Tuesday Open Thread

Eric Patrick Clapton, CBE (born 30 March 1945) is an English guitarist, vocalist, and songwriter. Clapton is the only three-time inductee to the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame: once as a solo artist, and separately as a member of The Yardbirds and Cream. Clapton has been referred to as one of the most important and influential guitarists of all time.[2] Clapton ranked fourth in Rolling Stone magazine’s list of the “100 Greatest Guitarists of All Time”[3] and fourth in Gibson’s Top 50 Guitarists of All Time.[4]

In the mid sixties, Clapton left the Yardbirds to play blues with John Mayall & the Bluesbreakers. In his one-year stay with Mayall, Clapton gained the nickname “Slowhand”, and graffiti in London declared “Clapton is God.” Immediately after leaving Mayall, Clapton formed with drummer Ginger Baker and bassist Jack Bruce the trio Cream, in which Clapton played sustained blues improvisations and “arty, blues-based psychedelic pop.”

About SouthernGirl2

A Native Texan who adores baby kittens, loves horses, rodeos, pomegranates, & collect Eagles. Enjoys politics, games shows, & dancing to all types of music. Loves discussing and learning about different cultures. A Phi Theta Kappa lifetime member with a passion for Social & Civil Justice.
This entry was posted in Current Events, Music, Open Thread, Politics and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

46 Responses to Tuesday Open Thread

  1. Ametia says:

    HR3 Petition_RAPE IS RAPE!

  2. Ametia says:

  3. Ametia says:

    Rep. Wasserman Schultz: Bill Redefining Rape To Prevent Abortions Is ‘A Violent Act Against Women’
    House Republicans wasted no time in declaring their legislative priorities for the 112th Congress. The first: repeal health care for millions of Americans. The second: redefine rape. A day after repealing health care, Rep. Chris Smith (R-NJ) introduced the No Taxpayer Funding For Abortion Act, a bill that would not only permanently prohibit some federally funded health-care programs from covering abortions, but would change the language exempting rape and incest from rape to “forcible rape.”

    By narrowing the Hyde Amendment language, Republicans would exclude the following situations from coverage: women who say no but do not physically fight off the perpetrator, women who are drugged or verbally threatened and raped, and minors impregnated by adults. As the National Women’s Law Center’s Steph Sterling puts it, this new standard of force “takes us back to a time where just saying no was not enough.”


  4. Breaking

    Reports: Mubarak to skip bid for re-election after hearing Obama message Embattled Egyptian president expected to speak after protests escalate


    CAIRO — President Hosni Mubarak’s rule is at an end and he should not seek re-election, President Barack Obama has told the Egyptian leader through a special envoy, according to American diplomats.

    Obama’s counsel was revealed as Mubarak prepared to deliver his own message to Egypt after at least 1 million people rallied across the country for him to step down.

    Al Arabiya television said late Tuesday that Mubarak would announce he won’t run in elections scheduled in September. There was no official confirmation. Al Arabiya also said Vice President Omar Suleiman had started meetings with representatives of parties.

    Sources told NBC News that Mubarak would offer “a good solution.”
    The New York Times reported that former U.S. ambassador to Egypt Frank Wisner delivered Obama’s message. The Times said Wisner told Mubarak that Obama was not sending a blunt demand to step aside now, but offering firm counsel that he should make way for a reform process that would culminate in free and fair elections in September for a new Egyptian leader.

  5. dannie22 says:

    So Mubarak won’t step down. He won’t run in the next election. Prolly not good enough for Egypt.

  6. Ametia says:

    Judge Vinson Adopts Tea Party Rhetoric In Overturning Health Reform

    Moments ago, U.S. District Judge Roger Vinson — a Reagan appointee on Northern District of Florida — struck down the entire Affordable Care Act, ruling that since the individual mandate is unconstitutional, the entire law is void. “Because the individual mandate is unconstitutional and not severable, the entire Act must be declared void,” he writes. “This has been a difficult decision to reach, and I am aware that it will have indeterminable implications. At a time when there is virtually unanimous agreement that health care reform is needed in this country, it is hard to invalidate and strike down a statute titled ‘The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.’”

