Sunday Open Thread

I'm off to D.C. this morning for the Scooter Libby trial. Until I get my internet access back, here's another open thread for you.

< Libby: The Fight Over Andrea Mitchell | Private Prisons See Rise in Profits >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Winter blues (none / 0) (#1)
    by plumberboy on Sun Feb 11, 2007 at 07:03:31 AM EST
    I,m just so sick of winter.I have been real depressed lately,and then everytime I watch the news it just makes hate this country.I can't believe the ignorance and aggorance of politicians.I some times tell my wife let's just leave and go to some small island somewhere and disappear.I just wonder what is a private citizen to do?, how do you help change the process and help educate people.The goverment is so big and so corrupt it feels as though any hope of returning our government back to job it was intended to do instead of this monster it's become is impossible and futile.

    It does look bleak.... (none / 0) (#4)
    by kdog on Sun Feb 11, 2007 at 08:21:35 AM EST
    for the Republic as we seemingly crush ourselves under the weight of the monster we created.  That monster being the federal govt.

    But don't let it get you down bro....what do they say in AA?  Worry about the stuff you can control or something like that? It is what it is man...I'm just gonna try to stay free and under the radar. Like you said...I think it's too late to stop the monster.  No choice but to roll with it, while being as subversive as possible.

    "I know that I can't change the world, but I can change the world in me."


    That's true (none / 0) (#16)
    by plumberboy on Mon Feb 12, 2007 at 04:44:51 AM EST
    "I know that I can't change the world, but I can change the world in me."

    Thank's for reminding me of this.


    Brainwashed and spin dried. (none / 0) (#2)
    by Edger on Sun Feb 11, 2007 at 07:31:45 AM EST
    Deception and lies worked so well for Bush/Cheney and the neocons the first time around that surprise, surprise - they've rolled out the same smoke and mirrors show again, with the same actors, and once again insult Americans and the world with the assumption that they are so stupid they'll fall for it one more time.

    The only thing worse than being suckered is staying suckered while knowing you had been, and letting yourself be suckered by the same thing from the same people, again.

    If they sucker once it's their fault, but if they sucker you twice....?


    Edgger (none / 0) (#6)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Feb 11, 2007 at 11:52:50 AM EST
    You have become so inbred and inwardly focused that you believe only what you can imagine, and you can imagine only that "Bush lied" or "Cheney bad."

    There is a country outside your dark castle and it will survive your hatred and any actual sins of this administrations.

    Posted by edger at December 4, 2005 08:12 AM

    "Insurgents don't use car bombs to kill civilians or give booby trapped dolls to children. That is terrorist work, edgey." (quoted from my previous comment)

    That is not "terrorist work" in the way you try to twist it to mean, at all. It is the work of the Iraqi people - the very people BushCo thought would throw flowers - fighting to kick the US out of Iraq":

    The question from the above is how can you claim the deaths and injuries over the past weeks in the markets of Baghdad the work of "insurgents?"


    OBJECTION! (none / 0) (#29)
    by Sailor on Mon Feb 12, 2007 at 01:21:44 PM EST
    why is ppj continually allowed to post insults?
    You have become so inbred

    Impeach Cheney? (none / 0) (#3)
    by profmarcus on Sun Feb 11, 2007 at 08:18:36 AM EST
    the latest revelations about the shootist's dark deeds prompt daily kos' major danby to become somewhat (in his measured fashion) shrill...
       Why Cheney is now impeachable:

        If these reports are accurate, Cheney has asserted a legal theory that, if accepted, would put him beyond legal control. Congress can't control him (he's partly in the Executive), the President can't control him (he's partly in the Legislative), and the courts won't control him (see the Supreme Court case over his records of meeting with oil executives.) In other words, there is no remedy for his wrongful political actions.

        Now I'm confident that he's wrong about his theory. But that almost doesn't matter. Even if he's right, we have the right to demand of our Vice Presidents that they don't exercise this enormous power.


