Saturday Morning Open Thread

Top of the morning to you all. I strangely find myself with little to say at the this time. So it is your turn.

Oh, and Go Gators! Don't stink today!

This is an Open Thread.

< O.J. Guilty on All Counts - Live Blog | For The Record . . . >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    759k jobs (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by Jlvngstn on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 08:40:05 AM EST
    and most analysts think we will have a gain due to seasonal jobs for the rest of the year.  Anyone want to wager they are wrong?

    it is easy to be so gloom and doom on a sat morning when your first place clubs are down 0-2 in the year of years.  I was looking forward to having some of that ws money float around the city....

    I sadly wager they are very very extremely (5.00 / 1) (#82)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 01:22:17 PM EST
    WRONG.  With these new obligations consumers must face in obtaining credit, they have to prove they are credit worthy now and that is sanity by the way, we are going to have an economic correction that will be very noticeable around the holidays.  Because of the wallop we will take there our normally hiring spring/summer/fall employers won't be doing a lot of employing.  This year is going to super suck.  Don't know how long it will last either.  Good time to end some wars because there will be people HAVING to join the military just to live.  I guess we won't be short handed much longer.

    this American Life (5.00 / 4) (#7)
    by Jlvngstn on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 08:40:53 AM EST
    Ira Glass last night had a show on the bailout, by far the most understandable and objective explanation i have heard thus far.  I would highly recommend.

    Thanks (none / 0) (#15)
    by Faust on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 09:33:40 AM EST
    going to go look for it now.

    Great Faust (none / 0) (#16)
    by Jlvngstn on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 09:38:03 AM EST
    let me know what you think....

    On the website (none / 0) (#25)
    by Faust on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 10:49:35 AM EST
    It won't be available till Monday as far as I can tell. I'll have to get it then unless you know of another source.

    This link to Ira Glass on NPR (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 10:59:15 AM EST
    Also look up the show they did on the (none / 0) (#28)
    by ruffian on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 10:54:17 AM EST
    sub-prime mortgage meltdown a few months back.  Best I have heard.  

    The show is very good (none / 0) (#65)
    by Manuel on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 12:23:41 PM EST
    And the Web site is pretty good as well.  I would add the following.

    The back door injection plan they think they found isn't really the injection plan economists prefer.  That clause has its origin in Chris Dodd's counter proposal to Paulson.  It is meant to limit the downside to taxpayers of the toxic assets going completely bust.  The taxpayers are only getting an option or warrant not direct stock ownership.

    They do mention the conservative republican opposition to the stock injection plan.  However, I think they understate the impact such a proposal would have had on the presidential race and politics in our country.  I am not sure even a President Obama with a Democratic Congress could get such a plan through.  Things will have to get much worse before we get broad support for national ownership of stock in banks despite its economic merits.  After all isn't this why people oppose putting any of the Social Security trust fund assets in the stock market?

    They do not mention one of the principal points of the plan as passed.  The banks need to get the bad assets off their balance sheet.  That will improve their balance sheet and thus their ability to make loans.  These assets are way too risky to hold in the concentration the banks now have them.  Once the assets are off their books, the banks position will be more stable.

    The stock injection plan does have some drawbacks.  The primary problem is that it punishes the wrong people, the stockholders.  The owners of stock in these companies are not the people who made the decision.  Yes, those guys own stock too but most of the stock is owned by institutional investors e.g. university endowments, government retirement plans, etc.  I still think it is preferable for its simplicity but there would be some pain.


    Krugman Thinks It Will Get Worse... (none / 0) (#77)
    by santarita on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 12:53:58 PM EST
    He thinks TARP 2.0 will be needed before the inauguration.  

    Banks will be so heavily supervised by federal regulators that the banks might as well invite the Feds to sit on the Boards,

    One thing that perplexes me is that when the media talks about these bailouts and the perception that bankers are not sharing in the pain, why they don't point out that shareholders of AIG, Lehman, WaMu and Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae  have certainly suffered and that many of the employees will lose their jobs?


    Well (5.00 / 1) (#79)
    by Steve M on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 01:09:09 PM EST
    Those things are true, but at the end of the day, it has to be about the ripple effects that would occur beyond the mere fact of harm to employees and shareholders.  Because without the ripple effect, you end up arguing that the government should bail out any public company that might fail, solely to avoid harm to employees and shareholders.

    and to avoid (none / 0) (#89)
    by Jlvngstn on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 01:41:37 PM EST
    harming shareholders of any public company in need of credit to stay afloat.  AT&T is currently surviving on one day commercial paper.

    all the more reason for the gov't to eat more debt to create jobs to simtulate the economy and credit markets.  Credit will flow with a bailout and with gov't commitment to spending on jobs.  It trickles up and small businesses borrow to create jobs based on the work.

