Moving Day (Again) and Open Thread

I decided to move back to my new place, even though the fire restoration isn't finished (if it's even begun.) I'm only taking what I need for now, since the floors will be replaced within the next few weeks. The rest is going to storage until the restoration is completed. I did finally find a temporary place to stay, and my insurance company was great and offered to pay for it, but I would have had to move from one unit to another in the same building after 5 days, and I think I've had enough moving for a while.

I hope this move goes better than the last one. But already, Comcast's computers are so confused by my moving back and forth, they've locked my three accounts, even to their employees, so no one could get in last night to do a transfer of service, let alone an activation. They'll work on it today, but if it's days until anyone hears from me, that's why -- no phone, no cable, no internet. Since I'm paying on three accounts, I hope they figure it out soon.

In between all this, I'm tying to get my tax info ready for my accountant, and working, so it's very busy here.

Here's an open thread, all topics welcome.

< Wednesday Open Thread
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Is this the end of Trump? (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by CoralGables on Thu Oct 08, 2015 at 09:44:14 AM EST
    That headline has been written dozens of times starting a few months ago due to a multitude of stances, comments, and a pair of debates.

    Instead of the "fall" of Trump, it looks like we now have the "Fall of Trump".

    Two October polls:
    PPP - Trump +10
    Morning Consult - Trump +18

    Both of those are well above his RCP average coming into October.

    Kevin McCarthy drops out of Speaker's race (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by jbindc on Thu Oct 08, 2015 at 11:36:57 AM EST

    Wow (none / 0) (#32)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Oct 08, 2015 at 11:42:07 AM EST
    Clearly he was not going to win the vote.  I thought he might not.  But I didn't expect this.

    I guess it's Chaffetz now.  


    This is a pretty big deal (5.00 / 2) (#34)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Oct 08, 2015 at 11:50:31 AM EST
    It's just one more example of the fact that the so called establishment has completely lost all controll of the Republican Party.

    They pulled out all the stops on this.  

    The same thing is coming fir the establishment presidential candidates.


    Just this morning (none / 0) (#37)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Oct 08, 2015 at 11:58:05 AM EST
    Li'l Luke Russert was dishing the CW and explaining hiw this vote thing was just a formality.

    Thus is pretty stunning

    I guess I have to watch daytime MSNBC


    He is speaking now (none / 0) (#40)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Oct 08, 2015 at 11:59:14 AM EST
    If the Republicans (none / 0) (#43)
    by KeysDan on Thu Oct 08, 2015 at 12:16:27 PM EST
    are smart, they would go back and try to convince Paul Ryan to take the job. He gave them a no before, claiming he wants to spend more time with his family. But maybe, he will take one for the team. Of course, Republicans are not smart, and Ryan is somewhat smarter when it comes to his own career. So, moving on.....

    They have Daniel Webster and Jason Chaffetz to duke it out. Chaffetz has the edge with this crowd since his initials are J.C.  Or they could just k.o. each other--and, then, look for aspersions on our asparagus (aka. Louie Gohmert).


    If it's Daniel Webster... (5.00 / 2) (#53)
    by Anne on Thu Oct 08, 2015 at 01:14:46 PM EST
    hoo boy:

    Rep. Daniel Webster (R-FL) is running as the alternative to House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) to succeed John Boehner as Speaker of the House. He also has a decades-long affiliation with the Institute in Basic Life Principles, the controversial ministry whose founder, Bill Gothard, resigned last year after more than 30 women accused him of sexual harassment. As TPM reported earlier this month, IBLP subjected young followers to victim-blaming "counseling" for rape, as well as grueling work schedules at its facilities for little or no pay, requiring women to engage in gendered tasks that included scrubbing carpets on their hands and knees.


    But IBLP's teaching on wifely submission is just the tip of the iceberg of the ministry's authoritarian ideology, which includes opposition to, among other things, public education, "humanistic" laws, contraception, and even rock music. Despite downplaying his adherence to a core Gothard teaching, Webster has been, as a 1997 St. Petersburg Times article put it, "an enthusiastic supporter" of IBLP.

    Where have you heard about IBLP before?  The Duggars.  Yeah, them.



    So, not (none / 0) (#58)
    by jbindc on Thu Oct 08, 2015 at 01:28:12 PM EST
    Daniel Webster (none / 0) (#72)
    by KeysDan on Thu Oct 08, 2015 at 01:57:52 PM EST
    seems to have it all.  Just what the House Republicans are looking for: little experience (in US House since 2011), young blood (b. 1949), friend of the inevitable presidential contender, Jeb!, and a winger extremist.

    He does have a lot of Florida legislative experience (28 years), is an advocate of home schooling (his six children were home schooled), and a part of the covenant marriage movement (no divorce except on limited basis), and a central legislative figure in the Terry Schiavo case. What are they waiting for?  


    I think it's possible (none / 0) (#44)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Oct 08, 2015 at 12:19:27 PM EST
    The red hots might treat Ryan the same way.  

    Not possible (none / 0) (#46)
    by CoralGables on Thu Oct 08, 2015 at 12:30:40 PM EST
    He already said "not interested" again today.

    Going outside ... (none / 0) (#107)
    by christinep on Thu Oct 08, 2015 at 07:59:56 PM EST
    is being talked about if Paul Ryan doesn't respond to the begging/pleading/help us from the members.  Desperation, to some extent.

    The "going outside" suggestion--names like Gingrich and Romney have been put forth (tho my husband, in his diabolical way, said aloud with a laugh awhile ago "What about the reconstructed Cheney")--is permissible.  Yet, what a whiff of somebody-please-come-in-&-help-us-because-we-cannot-help-ourselves that such a last option gives.  Think about the whole thing, tho: We Congressional Repubs are so inept that we can't agree on anyone to lead us.  

    Words showing up on most news reports--chaos, stunning, disarray, revolt/Repub revolution--say it all.  By chance, I saw a short commentary from Chris Matthews ... he calls it a major rupture ... a rupture beyond a simple rift to the level of a schism ... he adds that the inability of a group to agree on a leader signifies that the group isn't a group anymore ... and, Matthews finishes with a remark with question about the matter raising a question about what we Americans want for governance.  

    The reverberations ....  For now, anyway, a passing glimpse of what can happen when the tea gets too hot, scalding as well as a hint of what happens after the pitch forks come out.  And so, this is how political history is written.


    The GOP has postponed the leadership vote. (none / 0) (#48)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Oct 08, 2015 at 12:55:22 PM EST
    So, no, I don't think it'll be Chaffetz, either. You should probably make some popcorn.

    I say put it to a vote in the full House today (5.00 / 2) (#49)
    by CoralGables on Thu Oct 08, 2015 at 12:58:01 PM EST
    Top vote-getter wins. That would be Pelosi lol.

    Don't laugh. (none / 0) (#54)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Oct 08, 2015 at 01:21:00 PM EST
    I've seen some pretty strange coalitions cobbled together in state legislatures. Our present Speaker out here, Joe Souki, regained his position because in our 51-member State House, you need 26 members to organize, and the 43-member Democratic caucus was split 22-21 between two factions. So Speaker Souki made a deal with the eight House Republicans, and claimed his prize.

    If the GOP House caucus becomes so factionalized that no single candidate can garner 218 votes exclusively amongst Republicans in order to organize the House, it's not inconceivable that GOP moderates might turn to Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats. I imagine if that were the case, she'd likely drive a very hard bargain.



    Ha ha ha! (5.00 / 1) (#68)
    by jbindc on Thu Oct 08, 2015 at 01:50:22 PM EST
    Could very well be that the most reasonable (none / 0) (#73)
    by ruffian on Thu Oct 08, 2015 at 02:00:12 PM EST
    conservative is a Democrat. that is an interesting idea - I hope Pelosi and the Dems are suggesting it. It would be a huge benefit to the country to break up this dysfunctional GOP.

    At the end of the day ... (5.00 / 1) (#89)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Oct 08, 2015 at 04:20:36 PM EST
    ... when all's said and done, those who seek elected office better be able to govern and further, be able to do so responsibly.

    And over the last three decades, that's increasingly become the GOP's Achilles' heel, because 30 years' worth of angry demagogy and ideological purges has left that party top heavy in socio-political anarchists, clueless know-nothings and lazy blowhards, and woefully short of members who actually possess a genuine talent for the art of governance.

    Thus, since the electorate somehow collectively saw fit to put Republicans in charge on Capitol Hill, it's hardly surprising that we have a completely dysfunctional Congress that has yet to pass even the most basic of measures, such as a federal budget.

    What we got instead was a House Republican leadership whose apparent sole raison d'etre is to take down the presumed Democratic frontrunner for the 2016 presidential race by any means necessary, and a malcontented Tea Party faction of about 50 to 60 members who seem to think that throwing sand in the crankcases of government is somehow a good idea.

    When you listen to stupid and then vote for stupid -- or worse still, stay home under the mistaken impression that both major parties are somehow one and the same, and don't vote at all -- it should really come as no shock to anyone that the result would therefore be stupid. And stupid's what we got here.

    Hopefully, voters will take heed and wise up, and then show up at the polls to perform the necessary course correction at the ballot box, before some very significant and long-lasting damage is done to this country and its 50 component parts. If not, well, then we'll soon have real problems which will not be at all easy to fix.



    It could still be Chaffetz (none / 0) (#80)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Oct 08, 2015 at 03:50:32 PM EST
    He's still running.   But I agree about the popcorn.

    Ryan (none / 0) (#105)
    by TrevorBolder on Thu Oct 08, 2015 at 07:21:05 PM EST
    Really doesn't want it, he much prefers where he is currently situated.
    They might end up going for someone not currently in Congress, a slight possibility.
    Lol, Gingrich says if they asked him , and he got the votes , he would do it.

    Actually was a wise move by McCarthy, can't believe he did it on his own though, if he did, well kudos.
    Just couldn't have the House Speaker being the feature of a Democratic candidate for Presidents ads.


    Or North Carolina rumors (none / 0) (#109)
    by christinep on Thu Oct 08, 2015 at 08:09:19 PM EST
    Those quick leave-takings--when you were within inches of a successful outcome--sometimes have human nature underpinnings. Like Speaker Livingston years ago.  See, esp., Walter Jones (R. N.C.) letter in Congress yesterday.

    Saw that (none / 0) (#128)
    by TrevorBolder on Fri Oct 09, 2015 at 06:16:45 AM EST
    Didn't know that there were rumors of an affair by McCarthy prior to the letter.
    I guess that Freedom Caucus is quite serious, but damn, couldn't they have told that to him in private.
    Although, it is a valid point, just like you don't want the House Speaker to be the face of a Democratic ad for President, you also don't want the Speaker embroiled in a sex scandal.
    I like the outside Congress approach , at least for short term, but doubt it will happen.

    Repubs now paying homage to (none / 0) (#145)
    by christinep on Fri Oct 09, 2015 at 10:49:31 AM EST
    Paul Ryan.  It may be, however brief, that realization of reality that comprehends the need for experience in the Speaker to avoid an even further descent into chaos.  

    If Ryan decides that he can't/won't deal with the rage of the Freedom Caucus ... it does seem that either the Repubs relearn the art of working together to select a Speaker from within or from without.  The siren of the outside, at first, has the advantage of avoiding immediate personnel clashes of the warring groups within the Repub caucus ... but, thinking about it, the desperation that would drive the members outside amounts to (1) an open admission that they cannot figure out how to form a functioning group capable of governing itself and (2) a portrait of a party that may no longer be a party ... the portrayal of such weakness that would compound the desperation of a party with no cohesion a year out from the general election.

    It seems to me that the rage that grew the Repubs position over the past several years has turned in on itself.  Unbridled rage is a fascinating phenomenon.


    Democrats... (none / 0) (#147)
    by ScottW714 on Fri Oct 09, 2015 at 11:06:07 AM EST
    ...should be signing from the rooftops that these clowns can't even work with each other, how in the hell does anyone expect us to work with with them ?  They have no business trying to govern the country when they can't even govern each other.

    Obviously refine it a bit.

    Doesn't matter who gets the post, they will either make the party look like a bunch of uncompromising hardliners or they will be hated by a large number of republicans, or both.  

    It's a lose/lose position that even republicans realize they can only fill temporarily.


    My sentiments exactly, Scott (none / 0) (#149)
    by christinep on Fri Oct 09, 2015 at 11:10:37 AM EST
    Paul Ryan (none / 0) (#153)
    by CoralGables on Fri Oct 09, 2015 at 11:26:34 AM EST
    says he prefers to spend time at home with his family. That may well be true.

    I also suspect he has future goals and knows that only one Speaker of the House has ever been elected to the presidency and that hasn't happened in over 150 years.


