Good morning!

I don’t know if all of you read the General Info comments that come in every now and then. I do. Some of the writes I like and others I don’t pay too much attention to and pass. The one that keeps sticking in my mind is the recent one on crowd-think. Did you read? I think it made some excellent points on how we act and make decisions in particular groups that we may belong to.

I thought it was a good write with some very valid advice. Like many of us I have a strong opinion. However, I consider myself a compassionate and empathetic person, and I can see where I might have feelings of empathy once someone states their in depth opinion, even thought it might be contradictory to mine. I can see how that might cloud one’s personal reasoning.

I know for myself, there are times I have found myself drawn in by others’ feelings to have to separate myself from those feeling and opinions, and ask myself if I have changed my opinion because of “new information”, or am I taking on “crowd-think.” (Of course I didn’t know this particular “term” then.) I like the suggestion to pay attention to your initial reaction and write it down before you hear or read the opinions of others, so that you can come back to it when others’ opinions are expressed.

I agree and think it is paramount that we don’t accept “new information” aka secondhand “facts” on matters we care deeply about – That we take the time to verify the information instead of being big “L”, little “a”, little “z”…you get the picture. Yet people are “Lazy” and do this all of the time – believe that something is true just because it is from a group that they belong to or a news station that they watch. This topic is brought up quite a bit when it comes to people just accepting the news because it is being said on a particular news channel – I am not saying that all news channels are totally honest nor am I saying they are completely false. However, we all have discussed how people are swayed in an extreme way by what they see on the news – FOX News is a perfect example.

And then of course, even though the crowd-think write didn’t bring up any other sort of influences when it comes to clouding the mind, I don’t think you can have this discussion without respect to so many areas that we discuss here, without throwing the influence of racism into the mix. We have all seen how racism clouds the minds when it comes to accepting secondhand “facts” so freely.

When people are racist, their logic and clear thinking of what is good for all becomes what is good for a particular race. Secondhand “facts” are not verified and become the “truth.” And racists will go to the ends of the earth clenching fast to those “facts,” their “truth,” and expressing actions and words to support those “facts,” because their racism is so deeply rooted, that they simply care more about supporting their agenda than they care about taking they time to verify facts and get to the real truth.

I wonder what Zander would say about that? What do you say dear Readers?

Well…I am done flapping my lips this morning.  Flap your lips on whatever topic you wish. The Flap Your Lips Friday Forum is open. :) Blog me.

Peace out. 

Lastly, greed over a great story is surfacing from my “loyal”(?) readers. With all this back and forth about who owns what, that appears on my blog, let me reiterate that all material posted on my blog becomes the sole property of my blog. If you want to reserve any proprietary rights don’t post it to my blog. I will prominently display this caveat on my blog from now on to remind those who may have forgotten this notice.

Gratefully your blog host,

michelle

Aka BABE: We all know what this means by now :)

If you love my blog and my writes, please make a donation via PayPal, credit card, or e-check, please click the “Donate” button below. (Please only donations from those readers within the United States. – International readers please see my “Donate” page)

Or if you would like to send a check via snail mail, please make checks payable to “Michelle Moquin”, and send to:

Michelle Moquin PO Box 29235 San Francisco, Ca. 94129

Thank you for your loyal support!

All content on this site are property of Michelle Moquin © copyright 2008-2012

“Though she be but little, she be fierce.” – William Shakespeare Midsummer Night’s Dream 

" Politics, god, Life, News, Music, Family, Personal, Travel, Random, Photography, Religion, Aliens, Art, Entertainment, Food, Books, Thoughts, Media, Culture, Love, Sex, Poetry, Prose, Friends, Technology, Humor, Health, Writing, Events, Movies, Sports, Video, Christianity, Atheist, Blogging, History, Work, Education, Business, Fashion, Barack Obama, People, Internet, Relationships, Faith, Photos, Videos, Hillary Clinton, School, Reviews, God, TV, Philosophy, Fun, Science, Environment, Design, The Page, Rants, Pictures, Church, Blog, Nature, Marketing, Television, Democrats, Parenting, Miscellaneous, Current Events, Film, Spirituality, Obama, Musings, Home, Human Rights, Society, Comedy, Me, Random Thoughts, Research, Government, Election 2008, Baseball, Opinion, Recipes, Children, Iraq, Funny, Women, Economics, America, Misc, Commentary, John McCain, Reflections, All, Celebrities, Inspiration, Lifestyle, Theology, Linux, Kids, Games, World, India, Literature, China, Ramblings, Fitness, Money, Review, War, Articles, Economy, Journal, Quotes, NBA, Crime, Anime, Islam, 2008, Stories, Prayer, Diary, Jesus, Buddha, Muslim, Israel, Europe, Links, Marriage, Fiction, American Idol, Software, Leadership, Pop culture, Rants, Video Games, Republicans, Updates, Political, Football, Healing, Blogs, Shopping, USA, Class, Matrix, Course, Work, Web 2.0, My Life, Psychology, Gay, Happiness, Advertising, Field Hockey, Hip-hop, sex, fucking, ass, Soccer, sox"

Good morning!

