The Watering Hole: September 30, 2011 — More pictures!

The ocean produced some gorgeous crashing waves yesterday, and we were blessed with a crystal clear day.  This is part of Boiler Bay…

The waves were beating the rocks into submission…

And this is why it’s called Boiler Bay…

Just look at that swirling action…the blue of the sky and ocean…awesome.

Photos by Zooey

This is our daily open thread — and in case you didn’t know – it’s Friday!!!!

131 thoughts on “The Watering Hole: September 30, 2011 — More pictures!

  1. Sea Fever by John Masefield

    I must go down to the seas again, to the lonely sea and the sky,
    And all I ask is a tall ship and a star to steer her by,
    And the wheel’s kick and the wind’s song and the white sail’s shaking,
    And a grey mist on the sea’s face, and a grey dawn breaking.

    I must go down to the seas again, for the call of the running tide
    Is a wild call and a clear call that may not be denied;
    And all I ask is a windy day with the white clouds flying,
    And the flung spray and the blown spume, and the sea-gulls crying.

    I must go down to the seas again, to the vagrant gypsy life,
    To the gull’s way and the whale’s way, where the wind’s like a whetted knife;
    And all I ask is a merry yarn from a laughing fellow-rover,
    And quiet sleep and a sweet dream when the long trick’s over.

    • That was very interesting pete. I found it telling that the pastor who thinks he knows the difference between the wicked and the righteous equates the ban on political speech with loss of his freedom to teach as he feels called to do. Surrender his organization’s tax exemption and he can freely endorse whomever he pleases from the pulpit. I guess his calling isn’t worth a few dollars.
      Most churches do preach on issues, but stop short of telling folks how to vote. For example, our sermon last Sunday dealt with our calling to help our fellow man without judging whether or not he is somehow worthy of that help. No political speech, but it’s pretty clear to me how that teaching should influence my own political activity.

      • “I guess his calling isn’t worth a few dollars.” – the Crusader Pastor has established that he is a whore, we’re just negotiating the price now.

    • Fascinating interview. Naked Christian Dominionism right there. Saw how the Dominionist went with the ‘you’d appease Hitler’ gambit….. what an lack of self-awareness and projection. The other guy held his temper after that for a while and then couldn’t take any more after a couple of other ad hominems from his Crusader ‘colleague’.

      I agree with Out…. tax the lot of them.

  2. Soo…. is anyone else concerned that the US just offed one (or more) of it’s own citizens, no arrest, no charges, no ‘trial by peers’…… talk about not even letting Habeas Corpus becoming an issue!

    I know that we’re somewhat in an abstract legal sense here …. but still, the line was crossed and I wonder if anyone has noticed.

    • I’m more concerned that, at least as far as I know, we offed the guy not for actions, not for facilitating an act of terrorism, but simply for his words.

      • “Do you spare a thought for Jesus,
        Who had nothing but his thoughts,
        Who got busted, just for talking,
        And befriending the wrong sorts?”

        – Alan Hull

    • This is what happens when we declare war on things and ideas instead of countries. Frankly the action should be classified as a war crime. Using military assets to attack people in foreign countries that we are not in a state of declared war with. Not really much different from the CIA sending in an assassin.

      And I really don’t think that just because the Yemen government said it was ok works as a reason to make it acceptable.

    • Good riddance to this traitor. When he set up shop in Yemen and started recruiting people to kill Americans he gave up his rights as far as I’m concerned. I don’t feel for his loss of life just like I don’t feel for Bin Lauden’s loss of life.

  3. I’ve got a Downy Woodpecker that keeps pecking on my facia boards on my house. Klaus can’t relax with that noise going on, he just runs from room to room trying to find him.

  4. Holy Crap! Those Raptards are at it again. They heard about the teabagger getting hauled out of Obama’s speech for screaming at him. Of course, the Raptards can’t pass up an opportunity to feel persecuted. I think this one is my favorite.

    If I was a betting man I’d say he was an Obama plant in the crowd–used to stir the pot against the Tea Party and conservative Christians.

    • Fist of all, and I am sorry of anyone is offended by this, but it’s IMHO, the people postingon that website are delusional. And prejudiced, too, to just say, without proof or example, that Obama “is bad fruit.”

      Second, do we have confirmation that the heckler was, in fact, a “Teabagger”? Or is that just an assumption? If he identifed himself as such, that’s good enough for me.

      Lastly, and, again, I’m sorry if anyone finds this offensive, but I’m as confused about this as Al Franken said he was: How can Jesus be both God and the Son of God? It just seems so full of contradictions when i try to sort it out. I get the Son of God part, Immaculate Conception and all that. But how could he also be God?

