Wednesday Morning Open Thread

I'll be at work today, here's an open thread for you. Also check out:

  • Spencer Ackerman has moved his blog to Firedoglake. Cool graphic and definitely one to put in your RSS feed.
  • Peter Swire at Think Progress on laptop searches by border security.

All topics welcome and please be civil.

< No Decision Today in D.C. Handgun Case | Supreme Court Limits Doctrine of 'Forfeiture By Wrongdoing' >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Tyranny alert.... (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by kdog on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 10:42:34 AM EST
    You would think rights don't get more basic than the right to stick your feet in the water on a hot summer day...think again.

    I'm glad Joey Ramone ain't around to see what has become of his Rockaway Beach.

    Chewing out a rhythm on my bubble gum
    The sun is out and I want some.
    Its not hard, not far to reach
    We can hitch a ride
    To Rockaway Beach.

    I think they will arrest you for hitching too nowadays...

    Yikes, ignoring the sign on the beach (none / 0) (#12)
    by befuddledvoter on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 10:56:56 AM EST
    is now an arrestable offense?? This is crazy!!!

    Crazy. People should be able to (none / 0) (#33)
    by MissBrainerd on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 11:15:09 AM EST
    take a personal risk. If they know that swimming is not advisable without a lifeguard, and they choose to anyway, they should have the right to risk drowning.

    And we have to tighten rules for liability lawsuits so any personal risk decision is just that, personal choice and you can't sue!

    This applies to all issues of personal choice, like helmets on bikes and recreational drugs.


    What about the people who will (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by nycstray on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 11:28:52 AM EST
    need to save the people who take those risks?

    Should they have to risk their lives? Or can they just stand on the sidelines and say "well there was a sign posted . . ."


    I'm with you. n/t (5.00 / 1) (#66)
    by Fabian on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 11:48:07 AM EST
    It's like jaywalking (5.00 / 1) (#75)
    by Newt on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 11:58:09 AM EST
    If people move away from the crosswalk to the middle of a block and then cross the street, it's their own risk.  But when they cross against the light in a crosswalk, other people follow thinking the light changed.  It creates a hazard for the other people, hence many city's jaywalking laws only restrict crossing against the light within a specific distance of the crosswalk.  

    These laws aren't so bad.  If he's in the water, kids follow him, the city's responsible for the damages.  He'll get his hand slapped, pay a fine, fewer people will do it in the future.  Cops can be thugs, but laws like this are actually helpful, IMHO.


    I couldn't disagree more..... (5.00 / 0) (#91)
    by kdog on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 12:07:11 PM EST
    Helpful?  Helpful?

    Once the city posts signs that everybody is swimming at their own risk, there shouldn't be anyway for anyone to sue.

    Have you ever been in cuffs and/or a cage?  If you had I don't think you'd just shrug it off as no big deal.

    I can't believe I have to defend the unalienable right to go in mother nature's bathtub!  It's really scary to me how many people support the nanny-state.  

    It could be worse I guess, I could live in England.


    Having lost a friend who jumped (5.00 / 1) (#100)
    by Cream City on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 12:10:51 PM EST
    in the proverbial lake here to save someone, I disagree entirely with all this libertarian take on societal norms.

    Other lives are at stake every time you take a risk.


    Sorry about your friend Cream.... (2.00 / 0) (#117)
    by kdog on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 12:25:08 PM EST
    I guess we need a law against trying to help each other, somebody could get hurt and cost somebody money or expose someone to liability.

    I'm completely up in the air about this (none / 0) (#124)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 12:31:49 PM EST
    I've already been identified as a risk taker.  Probably genetic and probably also not an accident that my family is a bunch of small business starters and owners.  Without risk many things wouldn't have happened, with risk lots of things have happened and not all "positive".  I would have a hard time living without risk being acceptable though because I'm like the Nike commercial........I Just Do It.  If taking risk was illegal I would have to be on meds or something.

    Life would be... (5.00 / 1) (#129)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 12:38:41 PM EST
    ...awful boring if one didn't take a risk once in awhile.

    If people choose to make themselves into proof that Darwin exists by taking extreme risks, so be it.  But if we micromanage every single little thing that might be "bad" for us, I'm not sure that is a World I want to be a part of.  


    Then let's have IQs posted (5.00 / 0) (#136)
    by Cream City on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 12:45:36 PM EST
    for everybody on a beach, too, so we know which ones to bother to save.

    As for "every little thing" being micromanaged, I certainly agree.  Heck, I'm part of one of the most Puritanically persecuted groups in our country today -- and I bet that a lot of folks on this thread think it's just fine to nanny me about it.

    But the line seems to be drawn against reason on some pretty big things in this thread.


    IQ's have nothing to do with it. (none / 0) (#144)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 12:55:56 PM EST
    Some of the brightest people I know are the biggest risk takers--parachuting, free climbing, white water rafting, racing.  

    Doesn't mean they're stupid.  They just like a thrill.  The more extreme cases of this are the Emergency Medical workers you spoke of earlier.  Go figure.


    Reason? (none / 0) (#156)
    by kdog on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 01:08:37 PM EST
    You can't be serious Cream...you are way too intelligent.

    Where is the reason is banning the use of a beach?  It is the epitomy of unreasonable.


    Were they forbidden from going (none / 0) (#190)
    by MissBrainerd on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 02:20:53 PM EST
    in this lake you speak of? If not, they jumped, someone chose to help. Choosing to help someone is always a risk.

    So, no one should be helped if they cross against a light and get hit? But you will take the risk to help if they got hit while crossing with the light?

    I guess I wouldn't have time to decide if the person "deserved" to be helped or not.


    Posting signs doesn't work in NY because (none / 0) (#153)
    by Newt on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 01:05:02 PM EST
    people still sue and WIN even if the signs say it's your own risk.  In states where the courts & juries are more reasonable, the "at your own risk" notices work great.   As with ponds on your property, you can't just put a short fence up that stops toddlers from falling in to your pond, you have to somehow block adults from breaking in and swimming, or you're at risk for lawsuits.  

    Bottom line is that it's a public cost & public responsibility issue.  He could have gotten out when the cops said to, he could have gone where the lifeguards where, heck he was just being obnoxious and now he has to pay a fine.  If he had his ID on the beach with his wife, it would have been just a ticket.  

    It's like helmets and seat belts.  It's great to have freedom, but why should everyone else have to pay for someone to feed you and walk you around for the next fifty years because you smashed your head not wearing a helmet?  You want the wind in your hair, ride a bicycle.  (We still don't have helmet laws here, and it's costly.)

    I'm all for individual freedoms.  That's why I prefer to live in states with fewer restrictions on stuff like where I can swim.  But that guy was in NY, lawsuit capital of the world.  Fix the courts first, and the personal freedoms will be more sensible.  JMO.


    We are an over-litigous society... (5.00 / 1) (#158)
    by kdog on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 01:11:50 PM EST
    no argument here.  The solution to that isn't greater tyranny, imo.

    And don't get me started about the law that states you have to carry ID at all times....that's another one I despise.

    I salute the guy for standing up for his birthright to use the beach...and not running scared just because some a-hole cop said so.


    Why is the city responsible? (none / 0) (#81)
    by MissBrainerd on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 12:02:03 PM EST
    The city should not be able to be sued because people left their kids unattended at the beach.

    We all have to pay health care costs (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by Cream City on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 11:37:09 AM EST
    of people who overdose or have accidents without helmets.  Talk to any physician who has worked in an ER.  After a week working in an ER, one physician I know immediately sold his motorcycle -- he said he would have just junked it, but he still was in his residency and broke.  Still, he only would sell it to a buyer who would buy the helmet, too.

    And we all have to pay the taxes for the police and others involved in those "personal" accidents, too.  Now, I'm the first one to resent encroachment on my rights . . . but with rights come responsibilities, and the irresponsible people among us cost the rest of us a lot that could go for far better use in our society.