I have been working on keeping up with all the happenings in the world. Benghazi/Libya has been on my radar and this is what I found recently that you might find interesting and illuminating.

The Real Scandal in Libya: A Security Vacuum and New Terrorist Threats

By Brian Katulis and Peter Juul | May 15, 2013

President Barack Obama’s political opponents are trying once again to manufacture a scandal out of the tragic deaths of four American government personnel at a U.S. facility in Benghazi, Libya, last September. Among those killed was the U.S. ambassador to Libya, Christopher Stevens. The current political and media feeding frenzy surrounding the Benghazi attacks is no more than a parsing of interagency debates on postattack talking points, and it is based on what former Secretary of Defense Robert Gates called “cartoonish” views of U.S. military capabilities.

This Washington convulsion may serve the political interests of President Obama’s domestic opponents, but it obscures two far more important issues: the deterioration of the overall situation in Libya, and the longer-term challenge the United States faces of managing security risks when conducting diplomacy in insecure locations. The mindless political debate over Obama administration talking points from last fall harms efforts to come to grips with both of these issues and shows how superficial our debates on national security have become.

Militias and the deteriorating security situation

The security situation in Libya is getting worse, not better. In the last month alone, car bombs have hit the French embassy in Tripoli and a hospital in Benghazi. Earlier this year unknown assailants attacked five British activists near the Egyptian border, and U.S. and European governments have warned of “imminent” threats in Libya.

Due to the deteriorating situation, a few days ago the U.S. military put its forces in Europe on a heightened state of alert. Also in the past week, the United States and Britain withdrew some of their diplomatic staff from Libya due to the increased threats there. Clearly, the security situation inside Libya—and what the United States and other countries can do to help Libya stop the downward spiral—should be the focus of the debate.

This deterioration is due in large part to the continued power that militias wield in Libya. By laying siege to the foreign and justice ministries in Tripoli and attacking those who protested their actions, the militias forced the government to pass a draconian “political isolation law.” What’s more, militias continue to run their own prisons—and continue to detain Saif al-Islam Qaddafi, the highest-ranking survivor of the Qaddafi regime, who is wanted for crimes against humanity. The Libyan government’s capitulation to brazen coercion by militias and their political allies severely undermines its halting efforts to build national-level security services and establish the rule of law in Libya.

In short, these groups continue to sow instability throughout the country by preventing the government from establishing credible security institutions and the rule of law. Worse, they have openly used the threat of violence to force a democratically elected government to bend to their wishes, and they have employed violence against those with whom they disagreed. This lack of stability and security also gives violent Islamist extremist groups such as Ansar al-Sharia, which attacked the Benghazi facility last September, freedom of movement and action. It also facilitates the spread of weapons and militants from and through Libya, as was apparently the case in the January 2013 Algerian gas-facility attack.

The United States, its partners, and international institutions could help rectify this situation by providing training, equipment, and other forms of security assistance to the Libyan government. This support could help the government consolidate its security sector and establish public order and the rule of law. However, the zero-risk mentality produced by the scandal mongering currently dominating the debate is likely to prevent any new security-sector reform initiatives in Washington. The United States and its partners are now stuck in a vicious circle: They cannot offer requisite levels of assistance to the Libyan government because they are unwilling to risk the poor security situation, and the poor security situation is not likely to improve without the requisite level of international help.

Managing diplomatic risk in insecure locations

More broadly, the furor over the Benghazi attack talking points could do severe damage to U.S. national security and diplomatic efforts. For several decades the United States has been hampering its diplomats’ ability to shape and influence the situations in countries that are vital to U.S. interests by imposing increasingly rigid security restrictions. Numerous independent assessments have noted the negative impact these measures have had on the State Department’s ability to advance its mission.

In 2009 the Government Accountability Office warned that security procedures:

… for State’s diplomatic corps [have], at times, been in tension with State’s diplomatic mission. For example, Diplomatic Security has established strict policies concerning access to U.S. facilities that usually include personal and vehicle screening. Some public affairs officials—whose job it is to foster relations with host country nationals—have expressed concerns that the security measures discourage visitors from attending U.S. embassy events or exhibits. In addition, the new embassies and consulates, with their high walls, deep setback, and strict screening procedures, have evoked the nickname, “Fortress America.”

The effort to turn the Benghazi attack into a political albatross for current and former Obama administration officials has done and will do significant damage to American diplomatic efforts in hostile environments. Policymakers may become even more reluctant to take risks with diplomatic personnel in these situations for fear of a political boomerang if something goes wrong.