        What Cheney has done here is to force members of Congress to decide whether they are men and women or mice. Hearings won't take long; the facts are not in dispute. Cheney's lawyers should be able to make their case before both the House Judiciary Committee and the Senate; 363 tons of Constitutional Law experts and former Vice Presidents (another moment in the sun for Walter Mondale! And would Dan Quayle like some revenge? And hello, Al Gore!) will rebut the argument until everyone can see how disgusting and wrong it is. And it doesn't matter if Cheney abandons the argument now; if he acted on it for five years, that's the only "high crime or misdemeanor" we need. If he is not impeached and removed, he could reassert this right again later. There's only one way to stop him and discredit his offensive theory. Remove him.

    god knows, i support it... whatever can put a stopper on continuing constitutional dismemberment gets my vote...

    And, yes, I DO take it personally

    Oh come now Professor. (none / 0) (#5)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Feb 11, 2007 at 11:41:19 AM EST
    The courts held that he can't be made to turn over meeting records... because that was the law. Not that he can't me made to follow the law when he has violated it.

    et al - This is just so typical of the Left. Having lost a court battle they immediately claim that the sky is falling.


    Interesting (none / 0) (#12)
    by Repack Rider on Sun Feb 11, 2007 at 11:07:51 PM EST
    Which court made that decision, where can I read that decision, and who brought the case?

    It goes without saying that your track record of being wrong about virtually everything calls your unsupported assertion into doubt.

    So tell us please, where did you get this "information" that the OVP is accountable to no one, and therefore represents a fourth branch of the government unmentioned in the Constitution?


    RePack (none / 0) (#17)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Feb 12, 2007 at 07:27:55 AM EST
    All I know is what I learn on NPR.

    You write:

    So tell us please, where did you get this "information" that the OVP is accountable to no one, and therefore represents a fourth branch of the government unmentioned in the Constitution?

    Given your history of spewing nasty remarks, please show me where I said that. You cannot because I did not. What I said was:


    Not that he can't me made to follow the law when he has violated it

    Recycling news (none / 0) (#7)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Sun Feb 11, 2007 at 12:13:21 PM EST

    The sons of the prophet are noble and bold,
    and quite unaccustomed to fear.
    But the bravest by far in the ranks of the Shah
    was Abdul Abulbul Amir

    Former U.S. Interrogator Speaks Out (none / 0) (#8)
    by Dadler on Sun Feb 11, 2007 at 01:38:05 PM EST
    A man with no face stares at me from the corner of a room. He pleads for help, but I'm afraid to move. He begins to cry. It is a pitiful sound, and it sickens me. He screams, but as I awaken, I realize the screams are mine.

    That dream, along with a host of other nightmares, has plagued me since my return from Iraq in the summer of 2004. Though the man in this particular nightmare has no face, I know who he is. I assisted in his interrogation at a detention facility in Fallujah. I was one of two civilian interrogators assigned to the division interrogation facility (DIF) of the 82nd Airborne Division. The man, whose name I've long since forgotten, was a suspected associate of Khamis Sirhan al-Muhammad, the Baath Party leader in Anbar province who had been captured two months earlier.

    The lead interrogator at the DIF had given me specific instructions: I was to deprive the detainee of sleep during my 12-hour shift by opening his cell every hour, forcing him to stand in a corner and stripping him of his clothes. Three years later the tables have turned. It is rare that I sleep through the night without a visit from this man. His memory harasses me as I once harassed him.

    Despite my best efforts, I cannot ignore the mistakes I made at the interrogation facility in Fallujah. I failed to disobey a meritless order, I failed to protect a prisoner in my custody, and I failed to uphold the standards of human decency. Instead, I intimidated, degraded and humiliated a man who could not defend himself. I compromised my values. I will never forgive myself.