    The passed bill is extremely short sighted...


    I agree. It is, However,.. (none / 0) (#96)
    by santarita on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 02:17:33 PM EST
    not intended to be more than emergency relief.

    Short-sightedness is big problem among politicians. They can only see to the next election.


    i get that (5.00 / 1) (#97)
    by Jlvngstn on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 02:20:11 PM EST
    but the had an opportunity to address helping working americans which has been the nucleus of both campaigns and they completely ignored it.  Doesn't that strike you as odd considering the level of pandering on both sides?  I find it more than odd, in fact I find it appalling.

    I hope he (and others) re wrong (none / 0) (#95)
    by Manuel on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 01:59:31 PM EST
    If Krugman and others are correct about how bad things might get, we are in for tough times.  The Democratic party leadership starting with Obama will be severely tested.

    A solution to our economic woes will have to start with a much better-conceived rescue of the financial system -- one that will almost surely involve the U.S. government taking partial, temporary ownership of that system, the way Sweden's government did in the early 1990s. Yet it's hard to imagine the Bush administration taking that step.

    It's hard to see an Obama administration taking such a step unless things get a lot worse.

    We also desperately need an economic stimulus plan to push back against the slump in spending and employment. And this time it had better be a serious plan that doesn't rely on the magic of tax cuts, but instead spends money where it's needed. (Aid to cash-strapped state and local governments, which are slashing spending at precisely the worst moment, is also a priority.) Yet it's hard to imagine the Bush administration, in its final months, overseeing the creation of a new Works Progress Administration.

    Again, Obama has not been making the right noises here arguing against deficit spending.  I hope it is only election talk.


    I am glad krugman finally caught up with me (none / 0) (#98)
    by Jlvngstn on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 02:21:57 PM EST
    not that I have a fraction of his economic brilliance, but I found it very disheartening that he was not addressing coupling this in the bill as it HAD to pass and it would have started the ball rolling on job creation.

    Those provisions would have sunk the rescue bill (none / 0) (#104)
    by Manuel on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 08:30:32 PM EST
    That is what the election is about.  The McCain/Republican view of how to rescue the banks and stimulate the economy is 180 degrees different from the Obama/Democratic view of how to accomplish those things.  Or at lest we hope so.  The rescue bill is the most we could hope for in bipartisan agreement to address the emergency.  Addressing the long term problem is left to the next administration.  It will make a difference who is running things in DC.

    I disagree (none / 0) (#105)
    by Jlvngstn on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 08:31:57 PM EST
    there is not a politician in this country that would have said "no" to job creation via infrastructure investment.

    Bush isn't set up to propose anything coerent (none / 0) (#107)
    by Manuel on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 08:47:53 PM EST
    And the Democrats would not have been able to get anything organized in a timely manner.  Instead we would have got a free for all hodge podge of projects (one representatives pork is another's infrastructure).

    We could have gotten direct aid to states for infrastructure spending through.  That would be helpful but less than ideal.

    I want infrastructure spending but I want it targetted towards clean energy, sensible transportation, education and trining, healtcare, etc.  When this happens, I predict it will be a mostly Democratic bill with no support from conservative Republicans or blue dog Democrats.


    The Next President Will Inherent A (none / 0) (#99)
    by santarita on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 02:26:29 PM EST
    country with many critical problems but also opportunities for bold initiatives and a distressed electorate may be receptive.

    I wish Obama would stop (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by Cream City on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 10:02:38 AM EST
    lying about Clinton being on his short list.  He did it again with the Detroit Free Press on Friday -- and again wasn't called on it by the media.  I worry that the guy is just too comfortable now with telling too many whoppers -- needless ones like this -- and I'm tired of that in the president.

    short list for what? (none / 0) (#24)
    by kenosharick on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 10:43:29 AM EST
    VP. (none / 0) (#26)
    by Cream City on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 10:50:09 AM EST
    I guess I misunderstood (none / 0) (#113)
    by kenosharick on Sun Oct 05, 2008 at 10:11:11 AM EST
    He is still talking about his vp list? He made that selection weeks ago.

    Have you seen Obama's short list? (none / 0) (#90)
    by coigue on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 01:52:12 PM EST
    It's in the archives (5.00 / 1) (#93)
    by Cream City on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 01:55:51 PM EST
    about the time of the Biden announcement; there was a discussion of the list here then -- when it was revealed that Clinton never was on it.

    Oh (5.00 / 1) (#94)
    by coigue on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 01:58:19 PM EST
    in that case, I agree with you.

    stupid question re: OJ guilty verdict (none / 0) (#1)
    by sarany on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 08:26:25 AM EST
    will Sen. Obama be asked about this, and what should/will he say?