    In Other Words... (none / 0) (#182)
    by ScottW714 on Fri Oct 09, 2015 at 01:59:40 PM EST
    ...Paul is better at criticizing then being criticized.

    Ryan is not *in* the "Freedom Caucus"? (none / 0) (#187)
    by Peter G on Fri Oct 09, 2015 at 02:15:13 PM EST
    There is a level of right-wing loony further out than Paul Ryan? Yikes!

    Paul Ryan (5.00 / 1) (#200)
    by KeysDan on Fri Oct 09, 2015 at 02:55:44 PM EST
    is a Fountainhead of ideological extremism who has learned to tuck it, and his American Enterprise Institute coaching in, when occasioned. It has fooled some in the media, confusing obfuscations and disassembling with pragmatism. But, he failed all his Honest Ayn schooling when he stated that his best time in a marathon was sub-three, when actually, over four minutes.  

    Peter (none / 0) (#195)
    by CoralGables on Fri Oct 09, 2015 at 02:31:54 PM EST
    Paul Ryan would be considered a RINO in the Freedom Caucus

    seriously (none / 0) (#196)
    by CST on Fri Oct 09, 2015 at 02:34:37 PM EST
    reading all these comments about the house - you mean to tell me these AREN'T the crazy right-wing Republicans?!!

    He looked like fun though (none / 0) (#122)
    by BarnBabe on Fri Oct 09, 2015 at 02:36:35 AM EST
    Besides the HRC gaffe I think we would have enjoyed a lot of jokes at his expense. The other guys don't look very funny. Grrrrrrrrrrr. Heh

    Alabama, Leading the Charge in Voter... (5.00 / 2) (#60)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Oct 08, 2015 at 01:29:31 PM EST

    Last year the state passes a law that requires a drivers license to vote, this year they close 31 offices that issue drivers license, and they just happen to be in areas with lots of black folks.

    Alabama DMV closings draw call for federal voting rights probe

    Citing budget constraints, the Alabama Law Enforcement Agency said last Wednesday that driver's license examiners would no longer work at 31 offices around the state. As John Archibald, an Alabama newspaper columnist, noted that day, eight of the 10 counties with the highest share of non-white registered voters will see their offices closed. That includes all five of the counties that voted most strongly Democratic in the 2012 presidential election.

    Alabama passed a voter ID law in 2011, to go into effect in 2014. The state didn't seek approval for the law from the Justice Department, known as pre-clearance, as was required at the time under the Voting Rights Act (VRA). In 2012, DoJ blocked Texas's voter ID law from taking effect, citing its impact on minority voters. But in 2013, the Supreme Court neutered the VRA's preclearance provision. Hours later, Alabama announced that its law would go into effect in 2014 as scheduled.


    Good thing racism is dead in America or some might feel that Alabama is trying to keep black folks from voting.

    Just another reason (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by CST on Thu Oct 08, 2015 at 01:32:41 PM EST
    Why the party in power matters so much.

    Anyone think a Republican DOJ would give a $hit?  Anyone think the Democratic DOJ won't?


    I Agree, But in All Fairness... (none / 0) (#71)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Oct 08, 2015 at 01:54:58 PM EST
    ...this one is on the SCOTUS.

    Sounds like (5.00 / 1) (#74)
    by CST on Thu Oct 08, 2015 at 02:03:59 PM EST
    This one is still heading to SCOTUS.  Because the DOJ will take it there.  But you are right that they laid the groundwork for the law going into effect and will be the ultimate decider.

    But with this DOJ in place they won't just let it slide, they'll at least press the issue again.


    Actually you do not need a driver's license (none / 0) (#118)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Oct 08, 2015 at 11:03:50 PM EST
    A voter ID card is not required if you have (5.00 / 3) (#141)
    by Anne on Fri Oct 09, 2015 at 10:27:57 AM EST
    a valid form of photo ID - like a driver's license or nondriver ID card.

    If you don't have a valid form of ID, you can get a free voter ID, but:

    [...]each county will still have one Board of Registrar's office and most will get a visit from a mobile unit giving out free voter IDs. Yet these mobile units stop in only one location in each county, and are open for just two hours at a time. Voters without IDs, who cannot drive and may have full-time jobs, could have difficulty accessing this service. In all of 2015 to date, only 29 voters have obtained an ID this way.

    The point is that if you are registered to (5.00 / 2) (#148)
    by Anne on Fri Oct 09, 2015 at 11:09:55 AM EST
    vote but do not have an approved form of ID, you have to get one.  Closing the DMV offices in predominantly-black, predominantly-Democratic counties has made that process harder.

    I return, time and again, to a very simple concept: we should be making it easier and more convenient for people to exercise their right to vote, not harder.  One's vote is one's voice, and when we implement policies and undertake actions that serve to silence the voices of the people, we are undermining the democracy, not strengthening it.


    Are you claiming that black's don't have cars?? (1.00 / 4) (#201)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Oct 09, 2015 at 02:56:52 PM EST
    Where do they Get Those ID Cards ? (none / 0) (#134)
    by ScottW714 on Fri Oct 09, 2015 at 09:40:33 AM EST
    James Comey (5.00 / 1) (#85)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Oct 08, 2015 at 04:15:11 PM EST
    The head of the FBI has said it is "ridiculous [and] embarrassing" that the federal government has no better information on police shootings than databases compiled by the Guardian US and the Washington Post.

    "It is unacceptable that the Washington Post and the Guardian newspaper from the UK are becoming the lead source of information about violent encounters between [US] police and civilians. That is not good for anybody," said James Comey, the FBI director, on Wednesday.


    Yeah, it's ridiculous that the FBI doesn't want to know how many people are killed by the police, if only one of us were in a position to change that...


    I so wish (5.00 / 2) (#88)
    by sj on Thu Oct 08, 2015 at 04:19:42 PM EST
    that I had seen Baryshnikov dance. My sister did. And it looks like the daughter he had with Jessica Lange may have gotten "the gene".

    I never got to see (5.00 / 1) (#91)
    by Zorba on Thu Oct 08, 2015 at 04:53:32 PM EST
    Baryshnikov dance live.
    But many, many years ago, I got to see Margot Fonteyn and Rudolf Nureyev when the Royal Ballet was doing an American tour.
    Magical.  They were absolutely  magical together.

    Very fortunate was I (5.00 / 2) (#110)
    by christinep on Thu Oct 08, 2015 at 08:22:11 PM EST
    to witness both Baryshnikov and Natalia Makarova.  Even tho it was many years ago--and four of us got scattered seats in the first row center (as in neck strain)-- we sensed that we would carry that appreciation for a long time.  It was remarkable to see the breathing, sweating, and legs and arms so close. Remarkable too was the muscular strength of Baryshnikov's legs, which seemed to make gravity go away and the long expressive arms of Makarova, which seemed to flow without elbows.  

    I don't know anything about ballet (5.00 / 2) (#129)
    by jondee on Fri Oct 09, 2015 at 07:51:10 AM EST
    but the first time I saw Margot Fonteyn dance, after less than a minute I said "now I get it".

    She was ethereal.


    She was, indeed (none / 0) (#158)
    by Zorba on Fri Oct 09, 2015 at 12:01:03 PM EST
    Did you ever see her with her frequent partner Nureyev?  Those two just had something totally special together.  They had an incredible partnership.  
    We saw them, live, in Swan Lake.

    She was dancing with Nureyev (none / 0) (#163)
    by jondee on Fri Oct 09, 2015 at 12:08:52 PM EST
    who was obviously a master, but I was fixated on Margot, which is typical of me..

    Seeing those two dance live with that music must've been incredible.


    It certainly was (none / 0) (#165)
    by Zorba on Fri Oct 09, 2015 at 12:15:05 PM EST
    It was something I have never forgotten.

    My sister agrees with you (5.00 / 2) (#177)
    by shoephone on Fri Oct 09, 2015 at 01:34:21 PM EST
    regarding Fonteyn and Nureyev. She also saw the Royal in the 60's. Watching Fonteyn dance was what inspired her to study ballet.

    I'm lucky to have seen Baryshnikov, Nureyev and Makarova many times in the 70's and early 80's when they were touring with ABT. One of the most dramatic performances was Nureyev and Makarova dancing together in (if I recall correctly) ABT's staging of Stravinski's "Firebird Suite." But, if you know anything about the relationship between them, you know they absolutely despised one another. She thought he was a spoiled, conceited pretty boy. And she had accused him of dropping her during a performance in Paris in '73. He said she was too slow, and could never match up to his favorite partner, Fonteyn.


    You are lucky that (none / 0) (#205)
    by Zorba on Fri Oct 09, 2015 at 04:20:21 PM EST
    you got to see those three so often.
    And I had heard that Nureyev and Makarova did not exactly "get along," although Nureyev and Fonteyn had a wonderful working relationship, and respected each other deeply.
    There were also a few unstubtantiated rumors some years ago that they had, shall I say, more than a "working" relationship, but I never believed that one, given that Nureyev was gay.  (And yes, I do know that gay men have slept with straight women, and vice versa.)

    ::sigh:: (none / 0) (#102)
    by sj on Thu Oct 08, 2015 at 06:29:21 PM EST
    So envious of you right now.

    We drove to LA to see Baryshnikov (5.00 / 2) (#115)
    by oculus on Thu Oct 08, 2015 at 10:36:44 PM EST
    Dance Twyla Tharp's "Push Comes to Shove" (Sinatra songs). 7 minutes!  Also saw him dance with his White Oak company (which he founded w/Mark Morris); He danced to his own heartbeat ("Heartbeat: mb"). And finally, at the Joyce in Manhattan, he danced "Mr. XYZ," choreographed by Eliot Feld.  

    I saw him live (5.00 / 1) (#130)
    by jbindc on Fri Oct 09, 2015 at 08:17:33 AM EST
    At Texas A&M Univetsity when I was in grad school. He and Twyla Tharp did a two person show where they each did solos with different kinds of dance - he more the classic ballet, she more modern dance.  Then they danced together for part of the show.

    I don't know much about dance, but it was breathtaking to watch them both ply their craft.


    Get a copy of White Nights (none / 0) (#92)
    by ragebot on Thu Oct 08, 2015 at 05:14:26 PM EST
    Baryshnikov and Gregory Hinds kinda compete in one scene and Baryshnikov shows he is the true master.  I saw the movie in Tallahassee when it came out with a girl who took ballet when she was younger.  Maybe a month or two after the movie we drove down to Miami to see Baryshnikov dance in person.

    Nothing against Hinds and he is a talented dancer, but he really cant hold a candle to Baryshnikov.

    Link to White Nights.


    I should have been more clear (none / 0) (#100)
    by sj on Thu Oct 08, 2015 at 06:12:27 PM EST
    I never saw Baryshnikov dance live. I have seen White Nights multiple times. And yes, it was pretty brave of Gregory Hines to dance along side MB.

    If that was Baryshnikov (none / 0) (#113)
    by CoralGables on Thu Oct 08, 2015 at 09:59:54 PM EST
    in the American Ballet Theater's production of "Cinderella" in Miami, we may have been there at the same time.

    Probably so (none / 0) (#117)
    by ragebot on Thu Oct 08, 2015 at 10:54:36 PM EST
    I was not all that much of a ballet fan but my friend Nancy was.  Still remember the pirouette Baryshnikov did in the movie and remember Nancy commenting on my doing spinners on by surf board.

    I love this story: (5.00 / 2) (#111)
    by Anne on Thu Oct 08, 2015 at 09:10:46 PM EST
    Like so many bullies, Trump has skin of gossamer. He thinks nothing of saying the most hurtful thing about someone else, but when he hears a whisper that runs counter to his own vainglorious self-image, he coils like a caged ferret. Just to drive him a little bit crazy, I took to referring to him as a "short-fingered vulgarian" in the pages of Spy magazine. That was more than a quarter of a century ago. To this day, I receive the occasional envelope from Trump. There is always a photo of him--generally a tear sheet from a magazine. On all of them he has circled his hand in gold Sharpie in a valiant effort to highlight the length of his fingers. I almost feel sorry for the poor fellow because, to me, the fingers still look abnormally stubby. The most recent offering arrived earlier this year, before his decision to go after the Republican presidential nomination. Like the other packages, this one included a circled hand and the words, also written in gold Sharpie: "See, not so short!" I sent the picture back by return mail with a note attached, saying, "Actually, quite short." Which I can only assume gave him fits.

    Via Digby, from Graydon Carter at Vanity Fair.

    Hilarious, but somehow also just so pathetic.

    I miss Spy Magazine (5.00 / 1) (#178)
    by shoephone on Fri Oct 09, 2015 at 01:41:43 PM EST
    Their "Separated at Birth" series was hilarious.

