Claudia Rosett tackles the wisdom of malia's spring break excursion to Mexico, explaining that, even though it is good to be king, a bit of noblesse oblige might be appropriate.
Twenty-five Secret Service agents are making the trip, which seems like a lot, and they are may be augmented by local police (if anyone trusts them).
Still, stories like this, torn from yesterday's headlines, give pause:
Investigating Beheadings, 12 Officers Slain in Mexico
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
ACAPULCO, Mexico (AP) — Gunmen ambushed and killed 12 police officers who had been sent to investigate the beheadings of 10 people in the southern state of Guerrero, Mexican authorities said Monday.
Six state and six local officers were killed and 11 officers were wounded Sunday night on a road leading out of the town of Teloloapan, between Acapulco and Mexico City, said Arturo Martínez, a Guerrero State police spokesman.
The officers were traveling in six patrol pickups and searching for the bodies of seven men and three women whose heads had been dumped outside the town’s slaughterhouse earlier Sunday, Mr. Martínez said.
Twenty three cops killed or wounded - that sounds like a small infantry engagement.
Obviously the Secret Service is better trained and better equipped, and they won't be wandering the sides of roads looking for clues. And Oaxaca, where the vacationing party is frolicking, is not subject to the recent State Department travel advisory and is several hundred miles from this battle. Still, the bad guys seem capable of delivering astonishing amounts of force. But so does Michelle, so what choice did Barack have?
ERRATA: The State Dept did identify the area between Acapulco and Mexico City, where this incident ocurred, as problematic:
You should also exercise caution and travel only during daylight hours on highway 95D (cuota/toll road) between Mexico City and Acapulco and highway 200 between Acapulco and Zihuatanejo/Ixtapa. In Acapulco, defer non-essential travel to areas further than 2 blocks inland of the Costera Miguel Aleman Boulevard, which parallels the popular beach areas.
Oh yeah? Well Barak Hussein Obama sewed up the deaf vote when he "wowed" em yesterday with his vast sign language repetoire.
Posted by: donald | March 21, 2012 at 09:30 AM
Posted by: Dave (in MA) | March 21, 2012 at 09:49 AM
Les temps arrivent for research into Incan, Mayan, and Aztec ritual.
================================
Posted by: Folle Michelle. | March 21, 2012 at 09:50 AM
The airbrushing of the coverage was a mistake. On the vacation -- no matter where Obama's kids go, there is going to be a lot of Secret Service which costs a lot of money.
It's prtetty clear the Obama's kids are going to get gentler coverage than the Palins kids, or the Bush kids. (Though, if Obama's kids ever try to pass off a fake ID while he's still in office, it will be a story.) I think its better to make this the new normal applicaple to the GOP presidents, rather than be jealous about it.
Posted by: Appalled | March 21, 2012 at 09:51 AM
TomM-- I guess I'm in a very small minority. I see no justification for blogging/commenting about where a 13yo rich girl is traveling will schoolmates. I know that jackass Obama drags his girls into political discussions-- why should anyone emulate that jackass?
Posted by: NK | March 21, 2012 at 09:52 AM
Foolish move to send them there, then again France isn't a particularly safer destination;
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/france/9157126/Toulouse-siege-live.html
Posted by: narciso | March 21, 2012 at 09:59 AM
Posted by: Dave (in MA) | March 21, 2012 at 10:00 AM
I think there are two questionable decisions here.
First, what reason do the news orgs that did publish the story give for considering it newsworthy/not off limits in the first place?
Second, why would the WH not have briefed reporters/emphasized request for security reasons in advance of the trip? By flexing muscle to get stories pulled down after the fact, it not only looks like bullying and untoward pressure on a free press, it looks like really bad management and planning. Again.
Posted by: AliceH | March 21, 2012 at 10:04 AM
AliceH-- simple explanation for your 2 questionable decision observations. 'Bam is a petulant Jackass and his wife is a arrogant prat.
Narc/Dave-- France-- if I hear anything today about Islam being a 'religion of peace' I'll vommit.