As a result, the default policy may be to retrench behind the walls of so-called fortress embassies, take few if any risks with nonmilitary personnel, and surrender potential American influence on the ground in dangerous parts of the world. By flogging the phantom scandal of Benghazi, Obama administration critics who demand more direct intervention in Syria ironically are undermining their own argument. And if something goes wrong and Americans die, the administration will likely be rewarded with scandalmongering by advocates of the very policy that put American personnel at risk in the first place. The State Department’s Accountability Review Board, convened in the event of loss of life or destruction of property at U.S. diplomatic facilities abroad, recommended the administration “work more rigorously and adeptly to address” the security challenges inherent in diplomacy and to discuss its recommendations. Instead, congressional investigators have chosen to impugn the integrity of the board’s leaders, with Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA) accusing respected former diplomat Thomas Pickering of having “heard what the administration wanted to hear” in his investigation. In addition, they focused their attention on post attack debates and unrealistic rescue scenarios. None of these approaches help stimulate a debate on the proper level of risk that diplomats should assume, sending instead the implicit message that the answer should be none at all.

The hue and cry over Benghazi simply detracts from the two fundamental issues going forward: the level of acceptable risk for American diplomats in dangerous environments and the ongoing deterioration of security in Libya. It will be impossible for the Obama administration—or any administration that comes after it—to make rational decisions on the latter without a shared consensus on the former. The politicization of Benghazi accomplishes nothing except to make the default acceptable level of risk for American personnel abroad zero. However defensible such a posture may be in political terms, it does not allow the United States to exercise sufficient influence abroad to deal with emerging security threats and address pressing foreign policy problems.

Brian Katulis is a Senior Fellow at the Center for American Progress. Peter Juul is a Policy Analyst at the Center.

*******

Comments? Blog me.

Lastly, greed over a great story is surfacing from my “loyal”(?) readers. With all this back and forth about who owns what, that appears on my blog, let me reiterate that all material posted on my blog becomes the sole property of my blog. If you want to reserve any proprietary rights don’t post it to my blog. I will prominently display this caveat on my blog from now on to remind those who may have forgotten this notice.

Gratefully your blog host,

michelle

Aka BABE: We all know what this means by now :)

If you love my blog and my writes, please make a donation via PayPal, credit card, or e-check, please click the “Donate” button below. (Please only donations from those readers within the United States. – International readers please see my “Donate” page)

Or if you would like to send a check via snail mail, please make checks payable to “Michelle Moquin”, and send to:

Michelle Moquin PO Box 29235 San Francisco, Ca. 94129

Thank you for your loyal support!

All content on this site are property of Michelle Moquin © copyright 2008-2012

“Though she be but little, she be fierce.” – William Shakespeare Midsummer Night’s Dream 

" Politics, god, Life, News, Music, Family, Personal, Travel, Random, Photography, Religion, Aliens, Art, Entertainment, Food, Books, Thoughts, Media, Culture, Love, Sex, Poetry, Prose, Friends, Technology, Humor, Health, Writing, Events, Movies, Sports, Video, Christianity, Atheist, Blogging, History, Work, Education, Business, Fashion, Barack Obama, People, Internet, Relationships, Faith, Photos, Videos, Hillary Clinton, School, Reviews, God, TV, Philosophy, Fun, Science, Environment, Design, The Page, Rants, Pictures, Church, Blog, Nature, Marketing, Television, Democrats, Parenting, Miscellaneous, Current Events, Film, Spirituality, Obama, Musings, Home, Human Rights, Society, Comedy, Me, Random Thoughts, Research, Government, Election 2008, Baseball, Opinion, Recipes, Children, Iraq, Funny, Women, Economics, America, Misc, Commentary, John McCain, Reflections, All, Celebrities, Inspiration, Lifestyle, Theology, Linux, Kids, Games, World, India, Literature, China, Ramblings, Fitness, Money, Review, War, Articles, Economy, Journal, Quotes, NBA, Crime, Anime, Islam, 2008, Stories, Prayer, Diary, Jesus, Buddha, Muslim, Israel, Europe, Links, Marriage, Fiction, American Idol, Software, Leadership, Pop culture, Rants, Video Games, Republicans, Updates, Political, Football, Healing, Blogs, Shopping, USA, Class, Matrix, Course, Work, Web 2.0, My Life, Psychology, Gay, Happiness, Advertising, Field Hockey, Hip-hop, sex, fucking, ass, Soccer, sox"

Good morning!

Irene: Uh huh girl. You go. Tell it like it is.

11k7L43: My mother said those same words, sans the Dallas part.