    LOL! That is funny. (none / 0) (#112)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Oct 08, 2015 at 09:58:15 PM EST
    From my perspective, but Trump has all the classic characteristics of your stereotypical schoolyard bully. He's a narcissist who just loves to dish it out but has real trouble handling the return fire, especially when it's coming from women.

    I figured as much. (none / 0) (#123)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri Oct 09, 2015 at 03:36:40 AM EST
    I was just speaking about Trump's behavior in general and not about his interaction with Graydon Carter, although upon rereading what I wrote, I really didn't make that clear at all.

    of the "... photo of him--generally a tear sheet from a magazine. On all of them he has circled his hand in gold Sharpie in a valiant effort to highlight the length of his fingers."?

    Pics or it didn't happen.


    I got to see two good movies today (5.00 / 1) (#114)
    by McBain on Thu Oct 08, 2015 at 10:30:03 PM EST
    The Martian in 3D and The Walk in Imax 3D.

    I'm  not a big 3D guy so I wish I had seen The Martian in 2D.  It wasn't like Gravity where depth perception was a big deal.   It's Ridley Scott's best film in a long time.

    The Walk, on the other hand, is definitely a film you should see in Imax 3D.  I'm a  huge fan of Phillipe Petit and I ejoyed the tightrope walking CGI scenes even though I'm not wild about heights.

    One thing I learned today... if you're going to watch a 3D movie, it's best to sit in the back.

    Ben Carson On 1940's Jews (5.00 / 3) (#136)
    by ScottW714 on Fri Oct 09, 2015 at 09:53:48 AM EST
    CNN's Wolf Blitzer asked him: "Just clarify, if there had been no gun control laws in Europe at that time, would six million Jews have been slaughtered?"

    Carson replied: "I think the likelihood of Hitler being able to accomplish his goals would have been greatly diminished if the people had been armed ... I'm telling you that there is a reason that these dictatorial people take the guns first."


    There is literally no problem in which the idiot brigade hasn't convinced themselves that guns will fix.  It's just getting so hard to imagine that my fellow countrymen/women can be so GD stupid.

    And what does the good doctor do when he is held up ?

    However, Carson's gung-ho attitude was undermined by a story he shared with SiriusXM radio on Thursday, in which he recalled being threatened with a gun in a Popeyes chicken restaurant in Baltimore on an unspecified date.

    "The guy comes in, put the gun in my ribs," Carson said. "And I just said, `I believe that you want the guy behind the counter' ... I redirected him."

    How noble, if only you had followed your own advise you could have single-handedly stopped a robbery instead of 'redirecting' the robber onto someone else.  But A+ on being a complete douchebag.

    The fact that this guy is even a contender just proves the republican party is failing at being human beings.

    Well, zombies are in these days, (none / 0) (#159)
    by KeysDan on Fri Oct 09, 2015 at 12:03:07 PM EST
    so, perhaps, this accounts for Ben Carson. His account of dealing with a gunman at a "Popeye Organization," has the whiff of a Fiorina video.

      Free advice to Trump (rich people love anything that is free): Call back one of your Obama birth-certificate investigators from Hawaii to pursue that claim of Carson's.  It supposedly occurred in a Baltimore Popeye organization (who talks like that?). Check to see if there is a police report. In addition to the crime,  it should be noted on the report: rich doctor re-directs gunman to go after the minimum wage guy behind the counter.

    It doesn't take a brain surgeon to know that a good solution to mass shootings is not for victims to organize themselves and rush the shooter(s).

     But, then, maybe if those first graders at Sandy Hook had a coordinated attack with their pencil boxes at the shooter, it would have turned out much better.  This Carson guy is slipping badly; hopefully soon in the polls as well.  Americans can get their zombie entertainment with the new season of "Walking Dead."


    Speaking fo Zombies... (none / 0) (#188)
    by ScottW714 on Fri Oct 09, 2015 at 02:17:11 PM EST
    ...this is pretty cool and totally off topic.

    Zombie Caught and Put into a Containment Unit


    Woke up this morning (none / 0) (#1)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Oct 08, 2015 at 07:59:56 AM EST
    To Bernie on Mourning Joe.  He was sounding surprisingly hawkish.  At least to me.  About dealing with the ME and ISIS.

    This is not Bernie bashing.  And it may be nothing new since honestly I have not paid that much attention to his foreign policy stuff because frankly he is not my candidate and more to the point, I never thought he would be the nominee.   Again not Bernie bashing, just my opinion.  
    But I was surprised how hawkish he sounded about dealing with ISIS, by working with Russia and other stuff.   I suppose I "assumed" ( that word is dead to me) he would be less aggressive than Hillary.  But he didn't sound that way.

    The talk should be up some place soon if any are interested in hearing it.

    The other thing interesting was Clarie McCaskill handing Joe & Mica their asses about their blind Hillary bashing.   That s great.  Not a Claire fan really but Squint and The Meat Puppet did not deal well with the truth.

    Best line from Mica (none / 0) (#2)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Oct 08, 2015 at 08:05:22 AM EST
    "I think you may misunderstand that we were just asking questions"

    Baa waa waa (none / 0) (#3)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Oct 08, 2015 at 08:18:24 AM EST
    #drunkMika the concern troll.

    On US + Russia from buzzfeed (none / 0) (#4)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Oct 08, 2015 at 08:19:11 AM EST
    NATO defense ministers convened Thursday to discuss Russia's intervention in the country.

    that's frustrating (none / 0) (#7)
    by CST on Thu Oct 08, 2015 at 09:41:22 AM EST
    It would be really nice to have someone up there on that stage at least pushing them on these issues.  Unfortunately none of the other "also rans" seem to be running to the left on foreign policy.

    And to be blunt, whether or not Obama governed that way he certainly ran that way the first time, and it could be argued that he fulfilled some of that promise (Iran, Cuba, etc...) It's one of the reasons that he picked up a lot of support vs. Hillary.

    Bernie seems to be doing a decent job of pushing the conversation on the economy, I just wish there were someone pushing on foreign policy, because it seems like he's not that guy.  Frankly, as senator it's an issue he was never as loud about one way or the other, and when he was he always seemed to frame it more as priorities vs. domestic issues.  IE. we're wasting money on war that needs to be spent at home.  But not a whole lot beyond that.


    Bernie is a one trick pony... (none / 0) (#9)
    by kdog on Thu Oct 08, 2015 at 10:07:33 AM EST
    I just so happen to think it's the trick we need in the White House...the issue of income inequality/wealth disparity is the biggest issue we face.

    I'm willing to sacrifice presidential focus on other very important issues for 4-8 years, some near and dear to my heart (foreign policy, drug policy, criminal justice reform, etc.)...I think it's that critical to get cracking on building a new economic model to replace failed trickle down. Bernie is the only person in the race who truly gets it, imo.

    I mean sh*t our foreign policy has pretty much been a disaster since the Nazis surrendered anyway, focus on it can wait another 4-8.  And it's not like Bernie is gonna make it worse, he won't go starting any new wars....he'll be too busy working overtime with the daunting task of getting congress to get with his economic program.


    pretty much (none / 0) (#10)
    by CST on Thu Oct 08, 2015 at 10:24:31 AM EST
    I agree with you on importance of that one trick these days, I just don't know that he's the guy to actually get it done.  He's great at shouting at it from the outside and speaking truth to power.  We need someone in that office who can wield power.  To be honest, I'm not convinced we've got that candidate at all, but I do think Hillary is probably more effective at it than Bernie, and frankly, her strongest area is also the economy.

    Would Dem Congresscritters change their (5.00 / 4) (#164)
    by MO Blue on Fri Oct 09, 2015 at 12:10:10 PM EST
    policy positions if  Sanders became president? To illustrate:

    In 2011 when many high level Dems were backing benefit cuts to Social Security through a switch to the chained CPI, Sanders introduced S. 1558 (112th): Keeping Our Social Security Promises Act to increase not decrease Social Security benefits. It had 10 co-sponsors. In 2012, he reintroduced the bill. It had 11 co-sponsors. Sanders continued to advocate for increased Social Security benefits at every opportunity. He was selling his proposal to the American people. By 2013, numerous Dem senators were introducing bills to increase Social Security benefits.  Since that time multiple bills have been introduced to increase benefits. Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren picked up the banner and gave a major speech on increasing benefits from the Senate floor in November 2013.

    As Senator Warren said, Senator Tom Harkin of Iowa along with Representative Linda Sanchez of California, was "pushing hard" by introducing the Strengthening Social Security Act of 2013 which had a combined 65 co-sponsors. In the 114th Congress, it is anticipated that Senator Sherrod Brown of Ohio will introduce an updated version of the Harkin bill. Last month, Senator Richard Blumenthal and Representative John Larson of Connecticut introduced the Social Security 2100 Act and I hope to see other legislation from members like Representative Gwen Moore of Wisconsin who previously introduced the Social Security Protection and Enhancement Act of 2013.

    In March, 2015, 42 Senators voted for an amendment introduced by Sen. Warren to increase Social Security benefits.

    The first step in any journey is often the most difficult. We've come along way on the Boost Social Security journey, in large part because Bernie Sanders took that bold, first step.,

    If Sanders became president, would Elizabeth Warren abandon support of the policies she shares with Sanders?Would Sherrod Brown or Sheldon Whitehouse abandon support for the policies they share with Sanders? Would members of the Progressive Caucus abandon support of the policies they share with Sanders. Sanders has some powerful backers for the actual policies he proposes. Along with these powerful people in Congress, Sanders, as president, would have the bully pulpit to sell his ideas to the American people. As we can see with the policies on SS, they were more than willing to buy into his proposal.



    This comment deserves a "10" (5.00 / 1) (#171)
    by shoephone on Fri Oct 09, 2015 at 01:03:05 PM EST
    The Problem (none / 0) (#172)
    by FlJoe on Fri Oct 09, 2015 at 01:11:07 PM EST
    being, a Democratic president will need to get the likes of Manchin, McCaskill and Tester aboard to pass any kind of legislation.

    Research is your friend (5.00 / 4) (#179)
    by MO Blue on Fri Oct 09, 2015 at 01:54:04 PM EST
    Claire McCaskill was a co-sponsor to both S. 1558 (112th): Keeping Our Social Security Promises Act and S. 500 (113th): Keeping Our Social Security Promises Act which were introduced by Bernie Sanders Link S1558 Link S500

    Now lets look at the amendment introduced in 2015 to increase SS benefits:

    HUGE 3AM MOMENT: Warren & Manchin Force Senate Vote on Expand Social Security
    Late last night Senators Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) and Joe Manchin (D-WV), together with Patty Murray (D-WA), Sherrod Brown (D-OH), and Brian Schatz (D-HI), introduced an amendment on the Senate floor to expand Social Security benefits. As a result, each Senator who was present is now on-the-record as for or against expanding Social Security benefits.
    Senator Manchin said.
    "We owe it to seniors and workers across the country to make sure that Social Security is not just protected and strengthened, but also expanded to meet the retirement needs of the workforce in the 21st century economy," said Senator Murray. "After a lifetime of work, seniors have earned the right to know that their Social Security benefits will be there for them when they retire, and will be there for their children and grandchildren too." link

    Tester also voted in favor of the Senators Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) and Joe Manchin (D-WV) amendment to expand SS benefits.


    And if we had some ham we would have (1.33 / 3) (#199)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Oct 09, 2015 at 02:46:58 PM EST
    some ham and eggs if he had some eggs....

    I mean, what are these things and how will they be paid for??


    Which will do what, exactly (none / 0) (#173)
    by jbindc on Fri Oct 09, 2015 at 01:13:51 PM EST
    As the House is almost certain to remain Republican?  Do you think even flipping a few Democrats will actually get Sanders' positions through?

    I'm really not sure how that is relevant (5.00 / 3) (#176)
    by MO Blue on Fri Oct 09, 2015 at 01:33:51 PM EST
    Exactly what type of Democratic agenda bills supported by any Democratic president will get though a  Republican majority house?

    Please list the Democratic supported bills that actually benefit the average person that the Republican House has passed since  they acquired the majority in the House.

    The only bills that get passed in the House are Republican agenda bills. Personally, I would rather not have any more of them become law. YMMV


    Honestly (none / 0) (#192)
    by CST on Fri Oct 09, 2015 at 02:29:23 PM EST
    I think it depends how badly the Republican house implodes.

    If the moderates start playing ball with the Democrats, we could make some actual progress on some things.


    Of course not (none / 0) (#174)
    by CST on Fri Oct 09, 2015 at 01:22:03 PM EST
    But it doesn't change the status quo, which is we have enough good democrats to stop really bad $hit from happening, and not enough to pass new good $hit.

