Weedend Open Thread

A big thanks to TChris and Big Tent Democrat for posting the past few days while I've been at a seminar in Miami. I'll be home late tonight and back to regular posting Sunday at some point.

If we haven't covered your topic du jour in a few days, here's some space for you.

< Hillary Clinton Forms Exploratory Committee | "Clintonism" and the Netroots >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    gratefull (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by soccerdad on Sun Jan 21, 2007 at 11:40:27 AM EST
    I think the Iraqi people owe the American people a huge debt of gratitude, and I believe most Iraqis express that. I mean, the people understand that we've endured great sacrifice to help them. That's the problem here in America. They wonder whether or not there is a gratitude level that's significant enough in Iraq."

    - George Bush

    Follow this link to see how grateful they might be. WARNING: explicit pictures of a war zone

    more lies from bush (none / 0) (#33)
    by Sailor on Sun Jan 21, 2007 at 12:43:59 PM EST
    Maliki and his national security adviser proposed that U.S. troops withdraw to the outskirts of Baghdad and let Iraqis take over security in the strife-torn capital. Maliki said he did not want any more U.S. troops at all, just more authority.

    The president listened intently to the unexpected proposal at their Nov. 30 meeting, according to accounts from several administration officials. Bush seemed impressed that Maliki had taken the initiative, but it did not take him long to reject the idea.
    the president flatly told his advisers that the Maliki plan was not going to work.

    Anyone else remember when bush said we'd leave when the iraqs wanted us to? When he said he'd listen to his generals?

    Sunday blogging (5.00 / 2) (#30)
    by Che's Lounge on Sun Jan 21, 2007 at 11:41:13 AM EST

    In defending the genocide of the american indians, you  once told me that the superior technology prevails, and (I assume by simple application) that's how it goes in Iraq also.

    Would you abdicate our responsibility (the superior force) for stablizing and protecting those whom we have just conquered?:

    Do you think that just maybe Saddam had something to do with it?

    Apparently you do not.

    Why did the US sign all of those treaties that delineate just those very responsibilities being ignored in the article I linked? Are you infering that those accords are not binding, or should be ignored? Or is the Bush administration so stupid that they were not aware of those stipulations. To me this is indefensible.

     The architects of the invasion are criminally liable for the current state of Iraq. The hawk defenders like yourself are now stuck, pining away for some Shangri-La moment when you can turn to your opponents and say "See? we were right!". But meanwhile the invasion of Iraq has pulled the country over a million razors in the other direction.

    And you blame Saddam.

    This administration, in it's "use of force" to effect regime change in Iraq, has failed, criminally, to provide for the basic human rights of the very people they supposedly have liberated, and thus taken responsibility for. But if you read Malkin's latest, she finds a penny in a s**t pile and screams "keep digging everyone!"

    Nice to see you back in al your capitalized, bold type, glory. I'll read your link but right now there's a cinnamon doughnut with my name on it and I need some more caffiene.

    Che (1.00 / 1) (#42)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jan 21, 2007 at 02:17:34 PM EST
    You make such a wandering comment/charges it is difficult to accept them as seriously meant as anything besides a poorly stated attack. But, I'll give it a shot.

    I assume you are referencing your comment:

    Vile US rationalizations (none / 0) (#6)
    by Che's Lounge on Sat Jan 20, 2007 at 05:24:32 PM EST
    1.    Collateral Damage. Too bad for them.
    2.    They're not children. They're future insurgents.

    And my reply:

    Che (none / 0) (#9)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Jan 20, 2007 at 08:37:13 PM EST

    Do you think that just maybe Saddam had something to do with it?
    Do you have any blame for the two indicted UN big dogs for their part in stealing money from the program??
    Or is it just the US?

    Answer 1 - My comment re the NA's said superior culture and technology. There was a reason that the vastly outnumbered Spanish invaders, even with superior technology, were able to control the NA's. The reason? A religion and culture that made all men equal in front of God, if not here on Earth. That was a startling and gripping concept for people who routinely endured human sacrifices.

    Answer 2 - I think we are trying very hard to stabilize the situation. It is people such as you who glorify in the problems and whose constant attacks on these efforts are very hurtful to these efforts.

    Answer 3 - Saddam was the absolute leader of Iraq. He could have ended the Oil for Food scandal very easily. All he had to do was not participate. He did not; he wanted money for his palaces and weapons programs.

    He could have gone into exile, preventing the war and ending the sanctions. He did not.

    So yes, I blame Saddam. And if I should ever need an example of lack of critical thinking ability, I hope I remember this exchange. It would be a perfect.


    From Princeton University (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by Edger on Sun Jan 21, 2007 at 12:50:47 PM EST
    Scientists find potential 'off-switch' for HIV
    While there is no cure for lingering viral infections such as HIV and herpes, a recent study at Princeton University suggests it may be possible to deactivate such viruses indefinitely with the flick of a genetic switch.

    Princeton scientists Leor Weinberger and Thomas Shenk hope their work will illuminate the processes by which human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) and other viruses transition into dormant phases in their hosts. The researchers have discovered a specific genetic trigger that makes HIV fall into its latent phase, where the virus essentially hibernates, relatively harmlessly, but awaiting an opportunity to re-emerge and wreak havoc.
    Weinberger and Shenk share their findings in a research paper appearing in the Dec. 26 issue of the online journal Public Library of Science Biology.