Luis: Like the saying goes, and I am totally off base on this but you’ll get the gist of it – “when you don’t help your neighbors in their time of need, who is going to help you when you need help?” It seems Inhofe and Coburn thought giving Sandy relief was “wasteful spending” when it came to helping their neighbors. No doubt their hands will be asking for help now too.

Danielle: Thank you. I feel that sometimes I post too many articles and don’t write enough. But hey, there are good writers saying lots of important things so reposting them is much more important than what I have to say most of the time. And believe me when I have something to say, I will say it regardless of whether it is good writing or not. Thanks for your support.

So speaking of reposting articles, here is the write du jour from the Huff Po:

What’s At Stake if the Health Law Is Repealed

More than three years ago, Congress passed the Affordable Care Act and President Obama signed it into law. Last year, the Supreme Court upheld it. Millions of Americans have already benefited from its provisions, and millions more are looking forward to benefits that will soon go into effect. And in November, the American people re-elected the president as an affirmation of the law’s promise that no person should go broke if they get sick.

Yet today, for nearly the 40th time since it’s been the law of the land, House Republicans staged yet another repeal vote in their latest attempt to turn back the clock on progress and deny Americans health insurance coverage they can count on.

Here’s what Americans would lose if repeal actually happened:

• Repeal Decreases Access to Quality Care. The 6.6 million young people from South Carolina to Ohio to Utah who have gained coverage under their parents’ health plans up to age 26 would lose that option. Insurance companies in many states could return to the days of refusing coverage to 17 million children living with a pre-existing condition like diabetes or asthma. For the 129 million Americans across the country living with a pre-existing condition, repeal would take away the security of knowing that, beginning next year, their health coverage can’t be revoked or denied. Repeal would also eliminate the free, critical preventive vaccines, flu shots, contraception, mammograms, and other screenings that have already helped 71 million Americans stay healthy and active.

• Repeal Hurts Seniors and Undermines Medicare. For America’s seniors, from Florida to Oklahoma to Nevada, repeal would increase medical costs by hundreds of dollars a month at a time when they could least afford it. It would eliminate the discounts that have brought 6.1 million of them an average savings of $706 on their prescription drugs, enough to cover the cost of several months of groceries. Nearly 50 million Medicare beneficiaries from Virginia to Kentucky to Idaho would lose access to free, life-saving preventive care, including cancer screenings and annual wellness visits. And repeal would undo ambitious delivery reforms that have helped reduce projected Medicare spending by hundreds of millions of dollars over the next ten years.

• Repeal Raises Taxes on the Middle Class and Small Businesses, and Increases Our Deficit. Starting next year, 18 million middle-class families across the country the country would be denied access to a tax credit averaging $4,000 each that would make it easier to purchase health insurance. Small businesses from Pennsylvania to Louisiana would also lose access to tax credits that are already helping to provide coverage for 2 million American workers. And repeal would increase the deficit by $100 billion over the next ten years.

• Repeal Returns Unchecked Power to Insurance Companies. The law has slowed the growth of premium increases by doing away with the worst insurance company abuses. Nearly 13 million individuals and families have saved an average of $150 due to a new rule requiring more premium dollars to be spent on delivering actual care instead of on overhead costs and CEO salaries. Insurance companies must also now publicly justify all premium increases of 10 percent or more. Those two provisions alone have already produced more than $2 billion in rebates for millions of Americans who are privately insured. Repealing the law would return the power of unchecked premium increases back to insurance companies in states that haven’t set up their own protections.

• Repeals Denies Women Control Over Their Own Health Care. For American women in every corner of the country, repeal would bring us back to the days when simply being a woman was a pre-existing condition. Insurers would once again be able to charge women far more than men pay for the same health benefits.

By refighting old battles and reopening old wounds, repeal efforts would take away the peace of mind that affordable health insurance provides for the millions of Americans who can’t afford to go back to the way things were.

For the majority of Americans who already have insurance, the law makes it stronger. And for 25 million Americans who lack the security of health coverage, expanded Medicaid in many states and new Health Insurance Marketplaces opening for enrollment in every state this fall will finally give them access to coverage that fits their budget and meets their health needs.

Because of the law, we’re increasing access to affordable care, slowing premium increases, and bringing down health spending growth to its slowest rate in half a century. We’re making health insurance work for small businesses, and providing the strongest consumer protections in history.

We know our health care system’s problems weren’t created overnight, and they won’t be solved overnight. But Americans are far better off today than they would be without the health care law. And while we work to implement and strengthen the law, it’s clear we’re moving our health care system in the right direction. We simply can’t afford to turn back now.

****

Readers:  Just who is supporting the repubs when they could care less about our health that they would try almost 40 times to repeal ACA? No answer needed, we already know.

Zed: Loved your comment. So true and still laughing.

Fans of Zen Lill: I will post the pretty pics this weekend.

I am really out of time. Now. I. must. go. Blog me.

Peace out. 

