Tuesday Afternoon Thread

I have no idea what you all have been talking about but our mid-morning open thread is full, so here's a new one.

Please be civil. Thanks.

< National Sex Offender Guidelines Released | Obama On Clark >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Man (5.00 / 2) (#1)
    by Steve M on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 02:46:54 PM EST
    Can anybody read any more?  I was curious to find out what Jim Webb had supposedly said about McCain's military service, so I went to look.

    The headline from The Hill, repeated verbatim over at TPM, was Webb: McCain Should 'Calm Down' on Using Military Service

    I assumed the point had something to do with the way McCain goes on and on, John Kerry-style, about his military service.  But here is the actual quote from Webb:

    "I think what we really need to work on over the next four, five months, and it goes back to the speech that Sen. Obama gave [Monday] and this little fight that I've been watching and that is, we need to make sure that we take politics out of service," Webb said. "People don't serve their country for political issues."

    He continued: "And John McCain's my long-time friend, if that is one area that I would ask him to calm down on, it`s that, don't be standing up and uttering your political views and implying that all the people in the military support them because they don't, any more than when the Democrats have political issues during the Vietnam War. Let's get the politics out of the military, take care of our military people, or have our political arguments in other areas."

    It seems quite evident to me that Webb was simply cautioning McCain (and other politicians) not to act like they have any right to speak for the currently serving members of the military as a group.  He said nothing, as far as I can see, about McCain's own service at all.  So what's the deal with his comments being spun that way?  Is our public school system really failing to teach basic reading skills to this degree?

    that's a great statement by webb (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by Edgar08 on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 03:25:14 PM EST
    I think.  I'm sure its been twisted into something awful by now.

    with Obama testing the limits (4.50 / 2) (#28)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 03:33:36 PM EST
    of the number of flags he can get on a stage with I dont think its very likely McCain is going to calm down on the subject.

    The flags don't do him (none / 0) (#36)
    by nycstray on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 03:41:01 PM EST
    any favors along with the angles they shoot him at. He seems dwarfed by them. Less is more . . .

    It would also help if the lecterns were a tad narrower  ;)


    you know (none / 0) (#45)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 03:45:20 PM EST
    when I saw some of the "patriotism" speech I thought the same thing.
    he looked about 13 years old.

    Yup. (none / 0) (#51)
    by nycstray on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 03:50:13 PM EST
    They really need to work on balance when it comes to staging him. Even though he's tall, his slenderness really adds to his youthful look. It would be fine if he was older and more experienced . . .

    Fat suit? (none / 0) (#78)
    by oculus on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 05:18:31 PM EST
    I agree (none / 0) (#118)
    by Grace on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 11:42:04 PM EST
    He needs one of those hats like Abe Lincoln wore...  And maybe a fake beard with a little bit of gray in it.  

    They should stop super-sizing his sets ... (none / 0) (#72)
    by Ellie on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 04:42:23 PM EST
    It's an instant visual giveaway even to viewers who aren't purposely parsing* of a campaign in overreach mode.

    This goes for physical size as well as the dressings and trimmings.

    This was hilariously apparent when they put him behind that stoopid Awessum Possums seal: form and function instantly diminished him and presented the OPPOSITE of what they were going for.

    What's showing up more frequently is a candidate that can't "fill the shoes", isn't up to the task -- and you don't have to be an eleety elite to know it.

    The flags are overkill by now and excess number trivializes them into clutter. If we're going on image -- and they are -- this is not a good "style" to project because it's a reminder of the perfunctory quality of saying and doing anything in haste to get to the next shill or stop for ducats.


    Now I've heard everything (3.00 / 2) (#100)
    by Veracitor on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 07:41:46 PM EST
    Obama's campaign has been brilliant in regard to staging and timing of events.  That's one big reason for his success thus far.  But now he needs help from Obama-haters to get it correct.

    Oh well, whatever works to score a bash.  


    Bottomline....what difference does it make (none / 0) (#104)
    by PssttCmere08 on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 08:02:10 PM EST
    how they stage him, if we can't trust what he says?

    Short answer -- yes (none / 0) (#9)
    by angie on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 03:07:53 PM EST
    longer answer -- it isn't a good "story" if it is reported accurately -- ink (or nowadays "bandwidth")  isn't free, you know.

    As the left wing tears it's hair out over (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by MyLeftMind on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 02:52:31 PM EST
    Obama's swing to the right, the right wing still paints him as a naive leftie.

    It's going to be a tight race.

    Rally the troops! (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by Fabian on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 03:04:50 PM EST
    Rally the troops! memes usually take one of two forms.

    The first is a positive spin "S/He really showed them!" by taking a courageous stand on some issue or executing a masterful smack down of their opponent.

    The second is the "The opposition candidate is weak, unreliable and untrustworthy!" [append examples].

    The Right usually uses the second one to keep the faithful from straying to the other side.  God/guns/gays(/abortion) is a perfect example of that.

    I rarely get worked up about that.  The Media is what we need to watch.  Which stories have traction and how they are spun are what is really important.  The Hillary/RFK/assassination meme is a great example.  (It's also a rally-the-troops meme.)


    the thing is (5.00 / 2) (#7)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 03:05:38 PM EST
    the right will never believe him.  no matter what he does.  that why this swing to the right is so misguided IMO.
    and by election day, if he keeps on the way he is going, the left wont believe him either and, again IMO, it wont be a close race at all.