    I think we are all wondering and are concerned about the extent to which hidden racism will eat into Obama's vote margin on Nov. 4th. So I wonder if this verdict, and media questions on it is a little land mine for him.

    I want to know (5.00 / 3) (#3)
    by Fabian on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 08:34:14 AM EST
    which reporter is foolish enough to ask him.

    I don't care what Obama thinks.  I might if it was a civil rights case, an employment discrimination case or a equal pay case.


    I agree that it's not his business as candidate (none / 0) (#5)
    by sarany on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 08:39:29 AM EST
    ... but I remember very well how the original verdict shown a very clear, revealing and harsh light on the gulf between white Americans and African American.  It was distressing and ugly.

    I don't like the prospect of this conversation being renewed and brought to a new public consciousness right now.


    why in the world would the (5.00 / 0) (#23)
    by kenosharick on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 10:40:58 AM EST
    mainstream media ask questions or push a story line that could be detrimental to Obama?

    thanks for asking the question (none / 0) (#49)
    by vigkat on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 12:06:01 PM EST
    Good god.  What next?  This has been a fascinating election on so many different levels, but it's disquieting to see this kind of question raised.  It's just incomprehensible to me.

    You write that as if you wish they would (none / 0) (#54)
    by andgarden on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 12:08:03 PM EST
    I am happy that the verdict went into a Friday night black hole.

    I know you are far smarter than (none / 0) (#112)
    by kenosharick on Sun Oct 05, 2008 at 10:07:27 AM EST
    the rest of us, but you can actually read my mind now? Wow, I am so impressed that I feel a tingle up my leg!!!

    I think your characterization (none / 0) (#53)
    by vigkat on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 12:07:56 PM EST
    of the question is fitting, so why ask it?

    If Obama was watching the O.J. (none / 0) (#55)
    by MoveThatBus on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 12:10:53 PM EST
    trial intently enough to have an informed opinion, I would be concerned.  I think Obama would have to answer the same way he explains not having convened any committee meetings: "I've been busy running for President."

    We needed Obama's time and energies doing what he does best, and working across the aisle to get this bank bailout bill passed.


    Obama has made references to OJ's (none / 0) (#73)
    by Jeralyn on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 12:31:51 PM EST
    criminal trial. He said he thought O.J. was guilty. From Nightline in March, 2008, following his race speech:


    You remember when during the OJ trial there was a similar moment when the cultures, you know black and the white culture just had these completely opposite reactions and nobody understood it. And by the way, I'm somebody who was pretty clear that OJ was guilty. And I was ashamed for my own community to respond in that way. But I also understood what was taking place, which was that reaction had more to do with a sense that somehow the criminal justice system historically had been biased so profoundly that a defeat of that justice system was somehow a victory.

    AMERICA IN BLACK AND WHITE; EXCLUSIVE ABC News Transcript March 18, 2008 Tuesday,

    Goodiy - OSU at Wisconsin today. (none / 0) (#2)
    by Fabian on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 08:31:45 AM EST
    No football traffic to deal with.

    I suppose I should count my blessings.  Buckeye Football is a recession proof local economic engine worth tens of millions of dollars annually.  

    Hurrah football fans!  Come to my town and spend, spend, SPEND!

    That reminds me - I owe my two nieces authentic OSU baby gifts.  They live in SC and they are bigger Buckeye fans than I am.  

    Heh (5.00 / 2) (#4)
    by Steve M on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 08:36:17 AM EST
    I remember taking my LSAT one Saturday morning when suddenly, as hundreds of students strive to concentrate on this test that may determine their legal careers, the entire marching band passes right by the building as part of the pre-game festivities.  You gotta love the Big Ten.

    No marching band by Wisconsin today (5.00 / 2) (#8)
    by Cream City on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 08:47:23 AM EST
    due to repetition of haszing incidents -- sexist, anti-women hazing incidents -- entire band put on probation, i.e., can't play today.  They were told just yesterday, late afternoon.  Not sure for how long this continues.  The situation is bad (asst band director was fired a couple of years ago for such stuff but it continues, too).

    Good.  That campus gets far more than its fair share of the tax support to the UW System.  And the fans can sing the Fifth Quarter polka a cappella: "When you say Wisconsin, you've said it all."


    the BAND? (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by Fabian on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 09:05:01 AM EST

    I loved marching band.  It was pretty much equal opportunity.  Ditto for OSU - there's always intense competition to get into their marching band.

    Well, then they deserved to be suspended.  No sympathy.  Does the OSU band get the full time then?  