    "We have helped understand how HIV can turn off, and in doing so I believe we've uncovered an important component of the biological switch," said Weinberger, a Lewis-Thomas Fellow in Princeton's Department of Molecular Biology. "If we can figure out how such resistors affect viruses, it might lead to a whole new class of drugs that can treat some of the world's most dangerous illnesses."

    Cheney's BS Wearing Thin (5.00 / 2) (#45)
    by squeaky on Sun Jan 21, 2007 at 03:11:55 PM EST
    The right wing warmongers meme 'just shut-up and give war a chance' is becoming a liability for elected officials.

    Last weekend on Fox News Sunday, Vice President Dick Cheney claimed congressional opposition to the administration's escalation plan undermines the troops.....

    Today, Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-NE) said it "is complete nonsense to say we're undercutting the support of the troops." Hagel, a Vietnam veteran, said that as a soldier in 1968, he "would have welcomed the Congress of the United States to pay a little attention as to what was going on."

    think progress

    We will see more and more of this in the coming  months. But according to ppj, the WH need not pay attention because we do not have a parliamentary system. Tell that to Hagel and the growing list of elected officials who want to keep their jobs.

    Bush, Cheney and their anti-american ways are going to become more and more marginalized. Only good can come of that.

    squeaky (none / 0) (#47)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jan 21, 2007 at 06:57:43 PM EST
    I don't think I have to tell Hagel we don't have a Parliamentary system. Whether or not he survives the next election is another question.

    And since Think Progress believes that his being a Vietnam veteran adds something to Hagel's comments is laughable.

    Or did they support the Swift Boat Vets??


    Swift Boat (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by squeaky on Sun Jan 21, 2007 at 07:25:14 PM EST
    Not working anymore. Too many phony photo ops and empty slogans. Hagel, who you imply will lose his job because of going against the Chimp, is not swiftboatable. Lockstep is over ppj, it is taps for your dirty war.
    And since Think Progress believes that his being a Vietnam veteran adds something to Hagel's comments is laughable.

    How bizarre.

    Hagel, a Vietnam veteran, said that as a soldier in 1968, he "would have welcomed the Congress of the United States to pay a little attention as to what was going on."

    Your view of supporting the troops is not welcome by those actually facing death in the Scam War.

    You must have missed a lot working in 'Naval Avaition'. Isn't that what Bush was in?  


    squeaky (none / 0) (#52)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jan 21, 2007 at 09:46:30 PM EST
    You do love to smear and mis-state, don't you.

    I imply nothing. I just noted that his position would be part of his election next time. Do you think that is an arguable point?

    Would I hope that he gets his butt beat? You betchum Red Rider.

    Gore Sr did the same thing during the Vietnam era. He was retired by the intelligent voters of Tennessee in his very next election.

    And if you have any information that can dispute the claims of the Swift Boaters, fire away. In the meantime, we know this about Kerry's claim to have been in Cambodia during Christmas of '68.

    In the meantime, keep pumping up the Vietnam vets who are against the war. At least Hagel is not an un-indicted co-conspirator as Your Hero Murtha Is.

    As for "work in Naval Aviation" I must point out that you don't "work," you "serve."

    A small point, but since you know nothing about the military I feel a duty to try and help you from appearing completely ignorant about the organizations that keep you free to be able to disrespect them.


    Unlike Naval Aviation (none / 0) (#49)
    by aw on Sun Jan 21, 2007 at 07:13:18 PM EST
    his being a Vietnam veteran adds something to Hagel's comments is laughable.

    aw (none / 0) (#51)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jan 21, 2007 at 09:15:04 PM EST
    Please be accurate. I have never made such a claim.

    more and more marginalized (none / 0) (#48)
    by Edger on Sun Jan 21, 2007 at 07:07:30 PM EST
    WASHINGTON, Jan. 18 -- Ken Mehlman, the departing chairman of the Republican National Committee, warned on Thursday that his party would suffer even more devastating losses in 2008 than it did in 2006 if it did not reach out to minorities and address voter concerns about ethics.

    How interesting ... (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by Sailor on Sun Jan 21, 2007 at 11:55:48 PM EST
    Ken has reached around to more republicans than enyone else who ever held his position;-)

    I guess he (none / 0) (#61)
    by Edger on Mon Jan 22, 2007 at 09:24:43 AM EST
    speaks from extensive experience. ;-)

    Blogging on the DNA scandal in Massachusetts (none / 0) (#1)
    by Speaking Out on Sat Jan 20, 2007 at 12:46:43 PM EST
    Hi Good People at TalkLeft (and readers),
    Thanks for the open thread.

    I posted this to Blue Mass Group yesterday. (link)
    Today's Boston Globe has this article: (link)
    Building on this article in the Boston Herald earlier in the week: (link)

    My goal has been to show the unavoidable connections between the problems at the Mass.State Police DNA lab and a 23-year-old wrongful conviction case where a 2002 Innocence Project supported DNA test backfired and seemed to further implicate the inmate. It is a fascinating case that I urge you to learn about and to post on. The place to start would be www.BenLaGuer.com.