Posted by: NK | March 21, 2012 at 10:09 AM
Well this is the same press that gave away Prince William's location in Helmand province,
Posted by: narciso | March 21, 2012 at 10:12 AM
NK - not disputing that characterisation, but it fails as an answer to either of my questions.
Posted by: AliceH | March 21, 2012 at 10:17 AM
NK, if you're in a small minority, it numbers at least two. If you gave me two weeks, I might be able to think of a current event of lesser interest to me than where Malia Obama is traipsing with her tweenybopper friends.
Posted by: Thomas Collins | March 21, 2012 at 10:20 AM
AliceH, I don't think news organizations feel the need to justify celebrity-type coverage of family members of world leaders. If it helps sell papers or pixel subscriptions, I would think that's enough justification in their mind.
As far as pre-trip exhortations re security, I suspect stories re those exhortations would have leaked anyway, and perhaps drawn more interest to the trip.
In any event, I enjoy a certain amount of celebrity gossip talk. I just prefer it be about celebrities whose job includes generating gossip talk (LiLo, Charlie Sheen and the like).
Posted by: Thomas Collins | March 21, 2012 at 10:26 AM
I disagree. That they will spend a gazillion of our dollars sending their kid on a vacation to a location taxpayers could not afford and would not risk for their own daughters of that age given the dangers fits right into the sense of entitlement that they have always shown on their personal vacations. Michelle is bad enough, but now the kids are doing it too?
Posted by: Old Lurker | March 21, 2012 at 10:28 AM
From Narc's 9:59, the Toulouse victims:
Posted by: jimmyk | March 21, 2012 at 10:29 AM
The point is not the press coverage of the kid's spring break trip, it's the airbrushing of the coverage that was already out there. Last night there was a report of the airbrushing of a story about the airbrushing. I can't find it anymore. Maybe it's been airbrushed. This post will self-destruct in 5 seconds.
Posted by: Dave (in MA) | March 21, 2012 at 10:34 AM
I guess I am not being clear (I ought to be used to that by now!). I can speculate with the best of them. I come up with no shortage of likely answers or reasons or excuses or justifications. That's not my purpose in posing the two questions.
My purpose is that it is these two decisions that are the story -- not whether or not Malia should be in Mexico, not whether the publishers should have memory-holed the stories after the fact, not whether 25 Secret Service agents is reasonable or ridiculous.
I think children of Presidents should be off limits. I think children of Presidents should have all the security we can throw at them. I think children of Presidents should have as much a chance of a 'normal' life outside the DC bubble as can be arranged.
I think the news orgs that published the story should explain why they published the story. I think these same news orgs should be asking the Press Secretary why the request for keeping the story out of the news was an after thought.
I don't think this will happen. It just should.
Posted by: AliceH | March 21, 2012 at 10:36 AM
We are told Mexico is too dangerous...but libs go with extra tax payer funded protection.
We are told to be our brothers keeper...but libs have tax payers pay for Obama's Aunt Zeituni.
We are told to lower our CO2 output...but lib politicians & eco bigwigs fly & travel in style, owning boats, limos, planes,...
We are called racists while we work, live, go to school, & worship with all races....& lib politicians live in gated communities & send their kids to private schools.
Posted by: Janet | March 21, 2012 at 10:38 AM
Bingo, Janet. This isn't about criticizing a minor child of the President. I would say it is a criticism of the parents and their decisions in allowing said minor child to travel to a dangerous area. And, criticism of a school administration that would plan and allow such a trip. If the Presidential daughter were not on this trip, there would be no beefed up security, just chaperones?
The adults in charge are the targets of the criticism, not the kids.
Posted by: centralcal | March 21, 2012 at 10:44 AM
I wonder if any parents kept their girls home because Malia's presence made the group more vulnerable.
Posted by: caro | March 21, 2012 at 10:45 AM
If they're going to be off limits then they shouldn't be hauled into photo ops whenever the President's poll numbers are tanking.
