About Us
Mission Statement
Rules of Conduct
 
Name:
Pswd:
Remember Me
Register
 

Latest Entries

Actions Menu

Blog Roll

Other Links

Back to Reality
Author: Scoopster    Date: 06/30/2014 11:56:30

I'll get this one started today. I saw this article yesterday and couldn't help but wonder if it'd get anywhere near as much attention in the media (or from the usual RW goons) as Bergdahl's return.

Cpl. Wassef Ali Hassoun, 34, turned himself in and was being flown Sunday from an undisclosed location in the Middle East to Norfolk, Va. He is to be moved Monday to Camp Lejeune in North Carolina, according to a spokesman, Capt. Eric Flanagan.
....
Hassoun disappeared from his unit in Iraq's western desert in June 2004. The following month he turned up unharmed in Beirut, Lebanon and blamed his disappearance on Islamic extremist kidnappers. He was returned to Lejeune and was about to face the military equivalent of a grand jury hearing when he disappeared again.
....
It is unclear where Hassoun, 34, has spent the past nine years after disappearing during a visit with relatives in West Jordan, Utah in December 2004. Nor is it known why he chose to turn himself in now. He was born in Lebanon and is a naturalized American citizen.

 

78 comments (Latest Comment: 07/01/2014 03:24:37 by Raine)
   Perma Link

Share This!

Furl it!
Spurl
NewsVine
Reddit
Technorati

Add a Comment

Please login to add a comment...


Comments:

Order comments Newest to Oldest  Refresh Comments

Comment by Scoopster on 06/30/2014 12:09:53
Holy shit.. the NY Times has a story today about Blackwater threatening to KILL State Dept. employees investigating them for a 2007 incident where their guards killed 17 Iraqi civilians.

Comment by wickedpam on 06/30/2014 12:43:15
Morning



Comment by Raine on 06/30/2014 12:58:30
Good Morning! Thank you, Scoop for the blog!

Comment by Raine on 06/30/2014 13:12:06
Quote by Scoopster:
Holy shit.. the NY Times has a story today about Blackwater threatening to KILL State Dept. employees investigating them for a 2007 incident where their guards killed 17 Iraqi civilians.
The phuck!

Comment by Will in Chicago on 06/30/2014 13:46:45
Quote by Raine:
Quote by Scoopster:
Holy shit.. the NY Times has a story today about Blackwater threatening to KILL State Dept. employees investigating them for a 2007 incident where their guards killed 17 Iraqi civilians.
The phuck!


Good morning, bloggers!!

I fear that we have corporations thinking that they are nations and can declare war.



Comment by Scoopster on 06/30/2014 13:49:58
Quote by Will in Chicago:
Quote by Raine:
Quote by Scoopster:
Holy shit.. the NY Times has a story today about Blackwater threatening to KILL State Dept. employees investigating them for a 2007 incident where their guards killed 17 Iraqi civilians.
The phuck!

Good morning, bloggers!!

I fear that we have corporations thinking that they are nations and can declare war.

In that case let's declare war on THEM.

Comment by Mondobubba on 06/30/2014 13:51:07
Morning all. How was the party?

Comment by Will in Chicago on 06/30/2014 13:51:28
On the subject of corporations, Politico ran this opinion piece by billionaire Nick Lanauer on income inequality.

The Pitchforks Are Coming… For Us Plutocrats
By NICK HANAUER
July/August 2014

Memo: From Nick Hanauer
To: My Fellow Zillionaires

But let’s speak frankly to each other. I’m not the smartest guy you’ve ever met, or the hardest-working. I was a mediocre student. I’m not technical at all—I can’t write a word of code. What sets me apart, I think, is a tolerance for risk and an intuition about what will happen in the future. Seeing where things are headed is the essence of entrepreneurship. And what do I see in our future now?

I see pitchforks.

At the same time that people like you and me are thriving beyond the dreams of any plutocrats in history, the rest of the country—the 99.99 percent—is lagging far behind. The divide between the haves and have-nots is getting worse really, really fast. In 1980, the top 1 percent controlled about 8 percent of U.S. national income. The bottom 50 percent shared about 18 percent. Today the top 1 percent share about 20 percent; the bottom 50 percent, just 12 percent.

But the problem isn’t that we have inequality. Some inequality is intrinsic to any high-functioning capitalist economy. The problem is that inequality is at historically high levels and getting worse every day. Our country is rapidly becoming less a capitalist society and more a feudal society. Unless our policies change dramatically, the middle class will disappear, and we will be back to late 18th-century France. Before the revolution.