      • Council of Nicea my friend, the Holy Spook came down and rested on the hearts of those holy and spritiual first bishops of the Christian Church and said: “Dudes, let’s make some shit up and pull the fingernails out and burn anyone who says it’s crap”

      • You weren’t raised Catholic, were you, Wayne. The whole birth of the Christian religion in politics was over that very question. You see God is really three entities. God, Jeebus and the Holy Spook. All are separate but all are one. Like that old commercial..3,,,3,,,3 mints in one!

    • I hope that smug fascist git took a trip to the wasteland that is Wasilla and is live blogging it from neon retail tundra of banaality that is Wasilla’s main drag…. he deserves it.

  5. Soo…. is anyone else concerned that the US just offed one (or more) of it’s own citizens, no arrest, no charges, no ‘trial by peers’…… talk about not even letting Habeas Corpus becoming an issue!

    TtT, perhaps you forgot how they got rid of Habeas Corpus back in 2006 under GW Bush with the passage of the Military Commissions Act..

    • Oh that’s right – being deemed ‘an enemy of the Fatherland’ waives your right to trial….. but did it justify being offed by a drone? I thought we were only talking about an extended Gitmo holiday and a broomstick up the jacksy?

    • I know that Congress can say that the SCOTUS doesn’t have appellate authority over certain topics, but can the Congress say that the SCOTUS has no appellate authority over a law that is undeniably repugnant to the Constitution? Doesn’t the Constitution deny the Congress the power to pass laws repugnant to it in the first place? Couldn’t someone, upon being told that the MCA denies them the right to appeal to the SCOTUS argue that their right to appeal to the SCOTUS supersedes the MCA if their reason for appealing is a violation of their 4th, 5th or 6th Amendment Rights?

      Obviously I don’t know jackshit about the law, but as I understand it, if you don’t make a particular argument in courts, the courts won’t assume you mean it. You have to actually tell a judge, “This is why I feel this law is unconstitutional. (blah-blah-blah).” You can’t just say it’s unconstitutional and let the judge figure out why. Has no one gone before a judge and said, “The law that denied me the right to contest my prisoner status unconstitutionally took away my 6th Amendment Rights or my 5th Amendment Rights, and also unconstitutioanlly took away your appellate review authority over this issue.”?

      I just don’t see how the Congress pass constitutionally pass a law that says, for example, that you no longer have the right to petititon the government for a redress of grievances, and that the SCOTUS cannot review appeals to this law. If they could do that and if there was nothing any of us could do about it, none of your rights would have any meaning.

      • Couple of things. BnF is better qualified to answer but my understanding is that while SCOTUS has the power to initiate a hearing, it traditionally waits until petitioned. The back door is, they decide which cases they will hear.

        • SCOTUS cannot initiate anything. It has orginal jurisdiction in limited instances. (see Article III)

          People who are tortured, subjected to “extreme rendition” and the heirs of those offed by CIA or government-hired mercenary assassins have a near-impossible time getting past the “State’s Secrets” Privilege. And we’re not so civilized as to subject ourselves to the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court. So the U.S. can get away with pretty damn near anything – including invading countries for the purpose of regime change, torture, kidnapping and murder.

          • Is it possible for the “State’s Secrets” claim to be challenged in and of itself on Constitutional grounds? After all, the only mention of secrecy int he Constitution applies to the Legislative Branch (and that’s regarding parts of their daily journal.) There is ZERO authority in the Constitution for the Executive to claim “State’s Secrets”, and it does not appear that the Legislative Branch can grant them that authority. (I don’t see it listed as an enumerated power.)

            I also question both the constitutionality and the wisdom of the bizarre notion that (and the SCOTUS has said this), “the president should be allowed to keep the advice he gets secret, otherwise people won;t give him advice if they know it might be made public.” Excuse me, but anyone who doesn’t want the advice he gives the president made public is quite probably giving advice that is either not in the public interest or contrary to what he is telling others publicly. Either way, the people have EVERY right to know. I find it hard to believe that no lawyer has ever made this argument in petitions to the court. It would have to be addressed, wouldn’t it? And if it weren’t, if it were ignored, wouldn’t that in itself be grounds for appeal?

  6. My position is that we are at war, and that avowed enemies and traitors in active warfare against the US cannot suddenly invoke legal protections from a society they have decided to help destroy.

    The big question facing this administrration now: will they release any evidence confirming Awlaki’s “operational” role in al-Qaida?

