HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Agnosticsherbet » Journal
Page: « Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next »


Profile Information

Gender: Male
Hometown: San Diego/Ca/Nuevo Pacifica
Home country: U.S. of A.
Current location: Planet Earth
Member since: Mon Aug 20, 2012, 04:39 PM
Number of posts: 4,054

Journal Archives

General In Charge Of US Air Force's Nuclear Missiles Fired Over Personal Misbehavior

Source: Bussiness Insider

The top general in charge of the U.S. Air Force's entire arsenal of nuclear weapons has been relieved of his command, The Air Force Times reports.

Two-star Maj. Gen. Michael Carey commanded a total of 450 missiles and 9,600 people at locations across the U.S. as head of the 20th Air Force and Task Force 214.

Gen. James Kowalski, the commander of the Air Force Global Strike Command, made the decision following an inspector general’s office investigation into “Carey’s behavior during a temporary duty assignment."

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/general-in-charge-of-nukes-fired-2013-10#ixzz2hR9WaFH6

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/general-in-charge-of-nukes-fired-2013-10

Now, that should make us all feel safe and secure.
Posted by Agnosticsherbet | Fri Oct 11, 2013, 01:52 PM (6 replies)

Who the hell are the 87 no labels? Well here they are.

At first glance, they seem to be a group of Democratic moderates (some would call them Blue Dogs, Third Way, Conservadems, etc., etc., etc.) and Republican Moderates (Rinos, traitors to the class, socialist wanna bees, Friends of Obama, I am not up on all the derogatory terms Republicans have for groups that are left of the Tea Party) but what they really seem to be is a caucus concerned with controlling spending (Fiscal Matters). There is a stated desire to stop fighting and start fixing, but other than fixing spending problems (fiscal stuff) I don't see a lot about their issues or desires yet.

It is pretty clear that the Republicans are from the center right region of the political spectrum, while Democrats are what would be called centrists or even Center Right like Joe Manchin and Scott Peters.

What this really looks like is that group back in the 60's-80's called Rockefeller Republicans. Most of that group came form the North East and they were fiscally conservative business oriented folk who tended to be more socially liberal. (Think old New England Money, sort of like the old Bogart movie remade with Harrison Ford "Sabrina."

I find that rather than toss invective, it is good to know who these power groups are. There are certainly enough of them so that, like the Tea Party, they could have considerable influence on the way the House does or doesn't''t do its job. Any one now can look at the main site and see if their Congressman is a member of this group.

A list of 52 are below. They do not include co-chairs Evan Bayh, John Huntsman, and Joe Manchin. Clealry form the updated numbers they are a growing faction or Caucus in the House. The claim 87 members now, and are expecting 100 by years end.

Democrats and Republicans Stand United
These 52 members showed up for America: Rep. Ron Barber (D-AZ); Rep. Andy Barr (R-KY); Rep. John Barrow (D-GA); Rep. Ami Bera (D-CA); Rep. Sanford Bishop (D-GA); Rep. Cheri Bustos (D-IL); Rep. Tony Cardenas (D-CA); Rep. Joaquin Castro (D-TX); Rep. David Cicilline (D-RI); Rep. Mike Coffman (R-CO); Rep. Jim Cooper (D-TN); Rep. Rep. Jim Costa (D-CA); Rep. Henry Cuellar (D-TX); Rep. Susan Davis (D-CA); Rep. Jeff Denham (R-CA); Rep. Charlie Dent (R-PA); Rep. Sean Duffy (R-WI); Rep. Sam Farr (D-CA); Rep. Mike Fitzpatrick (R-PA); Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D-HI); Rep. Joe Garcia (D-FL); Rep. Chris Gibson (R-NY); Rep. Tim Griffin (R-AR); Rep. Lynn Jenkins (R-KS); Rep. Bill Johnson (R-OH); Rep. David Joyce (R-OH); Rep. Adam Kinzinger (R-IL); Rep. Ann Kirkpatrick (D-AZ); Rep. Dan Lipinski (D-IL); Rep. Dave Loebsack (D-IA); Rep. Stephen Lynch (D-MA); Rep. Sean Patrick Maloney (D-NY); Rep. Pat Meehan (R-PA); Rep. Mike McIntyre (D-NC); Rep. Mike Michaud (D-ME); Rep. Mick Mulvaney (R-SC); Rep. Patrick Murphy (D-FL); Rep. Bill Owens (D-NY); Rep. Scott Perry (R-PA); Rep. Scott Peters (D-CA); Rep. Tom Petri (R-WI); Rep. Robert Pittenger (R-NC); Rep. Mike Quigley (D-IL); Rep. Tom Reed (R-NY); Rep. Reid Ribble (R-WI); Rep. Matt Salmon (R-AZ); Rep. Kurt Schrader (D-OR); Rep. Krysten Sinema (D-AZ); Rep. Steve Stivers (R-OH); Rep. GT Thompson (R-PA); Rep. David Valadao (R-CA); Rep. Todd Young (R-IN)

Now that we have some idea of who these people are, we can cuss them, discuss them, cast invective, or write them and tell them what we think.