The costliness of this trip and the risking of the lives of 25 secret service agents make it newsworthy as does the arrogance of the gesture and the demand for scrubbing the news of the trip AND the scrubbing of the scrubbing.
AliceH is also right about the amateur hour handling of this.
Posted by: Clarice | March 21, 2012 at 10:46 AM
If they're going to be off limits then they shouldn't be hauled into photo ops whenever the President's poll numbers are tanking.
I would hope we're not using the President's example as our guide on what is appropriate in our own behavior.
Posted by: AliceH | March 21, 2012 at 10:50 AM
It maybe the UN, with their inimical timing, helped provoke the Merah massacre, no I won't link the inflammatory tweet,
Posted by: narciso | March 21, 2012 at 10:50 AM
This isn't about criticizing a minor child of the President.
Bet the minor child does not feel the same way.
I would say it is a criticism of the parents and their decisions in allowing said minor child to travel to a dangerous area.
I think Oaxaca is relatively safe these days, though there was a big revolt there a few years ago. The problems in Mexico tend to be regional. (North Mexico, and, lately, Acapulco.) The 25 secret service seems a lot -- but is it atypical for a trip with a member of the first family.
Posted by: Appalled | March 21, 2012 at 10:52 AM
I don't think Oaxaca is particularly dangerous (earthquakes aside). The drug violence in Mexico is in specific regions. If this sort of trip is typical for the school, I don't see why the kids shouldn't go, but I also can't see why 25 agents would be necessary. If they really are necessary (as opposed to the more likely scenario that they aren't, but this administration is frivolous about spending resources on itself), then that would be reason for the kids not to go, out of consideration for the other families, the cost to the taxpayers, and the apparent danger.
But it's also fair to point out once again how Obama eliminated funding for DC's voucher program, condemning poor kids to lousy schools, while sending his to an elite private school that goes on trips like this.
Posted by: jimmyk | March 21, 2012 at 10:57 AM
Of course, the excuses rain down the morning after;
http://www.vancouversun.com/news/Mohamed+Merah+road+radicalization/6335837/story.html
Posted by: narciso | March 21, 2012 at 10:59 AM
Yesterday, they had a 6.4 quake 100 miles East of Acapulco.
Next year .. Jerusalem
Posted by: Neo | March 21, 2012 at 11:05 AM
If they want their children to experience a normal life, resign. Go home to Chicago and teach them southside Chicago values. And I won't care whether or not they go to Mexico with 25 SS agents. Deal?
Posted by: Sue | March 21, 2012 at 11:11 AM
I can only imagine what the uproar would be if Sarah Palin was in Obama's place and had sent one of her children to Mexico. If you think it is a bad idea for the party you don't like to do something, it is a bad idea for your own to do it. The left would eat Palin alive had she done even a third of what Obama has done.
Posted by: Sue | March 21, 2012 at 11:13 AM
Unexpected:
Posted by: Danube of Thought | March 21, 2012 at 11:14 AM
This flier came in from the DNC yesterday ...
Posted by: Neo | March 21, 2012 at 11:17 AM
This flier came in from the DNC yesterday ...
Posted by: Neo | March 21, 2012 at 11:18 AM
If a politician sends his own children to costly and well regarded private schools and yet publicly condemns and resists vouchers for poor children locked in rotting urban schools, surely people are allowed to comment on his hypocrisy. I have seen it occur here time after time without criticism about Barry and many other hypocritical pols.
So why all of a sudden is it off limits to discuss the hypocrisy of a guy sending his twerps off on another expensive foreign vacation while calling for the rest of his 1% pals to sacrifice for the good of the country?
How many condoms could have been purchased to further Sandra Flukes extra curricular studies with that money?
How many food stamps could have been purchased for lottery winners with it.
Posted by: Ignatz | March 21, 2012 at 11:19 AM
Did he "scratch his nose" with his middle digit again?
That's the only time I've ever believed he meant what he was communicating.