    Are you going to open THAT pandora's box? (5.00 / 0) (#78)
    by MissBrainerd on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 11:59:30 AM EST
    No one should climb mountains, go on an overnight hike in the wilderness, drive in the snow, jump out of plane, play any sport, eat Big Macs weekly, never exercise, become obese, because ALL those people are costing me money in health care.

    Is that your point? I understand we have a healthcare problem in this country, but we can't solve it by forbidding people from doing anything remotely risky.


    Sure, let's open it. I'm only blocks (5.00 / 2) (#90)
    by Cream City on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 12:07:10 PM EST
    away from a Great Lake and its beaches, and it teaches respect for the power of nature.  And at the same time, I'm in a busy city, near intersections with many accidents caused by stupidity.  How 'bout you?  Live near a lake that takes lives too often and on streets where you hear sirens almost daily, too?

    There is the question of how many expose themselves and others to danger, and how well they have taken steps to reduce risk, as well as questions of how much encroachment on our rights is entailed.  I think your take on this is antisocietal -- so when you walk out into traffic, do be responsible enough to pin a note to your top that tells onlookers not to call for help when you're hit, okay?  I mean, really -- against traffic lights, too?  Ever seen a photo of streets less than a century ago, before we even had traffic lanes?  


    Your examples dont' really work. (none / 0) (#187)
    by MissBrainerd on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 02:12:14 PM EST
    If I don't obey traffic lights, I could cause car accidents. So there is a reason, a good one, for people to obey traffic lights. And any other rule that affects other people directly, like only passing on the right.

    If I walk into a riptide where it is posted, stupid me.

    I am only talking about things that affect me only. I don't wear a bike helmet when I am on a path in Central Park away from cars.

    If someone wearing a helmet is hit by a car and needs help, will you not risk helping them because the helmet may have made the accident less bad?  The  "making others help you" argument is specious.


    If I have to trade my liberty.... (5.00 / 0) (#82)
    by kdog on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 12:02:07 PM EST
    for health care, the state can keep the health care.  Benevolent tyranny scares me the most... the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

    Back to the beach thing for a second, what makes more sense?  

    A) The city can't afford lifeguards, so they ban the use of the beach.

    B) The city can't afford lifeguards, so they post a sign that states "No lifeguard on duty, swim at your own risk."

    I say choice B, no brainer.

    If push comes to shove I'd rather be refused healthcare at the local hospital if I almost drown than to be forbidden to use the beach.  Or refused healthcare for my busted dome if I fall off my bike than to be forced to wear a helmet by threat of fine or arrest.

    As an aside, I used to think universal healthcare was a no-brainer, but after reading about nanny-state laws like this all around the country I'm not so sure anymore.  If the state is adminstering the healthcare, how long before the state mandates what you can eat, drink, smoke and do for fun?  If that's the cost, I'd rather take my chances with no healthcare.


    Then, please, you too need (5.00 / 0) (#97)
    by Cream City on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 12:09:33 PM EST
    to pin a note to your top daily with a DNR waiver, and a note to not even call police, okay?  Oh, and with a phone number for your survivors to come get your carcass, as there are costs for us for that, too.  Jeesh.

    My loved ones already know..... (none / 0) (#112)
    by kdog on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 12:22:05 PM EST
    my rule about calling the police, which is never do it....ever.  Same for my wishes for my life not be prolonged artificially.

    I'll be happy to wear the note if it will exempt me from the beach ban, the marijuana ban, the (some forms of) gambling ban, the mandatory seatblet and helmet requirements, and all the other little tyrannies done "for my own good"

    If I listened to the govt., I'm bad for myself:)


    Yes, that is a concern. (none / 0) (#189)
    by MissBrainerd on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 02:18:22 PM EST
    When so many Americans are unhealthy and seriously overweight which has created a type II diabetes epidemic and that is just the beginning of the health problems, I am not sure how we can afford universal healthcare if people are not somehow forced to get off the couch and eat less or lose their care.

    I am a huge bleeding heart, but how do we work in some personal responsibility here? And being poor puts you at greater risk for obesity and depression so cutting them off for not trying to be more healthy doesn't seem fair at all either.

    This is a tough issue.


    A little common sense goes a helluva (none / 0) (#65)
    by PssttCmere08 on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 11:46:08 AM EST
    long way too....

    Geez, I used to play skeeball on (none / 0) (#16)
    by zfran on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 10:59:33 AM EST
    Rockaway Beach. I can taste that slice of pizza!!!!

    I can see where they might be (none / 0) (#23)
    by JavaCityPal on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 11:05:27 AM EST
    cautious about people in the water without the lifeguard on duty...emergency staff and vehicles would be required if someone got in trouble.

    I'm wondering why he decided not to come out of the water when directed to do so, though. Maybe it was that stubborn streak that made the officers decide the guy was likely to go deeper into the water.


    Kdog, you put that song in my head.... (none / 0) (#54)
    by Maria Garcia on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 11:33:45 AM EST
    ...not that I mind.

    you? (none / 0) (#120)
    by kdog on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 12:26:21 PM EST
    It's been stuck in my head since I read the article in the paper yesterday:)

    Geez (none / 0) (#135)
    by squeaky on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 12:45:07 PM EST
    If the parks idiots were concerned about the swimmers safety, they should have hung around and filled in as lifeguards. That would be a much better use of tax dollars than them driving around in their 4x4 arresting people for wading.

    As far as I am concerned that is the big elephant in the room.


    Not just wading.... (none / 0) (#163)
    by kdog on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 01:14:24 PM EST
    probably lookin' to raise (aka extort) revenue by busting people with the gaul to go wade, drink a beer, smoke a joint, stay after dark, play soccer without a permit, and sun god knows what else that's against the law that I'm not even aware of.

    It's a jungle out there:)


    Clinton and Obama 'Unity' appearance (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by Valhalla on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 10:55:37 AM EST
    Just got an email from Clinton with some more details about the joint appearance in Unity, NH:

    Unity Elementary School
    864 Second NH Turnpike
    Unity, NH

    There is NO ONSITE PARKING. Members of the public must take shuttles provided by the Obama campaign to access the event. Shuttle service is first-come, first-served. Shuttles begin running at 10:00 a.m., click here to see a list of shuttle locations. Tickets are REQUIRED to ride the shuttles.

    The event is free and open to the public. Tickets ARE required. Admission is on a first-come, first-served basis.

    Gates open at 11 am.

    Do you think the obama followers will (5.00 / 2) (#98)
    by PssttCmere08 on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 12:09:56 PM EST
    be smart enough not to boo Hillary?  :)

    Hard to say cause (5.00 / 1) (#109)
    by Lahdee on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 12:17:34 PM EST
    many of their heads may have exploded after Chris Cillizza's piece today.

    Simple answers to Simple Questions ;-) (5.00 / 1) (#121)
    by Ellie on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 12:26:57 PM EST

    :: cough ::


    lol....no doubt (5.00 / 2) (#149)
    by PssttCmere08 on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 01:02:23 PM EST
    If you check the ... (1.00 / 0) (#152)
    by Tortmaster on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 01:04:53 PM EST
    ... McCain versus Obama polls at Real Clear Politics, you can see that McCain is very near his all-time low, and that Obama is very near his all-time high. The graph on the main page is especially good as a visual aid.  

    It appears that Hillary and Obama uniting has really helped the Democratic ticket's chances. I think that "Unity Friday" will spike those graph peaks even higher (or lower in McCain's case).




    They are virtually tied.....that's the big news (5.00 / 2) (#159)
    by PssttCmere08 on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 01:12:12 PM EST
    Wow, the glee that is .... (1.00 / 0) (#202)
    by Tortmaster on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 02:49:01 PM EST
    ... apparent from you when you falsely claim that the candidates are virtually tied! They are tied in one poll, Obama leads by ...

    15 in the Newsweek Poll;

    4 in the Fox News Poll;

    6 in the USA Today Poll;

    12 in the LA Times/Bloomberg Poll;

    6.9 in the RealClearPolitics average.

    And the trends are horrible for McCain. Face it, PsstCmere08, this is a change year, and your man, McCain, is way to Washingtony.    