    Feel free to contact me at: eric.goldscheider(at)gmail(dot)com

    Blog posts (none / 0) (#44)
    by Speaking Out on Sun Jan 21, 2007 at 02:59:08 PM EST
    In case anyone is intersted, there are a couple of pretty active threads happening on the Benjamin LaGuer case at Blue Mass Group:





    More fallout (none / 0) (#2)
    by Che's Lounge on Sat Jan 20, 2007 at 02:37:54 PM EST
    from our criminals in the White House, and their violence loving followers.

    The US certainly didn't care about Iraqi (none / 0) (#3)
    by soccerdad on Sat Jan 20, 2007 at 03:25:55 PM EST
    children during the period of sanctions. Albright being particuarly vile.

    That's... (none / 0) (#4)
    by desertswine on Sat Jan 20, 2007 at 04:15:11 PM EST

    Jesus... (none / 0) (#5)
    by Edger on Sat Jan 20, 2007 at 04:27:56 PM EST
    I hope they read this. Their followers too...

    Vile US rationalizations (none / 0) (#6)
    by Che's Lounge on Sat Jan 20, 2007 at 05:24:32 PM EST
    1. Collateral Damage. Too bad for them.

    2. They're not children. They're future insurgents.

    Are (none / 0) (#7)
    by aw on Sat Jan 20, 2007 at 07:30:04 PM EST
    you channeling Fredo?

    Just trying to save them the time (none / 0) (#8)
    by Che's Lounge on Sat Jan 20, 2007 at 08:30:47 PM EST

    Che (none / 0) (#9)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Jan 20, 2007 at 08:37:13 PM EST
    Do you think that just maybe Saddam had something to do with it?

    Do you have any blame for the two indicted UN big dogs for their part in stealing money from the program??

    Or is it just the US?


    when did you stop beating your wife (none / 0) (#15)
    by soccerdad on Sun Jan 21, 2007 at 07:27:31 AM EST
    When will you stop blaming (1.00 / 2) (#21)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jan 21, 2007 at 09:19:17 AM EST
    the US for everything that happens in the world?

    I don't (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by soccerdad on Sun Jan 21, 2007 at 09:56:58 AM EST
    Your charge is just another way of you being dismissive so you dont have to deal with the facts

    Maybe if Bush (none / 0) (#24)
    by Edger on Sun Jan 21, 2007 at 10:06:41 AM EST
    didn't make the US look so bad he wouldn't get blamed for the terror and carnage and death he causes. You figure, Jim?

    AND............. (none / 0) (#25)
    by Edger on Sun Jan 21, 2007 at 10:16:30 AM EST
    Maybe if Bush didn't commit all the terror and carnage and death he does, the US wouldn't look so bad.... How may men, women children... and babies, has he killed now, Jim?

    What a special world it would be... (none / 0) (#10)
    by LonewackoDotCom on Sat Jan 20, 2007 at 10:26:34 PM EST
    If we lived in a world run by Kyrsten Sinema. That AZ rep is pushing a bill that includes the following:


    Shocker: she's a Democrat.

    After all (none / 0) (#14)
    by scarshapedstar on Sun Jan 21, 2007 at 02:06:40 AM EST
    If there's one lesson we can draw from the past few years, it's that shady militias are awesome for spreading peace and democracy.

    LW (none / 0) (#20)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jan 21, 2007 at 09:16:31 AM EST
    But wait!!! I thought Demos were the party of personal freedoms and rights!

    How can this be? I am shocked! Yes, shocked!


    They get infiltrated (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by Edger on Sun Jan 21, 2007 at 10:55:58 AM EST
    by people posing as social liberals.

    And? (none / 0) (#32)
    by Gabriel Malor on Sun Jan 21, 2007 at 11:49:51 AM EST
    So she wants to outlaw the Minutemen. Surprise me.

    Gabriel (none / 0) (#36)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jan 21, 2007 at 12:51:52 PM EST
    Yeah, it's a real shock, eh?

    Next thing we'll hear is that Kennedy wants us to cut and run from Iraq.


    That would be (none / 0) (#38)
    by Edger on Sun Jan 21, 2007 at 01:06:42 PM EST
    Kennedy (none / 0) (#46)
    by scarshapedstar on Sun Jan 21, 2007 at 03:44:18 PM EST
    Along with the majority of Americans. Why won't you admit that you've lost in the Arena of Ideas, Jim?

    Red Star Wars (none / 0) (#11)
    by Edger on Sat Jan 20, 2007 at 11:22:52 PM EST
    Western protests flood in over Chinese satellite killer
    China faced a barrage of international condemnation from London to Canberra yesterday after it was revealed that it had launched a missile attack on an ageing weather satellite, a test that threatened to open a "Star Wars" space race.

    Formal protests were lodged with the Beijing government, accompanied by expressions of concern from world leaders, including Tony Blair. The Bush administration is privately seething over the event and is believed to be preparing to turn the incident into a major diplomatic spat.

    The concern in the US is that the satellite-killing missile test - said by the US national security council to have been carried out on January 11 - demonstrated China has the capability to knock out its military satellite system, which the Pentagon depends on for navigation and surveillance.

    American military and diplomatic analysts said a Chinese attack on about 40 to 50 satellites in low orbit round the world would leave the country's military blinded within a matter of hours.