    42 senators can stop almost anything.  But they can't pass Sanders agenda.  And the senate is only half the problem.

    Warren and Sanders do a decent job of using the bully pulpit from where they sit.  Especially Warren, and it's effective for stopping bad things from happening and shining a light.  But it still doesn't change the math in congress.


    Seriously, (5.00 / 2) (#186)
    by MO Blue on Fri Oct 09, 2015 at 02:14:22 PM EST
    how does the math (especially in the House) change in Congress with Hillary Clinton or Joe Biden as president.

    How does any Democratic president get any of the good stuff through under the current conditions.

    The only stuff that will get through Congress in its current configuration is Republican agenda items and legislation that benefits the rich and corporate America. Once again, I don't want that crap passed.

    The math wouldn't change but the proposals and the optics would change quite a bit. You would have a president that was on air at every opportunity laying out agenda items that would actually help people in this county. Americans would see a president actually fighting for them and that exposure and that fight can gradually change public opinion.

    In fact, the National Academy of Social Insurance conducted a survey last year which found that:

    ... Americans don't mind paying for Social Security; 86 percent said current benefits aren't sufficient and 72 percent said we should consider increasing benefits. More than that, 77 percent said they support paying higher taxes on average Americans, and 83 percent said we should raise taxes on top earners.

    Support for this idea was remarkably strong across all demographic groups - by income, age and political party. link

    Exactly (none / 0) (#189)
    by sj on Fri Oct 09, 2015 at 02:19:18 PM EST
    Seriously, (none / 0) (#186)
    by MO Blue on Fri Oct 09, 2015 at 01:14:22 PM MDT

    how does the math (especially in the House) change in Congress with Hillary Clinton or Joe Biden as president.


    It doesn't change (none / 0) (#190)
    by CST on Fri Oct 09, 2015 at 02:22:31 PM EST
    You get stuff by tinkering around the edges.  That's my point up above.

    You get important stuff through compromise with some cr@p.

    None of this means I want Bernie or Warren (or Clinton) to stop using the bully pulpit.

    And yea, I'm also afraid Bernie will lose the general election and we will lose any influence in the federal branch.


    oy (none / 0) (#191)
    by CST on Fri Oct 09, 2015 at 02:22:45 PM EST
    executive branch

    The question is what kind of stuff (none / 0) (#193)
    by MO Blue on Fri Oct 09, 2015 at 02:29:26 PM EST
    do you get and how much good stuff do you have to give away to get it. Giving away the good stuff that helps the average American does not exactly make for more Democratic voters.

    that's always (none / 0) (#194)
    by CST on Fri Oct 09, 2015 at 02:31:17 PM EST
    The million dollar question.  I agree.  And often we don't know the true answer until years later.

    That's where politics get dirty.  And it's where I think Clinton will come out stronger than Bernie.


    Sure it does (none / 0) (#197)
    by jbindc on Fri Oct 09, 2015 at 02:35:16 PM EST
    It doesn't necessarily give you the kind of Democrats you want - ultra liberal, but if you can even make incremental progress towards some of these things (with the voices of Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren still being vocal) and being in positions to voice those issues, then you getore people in the middle who will align with the Democrats.

    If you target just ultra liberals, you lose.  Plain and simple.


    What you choose to describe as ultra liberal (5.00 / 3) (#203)
    by MO Blue on Fri Oct 09, 2015 at 03:07:29 PM EST
    was once just plain old Democratic positions.

    If you elect Republicans who run as Democrats and target conservative voters  you get Republican legislation. Plain and simple.

    Protecting SS used to be a bed rock Democratic principal (not ultra-liberal) until some Dem politicians though it would be a great idea to put it on the table and champion policies like chained CPI. The result, loss of older voters.

    The American people actually like the policies that Sanders is championing.

    Polls indicate if you leave off the labels, that you are so enamored with, the majority of Americans support the type of policies that Sanders is promoting.

    Democrats putting labels like ultra liberal on good policies only help defeat the good stuff and move the country ever more rightward.


    That's what I'm afraid of... (none / 0) (#12)
    by kdog on Thu Oct 08, 2015 at 10:34:58 AM EST
    Hillary's ability to wield power, all those checks she cashed from Lloyd Blankfein, and whose power will be wielded.

    If it ain't Bernie, we don't have that candidate.  We'll likely have a repeat of the Bill & Barack years...couple bones here and there, better than Brand R sure, but another lost 4-8 years at tackling the fundamental flaws and failures.


    FWIW (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Oct 08, 2015 at 10:43:38 AM EST
    Hillary Clinton to lay out plans for reining in Wall Street
    Among her proposals: a tax on certain rapid-fire stock traders, who some see as contributing to market instability. She also wants to extend the statute of limitations for prosecuting financial crimes and require that responsible individuals pay a portion of fines levied because of wrongdoing at their companies

    These ideas are part of a wider proposal on financial regulation that aims to address discontent about Wall Street that is running high in the Democratic Party -- and the electorate at large -- in the aftermath of the financial crisis. The full plan is expected to be unveiled Thursday.

    Speaking of drip, drip, drip...


    whose power (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by CST on Thu Oct 08, 2015 at 10:44:02 AM EST
    is always a valid question and concern.

    As far as the "couple bones" here and there go - that's the crux of it.  Bernie may have better priorities but will he be able to even get us a couple bones through congress?  I don't know, I don't see it.  It takes a lot more than a president, and unfortunately we have a hot mess of a situation with the political views rampant in this country.

    And those couple bones can end up having big impacts down the line.


    He will have the power of the veto... (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by kdog on Thu Oct 08, 2015 at 10:53:09 AM EST
    where as a Bill/Barack/Hillary would/will go along to get along and sign off for scraps (again imho)...I think Bernie would hold the line for us against a corrupt congress.  He might not win, but he will not surrender, and I think that's enough for me.  Reasonable people can disagree of course, but I think the situation needs to come to a head, whatever the outcome.  

    Veto power (none / 0) (#21)
    by jbindc on Thu Oct 08, 2015 at 11:04:13 AM EST
    Doesn't do much good when you can't get a supermajority of Congress to agree with you.

    I mean, he hasn't been able to convince his colleagues in the Senate about many of his ideas now- how will he do it as president?


    Might be able too... (none / 0) (#24)
    by kdog on Thu Oct 08, 2015 at 11:09:37 AM EST
    by publicly shaming Congress...if pigs fly and he does manage to shock the world and become our next president, he'll have one hell of a mandate to make Congresspersons fear for their jobs.

    There's a better chance of pigs flying (5.00 / 4) (#41)
    by CoralGables on Thu Oct 08, 2015 at 12:05:19 PM EST
    LOL! You're funny, kdog. (none / 0) (#45)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Oct 08, 2015 at 12:22:59 PM EST
    How exactly does one shame a Congress whose members have long shown both an individual and collective propensity to not embarrass easily?

    I mean, House Oversight Committee Chair Jason Chaffetz (R-UT) was caught in a demonstrable lie by Planned Parenthood's Cecile Richards during a public hearing only last week, and it was like water off a duck's backside to him. Three days later, he declares his candidacy for House Speaker in a direct challenge Kevin McCarthy, a guy who had his own serious issues only days earlier.

    Best of luck in your quest to shame those two, and the clowns who'll be voting for one of them as their leader today.



    Oops. Never mind. (none / 0) (#51)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Oct 08, 2015 at 01:05:29 PM EST
    McCarthy's removed himself from consideration, and the leadership vote has been postponed. I guess we now know what that open letter from Rep. Walter Jones (R-NC) to his GOP colleagues was really all about. From Susie Madrak at Crook & Liars:

    "Last night, a certain wingnut blogger reported that McCarthy, despite warnings from the leadership, was still carrying on an affair with Rep. Renee Ellmers (R-NC). There were enough details that I figured it was leaked in an attempt to sandbag McCarthy, because this blogger is notorious for getting everything wrong."

    This will be fun to watch.


    There's... (none / 0) (#55)
    by kdog on Thu Oct 08, 2015 at 01:22:23 PM EST
    your congressperson lied about Planned Parenthood shame, and there's President Sanders addressing the nation saying "you haven't gotten a real raise in 30 years in part because of who you've elected, and you elected me to change that, but your current congressperson is trying to stop us" shame.  

    Of course it's a long shot, still better than no shot.  

    Does Hillary keep moving left when Bernie concedes?  


    No one moves far left or far right (none / 0) (#63)
    by CoralGables on Thu Oct 08, 2015 at 01:37:01 PM EST
    once you get the nomination. It's then a race to the middle.

    Which is why it's important to move her (5.00 / 5) (#66)
    by Anne on Thu Oct 08, 2015 at 01:47:41 PM EST
    as far to the left as we can now, because there are two things I think it's safe to say: no Republican nominee is going to be moving to the left, and so when/if she gets the nomination, she is going to be moving to the right.  When she does, it would be good if it isn't past "the center," and well over into what we'd consider to be the right-hand side of the spectrum.

    This is why many of us wanted Sanders in the race, because without him, I don't know if Clinton would be taking nearly the progressive, populist stands she is with him in the race.


    Cynic in me... (none / 0) (#69)
    by kdog on Thu Oct 08, 2015 at 01:51:19 PM EST
    says her change of course on TPP has more to do with Sanders and the polls than the new info she has obtained about what's in TPP.

    realist in me (5.00 / 1) (#70)
    by CST on Thu Oct 08, 2015 at 01:52:46 PM EST
    agrees with you and doesn't care why.

    Whatever works... (none / 0) (#75)
    by kdog on Thu Oct 08, 2015 at 02:15:47 PM EST
    works for me too...just hope it sticks.

    That should be enough evidence to rest your case.

    Rest what case? (none / 0) (#67)
    by kdog on Thu Oct 08, 2015 at 01:49:06 PM EST
    That we can't win?  I guess we don't need an attorney to tell us that, do we;)

    I was actually responding to CG's comment ... (none / 0) (#96)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Oct 08, 2015 at 05:42:28 PM EST
    kdog: "Rest what case? That we can't win?  I guess we don't need an attorney to tell us that, do we;)"

    ... and not to you, kdog. That said, I pointed to Goldwater and McGovern because both of them campaigned for the presidency from positi9ons that were well right and left of center, respectively, and yet they still managed to gain their parties' nominations in 1964 and '72.

    But because both candidates then failed, refused or were unable to tack back to the center after their party's respective conventions, neither man was ever able to rise above 36% at the polls, and both were easily and literally blown out of the water by their opponents in the general election.

    While my own personal politics fall close to Bernie Sanders, and God bless him for his willingness to speak truth to power on economic issues, I'm also a hardcore pragmatist and not a dreamer. It's vitally important that we win this upcoming election, and not place or show.

    And the hard truth here is that short of the U.S. economy suddenly tanking and bringing about a major depression, nothing has changed significantly in the American electorate over the last 50 years which will somehow magically throw open the doors to the White House for an avowed and unrepentant Socialist like Sanders.

    If you want to see what happens to Socialists in this country who seek real power, I recommend that you study the quixotic 1934 gubernatorial campaign of Upton Sinclair in California, which occurred during the Great Depression.

    Now, one would think that at a time of significant socio-economic dislocation in this country, such a campaign would resonate with a majority of the embattled electorate. Well, one would be wrong because it most certainly didn't.

    Instead, because Sinclair was initially thought to be the frontrunner in the race, he soon found himself demonized and ridiculed relentlessly by a California media that was dominated by William Randolph Hearst of the San Francisco Chronicle and Harry Chandler of the Los Angeles Times. Sinclair had no real means to respond to the onslaught, because his campaign was underfunded and the media further refused to cover his quest honestly and truthfully.

    Meanwhile, the corporate world poured money into the campaign of his Republican opponent, Frank Merriam. The major Hollywood studios even went so far as to unilaterally deduct funds from their employees' paychecks without permission to give to Merriam. And further, they got away with it because after all, who's going to complain about it during a major economic depression, when nearly one in three Californians were unemployed -- right?

    Not surprisingly, Upton Sinclair lost that election to Merriam in rather decisive fashion, getting only 37% of the vote.

    Now, there's certainly an argument to be made that Sinclair's campaign actually sparked a long-term renaissance within the California Democratic Party, which ultimately came to fruition nearly a quarter-century later with the 1958 election of liberal Edmund G. "Pat" Brown, Sr. as governor, and corresponding Democratic majorities in the state legislature. But for purposes of our discussion, that's neither here nor there, because I don't think we're all that interested in the 2040 election right now.

    Look, I'm a Democrat, and if Bernie Sanders somehow gets my party's nomination, I will of course support him to the very best of my abilities during the general election campaign.