And so I have a message for my fellow filthy rich, for all of us who live in our gated bubble worlds: Wake up, people. It won’t last.




Comment by Will in Chicago on 06/30/2014 13:52:01
Quote by Scoopster:
Quote by Will in Chicago:
Quote by Raine:
Quote by Scoopster:
Holy shit.. the NY Times has a story today about Blackwater threatening to KILL State Dept. employees investigating them for a 2007 incident where their guards killed 17 Iraqi civilians.
The phuck!

Good morning, bloggers!!

I fear that we have corporations thinking that they are nations and can declare war.

In that case let's declare war on THEM.



Funny that you should mention that. See my 2nd post of the day.

Comment by BobR on 06/30/2014 13:55:29
Quote by Mondobubba:
Morning all. How was the party?

It was a blast

Comment by wickedpam on 06/30/2014 13:56:07
Quote by Mondobubba:
Morning all. How was the party?


Company outstanding
Beer 100% awesome
Raine loses lots of cups
Skittles Vodka dangerous
Mama Cat has a shoe fetish


Comment by Scoopster on 06/30/2014 13:56:08
Quote by Mondobubba:
Morning all. How was the party?

It was a good time! Some excellent beer of course, and excellent grub. I missed the ribs unfortunately.

Comment by TriSec on 06/30/2014 13:56:51
Morning. Care to join me in a bag of suck?

Comment by Scoopster on 06/30/2014 13:57:37
Quote by TriSec:
Morning. Care to join me in a bag of suck?

Not right now we're waiting for a Supreme Court meltdown. But soon, I assure you!

Comment by Scoopster on 06/30/2014 14:03:19
Quote by Will in Chicago:
Quote by Scoopster:
Quote by Will in Chicago:
Quote by Raine:
Quote by Scoopster:
Holy shit.. the NY Times has a story today about Blackwater threatening to KILL State Dept. employees investigating them for a 2007 incident where their guards killed 17 Iraqi civilians.
The phuck!

Good morning, bloggers!!

I fear that we have corporations thinking that they are nations and can declare war.

In that case let's declare war on THEM.

Funny that you should mention that. See my 2nd post of the day.

That's some timing.. excellent piece too, Every so often Politico runs something truly impressive and meaningful.

Comment by Raine on 06/30/2014 14:03:20
Quote by Scoopster:
Quote by TriSec:
Morning. Care to join me in a bag of suck?

Not right now we're waiting for a Supreme Court meltdown. But soon, I assure you!



Comment by Will in Chicago on 06/30/2014 14:04:15
Quote by Scoopster:
Quote by TriSec:
Morning. Care to join me in a bag of suck?

Not right now we're waiting for a Supreme Court meltdown. But soon, I assure you!


Let's say that I hold little hope in this court. We may have to get Congress to clean this mess, but this Congress is barely capable of changing a light bulb.


Comment by Will in Chicago on 06/30/2014 14:07:42
Quote by Scoopster:
Quote by Will in Chicago:
Quote by Scoopster:
Quote by Will in Chicago:
Quote by Raine:
Quote by Scoopster:
Holy shit.. the NY Times has a story today about Blackwater threatening to KILL State Dept. employees investigating them for a 2007 incident where their guards killed 17 Iraqi civilians.
The phuck!

Good morning, bloggers!!

I fear that we have corporations thinking that they are nations and can declare war.

In that case let's declare war on THEM.

Funny that you should mention that. See my 2nd post of the day.

That's some timing.. excellent piece too, Every so often Politico runs something truly impressive and meaningful.


I shared the piece on Facebook. People are restless and will for now go to the ballot box. However, I fear that people like the Koch Brothers view the Hand Maiden's Tale as an instructional guide.



Comment by Will in Chicago on 06/30/2014 14:09:04
BREAKING from SCOTUSblog: In Harris, the Court refuses to extend Abood. These employees can't be required to contribute to unions.

The Court does not overrule Abood. That opinion has questionable foundations, so we reverse to extend Abood to the situation here

Comment by Will in Chicago on 06/30/2014 14:10:27
So, the Supreme Court wants to put nails in the coffins of public unions. Time to fight back. By the way, anyone for 10 to 20 year term limits on Supreme Court justices?