    Media polls versus Polling Company Polls (5.00 / 1) (#180)
    by Valhalla on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 01:59:09 PM EST
    It's funny that all the media-based polls show a big spread for Obama but the professional poll outlets that do Daily Tracking polls show little change and a fairly small advantage for Obama (except today's Gallup poll, which shows none).

    Gallup:  beginning of June, tied.  Today, tied.  Last 5 days, Obama up by 2-3 points.  Very stable numbers.  Except for the 'unity bump' around June 8-10, Obama's never been more than 5 points up.  The daily tracking graph shows close and pretty flat lines for both of them.


    The race has remained very stable in recent weeks. Without leaners, Obama's support has stayed between 45% and 47% for fourteen straight days. With leaners, he has stayed between 48% and 50% for twenty straight days.

    As for McCain, his support has been at 40% or 41% on eighteen of the last twenty-one days. Twice, he inched up a point above that range and once he slipped a point below. With leaners, McCain's support has stayed between 42% and 45% every day since Obama clinched the Democratic Presidential Nomination (see recent daily results).

    who do you think does media polls? (none / 0) (#185)
    by tben on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 02:09:33 PM EST
    At pool last night... (5.00 / 10) (#15)
    by kredwyn on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 10:59:23 AM EST
    I received an MVP pin for last season's highest Win% (82%) in my handicap range.


    Now I get to go down to VA and play in an MVP tournament against all the others.

    Congrats!! (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by JavaCityPal on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 11:07:43 AM EST
    Thanks... (none / 0) (#203)
    by kredwyn on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 02:51:02 PM EST
    am pretty psyched about it.

    From Politico (5.00 / 5) (#28)
    by Robot Porter on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 11:08:44 AM EST
    I saw that article yesterday...speaks volumes (5.00 / 4) (#48)
    by PssttCmere08 on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 11:30:09 AM EST
    I've been waiting on an open thread! (5.00 / 3) (#36)
    by liminal on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 11:19:51 AM EST
    I told y'all about the huge cross-border dispute (/kinda snark) between South Shore, Kentucky and Portsmouth, Ohio over Ohio's possible theft of the truly historic Indian Head Rock from the Ohio river, which hasn't been seen above water since the 1920s, and may - or may not have Native American petroglyphs.   Thus far, both state legislatures have gotten in on the dispute, passing sternly worded resolutions asking the other state to lay off! (Ohio) or give back our awesome rock! (Kentucky).  

    Now, the Kentucky grand jury that was investigating the rock theft has weighed in, and is indicting Steve Shaffer, the Ohio historian who led the project to retrieve the rock, for theft of a protected archaeological object. If you are really interested, there is a picture of Shaffer with the rock at the link.

    Thanks for the update, (none / 0) (#67)
    by NJDem on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 11:49:09 AM EST
    I do remember your story about the rock.

    I assume you good people at home/tv access will keep us posted as to what HRC does?

    Oh, and she sent out another retire the debt e-mail.  I think she really wants her supporters to retire it and not Obama's people, but that could be just me.  

    Also, thanks Jeralyn for everything you do to keep this site civil.  It 'looks' like everyone is on their best behavior on this thread.  So hopefully these open threads can be a good substitute for when you're too busy for a post :)  


    Agree about the work Jeralyn et al (5.00 / 1) (#76)
    by liminal on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 11:58:12 AM EST
    do.  I really appreciate the (enforced, sure) civility here at Talk Left.  I know it's a great deal of work, but it's very welcome.

    Feingold on c-span now. n/t (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by magisterludi on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 11:26:15 AM EST

    Mr. Flippity Flop strikes again.... (5.00 / 3) (#49)
    by PssttCmere08 on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 11:31:35 AM EST
    First it was a good idea....now, not so much.


    Donna B must be soooo (5.00 / 2) (#55)
    by zfran on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 11:34:32 AM EST
    disappointed. She said she liked it!! I guess they couldn't keep enuf fish to feed it.

    ya (5.00 / 2) (#58)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 11:38:04 AM EST
    even MSNBC was making fun of that one.  
    this is shaping up as an interesting election for me.
    I dont really care. or to quote him that shall not be named "I dont have a dog in this fight".
    its liberating actually.

    Hey Capt Howdy (none / 0) (#130)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 12:39:01 PM EST
    I'll try and get some pupppy photo links up by tomorrow's open thread.  I have two blue ones, never thought I would ever have such babes.  It is a recessive gene that both parents must have that dilutes all the black pigment, even the noses.  The eyes are very light colored as an adult and have been called "bird of prey" eyes.  I have one solid blue and bi colored blue who will have tan legs.  Both very large boys.  Three boys and four girls.

    I just realized I have blue dogs in my house (5.00 / 1) (#131)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 12:41:18 PM EST
    can't say I'm not for unity!

    looking forward to pics (none / 0) (#176)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 01:44:07 PM EST
    They are interesting little dudes (none / 0) (#179)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 01:58:47 PM EST
    Look just like the other pups, if you are used to German Shepherds you can already tell they are German Shepherds.  But they are an extreme steel color while the others laying next to them are very black.

    I like the long coats even though (5.00 / 1) (#140)
    by nycstray on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 12:48:36 PM EST
    it's a fault. But then I like patched Dals which is also a fault, lol!~



    I love the long coats too (none / 0) (#146)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 12:58:45 PM EST
    It is sort of a double bind because the long coats almost always have the best conformation. The dam gets the most say in the conformation genetics so many conformation breeders have long coat dams and then try to breed to a champion guy who doesn't carry for coat which means that none of the pups will be coats and eventually we'll lose a lot of the genes the coats carry if we aren't careful.  Breeding for the showring has many good things it does for breed standards and then lots of not so good things too obviously.

    That's a shame about the fault (none / 0) (#168)
    by nycstray on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 01:23:03 PM EST
    I don't mind some faults if it is for the betterment of the breed and it's health, but if it eliminates good genes . . .

    IIRC with Dals, patches just "happen". The upside for me is I can get a solid dog with a patch and not have to worry about showing or breeding. Showing I wouldn't mind, but the responsibility of breeding is not something I'm sure I want to take on.


    Before DNA testing we were always (none / 0) (#178)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 01:56:50 PM EST
    going to have some coats show up when breeding for conformation because coated dogs would be used to maintain the best conformation from time to time, so the recessive coat genes were hanging around.  Now for $50 you can test your dog and know exactly what their coat factor percentage is.  Big names and big breeders won't be throwing accidental coats that cost them extra dollars here and there anymore, even though those accidents end up our top broods.

    But if breeding for more than the showring (5.00 / 1) (#197)
    by nycstray on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 02:34:06 PM EST
    wouldn't the cost not be a factor since the dogs could still be working, performance and/or pets? I could see how they would want a lower percentage, but maintaining the gene pool seems like it would be the higher priority. Is it a fault with all registries?

    check out some patched cuties here


    I think the Dalmatian breed (none / 0) (#210)
    by Fabian on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 03:19:28 PM EST
    should be either be re-engineered and given new standards or simply let the breed lapse.

    It turns out that the genetics for a properly spotted Dalmatian coat require so much inbreeding that about 20% of the breeding population has one or more recessive gene that can result in serious problems.  Removing that portion of the population will compromise the viability of the breed.

    One solution would be to remove the obsession with the coat coloration.  I'm not sure that would solve the gene pool problem.  

    My least favorite "purebred" dog right now is Golden Retriever.  I've seen such a variety of "purebred" GRs that I would be hard pressed to tell you what the breed standard was.


    Ah, but let "Vero Possumus" live on! (5.00 / 2) (#60)
    by Cream City on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 11:39:53 AM EST
    And that silly seal is not going to disappear -- it will be in the annals of bad political campaign mistakes for a long time.  It's just too funny as well as too crass, with the website address on it.

    Plus Vero Possumus - (none / 0) (#184)
    by liminal on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 02:08:46 PM EST
    - was there ever a better motto?  It's memorable!  Hey, I saw a Vero - or Vera? - Possumus in my backyard early this morning, likely looking for the baby possum my neighbor found the other day and took in.