Lastly, greed over a great story is surfacing from my “loyal”(?) readers. With all this back and forth about who owns what, that appears on my blog, let me reiterate that all material posted on my blog becomes the sole property of my blog. If you want to reserve any proprietary rights don’t post it to my blog. I will prominently display this caveat on my blog from now on to remind those who may have forgotten this notice.

Gratefully your blog host,

michelle

Aka BABE: We all know what this means by now :)

If you love my blog and my writes, please make a donation via PayPal, credit card, or e-check, please click the “Donate” button below. (Please only donations from those readers within the United States. – International readers please see my “Donate” page)

Or if you would like to send a check via snail mail, please make checks payable to “Michelle Moquin”, and send to:

Michelle Moquin PO Box 29235 San Francisco, Ca. 94129

Thank you for your loyal support!

All content on this site are property of Michelle Moquin © copyright 2008-2012

“Though she be but little, she be fierce.” – William Shakespeare Midsummer Night’s Dream 

" Politics, god, Life, News, Music, Family, Personal, Travel, Random, Photography, Religion, Aliens, Art, Entertainment, Food, Books, Thoughts, Media, Culture, Love, Sex, Poetry, Prose, Friends, Technology, Humor, Health, Writing, Events, Movies, Sports, Video, Christianity, Atheist, Blogging, History, Work, Education, Business, Fashion, Barack Obama, People, Internet, Relationships, Faith, Photos, Videos, Hillary Clinton, School, Reviews, God, TV, Philosophy, Fun, Science, Environment, Design, The Page, Rants, Pictures, Church, Blog, Nature, Marketing, Television, Democrats, Parenting, Miscellaneous, Current Events, Film, Spirituality, Obama, Musings, Home, Human Rights, Society, Comedy, Me, Random Thoughts, Research, Government, Election 2008, Baseball, Opinion, Recipes, Children, Iraq, Funny, Women, Economics, America, Misc, Commentary, John McCain, Reflections, All, Celebrities, Inspiration, Lifestyle, Theology, Linux, Kids, Games, World, India, Literature, China, Ramblings, Fitness, Money, Review, War, Articles, Economy, Journal, Quotes, NBA, Crime, Anime, Islam, 2008, Stories, Prayer, Diary, Jesus, Buddha, Muslim, Israel, Europe, Links, Marriage, Fiction, American Idol, Software, Leadership, Pop culture, Rants, Video Games, Republicans, Updates, Political, Football, Healing, Blogs, Shopping, USA, Class, Matrix, Course, Work, Web 2.0, My Life, Psychology, Gay, Happiness, Advertising, Field Hockey, Hip-hop, sex, fucking, ass, Soccer, sox"

Good morning!

Brought to you by your fave HP :)

Soledad O’Brien Calls Out ‘White People’ Over ‘Black In America’ Series (VIDEO)

Soledad O’Brien addressed criticism from “white people” about her documentaries about race in America in a new video.

O’Brien has hosted five documentaries in CNN’s “Black In America” series. In a talk at Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government, she said that some people have told her that the documentaries are “divisive,” and that they think black Americans should stop differentiating themselves from white Americans.

“First of all, it’s only white people who ever said that — ‘if we could just see beyond race. If only people didn’t see race, it would be such a better place, and you are responsible for bringing up these icky race issues, Soledad, you should just let sleeping dogs lie,’” O’Brien said.

She continued, “I was like, again, ‘OK, white person, this is a conversation you clearly are uncomfortable with, and I have no problem seeing race, and I think we should talk about race.”

O’Brien signed off CNN as a regular host in March, after the network announced that a new morning show would replace “Starting Point.” She is still working with CNN as a roving documentary reporter, and was also recently named a distinguished visiting fellow at Harvard, her alma mater.

Her most recent installment of “Black in America” came out in December. In an interview with Professor Yaba Blay, O’Brien spoke about people questioning her racial identity because of her role hosting the documentary.

“You know, white people really have a luxury in that they get a range of stories, that they’re not defined by five stories,” she explained. ”So I think that the difference with ‘Black in America’ was the filter did matter. That there are only going to be five stories and we want to know exactly who you are and what your credentials are to be telling our story.”

*******

Readers: Have an opinion? Blog me.

To my readers in Oklahoma: I was sorry to read about the devastation. I HOPE  you and you families are safe and sound.

Peace out. 

Lastly, greed over a great story is surfacing from my “loyal”(?) readers. With all this back and forth about who owns what, that appears on my blog, let me reiterate that all material posted on my blog becomes the sole property of my blog. If you want to reserve any proprietary rights don’t post it to my blog. I will prominently display this caveat on my blog from now on to remind those who may have forgotten this notice.

