All Things in Moderation

Morning Report – Slow news day 05/21/13

27 Responses

1. 

   Troll McWingnut or George, whichever, on May 21, 2013 at 8:10 am said:

   Obama cleared himself in all this. Thank God, now we can move on!

   Give it up wingnuts!

   LikeLike

   Reply
   • 

     ScottC, on May 21, 2013 at 8:57 am said:

     A new Senate report shows Apple’s international arm paid no income taxes to anyone.

     I don’t understand the outrage over this. If Ireland had charged Apple some large amount of taxes, presumably no one would care. So why should we care if Ireland failed to tax them at all?

     LikeLike

     Reply
2. 

   lmsinca, on May 21, 2013 at 8:39 am said:

   jnc, as a follow-up to our conversation last night at the PL here’s a little more perspective re Obenshain’s “miscarriage” bill. He admits there were unintended consequences and that’s supposedly why he pulled it.

   A spokesperson for Obenshain told HuffPost on Monday that the senator introduced the bill in response to a news story about a 20-year-old college student who allegedly disposed of her dead newborn in the trash in Rockingham County, Virginia. Jared Walczak, Obenshain’s deputy campaign manager for policy, said Obenshain was trying to pass a law to enable law enforcement to prosecute a woman in that circumstance, but he ended up with a bill that threatened all pregnant women with prosecution in the event that they miscarry.

   “As sometimes happens, the legislation that emerged was far too broad, and would have had ramifications that neither he nor the Commonwealth’s attorney’s office ever intended,” Walczak said. “Sen. Obenshain is strongly against imposing any added burden for women who suffer a miscarriage, and that was never the intent of the legislation.”

   Walczak said Obenshain met with representatives of Planned Parenthood and NARAL Pro-Choice Virginia in an attempt to resolve the problem, but he was unable to come up with a solution, so he withdrew the bill.

   http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/20/mark-obenshain-miscarriage-bill_n_3307578.html

   LikeLike

   Reply
3. 

   Troll McWingnut or George, whichever, on May 21, 2013 at 9:04 am said:

   Because…. “Shut up!” He argued.

   LikeLike

   Reply
4. 

   jnc4p, on May 21, 2013 at 9:39 am said:

   lmsinca, that’s what I figured. Also I was wrong about the abortion imperative. Apparently it was in reference to the incident cited and the lack of appropriate statutes. They had to be creative in the original prosecution.

   Like I said, there’s plenty to go after the VA Republican ticket on given their public statements. No need to make up arguments that they are trying to “outlaw miscarriages” intentionally.

   LikeLike

   Reply
5. 

   lmsinca, on May 21, 2013 at 9:51 am said:

   jnc

   I agree the intentional aspect of it was wrong on my part but the language was dodgy enough that it would have impacted spontaneous miscarriages. I knew he’d dropped the bill but didn’t know why last night. Reminiscent of the Governor’s dropping of the “vaginal ultra sound bill”. “Upon further reflection……….blah, blah, blah”.

   If women don’t speak up though, these guys don’t always get it……………………..which is a larger point and one some people whom I shall not name don’t understand………………yet. I’m hoping someone with better skills than I comes along to teach them.

   Also agree the VA R ticket seems to be exceptionally radical after this year’s convention. I was going to post some stuff about it but figure it’s not really any of my business who they decide to run.

   LikeLike

   Reply
   • 

     ScottC, on May 21, 2013 at 10:06 am said:

     lms:

     which is a larger point and one some people whom I shall not name…

     Taibbi?

     LikeLike

     Reply
6. 

   Troll McWingnut or George, whichever, on May 21, 2013 at 9:57 am said:

   Interesting point.

   @DrewMTips: Reminder: The Chairman of the Senate committee looking into IRS abuses, suggested the abuses in 2010 http://t.co/oWckVKOEjk

   LikeLike

   Reply
7. 

   Troll McWingnut or George, whichever, on May 21, 2013 at 9:59 am said:

   “If women don’t speak up though, these guys don’t always get it……………………..which is a larger point and one some people whom I shall not name don’t understand”

   Can you describe someone who gets it, but still disagrees with you?

   LikeLike

   Reply
8. 

   Michigoose, on May 21, 2013 at 10:06 am said:

   In case anyone’s interested (h/t: Talgraywolf)

   This is from KOCO in Oklahoma City:

   Donate to http://www.redcross.org or text REDCROSS to 90999 (the text will be a $10 donation on your phone bill)

   REGIONAL FOOD BANK OF OKLAHOMA

   To make a tax deductible donation to the Regional Food Bank of Oklahoma, visit http://www.regionalfoodbank.org or call 405-604-7111. You can also text FOOD to 32333 to give $10 to relief efforts.