    American authorities continue to insist that the abuse of Iraqi prisoners at Abu Ghraib was an isolated incident in an otherwise well-run detention system. That insistence, however, stands in sharp contrast to my own experiences as an interrogator in Iraq. I watched as detainees were forced to stand naked all night, shivering in their cold cells and pleading with their captors for help. Others were subjected to long periods of isolation in pitch-black rooms. Food and sleep deprivation were common, along with a variety of physical abuse, including punching and kicking. Aggressive, and in many ways abusive, techniques were used daily in Iraq, all in the name of acquiring the intelligence necessary to bring an end to the insurgency. The violence raging there today is evidence that those tactics never worked. My memories are evidence that those tactics were terribly wrong.

    thanks (none / 0) (#9)
    by zaitztheunconvicted on Sun Feb 11, 2007 at 04:39:53 PM EST
    thanks for letting us know.

    Please let the Democratic Congress and Senate know.


    Can't miss it (none / 0) (#18)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Feb 12, 2007 at 07:29:10 AM EST
    uh.... It came from the WP.

    The man who loves torture speaks (none / 0) (#22)
    by Dadler on Mon Feb 12, 2007 at 11:12:54 AM EST
    Why not make fun of traumatized children, or raped women?  This guy stands up and actually uses his freedom to speak the difficult ugly truth to power (which I am certain you haven't done a single time in your life; and he does so so logically and with patriotic concern, and all you can do is offer childish nonsense in reply.  The Watergate investigation must have been an illusion too, since it was a  Washington Post scoop.

    Keep your head in the sand.  It's your right.


    Chants of the Left (none / 0) (#30)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Feb 12, 2007 at 03:42:32 PM EST
    Dadler writes:

    speak the difficult ugly truth to power

    Ah, the Left's favorite chant.

    Can you tell me what it means?

    Is this man risking his life by doing so?

    No, I didn't think so.

    So, what does that mean??

    Is someone going to come after him? No.

    Will he be arrested? No.

    Has he done something noble? How so? Is speaking what you believe to be the truth so unusal among the Left that you must be given an award?

    In my world that is so routine it hardly rates a raised eyebrow.

    And are we supposed to believe him with no resume? No back up, no witnessess, nothing but the words of a man who is obviously disturbed??

    And make fun of?? Really? I merely noted to someone who obviously didn't know that it was in the WPost. You have a vivid imagination and very tender skin.

    BTW - You keep talking about head in the sand, not knowing anything, calling people "children," isolated, etc.

    Yesterday I listed a whole bunch of places I have lived and a few things I have done, just to give you a flavor of my experience and background.

    I asked you to do the same, just as a way for me to believe that you have enough real world experience to take your claims seriously.

    I note you haven't provided any.

    I am not surprised.


    Wrong again (none / 0) (#23)
    by Sailor on Mon Feb 12, 2007 at 11:16:20 AM EST
    The WaPo printed it but it came from a former interrogator named Eric Fair who was one of two civilian interrogators assigned to the division interrogation facility (DIF) of the 82nd Airborne Division and who served in the Army from 1995 to 2000 as an Arabic linguist.

    No sailor. I was right. (again) (none / 0) (#37)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Feb 12, 2007 at 04:06:16 PM EST
    I said it came from the WP.. That's where it came from.

    If I had wanted to tell him who wrote it, I would have...


    I get it out before T-Chris (none / 0) (#10)
    by Patrick on Sun Feb 11, 2007 at 06:33:52 PM EST
    Wow, NYPD, nice job.

    gee ... (none / 0) (#44)
    by Sailor on Tue Feb 13, 2007 at 12:11:02 AM EST
    ... what a catch.

    they caught a cop killing a cop. Or maybe a cop covering up a citizen killing a cop. Or maybe a cop covering up a cop killing a cop.

    It's so hard to tell because we haven't waited for the 'facts' to come out.


    Chix (none / 0) (#11)
    by squeaky on Sun Feb 11, 2007 at 10:17:07 PM EST
    Dixie Chix at the grammys.

    Incredible. Political art at its very best.

    via atrios

    Oh well (none / 0) (#13)
    by squeaky on Mon Feb 12, 2007 at 12:05:27 AM EST
    The video got pulled from YouTube. They won 5 grammys. Wow.

