WASHINGTON (AP) — House Speaker John Boehner says Americans have a right to think what they want to think, even when they're wrong about President Barack Obama's citizenship and his religion.
Some people believe that Obama, a native of Hawaii, was actually born outside the U.S. or in some other way is not a natural-born citizen eligible to be president. There is also a persistent belief among some that Obama, a Christian, is actually a Muslim.
When the host of NBC's "Meet the Press" asked Boehner whether he, as speaker of the House, had a responsibility to "stand up to that kind of ignorance," Boehner told David Gregory: "It's not my job to tell the American people what to think. Our job in Washington is to listen to the American people."
Boehner continued: "Having said that, the state of Hawaii has said that he was born there. That's good enough for me. The president says he's a Christian. I accept him at his word."
He later called those "the facts" of Obama's background.
Gregory asked, "But that kind of ignorance, about whether he's a Muslim, doesn't concern you?"
"The American people have the right to think what they want to think," Boehner replied. "I can't — it's not my job to tell them."
Boehner denied that he is willing to let those misperceptions remain because they weaken and delegitimize Obama.
Sunday, February 13, 2011
Just a difference of opinion, except for the dying part
People don't like being called stupid, but let's face it. One side or the other is sometimes being stupid. Let's see if we can decide which.
On the climate change side we have:
Plausible theory:
-Carbon Dioxide, a long-acknowledged heat-trapping gas, is increasing in the atmosphere due to human activity.
-Scientists measure this, and do their best with imperfect data to model and predict consequences.
-The measuring of CO2 levels throughout history and the effect on climate is tabulated. The effects of current increases are predicted and confirming/refuting evidence is accumulated, analyzed, reported and discussed.
-A range of possible outcomes is forecast. They range from not good to catastrophic.
-A suggestion that, as a precautionary step at least, carbon emissions be reduced is made.
-After DECADES of study, the data solidifies, the range of predicted outcomes becomes more dire, and the speed of observable current changes accelerates.
-Leaders in BOTH parties acknowledge the problem and start discussing legislative responses.
-The responses will include a shift from conventional burning of fossil fuels to alternatives. An interesting, difficult political discussion is underway.
The opponents' side:
-A realization that some familiar consumption patterns will need to change and that there will be some costs.
-The conversation suddenly goes backward from "what is the best way to deal with this?" to "the whole problem is just made up."
-The only way to get around the science is to construct a theory that all the scientists in the world have gotten together in a deliberate conspiracy to subvert their field of study, and hoax the world for personal gain. Virtually ALL of them. Pay attention ONLY to the tiny tiny minority.
-The threat of climate change is no longer discussed as a range of possibilities, but is recalibrated down to ZERO, or next to it.
-If the deniers are right, then they may have saved themselves a few dollars and some personal convenience in doing things the way they have become comfortable with.
-If the climate science is correct, vast destruction may ensue, up to and including millions of deaths. But let's not even CONTEMPLATE that as a possibility, because maybe, just maybe, it's all a conspiracy. In fact, not maybe. It's definitely a conspiracy. We're sure of it.
-So sure we will bet the whole planet on that supposition.
Nobody likes being called stupid. What would you call this?
Tom Toles WashingtonPost
On the climate change side we have:
Plausible theory:
-Carbon Dioxide, a long-acknowledged heat-trapping gas, is increasing in the atmosphere due to human activity.
-Scientists measure this, and do their best with imperfect data to model and predict consequences.
-The measuring of CO2 levels throughout history and the effect on climate is tabulated. The effects of current increases are predicted and confirming/refuting evidence is accumulated, analyzed, reported and discussed.
-A range of possible outcomes is forecast. They range from not good to catastrophic.
-A suggestion that, as a precautionary step at least, carbon emissions be reduced is made.
-After DECADES of study, the data solidifies, the range of predicted outcomes becomes more dire, and the speed of observable current changes accelerates.
-Leaders in BOTH parties acknowledge the problem and start discussing legislative responses.
-The responses will include a shift from conventional burning of fossil fuels to alternatives. An interesting, difficult political discussion is underway.
The opponents' side:
-A realization that some familiar consumption patterns will need to change and that there will be some costs.
-The conversation suddenly goes backward from "what is the best way to deal with this?" to "the whole problem is just made up."
-The only way to get around the science is to construct a theory that all the scientists in the world have gotten together in a deliberate conspiracy to subvert their field of study, and hoax the world for personal gain. Virtually ALL of them. Pay attention ONLY to the tiny tiny minority.
-The threat of climate change is no longer discussed as a range of possibilities, but is recalibrated down to ZERO, or next to it.
-If the deniers are right, then they may have saved themselves a few dollars and some personal convenience in doing things the way they have become comfortable with.
-If the climate science is correct, vast destruction may ensue, up to and including millions of deaths. But let's not even CONTEMPLATE that as a possibility, because maybe, just maybe, it's all a conspiracy. In fact, not maybe. It's definitely a conspiracy. We're sure of it.
-So sure we will bet the whole planet on that supposition.
Nobody likes being called stupid. What would you call this?
Tom Toles WashingtonPost
My favorite Grammy moment!
It opened with a reverent tribute to Aretha Franklin, featuring Christina Aguilera, Jennifer Hudson, Yolanda Adams, Martina McBride and Florence Welch,
a diverse cast that offered a cross-section of the current music industry honoring a woman whose very name conveys musical credibility.
P.S. I loved the performance of Mick Jagger too!
a diverse cast that offered a cross-section of the current music industry honoring a woman whose very name conveys musical credibility.
P.S. I loved the performance of Mick Jagger too!
Wael Ghonim and Egypt's New Age Revolution
"60 Minutes" Talks To The Man Who Has Emerged As The Symbol of Egypt's Revolution
This Sunday night, for the first time in more than two weeks, traffic is flowing through Cairo's Tahrir Square. In Egypt, businesses are open, university classes are back in session and a new military government rules with popular support and a promise of coming democracy.
Egypt is an ancient civilization with a youthful population - nearly two-thirds of them are 30 years old or under. Many of them are educated but unemployed and angry.
Their 18-day revolution began not with terrorism and tanks, but with Twitter and texts and satellite TV broadcasts.
This week an aging autocrat who ruled as a modern pharaoh fell victim to those weapons of the young - out-organized and outmaneuvered by social media, by kids with keyboards.
In Cairo, CBS News correspondent Harry Smith had a chance to talk with the man who emerged as the symbol of the leaderless rebellion, Google executive Wael Ghonim.
Ghonim was jailed for his Internet organizing; when he gave a live interview on satellite TV following his release, he galvanized the movement. Though he was at the center of the "new age revolution," he has no ambition for leadership, nor any way of knowing what comes next.
Wael Ghonim: The regime was extremely stupid. They are the ones who basically ended themselves. They kept oppressing and oppressing and oppressing and oppressing. Right after I came out of jail, I wrote a status message that we are gonna (win), because we don't understand politics, because we don't understand their nasty games.
We're gonna win because our tears comes from our hearts. We're gonna win because we have a dream. We're gonna win because we're convinced that if anyone stands up in front of our dream, we're ready to die defending it.
Harry Smith: Two and a half weeks ago, when this started, did you anticipate this outcome?
Ghonim: When I went on the streets on Tuesday, on the 25th, I was like, 'Whoa, it's gonna happen.' Because the only barrier to people uprising and revolution is the psychological barrier of fear. All these regimes rely on fear. They want everyone to be scared. If you manage to break the psychological barrier, you're gonna definitely be able to do the revolution.