    But others, more sceptical about US policy, insist China had a right to challenge the US's effective monopoly of space. They noted that Beijing has repeatedly pressed for the US to sign agreements outlawing arms in space, overtures Washington has repeatedly rejected.
    The destruction of the Chinese satellite was the first such attack in space since the US carried out a similar test in 1985, when Ronald Reagan was pursuing the Star Wars anti-missile defence programme.

    Who will be the world's sole remaining superpower?

    Edger (none / 0) (#19)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jan 21, 2007 at 09:13:29 AM EST
    Who? Well, if the Left has anything to say about the subject it won't be the US.

    I understand your confusion Jim. (none / 0) (#27)
    by Edger on Sun Jan 21, 2007 at 10:30:09 AM EST
    And that what you meant is that if Bush keeps on the way has been it won't be the US.



    Democracy and freedom.


    edger (none / 0) (#34)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jan 21, 2007 at 12:50:00 PM EST
    Your desire to hide the Left's historically anti-anything US is understandable but impossible.

    Yes (none / 0) (#37)
    by Edger on Sun Jan 21, 2007 at 12:53:53 PM EST
    It is impossible to hide things that exist only in your imagination, Jim. I've noticed that. But thanks for the reminder, and the admission, finally.

    Need some weaponry, fighter parts, (none / 0) (#41)
    by Edger on Sun Jan 21, 2007 at 02:12:08 PM EST
    surplus shells to make IED's out of, or anything else that kills, Jim?

    Just call up Unka George, Unka Dick, or any of their friends. They'll fix you up right quick, even if they have to turn around and invade and lynch you twenty years from now.

    Welcome to DRMS (Defense Reutilization and Marketing Service), the place to obtain original US Government surplus property.


    but, contrary to what you might think about a 'conservative', I am wary of the power of government.  And that belief obviously extends to the rights of criminal defendants who have to approach the 'state' with underwhelming resources.  

    I admit, I am against the death penalty, but I do resent those who rally around a real SOB that concedes his guilt.  Even though I think the execution is wrong, I empathize more with the living victims than I ever can with the perpetrator.  I havent staked out a rational position, but a heartfelt one.

    I would like the readers here to learn about Dallas County, Texas, if you already havent.  It seems to be a place rife with a horrible record of prosecutions and injustice. I hope people will lobby against those responsible for the many injustices there.  These are things the Texas governor must be confronted with.  This county is way out of wack and MUST be reigned in, with an assessment of all of those convicted.

    amen (none / 0) (#13)
    by Jen M on Sun Jan 21, 2007 at 01:16:06 AM EST
    fixing what went wrong in the past is imperative. For the sake of those who might be wrongfully accused, for the sake of any future victims the real  criminal will target while the system is fixated on the wrongfully accused and for the sake of the victims and(or) their families, who deserve to see real justice done as quickly as possible. (and not have the wounds ripped open again 12 years down the line when the wrongfully accused person is proved innocent)

    "Surge"ery? (none / 0) (#16)
    by Edger on Sun Jan 21, 2007 at 08:09:18 AM EST
    Is Bush's 'surge' of sending 21,500 troops to Iraq, with some being drawn away from fierce fighting building in Afghanistan leaving other US troops in greater danger of dying for Bush's cynical political purposes simply another grand deception and smoke and mirrors show designed to manipulate the senate and the country into doing what Bush (and Cheney) really wants - send even more troops to Iraq?

    KABUL, Afghanistan -- Taliban forces, shattered and ejected from Afghanistan by the US military five years ago, are poised for a major offensive against US troops and undermanned NATO forces. This has prompted US commanders here to issue an urgent appeal for a new US Marine Corps battalion to reinforce the American positions.

    NATO's 30,000 troops in Afghanistan are supposed to have taken responsibility for security operations. But Taliban attacks have risen sharply, and senior US officers here describe the NATO operation as weak, hobbled by a shortage of manpower and equipment, and by restrictions put on the troops by their capitals....
    A US Army battalion fighting in a critical area of eastern Afghanistan is due to be withdrawn within weeks to deploy to Iraq.

    Next week General Petraeus will face his senate confirmation hearing and will argue that the surge is not nearly enough to secure Bagdhad:

    WASHINGTON: When Lieutenant General David Petraeus assumes his duties as the new U.S. commander in Iraq, he will be guided by a new military doctrine on counterinsurgency that makes the security of the population a chief objective.

    But a pressing question that is likely to emerge when the U.S. Senate takes up his confirmation next week is whether the administration's new Iraq strategy will draw on enough forces to assure security, as measured against the general's own guidelines.

    The additional five combat brigades that would be sent to Baghdad under President George W. Bush's strategy would roughly double the size of the U.S. force involved in the security operation there, about 15,000 troops. But as a whole, that would still represent only a small portion of the 120,000-strong force that would be required to secure the entire capital according to the force ratios outlined in the military's new field manual for counterinsurgency, which Petraeus helped to draft.

    Anybody else get the feeling that you're being again?

    I suggest that instead of "surge"ery it might be better to give Bush a lobotomy. I hear it calms people and makes them docile.

    That second last paragraph should read: (none / 0) (#17)
    by Edger on Sun Jan 21, 2007 at 08:12:01 AM EST
    Anybody else get the feeling that you're being set up again?

