... courted? With McCain, Paul and Collins all no's?

And last time around, which of these 4 voted 'no,' so that McCain saved the day?

I must be counting something wrong. Please help.

The message appeared clear: The United States had just launched a nuclear missile attack against the Soviet Union. And Petrov had to immediately warn his commanders so that the Soviet government could plan a counterattack.

snip

Petrov and his staff were in shock, but they had only minutes, if not seconds, to act. The decision rested heavily on Petrov, the officer in charge of Serpukhov-15. And he had two choices: He could follow military protocol and tell his commanders that computer readouts were saying that five intercontinental ballistic missiles had been launched by the United States. Or he could go with his gut.

snip

Less than five minutes after the alarms began blaring, Petrov, working the intercom with one hand with lights flashing around him, picked up the phone with his other hand. He told his commanders that the computer warnings were false. If he was wrong, his mistake would be catastrophic and irreversible. The government’s military would have no time to respond, leaving his country vulnerable in the face of a nuclear attack.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/retropolis/wp/2017/09/18/the-former-soviet-officer-who-trusted-his-gut-and-averted-a-global-nuclear-catastrophe/?utm_term=.134022815487

From NYCboss's journal here on DU.

"Democrats win special election in Norman, Oklahoma (Formerly held by GOP)
(The Oklahoman) Oklahoma Democrats added another seat to their House membership Tuesday as Jacob Rosecrants beat Darin Chambers to fill an unexpired term.

The Norman House seat was previously held by Scott Martin, who left the Legislature to run the Norman Chamber of Commerce. It is the third House or Senate seat Democrats have taken from the GOP in special elections this year alone. The minority party will have 28 members in the Oklahoma House when Rosecrants is sworn in, which could be before a special session begins Sept. 25."

Looks like I'm in good company. I tried to get a conversation started on this a few days ago (see first link). Now I see that great minds run.... See Globe article in second link.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/10029586036

http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2017/09/14/surprisingly-some-feminist-lawyers-side-with-trump-and-devos-campus-assault-policy/ArigBzO86tERWpDW17DbTI/story.html?s_campaign=8315

What do the rest of you think?

I hear that the Globe is asking for payment. I'm allowed two paragraphs, right?

When Education Secretary Betsy DeVos last week announced plans to revise the nation’s guidelines on campus sexual assault, the predictable din of outrage drowned out the applause from some unlikely corners of college campuses: Many liberals actually approve.

Groups of Harvard Law scholars, feminist lawyers, and other university professors had long argued that the Obama-era policy for policing student sexual charges was unfair, creating a Kafkaesque system that presumed guilt rather than innocence. Now, those academics find themselves atypically aligned with the Trump administration on an issue as contentious as sexual violence.

...

Covering faculty and students, the new [Obama] guidelines demanded that schools address every accusation and adopt a weaker standard of evidence than some had already been using. Rather than proving a case beyond a reasonable doubt, as in a criminal trial, or offering “clear and convincing evidence” that an offense was committed, it called for claims to be adjudicated based on a “preponderance of evidence” — to determine whether guilt was “more likely than not.”

The Globe article declares that this made the bar lower than for any other campus infraction.

....

When DeVos raised such issues last week, legions of feminists, distrustful of a president who had bragged about his sexual conquests, bristled at the sound of it. But critics in academia and law had been voicing those same complaints for years. In 2014, 28 Harvard Law professors published an open letter in The Boston Globe criticizing Harvard’s then-new policy as “overwhelmingly stacked against the accused.”

As I understand it, the DeVos policy simply rescinds the Obama-era policy.

I spent some time the other day Googling how to get a freeze on my credit bureau accounts by snail mail, and now I have an ad at the top of my Outlook inbox for Sears freezers.

Actually, it was to put a freeze on my kids' accounts. I put freezes on years ago. I was shocked to discover that my brother-in-law and a friend thought they had no problems since they had never joined any of these companies. I was doubly shocked to discover that my hubby didn't know any more than they did!

... I've never been happy with the idea that a real crime (sexual assault) should be dealt with by untrained amateurs. It's a crime. Call the police. Why not? To deprive the accused of their constitutional rights? That's obviously not the motivation, but as far as I can see, it's the result. Like I said, I'm not advocating for the deVos approach. I just don't know enough about it.

What do you all think?

I've been unhappy with the wall to wall Irma coverage when Harvey and Mexican quake victims seem to have been completely forgotten. I'm afraid it will impact the donations that usually follow such tragedies, especially the Mexican quake, since they're not smart enough to have been U.S. citizens...

What gives? Watch the video.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/06/world/americas/hurricane-irma-update.html?_r=0

If you're not familiar with the discussion, this is a great video, albeit 1 hr 5 minutes long.

https://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2017/08/ivy-league-scholars-urge-students-think-for-yourself/538317/