would likely live about 2.5 years longer while spending $1.12 trillion less per year to acquire those extra years of life
And we have a good idea that's true because 45,000 US citizens would stop dying each year because they don't have health care:
http://www.pnhp.org/news/2009/september/harvard_study_finds_.php
45,000 US people per year aren't just losing an ideological argument about capitalism. They're losing life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness forever. But the US is willing to spend trillions to avenge 3,000 deaths one time on 9/11 but not address 45,000 dying per year - which just blows my mind.

One can bicker about the precision of the numbers I've used above. But the general theme is accurate. The US can afford to have the best health care in the world because the US is already paying much more than any other country in the world now. The US is just getting a terrible bang for it's health care buck with devastating results ... economically, socially, etc.

The duty of capitalists in business is to find ways to produce their products and services cheaper, better and more efficiently to maximize their bottom line. 45+ years ago, Canada tried the above with no detrimental effect on capitalism. In fact, it makes Canadian businesses more competitive around the world in their capitalist system. The US has tried what they have for the last 45 years and the results are plain to see. It hasn't worked. Capitalists have to look to the bottom line when things aren't working and try something else - particularly when they can see someone else or another country who has proven that another solution can work much better over the last 45 years. It's in the capitalists best interest to hold their nose and socialize healthcare (ignoring the other stronger philosophical/ideological arguments).

So my GOP leaning sister voted for Obama.

The Sept 15th CIA memo supported her account of events
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/benghazi-attack-becomes-political-ammunition/2012/10/19/e1ad82ae-1a2d-11e2-bd10-5ff056538b7c_story.html
that were known at that time.

I've followed her since 2007 or so when she was involved as an adviser to the Obama campaign. I reviewed her bio back then and I've had no issues with her. She seems quite capable.

#2 (Firm but nice) & #3 (the long view) are in his control and that's largely been his style and approach.

#1 he tried pretty hard. He went to meet with them at their conference. He invited them to the White House. He named a number of Republicans and Hillary to his cabinet (Gregg reneged).

For #1 to work, it takes two. When the GOP met during the inauguration to plot on not cooperating, etc. It was pretty much doomed. And he's tried in policy:
- Obamacare was a GOP devised approach
- the Dream Act was written and sponsored by GOP legislators
- GOP congressmen & Senators who tried to compromise got primaried