    Getting what you ask for (none / 0) (#18)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jan 21, 2007 at 09:10:44 AM EST
    You really can't anticipate my answer? (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by Dadler on Sun Jan 21, 2007 at 11:42:53 AM EST
    You should easily be able to predict my response.  The following quotes from your article offers you a hint:

    "We will not tolerate speculators and monopolists," he said. "We are going to apply the law firmly and punish anyone who tries to take advantage of the needs of people."


    But Mexican lawmakers and other officials have suggested that giant tortilla companies and corn flour distributors -- among them Grupo Maseca S.A. and Maíz Industrializado S.A., often known as Minsa -- have taken advantage of the situation, hoarding supplies to drive prices up even more.

    "The central bank governor, Guillermo Ortíz, said last week that the steep rise in tortilla prices could not be justified when inflation over the past year had been about 4 percent. "We clearly have a problem of speculation," he said."

    Those who have, have.  Those who don't, don't.  If we can't learn to share, as our mommies and daddies taught us, then we're doomed.  Simple as that.  Every complex economic theory pales in comparison to that simple concept.



    Dadler (none / 0) (#39)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jan 21, 2007 at 01:44:45 PM EST
    I think the theory you are trying to re-invent has been around for years, its most recent failure was in a country known as the USSR.

    I would further think that you wouldn't be wanting to use Mexico for any economic example.

    My point was simple. When you push the supply ballon, don't be surprised if it bulges out at a weak spot. In this case that is Mexico, CenA and SouA.

    As you know I have no problem with alternative fuels. All I keep asking, with no answer, is how many gallons of alcohol can be produced, on the average, from an acre of soybeans, corn, etc.

    I ask only because the problem is serious enough to not allow us the luxury of false solutions.

    Can you answer the above?? If you can not, and if you can not link to some straightforward engineering type information then you are merely a cheerleader for your "team."

    As my Japanese employers would have said... You are not a serious person.

    In the meantime, it looks like the markets have made a correction.


    Thanks for your extremism (5.00 / 1) (#66)
    by Dadler on Mon Jan 22, 2007 at 12:36:03 PM EST
    And for ignoring my points.

    Fist, yes Jim, I certainly meant by share what the USSR was all about.  KGB, forced labor, political suppression, all that.  Of course that's what share means.  Good Lord, give me some more game than that.  Be a tad savvy.

    Second, the Mexicans themselves, according to your link, say this isn't a supply problem, it's a market manipulation and speculation problem.  Those of us in California, who use electricty much less than other states, remember well the manufactured energy crisis several years ago.  

    Third, go look at the incredibly wasteful consumption rates of Americans in general.  Then tell me there can't be massive savings and conservation is our culture didn't teach us to waste and squander and consume blindly, and teach us our country NEEDS it to survive.  

    Fourth, I don't know what you mean that the alternative fuel thing is too serious for false promises, since you reject Global Warming as a giant conspiracy of left-wing scientists who stand to profit immensely from their conspiracy.  Or are you now worried about petroleums ill effects on the environment?  Or simply looking to exploit some other people to get their oil besides Middle Easterners and Africans and Asians.  

    You are so stuck in your paradigms it's unfortunate.  You seem to exist in a faux world of black and white, where there is one answer for any problem.  One alternative fuel source, one kind of capitalism, sharing means communism, etc.

    I'll say it again, as the golden rule states, do unto others.  You cannot refute the simple truth of that sentiment.  When it is followed, we're fine.  When it is not, we have problems.  Our waste and blind consumption are terrible for ourselves, our environment, and for the rest of the world.  And we have to change, yesterday.

    You don't think so?  Fine.  


    Think beyond getting your tank filled. (none / 0) (#78)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jan 22, 2007 at 06:51:33 PM EST
    Hmmm, actually I was referring to the economic system of the USSR. And I think you knew that. But nice move. Ten points for style, none for accuracy.

    And if you will actually read the quote and link, it was Mexican economists.

    And they're probably right. As we rush to produce alcohol from corn, there will be/is a shortage of corn.

    As for your electrical power problem, thanks for proving my point. First the state deregulated the wholesale prices and retained the regulation of the retail prices.

    Guess what happened? There was a shortage. So some as*holes took advantage.

    Guess what is happening in Mexico? There is a shortage. Some as*holes are taking advantage.  Of course price controls won't increase the supply of corn.

    Price controls always cause shortages. Remember Nixon.

    Now. Conservation and waste.  I have no problem with reducing demand, but the problem must be solved through technology. Since the Third World is becoming the Second World, savings alone cannot overcome the increased demand. This means new methods and increased efficiency. Sack cloth and ashes won't help in solving the problem, and a politically motivated controls only aggravate the problem.

    And you again didn't read. I said the problem is too serious for false solutions. And I noted that I have no problem with alternative fuels. In fact if corn and soy bean production can replace cotton as a crop it will be a boon to the US farmer.

    My problem with them is that I see no actual proof that they are viable as a solution. I find this troubling since the proposition of their use has been around more than long enough for some definitive information on amount of energy produced vs energy used (net gain) plus cost, and environmental impact when we dramatically increase the amount of land under cultivation. You are too young to remember, but when this last happened in the 60's with a big shift from cotton to soybeans, the destruction of fence row cover and channeling of tributaries or flood control was devastating to the small animals who lost habitat. The channeling of tributaries caused downstream flooding and the loss of billions of pounds of top soil.