Gratefully your blog host,

michelle

Aka BABE: We all know what this means by now :)

If you love my blog and my writes, please make a donation via PayPal, credit card, or e-check, please click the “Donate” button below. (Please only donations from those readers within the United States. – International readers please see my “Donate” page)

Or if you would like to send a check via snail mail, please make checks payable to “Michelle Moquin”, and send to:

Michelle Moquin PO Box 29235 San Francisco, Ca. 94129

Thank you for your loyal support!

All content on this site are property of Michelle Moquin © copyright 2008-2012

“Though she be but little, she be fierce.” – William Shakespeare Midsummer Night’s Dream 

" Politics, god, Life, News, Music, Family, Personal, Travel, Random, Photography, Religion, Aliens, Art, Entertainment, Food, Books, Thoughts, Media, Culture, Love, Sex, Poetry, Prose, Friends, Technology, Humor, Health, Writing, Events, Movies, Sports, Video, Christianity, Atheist, Blogging, History, Work, Education, Business, Fashion, Barack Obama, People, Internet, Relationships, Faith, Photos, Videos, Hillary Clinton, School, Reviews, God, TV, Philosophy, Fun, Science, Environment, Design, The Page, Rants, Pictures, Church, Blog, Nature, Marketing, Television, Democrats, Parenting, Miscellaneous, Current Events, Film, Spirituality, Obama, Musings, Home, Human Rights, Society, Comedy, Me, Random Thoughts, Research, Government, Election 2008, Baseball, Opinion, Recipes, Children, Iraq, Funny, Women, Economics, America, Misc, Commentary, John McCain, Reflections, All, Celebrities, Inspiration, Lifestyle, Theology, Linux, Kids, Games, World, India, Literature, China, Ramblings, Fitness, Money, Review, War, Articles, Economy, Journal, Quotes, NBA, Crime, Anime, Islam, 2008, Stories, Prayer, Diary, Jesus, Buddha, Muslim, Israel, Europe, Links, Marriage, Fiction, American Idol, Software, Leadership, Pop culture, Rants, Video Games, Republicans, Updates, Political, Football, Healing, Blogs, Shopping, USA, Class, Matrix, Course, Work, Web 2.0, My Life, Psychology, Gay, Happiness, Advertising, Field Hockey, Hip-hop, sex, fucking, ass, Soccer, sox"

Good morning!

Well, I thought I would be able to catch up with all of you over the weekend but as you can see I didn’t check in much. And yesterday, it seems no body was able to get in. How’s everyone doing? I worked all weekend and have a break today so it feels like a Saturday, not a Monday, to me.

Here’s something I found on the Huff Po. This may be old news but to me it is new news.

Obama’s Judicial Nominees Blocked On All Sides By Senate Republicans

WASHINGTON — It’s bad enough that there are 82 vacant federal judge slots around the country, a level so high that many observers have deemed it a crisis situation.

But perhaps even more startling is the fact that of those 82 vacant slots, 61 of them don’t even have a nominee.

On its face, the absence of nominees would appear to be a sign that President Barack Obama is slacking. After all, he is responsible for nominating judges, and he did put forward fewer nominees at the end of his first term than his two predecessors. But a closer look at data on judicial nominees, and conversations with people involved in the nomination process, reveals the bigger problem is Republican senators quietly refusing to recommend potential judges in the first place.

The process for moving judicial nominees is simple enough. A president takes the lead on circuit court nominees, while, per longstanding tradition, a senator kickstarts the process for district court nominees, which make up the bulk of the federal court system. Senators make recommendations from their home states, and the president works with them to get at least some of the nominees confirmed — the idea being that senators, regardless of party, are motivated to advocate for nominees from their states. The White House may look at other nominees on its own, but typically won’t move forward without input from the corresponding senators. Once a nominee is submitted to the Senate, he or she receives a vote in the Senate Judiciary Committee. If approved, the nomination heads to the Senate floor for a full vote.

It’s hardly news that the judicial nomination process is gummed up. Democrats regularly blast Republicans for blocking Obama’s nominees after they clear the Senate Judiciary Committee with broad support, making them wait an average of 116 days for a confirmation vote. That’s three times longer than the average wait for President George W. Bush’s nominees. But these obstacles come at the end of the nomination process. It’s now clear that there’s a serious problem at the beginning, too.

It turns out that since Obama took office, senators from some states — particularly those represented by two Republicans — have simply refused to make recommendations, according to data recently published by the Alliance for Justice, a left-leaning association of more than 100 organizations focused on the federal judiciary.

Take Kansas, for example. The state is represented by Republican Sens. Pat Roberts and Jerry Moran, neither of whom has put forward nominees for a district court slot there that has been vacant for 1,246 days. Their inaction hasn’t gone unnoticed — both senators have taken heat for not participating in the nomination process.