    Bippity boppity (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by Robot Porter on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 11:41:14 AM EST
    flippity floppity.

    Loved the comment (5.00 / 0) (#77)
    by frankly0 on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 11:58:58 AM EST
    from the McCain campaign:

    ...the campaign of Republican candidate John McCain called it "laughable, ridiculous, preposterous and revealing all at the same time."

    Even though I haven't much respect (5.00 / 4) (#52)
    by Anne on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 11:33:00 AM EST
    for Scott McClellan, this, from Think Progress, kinda made me laugh:

    In a speech at the Commonwealth Club in San Francisco last night, former White House press secretary Scott McClellan offered cutting criticism of Vice President Dick Cheney, saying he "had a terribly negative influence over this president." At one point, McClellan suggested "some ideas for book titles Cheney might consider":

    McClellan who is clear that he has no great admiration for Cheney, joked to the audience that his national book tour has given him some ideas for book titles Cheney might consider: "The Lies I Told," or "I Upped Halliburton's Income - So Up Yours."

    McClellan also offered potential book title ideas for Karl Rove and Scooter Libby: "The Lies I Told to Whom and Why" and "Well, Pardon Me," respectively.

    The Cheney one is pretty near perfect.

    Three things (5.00 / 2) (#68)
    by Coral on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 11:51:24 AM EST
    Since this is an open thread, I wanted to post these items. I hope I am allowed to post three links:

    1. Nice Cillizza piece on The Case for Hillary as Veep.

    2. Seinfeld's moving tribute to Carlin

    3. Brag: My daughter made a minor contribution to this documentary on election day 2004, airing on POV on PBS July 1.

    Sen. Feingold has just (5.00 / 3) (#73)
    by zfran on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 11:54:43 AM EST
    finished and all I could think about was how many people do not watch c-span2, or don't have it, or simply just do not care. Something as important as this should be a nationally-broadcast story.My brother is a good example of "so if the gov't listens, so what." Not enough care and that is why Obama will get away with changing his position, imo.

    Not watching C-Span you also miss ... (5.00 / 1) (#85)
    by Robot Porter on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 12:04:46 PM EST
    things like the bill the House passed last week banning the interstate sale of monkeys.

    One of the most vexing problems of our time.



    AKA non-human primates! (5.00 / 1) (#115)
    by Joan in VA on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 12:23:21 PM EST
    Monkeys is too straightforward.

    I know McCain is made fun of regarding (5.00 / 3) (#92)
    by PssttCmere08 on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 12:07:32 PM EST
    his straight talk, but obama seems incapable of straight talk himself...



    PssttCmere08, do you think that ... (1.00 / 0) (#133)
    by Tortmaster on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 12:44:05 PM EST
    ... you can extoll in depth the virtues of John McCain. I can feel that you want to.

    As for your link, it is the weakest of sauces. The main complaint is that Barack Obama, in a campaign ad, claimed to have "passed laws," when, according to the authors, it is misleading for any single legislator to claim that he or she "passed a law" -- because it takes more than one legislator to pass a law, and it takes a President or Governor to sign the law.

    The authors do not explain in depth their apparent belief that Americans would be surprised that more than one legislator "passes a law" given the obvious dearth of Civics, Government, and History classes in middle schools and high schools across the country.  

    The authors also fail to explain how Barack Obama is supposed to get his message across and teach TV watchers most of a Civics course in 60 seconds.


    actually, that stood out to me (5.00 / 1) (#143)
    by nycstray on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 12:52:09 PM EST
    when I saw the commercial. Especially in light of his lack of experience. If anyone follows up on it and sees there isn't much behind his claim or that he wasn't even on one of the bills . . .

    nycstray, you are apparently ... (1.00 / 0) (#171)
    by Tortmaster on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 01:26:14 PM EST
    ... blaming the Obama Campaign for fudging with the advertisement, but then you do the same thing. Do you think you can smear a person's reputation adequately with only 43 words in an internet post?

    You said: "Isn't much behind his claim."

    In fact, Obama mentioned three laws, one of which he was the original sponsor, one of which he was one of many co-sponsors, and one of which the actual law passed contained multiple provisions from several Obama-sponsored bills.

    The author admitted that everything else about the ad was perfectly correct, even though Obama only had 60 seconds to describe himself, his background, and three bills that he helped get passed. He just didn't have enough time, in that 60 seconds, to explain the machinations for getting a bill passed. Perhaps he thought people were familiar with School House Rock's "I'm just a Bill."

    "You've made it, you're a law now!"


    smear his reputation?! (5.00 / 0) (#173)
    by nycstray on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 01:29:50 PM EST

    Hey Dems can we all step back and consider (5.00 / 0) (#105)
    by Salt on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 12:13:22 PM EST
    The Dem Party is a business Obama for whatever reason is their Product this election season, we are part of We the People and we should vote our communities of interest on the merit and perfomance of the candidate, not be pressured to default to any group. How I wish Republicans would have had the backbone and not bought their last model of the change agent compassionate conservative good guy new face anti Washington no experience party puppet beloved by the Party fringe Bush and betrayed their own Party principal in the process.

    Gallup: Obama, McCain Tied at 45% (5.00 / 0) (#114)
    by Dan the Man on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 12:23:11 PM EST

    How will Kevin Drum react?  How close is 0 to 6?

    Hmm, the campaign financing flipflop (5.00 / 0) (#128)
    by Cream City on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 12:38:12 PM EST
    or the silly presidential seal hubris?  Probably not the FISA flipflop, as that isn't as clear to a lot of people.  It was not a good week for Obama -- and another week like this tragicomedy of errors by him and his campaign could make it much worse.

    It seems that without Clinton, the Obama campaign is just not finding a message and staying on it -- sufficient to compensate for inevitable problems.  But so many problems in so little time?

    It remains to be seen, of course, what could happen when it gets through to more people that Clinton is not going to be the VP pick.  I saw a survey that again shows that many still think she's on the ticket.


    campaign (none / 0) (#175)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 01:43:54 PM EST
    financing flip flop I would imagine. The press was all over him about that one. The presidential seal thing was more funny than anything else.

    Now this is a real puma... (4.66 / 3) (#1)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 10:42:34 AM EST
    "A mountain lion attacked, killed and partially ate a New Mexico man, authorities said on Tuesday.

    A search party found the body of Robert Nawojski, 55, in a wooded area near his mobile home in Pinos Altos, New Mexico, late last week, the New Mexico Department of Game and Fish said.

    Investigators concluded that Nawojski had been attacked and killed by a mountain lion, or cougar, at a spot close to his home, where he lived alone and was known to bathe and shave outdoors."


    I recommend a good dog. (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by Fabian on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 11:33:31 AM EST
    If you must live in close proximity to wilderness, you should remember that like all social animals, humans are strong in groups and weak alone.

    Human are indeed... (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 11:41:39 AM EST
    ...very weak alone when it comes to dealing with Mother Nature.  And, we seem to think that we are immune to her laws and rath.  

    That applies to everything from cougars to global climate change.  We ignore the risks at our own peril.  

    You are absolutely correct though--one should never go into the wilderness by one's self if it can be avoided.  Even the most prepared, experienced people can end up in a world of hurt.  


    They did a good piece (5.00 / 1) (#74)
    by Fabian on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 11:56:29 AM EST
    on coyotes in Ohio.

    You see, coyotes are not native to Ohio, but we killed off the wolves, creating a predator deficit.  Now we have coyotes and some people are getting nervous.

    Of course, the people are getting nervous are the ones who live close to nature by choice.  The ODNR says there has never been any effective population control of coyotes, so people best learn to live with them.  

    I've seen a coyote slinking in my suburban neighborhood.  Have a Dog, though, so I'm not at all worried.  


    The same thing is happening... (5.00 / 1) (#86)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 12:04:48 PM EST
    ...all over the place.  In Iowa, people are freaking out because there have been cougar sightings.  

    In Colorado, it is more of an amusement/nuisence than anything.  Here in Front Range we have foxes, coyotes, cougars and bear running around in various places along the urban corridor.  I'm hoping the wolves migrate down from up North.  