  7. Glen Greenwald has a good clip on this @ Democracy Now today..I find it interesting how many will give a pass with no proof simply because “our pres” says so when indeed there was no proof of anything other than words, the man is/ was a U.S. citizen and deserved arrest and trial.How quickly our country has turned away from our constitution and out right murder now that obama has made a hit list…I grieve for our country and what it is becoming…Sorry to bother you all with my thoughts but I feel this is no better than a mob hit..Peace, Blessings & Justice is what we all need now.

    • I’ve read Greenwald’s column about this and he makes valid points. But how do you physically capture someone in a war such as this and bring him to trial?

      I miss the clarity of World War 2, even Vietnam in comparison. The rules of engagement have changed necessarily, irrevocably and dramatically, probably forever. We no longer fight nations but ideologues.

      Let’s not even get started on the coming cyber wars.

      • First step is to recognize this is not a war. If it was a real war, declared by Congress, the Geneva Convention rules would definitely be in place. Then the rules for engaging known enemy combatants in neutral territory would be defined. That would mean if the local government would allow US action in their country, we would send in a team to attempt to capture. QED.

  8. I am saddened. The idea America can send assassins (either living or mechanical) to hunt people down and it is ok because we are ‘at war’ is just anathema to everything I ever thought the US was supposed to stand for.

    There is a clear analogous situation that the US went through and didn’t have to resort to invasions, abrogation of the Constitution or torture. Back in the 20′ & 30′, organized crime. We didn’t invade Italy or Sicily. We didn’t send out hit teams. We didn’t trash the Constitution. Yet we managed to deal with criminals who would today be called terrorists.

    No, I can’t say it was ok. He may have needed it, may have earned it but now we will never know.

    • I know we’re supposed to be better than this. Would I have preferred we captured this man and tried him? Yes. Would he have fallen into the black hole that is Gitmo, possibly without charge or trial, further destroying what we’re supposed to be about? Very likely.

      Pardon me if I don’t grieve this man overmuch.

      • My grief isn’t for him. It is for my country. The fact the alternative was Gitmo, which is a blot on our escutcheon as well, makes it worse.

        The grief is for the fact the terrorists have won. The US is no longer what it was and fear is tearing it down. And so few people in America see it.

        • I think we have a “fairy tale” view of our nation. Several months ago, I created a thread about all the wars that our nation was and still is involved in. We are a violent nation and this isn’t the first time that the US removed an undesirable US citizen and it won’t be the last. Just look at all the people that were killed for protesting for labor rights by the government, right on US soil. Then there was the genocide which continues to this day against the Native Americans. I wish we were better than that. However, I don’t believe that we ever were better than that.

      • Nonody grieved for Jose Padilla either…. the problem with ‘I did nothing wrong. Is that *you* don’t decide what is *wrong* and what is not.

        • I did.

          Like I said, we should be better than this. We should have captured him and given him due process. But that’s not what happened, and unfortunately we can’t have a do-over.

          This country is coming apart at the seams, and we have a big fight ahead of us. The ruling class would love to see us get stuck on the injustice of the killing of al-Awlaki — something that is completely right for us to focus on, by the way — while they continue to take a machete to the economy, jobs, the social safety net, our rights, infrastructure, and everything else.

          The killing of al-Awlaki was wrong and it needs to be investigated, but face it — it’s not going to happen in this political climate. It simply isn’t going to happen. It’s my opinion that, since we can’t bring him back to life, we need to focus on the more immediate problems I mentioned above, and put the al-Awlaki issue on the back burner for now. It’s just a matter of priorities.

          Just my 2 cents.

  9. The event in Yemen brings to mind the 1961 movie Judgment at Nuremberg and the Academy Award winning script by Abby Mann. Near the end, after the four German judges (the defendants) had been convicted, head Tribunal judge Dan Haywood (Spencer Tracy) speaks of and later to German judge Ernst Janning (Burt Lancaster). The ideas of which Judge Haywood speaks once described American idealism. Perhaps not so much anymore.

    Judge Haywood speaks in the courtroom:

    Janning, to be sure, is a tragic figure. We believe he loathed the evil he did. But compassion for the present torture of his soul must not beget forgetfulness of the torture and death of millions by the government of which he was a part. Janning’s record and his fate illuminate the most shattering truth that has emerged from this trial. If he and the other defendants were all depraved perverts – if the leaders of the Third Reich were sadistic monsters and maniacs – these events would have no more moral significance than an earthquake or other natural catastrophes. But this trial has shown that under the stress of a national crisis, men – even able and extraordinary men – can delude themselves into the commission of crimes and atrocities so vast and heinous as to beggar the imagination. [highlight added] . . .