    It's here (none / 0) (#14)
    by squeaky on Mon Feb 12, 2007 at 12:12:30 AM EST
    Blitzy interviews Darth (none / 0) (#15)
    by Edger on Mon Feb 12, 2007 at 02:31:37 AM EST
    A non-believer (none / 0) (#19)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Feb 12, 2007 at 09:48:42 AM EST
    Irrationals flock together (none / 0) (#21)
    by Dadler on Mon Feb 12, 2007 at 11:06:26 AM EST
    Again, your entire argument here boils down to a belief that all of these diverse scientists, from a myriad of different organizations, with no profit motive (compared to the massive and inarguable motive to lie that the oil industry has).  So your new hero is a guy who makes as little logical sense as you do.  Does he direct us to this plethora of sound scientific agreement on the hoax of global warming?  Nope.  Does he offer anything but utterly irrational claims of political correctness?  Nope.  And the notion that political correctness is what's keeping the truth getting out is about as sound an argument as a kindergarten student could make.

    In short, he sounds crazy.  If he sounded a tad rational, I might consider his opinion.  Might.


    ppj loves him liars (none / 0) (#26)
    by Sailor on Mon Feb 12, 2007 at 12:49:38 PM EST
    According to the Czech president, "each serious person and scientist" says that global warming is a myth.
    and exactly the opposite is true. Trust ppj to find the one wackdoodle in the world that agrees with him.

    I'm still wondrin' (none / 0) (#27)
    by Edger on Mon Feb 12, 2007 at 12:55:56 PM EST
    if his 'i have a new hero', which btw sounds suspiciously like 'I have a dream', means that he's dumped his "old" hero, whoever it was?



    Edger (none / 0) (#38)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Feb 12, 2007 at 04:08:25 PM EST
    "I have a new hero" sounds like "I have a dream?"

    Wow. Little early for the sauce, isn't it?


    No dadler (none / 0) (#32)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Feb 12, 2007 at 03:49:39 PM EST
    First, as the little smiley  might have indicated, the comment was somewhat in jest, and though I agree with his conclusions, I don't intend to use them as the total basis for my beliefs.

    At one time we had Doctors advertising ciagrettes.
    Consensus and money does wonderful things, eh?

    And it is has long been evident that you, like so many on this subject, think anyone who disagrees with you is crazy.


    Ollie North'll (none / 0) (#20)
    by jondee on Mon Feb 12, 2007 at 09:59:33 AM EST
    be disappointed.

    The "argument" (none / 0) (#24)
    by jondee on Mon Feb 12, 2007 at 11:16:23 AM EST
    that because researchers get paid there must be fraud involved is so patently disengenuous and self serving; no on gets paid to study Big Foot or to locate Noah's Ark (except, maybe at Bob Jones), but people recieving research grants is supposed to some kind of airtight proof of a hoax in progress.

    Again, the question becomes: stupid or lying?

    Jondee (none / 0) (#35)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Feb 12, 2007 at 04:00:02 PM EST
    Doggone if I know.

    Why not ask Al Gore??


    Jondee (none / 0) (#36)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Feb 12, 2007 at 04:02:37 PM EST
    BTW - You wrote:

    but people recieving research grants is supposed to some kind of airtight proof of a hoax in progress.

    Thanks for blowing away all the claims that anyone who is not a true believer in the cause of Global Warming is working for Enron.


    Jim (none / 0) (#25)
    by Che's Lounge on Mon Feb 12, 2007 at 12:17:21 PM EST
    Yeah he's your type. Reaganomist in the Freidman mold. Kisses commie's butts when it suits him (elections), then denounces them.  His economic policies/scandals have left the Czech Republic in limbo. He hates the EU, even though 70% of the people want in. A Libertarian's wet dream. Too bad he only cares about keeping power.

    Che (none / 0) (#34)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Feb 12, 2007 at 03:55:06 PM EST
    Hey, you have your guy and I have mine.



    Random thought re: minimum wage & taxes (none / 0) (#28)
    by roy on Mon Feb 12, 2007 at 01:00:39 PM EST
    Should the Democrats cut government spending when they increase the minimum wage?