    If its a small dog it won't help. (5.00 / 1) (#113)
    by tree on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 12:22:28 PM EST
    It could just end up being dinner. The biggest danger from coyotes is not to humans but to domestic pets, mostly cats.

    Tips on cougar safety here.

    And coyotes here.


    Ohio also has a problem with escaped (5.00 / 1) (#188)
    by liminal on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 02:16:00 PM EST
    and feral wild boars, at least in the south, which are non-native, have no natural predators, and are quite destructive.  With a valid hunting license, you can hunt wild boars all year round in Ohio.

    In metro Milwaukee, a bear cub (none / 0) (#123)
    by Cream City on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 12:31:41 PM EST
    last year plus, yes, coyotes and recently, even a wolf.  In this state, it is thought to be in large part a result of drought last year that drove our furry residents south as well as owing to the huge increase in vacation homes "up north," as the FIPs (foolish, as it were, Illinois people:-) call us, as the buildup also encroached on animals' environment.

    And not only are the new vacation homes many, they also often are huge McMansions instead of the semi-shacks that we liked for roughing it here.  And all those new vacation homes need more roads, too, that also tear up the ecosystem of our animal life.

    We're used to seeing the occasional deer in the city, literally caught in headlights.  But we used to have to go "up north" to the garbage dumps to see bears!


    I hope your dog is large. (none / 0) (#138)
    by oculus on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 12:47:08 PM EST
    ninety pounds (none / 0) (#206)
    by Fabian on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 02:57:38 PM EST
    and not some fluffy golden retriever either.

    1/4 Malamute & Great Pyrenees
    1/2 Akita

    Social, smart and death on varmints.  We had a rumor of a lion (real, African lion) a couple years back.  If it had gotten anywhere near here, Dog would have been hollering at the top of his lungs.  

    He took on a skunk and would have got it too without being sprayed if I hadn't chased him off with the dread garden hose.  (The skunk was cornered under the car.)  The skunk had already sprayed twice without hitting him.  The garage stunk to high heaven though.  Skunks supposedly can spray three times in a row every 24 hours.  

    I was not feeling lucky.  ;)


    Hey, and never go into your (5.00 / 0) (#104)
    by tree on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 12:12:53 PM EST
    bathroom alone either! And don't get into your car, period. Most accidental deaths are auto related, and  slip and fall deaths are number two, and they both dwarf the number of deaths by mountain lions by a factor of over a thousand.

    This might sound cold.... (none / 0) (#70)
    by kdog on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 11:52:22 AM EST
    but I take heart when mother nature wins one for a change.

    I took some perverse pleasure out of that tiger mauling Roy too.

    We live at her pleasure, which can be revoked in an instant.


    I saw a three foot alligator in our lake (none / 0) (#116)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 12:25:05 PM EST
    a few days ago as we were driving across the dam.  I gasped and said, "Oh my god, an alligator!" and my husband laughed and said, "Honey, this is Alabama."  We all forget that we often butt up against mother nature and must keep that knowledge in our frontal lobes.  I don't have much alligator know how, but mountain lions will hunt you and can be very sneaky about it.

    You do know that a 5-ft alligator (none / 0) (#126)
    by Cream City on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 12:32:20 PM EST
    was found in the Chicago River last week? :-)

    No place is safe ;) (none / 0) (#132)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 12:43:40 PM EST
    Global warming?

    Nah, I bet someone let their pet loose. (none / 0) (#154)
    by Newt on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 01:07:16 PM EST
    Pinos Altos (Tall Pines)... (none / 0) (#204)
    by desertswine on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 02:52:30 PM EST
    is in a rather remote part of the state abutting a national forest. Yeah, cougars still roam the high forests. But it's just bad luck. I've hiked all over the state and never seen one.

    A more frightening danger is the Chupacabra. A Cupacabra is not a Chalupa. They are very different. Don't get me started on Chalupas.


    Your subject line doesn't (none / 0) (#9)
    by oculus on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 10:55:05 AM EST
    strike me as being in good taste.  (Yes, I'm voting for Obama.)

    This PUMA does not object to his subject line. (2.00 / 0) (#207)
    by samanthasmom on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 03:16:29 PM EST
    We PUMAs can be vicious at times.

    Oh Oculus... (none / 0) (#42)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 11:24:39 AM EST
    ...you of all people should know us Iowans don't have good taste!  

    After all, look at who we selected in the caucus. :>)


    Iowa at large (5.00 / 0) (#87)
    by Edgar08 on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 12:06:44 PM EST
    gets a pass.

    Caucusses don't reflect the will of the people.


    Are you an Iowan? (none / 0) (#94)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 12:08:48 PM EST
    you don't have to be one (5.00 / 0) (#102)
    by Edgar08 on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 12:12:46 PM EST
    to see obama overperforms when not everybody gets to vote.

    Then frankly... (5.00 / 0) (#118)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 12:25:16 PM EST
    ...your opinion on how we conduct our business is worthless.  You have no understanding of the values and community that exists in Iowa.  

    Someone is always left out--whether it is a caucus or a primary.  Until elections are a National holiday or conducted on a weekend, that isn't going to change.  Even then, someone is going to have to be at work or caring for relative or have some other reason not to be able to vote.


    I already knew (5.00 / 0) (#125)
    by Edgar08 on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 12:31:51 PM EST
    with respect to the dem party that my opinion was worthless.

    You're not telling me something I don't already know.


    I'm saying that... (none / 0) (#134)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 12:44:51 PM EST
    ...as someone who was born and raised in Iowa and understands its people and culture--not as a Democrat or Republican.  

    You have no standing to judge what we do or how we do it.  


    I know (5.00 / 0) (#141)
    by Edgar08 on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 12:52:06 PM EST
    what a caucus is.

    Maybe this will help you to take this less personally.  My opinion is not about Iowa.  Its about caucusses.


    I don't recall saying you didn't (none / 0) (#151)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 01:03:37 PM EST
    My point is that there are reasons that some states choose to have a caucus instead of a primary.  And in some cases, the people of a state (and their representatives) feel it works better for them.  That in and of itself doesn't make them "bad".

    You're like telling me (none / 0) (#155)
    by Edgar08 on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 01:08:28 PM EST
    I can't have an opinion about caucusses if I'm not from a state that chooses to have caucusses?

    Does that about sum it up?


    I'm with you Edgar (5.00 / 0) (#170)
    by Newt on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 01:24:48 PM EST
    I think these are a good starting point:

    1. 100% vote by mail (with support for differently-abled voters).
    2. Audit standards with consistent security for the paper trail.
    3. Caucuses converted to community discussions, with the final vote being democratic one person one vote.  (I support structures that get us together and talking, but no more stacking the deck or manipulating/cheating.)
    4. Proportional representation elections vs. winner take all

    Nope. (none / 0) (#160)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 01:13:30 PM EST
    good (none / 0) (#166)
    by Edgar08 on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 01:17:42 PM EST
    its nice to know I can have an opinion about caucusses even though I'm not currently living in a caucus state.

    National elections affect everybody. (none / 0) (#172)
    by Newt on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 01:27:18 PM EST
    There should be federal standards.

    Oregon's vote by mail (none / 0) (#164)
    by Newt on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 01:15:33 PM EST
    is an excellent model to push for in other states.  It increases voter participation and decreases the risk of massive electronic election fraud like we may have experienced in FL and OH in 2004.  The Democratic party should be pushing for this everywhere.  

    I don't subscribe... (none / 0) (#169)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 01:23:06 PM EST
    ...to a "one size fits all" approach to voting.  If the people of OR want mail in voting, more power to them.  

    However, one of the fundamental reasons that Iowa has a caucus is that it is a community/party building exercise.  A chance for people to get out and interact with their neighbors and exchange ideas and discuss issues beyond who is voting for whom.  In a largely rural area, this is an very important thing and mail-in voting takes that away.  


    [Just so you know, I left Iowa before (none / 0) (#199)
    by oculus on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 02:36:47 PM EST
    I was old enough to vote and never heard of Iowa caucuses until 1999.]