Posted by: Captain Hate | March 21, 2012 at 11:22 AM
If they want their children to experience a normal life, resign. Go home to Chicago and teach them southside Chicago values. And I won't care whether or not they go to Mexico with 25 SS agents. Deal?
We've already created a job in the Presidency that a normal person would not want. The only guy in my voting lifetime who handled the job entirely successfully was an actor, used to the stupidities of personality driven journalism with fully grown kids. I don't think we do the country a service by acting in ways that makes it impossible for an average everyday person with an interest in public affairs to consider the Presidency, if he cares anything about the well being of his family.
Posted by: Appalled | March 21, 2012 at 11:27 AM
This is about double standards, not the kids.
The Big O should not invoke his kids in speeches for purely rhetorical appeal and then expect them to be off limits for comment.
The sheer libtard viciousness shown the Palins was beyond the pale.
And as far as ex post facto silencing? Please. You cannot put toothpaste back in the tube.
Posted by: sbw | March 21, 2012 at 11:28 AM
jimmyk,
You forgot the 3 paratroopers.
The shock this morning to wake up and hear that the perp is a jihadi with ties to AQ. My surprise meter pegged out.
OT: Regarding Trayvon Martin and George Zimmerman. The left is now going after Fox for their reporting or lack of it initially. Also, having Sharpton and the NBP Shabazz come down could pollute the Grand Jury deliberations. It now appears that Zimmerman will most likely get indicted for 2nd Degree Murder. They are going to introduce testimony that he "pursued" instead of "standing his ground". This disqualifies his Stand Ground defense for the shooting. Police incompetence is also going to be on trial here.
Locals who follow this stuff diligently believe justice will be served but if the lefty activists interfere before the GJ hears the case (April 10th I believe) it could result in a lesser indictment like involuntary manslaughter.
Whatver happens the left will not be satisfied until there is a change to the law and more gun control. Also, lots of discussion on the liability of the home owners association and whether they didn't vet Zimmerman properly for his role. Evidently, he has a rap sheet but no convictions.
This has a long way to go and won't be pretty.
Posted by: Jack is Back! | March 21, 2012 at 11:32 AM
I wonder how she copes with the differences in pronunciation between Mirabella and Oaxaca. I sure hope the accommodations are in accordance with the levels which she has become accustomed to experiencing. Can you imagine the trauma occasioned if she was forced to endure a three star rather than a five star hotel?
Posted by: Rick Ballard | March 21, 2012 at 11:33 AM
I think children of Presidents should have all the security we can throw at them.
That's where we disagree. I think children of Presidents should not be subjected to risk of injury or death for no good reason, and neither should their security detail.
Posted by: bgates | March 21, 2012 at 11:33 AM
Appalled,
And Palin's kids could go too? Sweet merciful heavens, the left flipped out because Palin took the youngest daughter with her on trips she herself had to go on. I can only imagine if she had sent one of them without her and it cost taxpayers something.
Posted by: Sue | March 21, 2012 at 11:35 AM
A two term governor of one of the largest states in the union,, who had been a labor
leader, who hadn't been in the movies in nearly 20 years, you forgot all that predicate.
Posted by: narciso | March 21, 2012 at 11:36 AM
If the earthquake had more impact in Oaxaca or if there had been any sort of security incident, would news of the trip still be down the memory hole? If the President's child is out of the country,with 25 Secret Service agents,its not quite the same as spending Saturday afternoon at the shopping mall.
Posted by: marlene | March 21, 2012 at 11:36 AM
I agree with sbw.
Posted by: Porchlight | March 21, 2012 at 11:37 AM
I'm not going to begrudge the president's child a trip to Mexico. I would have loved the opportunity at that age.
That 25 SS agents are involved is SOP wherever she would be outside the bubble. That is three shifts of 8 plus a supervisor because coverage is 24/7.It's reasonable, especially in Oaxaca, which by the way also has drug war issues. I'm sure there are hundreds of Federales involved as well.
The PR game will always be rigged against the Republicans because that's the way it is.