Or look at Texas, where Republican Sens. John Cornyn and Ted Cruz have not moved to fill seven vacant judicial slots, two of which have been vacant for 1,733 and 1,034 days, respectively, without a nominee. At least one Texas paper ran a piece suggesting Cornyn and former Texas Republican Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison were holding off on making judicial recommendations because they were hopeful Mitt Romney would become president in 2012.

There are four vacant judicial slots in Arizona, one of which has been vacant for 1,132 days. Neither of the state’s Republican senators, John McCain and Jeff Flake, have put forward a nominee for any those spots.

In total, 25 of the 61 vacancies without nominees are in states with two Republican senators, and another 14 are in states with one Republican senator and one Democratic senator. Seventeen are in states with two Democratic senators, and the remaining five are in other districts. That means many of the vacancies without nominees can be traced back to Senate Republicans who just aren’t participating in the process — a reality that flies in the face of Republicans’ chief complaint that Obama isn’t putting forward enough judicial nominees.

“It’s disingenuous at best for Republicans to complain about the number of judicial vacancies without nominees when Republicans themselves are responsible for the majority of those vacancies,” said Michelle Schwartz, director of Justice Programs for Alliance for Justice. “Nearly two-thirds of the vacancies without nominees are in states with at least one Republican senator, most of whom have consistently refused to work with the White House in good faith to identify qualified candidates.”

To be sure, there are states with long-vacant judgeships that are represented by two Democratic senators. But according to Alliance for Justice data, those instances are less frequent, the number of days those slots have been vacant is significantly lower and, in most cases, those senators have put forward nominees. In California, for example, which is represented by Democratic Sens. Dianne Feinstein and Barbara Boxer, one judicial slot has been vacant for 575 days. But the senators have made a recommendation, and the White House is currently working with them to fill the judgeship.

Thirty-six of the current vacancies are considered “judicial emergencies.” At the circuit courts, that means that because of the vacancies, the number of cases per panel of judges exceeds 700, or stays between 500 and 700 for more than 18 months. In district courts, it means the number of cases per individual judge is more than 600, or between 430 and 600 for more than 18 months. The more overloaded judges are, the more delayed the process of moving civil and criminal matters through the justice system.

HuffPost reached out to the Republican senators mentioned to ask why they haven’t submitted nominees for seats that have long been vacant, and to see if they planned to do so anytime soon. Only one responded.

Cornyn spokesman Drew Brandewie said the Texas senator did send the White House recommendations for the two judicial slots that have been vacant for more than 1,000 days, both in 2010, and that Obama didn’t go on to nominate them. Cornyn has made two additional recommendations for vacancies in Corpus Christi, Brandwie noted. Obama nominated one of them, Nelva Ramos, who was confirmed by the Senate in 2011.

Schwartz responded that her group had “no knowledge” of Cornyn making recommendations for the two long-vacant slots, and speculated that he may have made them to the White House privately. A White House official declined comment.

Nearly everyone was to blame for a lull in the nominations process last fall, when people in both parties turned their attention to the elections. The Senate Judiciary Committee stopped reporting out nominees between mid-August and early December. Democrats and the White House stopped pressing as hard for action, and, as one White House aide put it late last year, the bottleneck in the Senate didn’t exactly encourage anyone to work harder to come up with more nominees. “If my coffee pot only makes one cup per hour, no matter how many coffee beans I pour into it, the number of cups coming out will still be the same,” the aide said.

But in the months since Obama won reelection, there appears to have been a shift. When he met with Senate Republicans in early April, he pressed them to work with him on nominations. Senate Democrats have more visibly stepped up efforts to make recommendations. White House press secretary Jay Carney, meanwhile, has been highlighting when the Senate acts on Obama’s nominees during his daily briefings. The president has also been putting forward more circuit court nominees since the start of the year, a nomination process senators are less involved in.

Some Republicans may even be signaling that they’re ready to play ball now. In mid-April, Cornyn and Cruz announced a bipartisan commission to recommend Texas judicial nominees. Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.), who previously blocked one nomineefrom his home state, announced that he, too, would help establish a similar nominating commission there.

But politics are clearly still driving the process. Last week, when the Senate overwhelmingly confirmed Jane Kelly of Iowa to be a circuit court judge, Republicans said it showed that they’re not blocking the process.

“Today’s confirmation is the 14th so far this year — including five circuit judges and nine district judges,” Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), the ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said during remarks on the Senate floor. “Let me put that in perspective for my colleagues. At this point in the second term of the Bush presidency, only one judicial nomination had been confirmed. A comparative record of 14 to 1 is nothing to cry about.”

Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, was quick to push back. In floor remarks, he noted that the median time circuit court nominees have had to wait before a Senate vote has jumped from 18 days under Bush to 132 days under Obama. On top of that, he said, the 82 judicial vacancies around the country is nearly double the number that existed at this point in the Bush administration.