    As  Kermit said, "It aint easy being green." Especially if we run around poorly informed looking for something to worship as the "solution."  As*holes stole our money in CA and now in Mexico. Politicians will steal our freedom in the name of saving us. You worry about the Right. I worry about the Left.

    So I ask again. Provide some information. Think beyond getting your tank filled. Mexico can control the price of corn, but not its production. How many additional illegal aliens will flood north if their problems become worse? At what point will we have to fight if Mexico becomes radicalized?


    there you go (none / 0) (#22)
    by Jen M on Sun Jan 21, 2007 at 09:23:54 AM EST
    blaming the USA again...

    Jen M (none / 0) (#40)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jan 21, 2007 at 01:53:05 PM EST
    I understand you were just being snarky... But really... When are you going to learn that the messenger isn't always the message?

    "Jen, I'm sorry but we have detected an early stage of....."

    Get the "message?"

    Now, if the Doctor had said...

    "Due to the dirty war mongering US under the leadership of Bush causing global warming and polution and starvation of all people in the third world, I am sorry but we have detected an early stage of..."

    That's the "messenger."


    you (none / 0) (#43)
    by Jen M on Sun Jan 21, 2007 at 02:45:38 PM EST
    can't either  tttthhhh :p

    talking about making right what our country is doing wrong, that might lead to bad things happening to our country is not "blaming the USA for everything  bad that happens"  


    Jen (1.00 / 2) (#57)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jan 22, 2007 at 06:34:43 AM EST
    Before I can believe that I need to hear some "what is good and right about this country."

    In my lifetime, every important foreign policy of the US has been opposed by the Left with one exception.

    After the US started supplying the Soviet Union WWII was oaky.


    complete BS (5.00 / 1) (#60)
    by soccerdad on Mon Jan 22, 2007 at 08:51:16 AM EST
    and a baiting comment at that

    then again what else is new


    SD (none / 0) (#69)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jan 22, 2007 at 01:27:57 PM EST
    You forgot to mention that it is accurate.

    as I said complete BS (none / 0) (#71)
    by soccerdad on Mon Jan 22, 2007 at 02:09:42 PM EST
    When you have nothing to say (most of the time)
    you accuse someone of either
     a. not supporting the troops
     b. being a Bush hater
     c. hating America
     d. supporting the terrorist
     e. being a leftist

    these options appear to be chosen randomly and are, in reality, just a cover for the fact you have nothing of substance to say.

    Baiting and pejorative comments are your forte. But we all see behind the curtain and realize there is nothing there but hot air.


    good and right about this country? (none / 0) (#58)
    by Edger on Mon Jan 22, 2007 at 06:48:52 AM EST
    You really can't think of anything, Jim?

    Here's one, and it's a multi-pronged biggy I think you'd appreciate: "The ability and drive to right wrongs and injustices, try to make the world a better place, and put it back together time after time while people who only think for themselves continue to try to break it."

    It's the specialty of the left, Jim.


    Edger (none / 0) (#70)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jan 22, 2007 at 01:30:35 PM EST
    while people who only think for themselves

    So people who think for themselves are bad?

    Guess group think is still alive and well in some groups...


    A whole lot of people (none / 0) (#80)
    by Jen M on Tue Jan 23, 2007 at 12:06:36 PM EST
    approved of Roe v. Wade decision

    of California approving medicinal marijuana

    of civil rights act

    of disabilities act

    of regulations to limit polution

    of workplace safety standards

    or do you just filter out things you hear the liberals praising and say they are not important policy decsions

    As for foreign policy decisions I do believe many people praised Nixon for going to China and not all ofthem were hardboiled conservatives.

    Can you say "Carter" and "Camp David"? or "Panama
    Canal" Many liberals liked that.

    I know I was a bit giddy when East Germany started bleeding out people and the wall came down and the USSR became the UFFR.

    Most important of all, the biggest most important accomplishment of Henry Kissinger's life - He helped bring the World Cup the the USA! (ok... maybe not that important but it was for me)


    oh (none / 0) (#55)
    by Jen M on Mon Jan 22, 2007 at 12:00:29 AM EST
    I'm a Street Prophet not a Daily Kos poster
    (daily kosser?) But hey, the posters on huffington post are far worse -- on both sides.

    Dark Avenger (none / 0) (#56)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jan 22, 2007 at 06:28:52 AM EST
    Please don't make things up.

    My comment was directed to you, and only you.

    Ta Ta


    Some Superior Culture (none / 0) (#62)
    by jondee on Mon Jan 22, 2007 at 12:20:08 PM EST
    Just a brief rejoiner to your Chapter CVII of History as Silly Putty: the Spanish believed all men were equal before God except the men they murdered for their gold or worked to death as slaves in the mines; I dont know the specifics of the beliefs of the hundreds of rival tribe mercenaries recruited by the Spanish.

    The Aztecs ritual was on an elevated platform, "yours" is on a battlefield and a sweatshop; the end result is pretty much the same.