Better to ambush the Left on matters of substance and their own hypocrisy. That is a wide open playing field because every day the stink rises higher.
Obama sold a lot of books and is a millionaire and can afford it. Leave the kid alone.
That the books were mythical and that the man can't seem to tell the truth in the face of the facts should be easy enough targets. His record speaks for itself and a smart campaign will frame it that way.
Calling names plays to his strengths; perceived victimization, class warfare, and racial divides.
We can judge him as a bum and a phony not because of the color of his skin but because of the content of his character.
Posted by: matt | March 21, 2012 at 11:37 AM
Bet the minor child does not feel the same way.
Bet the minor child objects to virtually all criticism leveled at her father. What do we do about that?
Posted by: bgates | March 21, 2012 at 11:39 AM
Oh without a doubt, JiB, now Zimmerman is not the smartest tool in the shed, but I think the debate is now about the size of the noose
he will be fitted for,
Posted by: narciso | March 21, 2012 at 11:40 AM
Completely O/T, but some interesting media news, when you realize they have a 9 month old baby (their first and only):
Posted by: centralcal | March 21, 2012 at 11:41 AM
It's like no one here remembers what it's like being 13 years old. Well, except those who rationalize that THEY do it to us, so they deserve it or something.
Posted by: AliceH | March 21, 2012 at 11:43 AM
JiB: No pix of the paratroopers, but they shouldn't be forgotten either. Interesting that they were of N. African descent, presumably Muslim. I guess they must have been traitors?
Posted by: jimmyk | March 21, 2012 at 11:43 AM
Matt, 8 at a time seems pretty thin to me. I'm actually surprised the Prez's family would travel with such a thin detail.
Posted by: Thomas Collins | March 21, 2012 at 11:43 AM
Isn't she charming?
Posted by: Porchlight | March 21, 2012 at 11:44 AM
Sue:
Palin and her kids were treated disgustingly, and still are. I have no problem pointing out that double standard. Does that mean that Obama's kids must, by necessity, get the same rotten treatment?
Posted by: Appalled | March 21, 2012 at 11:46 AM
where's La Raza.?A conflict between two victims' rights groups is just what the president needs in Fla.
Posted by: Clarice | March 21, 2012 at 11:46 AM
Oh yes, charm incarnate, Porch. /snark
Posted by: centralcal | March 21, 2012 at 11:46 AM
What exactly is the "rotten treatment," Apalled?
Questioning the good judgment of her parents is rotten treatment of her?
Posted by: centralcal | March 21, 2012 at 11:48 AM
It's teh economy, stupid.
Fluke's rubbers and Malia's Mexico are distractions, like the birth certificate. The muddle say, "Show me the money."
Posted by: Jim Ryan | March 21, 2012 at 11:49 AM
he doesn't set a very good example by disregarding the travel advisories of his own state dept.
Posted by: Chubby | March 21, 2012 at 11:49 AM
We are talking about a president and first lady that want the government to involve itself with every aspect of raising our children/grandchildren. But then forbid we express an opinion when they allow their own child to do something that actually costs us money.
Posted by: Sue | March 21, 2012 at 11:50 AM
Does that mean that Obama's kids must, by necessity, get the same rotten treatment?
Strawman argument. They are not getting rotten treatment.
Posted by: Sue | March 21, 2012 at 11:52 AM
It's teh economy, stupid.
It's that and a lot of other things. Many voters are in just about the same financial shape as they were in 2008. That hasn't stopped them from deciding they don't want this guy in the WH anymore. The fact that he is a prime jerk when not a prime doofus, with a doofusy jerk as a VP, and a snarly, decidedly uncharming wife, can't be underestimated as a cause for the electorate's disgust.
Drip, drip, drip, drip.
Posted by: Porchlight | March 21, 2012 at 11:52 AM
Which is not to say that I want GOP candidates out on the trail talking about what a jerk he is or about his kids. Just that it is something people do pay attention to.