Is your Congressman on the list?
Posted by Agnosticsherbet | Thu Oct 10, 2013, 11:55 PM (10 replies)

Brain scans show that dogs are as conscious as human children

Brain scans show that dogs are as conscious as human children
By specially training dogs to lie motionless in an fMRI scanner, neuroscientists have finally taken a look inside the mind of our favorite companion animal. And to no dog lover’s surprise, they exhibit a level of awareness that will force us to reconsider the ways in which they’re treated.

There’s a provocative and fascinating opinion article in the New York Times by neuroeconomics professor Gregory Burns where he describes his latest work studying dogs. After training and scanning the brains of dozens of them, he says he’s left with the inescapable conclusion that “dogs are people, too.”

Unlike behavioral analyses, Burns’s work is providing actual neurological evidence that dogs, like so many other animals, experience consciousness and emotions at a level comparable to humans. He did so after training dogs (with the help of Mark Spivak) for months to be comfortable inside fMRI scanners — and having them wear earmuffs to protect their sensitive hearing from the 95 decibels of noise the scanner makes.

Dogs as conscious beings strikes a blow at the religious argument for the origin of consciousness and at the casual misuse and exploitation of dogs for profit. I think the comment that "dogs are people, too" is a bit unscientific. Dogs as conscious beings expands our notion of consciousness.
Posted by Agnosticsherbet | Mon Oct 7, 2013, 03:56 PM (14 replies)

California GOP Officially Dead

California GOP Officially Dead
At one time in its history, The Golden State was a red state. It is the state from which the tax revolt, popularized by Governor and then President Ronald Reagan, was launched in the United States. Recently, however, the Republican Party in California has been slowly dying.

As reported by The Sacramento Business Journal, Republican registration in the state has dropped seven points over the last decade. This new data from the Public Policy Institute of California shows that 43.9 percent of the registered population are Democrats, but Republican registration has declined to 28.9 percent. In addition, independent voters are more likely to lean Democratic. Four out of 10 independents lean Democratic, versus three out of 10 who lean Republican.

It is now virtually impossible for a Republican to hold statewide office positions such as Governor, Lieutenant Governor and Senator.

One could argue that the California GOP was officially dead since last years election, when the Democrats gained a super majority in both houses, and a Democratic governor and lieutenant governor. Pure Democratic legislation can now be passed in the state with no attention paid to the Republican representatives.

California has a reputation as a bellweather state, and where it goes, so goes the nation.

Once can only hope that a suitable and subtle ceremony can be arranged.
Posted by Agnosticsherbet | Thu Oct 3, 2013, 12:11 PM (53 replies)

Republican/Libertarian/TeaParty/Conservatives just achieved their wet dream

of putting most of the government workers out of a job and shrinking government to bathtub size. They have left the individual states as the only fully functioning governments. (tenth amendment orgasm) They passed a bill to pay the military, and though it doesn't fund other military enterprises (wargasm) that seems to be one thing they could agree on.

So riddle me this?

What is their incentive to turning the government back on?
Posted by Agnosticsherbet | Tue Oct 1, 2013, 02:03 PM (33 replies)

The United States is Now a Failed State.

This may be temporary. Republicans may come to their senses and sing Kumbaya....

Shit, what the hell am I saying.

Will the last elected representative to leave the House please turn out the lights.

Ethiopia, move your ass over. We want a chunk of the Couch.

The above was a statement of my utter disgust.
Posted by Agnosticsherbet | Tue Oct 1, 2013, 12:25 AM (10 replies)

VA: Extended shutdown could stop disability pay

VA: Extended shutdown could stop disability pay
The Veterans Affairs Department warned Saturday that an extended government shutdown could result in a cutoff of veterans’ benefits checks by the end of October.

In a sharp change from what the VA was saying days earlier, officials said a prolonged shutdown would hurt the 3.4 million veterans receiving disability compensation, plus survivors and veterans expecting GI Bill living stipends.

“The administration strongly believes that a lapse in appropriations should not occur,” the VA said in a statement. “There is enough time for Congress to prevent a lapse in appropriations, and the administration is willing to work with Congress to enact a short-term continuing resolution to fund critical Government operations and allow Congress the time to complete the full year 2014 appropriations.”

“In the event of a prolonged shutdown, VA will continue to review and update its plan in conjunction with the applicable legal requirements and circumstances,” the statement says.

