Another story I missed that seems to have long legs: the New Age retreat run by self-help guru James Arthur Ray. 50 people were crammed like sardines inside a sweat lodge, 21 got sick, and now three have died. Authorities are treating the three deaths as homicides.

According to one of those present:

a channeler at the retreat last Friday said the deceased had an out-of-body experience during the sweat lodge ceremony and "were having so much fun that they chose not to come back."

For a thorough take-down of the new-age scam, see Theresa at Making Light, "$9,695 New Age sweat lodge session kills 2, injures 19"

I wonder how much media attention the story would have garnered if the participants hadn't each paid $9,695. to attend the weekly retreat.

After a week in paradise, re-learning how to be still, I'm home.

First, a huge thanks to Big Tent Democrat for his blogging this week. Not only did I not blog, I didn't read the news, see a TV set, check voicemail, text or pick up a phone. [More..]

Who is Paul Sullivan? I only know of him because of masaccio, who pointed out this extraordinary NYTimes column, in which he appears to have inverted the plot of Preston Sturges' classic film Sullivan's Travels. Instead of discovering the misery in the poverty stricken America of the Great Depression, as Sturges' protaganist John L. Sullivan did, our modern day Sullivan discovered the travails of the beleaguered wealthy in today's America of "little people" hating on their betters:

Beating up on the wealthy seems to be the order of day. I suspected that. But a recent Wealth Matters column touched a particularly raw nerve. It looked at how even people with sizable fortunes were concerned about money in this recession and the impact that could have on the rest of us. Readers rejected the attempt to understand the concerns of the rich.

[. . .] [I]n this recession, anger flows one way. Eric Dammann, a Manhattan psychoanalyst, theorizes that a lot of people are angry that the rules of the game seem to have changed. “There’s always been envy and hatred toward the rich, but there was also a strong undercurrent of admiration that was holding these people up as a goal,” Mr. Dammann said. “This time it’s different because it feels like it’s a closed club and the rich have an unfair advantage.”

Heh. The anger flows one way. The rich are not mad at the poor I guess is what he is saying. But it gets better:

I'm working on my Afghanistan assignment.

This is an Open Thread.

Via FDL, in an article about AFSCME President Gerald McEntee's stalwart stance on the public option, I was struck by this comment from a union official:

Harold Schaitberger of the International Association of Firefighters - questioned the language [about opposing a crappy health care reform bill.] “This is very premature to be putting markers down,” Schaitberger said. “There are so many steps left. There are two Senate bills to be merged. We’re going to get a lot further down this road by being prospective.”

Is Schaitberger right? I think he could not be more wrong. The time to stake out a firm position is early, not late. Why? Because if you wait, deals will be made without your concerns being addressed. To me, it is the same issue with when to criticize Obama. A lot of people say wait until he does what he is considering doing what you oppose. I say tell him you will oppose him if he does something you oppose. Then maybe he won't do it. Seems pretty simple to me. What am I missing?

Speaking for me only

Wouldn' it be funny if Specter vowed to vote against any health care bill that did not contain a robust public option? The power of primaries:

Asked if he would oppose a bill without a public option, Sen. Arlen Specter (D-Pa.) said: "I’m not prepared to recede at all. I think the public option is gaining momentum. I am not going to step back a bit. I am going to fight for the best public option."

I'm telling you, Sestak needs to up the ante and join the Progressive Block- no robust public option, no bill. Then Specter will do the same in the Senate.

Speaking for me only

The New York FOOTBALL Giants travel to New Orleans today for a battle of the unbeatens (I am trying to see how many cliches I can fit in this paragraph without throwing up.) Can the immovable Giants defense check the unstoppable Saints offense? This will be a huge game and whoever wants it most will win. As long as that is the same team that has less turnovers, cuz that always decides the game. Or unless it is the team who runs the ball better, cuz that always decides the game. Or the team with the better kicking game, cuz kicking games always decides games.

For all the reasons stated above, PLUS the fact that I am a NEW YORK FOOTBALL GIANTS fan, I am picking the NEW YORK FOOTBALL GIANTS (+3) over the Saints. More . . .

In the wee small hours of the morning, the Yankees won:

Sunday football thread coming up.

Heart attack averted as the Gators pull it out over Arkansas. Florida clearly is NOT the best team in the country and not likely one of the 5 best. If they do not improve their play, they will definitely lose BEFORE playing Bama in an SEC title game.

Looks like the Yankees-Angels will play Game 2 of the ALCS tonight. Go Yankees!

This is an Open Thread.

For non-college football topics like, say the Yankees.

This is an Open Thread.

Less interested in the President's words than in the President's actions at this point.

Another great fight song day. USC ("Fight On!") travels to South Bend to face Notre Dame ("Wake Up The Echoes"), whom the Trojans have beaten 7 in a row. Make it 8. I like USC (-10).

The Red River Shootout at the Texas State Fair does not have the luster of past meetings, but remains a big and intriguing game. Texas ("Texas Fight") has not been impressive but they have won them all. Oklahoma ("Boomer Sooner") has suffered devastating injuries and 2 close losses. The line is Texas (-3). I'm not sure about this one. In a non-selection pick, I think the Horns hook 'em somehow. More on the flip.