    There are those in our own country, too, who today speak of the protection of country, of survival. A decision must be made in the life of every nation, at the very moment when the grasp of the enemy is at its throat. Then it seems that the only way to survive is to use the means of the enemy, to rest survival upon what is expedient, to look the other way.

    The answer to that is: survival as what?

    A country isn’t a rock. It’s not an extension of one’s self. It’s what it stands for. It’s what it stands for when standing for something is the most difficult. Before the people of the world – let it now be noted in our decision here that this is what we stand for: justice, truth… and the value of a single human being.

    In their final and private meeting, Ernst Janning says:

    Those people – those millions of people – I never knew it would come to that…

    To which Tribunal judge Dan Haywood replies:

    Herr Janning, it came to that the first time you sentenced a man to death you knew to be innocent.

  10. To me, these activities are clear proof that the MIC is manipulating the American people into the acceptance of a full time wartime economy. The ‘war’ on terrorism had precedent with the war on drugs. Shifting the populace to accepting war without really blaming or attacking another country.

    The problem with this is there is no end. There is no one who can surrender or seek a truce. If one bunch of fanatics do, there will always be others elsewhere who can and will pick up the baton. Hamas, Hezbollah, Taliban, al Qaeda and who knows how many other splinter groups already exist. The only end would be the extermination of Islam. What is that? Theocide? Religicide? Totally freaking outrageous and impossible?

    • In re the manipulation by the M.I.C. toward a ‘full wartime economy’, recall the words of Charles E. Wilson, former president of General Electric, head of the Office of Defense Mobilization, and US Secretary of Defense in an internal memo written in 1944:

      “The revulsion against war . . . will be an almost insuperable obstacle for us to overcome. For that reason, I am convinced that we must begin now to set the machinery in motion for a permanent wartime economy.”

      • Winston could not definitely remember a time when his country had not been at war, but it was evident that there had been a fairly long interval of peace during his childhood, because one of his early memories was of an air raid, which appeared to take everyone by surprise. […].”

    • Might have been needed, TtT. Like you, I am wondering just what the difference between killing the al Qaeda leaders and grabbing them into Dantean imprisonment is. Nor do I trust the government’s explanations. A SEAL team couldn’t hustle on old man with them out of Afghanistan or Pakistan or Whogivesafuckistan. Same with why, if we could target a drone in Yemen we couldn’t send in another SEAL team.

      • Absolutely. These are matters that should concern us as citizens and human beings. There is a part of me that wants moral certainty, another the certainty of our laws, and how we are represented as a society moving forward in a very complex world. I am unable so far to come down off the fence that I teeter on. It is very easy for me to see this man as a traitor, as he left this country eight years ago and aligned himself with a group that is commited to the violent destruction of my country. So I agree with gummitch, “fuck um”. However I also agree with Hooda, and TnT that there needs to be a clarification of our moral, as well as legal standings. That’s my 3 cents (due to minor inflation).

        • Comes down to principles. Either we hold to them or we don’t. We have seen in the past 12 years what happens when we don’t. Our moral and legal principles are well defined in a 235 year old document. The one we shit on when we invaded Afghanistan and then Iraq.

  11. The great ‘bible belt’ – family values – moral uprightness (spit). when did frightening children half to death become the moral thing to do? :

    After immigration ruling at Foley school with Hispanic population, students cry, withdraw, no-show

    FOLEY, Alabama Many of the 223 Hispanic students at Foley Elementary came to school Thursday crying and afraid, said Principal Bill Lawrence.

    Nineteen of them withdrew, and another 39 were absent, Lawrence said, the day after a federal judge upheld much of Alabama’s strict new immigration law, which authorizes law enforcement to detain people suspected of not being U.S. citizens and requires schools to ask new enrollees for a copy of their birth certificate.
    Even more of the students — who are U.S. citizens by birth, but their parents may not be — were expected to leave the state over the weekend, Lawrence said.

    Lawrence said that parents are afraid that they’ll get arrested and detained, and be cut off from their children.

    • I feel a whole lot worse for those kids and their families, than I’ll feel on Monday when all those chicken processing plants look like ghost towns without all those employees!

      • Alabama Farmers Denounce Anti-Immigration Law – Say It Will Cost Crops and Millions

        The gathered farmers told lawmakers they’d like to use U.S.-born citizens for the work, but few are willing to sweat in the fields and get dirty even though wages are usually well above minimum wage.