    It’s the kind of over-reach that will do more to harm the Republican crusade against the law than help it. At one point, Vinson even embraces the entire Tea Party rationale
    against the Act and suggests that it could lead to total government domination:

    If it has the power to compel an otherwise passive individual into a commercial transaction with a third party merely by asserting — as was done in the Act — that compelling the actual transaction is itself “commercial and economic in nature, and substantially affects interstate commerce” [see Act § 1501(a)(1)], it is not hyperbolizing to suggest that Congress could do almost anything it wanted. It is difficult to imagine that a nation which began, at least in part, as the result of opposition to a British mandate giving the East India Company a monopoly and imposing a nominal tax on all tea sold in America would have set out to create a government with the power to force people to buy tea in the first place. If Congress can penalize a passive individual for failing to engage in commerce, the enumeration of powers in the Constitution would have been in vain for it would be “difficult to perceive any limitation on federal power” [Lopez, supra, 514 U.S. at 564], and we would have a constitution in name only.

  7. Ametia says:


    I am thrilled to make sure you are the first to hear some very exciting news. Charlotte, North Carolina, will host the 46th Democratic National Convention in 2012.

    Charlotte is a city marked by its southern charm, warm hospitality, and an “up by the bootstraps” mentality that has propelled the city forward as one of the fastest-growing in the South. Vibrant, diverse, and full of opportunity, the Queen City is home to innovative, hardworking folks with big hearts and open minds. And of course, great barbecue.

    Barack and I spent a lot of time in North Carolina during the campaign — from the Atlantic Coast to the Research Triangle to the Smoky Mountains and everywhere in between. Barack enjoyed Asheville so much when he spent several days preparing for the second Presidential debate that our family vacationed there in 2009.

    And my very first trip outside of Washington as First Lady was to Fort Bragg, where I started my effort to do all we can to help our heroic military families.

    All the contending cities were places that Barack and I have grown to know and love, so it was a hard choice. But we are thrilled to be bringing the convention to Charlotte.

    We hope many of you can join us in Charlotte the week of September 3rd, 2012. But if you can’t, we intend to bring the spirit of the convention — as well as actual, related events to your community and even your own backyard.

    More than anything else, we want this to be a grassroots convention for the people. We will finance this convention differently than it’s been done in the past, and we will make sure everyone feels closely tied in to what is happening in Charlotte. This will be a different convention, for a different time.

    To help us make sure this is a grassroots convention — The People’s Convention — we need to hear from you. We want to know what you’d like to see at next year’s convention, how and where you plan on watching it — and the very best way we can engage your friends and neighbors.

    Arlene, please share your input with us right now — how can we make The People’s Convention belong to you and your community?

    I can’t believe it has been more than two years since my brother Craig introduced me at the 2008 Convention in Denver. It truly feels like it was yesterday.

    As I looked out at a sea of thousands of supporters that night, I spoke about my husband — the man whom this country would go on to elect as the 44th President of the United States. I spoke about his fundamental belief — a conviction at the very core of his life’s work — that each of us has something to contribute to the spirit of our nation.

    That’s also the belief at the core of The People’s Convention. That the table we sit at together ought to be big enough for everyone. That the thread that binds us — a belief in the promise of this country — is strong enough to sustain us through good times and bad.

    Barack talked at the State of the Union of his vision for how America can win the future. That must be the focus now, and I know so many of you will help talk about our plans with your neighbors — that through innovation, education, reform, and responsibility we can make sure America realizes this vision.

    But, conventions take time to plan, so please help us make sure that your thoughts and your ideas will ring all the way to Charlotte. Get started now:


    Looking forward to sharing this together,


  8. Edward Lazarus says:


    Good morning to you too!

    Your comments regarding the Supreme Court remind us that the mental picture of what we expect of the individual for whom we vote as our president often does not include thoughts of judicial appointments, even though the decisions a president makes in this regard will affect our lives in more ways and for a longer time than most would realize.

    If a sufficient number of voting Americans clearly understood the importance of appointments by our sitting presidents to the judiciary—-particularly to the Supreme Court—they would realize that a four year term in the Oval Office by a Republican president would be an unmitigated disaster for the greater majority of Americans at crucial a time such as this.

    After eight years of unbridled arrogance under G.W.Bush—(acknowledged by THINKING Americans as our “worst president EVER”)–including the appointments of Alito and Roberts to a court already infected by the presence of such zealots as Thomas and Scalia, and taking into consideration some of the rulings of this particular court such as “Citizens United,” the need for a course correction is both clear and urgent.

    It is for this reason, among many, that the retention for a second term by President Obama is seen as so vital by so many Americans.

    The current challenge to the Health Care Reform Bill that was enacted by congress is still further evidence that a change from Democratic to Republican leadership at the executive level would almost certainly allow still a further “lean to the right” by the High Court, and would surely doom the hopes of millions who will again be at the mercy of a merciless insurance industry whose interests are zealously guarded by the equally merciless GOP.