That wall of fear fell in the last few weeks, as hundreds of thousands of Egyptians defied their government and demanded change. Helping to lead the charge was 30-year-old Ghonim, Google's regional marketing manager for the Middle East. In his spare time, he created a Facebook page, posting information about the brutality of Egyptian police.
He was especially angered by the killing of a 28-year-old Internet activist, who was beaten to death after trying to expose police corruption.
Smith: How important is his story in what happened here in the last three weeks?
Ghonim: By the way, his name is Khalid Sayid, name translated in English into 'eternal happiness.' His photo, after being killed by those police officers made all of us cry. Made all of us, you know, because he's coming from middle class. I personally connected to him. I thought, 'This could be my brother.' You know? And I know the police in Egypt. You know, they used to act like they controlled the world. You know, they'd beat you up. You are someone basically who have no rights. So when he died I personally got deeply hurt. I decided to start fighting this regime.
The Facebook page was called "We are all Khalid Sayid." Soon hundreds, then thousands of others began sharing photos and video of abuse and mistreatment.
Within months, the number of followers on Facebook grew to half a million, and when he and other organizers posted the dates and locations of protests, people started showing up and posting Internet videos. Many of the organizers never met in person. Their primary interaction was online.
Smith: If there's no social network, does this revolution happen?
Ghonim: If there was no social networks, it would have never been sparked. Because the whole thing before the revolution was the most critical thing. Without Facebook, without Twitter, without Google, without YouTube, this would have never happened
If you want to have a free country, if you want democracy, then the Internet is great, and all this information can be shared. But isn't just the opposite then true? If I want to continue to suppress people, the last thing I'm gonna give them is access to the Internet.
Ghonim: Block the whole Internet, you're gonna really frustrate people. One of the strategic mistakes of this regime was blocking Facebook. One of the reasons why they are no longer in power now is that they blocked Facebook.
Why? Because they have told four million people that they are scared like hell from the revolution by blocking Facebook. They forced everyone who's just, you know, waiting to read the news on Facebook, they forced them to go to the street to be part of this. So really, like, if I want to thank one, thank anyone for all of this, I would thank our stupid regime.
Three days after the protests began in Tahrir Square, Ghonim disappeared. His friends and family feared he'd been kidnapped or even killed. Egyptian authorities had arrested him for 12 days. He was blindfolded, handcuffed and constantly interrogated.
Smith: Did they hit you?
Ghonim: Yeah, but it was not systematic. Like, it was individual based, and it was not from the officers. It was actually from the soldiers. And I forgive them, I have to say. I forgive them, because one thing is that they were convinced that I was harming the country. These are simple people, not educated. I cannot carry a conversation with them. So, you know, for him, I'm sort of like a traitor. I'm de-stabilizing the country. So when he hits me, he doesn't hit me because, you know, he's a bad guy. He's hitting me because he thinks he's a good guy. I'll tell you a funny story: At the end of the last day, you know, I removed my...blindfold. And I said, 'Hi,' and kissed every one of them. All of the soldiers. And, you know, it was good. I was sending them a message.
Smith: Why do you think they let you go?
Ghonim: Pressure. Ask Obama. Probably. There were a lot of factors to it. One is Google. Google did a lot of work to get me out. They did a lot, massive PR campaign.
After Ghonim was released, he appeared on a popular Egyptian television program, talking about those who had been killed in the protests. The next day, the crowds in Tahrir Square grew even larger. Their demands would not be denied. And Friday, 18 days after the protest started, Mubarak resigned.
Smith: President Obama came out several times during the revolution, had things to say. Did it help? Did it hurt?
Ghonim: You know, it was good that he supports the revolution. That's a good stand. But we don't really need him. And I don't think that....I wrote a tweet. I wrote, 'Dear Western governments. You have been supporting the regime that was oppressing us for 30 years. Please don't get involved now. We don't need you.'
Ghonim told us he has no interest in politics and he wants to go back to work at Google. After our interview, he talked about the future with family and friends. But he realizes his future has fundamentally changed.
Smith: Have you had death threats?
Ghonim: Yeah. I get those all the time. I'm getting a lot of hate messages, a lot of people are talking bad about me, and, you know, still accusing me of being a spy and a traitor. And all that funny stuff. But I think, in the next few days, when all the black files of the regime are gonna be out for everyone to read and see, AND we know about the money that was stolen from this country. Things are gonna get better.
Smith: Do you think Mubarak will be brought to trial?
Ghonim: At the moment, I don't care. Revenge is not the thing I want. For me, what I care about right now, I want all the money of the Egyptian people to come back. There are billions and billions of dollars that were stolen out of this country. You cannot imagine the amount of corruption that was here. You know, with all these people in power, with all this conflict of interest. And, you know, it's time for them to pay the price. And it's, as I said, revenge is not my goal, personally.
You know, others would have that as their goal. And I don't blame them for that. But for me, what is more important, we want the money back. Because this money belongs to the Egyptians, and they deserve it. The people who were eating from the trash, that was their money.
Smith: People who watch this say, 'Okay, well, this miracle happened in Egypt. But it won't be like that a month or a year or five years from now. Life isn't like that.' Do you believe the ideals that were so well-displayed over the last two and a half weeks are the pavement or the foundation for the country?
Ghonim: Yeah, that's actually our responsibility. We're now meeting a lot. Because...this momentum, whatever that just happened right now, needs to be capitalized on now.
Smith: Did the Mubarak regime underestimate, or do you even think it understood, the power of the social network?
Ghonim: They don't understand the social networking part. But they underestimate the power of the people. And, you know, at the end of the day, I want to say my final word is, 'Thanks, thanks, thanks to the stupid regime. You have done us the best thing ever. You have woke up 80 million Egyptians.'
Smith: So if you're an autocrat, or if you're a dictator, and you watch what happened in Egypt over the last several weeks, what lesson do you think...?
Ghonim: He should freak out. He seriously should freak out.
This Sunday night, for the first time in more than two weeks, traffic is flowing through Cairo's Tahrir Square. In Egypt, businesses are open, university classes are back in session and a new military government rules with popular support and a promise of coming democracy.
Egypt is an ancient civilization with a youthful population - nearly two-thirds of them are 30 years old or under. Many of them are educated but unemployed and angry.
Their 18-day revolution began not with terrorism and tanks, but with Twitter and texts and satellite TV broadcasts.
This week an aging autocrat who ruled as a modern pharaoh fell victim to those weapons of the young - out-organized and outmaneuvered by social media, by kids with keyboards.
In Cairo, CBS News correspondent Harry Smith had a chance to talk with the man who emerged as the symbol of the leaderless rebellion, Google executive Wael Ghonim.
Ghonim was jailed for his Internet organizing; when he gave a live interview on satellite TV following his release, he galvanized the movement. Though he was at the center of the "new age revolution," he has no ambition for leadership, nor any way of knowing what comes next.
Wael Ghonim: The regime was extremely stupid. They are the ones who basically ended themselves. They kept oppressing and oppressing and oppressing and oppressing. Right after I came out of jail, I wrote a status message that we are gonna (win), because we don't understand politics, because we don't understand their nasty games.
We're gonna win because our tears comes from our hearts. We're gonna win because we have a dream. We're gonna win because we're convinced that if anyone stands up in front of our dream, we're ready to die defending it.
Harry Smith: Two and a half weeks ago, when this started, did you anticipate this outcome?
Ghonim: When I went on the streets on Tuesday, on the 25th, I was like, 'Whoa, it's gonna happen.' Because the only barrier to people uprising and revolution is the psychological barrier of fear. All these regimes rely on fear. They want everyone to be scared. If you manage to break the psychological barrier, you're gonna definitely be able to do the revolution.