    Obama and the Money Class (5.00 / 5) (#5)
    by stefystef on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 03:01:20 PM EST
    http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/01/opinion/01brooks.html?ex=1372651200&en=6fe28f68a0da6b0d&ei =5124&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink

    Brook is making good points in this opinion editorial.

    Obama has "pretended" to be a campaign based on the "will of the people" and all his money has come from the little "Grandmas for Obama" and starving students, but let's keep it real...

    Obama has been financed by big money, who are hoping that he will continue to promote their agenda while perpetuating the fraud of being a Man of the People.

    The Kool-Aid is wearing off...

    they always talk about (5.00 / 2) (#8)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 03:07:02 PM EST
    the percentage of this contributors the small funds come from.  not the percentage of the funds.

    Guess It's About Time (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by flashman on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 03:20:49 PM EST
    for Olberman to tear David Books a new one.

    theres a fight (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 03:24:46 PM EST
    I would pay to see.

    Naw. (5.00 / 0) (#21)
    by Fabian on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 03:27:38 PM EST
    Because Brooks has teed me off with his paternalistic condescension a few too many times, I think he should get his comeuppance from a woman.

    Now, who should that be?


    take your pick (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 03:29:47 PM EST
    Dakota Fanning could take him.

    I feel a ... (5.00 / 5) (#23)
    by Marco21 on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 03:29:31 PM EST
    "Special" comment coming on if this kind of press continues.

    "How dare you, sir, criticize our nation's only hope for change? How dare you!"

    I swear, Obama could run Keith over with a car and Olbermann would report on how delightful the make and model were.


    Now that was funny!!! rock on Marco (none / 0) (#105)
    by PssttCmere08 on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 08:06:32 PM EST
    Brooks was cooking the numbers (4.00 / 3) (#27)
    by anydemwilldo on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 03:33:24 PM EST
    That Brooks editorial was pretty spun.  This post at pandagon takes it apart:


    Basically, Obama is outraising McCain by almost three to one, which means he's getting more from basically every demographic.  But if you look at the relative amounts (i.e. how much "influence" each group is buying) you find that, surprise!, John McCain is the one actually more beholden to most of those folks.

    Has this site really fallen so far that David Brooks is now considered a good source for unbiased, fact-based reporting on democratic candidates?


    Obama can praise Reagen. (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by Marco21 on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 03:40:43 PM EST
    No one here can quote Brooks.

    I get it.

    Personally, I was far more interested in bagging on Olbermann for his hilarious special comment of yesterday. I just can't seem to get anyone to watch it or read Greenwald's reply.



    I cant even watch Olberman for humor (5.00 / 2) (#52)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 03:51:39 PM EST
    I would rather gouge out both my eyes with a rusty spoon.

    That Post Is A Shell Game (none / 0) (#53)
    by flashman on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 03:51:46 PM EST
    He fails the math test, this is NOT a good rebuttal.  Obama's very big advantage in certain sectors ( ie Education, Communications ) can skew the results in other sectors.  Very, very bad analysis.  Bad blogger!  It would be much more accrate to state the proportions of each sector as a percentage of the total money raised by each candidate.  Now, I wonder why he didn't do it that way?????

    I don't follow (none / 0) (#71)
    by anydemwilldo on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 04:40:54 PM EST
    I think you're confused.  The pandagon post doesn't actually do the division, but you certainly can yourself, and the result stands.

    The usual test for whether a candidate is "in the pocket" of an interest group is what fraction of his or her funding comes from that source.  Using the numbers as presented, McCain is receiving a higher proportion of his funding from 5 out of the 8 groups cited as "Obama backers".

    Do you have a different interpretation?


    I don't know where you heard this... (5.00 / 1) (#99)
    by dianem on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 07:40:05 PM EST
    The usual test for whether a candidate is "in the pocket" of an interest group is what fraction of his or her funding comes from that source

    But it's not true. Generally, the raw numbers are what are used to identify if someone is beholden to a particular special interest group. If somebody raises half a million dollars from oil companies, then that is significant whether they raise 2 million overall or 3 million overall. If you don't let raw dollars count, then a politician may seem more innocent simply by selling himself to more corporations. Let's say a candidate raises half a million each from oil, financial services, pharmaceutical companies, and telco's.  Does that mean that he's less corrupt thana candidate who only receives half a million each from telcos and oil? Half a mil is half a mil.


    He simply divided (none / 0) (#74)
    by flashman on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 04:51:36 PM EST
    Obama's amount for each sector my McCain's amount for the same sector, then stated if the result was over 2.7:1, then that favors Obama, otherwise it favors McCain.  That's very flawed mathematics, and not at all representative of the actual proportions.  I would rather see an analysis that reports actual proportions from each sector of the money raised by all sectors for each candidate.  But even so, that would not prove that Brooks 'cooked' the numbers.