    The two appointments thus far by President Obama to the court show not a course correction, but an effort simply to maintain the status quo in terms of balance….but clearly not an effort to move the court in the direction of progressivism. (Still one more example, I believe, of Mr. Obama’s efforts to achieve that illusive bipartisanship!)

    This is not to suggest that the appointment of two women is not without significance. Nor is it of small importance that one was Hispanic and the other Jewish. Both Kagen and Sotomayor were very welcome selections, but neither is what most would describe as particularly progressive…or left leaning. And neither really affected balance, other than to maintain it.

    To allow the responsibility of selecting the next Supreme Court Judge(s) to a conservative president is to admit what we all already know; the “little” guy, the middle and working class citizens of this great country, our union members, our teachers and first responders will be left eating dust….with many forced, rather late in life and in a bitterly challenging economy….to seek new means of supporting themselves and their families.

    I think that if the connection between the presidential elections and the FUTURE of the laws that will become the all important “Law Of The Land,” is more clearly understood by those who will actually cast votes, the numbers of the “haves,” vs. the “have-nots” will settle these issues fairly.

    I think the candidates for the presidency should be asked…over and over again…to offer their view of the “perfect” court makeup….and far more specifics regarding the court, perhaps naming the names of some who might be considered.

    The selection of our presidents should not leave such important questions to be answered “later.”
    I think that greater attention to the eventual makeup of the highest court in the land is an area of discussion that favors the candidate of the Democratic party….and that a newly awakened Democratic minority in the House should make the Supreme Court a well discussed matter during the campaign, a subject I believe the GOP would rather not have examined too closely.

    AND I believe it is WAY past time to allow the incredibly dishonest and hypocritical GOP to scream their phony mantra about “judicial activism!” Particularly since all reputable versions of English language dictionaries now post after the term “judicial activism” a suggestion; “SEE GOP!”

    • Ametia says:

      My question to you Edward is how does America keep the Supreme Court free from political/ judicial activism when the political process is used to appoint the judges?

      • Edward Lazarus says:


        Thanks for the question. I wish I had an answer.

        But it is not mine to solve such problems, but rather to stand on the sidelines and criticize! (How’s that for a cop-out?)

        Really, I can only say that in a representative democracy it is NOT ONLY the leaders who are responsible for the well run government of which we all dream….but EQUALLY the responsibility of the “people.”

        I know it may sound corny or even trite in such times as these, but Old Abe was right when he spoke of government “of-by-and for thePEOPLE.”

        It is up to US to educate ourselves about political parties, individual politicians, and to the extent possible, the sources of financial support he/she receives, and from whom.

        This, I think, is the minimum basic information one needs to vote for the person who will — most likely—choose a court candidate you might have chosen yourself.

        It is….in its own winding, weaving way , how WE make the judicial selections that will best represent our beliefs, wishes, and dreams. And while it certainly is short of perfection, it appears to be the best system man has yet devised.

        I guess it boils down to every eligible voter being well informed. A difficult goal in a time when it seems our most vital and meaningful decisions are influenced by a special class of Americans known as “L.I.V’s”…. (Low Information Voters!)

  9. Ametia says:

    Democrats choose Charlotte, North Carolina, as host city for 2012 Democratic National Convention, source tells CNN.

  10. Ametia says:

    • Edward Lazarus says:

      Check it out! A member of the Bush family that neither looks nor thinks like a Bush! Good for her….and her common sense!

  11. Ametia says:

    The White House Photo Office recently released a set of 61 behind-the-scenes photos from December 2010. Take a look back at a productive month in Washington, D.C. — including the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell Repeal Act signing and a toast to the new START Treaty — that closes with a family vacation to President Obama’s home state of Hawaii.


    • Edward Lazarus says:

      I sometimes wonder how you guys come up with all this fascinating material about the comings and goings in the White House. I wonder, too….how you managed to get an old man like me hooked on it.

      My sympathies to anyone who doesn’t see this slide show!

      Maybe I’m getting soft, but there is something about knowing that it is this particular man….among so many millions….and this beautiful and inspiring family of his….that occupy the White House that somehow gives me a feeling of comfort.

      We have had enough time now, I believe, to assess the methods and thinking of Obama vs. G.W. Bush….and I prefer the genuine analytical thinker to the pseudo- action-hero figure.

      I care more for a man who tries to engage others in conversation about the “blessings” of democracy, in an effort to change minds—and hearts—
      than the make-believe tough guy who says, “accept it or I’ll bomb your country, occupy it, destroy all of its institutions, kill your leader, steal your oil, and then welcome you to the democracies of the world. I guess I’m funny that way.