That wall of fear fell in the last few weeks, as hundreds of thousands of Egyptians defied their government and demanded change. Helping to lead the charge was 30-year-old Ghonim, Google's regional marketing manager for the Middle East. In his spare time, he created a Facebook page, posting information about the brutality of Egyptian police.
He was especially angered by the killing of a 28-year-old Internet activist, who was beaten to death after trying to expose police corruption.
Smith: How important is his story in what happened here in the last three weeks?
Ghonim: By the way, his name is Khalid Sayid, name translated in English into 'eternal happiness.' His photo, after being killed by those police officers made all of us cry. Made all of us, you know, because he's coming from middle class. I personally connected to him. I thought, 'This could be my brother.' You know? And I know the police in Egypt. You know, they used to act like they controlled the world. You know, they'd beat you up. You are someone basically who have no rights. So when he died I personally got deeply hurt. I decided to start fighting this regime.
The Facebook page was called "We are all Khalid Sayid." Soon hundreds, then thousands of others began sharing photos and video of abuse and mistreatment.
Within months, the number of followers on Facebook grew to half a million, and when he and other organizers posted the dates and locations of protests, people started showing up and posting Internet videos. Many of the organizers never met in person. Their primary interaction was online.
Smith: If there's no social network, does this revolution happen?
Ghonim: If there was no social networks, it would have never been sparked. Because the whole thing before the revolution was the most critical thing. Without Facebook, without Twitter, without Google, without YouTube, this would have never happened
If you want to have a free country, if you want democracy, then the Internet is great, and all this information can be shared. But isn't just the opposite then true? If I want to continue to suppress people, the last thing I'm gonna give them is access to the Internet.
Ghonim: Block the whole Internet, you're gonna really frustrate people. One of the strategic mistakes of this regime was blocking Facebook. One of the reasons why they are no longer in power now is that they blocked Facebook.
Why? Because they have told four million people that they are scared like hell from the revolution by blocking Facebook. They forced everyone who's just, you know, waiting to read the news on Facebook, they forced them to go to the street to be part of this. So really, like, if I want to thank one, thank anyone for all of this, I would thank our stupid regime.
Three days after the protests began in Tahrir Square, Ghonim disappeared. His friends and family feared he'd been kidnapped or even killed. Egyptian authorities had arrested him for 12 days. He was blindfolded, handcuffed and constantly interrogated.
Smith: Did they hit you?
Ghonim: Yeah, but it was not systematic. Like, it was individual based, and it was not from the officers. It was actually from the soldiers. And I forgive them, I have to say. I forgive them, because one thing is that they were convinced that I was harming the country. These are simple people, not educated. I cannot carry a conversation with them. So, you know, for him, I'm sort of like a traitor. I'm de-stabilizing the country. So when he hits me, he doesn't hit me because, you know, he's a bad guy. He's hitting me because he thinks he's a good guy. I'll tell you a funny story: At the end of the last day, you know, I removed my...blindfold. And I said, 'Hi,' and kissed every one of them. All of the soldiers. And, you know, it was good. I was sending them a message.
Smith: Why do you think they let you go?
Ghonim: Pressure. Ask Obama. Probably. There were a lot of factors to it. One is Google. Google did a lot of work to get me out. They did a lot, massive PR campaign.
After Ghonim was released, he appeared on a popular Egyptian television program, talking about those who had been killed in the protests. The next day, the crowds in Tahrir Square grew even larger. Their demands would not be denied. And Friday, 18 days after the protest started, Mubarak resigned.
Smith: President Obama came out several times during the revolution, had things to say. Did it help? Did it hurt?
Ghonim: You know, it was good that he supports the revolution. That's a good stand. But we don't really need him. And I don't think that....I wrote a tweet. I wrote, 'Dear Western governments. You have been supporting the regime that was oppressing us for 30 years. Please don't get involved now. We don't need you.'
Ghonim told us he has no interest in politics and he wants to go back to work at Google. After our interview, he talked about the future with family and friends. But he realizes his future has fundamentally changed.
Smith: Have you had death threats?
Ghonim: Yeah. I get those all the time. I'm getting a lot of hate messages, a lot of people are talking bad about me, and, you know, still accusing me of being a spy and a traitor. And all that funny stuff. But I think, in the next few days, when all the black files of the regime are gonna be out for everyone to read and see, AND we know about the money that was stolen from this country. Things are gonna get better.
Smith: Do you think Mubarak will be brought to trial?
Ghonim: At the moment, I don't care. Revenge is not the thing I want. For me, what I care about right now, I want all the money of the Egyptian people to come back. There are billions and billions of dollars that were stolen out of this country. You cannot imagine the amount of corruption that was here. You know, with all these people in power, with all this conflict of interest. And, you know, it's time for them to pay the price. And it's, as I said, revenge is not my goal, personally.
You know, others would have that as their goal. And I don't blame them for that. But for me, what is more important, we want the money back. Because this money belongs to the Egyptians, and they deserve it. The people who were eating from the trash, that was their money.
Smith: People who watch this say, 'Okay, well, this miracle happened in Egypt. But it won't be like that a month or a year or five years from now. Life isn't like that.' Do you believe the ideals that were so well-displayed over the last two and a half weeks are the pavement or the foundation for the country?
Ghonim: Yeah, that's actually our responsibility. We're now meeting a lot. Because...this momentum, whatever that just happened right now, needs to be capitalized on now.
Smith: Did the Mubarak regime underestimate, or do you even think it understood, the power of the social network?
Ghonim: They don't understand the social networking part. But they underestimate the power of the people. And, you know, at the end of the day, I want to say my final word is, 'Thanks, thanks, thanks to the stupid regime. You have done us the best thing ever. You have woke up 80 million Egyptians.'
Smith: So if you're an autocrat, or if you're a dictator, and you watch what happened in Egypt over the last several weeks, what lesson do you think...?
Ghonim: He should freak out. He seriously should freak out.
No happy-ever-after with fairy-tale ideas on gender: Carolyn Hax
Dear Carolyn:
My outlook on dating is very traditional - man courts lady and pays for dinner/drinks, etc.
Then, after you figure out you truly want to continue to date, the woman offers to pay.
The man I am dating seems a bit more on the equal end ... I paid for last night, you pay for tonight.
It started very early on, maybe the eighth date or so. I kept getting the vibe that I should offer to pay, and then it got uncomfortable.
We went on a vacation together and he wanted to split everything. The place was not my first choice of vacation spots, so the more he said, "Okay, give me this much for the bill," the more animosity I felt. He earns a good $30,000 more than I do, his company pays for a lot of his food/transportation, and his rent is half of mine.
I approached him about this when I was frustrated beyond belief, and basically unloaded repressed anger and rambled on about how female and male roles in a relationship are not supposed to be equal. His response was, "Well, I'm not prince charming, and don't expect me to be."
Then he claimed he was "used" for money in his last relationship, which I find very very hard to believe.
I have a very tight budget, with student loans and a huge rent check, yet I still manage to "split" everything. I get him meaningful gifts, and his are only so-so, in meaning and value. I don't need expensive things, but it would be nice to be treated like a lady in terms of dinners and vacations!!
Growing up my dad was amazing and I was his princess! He showed me the role a man is supposed to play: take the girl out, open her door, pull out her chair, etc. How do you suggest approaching this situation? - The princess and the finances
So, do men pay because they're supposed to, or because this man out-earns you, or because you out-borrowed and out-rented him?
And, since when is a vacation not an "expensive thing" - and not proof that you "truly want to continue to date"?