    But I'll do so with my eyes wide open to the likelihood that were that to happen in this age of Citizens United, we Democrats would be staring at an election debacle across the board, from which it would probably take us the better part of a generation to recover.



    Comparing Sanders to McGovern (none / 0) (#103)
    by Dadler on Thu Oct 08, 2015 at 06:36:58 PM EST
    I don't buy it. Especially in the context of these quite incomparable times. Almost half a century of progressive social history alone (though we've had plenty of regressive also) renders the comparison not accurate to me. IMO, almost anyone the Dems nominate, Sanders, Clinton, whomever, would beat whatever right-wing halfwit the Repubs cough up. And right now Sanders is the only Democrat who can claim to be genuinely and consistently politically progressive and untainted by big money. That matters, to me anyway. And I think it does to others. And he comes from a "gun" state. Though he has a D- rating from the NRA, I think that's a plus for him in getting the kind of rational (even if only partially rational) opposition votes necessary to win. Maybe I'm wrong, but I still believe real and handcrafted political imagination of the stirring and hilarious and reason-appealing sort is just sitting there waiting to be grasped and used by supposedly free American candidates in this insane season. Yap, yap, yap, I'm not right in the head, I realize. Very left. Too far. So far the junk is coming out of my left ear. Ick. Again, maybe I'm wrong, maybe the Big Bank Boys will crash the economy, or something else will. You never know these days. The digital gilded age. I was in a guild once. Sigh. Goodnight now. Peace.

    I think Bernie Sanders is a good ... (5.00 / 1) (#106)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Oct 08, 2015 at 07:43:51 PM EST
    ... and decent man, and his record of accomplishment as mayor of Burlington, VT shows him to be both an able leader, innovative administrator and farsighted thinker as an elected official.

    But for years, he has also been a card-carrying member of the U.S. Socialist Party, and while the good people of Vermont obviously don't have any problem with that, the same cannot be said for voters in the rest of the country as a whole. Sadly, that affiliation is a poison pill for a lot of American voters. I truly wish it were otherwise, but it isn't.

    Were Sanders to be our party's presidential nominee, especially in this day and age in which Citizens United is the prevailing law of the electoral land, he get wiped out. Period. He would not be able to raise the funds necessary to be competitive on the airwaves, he'd be hammered in the corporate-dominated media 24/7, a fairly good chunk of the Democratic electorate would likely stay home, and he would be lucky if he could break 40% in the polls.

    The GOP could nominate Koko the Klown for president, and with all that corporate money and party organization behind him Koko would still beat Bernie, hands down.

    For Bernie Sanders to win the White House in 2016, it would likely require a series of personal implosions and self-immolations on the part of both Hillary Clinton and the GOP nominee, the kind which once took out Barack Obama's GOP opponent Jack Ryan during the 2004 Illinois Senate race. In other words, Bernie's only real chance would be by default.



    The game is rigged to the extent (none / 0) (#150)
    by jondee on Fri Oct 09, 2015 at 11:12:35 AM EST
    that even the most inspired, beautifully imaginative potential leader will have a policy stance or public moment that can be taken out of context and then distorted and mangled through framing and then played over and over and over and over again until it becomes ingrained in the consciousness of voting Americans of deficient critical intelligence..

    The more threatening the candidate is to powerful vested interests, the more relentless, underhanded, and vicious the attacks will be..

    And, once again, thanks ACLU for standing up to those money equals speech folks.



    LBJ said that if I voted for (none / 0) (#116)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Oct 08, 2015 at 10:45:08 PM EST
    Goldwater we would be in war in Vietnam....

    He was right.


    Saw Morning Joe (none / 0) (#13)
    by ragebot on Thu Oct 08, 2015 at 10:37:14 AM EST
    I was not that impressed with Clarie.  She interrupted Joe multiple times and Mika had to step in and put an end to it.  But what ever Mika and Joe did there was another female talking head that was the token conservative that was not shy about interrupting Clarie when Clarie refused to answer direct questions.  Instead Clarie would go off on some tangent defending Hillary.

    This is the biggest problem I see with Hillary and her minions.  Every candidate has warts somewhere and when they get pointed out most folks think the thing to do is grab the bull by the horns and deal with it.  This does not mean pointing fingers and saying but others are doing that. It does not mean trying to change the subject.  Especially if a candidate is claiming they are trying to be transparent.

    Not saying Hillary is the only pol who seems to be asking the question 'who are you going to believe me or your lying eyes?'.  Just that she seems to get more publicity for doing it.


    I'm sorry (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Oct 08, 2015 at 10:40:54 AM EST
    I still laughing about the " she interrupted Joe" part.

    We will agree to disagree.


    Talking over someone (none / 0) (#29)
    by ragebot on Thu Oct 08, 2015 at 11:28:18 AM EST
    seldom results in changing someone else's mind.  The thing is Joe was in the process of asking a question Clarie thought would be embarrassing to Hillary and she tried to cut him off.

    Some of the most impressive public performances I have seen involves Trump's hair.  Everyone seems to agree his 'do is not something you see everyday.  The word comb over does not come close to describing what it is.  But Trump has made it clear he styles his own hair and has invited audience members (always seems to be a hot babe) on stage to pull his hair and prove it is his.

    This is the kind of taking the bull by the horns I am talking about, as opposed to sending out minions to shout down questions and try and impose a heckler's veto.

    Perhaps more to the point anyone who has been at TL for any length of time knows Morning Joe is not the most popular talking heads show here.  What kinda questions did Clarie think she was going to get on that show.  In fact when introduced she started a monolog about how unfair Morning Joe was to Hillary.

    My take is the better plan is to expect questions that will try and make your guy look bad and have stock answers to refute them.


    I Hope You are Joking About Trump... (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Oct 08, 2015 at 11:55:49 AM EST
    ...who has been caught numerous times planting actors in the audience, or is that taking the bull by the horns in order to deceive the gullible ?

    Google Search

    But thank god Donald is proving himself a viable candidate vis-à-vis his hair isn't fake.  But it says a whole lot more about, that you think 'Some of the most impressive public performances I have seen'.  Good GD gravy.

    Bar, meet no low.


    Please (none / 0) (#33)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Oct 08, 2015 at 11:44:59 AM EST
    The guy is a non stop diarrhea mouth who has never let a guest finish a thought in the history of the show.

    I thought his imperious offense at being cut off was great.


    I should say (none / 0) (#35)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Oct 08, 2015 at 11:52:46 AM EST

    who has never let a guest he disagreed with finish a thought in the history of the show.

    "Hillary and her minions," ... (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Oct 08, 2015 at 11:19:26 AM EST
    ... says the guy who reads Breitbart.com.

    Minions (none / 0) (#42)
    by CoralGables on Thu Oct 08, 2015 at 12:09:01 PM EST
    another overused word here I'd put on the banned words at TL list.

    Agreed. But that said, ... (none / 0) (#52)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Oct 08, 2015 at 01:09:00 PM EST
    ... "Minions" is a pretty amusing popcorn movie.

    I (none / 0) (#127)
    by FlJoe on Fri Oct 09, 2015 at 06:00:14 AM EST
    don't know what planet you watch politics on. Most candidates will not "grab the bull by the horns" until consulting several spin doctors. Most spin- meisters will recommend a course of obfuscation and deflection first.

    You could make the argument that Hillary has relied too much on her spin-shop, but it is only a matter of degrees.

    You do stumble upon the truth,

    Not saying Hillary is the only pol who seems to be asking the question 'who are you going to believe me or your lying eyes?'.  Just that she seems to get more publicity for doing it.
    That my friend is one of the prime Clinton Rules.

    Politely remind Comcast that (none / 0) (#5)
    by scribe on Thu Oct 08, 2015 at 09:24:29 AM EST
    you're paying for "service" and not getting it, so they'd better fix it or credit you or both, or else.

    Discussing this sort of thing the other day with a neighbor, he remarked how another neighbor got the cable company's fastest internet for 24 months for half price after telling them he was sick of their non-service and craptacular service interruptions and turtle speed.  All it took was his contacting the competition (the phone company) and telling the cable company he was saying goodbye.  A day or so later the cable company called begging him to stay.  A little bargaining later, and they rolled over.

    I would not live in the apartment until the repairs are done.  Your insurance company will decide that means everything is copacetic and find a way to decline to pay for the repairs.  Besides, who wants to live in a construction site?
    I would just have the insurance company pay for you to stay in one of those extended stay motel suites.  They're actually pretty nice.

    Spoken Like Someone Who... (5.00 / 2) (#14)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Oct 08, 2015 at 10:38:14 AM EST
    ...has never called Comcast.

    I have DSL at my house, but in Galveston there is only one company, Comcast.  One of my best friends is a higher up at Comcast, and even with his help, it is a nightmare, not past tense.  They actually strung the cable that is suppose to be buried, along side my neighbors clothes lines, in the air, it fricken bright orange.  I know, not their fault contractors, but I didn't pay contractors nor did I call contractors for internet, which is $80 for the same speed I get at my home for $40.

    It's funny because whenever we are down there it seems like some merchant is always having issues with Comcast, and I always say, "He works for Comcast".  It's fun to watch my friend get visibly mad as the someone lays into him.  And that is not a rare occurrence.

    Years ago Comcast bought out Time Warner, so I had their service for about 6 months.  Right before I moved I called and asked about my email explaining that I was moving in with someone who had Comcast, they said you will have 6 months of email.  The night after the move, gone, I called and they told me the servers had been wiped.  I doubted it, but I wasn't getting anything back and I had a lot of contact info.  I was beyond upset.

    I switched to DirecTV within a couple weeks.

    That company is one of the worse I have ever dealt with, they straight up lie, then lie some more, and are straight up thieves IMO.  I would easily rate them as the worse company I have ever had to deal with.


    Yes, you could stay at an (none / 0) (#6)
    by fishcamp on Thu Oct 08, 2015 at 09:34:32 AM EST
    Embassy Suites where all the Cops stay, along with the rest of the alphabetical henchmen.  (-:

    That's always been the secret with cable (none / 0) (#11)
    by Dadler on Thu Oct 08, 2015 at 10:33:21 AM EST
    You simply call them, tell them how disgusted you are and say you demand an immediate 30% reduction or you are leaving. They will, almost always, give you a serious discount. Negotiation is the forgotten art in this pre-packaged society. Work those effers, people. Work them.

    I loathe haggling though... (none / 0) (#18)
    by kdog on Thu Oct 08, 2015 at 10:47:17 AM EST
    (sh*t I loathe business for that matter;)...I just can't do it, I must be missing the gene.  

    Even more so now since I'm the schmuck being threatened with "I want 20% off or I'm never buying anything from you people ever again for as long as I live!!!".  To which I think but can't say "Works for me guy, take a f8ckin' hike!".  


    They know what a monopoly they have (none / 0) (#22)
    by Dadler on Thu Oct 08, 2015 at 11:05:16 AM EST
    i hate haggling too but, seriously, you can imagine the profit margins they enjoy if they so easily will cut your rate 20% cuz you call up in a pissy mood. It has always worked for us well every few years or so when the bill gets out of hand.

    Oh I can imagine... (none / 0) (#26)
    by kdog on Thu Oct 08, 2015 at 11:13:32 AM EST
    I know my proclivities cost me money...but their is a cost to time and aggravation too.  I'd rather cancel the service than battle the corporate bureaucracy, not to mention the conscience pangs of giving some underpaid slob who doesn't have anything to do with setting rates grief on the phone...I am that underpaid slob! ;)

    Bro... (none / 0) (#20)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Oct 08, 2015 at 11:03:46 AM EST
    ...I would agree with the exception of Comcast.  

    I just negotiated myself into a sweet deal with Sirius this morning, I used always get good deals with Time Warner, and swear to god on his one, I got NFL Sunday Ticket for free this year.

    But Comcast, if there was a competitor, I would have saved myself 1001 headaches and never called Comcast to begin with.

    Now I don't know how accurate these stories are, but there are literally millions of links just like this:

    7 reasons Comcast is the most hated company in America

    If you've ever wondered why even the federal government has more fans than Comcast, here are some good reasons. The notorious cable provider is infamous for trying to destroy Internet freedom, having some of the worst customer service on the planet, and making you wait for hours, sometimes even days, for the cable guy.

    Congratulations To Comcast, Your 2014 Worst Company In America!

    But the nation's largest cable and Internet provider (which is trying to become even larger), almost got stopped in its track by first-time contender SeaWorld, riding high on waves of negative publicity tied to the documentary Blackfish. Comcast pulled off a buzzer-beater to hold off SeaWorld and earn its place in the Final Death Match.

