home

Friday Morning Open thread

Good morning.

A question for our readers, what is the most important story we have not blogged about here at TalkLeft?

I think it is the college football national championship game between Florida and Oklahoma (to be played January 8), which I will begin to cover comprehensively on Monday. What say you?

This is an Open Thread.

< Thursday Night Open Thread | How To Poll The Obvious >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    I think the most under reported story (5.00 / 2) (#13)
    by SOS on Fri Jan 02, 2009 at 09:32:16 AM EST
    is that both Israelis and Palestinians are productive, creative people with much to offer the world.

    It's to bad that's completely overlooked amid the background noise of the Israeli-Arab conflict created by their so called "leaders".

    War trashes everything. (none / 0) (#17)
    by Fabian on Fri Jan 02, 2009 at 09:39:44 AM EST
    That's why it's almost always a bad idea.

    What can you say about leadership that keeps on coming up with bad ideas?

    Parent

    I am (gasp, choke) (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by jeffinalabama on Fri Jan 02, 2009 at 09:33:46 AM EST
    part of the Gator Nation for this one. SEC all the way!

    Not enough on the distribution ... (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by Robot Porter on Fri Jan 02, 2009 at 10:48:22 AM EST
    of TARP money.

    It may not be as "sexy" as the Blago story, but it's much more important.

    I was tempted to say the TARP bail-out (none / 0) (#38)
    by ding7777 on Fri Jan 02, 2009 at 11:03:38 AM EST
    wasn't blogged because not enough is known about the details but then when did knowledge of issue become a prereq for blogging about it?

    Parent
    Heh ... (none / 0) (#39)
    by Robot Porter on Fri Jan 02, 2009 at 11:21:21 AM EST
    so true.

    Here's a story from today's LA TIMES which asks the valid question:

    Can a $400-million injection of federal bailout money to the "bank to the stars" in Beverly Hills really help revive the troubled U.S. economy?

    The article also makes these intriguing points:

    So far, the Government Accountability Office and the Congressional Oversight Panel for Economic Stabilization have issued reports skeptical of the ability of the program to help the general economy and critical of the Treasury Department for not publicly explaining how it doles out taxpayer funds.

    The new inquiry by Treasury Department Inspector General Eric Thorson takes a more focused examination of a single firm -- City National. The Beverly Hills institution is among 209 banks that have so far received a total of $162 billion in bailout money.

    In a statement to The Times, the inspector general's office said it wanted to know "specifically how financial institutions are determined to be eligible for participation" and that it was "looking at the application and selection of one institution based in Southern California."



    Parent
    and with the (none / 0) (#56)
    by ding7777 on Sat Jan 03, 2009 at 05:48:23 AM EST
    Federal Reserve approving credit card companies (American Express, Discover, GMAC, ec) to become  commercial banks (which now allows them access to TARP money), where does it end?

    draconian bankrucy laws, ursury rates, TARP handouts... the average consumer/taxpayer is being screwed

    Parent

    The most underblogged story here (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by Dadler on Fri Jan 02, 2009 at 10:51:05 AM EST
    Without a doubt it's the bizarre and absurd reality behind the entire financial collapse: that money is, at its most basic level, inherently phucking worthless.  That the entire solution to the crisis rests on nothing more than being good and generous to each other, and therefore revaluing money and our relationship to it.  Money exists for the people, not the other way around.

    Yes indeed Dadler... (none / 0) (#52)
    by kdog on Fri Jan 02, 2009 at 01:32:02 PM EST
    Learned that lesson at a young age, when I was a broke-arse teenager mooching off some older friends in their 20's to get our collective kicks.

    Whenever I offered to pay them back monetarily, I was told that money has no real value, and I only owed them a favor.  I've never felt the same about money since those days...and always use that line when I'm buying.

    Your never broke if you have somebody who cares...even if its a total stranger.  Our survival depends on nothing more than our love for each other.

    Parent

    Warfare (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by lentinel on Fri Jan 02, 2009 at 11:29:26 AM EST
    I haven't seen much discussion of the recent bombing by Israel into the densely populated area of Gaza with the resulting scores of civilian casualties. Many children have been killed. The Times says that this is in spite of the "precision" of the missiles being launched. Either they are "precise" and mean to hit civilians, or they are imprecise and are being launched anyway. Can't have it both ways. "Smart" bombs are just as stupid as any other bomb.

    The discussion has been somewhat neutralized by the assertion that this action by the Israelis is in retaliation for bombings by the Palestinians. But I can't escape the feeling of being horrified by the savagery of the Israeli action - retaliation or not.

    The second issue I have felt is under-discussed is the war in Iraq.
    To the best of my knowledge, it is ongoing. Civilians and our soldiers are continuing to die. Is Obama committed to withdraw them on a fixed timetable - or is it to be vague and left "up to the commanders on the ground"?
    Is there any movement or plan by anti-war groups or "progressives" to prod Obama to quickly put and to end this horrific stain on our national identity?

    The third issue about which I would like more discussion is the on-again off-again frenzy about Iran. Sometimes it seems as if the plan to bomb them, either by us or by Israel, is in full swing.
    Then it drops out of the news.