You'll help your cause if you scrutinize and solidify your beliefs on gender roles - and make sure you apply the resulting ideology consistently. If indeed "female and male roles in a relationship" are unequal, then do you believe the inequality is ceremonial (opening doors, etc.), or substantial (men are breadwinners)?
And if you vote "substantial," are you prepared to have less say than your someday husband in family matters? To accept less pay and lesser jobs because men are the ones with the greater social and familial expenses?
Yours may be an amazing dad who doted on you out of love. However, he may unwittingly have installed a fairy tale that's now weak with dry rot. Consider dismantling it if only for your boyfriend's sake: You blow right past those first eight or so dates, which could easily have lightened him by a sum in the thousand-dollar range, and for which you come across not as grateful, but spoiled and unimpressed.
The bigger and more important reason to dismantle the fairy tale lies between the lines of your letter: You struggle mightily to express how you feel, what you believe and what you want. As un-princessy as it feels to speak your mind, your inability to do so is more to blame for your unhappiness than your boyfriend's bean-counting is.
Had you said early on, "My father treated me like a princess, and I'm traditional about gender roles to this day," then you probably would have actually talked about who pays for dates/vacations - and maybe even the deeper implications of such - allowing each of you to proceed (or not) with eyes open, instead of carrying awkwardness and clashing values to the point of pent-up anger.
You may have come away from such a conversation just as convinced that his "I've been used" story is bunk. (Which it is; he needs to own his habits, not blame them on exes.) But you may also have been able to spot - or just accept - a solid declaration: He made it clear he's not paying your way.
I believe that being in the habit of directness yourself allows you to be more receptive to it in others. As it stands, you're opting not to take him at his word, and asking me how to approach the issue. I.e., change his mind, right?
So that's my suggested approach: Lock coyness in the tower. Tell him who you are, and why splitting everything rankles. Find out now whether princess and frog have a chance.
Washington Post
My outlook on dating is very traditional - man courts lady and pays for dinner/drinks, etc.
Then, after you figure out you truly want to continue to date, the woman offers to pay.
The man I am dating seems a bit more on the equal end ... I paid for last night, you pay for tonight.
It started very early on, maybe the eighth date or so. I kept getting the vibe that I should offer to pay, and then it got uncomfortable.
We went on a vacation together and he wanted to split everything. The place was not my first choice of vacation spots, so the more he said, "Okay, give me this much for the bill," the more animosity I felt. He earns a good $30,000 more than I do, his company pays for a lot of his food/transportation, and his rent is half of mine.
I approached him about this when I was frustrated beyond belief, and basically unloaded repressed anger and rambled on about how female and male roles in a relationship are not supposed to be equal. His response was, "Well, I'm not prince charming, and don't expect me to be."
Then he claimed he was "used" for money in his last relationship, which I find very very hard to believe.
I have a very tight budget, with student loans and a huge rent check, yet I still manage to "split" everything. I get him meaningful gifts, and his are only so-so, in meaning and value. I don't need expensive things, but it would be nice to be treated like a lady in terms of dinners and vacations!!
Growing up my dad was amazing and I was his princess! He showed me the role a man is supposed to play: take the girl out, open her door, pull out her chair, etc. How do you suggest approaching this situation? - The princess and the finances
So, do men pay because they're supposed to, or because this man out-earns you, or because you out-borrowed and out-rented him?
And, since when is a vacation not an "expensive thing" - and not proof that you "truly want to continue to date"?
You'll help your cause if you scrutinize and solidify your beliefs on gender roles - and make sure you apply the resulting ideology consistently. If indeed "female and male roles in a relationship" are unequal, then do you believe the inequality is ceremonial (opening doors, etc.), or substantial (men are breadwinners)?
And if you vote "substantial," are you prepared to have less say than your someday husband in family matters? To accept less pay and lesser jobs because men are the ones with the greater social and familial expenses?
Yours may be an amazing dad who doted on you out of love. However, he may unwittingly have installed a fairy tale that's now weak with dry rot. Consider dismantling it if only for your boyfriend's sake: You blow right past those first eight or so dates, which could easily have lightened him by a sum in the thousand-dollar range, and for which you come across not as grateful, but spoiled and unimpressed.
The bigger and more important reason to dismantle the fairy tale lies between the lines of your letter: You struggle mightily to express how you feel, what you believe and what you want. As un-princessy as it feels to speak your mind, your inability to do so is more to blame for your unhappiness than your boyfriend's bean-counting is.
Had you said early on, "My father treated me like a princess, and I'm traditional about gender roles to this day," then you probably would have actually talked about who pays for dates/vacations - and maybe even the deeper implications of such - allowing each of you to proceed (or not) with eyes open, instead of carrying awkwardness and clashing values to the point of pent-up anger.
You may have come away from such a conversation just as convinced that his "I've been used" story is bunk. (Which it is; he needs to own his habits, not blame them on exes.) But you may also have been able to spot - or just accept - a solid declaration: He made it clear he's not paying your way.
I believe that being in the habit of directness yourself allows you to be more receptive to it in others. As it stands, you're opting not to take him at his word, and asking me how to approach the issue. I.e., change his mind, right?
So that's my suggested approach: Lock coyness in the tower. Tell him who you are, and why splitting everything rankles. Find out now whether princess and frog have a chance.
Washington Post
Who Won CPAC? From the who cares department!
Rick Perry issued a call to arms, Ron Paul squeaked out a second straw-poll victory, and Donald Trump drew libertarian ire. Mark McKinnon on CPAC's 2012 forecasts.
At the auditions for Conservative Idol 2012, also known as the Conservative Political Action Conference this weekend in Washington, D.C., some contenders pitched hard but fell flat, while others hit perfect notes and were rewarded with rock-star receptions from the record crowd.
Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX), the Sanjaya of presidential candidates—with a fevered but limited libertarian fanbase—won the straw-poll vote for the second year running. But the CPAC straw poll is not historically predictive. Other more likely contestants for the final two on the GOP ticket tested their messages, finding their rhythm and groove.
Headliners included former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, former Gov. Mitt Romney (R-MA), Sen. John Thune (R-SD), former Gov. Tim Pawlenty (R-MN), former Godfathers Pizza CEO Herman Cain, Gov. Mitch Daniels (R-IN), and Gov. Haley Barbour (R-MS). And other crowd pleasers: Donald Trump, who riled Ron Paul fans saying Paul cannot get elected (but neither can “The Donald”), Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN), Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY), Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI), and John Bolton, former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations. Though fan votes carry more weight, for judges’ scoring, see Politico’s report card.
The showcase featured more voices from the heartland than the Beltway. Most were in perfect harmony, with fiscal issues the primary motif. In recognition of the Tea Party movement’s influence and this week’s tango lessons, a familiar refrain resonated: The federal government should focus on doing well only what the federal government should be doing, but otherwise “get off our backs, and out of our pockets." And as Gov. Rick Perry (R-TX) said with swagger, “Get the hell out of our way.”
Tim Pawlenty offered a surprisingly high-energy performance, and some refreshing honesty in response to questioning by CPAC bloggers. Pawlenty acknowledged that he once supported cap-and-trade legislation but has since changed his position. "Almost everybody who's running has a similar problem," Pawlenty said. "I think if you look under the hood you'll see that I, like everybody else potentially running, looked at it, flirted with it, and then decided it was a bad idea." A successful two-term governor, Pawlenty has a down-to-earth, blue-collar appeal, but is an underdog on a stage crowded with bigger names.