    We Iowans are the very picture of (none / 0) (#137)
    by oculus on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 12:46:14 PM EST

    What happen to today's Udall post by BTD ? (none / 0) (#3)
    by Saul on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 10:48:11 AM EST

    I wondered about that too! (none / 0) (#5)
    by mmc9431 on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 10:51:15 AM EST
    Not quite in the unity scheme of things.

    I saw it in my reader (none / 0) (#11)
    by andgarden on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 10:55:45 AM EST
    and now it's gone. . .

    And I commented on it (none / 0) (#119)
    by Demi Moaned on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 12:26:12 PM EST
    Evidently his advocacy of not helping Tom Udall in CO fell foul of the powers here. I'm wondering whether it was just a minor difference of opinion or whether he'll be banished.

    I hope not, but so far, no new stories by him.


    I'm sorry... (none / 0) (#142)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 12:52:08 PM EST
    ...but can someone give me a little background on this?  Who is upset with my next Senator and why?

    Thanks in advance!


    It was a post by BTD being against Udall (none / 0) (#177)
    by Saul on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 01:45:53 PM EST
    Apparently BTD wrote a post saying Udall even though a democrat was not going to get any support from him since he did not champion the main theme of the democrats.  Udall is from CO as you know.  I commented on it also but when I went to view it later the whole post was eradicated.  My question was in answer to your question is why?

    Hanx Saul. (none / 0) (#195)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 02:29:47 PM EST
    I imagine it might have to do with his vote on Telecom Immunity?  

    Udall is very much running as a Centrist these days, in opposition to his "Boulder Liberal" reputation of the past.  This is troubling to some on the far left.

    In my view, it is totally understandable as being a Centrist is what gets Democrats elected in Colorado--as proven most recently by the election of Bill Ritter and Ken Salazar.  

    He is still head and shoulders above Dick Wadham's puppet, Bob "Big Oil" Schaffer.


    Thursday (none / 0) (#4)
    by Lahdee on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 10:50:54 AM EST
    Any bets on what Clinton's bundlers will want from Obama to ensure their support?

    One thing (none / 0) (#6)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 10:52:20 AM EST
    I would think is having him pay off her debt or rather have his bundlers raise the money to pay off her debt.

    AP article today supports your (none / 0) (#8)
    by oculus on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 10:53:58 AM EST
    theory.  You want out donors to raise money for you?  Show us the money.

    Access, pure and simple. (none / 0) (#24)
    by Pegasus on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 11:06:26 AM EST
    The same as all big-dollar bundlers in every election.

    Kos on Obama and telecomm (none / 0) (#7)
    by oculus on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 10:52:47 AM EST

    Others, meanwhile, have been willing to reserve judgment regarding his position on FISA, albeit with demands that he works to defeat the compromise.

    "We'll see what he does this week," said Markos Moulitsas of Daily Kos. "If he's part of the capitulation or refuses to lead, then it's salient for your story. As of now, I think it's still too early to write this piece."

    This quote is an excerpt from Sam Stein's column on Huffington Post about blogs and Obama.

    Feingold is up soon -- filibuster? (5.00 / 2) (#14)
    by Cream City on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 10:59:10 AM EST
    I just saw on C-Span that my Senator Feingold is up soon on the Senate floor -- and as it is reported that he and Dodd may attempt a filibuster, if they can get 40 Senators to support it, maybe it will get interesting today.

    Or maybe not, if we only see more of the same from the gutless wonders elected to uphold our rights.


    huh? (5.00 / 3) (#20)
    by kredwyn on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 11:02:48 AM EST
    "We'll keep our powder dry until he says/does something. At that point, we might do/say something...maybe."

    From (5.00 / 2) (#39)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 11:22:02 AM EST
    BTD's reporting it seems that it's pretty well already known what Obama is going to do. I guess Kos wants to be hit with cold hard reality of the situation. Whatever.

    Anyway, what is Kos going to do if Obama caves (which seems likely right now)? Absolutely nothing I'm willing to bet. He'll certainly not withhold his vote.


    My guess is that it will all be (5.00 / 2) (#41)
    by zfran on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 11:24:03 AM EST
    "Hillary's fault" and thus not Obama's flip on responsibility for his words!

    He'll dismiss it (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by mmc9431 on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 11:38:09 AM EST
    Just as a lot of Obama commentors have done as with:
    old news and small potatoes.
    No one was interested in it anyway atitude.
    Time to move on to the big picture.
    You have to give in on the little issues if you want to win the big ones.

    That last line will be the Kos line (5.00 / 0) (#101)
    by Cream City on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 12:11:50 PM EST
    as it always is.  Don't crash gates, just crawl around them. . . .

    I wish that every time ... (5.00 / 0) (#69)
    by Robot Porter on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 11:51:37 AM EST
    Kos was quoted it said, "former Republican Markos Moulistsas."

    It would put his comments in the appropriate context.


    My question for Markos would be (5.00 / 0) (#103)
    by shoephone on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 12:12:52 PM EST
    How does capitulating on FISA and failing to protect our constitutional rights fit in with "Crashing the Gates"?

    Ah, Cream City beat me to it! (none / 0) (#106)
    by shoephone on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 12:13:52 PM EST
    It's getting a little crowded (none / 0) (#205)
    by Grace on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 02:52:43 PM EST
    under the unity bus but I'm sure we can make room for a few more...  ;-)

    I friend mentioned that if (none / 0) (#13)
    by zfran on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 10:57:38 AM EST
    McCain is elected, there will be a draft. I pointed out that it was Charlie Rangel who originally spoke of a draft. Anybody hear anything about this?

    Headline on Huff Post says McCain (5.00 / 2) (#17)
    by oculus on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 10:59:55 AM EST
    sd. the only justification for a draft would be a WWIII.  

    My headline for that quote would be; (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by Robot Porter on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 11:11:31 AM EST
    "McCain Foresees A Third World War."



    Work for stronger Dems in Congress (5.00 / 2) (#21)
    by Cream City on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 11:03:35 AM EST
    and my students will not see a draft -- as neither presumptive nominee is promising to get us out of war anytime soon.  Without either one telling me what I want to hear on this and much more, my time and money goes downticket to have a Congress that actually will stand up to whomever is President.

    I will not see a better person to support for my district seat in the House, but I can help others.


    the republicans dont want a draft (5.00 / 2) (#26)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 11:08:18 AM EST
    having a volunteer army has allowed them to pretty much anything they want and say, what the hell, they volunteered.
    they will not give that up.  they are mostly old enough to remember that it was the draft that led to the demonstrations in the 60s & 70s.
    wont happen.

    btw (5.00 / 2) (#29)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 11:10:14 AM EST
    it also allows them to fight their wars with mostly poor people of color.
    they like that.

    I think the bigger (none / 0) (#35)
    by mmc9431 on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 11:17:50 AM EST
    Issue for the Republican's is the money that they've been able to divert to cronies in no bind support contracts.

    My boss complains that rich children (none / 0) (#37)
    by MissBrainerd on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 11:20:11 AM EST
    don't go into the military and that hurts America. He is RICH by the way, right wing too. He gives everyone a book called AWOL:America's upper class.

    I haven't heard that his boys are going into the military of course!

    Wingers like to claim that the military is not the job of last resort for the poor, but even my winger boss thinks the wealthy are not signing up.

    Today a story in the NY Post about a man who signed up for another tour to help pay the mortgage that was going into forclosure, and he was killed. His family needed the money. So sad.


    is there a demographic breakdown (none / 0) (#44)
    by Edgar08 on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 11:25:15 AM EST
    available on those deployed to Iraq?

    my comment (5.00 / 0) (#56)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 11:35:55 AM EST
    should have said mostly poor AND people of color.

    Everything I googled (none / 0) (#127)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 12:36:55 PM EST
    said that our volunteer armed forces are slightly over-represented by middle-class recruits and slightly under-represented by both upper and lower-class recruits.

    During the Iraq war period white recruits have remained fairly steady while black recruits have diminished and Hispanic recruits increased.