Posted by: Porchlight | March 21, 2012 at 11:53 AM
Clarice,
No one knows he is anything but a white man.
Posted by: Sue | March 21, 2012 at 11:54 AM
--Sue:
Palin and her kids were treated disgustingly, and still are. I have no problem pointing out that double standard. Does that mean that Obama's kids must, by necessity, get the same rotten treatment?--
Could someone please point me to jokes about who Barry's kids are having sex with or any criticism of Barry's kids in any way?
How can people leave kids alone who no one is criticizing?
Posted by: Ignatz | March 21, 2012 at 11:54 AM
Meanwhile consideration is given to traitors and spies,
http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/03/20/2703589/despite-us-concerns-judge-allows.html
Posted by: narciso | March 21, 2012 at 11:55 AM
It's reasonable, especially in Oaxaca, which by the way also has drug war issues.
It's the predicate that's bothering me, Matt. You're trying to explain the reasonable course of action, given that the President has chosen to send his minor child into a foreign country which is descending into drug-fueled anarchy.
Posted by: bgates | March 21, 2012 at 11:59 AM
"Clarice,
No one knows he is anything but a white man."
I blame narciso for that.
Posted by: Clarice | March 21, 2012 at 12:01 PM
Many voters are in just about the same financial shape as they were in 2008.
Lucky bastards.
Posted by: bgates | March 21, 2012 at 12:04 PM
Thanks a lot, Clarice, lol.
Posted by: narciso | March 21, 2012 at 12:05 PM
Strawman argument. They are not getting rotten treatment.
Other than Worf calling them fat.
Posted by: Captain Hate | March 21, 2012 at 12:09 PM
Capt'n,
Yeah, other than their parents telling us they are fat and their grades at school.
Posted by: Sue | March 21, 2012 at 12:11 PM
DoT, I meant to ask you this last night: Have you ever argued a case in front of the Supreme Court? I'm only asking out of curiosity (and apology if it's a dumb question) because I very much respect the way you describe and explain the legal process.
Posted by: Captain Hate | March 21, 2012 at 12:19 PM
Palin and her kids were treated disgustingly, and still are. I have no problem pointing out that double standard. Does that mean that Obama's kids must, by necessity, get the same rotten treatment?
Since Obama himself could have nipped the Palin hate in the bud or put a stop to it at any time, I'd say yeah. He and his family should pay a steep price for that. Too bad they won't.
Posted by: Extraneus | March 21, 2012 at 12:23 PM
Ex,
I don't think JEF can even do that simple task of calling off the dogs of juvinile derogation. His moral authority only extends to David Cameron, no one else.
OT: Keith Hennessey's analysis of Obama and Ryan's plans as the effect the deficit and debt.
My only problem is that he should have used black as a color for Ryan's trajectory and red for Obamas because that is what they represent fiscally.
One of these days some enterprising film maker is going to make a horror movie starring only Obama's economic plan graphs.
Posted by: Jack is Back! | March 21, 2012 at 12:32 PM
From an email sent to me today:
After reading the headlines today about the US soldier who shot up Afghanistan civilians, I couldn’t help noticing an irony. There is all this clamor to try this guy quickly and execute him, never mind his having suffered a traumatic brain injury. Yet this Army Major Hasan, who shot up Fort Hood while screaming Allah akbar, still hasn’t stood trial, and they are still debating whether he was insane, even with the clear evidence regarding his motive: slay as many infidels as possible. So we have a guy in a war zone who cracks, and he must be executed immediately. But this Muslim psychiatrist who was stateside in a nice safe office all day murders 13, wounds 29 of our own guys, and they try to argue the poor lad suffered post-traumatic stress syndrome, from listening to real soldiers who had actual battle experience. Two and a half years later, they still haven’t tried the terrorist.
Posted by: Jack is Back! | March 21, 2012 at 12:35 PM
OT (thank God)-- US Supreme Court slaps down EPA perversion of the "final agency rule' by refusing to give judicial review rights to property owners under Clean Water Act. I think this Court is really fed up with Fed Power overreach - possible good omen for Obamacare: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304636404577295400361104374.html
Posted by: NK | March 21, 2012 at 12:38 PM
Good grief.