    Jondee (1.00 / 1) (#75)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jan 22, 2007 at 05:30:24 PM EST
    Your comment is, as ususal, off target. What I said was:

    A religion and culture that made all men equal in front of God, if not here on Earth.

    You are free to try and understand that is not an approval of the Spainish, but a note that it was an improvement over what the NA's had experienced.

    Yes, dear Jondee, the NA's had slaves and POW's. Both of who were sacrificed by having their hearts cut out. (The ACLU had not yet been invented.)


    The ACLU had not yet been invented (none / 0) (#76)
    by Edger on Mon Jan 22, 2007 at 05:34:53 PM EST
    Enough pining for the good ole' days, ppj. Jeez.

    Maybe somebody (none / 0) (#86)
    by soccerdad on Tue Jan 23, 2007 at 03:25:31 PM EST
    has been to see Mel Gibson's latest turd.

    I enjoyed "Apocolypto".... (none / 0) (#88)
    by kdog on Tue Jan 23, 2007 at 05:41:05 PM EST
    and felt I learned something from it.  People  commit the least evil when living in small societies...like Jaguars Paw's tribe.  The Mayan Empire, the Spanish Empire, pick your imperial large scale society...a whole lotta evil.  The masses end up slaving while the ruling class putzes around eating grapes and doing nothing.

    That was for Professor Poker (none / 0) (#63)
    by jondee on Mon Jan 22, 2007 at 12:20:58 PM EST

    I never supported the conquistadors, never. (none / 0) (#64)
    by jondee on Mon Jan 22, 2007 at 12:22:54 PM EST

    Warner (none / 0) (#65)
    by Edger on Mon Jan 22, 2007 at 12:30:13 PM EST
    John Warner, (R-VA) will introduce a resolution asserting that sending more troops to Iraq is a mistake later this afternoon.

    What is wrong with these antiwar rethugs anyway? Where was Warner in March?

    2003, I mean.

    They are (5.00 / 1) (#68)
    by soccerdad on Mon Jan 22, 2007 at 12:46:11 PM EST
    only against war if incompetently executed; they are not against the war in principle.

    More garbage history from pp (none / 0) (#67)
    by jondee on Mon Jan 22, 2007 at 12:44:34 PM EST
    One rifle for every two soldiers: that was some "supply" to the Soviets. Btw, If your Massas in their earlier incarnations in the thirties and forties hadnt fought unionization and collective bargaining every step of the way (enabling communism in the U.S), there would have been much less sympathy for the S.U on the Left in the U.S.

    Jondee (none / 0) (#82)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jan 23, 2007 at 01:50:38 PM EST
    Guess you want to forget the millions killed by Stalin.

    And the Iron Curtain.

    Oh well. That's what the Left tries to do.


    Chuckle (none / 0) (#72)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon Jan 22, 2007 at 04:41:28 PM EST
    Weedend open thread.

    Funny typo on this blog!

    oopsie (none / 0) (#73)
    by squeaky on Mon Jan 22, 2007 at 05:01:43 PM EST
    Guess it is an open thread for us while TL is out replenishing her stash.

    Far out.... (none / 0) (#74)
    by Edger on Mon Jan 22, 2007 at 05:08:05 PM EST
    like wow, man. She probably meant to get around to maybe, like, changing that, but got hungry... ;-)

    Dylan (none / 0) (#77)
    by squeaky on Mon Jan 22, 2007 at 05:38:43 PM EST
    Here is some  Dylan
    to get you the weedend dts, and Blue Monday the unhappiest day of the year.  

    Digby (none / 0) (#79)
    by Edger on Tue Jan 23, 2007 at 11:06:12 AM EST
    dissects and utterly destroys the "abortion is murder" BS and the "right to life" agenda in a reprint of one of his posts from 2005. Here.

    Orincus (none / 0) (#81)
    by squeaky on Tue Jan 23, 2007 at 01:01:40 PM EST
    Bipartisan cooperation from the Republican point of view.

    Oh, and don't forget not to say a word about it to anyone, otherwise the terrorists will win.

    pp (none / 0) (#83)
    by jondee on Tue Jan 23, 2007 at 01:53:59 PM EST
    Try to be specific; the Aztecs cut peoples hearts out, not "the N.A s".

    Leave the crypto racist catch alls to that suprisingly articulate Jacksonian, Hiram Evans.

    pp (none / 0) (#84)
    by jondee on Tue Jan 23, 2007 at 01:59:34 PM EST
    Stop relying on Godless and How To Talk To a Liberal for your extensive knowledge of history: nobody said anything about excusing Stalins atrocites.

    Of course one mans atrocity is another mans "coming into contact with a more advanced civilisation". Oh well, thats what facsists try to do.

    Unreal (none / 0) (#85)
    by jondee on Tue Jan 23, 2007 at 02:13:37 PM EST
    What the Spanish did to the Indians was "an improvement over what they had experienced": that has to be one of the most pathetically ignorant, callous, racist things I've ever read. Stalin loved people with that kind of thought process.