A similar unknown, Mitch Daniels, began his CPAC address with self-deprecating light humor, but then offered a studied and serious address on the dangers of the nation’s fiscal failures. “It is the new Red Menace, this time consisting of ink,” Daniels said. “If a foreign power advanced an army to the border of our land, everyone in this room would drop everything and look for a way to help. We would set aside all other agendas and disputes as secondary, and go to the ramparts until the threat was repelled. That is what those of us here, and every possible ally we can persuade to join us, are now called to do.” Preaching to the choir, Daniels, nicknamed “The Blade” for his cost-cutting, presents quite a policy and personality contrast with President Obama.
As Gov. Rick Perry (R-TX) said with swagger, “Get the hell out of our way.”
The GOP’s narrative architecture that won in 2010 will return in 2012 with messaging around the top issues: the economy, jobs, spending, the proper role of government, and a growing concern about international instability. Conservatives are united in limiting President Obama to one term. And Obama is vulnerable. In a CNN poll, 51 percent predict he will lose. But to whom?
Keeping it real, the 2012 contest has months to go. No Conservative Idol contestant will be sent home this week, for one speech at CPAC does not win the title. No one hurt their chances, but a few performances stood out, and CPAC begins to give clarity to who the frontrunners will be and what their messages will sound like:
1. Mitch Daniels
Serious message. Serious candidate. Largely unknown to the public, but inside buzz getting hot.
2. Mitt Romney
In a conventional season, he'd be a lock. But his Massachusetts health=care bill is gonna wrap his axle.
3. Mike Huckabee
If he gets in, he'll be top tier.
4. Newt Gingrich
The intellectual bomb-thrower is back.
5. Tim Pawlenty
Sharpening up message and operation. Points for effort but still has difficulty exciting anyone.
6. John Huntsman
Good general-election candidate if he can get through primaries.
7. Haley Barbour
Savvy vet, needs to start showing some leg.
8. John Thune
Plum Senate assignments may be diminishing his appetite.
9. Sarah Palin
Miserable couple months, but just hired a chief of staff to tighten up the operation.
10. Tie: Ron Paul and Donald Trump
Lit 'em up at CPAC as usual. But The Donald told the truth: Paul can't win.
Runner Up: Rick Santorum
Couldn't fill the CPAC auditorium. Could strike in Iowa, but that's it. Can't win.
The VP List
1. Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL)
2. Gov. Chris Christie (R-NJ)
3. Gov. Bob McDonnell (R-VA)
4. Jeb Bush
5. Gov. Rick Perry (R-TX)
DAILY BEAST
At the auditions for Conservative Idol 2012, also known as the Conservative Political Action Conference this weekend in Washington, D.C., some contenders pitched hard but fell flat, while others hit perfect notes and were rewarded with rock-star receptions from the record crowd.
Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX), the Sanjaya of presidential candidates—with a fevered but limited libertarian fanbase—won the straw-poll vote for the second year running. But the CPAC straw poll is not historically predictive. Other more likely contestants for the final two on the GOP ticket tested their messages, finding their rhythm and groove.
Headliners included former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, former Gov. Mitt Romney (R-MA), Sen. John Thune (R-SD), former Gov. Tim Pawlenty (R-MN), former Godfathers Pizza CEO Herman Cain, Gov. Mitch Daniels (R-IN), and Gov. Haley Barbour (R-MS). And other crowd pleasers: Donald Trump, who riled Ron Paul fans saying Paul cannot get elected (but neither can “The Donald”), Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN), Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY), Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI), and John Bolton, former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations. Though fan votes carry more weight, for judges’ scoring, see Politico’s report card.
The showcase featured more voices from the heartland than the Beltway. Most were in perfect harmony, with fiscal issues the primary motif. In recognition of the Tea Party movement’s influence and this week’s tango lessons, a familiar refrain resonated: The federal government should focus on doing well only what the federal government should be doing, but otherwise “get off our backs, and out of our pockets." And as Gov. Rick Perry (R-TX) said with swagger, “Get the hell out of our way.”
Tim Pawlenty offered a surprisingly high-energy performance, and some refreshing honesty in response to questioning by CPAC bloggers. Pawlenty acknowledged that he once supported cap-and-trade legislation but has since changed his position. "Almost everybody who's running has a similar problem," Pawlenty said. "I think if you look under the hood you'll see that I, like everybody else potentially running, looked at it, flirted with it, and then decided it was a bad idea." A successful two-term governor, Pawlenty has a down-to-earth, blue-collar appeal, but is an underdog on a stage crowded with bigger names.
A similar unknown, Mitch Daniels, began his CPAC address with self-deprecating light humor, but then offered a studied and serious address on the dangers of the nation’s fiscal failures. “It is the new Red Menace, this time consisting of ink,” Daniels said. “If a foreign power advanced an army to the border of our land, everyone in this room would drop everything and look for a way to help. We would set aside all other agendas and disputes as secondary, and go to the ramparts until the threat was repelled. That is what those of us here, and every possible ally we can persuade to join us, are now called to do.” Preaching to the choir, Daniels, nicknamed “The Blade” for his cost-cutting, presents quite a policy and personality contrast with President Obama.
As Gov. Rick Perry (R-TX) said with swagger, “Get the hell out of our way.”
The GOP’s narrative architecture that won in 2010 will return in 2012 with messaging around the top issues: the economy, jobs, spending, the proper role of government, and a growing concern about international instability. Conservatives are united in limiting President Obama to one term. And Obama is vulnerable. In a CNN poll, 51 percent predict he will lose. But to whom?
Keeping it real, the 2012 contest has months to go. No Conservative Idol contestant will be sent home this week, for one speech at CPAC does not win the title. No one hurt their chances, but a few performances stood out, and CPAC begins to give clarity to who the frontrunners will be and what their messages will sound like:
1. Mitch Daniels
Serious message. Serious candidate. Largely unknown to the public, but inside buzz getting hot.
2. Mitt Romney
In a conventional season, he'd be a lock. But his Massachusetts health=care bill is gonna wrap his axle.
3. Mike Huckabee
If he gets in, he'll be top tier.
4. Newt Gingrich
The intellectual bomb-thrower is back.
5. Tim Pawlenty
Sharpening up message and operation. Points for effort but still has difficulty exciting anyone.
6. John Huntsman
Good general-election candidate if he can get through primaries.
7. Haley Barbour
Savvy vet, needs to start showing some leg.
8. John Thune
Plum Senate assignments may be diminishing his appetite.
9. Sarah Palin
Miserable couple months, but just hired a chief of staff to tighten up the operation.
10. Tie: Ron Paul and Donald Trump
Lit 'em up at CPAC as usual. But The Donald told the truth: Paul can't win.
Runner Up: Rick Santorum
Couldn't fill the CPAC auditorium. Could strike in Iowa, but that's it. Can't win.
The VP List
1. Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL)
2. Gov. Chris Christie (R-NJ)
3. Gov. Bob McDonnell (R-VA)
4. Jeb Bush
5. Gov. Rick Perry (R-TX)
DAILY BEAST
First Lady Says Laughter Is Key to Togetherness (from an outside view Michelle appears to be a Great Wife!)
WASHINGTON (AP) — Here's Michelle Obama's advice for couples this Valentine's Day: laugh with your partner.
She says it's what she and President Barack Obama do, and it seems to be working. Their marriage, although tested throughout the years by his political ambitions — for the Illinois Senate, the U.S. Senate and later president — is going on 19 years.
"I think a lot of laughing," the first lady said at a White House luncheon with reporters who asked about the Obamas' union. "I think in our house we don't take ourselves too seriously, and laughter is the best form of unity, I think, in a marriage.