    Everyone is nervous about (none / 0) (#43)
    by Fabian on Fri Jan 02, 2009 at 11:41:56 AM EST
    Iran.  It's more simple than any future nuclear threat.  

    Iran used to have Iraq to balance it and keep it in check.  Now Iraq has no real capability to counter Iran militarily and Iran looms ominously.

    Do remember to thank President Bush for further destabilizing the Middle East.  

    Parent

    I'm not nervous (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by lentinel on Fri Jan 02, 2009 at 02:54:10 PM EST
    about Iran.
    I'm nervous about American policy regarding Iran.

    My feeling is that America is still in the throws of needing some adversary to stigmatize to keep our military-industrial-legislative complex humming and to keep its' citizens' eyes off the ball.
    (The ball being our civil liberties and our ability to have a shot at earning a living.)

    One day Iran is the threat.
    One day it is North Korea.
    Then it's Russia.
    Then it's confirmed that Iran is not pursuing Nuclear weapons.
    Then it's confirmed that Iran is pursuing Nuclear weapons.
    Then it's Afghanistan.
    Then it's Pakistan.
    Then Pakistan is our ally.
    Then North Korea has been solved.
    Then it's Russia.
    Then they are our friends.
    Then it's France. Boycott fois gras.
    Germany and Japan come and go as potential trouble-makers.

    About Iran, I agree that were they to acquire nukes, what would they do with them? They can't deliver them to anybody - at least without the expectation that they would be incinerated. They don't seem any more nutty that Pakistan or Russia or India or China or the good old U.S.A.

    The sad fact is that unless you have nukes in this world, the big boys tend to shove you around. You can be damn sure that if Iraq had indeed had nukes, Bush wouldn't have done a thing.
    It has become a rite of passage into a freaky boys' club.

    Freud laid all this out a hundred years ago, to no avail.

    Parent

    Who (none / 0) (#44)
    by bernardab on Fri Jan 02, 2009 at 12:05:53 PM EST
    is nervous about Iran? I remember the Cold War policy of MAD, which worked as well as any policy. Iran is surrounded by nuclear states: Russia to the north, Pakistan(the real danger to all)to the east, Israel to the west, the U.S. to the west and the south.

    What nation would not want the nuclear deterrent in such a case? A new balance of power might be a good thing.

    Parent

    Saudi Arabia (none / 0) (#50)
    by Fabian on Fri Jan 02, 2009 at 01:08:33 PM EST
    Syria and all the smaller states who rely on others for their protection.

    They don't want to fight Iran.  They don't want Israel fighting Iran.  After our stellar performance in Iraq, I doubt they want us fighting Iran either.

    Parent

    calling ahead (none / 0) (#49)
    by jedimom on Fri Jan 02, 2009 at 01:02:01 PM EST
    Israel is calling the targets and letting them know to get out, and then sounding fake bombs to scatter civilians then bombing....

    Parent
    Well... (4.80 / 5) (#1)
    by Edger on Fri Jan 02, 2009 at 09:07:27 AM EST
    You know what I think is that you haven't blogged about enough, anyway. ;-)

    13302 of 100000 people have signed the Petition for a Special Prosecutor for Bush War Crimes, so far, and Bob Fertiks "question" to Obama and the transition team at change.gov under "Additional Issues" is now in the lead spot...

    "Will you appoint a Special Prosecutor [...] to independently investigate the gravest crimes of the Bush Administration, including torture and warrantless wiretapping?"

    Mainstream media is ignoring this issue like it's leprosy. I would hope left blogs wouldn't. We need to force it into the media.

    And for anyone concerned that one person can't make a difference, I'd refer them to The Power Of One.

    We will revisit that issue (5.00 / 2) (#3)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Jan 02, 2009 at 09:12:01 AM EST
    when we have more eyeballs again next week.

    Parent
    Thanks. (none / 0) (#5)
    by Edger on Fri Jan 02, 2009 at 09:13:05 AM EST
    Holder's confirmation hearing is fast approaching...

    Parent
    Michaal Haas has just published a book titled (none / 0) (#46)
    by Edger on Fri Jan 02, 2009 at 12:18:50 PM EST
    though not on Roberts' report.

    Time to DVR C-Span (none / 0) (#6)
    by NJDem on Fri Jan 02, 2009 at 09:13:57 AM EST
    Can the Senate really block Burris from entering the building?  Even if so, they can't stop Blago and I think he's crazy enough to show up...  


    link


    They will let him in (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Jan 02, 2009 at 09:16:09 AM EST
    shake his hand, even give him an office but NOT swear him in.

    His appointment will be referred to committee which will investigate his appointment.

    We'll hear back from that committee in a few months, by which time cicrcumstances will have changed.

    Parent

    Depends on what the conditions of Blago's (none / 0) (#8)
    by scribe on Fri Jan 02, 2009 at 09:17:44 AM EST
    bail are.  If he can't leave Illinois without permission and does anyway, he can be arrested.  After all, the Capitol Police are "real" police.