    Glenn Greewald (none / 0) (#87)
    by Edger on Tue Jan 23, 2007 at 04:19:51 PM EST
    has a really interesting post today about the MSM and some signs that they are in some cases at least, beginning to grow their investigative "teeth" back and do their jobs, particularly re Bushco's propagandizing Iran war drive:

    Investigating, rather than reciting, Bush claims re: Iran

    Something odd occurred this week: Fox News -- spewing filth churned out by the lowest depths of right-wing innuendo swamps -- was "reporting" the two-pronged falsehood that Barak Obama attended a "madrassa" as a child and that it was Hillary Clinton's campaign which maliciously disclosed that story. There is, of course, nothing at all odd about any of that.

    But in response, the national media -- rather than merely passing those accusations along -- decided instead to subject them to critical scrutiny, investigate the claimed basis for the accusations, found that there was no basis, and then reported that the story was completely unfounded. Or, to put it another way, they fulfilled their most basic and defining function as "journalists" by investigating, rather than reciting, other people's claims.

    Encouragingly, the media is beginning to engage in a similar exercise concerning the President's war-pushing accusations towards Iran. And they are finding that those accusations have about as much basis as Fox's Obama/Hillary story did....

    Edger, you be wrong (1.00 / 0) (#89)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jan 23, 2007 at 07:39:30 PM EST
    As to the schooling of Obama, in his very own words:

    In Indonesia, I'd spent 2 years at a Muslim school, 2 years at a Catholic school. In the Muslim school, the teacher wrote to tell mother I made faces during Koranic studies

    Yet CNN tries to parse Obamma's own words away by saying"

    This is a public school," Priyono told CNN correspondent John Vause in Jakarta. "We don't focus on religion." Classes in Islam are offered to the predominantly Muslim students at the school, CNN reported.

    Uh, given that it is in a, basically, a Moslem country and given the words of Obama himself, do you think CNN/WP was accurate, or was it doing a white wash?

    As to whether or not the teachings were radical, we do not know.

    What we do know is that he attended the schoool and attended religious training classess.


    All of which (none / 0) (#91)
    by Edger on Wed Jan 24, 2007 at 06:02:06 AM EST
    has virtually nothing to do with the subject and point of my comment. Again Jim, you are attempting to refute your own fantasy with your own delusions. I realize it gets tougher all the time to be a winger, but you can do better than this, can't you?

    Or can't you?


    looks like (none / 0) (#92)
    by soccerdad on Wed Jan 24, 2007 at 06:34:31 AM EST
    we have delusions within fantasies within hallucinations within ....

    A Mandelbrot Sequence? (none / 0) (#93)
    by Edger on Wed Jan 24, 2007 at 06:46:16 AM EST
    It just never friggin' ends, does it? ;-)

    No wonder they call them "fractals". Something do do with being "fractured" I guess.


    always wrong (none / 0) (#98)
    by Sailor on Wed Jan 24, 2007 at 12:45:40 PM EST

    CNN sent a journalist to Jakarta to check out the reports and determined that the school was a public one unaffiliated with Islamic fundamentalism. We linked to the CNN story and a Washington Post critique on Tuesday. (Officials told CNN and other news media that the public school doesn't focus on religion at all.)

    Obama Replies (none / 0) (#99)
    by squeaky on Wed Jan 24, 2007 at 05:25:37 PM EST
    He gives them an earful.

    If Doocy or the staff at Fox and Friends had taken [time] to check their facts, or simply made a call to his office, they would have learned that Senator Obama was not educated in a Madrassa, was not raised as a Muslim, and was not raised by his father - an atheist Obama met once in his life before he died.



    Jim will believe this garbage forever... (none / 0) (#100)
    by Edger on Wed Jan 24, 2007 at 07:21:22 PM EST
    ... and probably trot it out about as often as he tries to revive his Wilson stories, and as often as he ties himself in knots trying to deny racism and bigotry. Too bad.

    CNN debunks false report about Obama

    Fox & Friends "Apologizes" For Madrassah Slur


    As the USS Bush (none / 0) (#101)
    by soccerdad on Wed Jan 24, 2007 at 08:00:57 PM EST
    smashes into the iceberg and starts to sink, PPJ is left alone going down with the ship still thinking everything is ok.

    And the sad part is (none / 0) (#102)
    by Edger on Wed Jan 24, 2007 at 08:19:57 PM EST
    The left keeps tossing life preservers out to him and he either swims away, or treads water, grins and giggles, and spits on them.

    It is to laugh (none / 0) (#94)
    by jondee on Wed Jan 24, 2007 at 08:14:53 AM EST
    Pokerputz's comment reminds me strangely of Reagans weasal words about MLK: "We'll never know if he was a communist."

    Obama as terrorist symp. Plus, he's half nigra.
    These people truely have no sense of decency.

    Auntie Social (none / 0) (#95)
    by Edger on Wed Jan 24, 2007 at 08:23:16 AM EST
    Liberally speaking.

    Wolfie (none / 0) (#96)
    by jondee on Wed Jan 24, 2007 at 08:32:31 AM EST
    Wasnt Wolfowitz ambassador to Indonesia? Of all countries that he probobly had an option to be posted in why did he choose that one, with it's strong Islamofascist element? Further, Wolfowitz almost certainly participated in Islamic influenced educatioal programs as part of his preparation and, no doubt, established many ties to Indonesian Muslim establishment (six degrees of Osama anyone?), while working in his diplomatic function. The case certainly warrants further scrutiny.