    Comcast pledges $300M to fix its terrible, horrible, no good, very bad customer service

    "There are times you just need to transform things and rethink things from the base level," said Neil Smit, president and CEO of Comcast Cable, at a recent industry trade show in Chicago. "That's what we've done."

    Should you be skeptical? Of course. Comcast has abused so many customers for so long, that it should take more than promises, some of which we've heard before, to convince people an outfit that has twice been named the "Worst Company in America" by an arm of Consumer Reports finally had its come-to-Jesus moment.

    Comcast allegedly changes name on another customer's bill to a profanity

    A few weeks ago Comcast apologized for sending a bill to Washington state customer Ricardo Brown that was addressed, "A--hole Brown." The offending bill showed up in his mailbox after his wife had called to cancel their cable service.

    Now Mary Bauer is telling the Chicago Tribune that her most recent Comcast bill--which she just got the other day--was addressed to "Super B----h Bauer."

    we did it with comcast once (none / 0) (#23)
    by Dadler on Thu Oct 08, 2015 at 11:06:05 AM EST
    maybe we were lucky, i dunno.

    there's a company (none / 0) (#25)
    by CST on Thu Oct 08, 2015 at 11:10:33 AM EST
    that you can pay $5 to to cancel your Comcast service.  Link

    I agree with you they are the worst company, the problem is in so many areas they are a defacto monopoly.  If I had any other option for semi-reasonable internet speeds I'd drop them in a heartbeat.  I almost never watch cable and if they didn't essentially force me to have it with bundling, I would cut that cord and never go back, especially now that HBO offers online-only packages, since that's pretty much the only thing I do watch.  I have the most basic TV package possible (not even things like FX, ESPN, or AMC) plus HBO because it was "free".  But the cost of internet only was raised to cover the cost of cable.  Which I find incredibly infuriating.  And no, I don't want a frikken landline.

    Grrr. I hate comcast so much.


    I Saw That Yesterday... (none / 0) (#28)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Oct 08, 2015 at 11:27:04 AM EST
    ...I guarantee that price will go up, but if I know Comcast, they will simply stop letting other people cancel.

    I was also reading that Comcast is single-handedly pushing people into cutting the cord.  That is crazy, they are ruining an entire industry.


    Dadler maybe a little OT (none / 0) (#30)
    by ragebot on Thu Oct 08, 2015 at 11:30:57 AM EST
    but given the choice who would you rather have negotiating your deal with Comcast; Trump or Hillary?

    Depends (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by CST on Thu Oct 08, 2015 at 11:59:01 AM EST
    (I realize I'm not Dadler)

    Are we talking about negotiating "my deal", "the country's deal", or "Donald Trump's deal".  Because for the first two I'd much rather have Hillary.


    Neither of them (none / 0) (#50)
    by Dadler on Thu Oct 08, 2015 at 12:58:33 PM EST
    I'll take myself.

    Smart move... (none / 0) (#59)
    by kdog on Thu Oct 08, 2015 at 01:28:26 PM EST
    Trump would pull his ADD sidetrack move towards negotiations to getting The Trump Network included in the Comcast basic package, Clinton would be giving a paid speech at the Comcast National Sales Meeting in Boca Raton next year for 25 grand.

    Both just coincidences though, honest! ;)


    With McCarthy out ... (none / 0) (#38)
    by christinep on Thu Oct 08, 2015 at 11:58:57 AM EST
    what next?  With the story-of-the-day, does that Repub caucus turn to the further right? Where else are they going to go?

    With the Repubs reeling, it would be a good time now--a very good time--for Democrats to amp up the push against the Benghaziii fiasco as well as the right-wing witch hunt against women that is telecast via Cecile Richards.  We should ramp up the push for meaningful gun legislation as well. We should openly push back against the Repubs latest attempts to tamp down the vote & disenfranchise minority voters.  A gigantic initiative on our part in the days ahead could have an impact as the Repubs find themselves in the deep political sea.

    Also: Hoo-ha ...let's give a shout-out to the hapless John Boehner who tipped the balance and helped bring about The Unraveling.

    Benghazi claims a scalp (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by CoralGables on Thu Oct 08, 2015 at 12:42:16 PM EST
    Not the one the Republicans planned on (5.00 / 4) (#56)
    by jbindc on Thu Oct 08, 2015 at 01:27:07 PM EST
    It is some nice Clintonian speaker jujitsu (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by ruffian on Thu Oct 08, 2015 at 01:27:37 PM EST
    I am remembering the spate of speakers and speaker candidates that were burned through during Bill's impeachment fiasco.

    Their Kung Fu (none / 0) (#82)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Oct 08, 2015 at 03:59:28 PM EST
    Is strong

    While his comments on Fox News ... (5.00 / 2) (#64)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Oct 08, 2015 at 01:40:09 PM EST
    ... about the House Select Committee on Benghazi probably didn't help his case, Kevin McCarthy was likely done in by a few skeletons rattling around in his closet.

    Specifically, there have been rumors that McCarthy's been having an affair with Rep. Renee Ellmers (R-NC). That may have prompted the open letter from Rep. Walter Jones (R-NC) yesterday to his House GOP colleagues, in which Jones referenced the fiasco in Dec. 1998, when then Speaker-elect Bob Livingston (R-LA) resigned his seat due to marital infidelity, at a time when Republicans were pursuing impeachment proceedings against President Clinton for the same thing.



    If this rumor is (none / 0) (#76)
    by KeysDan on Thu Oct 08, 2015 at 02:33:38 PM EST
    true, it is likely the coup de gras. McCarthy was already flat-lining of self-inflicted wounds, from his ham-handed boasting on the effectiveness of the Benghazi strategy to his inability to demonstrate  facility with the English language. He was already fodder for the late-night comics.

    But, worst of all, in my opinion, was that he was tagged as being another "liberal" like Boehner. If just a dalliance, it could be overlooked--or covered up. Your basic wing-nuttery, not to mention moderation, cannot be tolerated. And, the fanatical chaos is better shrouded with righteousness.


    What Happens if They Can't Get it Together ? (none / 0) (#79)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Oct 08, 2015 at 02:56:29 PM EST
    As far as I can tell Boehner will stay.


    "After Leader McCarthy's announcement, members of the House Republican Conference will not vote today for a new speaker. As I have said previously, I will serve as speaker until the House votes to elect a new speaker. We will announce the date for this election at a later date, and I'm confident we will elect a new speaker in the coming weeks."

    According Issa, they need 218 votes.

    Darrell Issa, an influential California Republican congressman and chair of the House oversight committee, said "I think it's obvious that all members of the conference were shocked" by McCarthy's sudden withdrawal. "Kevin McCarthy had the vast majority of the conference's confidence and votes," Issa said, "but he made the decision that he couldn't get to [the requisite] 218 [votes on the House floor], and as a result he's taken himself out of the race."

    Seems almost assured they won't get 218 votes, there are only 247 republicans.


    Agent Orange staying (none / 0) (#81)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Oct 08, 2015 at 03:58:45 PM EST
    Could be a good thing.  He might be the only one who is "statesman" enough to avoid a shutdown over budgets and debt limits.

    Pretty ironic.


    Yeah... (none / 0) (#84)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Oct 08, 2015 at 04:11:42 PM EST
    ...what could go wrong with a guy who doesn't want to be there and who a lot of people really hate.  He could go off the grid and become a liberal just to show them.

    Boehner is like my neighbor, hate the guy right until he told me he was putting his place up for sale and it occurred to me it could easily get worse.  He decided to stay and now we actually talk from time to time.

    The humane psyche is weird thing.


    Agree with Donald (none / 0) (#93)
    by ragebot on Thu Oct 08, 2015 at 05:18:35 PM EST
    McCarthy seems to have skeletons in his closet that probably had more to do with his getting out than anything he said.

    This one is gonna take a lot of popcorn for me.


    FWIW... (none / 0) (#61)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Oct 08, 2015 at 01:30:09 PM EST
    Another depressing article (none / 0) (#77)
    by CST on Thu Oct 08, 2015 at 02:47:05 PM EST
    One of the biggest problems (none / 0) (#78)
    by CST on Thu Oct 08, 2015 at 02:54:18 PM EST
    that rarely gets talked about is the fact that these loans are not discharge-able in bankruptcy.

    Just about every other loan gives you some way out, some way to negotiate.  But not student loans.


    And for that you can thank Joe Biden. (5.00 / 1) (#99)
    by caseyOR on Thu Oct 08, 2015 at 06:07:00 PM EST
    Everyone who finds themselves mired in student debt, wondering why they cannot declare bankruptcy, should demand that Biden explain to the American people why student loan debt is the only consumer debt that can drag them down the rest of their lives.

    That bankruptcy bill was Biden's baby. Does he think this will not be an isssue if he gets in the race?


    This is the (none / 0) (#101)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Oct 08, 2015 at 06:19:42 PM EST
    kind of thing that makes me think it's going to be a repeat for him of the last two times should he get in. I mean there were actual reasons he didn't win twice before and it wasn't because of that bogus" authentic" narrative.

    Honestly (none / 0) (#133)
    by CST on Fri Oct 09, 2015 at 09:22:32 AM EST
    I didn't know that, and you're right, it could definitely hurt him if someone made a campaign issue about it.

    Also (5.00 / 1) (#132)
    by jbindc on Fri Oct 09, 2015 at 08:25:40 AM EST
    You can't deduct the interest paid on those loans if your gross income is over something like $75,000.  So while that may not be many graduates, it dies affect some people - especially those with post graduate loans who may be over the threshold, bit still not "rich" because if where they live and the cost of living.

    The rational for non discharge (none / 0) (#95)
    by ragebot on Thu Oct 08, 2015 at 05:27:44 PM EST
    is that most students could run up a debt and file for bankruptcy as soon as they graduate, or even if they don't.  Given the economic status of most students the courts would allow that.

    Gotta say I had a debate scholar ship, worked as a bouncer at a local watering hole on weekends, did construction in the summer, and drove a cab in Miami over the Christmas holiday.  Not really high paying jobs but when I graduated I had money in the bank.

    The real problem is the cost of attending a university has increased faster than almost anything else.  Maybe the real solution is to figure out how to lower the cost of going to school.  Administration in universities has grown like a monster, more admins that profs.  The rec centers at major universities often resemble the Taj Mahal.  Very few major universities have a football/basketball team that is in the black and all the minor sports never make money.  Many courses taught provide no skills employers are willing to pay for.

    Even with the high cost tax payers foot the bill for about 2/3 to 1/2 of the cost of a student attending a public university; sometimes even more.

    Massive student debt is the symptom, not the disease.


    You want to save on college? (5.00 / 2) (#108)
    by scribe on Thu Oct 08, 2015 at 08:02:52 PM EST
    Go to Germany and study there.  Several years ago, they made a policy decision that they wanted an educated populace.  So they made college effectively free.  To anyone who can get in.  From anywhere.

    A lot of the courses are in English and, given that English is the language of international business, they encourage English speakers to attend so they can learn from real English speakers.  (Kinda the way I keep my German sharp - listening to their radio through the magic of the internet.)  And if you're studying, say, one of the hard sciences or engineering, it's all the same language all over the world, anyway.


    Not just Germany either... (none / 0) (#131)
    by kdog on Fri Oct 09, 2015 at 08:23:20 AM EST
    my nephew is considering going to graduate school in Norway if the job market ain't all that when he finishes his Bachelors ...free tuition, and they've got programs in English.  I told him to do it regardless of the job market, just for the experience.  

    And he will have a BA without any debt...relatively affordable quality education at Queens College, while working full time and paying his own tuition.  It'll take him 6 instead of four, but no debt.  Smart f*ckin' kid.

    Of course many universities and the credit terms are a total rip-off, and the higher education system is fubar, but the kids who racked up 5-6 figures of debt and can't pay up have to own up for their mistakes too.  Unless you're getting a specialized degree for a very high paying job, what the f*ck are you thinking racking up that kinda debt?  That being said, you should be able to seek relief via bankruptcy like any other debt...you can run up 50 grand on credit cards gambling and drinking and get relief, but can't when you drop 50 grand on an education?  Makes no sense.


    honestly though (none / 0) (#135)
    by CST on Fri Oct 09, 2015 at 09:44:53 AM EST
    A lot of 18 year old's are dumb@sses.  And as a result they are never able to financially recover.

    It's not like bankruptcy has no consequences.

    I look around at some of my friends and think "they're never gonna be able to pay that".  And as a result, there's a whole group of now intelligent adults, once dumb@ss kids, who will never be able to get ahead.  And there's a lot of them.