    Math! (5.00 / 0) (#76)
    by anydemwilldo on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 05:02:21 PM EST
    So, we're given the Barack/McCain fraction for a single sector:


    And the Barack/McCain number for the total fundraising:


    So, let's divide them:

    (Bsec/Msec) / (Btot/Mtot)

    == (Bsec/Btot) / (Msec/Mtot)

    And what's that expression?  Why, it's the fraction of Obama's funding that comes from that sector divided by the fraction of McCain's from the same sector.  If it's less than one, then Obama is getting less proportional funding from (i.e. is "less in the pocket of") that sector than McCain.  This critierion is true for five out of eight of the sectors that Brooks specifically described as being "Obama backers".

    See?  Math is fun!  Just one division gets you the number you want, and it's exactly as described in the blog post.  Look: you can hate on Obama all you want, and I obviously can't stop you.  But you're not entitled to your own mathematics to do it.


    Were You Alseep In Algebra? (5.00 / 1) (#81)
    by flashman on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 05:28:49 PM EST
    First of all, this has nothing whatsoever to do with hate for Obama.  It has everthing to do with truth and accuracy in reporting.  Indeed, math is fun, especially when you can use it to phony up numbers.  One immediate problem I see is that the numbers WERE NOT LESS THAN ONE IN 5 OUT OF 8 SECTORS.

    You state: If it's less than one, then Obama is getting less proportional funding from

    Here are the published results:

    Lawyers: 3.6:1
    Securities and Investment: 1.8:1
    Communications: 5:1
    Educators: 10:1
    Real Estate: 1.5:1
    Medical Professionals: 2.3:1
    Commercial Bankers: 1.3:1
    Hedge Fund: 2:1

    Now, which of these 'results' are less than one?  Answer: NONE!!!!!

    So, your math doesn't even correlate with the results that were published.  If we were to believe your statements that "less than one" means Obama is getting less proportioanl funding, then the results show that he is getting more in 8 out of 8 sectors ( all proportions published are greater than 1:1 )

    Here is a challenge: instead of making up equations, why don't you show us the ACTUAL math for a single sector?  Just pick a sector, I don't care which one you chose.  AND, I want you to compare your results to those of the article you are referencing.  The numbers must match exactly, or else you must re-evaluate your equations.

    You should be more careful who you accuse of hating.  Do more homework before pointing fingers at someone.  Otherwise, the stench of hate ends up on you.


    Last note (none / 0) (#85)
    by anydemwilldo on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 05:38:24 PM EST
    Slow down.  You're not reading the blog post carefully enough.  The numbers you pasted in are the uncorrected values -- the ones I called Osec/Msec above.  You need to divide by 2.7 (the overall Obama advantage in fundraising) to get the corrected ones.

    So take "Commercial Bankers".  Obama outraised McCain by 1.3:1 overall, but dividing by his 2.7:1 advantage shows that McCain is geting over twice as large a fraction of his overall funding from commercial bankers.  If that sector were to withhold support, McCain would be hurt over twice as badly as Obama.  Yet Brooks cited this as evidence that Obama was more "in the pocket" of that sector than McCain, which is ridiculous.


    Let's Have Some More Fun (none / 0) (#87)
    by flashman on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 05:54:30 PM EST
    Lets start with your equations:

    (Bsec/Btot) / (Msec/Mtot)  

    Use pandagos's ration of 2.7 more TOTAL money for Obama than McCain:

    Btot/Mtot = 2.7 => Bsec/Msec > 2.7 means Obama has the advantage.  This is the equation that is actually being used.  Further, averaging the sectors should produce a number less than 2.7. thus;

    Sum{Bsec/Msec}/#sectors > 2.7 means Obama has the advantage of the overall money classes.

    Using the data: 3.6 + 1.8 + 5 + 10 + 1.5 + 2.3 + 1.3 + 2 = 27.5

    And 27.5/8 = 3.44.

    Clearly, Obama has the money class over McCain.  That's what I'm talking about when I said Obama's huge advantage in certain sectors skews the results when taken sector by sector.


    Sigh... (none / 0) (#88)
    by anydemwilldo on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 06:00:50 PM EST
    Those are ratios.  You can't add ratios like that, it doesn't mean anything.  I give up.  Believe what you want.  I tried.

    You Can Add Them (none / 0) (#94)
    by flashman on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 07:05:09 PM EST
    Because they have the same denominator.  But let's all the raw numbers to see what that give us:

    (in thousands)          Obama            McCain
    Lawers                  18                5
    Securities              8                 4.5
    Communications          10                2
    Education               7                 .7
    Real Estate             5                 4
    Medical                 7                 3
    Commercial Banks        1.6               1.2
    Hedge Funds             1.6               .85

    totals:                 58.2              21.25

    And 58.2/21.25 = 2.7

    Further 2.7/2.7 = 1

    Hmmmm.... that means that Obamas and McCains proportions are EXACTLY the SAME.

    Ooohhh... cold water stings!


    The note (none / 0) (#95)
    by flashman on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 07:08:10 PM EST
    should have said "In Millions" but that does not change the ratios.

    anydemwilldo - (none / 0) (#86)
    by DFLer on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 05:50:34 PM EST
    David Brooks is now considered a good source for unbiased, fact-based reporting on democratic candidates?

    He's an op-ed writer, not a reporter.

    BTW, the new money class he referred to that supports liberals - sounded like the "creative class, heh?