    This is all we know as of now (none / 0) (#19)
    by Cream City on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 10:04:55 AM EST
    per the media aka madison.com (both Madison papers):
    It's not clear whether a different act will perform in the band's place during halftime or the well-known, post-game Fifth Quarter. UW Athletic Department spokesman Vince Sweeney said the department would make those decisions Saturday morning.

    Of course, we do know (5.00 / 5) (#20)
    by Cream City on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 10:13:24 AM EST
    what worries me far more, which is that some fine now that women students have been subjected for years to behaviors condoned by band administration again and again, with warnings that were a joke, and the band environment has  made women students uncomfortable and unsafe -- and have affected their studies.  And women staff have had their careers affected, too.

    I'm so sick of this sexist sh*t -- I see its impact so often on my campus, too.  I see battered women, too, like one who took a test this week with quite the new shiner, and no doubt she did not do well after her weeks of work (and mine).  I've had to get extra books to women students who had to escape with their kids but with no time to take anything else.

    Staff, like the band administration, who continue to countenance (and thus encourage) activities that counter all of students' and teachers' work in the classroom have no place on campuses.


    To ruin the band (5.00 / 2) (#34)
    by MKS on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 11:15:31 AM EST
    is deflating....The band?  Aren't they supposed to be the smart ones, the intellectuals?....

    What was happening?  Groping like the tailhook scandal years ago?  Sexist and humiliating ridicule?  Worse?      


    Read the reports on band behavior (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by Cream City on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 11:29:43 AM EST
    at jsonline.com and madison.com (can't make links on this borrowed computer, sorry) -- and look up earlier reports for years now for lurid details.

    It's disgusting -- but to be expected in our society, from the behaviors we've seen all year.  And especially in Wisconsin, believe me.  Not the "Forward" state its slogan claims.  It's below national norms in women's incomes, because it's below national norms in women's educational levels.  And now you know a reason why, when this crap happens at the "best" school in the state.


    Here's a link. (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by Fabian on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 11:50:22 AM EST
    madison.com story

    Wiley called the band's behavior on that 2006 Michigan trip, "boorish to patently dangerous and unlawful." That included semi-nude suggestive dancing by some members, and women being forced to kiss other women to be allowed to enter bathrooms on the band bus. One student complained he had his head shaved during the trip.

    I left out a passage that might trip a 'net censor.


    Where were the adults? (none / 0) (#46)
    by MKS on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 12:03:33 PM EST
    For high school events, something I am more familiar with, you have lots of adults around to avoid problems....

    Would that college be different, and students who are adults could go unsupervised....But where were the staff and faculty?


    Sports Illustrated has a concise summary (5.00 / 0) (#58)
    by Cream City on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 12:14:08 PM EST
    of problems for years now -- and it's clear from other coverage that the campus administration had to do something fast and significant yesterday.  And the band's suspension may be well beyond one game. I bet that means a lawsuit is coming.

    Here's SI's summary of what Wisconsin taxpayers have been paying for -- and you, the federal taxpayers, with all the funding from you that the campus receives; it's one of the tops in that.

    And for us Wisconsin taxpayers, this is in a state ranked 49th for its funding of UW faculty  for the last five years.  Madison always takes the largest share . . . although that is largely for the benefit of out-of-state students.  (It is not the UW campus with the most Wisconsin students.)

    The band . . . will not perform again until the investigation is done.  Penalties for students who violate the university's code of conduct range from a reprimand to expulsion.

    It's the latest in a series of high profile problems for the band.  In 2000 the university established a written code of conduct for the band.  In February 2007 the marching band's assistant director . . . resigned after an internal report criticized his treatment of a female colleague during a rowdy band trip to Michigan in 2006.

    Reports of band members' hazing, alcohol use and inappropriate sexual behavior prompted the university to put the band on probation after the trip.  Then-Chancellor John Wiley threatened band members with losing performance and travel privileges.  Wiley, in an October 2006 letter to Leckrone, called band members' behavior "boorish to patently dangerous and unlawful."

    What I know of Wisconsin (none / 0) (#56)
    by MKS on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 12:11:06 PM EST
    is how liberal Madison is.....Maybe not so much....

    One word: Leadership. (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by Fabian on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 11:33:00 AM EST
    These activities aren't shrouded in complete secrecy.  People knew and know and didn't do enough to stop it.  

    I think a few ruined careers should have a beneficial effect.


    Yep, it's past time to fire (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by Cream City on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 11:43:48 AM EST
    "Professor" Leckrone, as he likes to be called.  (Another one who is not a professor -- nor even on the music faculty; he's the band director.)  His sidekick was fired a couple of years ago when these problems surfaced, but the problems have continued, so the sidekick wasn't the source of the problem, was he?  But the gutless UW-Madison administration will not take the obvious step.  Instead, it and the Madison rah rah fans are praising Leckrone for his "leadership" in not letting the band play for a whole day. So what lessons are the boyz in the band learning from this, hmmmm?