   OKLAHOMA BAPTIST DISASTER RELIEF

   Those interested in helping can make a tax-deductible donation to the BGCO’s Disaster Relief ministry, by visiting http://www.bgco.org/donate or calling (405) 942-3800. For photos, information and updates, visit the Oklahoma Baptists’ blog at http://www.okdisasterhelp.com.

   SALVATION ARMY

   How to help:

   DONATE BY MAIL
   The Salvation Army Disaster Relief
   P.O. BOX 12600
   Oklahoma City, OK 73157
   Please designate Oklahoma Tornado Relief on all checks.

   DONATE BY PHONE
   1-800-SAL-ARMY
   (1-800-725-2769)

   DONATE ONLINE
   donate.salvationarmyusa.org/uss/eds/aok

   TEXT TO GIVE
   Texting GIVE to 80888 for a $10 donation.
   Contact: Cindy Fuller, Mobile: 405-830-6549
   E-mail: cindy_fuller@uss.salvationarmy.org

   ---

   okie is fine, she wasn’t in the path of yesterday’s tornados

   LikeLike

   Reply
9. 

   lmsinca, on May 21, 2013 at 10:12 am said:

   McWing, I think Obenshain, if we believe the statement from his staffer, agreed that the law was threatening to women. So while we probably disagree on choice he realized his bill went too far.

   What I’m disconcerted to find is there are men who actually agree with my views on choice, which are pretty mainstream as far as abortion goes, because I do have guidelines that I think are important, but don’t have a problem with the threatening nature of some of the legislation being proposed and passed in several states.

   I haven’t come up with a way to get them to object to the legislation for the sake of women. I’ve basically given up trying.

   LikeLike

   Reply
10. 

    lmsinca, on May 21, 2013 at 10:15 am said:

    Thanks Michi, five of us gave blood yesterday, we’re all O neg and I made a donation to the Red Cross while there. So glad Okie is safe. What a nightmare for everyone in OK. Sounds like it was the “big one”.

    Have a nice day all…………….time to get to work for me.

    LikeLike

    Reply
11. 

    lmsinca, on May 21, 2013 at 10:18 am said:

    Heh, Scott. You’d have to have read the conversation at the PL to know whom I was referring to………………..no big deal, I just don’t like to talk about people behind their backs if I can resist the urge. I’m old fashioned that way.

    LikeLike

    Reply
    • 

      ScottC, on May 21, 2013 at 10:25 am said:

      lms:

      You’d have to have read the conversation at the PL to know whom I was referring to………………..no big deal,

      Damn. I was sure you were talking about me.

      LikeLike

      Reply
12. 

    Troll McWingnut or George, whichever, on May 21, 2013 at 10:23 am said:

    Lms,

    I probably agree with you that women should be allowed to have abortions, at least up to a certain gestational point, without state interference. But I also think states should decide on the legality of abortion altogether, and or any restrictions on it, not the Federal government.

    I believe that any regulation introduced to limit abortion, no matter how “mild or reasonable” it might seem will be demagogued for political and fundraising reasons.

    LikeLike

    Reply
    • 

      ScottC, on May 21, 2013 at 10:26 am said:

      McWing:

      But I also think states should decide on the legality of abortion altogether, and or any restrictions on it, not the Federal government.

      Obviously you must think that women have no rights. 😉

      LikeLike

      Reply
13. 

    Troll McWingnut or George, whichever, on May 21, 2013 at 1:45 pm said:

    Well, Juiceboxer’s claim that the scandals are falling apart just took a bit of a hit:

    “WASHINGTON – A top IRS official in the division that reviews nonprofit groups will invoke the Fifth Amendment and refuse to answer questions before a House committee investigating the agency’s improper screening of conservative nonprofit groups.”

    http://touch.latimes.com/#section/-1/article/p2p-76007948/

    LikeLike

    Reply
14. 

    Michigoose, on May 21, 2013 at 3:59 pm said:

    We have another contender for Most Ridiculous Rightwinger:

    Conspiracy theorist radio host Alex Jones explained to his audience today how the government could have been behind the devastating May 20 tornado in Oklahoma.

    On the May 21 edition of The Alex Jones Show, a caller asked Jones whether he was planning to cover how government technology may be behind a recent spate of sinkholes. After laying out how insurance companies use weather modification to avoid having to pay ski resorts for lack of snow, Jones said that “of course there’s weather weapon stuff going on — we had floods in Texas like fifteen years ago, killed thirty-something people in one night. Turned out it was the Air Force.”

    Following a long tangent, Jones returned to the caller’s subject. While he explained that “natural tornadoes” do exist and that he’s not sure if a government “weather weapon” was involved in the Oklahoma disaster, Jones warned nonetheless that the government “can create and steer groups of tornadoes.”