    [ TL has fallen and can't get up :-) ]


    Right Wing Noise Machine: Obama Hates America (5.00 / 2) (#11)
    by flashman on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 03:12:34 PM EST
    That's the message from the right.  It looks to me like they are going to pound and pound this one.  I was watching the disgraceful Lars Larson last night.  If you want to know how the right intends to smear Obama, watch people like this guy.  It's going to be a powerful narrative, and unfortunately, Obama's campaign has given them lots of ammunition.  Hold on to your seats, folks.

    [sigh] (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by Fabian on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 03:23:51 PM EST
    This is where it would be really nice if I could be more than an indifferent Obama supporter.  That way if someone told me how awful-terrible he was, I would be all "No, he's NOT!  He's a great candidate and this and this and this is why!".  Instead, I'll probably just say "Well, I voted for Hillary.  She was incredible.".

    Too bad Obama isn't a better candidate and a better Democrat and a better Progressive....


    Yeah they tore up all my Give a Damn coupons too (4.00 / 4) (#60)
    by Ellie on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 04:01:25 PM EST
    Time and again campaign O made it perfectly clear certain voter groups were neither required nor desired. (I fall into several so I got multiply canned.)

    Well, it's all on them; good luck ... future endeavors ... door hit'chya ... good lawd split'chya ... buh bye ... farewell ... auf wiener says goodni-ighhhht.


    Jeremy Cahill on Blackwater... (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by Aqua Blue on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 03:19:32 PM EST
    Tavis Smiley just interviewed him about his paperback book which has been updated.

    Blackwater is comprised of over 600 war profiting corporatins.   Blackwater has made over a BILLION dollars in Iraq alone.  

    Mr. Cahill laughed about members of Congress calling him o find out about Blackwater.

    Seems to me that the pivate army could easily be a gestapo army.

    General Clark's been (5.00 / 4) (#14)
    by jen on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 03:22:40 PM EST
    all over the airwaves today, clarifying what he said about McCain -- not backing down as some people have... Word is now McCaskill (on MSNBC) has joined Obama in throwing Wes under the bus...

    All clips are at Securing America -- this link for his appearances on Good Morning America and Ed Schultz Show, and this link for his appearance on MSNBC with Andrea Mitchell.

    McCaskill? (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by Fabian on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 03:25:53 PM EST
    Quelle surprise!

    I wonder if she's lobbying for the VP spot.


    wonder no longer (5.00 / 2) (#22)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 03:27:49 PM EST
    she is worried about keeping her senate seat according to the MO dems I hear from.

    If I'm any example, she has reason (5.00 / 0) (#37)
    by MO Blue on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 03:41:07 PM EST
    to worry.  There is no way I will vote for McCaskill when she comes up for reelection.  I would hope that she receives a primary challenge.  I would contribute to the max and work my tush off for any viable challenger.  Regardless, I will not vote for her in '12.

    She wouldn't be VP (none / 0) (#29)
    by mmc9431 on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 03:33:52 PM EST
    I can't image Obama picking her for a number of really good reasons. Number one would be her seat would go to a Republican, wouldn't it? He needs someone with a Democratic governor.

    McCaskill reminds me of (5.00 / 2) (#70)
    by magisterludi on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 04:33:09 PM EST
    the ubiquitous nosey-neighbor-lady character of a sixties sitcom.

    Meanwhile, I'm researching living off the grid, hoping the spirit moves me. There are some really creative people out there. Too bad we don't have that force of innovation (unless, of course, you count those wonderful "financial innovations" like the sub-prime market) anywhere in our government.



    Aaaah....Senator Gladys Kravitz :) (5.00 / 1) (#115)
    by PssttCmere08 on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 09:53:36 PM EST
    She did. (5.00 / 4) (#25)
    by Marco21 on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 03:30:34 PM EST
    I saw it. Can we start some sort of Spines for Democrats program?

    McCaskill is a bit of a weenie....I remember (5.00 / 2) (#107)
    by PssttCmere08 on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 08:09:55 PM EST
    how glad I was when she won her seat...another dem in the senate...now all I have to say is UGH!

    Going back to Clark... (5.00 / 2) (#19)
    by Marco21 on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 03:25:56 PM EST
    from the last thread. I am tired of hearing "Clark shouldn't have said it because it can be and now is being misconstrued."

    Clark was right. Instead of supporting him, too many democratic strategists (who don't deserve that title or position) and Obama and campaign surrogates have crawled into a corner and laid down for Republicans.

    Why is it that when Republicans get angry and raise their Hannitized voices, the sound alone seems to scare Democrats?

    Clark was right, and the old John McCain agrees with him.

    I ripped this from Think Progress -

        - During an interview with National Journal, John McCain was asked if "military service inherently makes somebody better equipped to be commander-in-chief." McCain said, "Absolutely not...I absolutely don't believe that it's necessary." [National Journal, 2/15/2003]

        - I believe that military service is the most honorable endeavor an American may undertake. But I've never believed that lack of military service disqualifies one from occupying positions of political leadership or as Commander and Chief. In America, the people are sovereign, and they decide who is and is not qualified to lead us. [American Legion Speech, 9/7/1999]

        - Earlier this year at Washington's Gridiron Club, where humor is the required fare, McCain lay bare what underlies his candidacy. Wearing a jacket outlandishly festooned with dozens of fake military medals, McCain said, "The question I ask myself every morning while shaving in front of the mirror is: OK, John, you're an incredible war hero, an inspiration to all Americans. But what qualifies you to be president of the United States?" [Minneapolis Star Tribune, 11/7/1999]

    Well said. (3.00 / 2) (#101)
    by Veracitor on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 07:45:31 PM EST
    "Clark was right," and all the chatter in the media and here on TalkLeft is from Obama-haters looking to stir up a nontroversy.  