    If we accept that paying the higher wages won't force many businesses into unprofitability, that means some money is currently taxed as corporate profits, and will instead be taxed as personal income.  Businesses tend to pay higher tax rates than minmimum and near-minimum wage earners do.  So tax revenue will go down.

    A couple, making $5.15 an hour, makes $21424 per year.  The first $15100 is taxed at 10% and the rest at 15%, so they pay about $2459 in federal income tax.

    If they instead make $7.25 an hour, they make $30160, still in the 15% bracket.  So they'll pay $3769.  In other words, the got $9736 more income, and paid $1310 more in taxes, compared to the $5.15 wage.

    Barely profitable businesses pay 15%, so the tax amount would be the same in this example.  But at just $50000 of profits per year, the business tax rate jumps to 25%.  Giant businesses pay 35-38%.

    If the hypothetical couple's employers are in the 25% bracket, the $9736 would-be wages are currently providing $2434 of taxes to the federal government.  That's almost twice what the feds will get under the increased minimum wage laws.

    So, in the spirit of "pay as you go", should the Dems cut spending to compensate for the loss of $1124 in tax revenue?

    (I'm ignoring deductions and tax dodges here, but I think they'll actually magnify the effect.  Businesses are already applying whatever tax dodges they can and still pay at least effectively 25% if they're big enough to complain about, and families earning $30K/year have a lot of deductions available so they can probably pay nearly zero tax.)

    Roy (none / 0) (#31)
    by Peaches on Mon Feb 12, 2007 at 03:48:48 PM EST
    Your math is sound, you just forgot the most important economic caveat. Ceteris Paribus.

    Also, at risk of stating the obvious, to cut spending, we have to end the war.


    roy (none / 0) (#33)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Feb 12, 2007 at 03:52:12 PM EST
    Didn't get all your point, but a family of four pays no FIT on income of up to about $38,000. And that's using standard deductions, 1040EZ.

    Riy (none / 0) (#39)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Feb 12, 2007 at 04:11:28 PM EST
    Oh yeah... You are assuming that the business won't raise prices to try and hold the profit margins..

    Insanity (none / 0) (#40)
    by squeaky on Mon Feb 12, 2007 at 06:17:05 PM EST
    What: Teenagers taking risque photos of themselves are prosecuted for violating child pornography laws.

     When: Florida state appeals court rules on January 19.

     Outcome: A 2-1 majority upholds conviction on grounds the girl produced a photograph featuring the sexual conduct of a child.

    In FL two teens can have legally sex but if they photograph themselves they are child pornographers, even if they show the pictures to no one but themselves.

    This is crazy (none / 0) (#42)
    by Edger on Mon Feb 12, 2007 at 08:39:08 PM EST
    under Florida law, Amber and Jeremy would be legally permitted to engage in carnal relations, but they're criminals if they document it.

    So are they criminals for making recordings of it..... in their memory? There isn't much difference between it being stored in neurons, or in ram or on a disk or memory stick.


    Before I click (none / 0) (#41)
    by Patrick on Mon Feb 12, 2007 at 07:56:19 PM EST
    on that link...It's to the story right?  Not the pictures...  

    DA - Can't you pay attention? (none / 0) (#46)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Feb 13, 2007 at 07:19:59 AM EST
    What are you talking about?

    I haven't commented on this.

    I was hired by the Edwards campaign for the skills and talents I bring to the table, and my willingness to work hard for what's right. [...] Regardless, it was creating a situation where I felt that every time I coughed, I was risking the Edwards campaign. No matter what you think about the campaign, I signed on to be a supporter and a tireless employee for them, and if I can't do the job I was hired to do because Bill Donohue doesn't have anything better to do with his time than harass me, then I won't do it. I resigned my position today and they accepted.

    There is good news. The main good news is that I don't have a conflict of interest issue anymore that was preventing me from defending myself against these baseless accusations. So it's on.

    Apparently Amanda watched the Grammys and also isn't ready to make nice...

    SNU (none / 0) (#48)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Feb 13, 2007 at 05:36:28 PM EST
    That sir is the funniest comment of the year.

    Is Edwards keeping the other one??