"So we still find ways to have fun together, and a lot of it is private and personal. But we keep each other smiling and that's good," she added.
It also helps that Obama is "very romantic."
"He remembers dates, birthdays," Mrs. Obama said last week on "Live! With Regis and Kelly. "He doesn't forget a thing, even when I think he is. . I'll have a little attitude. I give him a little attitude, but he always comes through."
"Got to keep the romance alive, even in the White House," she said.
As for Valentine's Day on Monday, the first lady said her husband would do right by giving her jewelry.
"You can't go wrong," she said.
But Mrs. Obama also said they don't fuss too much over the day that's about celebrating love and affection between couples.
Last year, the Obamas spent Valentine's Day at the Camp David presidential retreat in Maryland.
In 2009, their first year in the White House, they went home to Chicago and enjoyed a quiet dinner at Table 52, a traditional Southern restaurant owned by Art Smith, the former chef of Obama pal Oprah Winfrey.
How will they celebrate this year? Stay tuned.
"We don't make a big deal out of Valentine's Day because my birthday was the 17th (of January)," she told Regis Philbin and Kelly Ripa. She noted, too, that Christmas was just a few weeks before that.
"So by Feb. 14, we're kind of tired," Mrs. Obama said.
For her 47th birthday last month, the Obamas dined at The Source, celebrity chef Wolfgang Puck's restaurant at the Newseum in Washington.
AP News
She says it's what she and President Barack Obama do, and it seems to be working. Their marriage, although tested throughout the years by his political ambitions — for the Illinois Senate, the U.S. Senate and later president — is going on 19 years.
"I think a lot of laughing," the first lady said at a White House luncheon with reporters who asked about the Obamas' union. "I think in our house we don't take ourselves too seriously, and laughter is the best form of unity, I think, in a marriage.
"So we still find ways to have fun together, and a lot of it is private and personal. But we keep each other smiling and that's good," she added.
It also helps that Obama is "very romantic."
"He remembers dates, birthdays," Mrs. Obama said last week on "Live! With Regis and Kelly. "He doesn't forget a thing, even when I think he is. . I'll have a little attitude. I give him a little attitude, but he always comes through."
"Got to keep the romance alive, even in the White House," she said.
As for Valentine's Day on Monday, the first lady said her husband would do right by giving her jewelry.
"You can't go wrong," she said.
But Mrs. Obama also said they don't fuss too much over the day that's about celebrating love and affection between couples.
Last year, the Obamas spent Valentine's Day at the Camp David presidential retreat in Maryland.
In 2009, their first year in the White House, they went home to Chicago and enjoyed a quiet dinner at Table 52, a traditional Southern restaurant owned by Art Smith, the former chef of Obama pal Oprah Winfrey.
How will they celebrate this year? Stay tuned.
"We don't make a big deal out of Valentine's Day because my birthday was the 17th (of January)," she told Regis Philbin and Kelly Ripa. She noted, too, that Christmas was just a few weeks before that.
"So by Feb. 14, we're kind of tired," Mrs. Obama said.
For her 47th birthday last month, the Obamas dined at The Source, celebrity chef Wolfgang Puck's restaurant at the Newseum in Washington.
AP News
Speaker's NY Death Highlights Assisted-Suicide Law
NEW YORK (AP) — The motivational speaker's death looked like a sinister tale of a suburbanite who strayed into a rough city neighborhood. He was found stabbed in the chest in his station wagon in East Harlem, his hands tied behind his back, hours after telling his wife he'd gotten a flat tire.
But when a one-time computer technician goes on trial this week in Jeffrey Locker's 2009 death, jurors will hear a very different story: A desperate man in debt enlisted a stranger to kill him and make his suicide look like a street crime so his survivors could collect millions in insurance money.
Even prosecutors have acknowledged there's evidence to support suspect Kenneth Minor's account, but he's been charged with murder, and jury selection in his trial is likely to begin Monday. The case is putting a novel frame on tricky legal questions surrounding assisted suicide, a topic that courts more often address in the context of terminally ill people who ask doctors or loved ones to help end their lives.
"This case has 'unusual' written all over it," says Marc Spindelman, a professor at Ohio State University's Michael E. Moritz College of Law. He studies legal issues surrounding death and dying.
At 52, Locker had built a career around coping with pressure. Focused on "bringing spirituality into the business world," he gave presentations on handling workplace stress and frustration, according to his now-gone website. A father of three, he lived in prosperous North Woodmere, N.Y.
But Locker was buckling under financial strain. He was facing a federal bank court trustee's demands to return at least $121,200 he'd made from investing in a $300 million Ponzi scheme run by boy band impresario Lou Pearlman, the mastermind of 'N Sync and the Backstreet Boys. Locker had told the court he was an innocent investor who was now "severely in credit card debt" and would have to declare bankruptcy if forced to repay the money.
He created a trail of clues that suggested he was contemplating a deadly way out.
In the last months of his life, Locker took out at least $4 million in life insurance, according to a lawsuit filed by an insurance company. Locker also researched funeral arrangements online, told his wife in an e-mail how to protect and distribute their assets "when I am gone" and discussed making farewell videos with his son, prosecutors have said in court documents.
Principal Life Insurance Co. has asked a federal court to void a $4 million policy he took out in April 2009; the company's lawsuit doesn't address the circumstances of his death but says he lied about his earnings.
And when Locker drove up to Minor on a street near an East Harlem public housing complex, he said he was looking to buy a gun and "do a Kevorkian," Minor later told detectives, referring to famous assisted-suicide advocate Dr. Jack Kevorkian.
The family is declining to comment, said attorney Irving Serota, who was Locker's father-in-law.
Minor, now 36, was a sometime computer technician with a high school education, a drug addiction and an arrest record that dated to the early 1990s, according to his lawyer and authorities.
He told investigators he initially rebuffed Locker, but then Locker explained his financial woes and family worries.
"Mr. Minor actually began to feel sorry for him at that point, so he agreed to help if he could," Detective Robert Mooney testified at a pretrial hearing Thursday.
Locker agreed to pay Minor about $1,400 by giving him his ATM card and PIN number, but Locker "said it had to look like a robbery so his family can get what they deserve," Minor told police.
When Minor couldn't get a gun and his attempt to strangle Locker with telephone wire didn't work, Locker supplied a knife from his glove compartment, told Minor to hold it against the steering wheel and repeatedly threw himself on it, according to Minor's statement. He said Locker was still alive when he left.
Whatever jurors think of the strange saga, Minor's trial — and the possibility of spending the rest of his life in prison — may hinge on precisely how they define his role in it.
Under New York law, "causing or aiding" a suicide is a form of manslaughter punishable by a maximum of 15 years in prison; there's also a lesser offense of "promoting a suicide attempt." Minor has offered to plead guilty to manslaughter, said his lawyer, Daniel J. Gotlin.
Prosecutors have rejected that. Even if Minor just held the knife, that was "active participation" in Locker's death that amounts to murder, Manhattan assistant district attorney Peter Casolaro said in a court filing. A judge echoed that reasoning last year in refusing to toss out the murder charge, punishable by as much as life in prison.
Legal debate over the boundary between murder and assisting suicide has largely focused on cases involving medical professionals or relatives who help terminally ill people kill themselves.
Kevorkian was acquitted of several assisted suicides before being convicted of murder in 1999 after giving a lethal injection to a man with Lou Gehrig's disease. The Michigan doctor served eight years in prison.
But courts also have weighed in occasionally on cases involving murkier relationships and patients who weren't dying of disease.
To a Texas appeals court, it didn't matter whether a woman was beset by problems and wanted to die when she was shot in 1985 by a man who said she talked him into it by offering her car and a couple of hundred dollars. The man's murder conviction was upheld.