    Huh? If Clark was right, how come Obama (5.00 / 1) (#112)
    by Cream City on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 09:02:03 PM EST
    officially rejected his comment?  You're confusing me, V.  You must get the daily memo, so please clarify.

    Like Obama said.... (none / 0) (#123)
    by Veracitor on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 12:40:50 PM EST
    It was an "inartful" comment, but it's not keeping anybody up at might except irrational Obama-haters.

    Nontroversy. (none / 0) (#109)
    by Marco21 on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 08:17:55 PM EST
    I love that, but Obama distancing himself gets me angry. I was really annoyed with his Clark swipe during his recent speech. His comments today calmed me a bit, but still. Clark was right.

    Let's not run from Democrats who are right and ready to fight. Seems from reading some brief headlines, Clark's fighting back is actually bringing the issue of having military experience into discussion. If he had apologized for making his comments like the Jellyfish (D) it'd never come up.


    Digby Nails It (5.00 / 5) (#34)
    by ruffian on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 03:40:12 PM EST
    Wake me when the transformative, post-partisanship features something that doesn't make me nauseous.

    Me too.

    Yer gonna have a looooooong nap. (5.00 / 0) (#89)
    by Cream City on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 06:18:00 PM EST
    I'm reflecting on my experience with Gallup.... (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by SunnyLC on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 03:46:13 PM EST
    "Musings on Pollsters: Confessions of a Former Gallup Study Director..."


    Zogby and Gallup in non-technical terms as well as my experiences being leaned on to manipulate data.

    The info on the "new" Gallup is pretty scary...they are prying for business big time...it's certainly not the organization I worked for years ago!!

    John Hopkins.... (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by kdog on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 03:54:08 PM EST
    is doing some interesting research with psilocybin.  Link

    "Most of the volunteers looked back on their experience up to 14 months later and rated it as the most, or one of the five most, personally meaningful and spiritually significant of their lives," says lead investigator Roland Griffiths, Ph.D., a professor in the Johns Hopkins departments of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences and Neuroscience.

    Why is it illegal again?

    most personally meaningful . . (none / 0) (#62)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 04:07:47 PM EST
    . . and spiritually significant of their lives.

    that about covers it.


    Well said Capt.... (none / 0) (#97)
    by kdog on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 07:30:00 PM EST
    makes sense....profound and meaningful experiences are not required for gainful employment, hence can be prohibited.

    I dunno (none / 0) (#65)
    by CST on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 04:11:28 PM EST
    I think we need to tread lightly here.  It can go horribly wrong if taken in the wrong dose/ environment.  I agree with "most" of the volunteers, but my guess is that "a few" of those same volunteers rated it one of their worst experiences.  Some could probably say both.

    That being said, I think all drugs should be decriminilized.  And if the doses were highly regulated, and given with the proper advice/instructions, those bad experiences would be much less likely.


    a quote from (none / 0) (#73)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 04:43:05 PM EST
    "one of those nights" in the 70s comes to mind.
    about bad trips she said "well, you see, its mind expanding, if it get up there and there is nothing to expand, you are going to have a problem".

    Glad to see you posting as opposed to tearing (none / 0) (#75)
    by Ellie on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 04:53:29 PM EST
    ... up the roads like you said elsewhere you were gonna. Still, if you're gonna please at least do it in a wakeful state.

    Not a bad tune..... (5.00 / 1) (#121)
    by kdog on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 10:56:23 AM EST
    never heard of those cats...not bad.

    No worries, I don't tear up the roads, cars are death traps!  On the other thread I was merely pointing out there will be less cops on the roads to harass citiizens out celebrating our independence and freedom....or at least what is left of it.


    A Fascinating New Article on Hillary Cinton (5.00 / 2) (#63)
    by Blue Jean on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 04:08:17 PM EST
    by Melissa McEwan and Zuzu of Shakesville has just debuted in the UK Guardian. Part 1 is there, and Part 2 is tomorrow.  It's a great analysis about how HRC suddenly became the whipping boy for the left in 2008 the same as she did for the right in 1990s. (though not surprising, considering how many of the Dem demonizers are actually former Republicans.)

    Well done and it is about time (2.00 / 0) (#92)
    by bridget on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 06:47:45 PM EST
    that the Europeans find out what really happened during the Dem primaries. I have read articles in major newspapers and mags - some articles seemed dictacted to them straight from the Olbermanns. V. annoying. V. wrong.

    P.S. whenever I see folks mention "blogfather youknowwho" in that particular fashion (or at all to be honest) I get the eyerolling heebiejeebies. I have been on the internet for about ten years and never considered myself one of his children ROTFLOL ... this thought is just too silly for words ;-)

    So my ist as follows: Bloggers, please stop linking his stuff - its just not worth knowing about if you ask me. None of it. NONE. Zero. And I felt this way the moment I found out about him. Not just since "Youknowho" and his ilk outdid themselves in the Clintonhating Obamafanatic nitwittery during this Dem primary.