    I agree... (none / 0) (#137)
    by kdog on Fri Oct 09, 2015 at 10:03:24 AM EST
    That's the point...giving people a chance to put a mistake behind them and get out from under the bankster's thumb.

    All I'm saying is to acknowledge the mistake and learn from the mistake...when I was down at OWS talking to some of the kids buried in debt, I got the impression they didn't think it was a mistake to go 50 grand in the hole to major in Sanskrit.  


    true (5.00 / 1) (#138)
    by CST on Fri Oct 09, 2015 at 10:10:15 AM EST
    I also don't think it's okay that it should cost anything $50 grand to major in sanskrit - or anything else for that matter.

    Even for people who can pay it back - it's still outrageous.  I mean you have plenty of people where the math works out, and it doesn't make it okay.  You shouldn't have to move to Germany or Norway to get a reasonably priced education.


    Amen Sister... (none / 0) (#139)
    by kdog on Fri Oct 09, 2015 at 10:18:25 AM EST
    we can't pin that on the banks though...that's all on our fine institutions of higher learning.  They be robbing their students blind...the banks and government just enable that con.  Harvard could stop charging any tuition at all today, and they have enough money in their endowment to be in the education business for another 100 years or more.

    One of my best friends is all excited to be almost paid up at age 36, and he din't go to some fancy school, he went to SUNY New Paltz.  Got a degree in Communications, worked in TV for awhile and now he delivers wine for a living.  He acknowledges he f*cked up, but he had fun doing it;)  


    Yeah, But... (5.00 / 1) (#146)
    by ScottW714 on Fri Oct 09, 2015 at 10:55:04 AM EST
    ...you are taking the extremes, Sanskrit and Harvard are hardly your average college student saddled with debt.

    Let talk about state college for kids paying in-state tuition getting usable degrees, you know the bulk of college graduates, who rack up ~ $20k of debt.

    How is that any different that people with medical bills, or families who spent more than they made, they have more debt, for whatever reason, and they need some relief.  Bankruptcy rarely discharges debt, more like a re-org of debt, which works for some and not others.  But the last thing we want college kids to do is declare bankruptcy before they even establish a career.

    IMO, they should get x-amount of dollars of debt w/o interest.  Also loans should be based, like every other loan in the world, on income, or rather potential income in their field, so the Sanskrit folks get a couple grand, higher education degrees get more, according to the average earning potential specific to the degree.  

    For focks sake, interest rates are at rock bottom, yet some crazy reason creditors are acting like it's the 90's with the rates, that needs to stop as well.  Not just for students.  We need federal law on usury rates, the Fed + 10% is the max rate or some other formulation.  It's ridiculous that banks can borrow at ~3% and charge 25%, it's not even their money.

    Creditors to students currently have no risk, that is BS, they should be like every other creditor in that they carry the risk of default.  Some sort of formula in which the interest rate they charge is directly related to the risk, creditors offering lower rates have less of the debt than can be discharged, the higher interest rates, more debt can be discharged.

    This isn't rocket science, the problem isn't the people taking on the debt, it the people giving ridiculous amounts of cred and charging insane rates because they know they there is currently -0- risk.  Cure them and the student debt crisis will cure itself IMO.


    Again, I agree... (5.00 / 1) (#154)
    by kdog on Fri Oct 09, 2015 at 11:34:12 AM EST
    but until we figure out a way to take our country back from the usurers, it's on the people to protect themselves and not do stupid sh*t.  What else can we do?  Besides vote for Bernie and elect people like Bernie to Congress and see if that helps.

    If anybody thinks, when push comes to shove, that Joe Biden or Hillary Clinton or any of the Clown Car are gonna side with the people over the banks, you haven't been paying attention. One Nation under the Banks man.  Jefferson warned us.

    A medical emergency can't be avoided, needing food money can't be avoided. A student loan can...that's all I'm saying. Watch your back...nobody else will, certainly not your elected representatives.  


    Again... (5.00 / 1) (#162)
    by ScottW714 on Fri Oct 09, 2015 at 12:06:25 PM EST
    ...taking the extremes, who says medical bills are emergencies and that family in bankruptcy got there buying food ?

    Nearly all debt is choice.  I would imagine the number of folks in bankruptcy court of necessities is probably damn close to zero.  creditors don't push small debt to the point of court intervention.

    Bernie, Bernie, Bernie, what is Bernie gonna to do when GOP blocks Warren's student loan plan ?

    I have been paying attention, and I am also living in reality where Bernie gets just as many votes as Obama, or HRC, in our legislative branch, Congress, which is exactly zero.


    So we agree... (5.00 / 1) (#167)
    by kdog on Fri Oct 09, 2015 at 12:27:10 PM EST
    One Nation Under The Banks, with usury and indentured servitude for all stupid enough to borrow money.

    Until a majority of states and congressional districts elect people like Bernie & Liz to Congress and the White House, there is no point in discussing this problem. We gave the power to address it to usurer proxies.


    Of Course We Agree... (5.00 / 1) (#180)
    by ScottW714 on Fri Oct 09, 2015 at 01:54:34 PM EST
    ...pretty much everyone here agrees.  I also agree about the problem and that Bernie has more and better solutions.

    Cool... (5.00 / 1) (#198)
    by kdog on Fri Oct 09, 2015 at 02:36:32 PM EST
    just checkin' ;)

    If we ever figure out what to do about it, we'll be almost as dangerous as banking institutions!

    This discussion led to me the Wiki page on usury...lots of interesting tidbits if anyone is interested.  

    The most hated sort, and with the greatest reason, is usury, which makes a gain out of money itself, and not from the natural object of it. For money was intended to be used in exchange, but not to increase at interest. And this term interest, which means the birth of money from money, is applied to the breeding of money because the offspring resembles the parent. Wherefore of an modes of getting wealth this is the most unnatural.

    - Aristotle


    Harvard is not the problem (none / 0) (#140)
    by CST on Fri Oct 09, 2015 at 10:25:36 AM EST
    It's an easy punching bag but the truth is places like that provide tremendous financial aid (in grants, not loans).  They've pretty much stopped charging lots of people tuition.

    The problem is all the private colleges that aren't on the same caliber as Harvard but cost just as much and don't provide aid in the form of grants.

    Especially the University of Phoenix and places like that.  They have to know they are making bad loans.  That's the other problem, we don't require any due diligence on the part of the lenders because we tell them they are getting their money back no matter what.


    Point taken,,, (none / 0) (#143)
    by kdog on Fri Oct 09, 2015 at 10:37:00 AM EST
    just the (lazy) obvious example of private institutions with more money than god sitting in the bank and charging outrageous tuition.  Sh*t universities could save money on processing grants by just lowering the sticker price, no?  Why is it so convoluted?

    I don't know what to do about bad loans/due diligence...what 18 year old isn't a high risk loan?  

    Whatever the answer is, it's gotta be multi-pronged, kinda like the healthcare problem...increased access without crippling terms while lowering costs.


    Don't kid youself, plenty of problems have (none / 0) (#157)
    by jondee on Fri Oct 09, 2015 at 11:51:46 AM EST
    emanated from Harvard.

    The economics department, that has exerted an influence on policy on the national level, has been a hive of militant libertarian true-believer types that Ayn Rand would've considered extremist..

    And then there was president Larry Summers. Of all the highly-qualified people in the country to make president of Harvard..


    I'm talking about (none / 0) (#168)
    by CST on Fri Oct 09, 2015 at 12:42:11 PM EST
    student loan debt.  Harvard does not saddle incoming students with massive student loans.  And even if they did those students would be more likely to be able to pay them off.

    I have no love for their economics department or Larry Summers but that has nothing to do with it.


    I'm talking about economic devestation (none / 0) (#175)
    by jondee on Fri Oct 09, 2015 at 01:28:02 PM EST
    that students and everyone else here pays for.

    In large part due to a narrow mentality promulgated by an influential one percent-worshipping Harvard faculty.


    I think it requires a combo approach (5.00 / 3) (#142)
    by CST on Fri Oct 09, 2015 at 10:32:28 AM EST
    1 - public universities should be free or close to free.

    2 - lenders should not be giving loans that big for private colleges to people who will not be able to pay them back.  Frankly, that would probably help reign in private college tuition as well (along with having a free or close to free public option - sound familiar???).

    3 - Maybe put a time frame on that kind of bankruptcy, say 5 years after you take out the loan before you are eligible to file.  That would curb the worst of the abuse since 5 years out you would probably have a better sense of whether or not you are capable of paying.


    There are, IMO, two major causes (5.00 / 2) (#169)
    by caseyOR on Fri Oct 09, 2015 at 12:43:40 PM EST
    of the sky-high student debt. They are the government's decision to guarantee school loans from private institutions like banks, and the bankruptcy law.

    Once loans were guaranteed and the banks, etc., faced exactly zero chance of a loss on any loan, the floodgates were opened on the availability of these loans. Why not loan some kid $20 or $30 or $80 thousand when you know you will get your return regardless of what that kid does. With no risk to their bottom line banks have no incentive to vet these loans. It is just like the whole mortgage debacle.

    And, once these ridiculously high loans became available, many colleges decided there was no longer any good reason to keep student costs down, to keep a college education somewhat affordable. Let them get loans! became the rallying cry of many a college and university.

    And now we see schools spending ridiculous amounts of money on things like luxury state-of-the-art health clubs, and do not get me started on the rapid rise of administrative salaries and compensation packages at our nation's institutions of higher learning.

    So, we have the federal government absolving banks of any responsibility for the quality of their loan portfolios. Of course the feds do not want to lose money on this, so student loans join taxes as one of the few debts that cannot be discharged in bankruptcy and in the process a permanent, but educated, debter class is created.

    This also creates a large demographic willing to do almost anything to get and keep a job, any job, put up with almost anything to keep that job and pay that loan.

    Conmen and grifters win again.

    As an aside, when I took out my student loans, back in the dark ages of the early '70s, my loans were issued by the federal government, were called National Defense Student Loans because at that time we valued an educated electorate, and my interest was 2%. Also, my tuition at a state school (in-state) was approx. $200/quarter for which I was lucky enough to have a scholarship. My loans paid for the portion of room and board(approx. $2,000/quarter) that my jobs did not cover.

    Yes, everything is more expensive now, but the rise in cost of college is outsized and outrageous.


    Let's not forget (5.00 / 2) (#170)
    by jbindc on Fri Oct 09, 2015 at 12:53:16 PM EST
    Manufacturing jobs that went away, and suddenly everyone  was convinced that all students "needed" to go to college.  Even nowadays, if you look at the lowest entry level administrative assistant job, they generally want some college or a college degree.  Emoyers aren't willing to invest in training someone who may just not be college material

    Many college programs are now designed to be more than 4 years (not counting those students who deliberately take longer).

    To get into better schools, high school students are encouraged to have multiple extra curricular activities, volunteering, and a heavier course load, besides doing things that "set you apart" from the rest of the field.  That doesn't leave a whole lotta time to have a job for those kids who may need it.

    Also don't forget that other predator on campus - credit card companies that hand out credit (to people who don't have incomes!) like water.  Add $5-$10 K worth if credit card debt upon exiting college on top of student loans, and you can see a real problem.


    I heard mentioned this afternoon (none / 0) (#83)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Oct 08, 2015 at 04:11:06 PM EST
    Something I knew but had forgotten.

    The Speaker does not have to be in congress.   It's possible if they can't agree on someone in the house who will take it they could bring someone in from the outside who they can all agree on and is dumb enough to do it.

    Speaker Kim Davis?

    Is It a Paid Gig ? (none / 0) (#86)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Oct 08, 2015 at 04:17:45 PM EST
    There are a lot of republican presidential candidates who will need a job in the very near future.

    Oh dear god (none / 0) (#87)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Oct 08, 2015 at 04:19:15 PM EST
    ChuckieCheeses Todd just said the names of Dick Cheney and Ben Carson were being floated.

    Chuck Todd (none / 0) (#160)
    by Zorba on Fri Oct 09, 2015 at 12:03:40 PM EST
    Is a total shill.
    Cheney?  Carson?
    One with no heart, the other with (what appears to be) a failing brain.

    Hugh Hewitt (none / 0) (#90)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Oct 08, 2015 at 04:46:50 PM EST
    Just said it would be Pete Roskam.  He knows these guys pretty well.

    Interesting.  Relatively speaking not the most dangerous inmate in the asylum.

    Supports stem cell research.   Denies climate change.

    Just had (none / 0) (#94)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Oct 08, 2015 at 05:25:16 PM EST
    a conversation with a wingnut that thinks Boehner is the problem. Talk about clueless. The problem is that the GOP has so many gerrymandered far right districts that elect nuts to the house. This new guy is probably not going to be any better than Boehner because frankly nobody is going to be able to run the monkey house full of tea party monkeys.