Comment by Scoopster on 06/30/2014 14:10:54
First decision up is Harris v. Quinn (Union dues for non-union employees).
5-4 against, but it's a mixed decision. They didn't outright rollback prior accepted rules allowing the dues, which is a good thing, but they didn't extend it.

Comment by Will in Chicago on 06/30/2014 14:18:36
SCOTUSBlog has a link to the decision.

Comment by Scoopster on 06/30/2014 14:19:10
Comment by Will in Chicago on 06/30/2014 14:22:21
Hobby Lobby Case in. Closely held corporations cannot be required to provide contraception coverage.

Comment by wickedpam on 06/30/2014 14:23:30
So basically Fuck You to all women

Comment by Raine on 06/30/2014 14:25:04
SHIT SHIT SHIT.

Comment by Raine on 06/30/2014 14:27:08
From SCOTUSBlog: It is extremely likely that the Obama administration will by regulation provide for the government to pay for the coverage. So it is unlikely that there will be a substantial gap in coverage. - See more at: http://live.scotusblog.com/Event/Live_blog_of_opinions__June_30_2014#sthash.yaEwnW4w.dpuf

Comment by wickedpam on 06/30/2014 14:27:43
Time to prepare for the holy wars while we decide which version of God we're gonna be ruled under.

Comment by wickedpam on 06/30/2014 14:29:42
Quote by Raine:
From SCOTUSBlog: It is extremely likely that the Obama administration will by regulation provide for the government to pay for the coverage. So it is unlikely that there will be a substantial gap in coverage. - See more at: http://live.scotusblog.com/Event/Live_blog_of_opinions__June_30_2014#sthash.yaEwnW4w.dpuf



Sure cause with dickbag Boehner bending to the tea party and the crazy christian conservative will that's gonna happen.

Comment by Scoopster on 06/30/2014 14:32:20
The whole majority opinion is based on that stupid fucking RFRA law... we need to get rid of that thing it's just as bad as DOMA.

Comment by Mondobubba on 06/30/2014 14:37:56
Quote by Scoopster:
The whole majority opinion is based on that stupid fucking RFRA law... we need to get rid of that thing it's just as bad as DOMA.



What is RFRA?

Comment by Raine on 06/30/2014 14:38:35
Quote by Mondobubba:
Quote by Scoopster:
The whole majority opinion is based on that stupid fucking RFRA law... we need to get rid of that thing it's just as bad as DOMA.



What is RFRA?
1993 Restoration of religious freedom act


Comment by Raine on 06/30/2014 14:39:32
Here you go: The federal version of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act dates back to 1993, when it was passed by Congress after a controversial Supreme Court decision in 1990 angered liberals and conservatives. But after Congress passed RFRA, the Supreme Court ruled in 1997 that the Act couldn’t be applied to states.

Currently, at least 22 states have their own versions of RFRA laws, as a response to the 1997 Supreme Court decision.

Here is the back story: In Employment Division v. Smith (1990), two American Indians who worked as private drug rehab counselors ingested peyote as part of religious ceremonies conducted by the Native American Church, and they were subsequently fired. The U.S. Supreme Court upheld the firing, with Justice Antonin Scalia saying that using a religious exemption in conflict of a valid law “would open the prospect of constitutionally required exemptions from civic obligations of almost every conceivable kind.”


Comment by Mondobubba on 06/30/2014 14:39:52
So, 5-4 on Hobby Lobby?

Comment by Mondobubba on 06/30/2014 14:43:28
The Roberts court is without a doubt the worst iteration of the Supreme Court since Robert Tawney was the Chief Justice.

Comment by TriSec on 06/30/2014 14:46:49
Allahu Ackbar, y'all. Welcome to American Sharia!

Comment by Will in Chicago on 06/30/2014 14:55:20
Quote by TriSec:
Allahu Ackbar, y'all. Welcome to American Sharia!

I believe it may be time for relocation. Mars could use a little work.


http://www.comictrek.net/main/images/jla_martian_manhunter.jpg


Hmm, almost as barren as what the SCOTUS left for us today.

Comment by Raine on 06/30/2014 15:03:13
Once again, women are treated as fodder for the regious right.

Comment by Mondobubba on 06/30/2014 15:03:53
The court stressed that its ruling applies only to corporations that are under the control of just a few people in which there is no essential difference between the business and its owners.


This is from the Salon.com article about the ruling. If I am reading that correctly this does limit the scope somewhat.

Comment by Raine on 06/30/2014 15:09:34
Quote by Mondobubba:
The court stressed that its ruling applies only to corporations that are under the control of just a few people in which there is no essential difference between the business and its owners.