    Is there any precedent for suspending (none / 0) (#48)
    by oculus on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 12:05:47 PM EST
    a marching band?  

    Ten? (none / 0) (#9)
    by LarryInNYC on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 08:47:58 AM EST
    Did you say big TEN?

    Just, you know, sayin'.  

    I wouldn't want to get a reputation as the kind of foolish person who believes that we could possible have a national election these days in which one candidate out polls the other by ten percent.


    Is it true... (5.00 / 2) (#12)
    by CoralGables on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 09:23:18 AM EST
    that you are seeing Bo Derek in your dreams lately when it comes to election prognostication?

    Secretly. . . (5.00 / 1) (#110)
    by LarryInNYC on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 09:54:24 PM EST
    I think Obama will win by nine and a half points, but I had to go with Bo Derek over Mickey Rourke.

    I have been wanting to use that line but I (none / 0) (#32)
    by Teresa on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 11:05:06 AM EST
    was afraid I was the only one who had seen that movie. I think of it every time Larry posts.

    Is it established (none / 0) (#13)
    by Steve M on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 09:29:59 AM EST
    that you get to round up? :)

    I have to admire a guy who (none / 0) (#31)
    by oculus on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 11:02:30 AM EST
    has the courage of his convictions.  Although, so far, we are just reading about the convictions.  

    I stand on my record. (none / 0) (#108)
    by LarryInNYC on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 09:46:30 PM EST
    Seventeen arrests.

    No convictions.


    Since BTD says. . . (none / 0) (#109)
    by LarryInNYC on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 09:47:45 PM EST
    anything outside three points is impossible in the current political climate, I don't have to round up -- the current 7-8 point election supports my position.

    OMG, you live in Columbus? (5.00 / 2) (#17)
    by coigue on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 09:40:50 AM EST
    I got my graduate degree at OSU. I used to live in Clintonville and rode my bike along the river to school every day!!!

    Old North Columbus (none / 0) (#42)
    by Fabian on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 11:44:08 AM EST
    was my old neighborhood.  That's technically south of Clintonville proper and north of actual campus.  It came as a shock to us when they finally decided to renovate campus and our neighborhood wasn't actually eligible for any money.  (Part of said "renovation" was doing silly things like enforcing laws on the books about providing X amount of trash container capacity for Y rental units.  Landlords had been maxing out rental space for decades by breaking codes left and right.)

    It was a fantastic pedestrian neighborhood.  The hardware store was closer than the post office!  And take out food all over!  I rode my bike a lot.  Two were stolen, but I only recovered one.  Never trust cable bike locks.  Do NOT leave valuables in your car.


    Yeah...not to mention (none / 0) (#50)
    by coigue on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 12:06:42 PM EST
    that area is CRAZY after games.

    Id like to point out my bike was never (none / 0) (#52)
    by oculus on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 12:07:38 PM EST
    stolen at University of Michigan and nothing was ever taken from my car, once I had a car, that is.  

    Ohio Stae is edgier (none / 0) (#81)
    by coigue on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 01:14:14 PM EST
    for sure. Not for the timid.



    Although I recently learned, (5.00 / 1) (#83)
    by oculus on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 01:31:17 PM EST
    much to my amazement and dismay, OSU may have one of the leading MFA programs in choreography.

    thus proving my point! (none / 0) (#85)
    by coigue on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 01:32:12 PM EST
    Only if the choreography (none / 0) (#86)
    by oculus on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 01:34:30 PM EST
    is edgey.  Otherwise, yawn.

    Oh. It's edgy my friend (none / 0) (#87)
    by coigue on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 01:37:25 PM EST
    edges ALLLLLL over the place.

    Go Badgers! (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by Katherine Graham Cracker on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 11:14:33 AM EST

    Hairless nuts with no value  :)))))))))))))))


    well. (none / 0) (#51)
    by coigue on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 12:07:19 PM EST
    as a botanist, it's pretty cool to have a mascot named after a tree.

    A tree named after (none / 0) (#71)
    by Fabian on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 12:28:27 PM EST
    what the nut looks like - a deer's eye.  

    An inedible nut!  Buckeyes are in the chestnut family.  While chestnuts are delicious and nutritious, a buckeye has only ornamental value.  Even more aggravating, the chestnut was decimated by the blight, but the buckeye seems to be unaffected.

    Must be one of G_d's little jokes like the bitternut hickory.