    According to Jones, this possibility hinges on whether people spotted helicopters and small aircraft “in and around the clouds, spraying and doing things.” He added, “if you saw that, you better bet your bottom dollar they did this, but who knows if they did. You know, that’s the thing, we don’t know.”

    Tornado Truthers, unite!!

    http://tinyurl.com/TornadoTruthers

    LikeLike

    Reply
15. 

    Troll McWingnut or George, whichever, on May 21, 2013 at 4:45 pm said:

    Why do you think Alex Jones is a right winger?

    LikeLike

    Reply
16. 

    Michigoose, on May 21, 2013 at 5:06 pm said:

    McWing:

    You would prefer this, then? OK!

    Jones describes himself as a libertarian and a conservative, and while critics have called him “right wing” Jones himself rejects the label.

    LikeLike

    Reply
17. 

    jnc4p, on May 21, 2013 at 5:59 pm said:

    We on the libertarian side aren’t claiming him.

    LikeLike

    Reply
18. 

    Michigoose, on May 21, 2013 at 6:27 pm said:

    I figured you and NoVA both would reject him.

    I also don’t understand how one can claim “conservative” and reject “right wing”, unless he doesn’t know that right wing refers to the conservative side of the political spectrum.

    LikeLike

    Reply
19. 

    Troll McWingnut or George, whichever, on May 21, 2013 at 7:33 pm said:

    Love this editorial by Cass Sunstein. My favorite part,

    “or that the U.S. intervened in Libya because of oil.”

    Jesus, that’s a good one.

    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-05-20/how-to-humble-a-wing-nut.html

    LikeLike

    Reply
20. 

    yellojkt, on May 21, 2013 at 7:59 pm said:

    We on the libertarian side aren’t claiming him.

    I’m not sure that’s your choice since that would infringe upon his right to characterize his belief system any way he wants.

    LikeLike

    Reply
    • 

      ScottC, on May 22, 2013 at 7:21 am said:

      jnc:

      You may be interested, from the WSJ (but behind the firewall): Why the SEC Needs “No Admit” Settlements

      Largely overlooked by both sides, however, are two unintended consequences likely to flow from court-mandated admissions of wrongdoing in SEC cases.

      First, as in other facets of life, when government policy makes something more difficult and costly, rational people seek alternatives to avoid the increased burden and expense. In the realm of SEC law enforcement, the most obvious alternative would be to settle more cases through the SEC administrative process, which requires no oversight by the courts.

      Yet administrative sanctions and consequences have historically been viewed as less severe than federal court judgments. For that reason, defense lawyers often bargain with the SEC to avoid federal court by having their clients’ cases resolved administratively. Because administrative settlements involve no judicial scrutiny, they invite the potential for reduced transparency and accountability when compared with settlements that require the imprimatur of an independent federal judge.

      A second unintended consequence of mandatory admissions of wrongdoing would be weaker settlements overall. SEC settlements result from intense back-and-forth negotiations over many interrelated terms, with each side seeking the most advantageous result possible on the terms that matter most to them. Like any other negotiation, the parties eventually reach a delicate compromise at a point where each side is willing—just barely—to accept the overall deal.

      Among many terms negotiated in an SEC settlement, the no-admit clause is one of the most important to the defense. A policy change requiring an admission of wrongdoing would, in essence, take this settlement term off the table. It would therefore force the SEC to compromise elsewhere in the bargain to maintain the fragile equilibrium that would have prevailed without the admission.

      Simply put, given the critical importance of the no-admit clause to the defendant, it is naive to believe the SEC could bargain for the exact same charges, penalties and other sanctions plus a public admission of wrongdoing. Instead, to settle the same case the SEC would have to agree to either less serious charges, reduced financial penalties, shorter industry suspensions, or some combination of the foregoing.

      LikeLike

      Reply
21. 

    jnc4p, on May 22, 2013 at 8:02 am said:

    I don’t necessarily want the cases settled and thus I don’t care if it negatively impacts the ability of the SEC to settle cases. I want them to either go to trial or have a clear admission of guilt.

    This “We didn’t do anything wrong, but we promise not to do it again (until next year)” is not good policy and it certainly isn’t justice. It’s more akin to bribery or a cost of doing business.

    LikeLike

    Reply
    • 

      ScottC, on May 22, 2013 at 9:00 am said:

      jnc:

      I don’t necessarily want the cases settled and thus I don’t care if it negatively impacts the ability of the SEC to settle cases.

      That’s what I figured, but thought you might want to see the article anyway.

      This “We didn’t do anything wrong, but we promise not to do it again (until next year)” is not good policy and it certainly isn’t justice.

      I don’t think “justice” has anything to do with what the perpetrators admit to doing.

      LikeLike

      Reply