This is from the Salon.com article about the ruling. If I am reading that correctly this does limit the scope somewhat.
It's not that limited at all.

From SCOTUS BLOG:
On a quick read, the Hobby Lobby decisions raises two important follow-up questions for future cases: (1) Whether HHS has the legal authority to now extend the non-profit exemption regime to closely held corporations (if it doesn't, that would suggest that the women employed by those companies may end up without coverage); and (2) whether RFRA protects objecting corporations from even certifying their objection (thereby triggering alternative coverage for the employees), which is the question that is pending in other cases working their way to the Court in the context of non-profit companies.


Comment by Scoopster on 06/30/2014 15:13:40
Quote by Mondobubba:
The court stressed that its ruling applies only to corporations that are under the control of just a few people in which there is no essential difference between the business and its owners.


This is from the Salon.com article about the ruling. If I am reading that correctly this does limit the scope somewhat.

Ehh it does but not as much as it's being portrayed in the media. Most of the businesses in this country are family-owned and not publicly traded, which means if the owner(s) want to refuse to pay for little things like contraception coverage, or say vaccinations (OH GAWD YEAH THAT) they don't have to and the insurance company/HMO can bill it piecemeal to individuals.

Was about to post that quote from SCOTUSBlog too but Raine beat me to it. Doing the tag team thing here is pretty awesome!

Comment by Mondobubba on 06/30/2014 15:23:21
Scoop & Raine, thanks for that. BTW, the NOW site has crashed. I wonder why.

Comment by Mondobubba on 06/30/2014 15:25:20
Quote by Scoopster:
Quote by Mondobubba:
The court stressed that its ruling applies only to corporations that are under the control of just a few people in which there is no essential difference between the business and its owners.


This is from the Salon.com article about the ruling. If I am reading that correctly this does limit the scope somewhat.

Ehh it does but not as much as it's being portrayed in the media. Most of the businesses in this country are family-owned and not publicly traded, which means if the owner(s) want to refuse to pay for little things like contraception coverage, or say vaccinations (OH GAWD YEAH THAT) they don't have to and the insurance company/HMO can bill it piecemeal to individuals.

Was about to post that quote from SCOTUSBlog too but Raine beat me to it. Doing the tag team thing here is pretty awesome!



:parry, reposte: Then by that logic they don't hit the employee threshold for ACA employer mandate. Then their employees are going to get coverage on the exchanges.

Comment by Will in Chicago on 06/30/2014 15:25:51
Here is the Think Progress story on Hobby Lobby:


Here is the Think Progress story on Harris:



Comment by trojanrabbit on 06/30/2014 15:26:56
Did anyone REALLY expect anything different today?

Not that it still doesn't suck immensely.

Surprises me even more that the ACA wasn't totally struck down, just because.

Unfortunately (or fortunately) I never shopped at Hobby Lobby, so I can't stop shopping there, but I'm sure there will be other cheap bastard owned "corporations" that will try to use this excuse, and maybe I can boycott them.

Comment by Mondobubba on 06/30/2014 15:29:23
Excuse my needless debate. The brain is whirling this morning.

Comment by Will in Chicago on 06/30/2014 15:35:09
Quote by trojanrabbit:
Did anyone REALLY expect anything different today?

Not that it still doesn't suck immensely.

Surprises me even more that the ACA wasn't totally struck down, just because.

Unfortunately (or fortunately) I never shopped at Hobby Lobby, so I can't stop shopping there, but I'm sure there will be other cheap bastard owned "corporations" that will try to use this excuse, and maybe I can boycott them.


No, as I trust this Supreme Court as far as I can throw planets.


Comment by Will in Chicago on 06/30/2014 15:35:49
I tried quoting from the Think Progress story and had mismatching s tags although the only tags I hit were quote tags. Any ideas?

Comment by Mondobubba on 06/30/2014 15:47:55
Great piece from Think Progess about why HL ruling isn't good for religious freedom.


“The New Testament never—not one time—applies the ‘Christian’ label to a business or even a government,” he writes. “The tag is applied only to individuals. If the Bible is your ultimate guide, the only organization one might rightly term ‘Christian’ is a church. And this is only because a church in the New Testament is not a building or a business, but a collection of Christian individuals who have repented, believed on Christ, and are pursuing a life of holiness.”

Show All

Rev 3.7; Copyright 2007-2017 by BobberBlogs