“While it is good that they have allowed this vote on Jane Kelly from Iowa, if it proves an exception rather than a change in their tactics of obstruction, we will recognize it for what it is,” Leahy said, suggesting that Grassley may have had other reasons for supporting Kelly getting a vote, and that he may have skipped over other nominees that have been waiting since last year.

“It should not take being from the ranking Republican’s home state to be promptly confirmed as a noncontroversial judicial nominee,” Leahy said.

*******

Readers: The “party of obstruction” continues to obstruct by refusing to work with the White House, and instead just ignores what needs to be done, which is to nominate candidates to fill these seats. And yet typical republicans, complain about the number of judicial vacancies when they are the ones responsible because they aren’t nominating anyone to fill these seats. Maddening.

Steve: I realize your comment was directed toward Robert, RT, but I love the fact that you broached the topic of the meaning of the “We” in the U.S. Constitution to your Dean. I thought that was a great idea. And interesting that the Dean, admitted that even if it were true, many would   feel offended. We all know who that “many” would be.

I love how Robert, once again, makes it so simple to understand, by just talking logic. I am looking forward to hearing more from him, as well as hearing how your research is going, and at at some point if you’ll dare to have that discourse. Please keep us posted.

Anna of Guam:  I HOPE it is not true either. I only found a write that they are investigating it but so far nothing that I know of has been substantiated. Do you have any new news? Just the thought of if makes me sick. Who would want to kill such beautiful mammals? Hafa Adai.

Anonymous: I’ve been using the word “sick” so much lately, but what else can I use to describe this?

Anonymous: And that is what happens when you live in a state that doesn’t support gays and gay marriage. Even if they family, including the children are perfectly happy, they will break them apart. Time to leave the state.

Lana: The link didn’t work but I agree with you, put ‘ol Pat Robertson out to pasture.

Condi: Is it no surprise that he is an LSOS?  So many men who talk and preach like he does are hiding something. I think he belongs in the LSOS Club don’t you? I think I’m going to add him. I am sure at some point more lies will be revealed – it happens often with men like him.

Alycedale: True and well stated.

Joyce: That comment just says it all.

Peace & Love…

Lastly, greed over a great story is surfacing from my “loyal”(?) readers. With all this back and forth about who owns what, that appears on my blog, let me reiterate that all material posted on my blog becomes the sole property of my blog. If you want to reserve any proprietary rights don’t post it to my blog. I will prominently display this caveat on my blog from now on to remind those who may have forgotten this notice.

Gratefully your blog host,

michelle

Aka BABE: We all know what this means by now :)

If you love my blog and my writes, please make a donation via PayPal, credit card, or e-check, please click the “Donate” button below. (Please only donations from those readers within the United States. – International readers please see my “Donate” page)

Or if you would like to send a check via snail mail, please make checks payable to “Michelle Moquin”, and send to:

Michelle Moquin PO Box 29235 San Francisco, Ca. 94129

Thank you for your loyal support!

All content on this site are property of Michelle Moquin © copyright 2008-2012

“Though she be but little, she be fierce.” – William Shakespeare Midsummer Night’s Dream 

" Politics, god, Life, News, Music, Family, Personal, Travel, Random, Photography, Religion, Aliens, Art, Entertainment, Food, Books, Thoughts, Media, Culture, Love, Sex, Poetry, Prose, Friends, Technology, Humor, Health, Writing, Events, Movies, Sports, Video, Christianity, Atheist, Blogging, History, Work, Education, Business, Fashion, Barack Obama, People, Internet, Relationships, Faith, Photos, Videos, Hillary Clinton, School, Reviews, God, TV, Philosophy, Fun, Science, Environment, Design, The Page, Rants, Pictures, Church, Blog, Nature, Marketing, Television, Democrats, Parenting, Miscellaneous, Current Events, Film, Spirituality, Obama, Musings, Home, Human Rights, Society, Comedy, Me, Random Thoughts, Research, Government, Election 2008, Baseball, Opinion, Recipes, Children, Iraq, Funny, Women, Economics, America, Misc, Commentary, John McCain, Reflections, All, Celebrities, Inspiration, Lifestyle, Theology, Linux, Kids, Games, World, India, Literature, China, Ramblings, Fitness, Money, Review, War, Articles, Economy, Journal, Quotes, NBA, Crime, Anime, Islam, 2008, Stories, Prayer, Diary, Jesus, Buddha, Muslim, Israel, Europe, Links, Marriage, Fiction, American Idol, Software, Leadership, Pop culture, Rants, Video Games, Republicans, Updates, Political, Football, Healing, Blogs, Shopping, USA, Class, Matrix, Course, Work, Web 2.0, My Life, Psychology, Gay, Happiness, Advertising, Field Hockey, Hip-hop, sex, fucking, ass, Soccer, sox"