Nobody is attacking the kid. We are questioning the insensitivity, wastefulness and sense of entitlement of the parents. How is that not fair game?
Posted by: Old Lurker | March 21, 2012 at 12:38 PM
CaptH-- you must be so proud of your fellow Marylander Steny Hoyer. PS-- all JOMers can be reassured. Hoyer and Md Dems say Romney is an EXTREME RIGHTWINGER!!!!http://campaign2012.washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/md-democrat-calls-romney-most-extreme-candidate/439036
Posted by: NK | March 21, 2012 at 12:41 PM
Exactly, Old Lurker! Well, stated.
Posted by: centralcal | March 21, 2012 at 12:42 PM
Reposting from the previous thread because I think it is important this message gets out.
Illinois:
2008 Republican primary turnout: 895,247
2012 Republican primary turnout: 921,765
The "low turnout" meme is because the Dems didn't turn out (no presidential primary) and that depressed the total.
Whether you like Romney or not I think this should be publicized to keep the MSM from using the meme to depress the Republican voters.
Posted by: bio mom | March 21, 2012 at 12:46 PM
JiB;
Magically, Ryan's plan triggers a massive reduction in the debt without Hennessy even mentioning Medicare and SS.
I used to fight with the Beancounters in my Co who would kill every promo, merchandising program, and rebate designed to increase Market Share, but, alas, with an initial cost, if they could do so.
IOW, they only looked at the cost, and not the benefits, in their lop-sided, narrow-minded ledgerbrains.
Get serious, guys.
Posted by: Ben Franklin | March 21, 2012 at 12:49 PM
Thanks, bio mom. I was wondering about that but was too busy/lazy to look it up.
Posted by: Extraneus | March 21, 2012 at 12:50 PM
That's my thinking, too, NK.
Posted by: Clarice | March 21, 2012 at 12:52 PM
I can't wait to know Malia is home safe. We just do not need this kind of diversion from the state of our economy.
Posted by: caro | March 21, 2012 at 12:55 PM
BenF-- Ryan's budget does not reform SS and it never balances the Federal Budget-- so it doesn't do enough. BUT... Ryan's Budget PLUS 70 YO SS retirement age and SS means testing (SORRY TOM M no SS for you!!) will balance the Budget. "Get Serious" -- let the 'Effin Dem Senate pass a budget then we can START to talking about getting SERIOUS. As for 'Bam his Budget proposes to add $6TRILLION MORE debt, or 2 orders of magnitude MORE DEBT than Senator Obama called IMMORAL in 2006. The man disgusts me.. but unlike the pussie Dem Senate , at least he put a budget together.
Posted by: NK | March 21, 2012 at 12:58 PM
Thanks very much for that, CH. No, I never argued before the Supreme Court, and in fact did very little appellate work.
The invaluable Noemie Emery is spot on concerning the GOP field: they're all from the pre-2010 era, and it shows.
Posted by: Danube of Thought | March 21, 2012 at 12:58 PM
Clarice-- FYI, my friend of 32 years is now turning the IRS into a tax Gestapo referring tax compliance matters to local law enforcement. He's a lifetime Dem of course:http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/03/20/us-usa-tax-idtheft-idUSBRE82J1AU20120320
Posted by: NK | March 21, 2012 at 01:02 PM
Gus, I'm doubly cursed with Steny because he's a Terp also::groan::. What can I say; I left a very blue state and sent them Art Modell. I think Ohio got the better end of that deal.
Posted by: Captain Hate | March 21, 2012 at 01:06 PM
Emery is so right, DoT.
Posted by: centralcal | March 21, 2012 at 01:06 PM
You didn't ask me, CH but I wrote much of the brief and sat at counsel's table for a case before SCOTUS on one occasion. Senior counsel in the matter, Joseph Rauh, argued the case. It was a remarkable experience.