Nor did a written suicide pact between a prison escapee and his wife — who'd married him after he was convicted of killing his first wife — persuade a New Mexico appeals court that the shot to her temple wasn't murder, even if he only held the rifle. (He said he was too "freaked out" to kill himself afterward.)
But in a case that went to New York's highest court, a man was charged with and convicted of manslaughter — not murder — after he gave a rifle to a suicidal 17-year-old and told him to "blow his head off."
But if the parameters of such cases might not be clear, the legal lesson is, Spindelman said.
"If asked," he said, "answer 'no.'"
AP News
But when a one-time computer technician goes on trial this week in Jeffrey Locker's 2009 death, jurors will hear a very different story: A desperate man in debt enlisted a stranger to kill him and make his suicide look like a street crime so his survivors could collect millions in insurance money.
Even prosecutors have acknowledged there's evidence to support suspect Kenneth Minor's account, but he's been charged with murder, and jury selection in his trial is likely to begin Monday. The case is putting a novel frame on tricky legal questions surrounding assisted suicide, a topic that courts more often address in the context of terminally ill people who ask doctors or loved ones to help end their lives.
"This case has 'unusual' written all over it," says Marc Spindelman, a professor at Ohio State University's Michael E. Moritz College of Law. He studies legal issues surrounding death and dying.
At 52, Locker had built a career around coping with pressure. Focused on "bringing spirituality into the business world," he gave presentations on handling workplace stress and frustration, according to his now-gone website. A father of three, he lived in prosperous North Woodmere, N.Y.
But Locker was buckling under financial strain. He was facing a federal bank court trustee's demands to return at least $121,200 he'd made from investing in a $300 million Ponzi scheme run by boy band impresario Lou Pearlman, the mastermind of 'N Sync and the Backstreet Boys. Locker had told the court he was an innocent investor who was now "severely in credit card debt" and would have to declare bankruptcy if forced to repay the money.
He created a trail of clues that suggested he was contemplating a deadly way out.
In the last months of his life, Locker took out at least $4 million in life insurance, according to a lawsuit filed by an insurance company. Locker also researched funeral arrangements online, told his wife in an e-mail how to protect and distribute their assets "when I am gone" and discussed making farewell videos with his son, prosecutors have said in court documents.
Principal Life Insurance Co. has asked a federal court to void a $4 million policy he took out in April 2009; the company's lawsuit doesn't address the circumstances of his death but says he lied about his earnings.
And when Locker drove up to Minor on a street near an East Harlem public housing complex, he said he was looking to buy a gun and "do a Kevorkian," Minor later told detectives, referring to famous assisted-suicide advocate Dr. Jack Kevorkian.
The family is declining to comment, said attorney Irving Serota, who was Locker's father-in-law.
Minor, now 36, was a sometime computer technician with a high school education, a drug addiction and an arrest record that dated to the early 1990s, according to his lawyer and authorities.
He told investigators he initially rebuffed Locker, but then Locker explained his financial woes and family worries.
"Mr. Minor actually began to feel sorry for him at that point, so he agreed to help if he could," Detective Robert Mooney testified at a pretrial hearing Thursday.
Locker agreed to pay Minor about $1,400 by giving him his ATM card and PIN number, but Locker "said it had to look like a robbery so his family can get what they deserve," Minor told police.
When Minor couldn't get a gun and his attempt to strangle Locker with telephone wire didn't work, Locker supplied a knife from his glove compartment, told Minor to hold it against the steering wheel and repeatedly threw himself on it, according to Minor's statement. He said Locker was still alive when he left.
Whatever jurors think of the strange saga, Minor's trial — and the possibility of spending the rest of his life in prison — may hinge on precisely how they define his role in it.
Under New York law, "causing or aiding" a suicide is a form of manslaughter punishable by a maximum of 15 years in prison; there's also a lesser offense of "promoting a suicide attempt." Minor has offered to plead guilty to manslaughter, said his lawyer, Daniel J. Gotlin.
Prosecutors have rejected that. Even if Minor just held the knife, that was "active participation" in Locker's death that amounts to murder, Manhattan assistant district attorney Peter Casolaro said in a court filing. A judge echoed that reasoning last year in refusing to toss out the murder charge, punishable by as much as life in prison.
Legal debate over the boundary between murder and assisting suicide has largely focused on cases involving medical professionals or relatives who help terminally ill people kill themselves.
Kevorkian was acquitted of several assisted suicides before being convicted of murder in 1999 after giving a lethal injection to a man with Lou Gehrig's disease. The Michigan doctor served eight years in prison.
But courts also have weighed in occasionally on cases involving murkier relationships and patients who weren't dying of disease.
To a Texas appeals court, it didn't matter whether a woman was beset by problems and wanted to die when she was shot in 1985 by a man who said she talked him into it by offering her car and a couple of hundred dollars. The man's murder conviction was upheld.
Nor did a written suicide pact between a prison escapee and his wife — who'd married him after he was convicted of killing his first wife — persuade a New Mexico appeals court that the shot to her temple wasn't murder, even if he only held the rifle. (He said he was too "freaked out" to kill himself afterward.)
But in a case that went to New York's highest court, a man was charged with and convicted of manslaughter — not murder — after he gave a rifle to a suicidal 17-year-old and told him to "blow his head off."
But if the parameters of such cases might not be clear, the legal lesson is, Spindelman said.
"If asked," he said, "answer 'no.'"
AP News
Police: Man kills 4 in stabbing rampage across NYC that ends in Times Square subway station.
It apparently began, police said, when a 23-year-old graffiti artist asked his mother if he could drive her Lexus. She said no.
Maksim Gelman had a bloodied kitchen knife when he was taken into police custody at about 9 a.m. Saturday after a nightlong manhunt, police said.
"It's so horrendous and bizarre. We have no reason to know why he did this," said police Commissioner Raymond Kelly, who held up a photo of the knife that he said Gelman had used to slash a subway rider on the head and neck before he was apprehended. The man survived.
"I don't recall seeing anything like this," said Kelly, who has spent decades working for the New York Police Department.
He said charges were pending against Gelman.
The stabbing spree started just after 5 a.m. Friday, when police say Gelman fatally knifed his stepfather, Aleksandr Kuznetsov, at their apartment in Brooklyn's Sheepshead Bay neighborhood. Gelman had gotten into a fight with his mother after she refused to allow him to use her Lexus, and Kuznetsov intervened and was attacked, Kelly said.
Police found the 54-year-old man's body at his home in the predominantly Eastern European immigrant neighborhood. The Ukrainian-born Gelman and his mother became naturalized U.S. citizens in 2004 or 2005, Kelly said.
At about 10:30 a.m., several blocks away, Gelman entered the home of his ex-girlfriend and used a kitchen knife to fatally stab her mother, 56-year-old Anna Bulchenko, Kelly said. When 20-year-old Yelena Bulchenko arrived home at about 4 p.m., she found her mother dead in a pool of blood and called 911, police said.
Police: Man Kills 4 in Stabbing Rampage Across NYC
Police: Man kills 4 in stabbing rampage across NYC that ends in Times Square subway station.
PrintRSSFont Size: Share:EmailTwitterFacebookMoreFarkTechnoratiGoogleLiveMy SpaceNewsvineRedditDeliciousMixxYahoo
Gelman apparently was still in the house, chasing Bulchenko as she fled outside and stabbing her 11 times as she died, Kelly said.