    Although in this case I gladly forgive the authors since they did have to include his considerable Clinton Hating impact on the bloggers who ate it up like ice cream with chocolate sauce and cream (which he seemed to have rehearsed over the years like Benicio del Toro for a movie role to further his punditry/blogger career)  ... Just don't call him daddy. Please.


    Times are a-changing .... (none / 0) (#119)
    by bridget on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 12:10:02 AM EST
    People are now rating comments a "2" or such if they don't like what they see? I don't think that used to be that way? AFAIR.

    But then it is so much easier than formulating one's own written opinion piece in response. Come on, sher, I dare you.


    Ob'mann zaps Obi w/awesome phalangeal blovi-wrath (5.00 / 0) (#66)
    by Ellie on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 04:13:56 PM EST
    From his super secret transformation chamber in a janitorial supplies closet at MSNBC, so marked, Edward R. MoDo puts his big red underpants on outside his trousers, fashions his crepe paper makeup bib into a cape, whips off his signature Top Hat and Monocle and boldly strides forth as Obamann to issue a very important finger wag:

    Finally, as promised, a Special Comment on FISA and the Junior Senator from Illinois

    [... drivel ... blather ... sputtering ... feel free to doodle a Screw + Ball sign for your peers or ponder your amusing Please Stand By, Drunk Camera Man / Technical Difficulties are Temporary screensaver ... oh what a world what a world... he's kookoo for Coco Puffs ... all work and no play make Jack a dull boy ... Daisy, Daisy Give Me Your Answer True ... say this sand equals strawberries ... but'chya are Blanche, ya are  ... a boy's best friend is his mother]

     ...-- 'publicans are going to call you the names any which way, Senator. They're going to cry regardless, Senator. And as the old line goes: give them something to cry about. Good night, and good luck.

    Vid and full transcript at Crooks and Liars, Special Comment: Olbermann Challenges Obama To Do The Right Thing On FISA, By Logan Murphy, June 30th, 2008 at 7:00 PM - PDT

    Thoughts going out to ... (5.00 / 4) (#69)
    by Ellie on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 04:28:39 PM EST
    JavaCityPal during a tough time.

    Alec82, that was so kind and thoughtful.

    Messages do ripple and reach; hope this one does too.

    ditto (5.00 / 2) (#79)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 05:20:38 PM EST
    just awful.  so sorry.

    thank you for calling that out to me (5.00 / 2) (#90)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 06:20:00 PM EST
    So sad. I just sent Java City Pal an email.

    Same here. So awful, Java. (5.00 / 2) (#91)
    by Cream City on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 06:23:14 PM EST
    There is solace in knowing that she didn't suffer.  So you are left to do so, I know too well.  From experience, I also can suggest that you please take care of yourself in a stressful time.  I am so sorry.  

    JCP....I am soooooo sorry for your loss (5.00 / 1) (#108)
    by PssttCmere08 on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 08:17:41 PM EST
    I feel safe in saying many prayers are going out for you....stay strong...

    x (5.00 / 1) (#120)
    by Mary Mary on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 06:42:04 AM EST
    I saw that, too, and couldn't respond. So very sorry for your loss, JCP.

    What a shame.... (5.00 / 1) (#122)
    by kdog on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 11:01:19 AM EST
    my condolences.

    Death is so much harder to deal with when it comes suddenly.


    The Situation Room (5.00 / 1) (#82)
    by JimWash08 on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 05:34:44 PM EST
    It is so calm today and engaging to watch without Cafferty's rubbish. I wish it could be like this every day.

    On a side note, CNN is saying Colin Powell's endorsement as a "King Maker."

    T'scha right! -rofl-

    Correction (none / 0) (#83)
    by JimWash08 on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 05:36:07 PM EST
    On a side note, CNN is saying Colin Powell's endorsement could be seen as a "King Maker."

    So Colin Powell, who stretched the truth (none / 0) (#110)
    by PssttCmere08 on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 08:19:11 PM EST
    (lied) to take us to war is endorsing another untruth teller, flip-flopper...pick one....

    Truely ugly. (5.00 / 1) (#93)
    by ghost2 on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 06:55:43 PM EST
    This is the Change?? I don't know if this has been posted, but here it is:

    via Corrente, Rep. John Lewis is, among many congressmen, facing a primary challenger, because he didn't endorse Obama soon enough.  

    And Obama supporters and clueless asses like Richard Cohen dare to accuse voters in West Virginia of racism, b/c they voted for Hillary.

    Up is down.  

    Progressive who turn a blind eye to such ugly racial politics should be ashamed of themselves.  

    Greta Van Susteren asked for PUMA (5.00 / 0) (#96)
    by Cream City on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 07:13:49 PM EST
    voters to email her, saying it's time to do a story on it, so it will be reported about there soon.  (She got more than a thousand emails within hours.)

    A question (5.00 / 0) (#98)
    by lentinel on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 07:31:34 PM EST
    Who made the following statement?

    "I came to see my faith as being both a personal commitment to Christ and a commitment to my community; that while I could sit in church and pray all I want, I wouldn't be fulfilling God's will unless I went out and did the Lord's work."

