she comes off like what she is, a recovering addict, who talks about all of her "compassion" and "caring" but actually doesn't seem to demonstrate any ... she likes the idea of how those ideas would look on her, but she's not there yet.

At least she's got a new job ... when she's ready.

Wonder when she'll give up letting her home be used as a crash pad for anyone trying to get off drugs ...

Poor thing, made to look like a white trash biker chick ...

Well, glad she's still alive. Glad she decided to skip the memorial.

She really added little or nothing and seemed to me to even manage to contradict herself a couple of times ... buh bye.

Some writers are still taking the FBI/Justice story as the factual truth, without much or any questioning, for example Robert Scheer:

"The New Face of Terrorism? A Square White Guy" - By Robert Scheer, Truthdig. Posted August 6, 2008."

Scheer is oddly uncritical of the FBI's targeting of Ivins - instead, it is a argument about racism in terrorist profiling, which is apparently why Ivins wasn't caught? Not really relevant here...

The Frederick Post has been running some much better articles, for example this one:

http://www.fredericknewspost.com/sections/news/display.htm?StoryID=78624

"Lawyers skeptical FBI could have convicted Ivins" - August 10, 2008 By Justin M. Palk News-Post Staff

Greenberger also said he'd want to know more about how the FBI eliminated other suspects who had access to the anthrax from the investigation. A defense attorney could definitely exploit the number of other people who had access to the anthrax, investigators' failure to find anthrax spores in Ivins' house, office and cars and the lack of evidence placing Ivins in New Jersey, Rolle said.

Overall, the case was strong enough to establish probable cause and secure an indictment before the grand jury, but not necessarily good enough to win in court, he said. Conceivably, prosecutors could get the indictment, then try to backfill the rest of the evidence they need before the trial, but that's a risky strategy, Rolle said.

"As a prosecutor," he said, "I preferred that before we went to a grand jury ... we already had the evidence we needed to prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt."

Even so, it isn't even clear that the grand jury would have indicted Ivins on the basis of the evidence - especially since a novel, unpublished genetic test of unknown nature is one key argument in the FBI's case.

Re: DSM. If you were familiar with the reference over the years you would realize that there aren't likely to be massive changes. With each edition, a few terms may be dropped, a few added, but mainly diagnoses and criteria are tweaked.

-- lcr

Yes, and sanity or insanity is a legal determination. I've also seen dueling experts in litigation on more than a few occasions. It's all pretty a much a snooze to jurors if it gets too technical. They tend to make judgments based on their own criteria, in spite of the jury instructions, sometimes because of them. As Ivins probably wouldn't testify, they would watch him, but they can't even do that now. I realize this will be the subject of conspiracy theorists and legit historians for years to come, long after we are all passed on to our next reward, and I have no theory about the case. I know what theories don't seem plausible to me and what theories do. Even Glenn said at the outset that the circumstantial evidence seemed "damning" or words to that effect. You all can choose to believe what you wish. The burden of proof is on you as well to prove the government is lying and engaged in a massive cover-up, because that is what this would be and my experience tells me that cover-ups this massive do not remain hidden for long.

Just off the top of my head

Geronimo Pratt

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geronimo_Pratt

Fred Hampton

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Hampton

Leonard Peltier

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leonard_Peltier

Three case where the government's alleged frame ups fell apart. One is released, one murdered, one still in prison.

There are many others and I'm familiar with most of them. This is not my first rodeo. I just need more evidence that there is a cover-up, and not just unanswered questions. No one has anything but speculation. I am reasonably convinced that Ivin's had some serious emotional maladjustment and engaged in some unusual behaviors that upset people enough for them to make police reports and the like. There is a history there. A pattern. You learn to recognize patterns like that. But feel free to act as his adjunt legal defense and ad hoc committee to investigate the government. Even if such an independent inquiry is undertaken, most of you will probably be disappointed with any result that does not fit your preferred outcome.

Ah hell, it would seem our real difference is optimism vs. pessimism....

I am to understand that I have become "right-wing" because I do not want ham-fisted interference by the federal government in our economic system?

Pretty much. Left wing nuts generally want a state sponsored economic system.

As always, life is a matter of degrees and there exist several places where government is beneficial whether we like it or not. The repeal of Glass-Steagal separating banks from brokerages is a good example of what should have been left alone. Broadcast spectrums, utilities, the FDA, etc. are examples.

Notice that I told you what was "welfare for the rich" and you chose not to quote it and then pretend that I was talking tax cuts or something. How dishonest are you going to get with this subject?

Dishonest? If you would stop being defensively insulting you'd see I'm talking about the same things you are. Pork that isn't voted upon covers all the items you listed. Slipping millions upon billions of welfare for the rich into omnibus conference bills with no vote is the current way pork is distributed. Yes really. No vote. Transparency there would go a long way to exposing exactly what you are railing about.

There are only two ways to pay the dept. Inflation or debt repudiation. Which do you think will happen? Which is better in the long run? Have a taste for a little hyper-inflation? --- you can see it at work in Zimbabwe.

Wait. What? We're better than Zimbabwe? Haven't you been giving me crap for using that same example? Heh.

The reality is we'll probably do both. Debt repudiation could consist of cutting benefits in SS and Medicare. They are responsible for most of the debt you're playing Chicken Little over. And as for the rest of the world, we'll pay it down a little at a time with both debt retirement and a bit of inflation.

It seems the point that we are in a better position to pay down debt than during the previous administration hasn't sunk in. The tax base of the US, compared to the listed public national debt, is significantly larger today, than ten years ago. That's good news. Say it with me.... good news. Could that be because of tax cuts? I think so, but we'll find out soon enough when they phase out. The rise in the dollar as a flight to quality after the Russian invasion, seems likely, that's good news as well.

All that said, it's your attitude that's the problem. In my view, if a balance of people have a favorable view of the future, we'll have a good economy. If a balance of people have a negative view of the future, we'll have a bad economy. If you want to have a half empty attitude, be my guest. But amplifying the chorus of doom does no good at all and just scares the ignorant.

For all the crap I give Glenn, I have to give him props for not sitting around moaning and groaning, but instigating positive actions to get where he wants to go. You could follow his example. Find something you can pursue as a positive, rather than wallowing in your own misery. It's destructive not only to you but those around you as well.