More Video
Watch: Greenroom: Obama and Egypt
Watch: Roundtable: Revolution in Egypt
Watch: Interview with Tim PawlentyHe then sped away in the Lexus to Brooklyn's Midwood neighborhood, rear-ending a Pontiac. The driver confronted Gelman and was stabbed three times in the chest but survived and was in stable condition, Kelly said.
Gelman drove off in the Pontiac, hitting 62-year-old pedestrian Stephen Tanenbaum, who died of his injuries, police said. He later abandoned the car, engine running, in the driveway of a private house in Midwood, not far from a freight railroad line "Gelman frequented as a graffiti artist," Kelly said.
Gelman was not seen again until just before 1 a.m. Saturday, when he confronted a livery cab driver in the Crown Heights area and stabbed him, Kelly said. Shortly after, he approached a couple in a Nissan, stabbing the man multiple times in the hand before hijacking the car, police said. Both men survived.
Just after 8 a.m. Saturday, passengers on a southbound No. 1 train in upper Manhattan noticed that a man on the train matched photos of Gelman they had seen in newspapers.
One passenger on the train got off at West 96th Street, approached officers on the platform and told them that a man fitting Gelman's description knocked a newspaper out of her hand, saying, "Do you believe what they're writing about me?" Kelly said.
Gelman jumped off the train at the West 34th Street station, crossed the tracks and hopped on a northbound No. 3 train, where he stabbed a passenger, the commissioner said.
Officers were in the driver's compartment of the train after hearing reports that Gelman might be on board. Gelman made his way up to the driver's door and pounded on it, "claiming that he was the police," Kelly said.
One of the officers threw open the door and wrestled Gelman to the ground, knocking the knife from his hand, Kelly said.
He was taken into custody from the train at Times Square. None of Gelman's relatives could be reached for comment Saturday.
"I saw a stream of people coming from the front of the train. They looked upset. They had white faces," Hyun Jo of East Orange, N.J., told the New York Post. "The conductor announced they 'found the guy who killed four people yesterday.' I saw the blood in the other car when they let us off. It was crazy."
Kelly described Gelman as an unemployed drug user with 10 previous arrests — mostly linked to graffiti and drugs.
The commissioner said the suspect's statements to police were "pretty incoherent" — including one in which he stated that "she had to die." Kelly said he wasn't sure if that was a reference to the ex-girlfriend or someone else.
A longtime friend of Yelena Bulchenko, Angela Akopyan, said the first time she heard of Gelman was Friday. "I never heard of him prior to yesterday. Ever in my life," she said.
She described Bulchenko as "always happy." "She was just a really good person to be around," Akopyan said.
Bulchenko worked as a receptionist at a dental office in Brooklyn, and had attended Kingsborough Community College, she said. The last time Akopyan saw her was Tuesday, when a group of friends got together at an Applebee's. "It was the first time we saw each other in the past two weeks. We were making plans for the weekend like we always do," Akopyan said. "And then it never happened."
AP News
Maksim Gelman had a bloodied kitchen knife when he was taken into police custody at about 9 a.m. Saturday after a nightlong manhunt, police said.
"It's so horrendous and bizarre. We have no reason to know why he did this," said police Commissioner Raymond Kelly, who held up a photo of the knife that he said Gelman had used to slash a subway rider on the head and neck before he was apprehended. The man survived.
"I don't recall seeing anything like this," said Kelly, who has spent decades working for the New York Police Department.
He said charges were pending against Gelman.
The stabbing spree started just after 5 a.m. Friday, when police say Gelman fatally knifed his stepfather, Aleksandr Kuznetsov, at their apartment in Brooklyn's Sheepshead Bay neighborhood. Gelman had gotten into a fight with his mother after she refused to allow him to use her Lexus, and Kuznetsov intervened and was attacked, Kelly said.
Police found the 54-year-old man's body at his home in the predominantly Eastern European immigrant neighborhood. The Ukrainian-born Gelman and his mother became naturalized U.S. citizens in 2004 or 2005, Kelly said.
At about 10:30 a.m., several blocks away, Gelman entered the home of his ex-girlfriend and used a kitchen knife to fatally stab her mother, 56-year-old Anna Bulchenko, Kelly said. When 20-year-old Yelena Bulchenko arrived home at about 4 p.m., she found her mother dead in a pool of blood and called 911, police said.
Police: Man Kills 4 in Stabbing Rampage Across NYC
Police: Man kills 4 in stabbing rampage across NYC that ends in Times Square subway station.
PrintRSSFont Size: Share:EmailTwitterFacebookMoreFarkTechnoratiGoogleLiveMy SpaceNewsvineRedditDeliciousMixxYahoo
Gelman apparently was still in the house, chasing Bulchenko as she fled outside and stabbing her 11 times as she died, Kelly said.
More Video
Watch: Greenroom: Obama and Egypt
Watch: Roundtable: Revolution in Egypt
Watch: Interview with Tim PawlentyHe then sped away in the Lexus to Brooklyn's Midwood neighborhood, rear-ending a Pontiac. The driver confronted Gelman and was stabbed three times in the chest but survived and was in stable condition, Kelly said.
Gelman drove off in the Pontiac, hitting 62-year-old pedestrian Stephen Tanenbaum, who died of his injuries, police said. He later abandoned the car, engine running, in the driveway of a private house in Midwood, not far from a freight railroad line "Gelman frequented as a graffiti artist," Kelly said.
Gelman was not seen again until just before 1 a.m. Saturday, when he confronted a livery cab driver in the Crown Heights area and stabbed him, Kelly said. Shortly after, he approached a couple in a Nissan, stabbing the man multiple times in the hand before hijacking the car, police said. Both men survived.
Just after 8 a.m. Saturday, passengers on a southbound No. 1 train in upper Manhattan noticed that a man on the train matched photos of Gelman they had seen in newspapers.
One passenger on the train got off at West 96th Street, approached officers on the platform and told them that a man fitting Gelman's description knocked a newspaper out of her hand, saying, "Do you believe what they're writing about me?" Kelly said.
Gelman jumped off the train at the West 34th Street station, crossed the tracks and hopped on a northbound No. 3 train, where he stabbed a passenger, the commissioner said.
Officers were in the driver's compartment of the train after hearing reports that Gelman might be on board. Gelman made his way up to the driver's door and pounded on it, "claiming that he was the police," Kelly said.
One of the officers threw open the door and wrestled Gelman to the ground, knocking the knife from his hand, Kelly said.
He was taken into custody from the train at Times Square. None of Gelman's relatives could be reached for comment Saturday.
"I saw a stream of people coming from the front of the train. They looked upset. They had white faces," Hyun Jo of East Orange, N.J., told the New York Post. "The conductor announced they 'found the guy who killed four people yesterday.' I saw the blood in the other car when they let us off. It was crazy."
Kelly described Gelman as an unemployed drug user with 10 previous arrests — mostly linked to graffiti and drugs.
The commissioner said the suspect's statements to police were "pretty incoherent" — including one in which he stated that "she had to die." Kelly said he wasn't sure if that was a reference to the ex-girlfriend or someone else.
A longtime friend of Yelena Bulchenko, Angela Akopyan, said the first time she heard of Gelman was Friday. "I never heard of him prior to yesterday. Ever in my life," she said.
She described Bulchenko as "always happy." "She was just a really good person to be around," Akopyan said.
Bulchenko worked as a receptionist at a dental office in Brooklyn, and had attended Kingsborough Community College, she said. The last time Akopyan saw her was Tuesday, when a group of friends got together at an Applebee's. "It was the first time we saw each other in the past two weeks. We were making plans for the weekend like we always do," Akopyan said. "And then it never happened."
AP News
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)