    As I recall, buckeyes are pretty (5.00 / 1) (#84)
    by oculus on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 01:32:11 PM EST
    good ammo for slingshots.

    Typical (5.00 / 1) (#88)
    by coigue on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 01:38:13 PM EST
    blue tree hater

    But they are so pretty in bloom (none / 0) (#80)
    by coigue on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 01:13:32 PM EST
    Family: Hammamelidaceae

    Hide them in a border somewhere. (none / 0) (#101)
    by Fabian on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 02:44:25 PM EST
    A sure sign of drought is watching the buckeye leaves going brown and crispy.  It's not something you want front and center!

    Can't knock them.  The red flowering buckeye is a sure seller in the plant sale.


    Game on (none / 0) (#10)
    by Lahdee on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 08:49:46 AM EST
    John and his cheerleader are looking to flip flop their way to a win for the Gipper today. The Mainstreeters who were once the favorites now face a deficit with the loss of half their bottom line. They are, however, expected to soldier on. Freedom Fries might be making a comeback for the visiting 'MCains. "It sure would be an October surprise," said 'MCain offensive coordinator Bee Smirch who refused to pick a winner. "I'm not playing the blame game."

    Halftime entertainment by Nancy and the Bailouts will feature their hit cover "Rescue Me."

    Troopergate appealed to Alaska Supreme Court (none / 0) (#14)
    by rdandrea on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 09:30:00 AM EST
    Arguments to be heard Wednesday.
    (Per the Anchorage Daily News.)

    Joe Biden should be... (none / 0) (#22)
    by prose on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 10:35:27 AM EST
    talking about Palin's "Do Over" interview on Fox News.  There is such an easy line there - "When it comes to media interviews, maybe you can have a do over.  But when it comes to making choices that effect the safety of this country, you don't get to try again.  Fox News can't save you then."  I want that ad to exist so badly.

    ya (none / 0) (#27)
    by connecticut yankee on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 10:53:29 AM EST
    She needs to do a do-over for a Katie Couric interview that was itself a do-over.  I guess after three bites at the apple she really reassured us. heh.

    Obama is running an ad here... (none / 0) (#29)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 10:57:41 AM EST
    ...to rebutt the one that the NRA has been airing.  Pretty quick response time and an effective ad from my point of view.  

    I really like the one that bluegrass legend Ralph Stanley made for play in VA.  For some reason, I never thought of Ralph as a liberal, so this was nice surprise.  


    All the polls (none / 0) (#35)
    by MKS on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 11:18:48 AM EST
    show Biden the winner....It is becoming a long list....

    Not all. (none / 0) (#43)
    by Cream City on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 11:45:28 AM EST
    I've read of some by conservative media that had Palin the hands-down winner.  Pols will be pols, media will be media.  And us?  We'll be the losers.

    Losers? (none / 0) (#45)
    by WS on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 11:55:26 AM EST
    Us being losers?  I don't get what you mean.  

    Well of course conservatives will consider their gal the winner but that doesn't mean we have to listen to them.  On the McLaughlin Group, Buchanan touted the Drudge internet poll on Drudge's website to say that 70% thought Palin won the debate.  I'm beginning to think Buchanan wants to insult the audience's intelligence.  


    And yet the FOX poll (none / 0) (#61)
    by MKS on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 12:17:50 PM EST
    showed the most lopsided win for Biden among major pollsters....That had to burst some bubbles .....hard to ignore your own side's polling.....

    McCain and Palin have taken their distaste for the Media to new levels....very Nixon like....


    The Fox poll I saw announced (none / 0) (#68)
    by Cream City on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 12:25:38 PM EST
    on Fox had it 87-11 in Palin's favor.  Silly, of course, but proves the point.

    So there must have been another one to prove your point?


    That's their text message "poll" (none / 0) (#75)
    by WS on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 12:44:49 PM EST
    that Fox always does and conservatives send in.  The actual Fox News poll had Biden 61 to Palin's 39.

    I love your name. (none / 0) (#37)
    by Teresa on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 11:28:33 AM EST
    Our message board for LadyVol basketball is called "The Summitt" with two t's for Pat Summitt the greatest basketball coach anywhere.

    Responsibility Around the World Has No Timeline (none / 0) (#40)
    by Rixmith on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 11:43:33 AM EST
      The most human of beings will walk to the other side of the street to help a hurting stranger. He will help the stranger to his feet or carry him if he can, as far as he can.
      The most human of beings doesn't look at his watch and walk away from someone who needs help. He leaves when that stranger can obviously help himself.
      And when they both agree that the weaker is safe and well, they can part as friends and allies.
      It was long ago agreed that the current U.S. efforts in Iraq would come to a conclusion when 18 conditions were met. All of them had to do with protecting the safety and wellbeing of the weaker party.
      Let's leave there as friends.