    Do you think the rise in hispanic recruitment (none / 0) (#145)
    by PssttCmere08 on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 12:56:56 PM EST
    is because if they are illegal immigrants and sign on to serve, they can obtain citizenship quickly, if they make it home.  If not, some have received it posthumously, which majorly sucks.

    I don't know. (none / 0) (#150)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 01:02:25 PM EST
    just to be clear (none / 0) (#182)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 02:06:13 PM EST
    since I dont respond to his comments generally by "poor" I meant people who need money for college.
    that includes the so called middle class now.

    I googled, the answer is no. (none / 0) (#186)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 02:09:47 PM EST
    Illegal aliens are not allowed to serve in the US armed forces.

    So, no, the rise in Hispanic recruitment is NOT due to the fallacious idea that illegal aliens can sign up and get citizenship if they make it home.


    Non-illegal aliens have a fast track (none / 0) (#192)
    by Newt on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 02:24:57 PM EST
    to citizenship.  Of course illegal aliens can't sign up.  They're breaking the law.  

    The question asked (none / 0) (#200)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 02:40:03 PM EST
    was about illegal immigrants.

    I believe you are correct about legal immigrant soldiers getting fast-tracked for citizenship.

    Non-citizen soldiers make up about 2% of our armed forces.:

    About 69,300 foreign-born men and women serve in the U.S. armed forces, roughly 5 percent of the total active-duty force, according to the most recent data. Of those, 43 percent - 29,800 - are not U.S. citizens.
    5% x 43% = 2.15%

    I have not been able to verify whether or not this 2% accounts for the rise in Hispanic recruitment, but it would seem unlikely.


    Citizens of the Phillipines probably. (none / 0) (#201)
    by oculus on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 02:43:05 PM EST
    And, over 70% of the armed forces (none / 0) (#191)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 02:23:02 PM EST
    self-identify as "whites."

    According to the 2004 Census ACS, 75.6 per­cent of the national adult population self-identifies as belonging to the racial category white alone. In both 2004 and 2005, 73.1 percent of recruits were classified as white alone. This indicates a recruit-to-population ratio of 0.97, with 1.00 indicating an exact proportional representation. (See Table 4.) Whites are the most proportionally represented racial group among recruits. Excluding the group of a combination of two or more races, minority representation varies between being moderately proportional to extremely disproportional. The most overrepresented group is Native Hawaiian/ Other Pacific Islander, with a ratio of 7.49 in 2005, or an overrepresentation of 649 percent. The Asian category is the most underrepresented group, with a ratio of 0.69 in 2005.

    thanks for the info....hope you guys didn't (none / 0) (#198)
    by PssttCmere08 on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 02:35:22 PM EST
    go to too much trouble...I knew there was a fast track to citizenship somewhere.  

    Haven't heard a thing... (none / 0) (#18)
    by kredwyn on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 11:00:13 AM EST
    But I seem to recall a similar thing going about in 2004.

    There will be no draft (none / 0) (#19)
    by CST on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 11:01:00 AM EST
    Unless we are attacked openly by a country on a large scale (that doesn't include Al-Queda).  In which case there may be a draft.

    Iraq is way too unpopular for a draft and McCain isn't that stupid.  Anyone who passes a draft will be voted out of office.


    I would prefer a draft again (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by mmc9431 on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 11:24:03 AM EST
    I'm with Rangel on this. I think before any military action is allowed the draft should be implemented and a modified budget submitted to Congress. Maybe if these pols had to face the consequences of their actions, they would give their vote the serious thought it should have and stop a lot of the flag wavers in their tracks.

    My head says yes (5.00 / 0) (#50)
    by CST on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 11:31:56 AM EST
    My heart says no.  But then again, I am in the age group that would be directly affected by a draft.  I know it is unfair, I know it is disproportionate, but for purely selfish reasons I would hate to see a draft.

    I do think there should be mandatory national service which can include the military.  Then there will be more incentive for people who might otherwise not serve their country and likewise there would be other national service options for the poor.


    On another board I read (2.00 / 0) (#208)
    by Grace on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 03:17:04 PM EST
    some military wives were speculating the chances of a draft were higher if Obama got in...

    The reason?  Those fabulous college benefits he wants to offer people who serve 3 years.  This will lead to fewer people reinlisting and they are already having problems meeting recruitment goals.  

    McCain said that, instead of offering great college benefits, enlisted people should just be paid better.  I think the military wives liked that idea.  :)


    I agree with you. (none / 0) (#83)
    by MissBrainerd on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 12:03:46 PM EST
    Maybe because I am too old to be drafted myself!

    It is tooooo easy for people to accept war when their families can choose to go or not go.

    If everyone young person were faced with a draft, well, there would NOT have been an Iraq war.


    I agree... (none / 0) (#196)
    by kdog on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 02:33:52 PM EST
    a draft is about all that can save us from the govt's adventures in foreign occupations and war...because it would inevitably be followed by widespread civil disobedience.

    Not even Bush was that stupid n/t (none / 0) (#22)
    by Valhalla on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 11:04:53 AM EST
    There won't be a draft.  I remember the 2004 thing as mostly Internet rumors.

    Will the draft include young women? (none / 0) (#122)
    by JavaCityPal on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 12:31:04 PM EST
    My son was the only one who had to file his eligibility at 18 years old.

    If such a dramatic attack were to take place and effectively cause WWIII, would our young people be compelled to protect the country the way the young men of the 1940's were?


    McCain's Proposal (none / 0) (#27)
    by mmc9431 on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 11:08:20 AM EST
    As much as I dislike the policies of this guy, heis statement that he would replace gov vehicles with hybres was good. I just wish Obama had said it first. I believe the only way of of our oil dependance is for the gov to lead. If we wait for innovation from the private sector I won't see any significant changes in my life. It seems there's just too much money to be made in maintaining the status quo.

    Good policy in and of itself, (5.00 / 0) (#30)
    by Pegasus on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 11:10:34 AM EST
    but like so much of what McCain's saying, it's nothing but a band-aid.  He's trying to cover himself to distract from the fact that he's offering no serious environmental reforms.

    I want to see Cheney in a Prius. (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by MissBrainerd on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 11:21:41 AM EST
    It could run on the fires of hell that emanate from him!

    We are trading in for a hybrid (5.00 / 2) (#34)
    by Cream City on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 11:17:01 AM EST
    after having had a rental hybrid for a recent trip.  It was terrific -- more than 400 miles went by before we needed to refuel.  When we had to buy a car fast, a few years ago, there was too long a waiting list for us to get a hybrid then . . . but now, we figure that we will wait it out if necessary.

    We don't drive much, as I walk to work and my spouse only has a few miles to go and often takes the bus -- but for the once-a-week longer trips to shopping and those longer trips to conferences and on vacations, we will be glad to do more for the environment.  Plus, where we live, we have an extra EPA burden that adds even more to the cost of gas -- while at the same time, I work for my state in a budget crisis now, so no raise again.
    That put off retirement by more years for me, while my spouse hoped to retire by now at 65.  

    At this rate, with academic salaries in the toilet, we both will be working until we're 80.  But maybe a hybrid car and some other steps we're taking will let us retire by the time we're 75.  Or not.  A lot depends upon whether we get a White House and Congress that are good on the economy and energy.  I'm not sanguine about that now.


    You won't look back (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by Radiowalla on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 11:43:10 AM EST
    once you've gone hybrid.  I got mine a year ago and just love it, especially at the pump.  It's a mid-size car, a Camry, but I get nearly 35 mpg.  Plus it's super comfortable.

    If I had to do it over again, I'd give more consideration to the Prius which is smaller and very easy to handle.  I rented one once and thought it was terrific.


    Thanks for the tip! Our rental car (5.00 / 1) (#107)
    by Cream City on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 12:15:38 PM EST
    was a Camry, and I liked it for many other reasons as well, with such a well-planned interior -- that really makes a difference on long trips.  But friends have a Prius, so we are going to check out its interior and other comparates as well.  And I will mention to the spouse your point that it may have better maneuverability.