    A.  Jimmy Swaggart
    B.  Oral Roberts
    C. Pat Robertson
    D. Billy Graham
    E. Barack Obama

    Answer: E.  Obama said this, today. Now he's doing "the Lord's work." God help us.

    That's what Bush said (5.00 / 0) (#113)
    by Cream City on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 09:05:26 PM EST
    about running for president:

    'I feel like God wants me to run for President. I can't explain it, but I sense my country is going to need me. Something is going to happen... I know it won't be easy on me or my family, but God wants me to do it.'

    Oh, and he said God also told him to go to war in Iraq.

    Just saying.


    And now he has the Matthew 25 PAC (none / 0) (#116)
    by PssttCmere08 on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 10:01:29 PM EST
    at his back....Please tell me when it became acceptable to so intermingle politics and the church?  



    mainstream media bites roo (none / 0) (#3)
    by skippybkroo on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 02:55:41 PM EST
    skippy writes three journalists to ask why they force the "arrogant" meme onto the obama presidential seal story, when mccain is guilty of doing the same thing (creating a logo for fund raising based on presidential seal).

    one journalist writes back, and he's not too polite about his answer.

    I don't like it when people are rude to roo (5.00 / 0) (#77)
    by Ellie on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 05:09:21 PM EST
    ... except me accidentally (of course). Keep keeping'em honest.

    I'd be throwing in but I'm staying above the fray and catching rays instead of schlumpfing in the trenches. I'm just sick up and fed of candidates doing that to avoid getting smudged and smeared while surrogates create mayhem.

    If they're creating a fight, and NOT willing to be in the fray, I'm certainly not going to take bullets for them.

    Geez, not with all the trashy reading to be read, succulents to grill and quaffs to quaff.


    awww. (none / 0) (#10)
    by Fabian on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 03:09:58 PM EST
    I thought the seal was humorous.  I doubt that was the intent.

    Darcy Burner's Home destroyed by fire this morning (none / 0) (#4)
    by BestinShow on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 03:00:03 PM EST
    I am in crunch (none / 0) (#20)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 03:26:36 PM EST
    so google time is extremely limited.  I was wondering if the equal pay story (I wont repeat it because of the odious source) was printed anywhere else.

    You mean "reported" (none / 0) (#26)
    by Fabian on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 03:33:18 PM EST
    or "printed"?

    Fred Lucas is the reporter for the CNS article.  I don't have the time to troll for the same data from a different source.


    reported (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 03:34:33 PM EST
    thank you

    Makes a world of difference! (none / 0) (#67)
    by Fabian on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 04:14:14 PM EST
    Finding the original source of the data is important.

    I have learned that much from the internets and blogs.


    Only CNS (none / 0) (#30)
    by CST on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 03:34:11 PM EST
    That I have found (if we are talking about the same story).  I read some blog entries on it as well.  I think the problem with the story is they don't provide any metrics.  For example, they don't say what jobs people had.  Just that the "average pay" for one group was less than the "average pay" for the other group.  It doesn't make any distinction between the jobs held, etc....

    Well... (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by Nadai on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 04:06:32 PM EST
    I'm not sure it would help to say what jobs people had.  Either Obama pays women less for the same jobs, or he only hires women for low-paying, low-status, low-power jobs.  I'm not really seeing either explanation as redounding to his credit.

    Of course, the whole story could be crap.  I've only read rumors, not something reliable.


    Don't forget he had to dump Samantha Power. (none / 0) (#80)
    by oculus on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 05:22:45 PM EST
    well, I'm not sure if this helps (none / 0) (#54)
    by NJDem on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 03:52:08 PM EST
    but I saw the story on Fox yesterday (I know, I know).  They showed all the comparative salary numbers, with citations I believe.

    Is it in print? (none / 0) (#58)
    by CST on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 03:57:34 PM EST
    I haven't seen it.

    When reading the CNS article, one thing did stand out.  Apparently Obama has only 1 female staffer making over $100,000 and 4 male staffers in this range.  There are two things about this that I found noteworthy, #1 - Obama needs some higher level female staffers ASAP.  #2 - If this is true, then wouldn't it also mean that of those making under $100,000, women make more?  Since the male "average" will be skewed by the higher paying jobs.

    Again, it's hard to tell what's really going on here without detailed comparisons between the jobs.


    New Poll from CNN... (none / 0) (#32)
    by pmj6 on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 03:36:38 PM EST
    ...shows Obama leading McCain by 5% in a head-to-head race, but only by 3% when Nader and Barr are included in polling. I wonder whether Nader's pull on Obama's supporters outweighs Barr's on McCain's, or whether both are pulling down Obama's numbers.

    In the same poll, Nader was at 6%, Barr at 3%.  

    by election day (none / 0) (#33)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 03:39:57 PM EST
    I think Barr will be pulling from Obama as much a Nader.  maybe more.

    I wonder what happens if (none / 0) (#41)
    by nycstray on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 03:44:19 PM EST
    they throw in the Green candidate? I've heard her mentioned as an alternative a few times . . . Wonder if a worthwhile %

    Would that be... (none / 0) (#44)
    by pmj6 on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 03:45:07 PM EST
    ...Cynthia McKinney?