        “We use Hispanic labor because we have no other choice. We can’t find anyone else who will do this work,” said Jeremy Calvert of Bremen. Most of the farmers were from Cullman County, but several came to the meeting from elsewhere in north Alabama.

        ..Tomato growers in east Alabama already are suffering because the law scared away the people who normally pick their crops, he said.

        Supporters of the Republican-sponsored immigration bill say it was meant to protect jobs for legal residents, and conservative supporters plan a rally in favor of the bill in Birmingham on Tuesday.

        [They miss the point entirely – that is no surprise]

    • when did frightening children half to death become the moral thing to do?

      I think it started in earnest about 2000 years ago, back on the day the first priest met the first rogue who met the first fool (apologies to Denis Diderot).

  12. Okay al y’all, I’m outta here.

    I might check in from my son’s place, but otherwise, I’ll see you Sunday afternoon!

    PS: If you behave yourselves, I’ll never forgive you. 🙂

  13. I make my living automating machinery. Making machines more efficient, relieving manual labor. I’ve been doing it since 1979 and it has only been in the last 10 years that I have begun to question it. It used to be that automating a machine freed up the operator/s to be able to do other things rather than doing an incredibly dull repetitiousness job that would lead to some sort of injury.

    I still think automating machinery is a good idea. Humans need to be more than strong backs unless that is the only thing they can do well. There will always be jobs for that What is making me nervous is the trend in the military to automate killing. Drones, whether they fly or motor or sail, the military is leaning more and more to sending machines into combat driven by people who are at least outside the danger zone.

    What happens when the US can send combat troops into a region with no people. Just a few people to unload the lethal little machines. It is the wave of the future.

    • Remember that Star Trek episode a few decades back? The one where two planets had been at war forever, but had gotten so sophisticated that now all battles were fought by computer only? Where no one died, no one was affected, but the rulers and their minions spent all their time “fighting” on the screen only, trying various strategies, etc.?

      I can’t remember much more about it than that, but thought it was interesting. Of course, in order to make it work both civilizations had to be extensively computer literate and the earth hasn’t reached that point yet. What I can’t figure out is why we can’t somehow weed out the idiot gene — the pasture bull driver — that seems SO common in, particularly, the human male. Most likely it’s a throwback to mammalian evolution, so ridding ourselves of it will take science (in which more and more every day do not believe) to assist, but how sweet would it be to have no more warmongers in the planet’s human population, only peaceniks? I know, I know, dream on.

      I did at least live the sixty’s slogan: make love, not war, and had a hell of a lot more fun in the process than did the poor sots that got drafted and shot at in the Nam!

      • Your memory is still pretty good Frugal.

        “A Taste of Armageddon” originally aired February 23, 1967

        On Eminiar VII, the Enterprise finds a civilization at war with its planetary neighbor. Unable to discern any signs of battle from orbit, Captain Kirk leads a landing party to the surface where he discovers the entire war is fought by computer. Even though the war is simulated, citizens who are listed as virtual casualties still report to termination booths to be killed for real. After the Enterprise is destroyed in an attack simulation, Kirk must fight to keep his crew from death.

  14. And then add this idea. What would happen to a country that learned it could take out any individual, anywhere in the world, with absolutely no threat of loss of American life?

    Hint: If JFK had a drone program…

  15. pHuckabee redux?

    (Reuters) – Mike Huckabee has been approached by conservative activists unhappy with the current crop of Republican and presidential hopefuls, sources told Reuters, but the former Arkansas governor said he is not seriously considering a run.

    Many polls show President Barack Obama ahead of his potential rivals in 2012, forcing Republicans to look outside the current field of candidates for a possible challenger, including New Jersey Governor Chris Christie.

    After Reuters reported that Huckabee had been approached recently, he said he was unlikely to enter the race.

    “I don’t see it happening,” Huckabee told Fox News, unless he said, someone presented him with 50 million dollars up front. “I don’t see the pathway financially and organizationally, you know, to get there.”

    But the conservative Huckabee, who appeals to evangelical Christians and is seen as an effective campaigner, had been weighing the idea, according to two sources who spoke to Reuters on the condition of anonymity.

    “He is entertaining the request for conversations about it,” one of the sources close to Huckabee said. “I do not think it is a complete 100 percent ‘I’m reconsidering’ but he hasn’t shut the door on it.”

    • This is very good news. That pompous ass needs to be ousted on his ear – oh and placed in one of his ‘luxury’ suites of a tent!

      Good Luck Mr. Stauffer – run like the wind and sweep the Arpaio out with the garbage.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s