I will be sorely tempted to plant my boot in the ass of the next Republican Conservative TeaParty fuckwad that says "Thank you for your service."
Posted by Agnosticsherbet | Tue Oct 1, 2013, 12:08 AM (1 replies)

Bernanke to Republicans: Stop Being the Stupid Party

Bernanke to Republicans: Stop Being the Stupid Party
Congressional Republicans have been critical of the Fed's loose monetary policies for quite some time. Today, the Fed announced that monetary policy would stay loose for the foreseeable future, and Fed chair Ben Bernanke explained that part of the reason for this is....

The austerity crusade of congressional Republicans. The Fed's official statement noted bluntly that "fiscal policy is restraining economic growth," and Bernanke expanded on that in his press conference later in the day:

Federal fiscal policy continues to be an important restraint on growth and a source of
downside risk...and upcoming fiscal debates may involve additional risks to financial markets and to the broader economy. In light of these uncertainties, the Committee decided to await more evidence that the recovery’s progress will be sustained before adjusting the pace of asset purchases.

Good advice, but I don't think its possible.
Posted by Agnosticsherbet | Wed Sep 18, 2013, 10:25 PM (0 replies)

If it's Yellen, Wall Street gets the Fed chief it wanted, not expected

If it's Yellen, Wall Street gets the Fed chief it wanted, not expected
Wall Street looks set to get who it wants as Federal Reserve chairman, but definitely not who it expected.

The CNBC September Fed Survey, conducted Thursday and Friday, found Wall Street participants by a 2-to-1 margin believed President Barack Obama would nominate former Treasury Secretary Larry Summers to be the next Fed Chairman.

But by about a 5-to-1 margin, they wanted current Vice Chairwoman Janet Yellen to accede to the top post over Summers.

In a surprise announcement on Sunday, Summers, the presumed frontrunner, told President Obama he no longer wanted to be considered for the job. Summers, who was strongly opposed by some Democrats on the left, cited the high political price the president might have to pay for the nomination to succeed.

After watching the calls here from the my fellow lefties, it is hard to believe this article. Is she the bane of Wall Street or the person they really wanted all along?

Just a weird story.
Posted by Agnosticsherbet | Mon Sep 16, 2013, 04:28 PM (6 replies)

President Jimmy Carter and the War Power Act.

If it only had four letters, The War Powers Act of 1973 might well be considered one. Since it was initiated to limit the Powers of the President to unilaterally go to war (Vetoed by Nixon. Congress overrode that Veto and made it a law) it has been used successfully and ignored successfully by every President to take the country into War/Conflict/Hostilities. Jimmy Carter both used and ignored the Act when he was in office.
Iran Hostage Rescue Attempt: Is Consultation Always Necessary and Possible?
After an unsuccessful attempt on April 24, 1980, to rescue American hostages being held in Iran, President Carter submitted a report to Congress to meet the requirements of the War Powers Resolution, but he did not consult in advance. The Administration took the position that consultation was not required because the mission was a rescue attempt, not an act of force or aggression against Iran. In addition, the Administration contended that consultation was not possible or required because the mission depended upon total surprise.

Some Members of Congress complained about the lack of consultation, especially because legislative-executive meetings had been going on since the Iranian crisis had begun the previous year. Just before the rescue attempt, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee had sent a letter to Secretary of State Cyrus Vance requesting formal consultations under the War Powers Resolution. Moreover, shortly before the rescue attempt, the President outlined plans for a rescue attempt to Senate Majority Leader Robert Byrd but did not say it had begun. Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Frank Church stressed as guidelines for the future: (1) consultation required giving Congress an opportunity to participate in the decision making process, not just informing Congress that an operation was underway; and (2) the judgment could not be made unilaterally but should be made by the President and Congress. (23)

War Powers: a Selected Bibliography
War Powers Act of 1973

President Carter, himself, did not consult with Congress until after the point. Took a little flack for it. His reason was "consultation was not required because the mission was a rescue attempt, not an act of force or aggression against Iran." However, considering that inserting a military force in a foreign country without that counties approval is an act of war. Even if successful, it could not have been done without some loss of life necessary to subdue the hostage takers.

At first glance, this seems to be the norm. Presidents take us into a limited conflict and only afterward actually let Congress know. This was followed by complaining in Congress who then promptly forget the whole thing.

I am glad President Obama has sought Congressional authority. However, we should not be fooled into thinking this changes the dynamic. Presidents, even those as revered as an elder statesman such as President Carter, ignore it unless Congress actually demands its role. It is time the Congress takes up the War Powers and fashions a better vehicle that isn't so easy to ignore when its convenient.
Posted by Agnosticsherbet | Sun Sep 1, 2013, 11:18 AM (3 replies)
Go to Page: « Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next »