    Yes, thanks :) (none / 0) (#48)
    by nycstray on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 03:46:40 PM EST

    Other good poll news! (none / 0) (#38)
    by mmc9431 on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 03:42:02 PM EST
    "Sen. Lieberman's approval rating has dropped below 50 percent for the first time in 14 years of polling, with nearly two-thirds of Democrats giving him low marks, probably because he is campaigning for Sen. John McCain."

    the really remarkable thing (5.00 / 2) (#40)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 03:43:43 PM EST
    as far as I am concerned is that 1/3 still DONT give him low marks.

    Nader at 6 (none / 0) (#39)
    by Pegasus on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 03:42:03 PM EST
    is ludicrous.  He'll get maybe 2, tops.

    I think your wrong.... (5.00 / 3) (#46)
    by kdog on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 03:45:35 PM EST
    third parties are cracking 10% this year between Nader, Barr, and the really really fringe candidates.

    Obama and McCain suck that bad.


    this is the ripest year (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 03:49:00 PM EST
    for a viable third party for as long as I can remember.

    I was thinking... (none / 0) (#43)
    by pmj6 on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 03:44:25 PM EST
    ...the same thing, the 6% figure seems high. If other polls are comparable, however, it may be an indicator Obama's drift to the right is having an effect.

    No way he gets that in November. (none / 0) (#68)
    by Pegasus on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 04:19:57 PM EST
    I'm not going to get drawn into a horserace argument, but even if the number is "real" now, there's no chance it holds on election day.

    NRA to spend 15M targeting Obama (none / 0) (#42)
    by Josey on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 03:44:20 PM EST
    they will come at him hard (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 03:50:04 PM EST
    on the second amendment stuff.  was reading about that yeterday.  that is going to be a major point of attack.

    yup, (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by NJDem on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 03:54:08 PM EST
    the NRA plans to spend 15 Million attacking Obama, here

    They've been checking out messages (5.00 / 2) (#59)
    by scribe on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 04:00:47 PM EST
    and themes, and push-polling a little on Obama, since January or February.

    I know - I got one.

    And, they were persistent about it.  When I told them I was eating, they politely asked if they could call back some other time and did.

    And I live in a very, very blue state.


    That's a waste of money (5.00 / 0) (#102)
    by Veracitor on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 07:51:20 PM EST
    Obama supports the right of individuals to own a gun, but also the right of society to control them in some instances.  That's essentially what Scalia wrote in his majority opinion.  

    How is the NRA going to attack that?


    I have no idea (none / 0) (#106)
    by Steve M on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 08:07:01 PM EST
    Gosh, it sure sounds like a politically invulnerable position to me.  As usual, you're right on.

    Took a visit to MyDD... (none / 0) (#64)
    by OrangeFur on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 04:10:15 PM EST
    ... that place has become a mini-Orange. Another one bites the dust.

    Another one..... (5.00 / 0) (#103)
    by Veracitor on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 07:51:56 PM EST
    .....succumbs to reality.

    I don't know what you mean... (5.00 / 0) (#111)
    by OrangeFur on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 08:40:07 PM EST
    I meant that the same kind of name-calling and suppression of dissent is going on as happened at DK earlier. The left wing blogs are turning into the left's version of talk radio.

    Verily, verily, Veracitor, ye shall seek (5.00 / 0) (#114)
    by Cream City on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 09:07:17 PM EST
    and find the reality ye desireth there.  Godspeed!

    Reality is...... (none / 0) (#124)
    by Veracitor on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 12:54:09 PM EST
    Obama is the presumptive candidate of the Democratic party, is leading McCain by a healthy margin, and represents the best opportunity for progressive reform since 1980.

    It's just that some people have not grasped that yet.


    Customs, rather than hassling average (none / 0) (#84)
    by scribe on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 05:37:33 PM EST
    travelers, should be doing more of this kind of work:

    Intercepting packages containing literally dozens of giant Asian beetles being mailed into the country for some knucklehead to breed.

    A postal worker heard scratching inside a parcel shipped from Taiwan labeled "toys, gifts and jellies" to the Post Office in Mohnton, a borough of 3,000 residents outside of Reading.

    The postmaster notified agricultural specialists with Customs and Border Protection and shipped the box to Philadelphia as instructed. It was opened in a secure laboratory, where the 25 Asian beetles, including the Hercules, Rhinoceros and Goliath species, were discovered.

    The beetles, some about 5 to 6 inches in diameter, are highly destructive pests and cause extensive damage to fruit and vegetable crops, trees, shrubs and turf grasses, according to federal officials.

    Go to the link, and look at the picture.

    How much of your garden do you think one of those could eat in a morning?  

    That's why we should have a customs service - not to hassle travelers about wearing shoes and copying their laptops. I'd have to say that if those bugs got loose, in short order they'd surely cause more damage, in dollars and cents, than have all the information copied from all the laptops at the border.

    For the worried, the government has frozen the beetles captured in this shipment.

    core values (none / 0) (#117)
    by Tim V on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 10:39:12 PM EST
    What are Obama's core values ? With his dance to the center on FISA, guns, the death penalty, and a host of other issues, the question becomes what does he really believe. His attempts to be all things to all people leads me to question his integrity and sincerity.