      One thing I notice in these photos and so many others. Even in photos, you can tell that Obama LISTENS! He is surrounded by men and women who do not necessarily think “surly and unapproacable” is the attitude to adopt when the cameras are present.

      What I can’t help but feel , though, is thatObama is not the type to call his Chief of Staff “turd-blossom,” or otherwise diminish the dignity of the Oval Office.

      Whatever the case, while some call it a “smugness,” I detect a strong self confidence, a careful, well thought out decision making process, a consideration of “the other guy,” and enough assurance in his own intelligence and ability to make the best decision—not for party—but for OUR COUNTRY!
      I trust him. (I still watch closely!)
      He’s got some serious thinking to do about the uprisings in the Middle East, but how he handles it vs. how Bush might have? Who knows?
      But for an eventual resolution that does NOT cost American lives…..I’ll take Obama.
      Anyway….thanks for those great photos. If only I could figure how to capture and save them in my computer!

    • Ametia says:

      So glad you’re enjoying the photos, Edward. They say a picture is worth a thousand words.

    • Ametia says:

  12. dannie22 says:

    Good morning all!

  13. Ametia says:

    Happy Negrophilia Month!

  14. # 88 Emmanuel Sanders

    Official Pittsburgh Super Bowl Anthem by. Lil One The Champ “My Super Bowl”

    Shout out to Lil One The Champ, Baton Rouge, Louisiana! Whoo Hoo! :)

  15. rikyrah says:

    Let’s say a prayer that the million man march in Egypt doesn’t get violent.

  16. Ametia says:

    Posted at 4:15 PM ET, 01/31/2011
    Yes, but what will Anthony Kennedy say?
    By Greg Sargent

    As you’ve heard, a Florida judge has ruled that the individual mandate is unconstitutional, meaning that two GOP-appointed judges have reached that conclusion, versus two Dem-appointed judges who have concluded the opposite. Only in this case, the judge, Roger Vinson, ruled that the individual mandate is not severable from the rest of the law, meaning the entire thing has to be tossed.

    I just checked in with Louis Seidman, a professor of constitutional law at Georgetown University, to get his thoughts on the ruling.

    * Seidman skewered one of the ruling’s core findings — that the individual mandate is unconstitutional because it constitutes regulating economic inactivity. He argued that the constitution’s “necessary and proper clause” explicitly provides for the regulation of anything that “has an effect” on interstate markets.

    “If Congress wants to mandate that insurance companies not discriminate against people with preexisting conditions, then Congress could rationally think it’s necessary to make sure that people participate in the insurance market” to make the ban on discrimination function properly, he said.

    * Seidman, interestingly, said he thought the judge’s most controversial decision — that the mandate is not severable from the overall law, suggesting it needs to be tossed out entirely — had something to it.

    “My own sense about that is that he’s probably right,” Seidman said. “The various segments of the law are sufficiently intertwined that it’s very hard to cut out the mandate and leave the rest unaffected. If [the mandate] is unconstitutional then I tend to agree that you can’t just sort of surgically remove one part of it and leave the rest intact.”

    When I pointed out that there are other legislative means to replicate the mandate, calling into question whether the whole law should be scrapped, he argued that this isn’t for the courts to do.

    * And finally, Seidman said the decision doesn’t matter a whit in the end.

    “There is one person in the United States who will decide on this law, and that’s Anthony Kennedy,” Seidman said. “He’s not going to be unduly influenced by what a district judge in Florida says. All of this is just scrimmaging.”

    Seidman said that Kennedy’s previous decisions make it impossible to predict how he’ll rule on the individual mandate when it comes before the Supreme Court. Kennedy has sided with the majority in favor of invalidating a law based on a “commerce clause” challenge, Seidman says, but he has also twice come through with a fairly broad reading of the “necessary and proper clause,” suggesting he could go either way.

    “He’s likely to be affected by what the political atmosphere is at the time,” Seidman said. “It’s going to matter to him whether it looks like the whole law is a mess and needs to be put out of its misery, or whether it looks like it’s actually starting to work.”

    So there you have it.

    UPDATE, 4:57 p.m.: To clarify, my sense was that Seidman was not full-throatedly endorsing the idea that the entire law should be ruled unconstitutional if the mandate is, but rather that the mandate does not exist in isolation and that it’s not severable
    from other key provisions.

  17. Ametia says:

    Good Morning, Everybody! :-)

Leave a Reply