    Uh huh (5.00 / 1) (#97)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Oct 08, 2015 at 05:43:47 PM EST
    Boehner may be the solution.  I sort of expect he will stick around.   But not everyone will be happy with that.   I just saw gap toothed Texas piggy birther Blake Farenthold saying "his people", who are the craziest of the crazy, absolutely do not want more Boehner.

    Boo hoo.   It would be ironic if they end up forcing Boehner to stay and he sells them out by refusing to shut down  the government.

    And why should he not.  He's leaving.  What does he care how pi$$ed off the TP morons are.

    If I was him I would want to stick it to them.


    I had no (5.00 / 2) (#98)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Oct 08, 2015 at 05:57:02 PM EST
    idea who that person was. So i went to his Facebook page. Facebook pages are a great place to read the crazy. His people? LOL. Yeah, the best thing for the GOP in general would be for Boehner to stay as much as the nuts hate him because things would get much much worse for the GOP with one of the nuts being speaker. At least Boehner won't let them blow up the country.

    Hugh Hewitt.. (none / 0) (#144)
    by jondee on Fri Oct 09, 2015 at 10:49:17 AM EST
    even the most educated conservatives seem to be driven by wishful thinking to an unwarranted extent -- so that what "I want" and "what is" are interchangeable. The delusionary overreaching of the regime change neocon brain trust was THE abject lesson in that phenomenon for all time..

    Climate change denial, environmental denial in general, and the quasi-religious faith in unregulated markets -- even after 2007-2008 -- being the other glaring examples..

    Conservatives commentators and policy wonks are approaching the point where they might serve the role of near flawless negative barometers..



    I have a question for TLers: (none / 0) (#104)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Oct 08, 2015 at 06:56:22 PM EST
    Are any of you familiar with NextEra Energy, Inc., especially one as its customers? (NextEra is the nation's third largest energy utility company, and owns Florida Power & Light, among other entities.)

    I'm asking because last December, NextEra submitted a $4.3 billion bid to purchase Hawaiian Electric, and I have some very serious concerns about that. So much so, that I'm part of an interisland coalition that's organized in opposition to the proposed HECO-NextEra deal.

    In three weeks, I'm going to be making a public presentation on Oahu before the Hawaii Public Utilities Commission, which must first approve any such deal before it can go forward. So, if you don't have anything nice to say about NextEra, please tell me all about it.

    Actually, even if you do have something nice to say, I still want to hear your impressions. But especially, if you have concerns about NextEra as a current or former customer, I'd really welcome your input. You can reach me via email, which I have listed here at TL.

    Mahalo e Aloha.

    ok (none / 0) (#121)
    by fanrang on Fri Oct 09, 2015 at 01:51:37 AM EST
    I am remembering the spate of speakers and speaker candidates that were burned through during Bill's impeachment fiasco.

    SITE VIOLATOR: Vietnam. (none / 0) (#124)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri Oct 09, 2015 at 03:43:06 AM EST
    TGIF (none / 0) (#125)
    by fishcamp on Fri Oct 09, 2015 at 05:09:17 AM EST
    but I have to drive to Miami this morning...HORRORS

    I would consider (none / 0) (#126)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Oct 09, 2015 at 05:58:27 AM EST
    that a horror coming from Key West.

    Don't worry (none / 0) (#151)
    by jbindc on Fri Oct 09, 2015 at 11:25:34 AM EST
    Now Darrell Issa said he'll consider running for Speaker.

    Didn't Kevin McCarthy say yesterday (none / 0) (#156)
    by christinep on Fri Oct 09, 2015 at 11:47:29 AM EST
    that, sometimes, you have to hit rock bottom.  (He may be prescient, considering....)

    So, do the Republicans (none / 0) (#161)
    by Zorba on Fri Oct 09, 2015 at 12:05:04 PM EST
    even have someone marginally reasonable to run for Speaker?
    It just keeps going from bad to worse.

    I wonder why (none / 0) (#166)
    by KeysDan on Fri Oct 09, 2015 at 12:15:43 PM EST
    the Republicans are not turning to the longest serving Republican Speaker of the House, Dennis Hastert. They are still using the Hastert Rule, why not let Hastert rule?

    The Freedom Caucus (none / 0) (#181)
    by BarnBabe on Fri Oct 09, 2015 at 01:58:36 PM EST
    I was just reading on Yahoo the Freedom Caucus's demands. It is done in a form of inquiry but it pretty much explains why no one wants the job. They are begging Paul Ryan but he is still refusing. He might give in but he will not be able to do anything and possibly not be able to get the 218 votes unless he makes concessions. The article on Yahoo was interesting. I am terrible at linking. But from the Washington Post.
    "The inquiry they want agreed upon includes things like not raising the debt ceiling without "significant structural entitlement reforms" (i.e. cutting and restructuring Medicare and Social Security); shutting down the government unless they can defund Planned Parenthood, repeal Obamacare, invalidate the Iran deal, and more;and perhaps most importantly, a series of process "reforms" that would take power away from the Speaker to determine how legislation proceeds and distribute it around to all the members of the caucus. They seem to want to ensure not only that the next Speaker is someone disinclined to make compromises with the Senate or the White House, but that he won't be able to even if he wanted to."
    This it why no one wants the job. Well, that is not true exactly, a few do, but they are not ones we want as the 3rd in line for POTUS.

    If Only Students Had Guns... (none / 0) (#152)
    by ScottW714 on Fri Oct 09, 2015 at 11:25:48 AM EST
    ...oh wait they did and that is why people were shot, and someone died, because a student had a hand gun and got into a fight.

    I keep waiting for the armed heroes to start saving someone and when all the guns are going to make the world a safer place...

    Campus Shooting Came After Fight Between Two Groups of Students

    Houston & Texas to Scale (none / 0) (#155)
    by ScottW714 on Fri Oct 09, 2015 at 11:41:34 AM EST
    The first image, Houston's Beltway overlays San Francisco, and here it is in the Houston.

    The second, Texas outline overlays France.

    Here is a sad news story, in which ... (none / 0) (#183)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri Oct 09, 2015 at 02:02:30 PM EST
    ... I really don't understand why national news outlets are omitting what I'd consider to be pertinent facts. Spencer Stone, who you may remember as one of the three American servicemen who quite possibly thwarted a terrorist attack on a Paris-bound train one month ago, was stabbed in the wee hours of Thursday morning in his hometown of Sacramento. Here's how CNN reported it:

    "Surveillance video shows 30 seconds of high drama and raw violence in midtown Sacramento before 1 a.m. Thursday. What starts with a few punches thrown on a dark street corner quickly spills into the street. Five or six people are in the middle of it all pushing, shoving and trading blows. [...] Stone was one of those who walked away. But he did so with multiple stab wounds, Sacramento Deputy Police Chief Ken Bernard told reporters. Bernard singled out two males who allegedly had a part in wounding Stone, who had been visiting bars in the area with four friends."

    Yet here's what the hometown Sacramento Bee reported:

    "Before the incident, Stone's group was drinking at the Badlands Dance Club at 20th and K streets, according to a source familiar with the investigation. Bernard said officers had not yet spoken to Stone and did not know if he had been drinking. [...] The area is home to numerous popular bars, including Badlands and Faces, two nightclubs that cater to the gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender community. [...] For much of the morning, a swelling media contingency outnumbered potential interview subjects on the block, where the Lavender Heights intersection at 20th and K had been updated the day before with rainbow crosswalks." (Emphasis is mine.)

    While the police investigation is obviously still open and ongoing, the Bee's report that Stone and his party were apparently followed as they left Badlands, and then assaulted one block away, indicates a possibility that they were perhaps deliberately targeted because their assailants perceived them to be gay. And if that's the case, then that's gay-bashing and a hate crime. Even if Stone is straight, if the assault occurred because he was mistaken for gay, that's still a potential hate crime.

    Yet this information about where Stone and his friends were prior to the attack was omitted by CNN in its report, as well as by other national sources in their own reporting of the story. In so doing, they've left readers with the impression that Stone's stabbing was likely the result of a random attack or a drunken brawl in some dark and dingy part of town, when the assault had in fact occurred in Sacramento's trendy and very well-lit gay district. Why they decided to do that, I don't know.

    I admit that a lot of this is speculation on my part, and for their part Sacramento police have thus far declined to offer any possible motive for the stabbing while they're still investigating what happened. Spencer Stone underwent emergency surgery at UC-Davis Medical Center yesterday and is in serious condition, but he is expected to recover. Best wishes that he gets well soon.


    Your assumptions (none / 0) (#185)
    by CoralGables on Fri Oct 09, 2015 at 02:09:19 PM EST
    would be pitiful news reporting.

    ... that I was speculating. Did you read the post all the way through to the end before responding?

    I'm sorry, but when people are attacked within one block of an LGBT nightclub after having just left that establishment, my antennae naturally go up as to the circumstances and nature of the assault.

    Further, I'm quite familiar with Sacramento, having worked with a number of clients there, and I can assure you that the city's Lavender District -- which is seven short blocks east of the California State Capitol -- is not in any way the squalid part of town, and that Badlands is not some low-rent dive.

    Now, I'll defer to others with more experience in this particular realm, but speaking for myself only, I've neither seen nor heard of too many instances, if any, where the patrons of an upscale gay establishment in a nice part of town have engaged in drunken brawls with one another in the street and pulled knives.

    So, in the absence of further and more definitive information to the contrary, I think I made a reasonably educated guess as to what might have possibly happened here, based on the Bee's report.



    Yeah... (none / 0) (#202)
    by ScottW714 on Fri Oct 09, 2015 at 03:04:35 PM EST
    ...'National hero gets in bar brawl and gets stabbed', probably isn't a headline the press wants to run without knowing what really happened.

    The whole 'they got followed' seems to be missing from the actual reports from the police thus far.  And for all anyone knows, the hero and his military friends were the the antagonists.

    The assumption that they were be targeting for being perceived as gay is really funny; apparently Marines targeting gay people completely flew over your head because hero would never do something like that ?  And of course this could never just be about about a bunch of drunken men getting into a fight because that never happens.


    The Last of 6 (none / 0) (#184)
    by CoralGables on Fri Oct 09, 2015 at 02:04:37 PM EST
    Dem Primary debates is coming to Miami on Wednesday, March 9, 2016. That is, if more than one candidate is still running as of March 9.

    There will be one debate per month starting next Tuesday.

    Scott, per the surveillance video, ... (none / 0) (#206)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri Oct 09, 2015 at 04:27:45 PM EST
    ... Spencer Stone and his party were apparently accosted from behind as they were walking east down K Street, less than one block from Badlands nightclub. Further, immediately after the stabbing, two assailants then jumped into a running car that had been waiting for them on 21st Street, and they made their getaway. That hardly looks or sounds like a drunken brawl to me, but rather much more like an assault that's possibly premeditated.

    According to a recent report just aired by the local ABC affiliate in Sacramento, police say that a cab driver who witnessed the incident reported that the assailants had allegedly made derogatory remarks to at least one of the Stone party's members prior to the attack, and that Stone was clearly attempting to defend himself when he was stabbed. I'll try to link the report when it's finally posted.

    Sacramento police are presently searching for three suspects (including the getaway driver) who are of Asian ancestry. The Midtown Business Association, led by the five LGBT establishments in the Lavender District, also just announced that they are offering a reward for any information which leads to the suspects' arrest. Stone is a USAF airman stationed at Travis AFB, which is about 25 miles west of Sacramento.

    Regardless of whatever motivation prompted the incident, it's becoming clear that Stone and his friends were likely the victims here and not the aggressors or co-instigators of a brawl. And as I said above, when such an assault occurs upon patrons who are departing a gay establishment, as was apparently the case here, my first instinct is to assume gay-bashing based on prior such incidents in the past around the country.


    Ugh, Cubs, yer killing me (none / 0) (#207)
    by ruffian on Fri Oct 09, 2015 at 08:05:15 PM EST

    Woo, hoo! (none / 0) (#208)
    by Zorba on Fri Oct 09, 2015 at 08:36:28 PM EST
    Cards win 4-0!
    Doing a happy dance here.

    Martin O'Malley says (none / 0) (#209)
    by lentinel on Sat Oct 10, 2015 at 07:47:53 AM EST
    "Leadership is not putting a finger into the wind and waiting for the polls to tell you it's safe to do so. Leadership is forging a new consensus based on the principles we share as a people that will actually give our children a more just and more prosperous future."


    My thought exactly.

    We must future on the leadership principles that must be fingered in the wind, and not on the shared values of consensus for brighter children actually more than just the day after prosperity.