    When cheap rent isn't cheap :( (none / 0) (#47)
    by nycstray on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 12:04:21 PM EST
    New rent guidelines. Since I've been in my apt over 6yrs and a 4.5% increase would be less than $45, I get to pay the whole $45 (or $85) WTF?! This will affect a lot of seniors around me as many have been in their apts for YEARS. This is more than double what it was 2yrs ago for me. Luckily, I'm not on a fixed income. With the recent Con Ed hike, food and fuel prices, things are going to be pretty tight for some, if they weren't already.

    I've always done a 2yr lease, not anymore! I have a feeling I'm getting about the same increase as a friend who pays twice the rent I do.


    Together with such further adjustments as may be authorized by law, the annual adjustment for renewal leases for apartments shall be:

    Where heat is provided or required to be provided to a dwelling unit by an owner from a central or individual system at no charge to the tenant, the adjustments are as follows:

        * For a one-year renewal lease commencing on or after October 1, 2008 and on or before September 30, 2009:            4.5%
        * For a two-year renewal lease commencing on or after October 1, 2008 and on or before September 30, 2009:            8.5%

        Provided, however, that where the most recent vacancy lease was executed six years or more prior to the date of the renewal lease under this Order, the following shall instead apply:

            * For a one-year renewal lease commencing on or after October 1, 2008 and on or before September 30, 2009:      4.5% or $45, whichever is greater.
            * For a two-year renewal lease commencing on or after October 1, 2008 and on or before September 30, 2009:      8.5% or $85, whichever is greater.

    by stevea66 on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 12:12:10 PM EST
    Just saw a bit of an "off-the-record" interview Palin did with Carl Cameron on FOX NOISE.  So, she didn't want to be heard "through the filter of main stream media," but she's willing to have FOX parse the few coherent statements she makes in off-the-record interviews!!!

    What a fu*&^ing sham!

    It has been said for several days now (none / 0) (#59)
    by Cream City on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 12:15:13 PM EST
    that she would doing many media interviews after the VP debate.  No surprise that Fox must be the first one.

    She said she was making herself (none / 0) (#60)
    by nycstray on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 12:17:06 PM EST
    available for interviews now. The debate was the chance for people to hear her "unfiltered".

    Is it really all the outrageous even if she hadn't declared she would be more available?


    She still goofed (none / 0) (#64)
    by MKS on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 12:23:25 PM EST
    She said she found out about the McCain pull-out from Michigan a day after it occurred, and fired off an e-mail disagreeing.....She is so out of it...The McCain campaign gets it totally, and has placed her so outside the inner circle it is embarrassing.....

    And, Palin didn't have the good sense to keep quiet on her being out of the loop on that decision......That really made her look like an amateur, a real dimwit....


    I am reminded of Howard Dean (none / 0) (#70)
    by Cream City on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 12:28:18 PM EST
    saying he was entirely unaware of the media and others' sexist attacks on Clinton until after the primaries.  There must be a Dem bubble as big as the Repub bubble that keeps them all out of touch with what actually is happening in this campaign -- and so conveniently so.  

    I thought they may not have told her (none / 0) (#74)
    by nycstray on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 12:32:10 PM EST
    because she was getting ready to debate and wanted her focused and positive.

    She has stated they don't see eye to eye on everything. I do think it was a positive (for them) that she expressed her enthusiasm for going to Michigan to present their case and talk to factory workers. I doubt McCain leaners in Michigan thought she looked like a dimwit.


    That's what Bush/Cheney (none / 0) (#91)
    by coigue on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 01:54:33 PM EST
    did for much of the last 8 years.

    I thought it was funny (none / 0) (#103)
    by connecticut yankee on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 06:16:09 PM EST
    Of course, if she shows her head at all it will be on right wing sources.

    But even Cameron noted that her corrections to her Katie Couric questions looked like she went home, cracked the books, and came back to answer them.

    Who gets three bites at the apple to answer softballs?  It's soooo silly.


    Interesting profile of Tom Davis (none / 0) (#62)
    by andgarden on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 12:20:12 PM EST

    Read it in context of his memo from last year (PDF).

    Tom Davis? (none / 0) (#66)
    by Steve M on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 12:23:51 PM EST
    Former Iowa basketball coach?  What is he up to these days?

    heh (none / 0) (#67)
    by andgarden on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 12:25:34 PM EST
    If that were so, I surely wouldn't know about it.

    Here, Tom Davis the retiring Congressman from Virginia.