Posted by: Clarice | March 21, 2012 at 01:07 PM
Wow! We have to pay for 25 Secret Service agents and who knows how many Mexican police to guard 13 year old Malia against the 2000 or so guns that Holder and PaPa "O" let run to Mexico in "Fast and Furious"? Oh, I forgot, they have good intentions so never mind the comments.
Posted by: Bert | March 21, 2012 at 01:09 PM
Thanks C; didn't mean to leave you out of the discussion because you do much of the same that I attributed to DoT but he's done a lot of explaining in the last couple days (other than dealing with the lamented carcass of TK's horse) which is why I addressed him. How long ago and any personal anecdotes worth sharing without compromising anybody?
Posted by: Captain Hate | March 21, 2012 at 01:13 PM
Interesting dilemma if we get a pre-2010 POTUS and a post-2010 Congress even of the same party. Will be very interesting to see that dynamic working in government
Apple is going through a new organizational, marketing and technology dynamic now also. Phasing out OS X for iOS - putting full throttle emphasis on tablet versus the computer assembly (ie.laptops). They don't even show their software SVP and the OS X SVP on their leadership roster any longer.
Change. And if you don't you will get buried. Good lesson for the republicans and bureaucrats to learn.
Posted by: Jack is Back! | March 21, 2012 at 01:17 PM
I think children of Presidents should be off limits.
Me too, but I don't think the use of 25 secret service agents at my expense should be.
And hell, let's not forget she just got back from Aspen, and Hawaii and Martha's Vineyard, and Spain and Africa....
It's obscene.
Posted by: Jane | March 21, 2012 at 01:19 PM
Tammy Bruce is apoplectic (one f-bomb and counting) about the Repub's insistence on squandering the women's issues that the donks have handed them by acting like wymenz need legislation to do anything.
Posted by: Captain Hate | March 21, 2012 at 01:23 PM
Way off topic but considering all the recipe stuff and TM's Taubes obsession here goes;
What's the best way to gain weight?
I'm 6'3"+ and weigh 215 but I've got long arms and legs and a big frame and can easily carry another 10-15 pounds.
I'm starting a new exercise regimen and need more calories.
Is it better to nibble between meals or just eat more when I do have my three square?
Posted by: Ignatz | March 21, 2012 at 01:24 PM
about 35 years ago. I remember having to get sworn in ahead of time; the furnishings are very old and well preserved, there are fresh cut quills and inkpots at counsel's station and Justice Douglas was clearly going o vote for us because he kept winking at us through the argument whenever we scored a point against the govt or the govt argument seemed inadequate.
No offense taken.
I love appellate work. You needn't know anything about the law ahead of time and generally have plenty of time to learn whatever is relevant to your case (unlike trial counsel who really have to be on their toes at all times you only have to be on during oral argument). You cannot lie about or distort the record of the case, but I loved going through thousands of pages of trial transcripts and weaving a compelling story for my client out of what often seemed an incoherent jumble.
That sort of practice suits my disposition. Nowadays I suppose you can find a private practice big enough to support counsel who does only appellate work. At the time I knew of none.
Posted by: Clarice | March 21, 2012 at 01:26 PM
Ig-- how old are you? why add body mass? eat healthy like anyone else; high protein, moderate fat, no simple carbs or sugars, plenty of fiber. If you lift hard enough you'll gain some muscle mass. Why do anything else?
Posted by: NK | March 21, 2012 at 01:28 PM
Hoo Boy, NK!
I look forward to when Mitt is asked why he's hatin' on the Seniors.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/romney-ryan_634294.html
Posted by: Ben Franklin | March 21, 2012 at 01:29 PM
PS: Ig --eating something every 2 hours is always better that 2-3 large meals/day.
Posted by: NK | March 21, 2012 at 01:30 PM
Ig, just because of my deep love for you, I'll give you 15.
Posted by: Clarice | March 21, 2012 at 01:31 PM