    Prius (5.00 / 1) (#111)
    by CST on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 12:18:20 PM EST
    Not bad, one fatal flaw though, the rear view is terrible due to the idiotic design of the winshield.  It is an attempt to make the car look modern that really just makes it hard to see out the back.  Great driving though.

    Agreed (none / 0) (#183)
    by eric on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 02:08:36 PM EST
    the rear view is downright dangerous.  Also, it drives poorly, imo.

    Which is the biggest problem (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by magisterludi on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 11:25:14 AM EST
    with market-based trends. They're all over the place, competing for the greatest market share, not for the most efficient and affordable. Bad Samaritans.

    He also wants govt. bldgs. to be (5.00 / 0) (#71)
    by Joan in VA on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 11:52:23 AM EST
    more energy efficient but the govt. can't see the forest for the trees. When they recently changed over to CFL's, I noticed that each bulb was individually packaged in plastic! Can't they bulk purchase without the retail packaging?? Typical govt. inefficiency-save energy at the end but use more energy in the beginning.

    lol!~ we need to give them shopping tips (5.00 / 0) (#79)
    by nycstray on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 12:00:27 PM EST
    now also?! You can buy CFL's in 'bulk' boxes with no plastic packaging. It's really not that hard if I can manage to do it. I gave the few I had leftover to a friend :)

    I saw it on CNN a few months ago. (none / 0) (#89)
    by Joan in VA on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 12:06:53 PM EST
    Look at your govt-they're saving the planet! Oh, brother....

    Obama earmark (none / 0) (#84)
    by waldenpond on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 12:04:41 PM EST
    Obama supports the hybrid tech for the military.  Here's one of his earmark requests....

    [Obama Requested $2 Million And Helped Secure $1 Million For HUMVEE Hybrid Electronic Conversion Technology.  In 2006, Obama requested $2 million and helped secure $1 million for HUMVEE Hybrid Electronic Conversion Technology work at the Illinois Institute of Technology. This project seeks to apply the existing expertise of the Illinois Institute of Technology in the field of hybrid vehicle systems to develop a cost effective conversion kit to retrofit U.S. Army HMMWV ("Humvee") vehicles with electric hybrid systems. Prototype work suggests such retrofits will produce gains in vehicle acceleration and fuel efficiency of over 50%. Moreover, the conversions can be accomplished in a highly cost effective manner. [House Report 109-676 (109th Congress); Obama Request Letter To The Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense, 2006]


    Sadly, those military procurement (5.00 / 0) (#96)
    by Joan in VA on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 12:09:23 PM EST
    specialists who bought those expensive toilets are probably still on the job. I never believe those "cost effective" claims.

    are we all saying our prayers (none / 0) (#32)
    by Edgar08 on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 11:12:28 AM EST
    for Don Imus?

    If only he called a bunch of caucasian women on a softball team "stringy haired whores", the man would be golden.

    He is not my favorite for sure but (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by BarnBabe on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 11:26:22 AM EST
    When he made his original comment that got him in trouble, I thought the comment was in very bad taste. But then, I think he is in very bad taste a lot of the time. So I did not feel the punishment was too severe. This time, I see a trend that scares me a bit. I fear that ordinary expressions and words that are said without any malicious thought behind them will be considered wrong. This time I believe Imus when he says he was referring to the player as a victim because of his color. I doubt that Imus would make the same stupid mistake again knowing what it costs him and how insulting it was for those females.

    me too (5.00 / 0) (#51)
    by Edgar08 on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 11:32:58 AM EST
    the original comment was part of a general pattern of inconsiderateness and boorishness.

    The thing that turned me against imus was this guy he always had on his show imitating and making fun of musical genius brian wilsons condition.

    But of course no one thinks that goes too far. Its all good as long as you don't....


    I'd go along (5.00 / 0) (#64)
    by mmc9431 on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 11:44:18 AM EST
    With dumping Imus right after they do the same to Limbaugh, Beck and a host of others that make their living by being bigots and hate mongers.

    pfleger too (none / 0) (#95)
    by Edgar08 on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 12:08:59 PM EST
    wrights already retired.

    Nope, Wright is not really retired (5.00 / 0) (#110)
    by Cream City on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 12:17:59 PM EST
    per a story a week or two ago -- he is pulling back on promises made to his successor, who is getting seriously scr*wed by Wright about this.  Not that I feel bad for either one of them, with what they have said about me.

    Don Imus' (none / 0) (#99)
    by Robot Porter on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 12:10:42 PM EST
    firing was very convenient.  It coincided with some  pointed cost-cutting in the Radio division, including the closing of a major facility in NJ during the same month.

    As always, follow the money.


    Oregon's Sen Gordon Smith (none / 0) (#80)
    by Newt on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 12:01:53 PM EST
    is taking a ride on Obama's coattails.


    It's going to get very confusing this year.

    I love this story!! (none / 0) (#88)
    by MissBrainerd on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 12:06:44 PM EST
    Guess we can count on Smith not to denigrate him in the GE!!

    It also bodes well for the General Election because SMith must see the writing on the wall.


    Gordon Smith, by most accounts is toast (none / 0) (#93)
    by PssttCmere08 on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 12:08:20 PM EST
    Don't count Smith out. (none / 0) (#139)
    by caseyOR on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 12:47:27 PM EST
    Gordon Smith has a ton of money and is pretty well-liked here. Also, things not currently all that great for Obama. In a recent SUSA poll of likely Oregon voters the results were surprising, at least to me.

    The poll was conducted 6/17-6/19, for KATU-TV, the Portland ABC affiliate. Results:

    Obama  48%

    McCain  45%

    Undec.     7%

    Mar./Error  4.3%

    Isn't Oregon supposed to be a lock for Obama? Additionally,I doubt Jeff Merkley's (Democrat running against Smith) campaign is very happy about these numbers.


    I am only going by what I have read to (none / 0) (#148)
    by PssttCmere08 on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 01:00:59 PM EST
    date.  As for the prez race, it is obama's to lose, but why is Smith is obama's new ad?

    Smith trying to cash in on hope and change (none / 0) (#157)
    by caseyOR on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 01:10:38 PM EST
    I don't like Gordon. He is a Bush apologist trying to disguise himself in bipartisan clothing. It is true that he and Wyden have teamed up on issues of particular import to Oregon, but don't Senators from all states try to work together to help their constituents?

    Have you seen the Democrats for Smith newspaper ads? Or that Television ad with former Dem. congresswoman Elizabeth Furse and current state Senator and Obama supportee Avel Gordly?


    No, sorry I haven't seen those. (none / 0) (#162)
    by PssttCmere08 on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 01:14:00 PM EST
    Eugene OR has a Republican (Jim Torrey) (none / 0) (#181)
    by Newt on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 02:01:03 PM EST
    running for mayor against a very well liked and effective woman, Kitty Piercy.  Torrey, a big business tax break proponent, switched his party from Repub to Independent, and stole Obama's Yes We Can expression.  (His campaign logo says "Yes Eugene We Can.")  Same old same old, you can trick some of the people all the time.  

    Eugene is the epitome of Oregon's schizophrenic culture:  It's full of alternative, anti-war progressives and older hippies, yet the Eugene police has been cited by Amnesty International for painting Oleoresin Capsicum in the eyes and on the genitals (after cutting away their pants) of environmentalists chained to trees.  This is the same police department whose employee union web site displayed a sexist caricature of a City Councilor depicting her as an old hag with a witch-like hooked nose.  The Councilor was instrumental in creating a citizens oversight board so she's obviously not liked by the thug cops.  Really makes you want to call in the cops for help...


    S.C. cuts Exxon Valdez damages (none / 0) (#193)
    by Dadler on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 02:25:09 PM EST
    Ouch (none / 0) (#194)
    by Newt on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 02:28:34 PM EST
    The Supreme Court divided on the decision, 5-3, with Justice Samuel Alito taking no part in the case because he owns Exxon stock.

    TPM on Sen. Obama's personal (none / 0) (#209)
    by oculus on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 03:17:47 PM EST
    phone calls to Clinton big donors:


    I suggest you skip the comments, which are extremely vitriolic.