    Ooooohhh... (none / 0) (#63)
    by stevea66 on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 12:22:10 PM EST
    I had heard that she would only be making speeches and that she would do no interviews.  Maybe she'll do only off-the-record interviews.  I can't imagine they'd cut her loose for another Couric interview.  Just can't see that as being a smart move on McCain's part.

    OJ and Obama (none / 0) (#69)
    by stevea66 on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 12:26:30 PM EST
    Does anyone believe that McCain will try to fabricate a connection between OJ and Obama, now that OJ has been convicted?

    betcha (none / 0) (#92)
    by coigue on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 01:55:38 PM EST
    they are trying hard to have an excuse to put OJ in an attack ad, even if he doesn't explicitly link the two.

    Taxes (none / 0) (#72)
    by Rixmith on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 12:29:43 PM EST
     If the majority decides to define government as our "Landlord", "Caregiver", "Employer" and "Banker", then by all means let's increase business taxes. Let's increase taxes on the people right here in our communities who provide jobs for our neighbors. My brother is one of those people. He struggles to stay afloat under the burden of taxes, and the 11 people who work for him understand the pressure.
     If the majority feels that bigger government, and higher taxes means a better way of life, then let's have government think for us too. Let's all follow the leader.

    About the arrows (none / 0) (#76)
    by Manuel on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 12:46:59 PM EST
    I repent for having made fun of the arrows in the rescue bill.  It turns out it was a harmless provision.

    That's okay; the bill still is a pig (none / 0) (#78)
    by Cream City on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 12:59:44 PM EST
    considering all the pork in it, with or without cosmetics.  

    troubling questions (none / 0) (#100)
    by Katherine Graham Cracker on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 02:29:59 PM EST
    rom the comments section of another blog...it raises troubling questions and is a spot on commnet

    "On Monday, Citbank made a bid for the banking portion of Wachovia for $2.1 billion (excluding the investment and asset management divisions), with the FDIC to take over the mortgage portfolio. At that time, Citi signed an exclusivity contract with Wachovia.

    Because they needed more time to conduct due diligence on the entire operation, Wells subsequently made a $15 billion bid on Wednesday for all of Wachovia's assets, including all their bad paper with no governmental assistance.

    Citi is arguing that because they have an exclusivity contract, Wells' offer should not be considered. The FDIC appears to have no problem with continuing their partnership with Citi in the matter, even though Wells has made an alternative bid that would not call for the FDIC intervention.

    To me, this is a very interesting and troubling development. In essence, we have the Treasury Department, in part through an intermediary, bidding on the assets of a corporation in competition with a private company.

    It is my understanding the role of the FDIC is supposed to protect the assets of individuals in the event of a failure. In this case, we have the FDIC acting to take ownership of assets when private sector alternatives are available. In other words, we have the Treasury Department in competition with the market without equal access for competition.

    I'm not sure I'm real comfortable with that..." Spike

    This is his blog http://worldsofspike.blogspot.com/ commentary on the political futures market.

    On Palin.... (none / 0) (#102)
    by Fabian on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 03:30:43 PM EST
    I'm not sure what she would do if she found herself in the Oval Office.  She reminds me of a college basketball star deciding to go pro in his sophomore year.  Sure he's got talent, but is he ready for the big time?  Can he hold up under pressure?

    What's Palin made of?  All we've seen so far is someone with an ideology but no substantial track record.  She could go either become a quick study on the areas she is deficient in or she could become another Bush, leaning on advisors.  All I've seen so far is some kind of Prince and the Pauper tale, with someone plucked out of obscurity and schooled to play the part.  She seems smart enough to do more than play the part.  

    Huckabee would scare me far more than Palin.  Huckabee can tell you what you want to hear with a smile on his face and mean not a word of it.  He could offer McCain a shoulder to lean on and moral support while stealing his power a bit at a time.

    I think Palin is in over her head right now but I think she can learn if she cares to.  I would never underestimate her especially since the Right has found a rare breed - a personable, attractive woman to be their spokesmodel.  Palin is far too valuable to discard.  I'm not worried so much about VP Palin and POTUS Palin as I am about the future Palin.  She may be the next Reagan, with a carefully constructed narrative that rivals Reagan's.

    when she is no longer (none / 0) (#106)
    by Jlvngstn on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 08:35:26 PM EST
    a novelty and she is held to the standard of an HRC, she will lose demonstrably. She is a minor leaguer with very little upside.  Of course we will not know for a few years but my guess is Quayle like obscurity is in her future...

    People like her... (none / 0) (#111)
    by Fabian on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 11:14:05 PM EST
    Never underestimate that.  A carefully managed public speaking schedule could be very beneficial.  She's got name recognition now.

    Who was Obama four years ago?