    Parent
    Blago entering with Burris (none / 0) (#9)
    by lilburro on Fri Jan 02, 2009 at 09:18:34 AM EST
    sounds like a disaster in the making.  That's some bad optics for you.

    Parent
    Blago will not be there (none / 0) (#10)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Jan 02, 2009 at 09:20:00 AM EST
    unless Burris really no longer wants the job.

    Indeed, it would be great for the Dems if Blago showed up.

    Parent

    can Burris control Blago? (none / 0) (#11)
    by lilburro on Fri Jan 02, 2009 at 09:23:33 AM EST
    if Blago's point in making the appointment is to say, I'm innocent and I still have a right to do this...

    then it would follow (in his crazy mind?  or am I the crazy one) that he would escort Burris to the Senate in order to make his point.  

    And why would Burris all of a sudden not go along with Blago on this.  Seems to me like Blago is in charge.

    Parent

    I hope he does show up (none / 0) (#12)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Jan 02, 2009 at 09:30:51 AM EST
    I really do.

    Indeed, he has floor privileges and they can not stop him from coning in. But nothing would make the point more forcefully for why Reid and the Dems are right to not seat Burris.

    Because Burris walking amongst thej fro two years will be like having Blago walk amongst them for 2 years.

    Then one assumes the dumb blogging on this will stop.

    Parent

    I'd rather the dumb politics stop. (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by Fabian on Fri Jan 02, 2009 at 09:37:55 AM EST
    The part where everyone is more concerned about how bad Blagojevich makes them look than about the corruption he represents.

    It's like watching a bunch of Democratic concern trolls.  Oh!  Look at us, how concerned we are!

    Yeah, yeah, yeah.  Just tell me when the impeachment proceedings begin.  (I remember thinking that in January 2007 too.)

    Parent

    Hardly (none / 0) (#19)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Jan 02, 2009 at 09:40:07 AM EST
    mutually exclusive.

    Oh btw, you want to know how to get corruption out of politics? End politics.

    Parent

    also the admiration (none / 0) (#23)
    by lilburro on Fri Jan 02, 2009 at 09:48:44 AM EST
    for Blago as "mad political genius" strikes me as a little weird.  Blago says "screw you!  I'm going to inject race into this!  How do you like THAT?" and the reaction of some progressives is..."wow, you are such a bad@ss"?

    Parent
    The bada** (none / 0) (#24)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Jan 02, 2009 at 09:54:09 AM EST
    is going to prison for a long time.

    Parent
    yep (none / 0) (#25)
    by lilburro on Fri Jan 02, 2009 at 10:01:21 AM EST
    I am sure the GOP is already collecting footage of Blago and picking out what stock footage of jail bars and handcuffs they would like to use for their midterm ads.  Echoes of Palin and "cleaning up Washington."

    I think Reid is doing the right thing here.  Wait for the impeachment, then seat whomever Quinn chooses.  Makes more sense in the long-term.

    Parent

    people seem motivated (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by lilburro on Fri Jan 02, 2009 at 09:39:46 AM EST
    by a desire to punish Reid...and slam Lieberman.  

    They seem to be missing the obvious... that we should be slamming Blago.

    All this stuff about "exclusive little clubs" is secondary.  

    Parent

    Yep (none / 0) (#20)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Jan 02, 2009 at 09:40:37 AM EST
    Stupid stuff imo.

    Parent
    Blago, Burris, and the entire (none / 0) (#47)
    by oculus on Fri Jan 02, 2009 at 12:45:43 PM EST
    Illinois highway patrol arrive in Washington in hybrid patrol cars, lights and sirens activated.  See Smokey and the Bandit.

    Parent
    Off topic! (none / 0) (#21)
    by ricosuave on Fri Jan 02, 2009 at 09:41:46 AM EST
    Burris is in the OVER-reported and UNDER-important stories category.  It is a sideshow from the Blago drama, and doesn't have any real consequence either for policy or politics.  Seat, don't seat, sue, don't sue--it doesn't change the balance of power in the senate, help or hurt the progressive agenda, or alter the political fortunes or Obama or the national dems one way or the other.

    That is not to say that corruption is unimportant or Blagojevich's drama is uninteresting.  Just that the press could spend more time on other things until something new actually HAPPENS here.

    Parent

    I do not disagree (none / 0) (#22)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Jan 02, 2009 at 09:43:50 AM EST
    generally with your comment but I think you are wrong when you write "Seat, don't seat, sue, don't sue--it doesn't change the balance of power in the senate, help or hurt the progressive agenda, or alter the political fortunes or Obama or the national dems one way or the other."

    That seems foolish to me. Connections to Blago hurt all of the above period.

    Parent

    And letting Blago's antics (5.00 / 2) (#27)
    by ricosuave on Fri Jan 02, 2009 at 10:05:46 AM EST
    dictate the schedule of the senate is more harmful.  For the first time in over a decade the democrats have a chance to actually put some of their agenda into legislation and have it signed into law.  Will they fritter away their time infighting and posturing over who can be tougher on anything Blago relate?

    Burris is the bright, shiny object off to the side capturing the attention of the Senate and the press.

    Parent

    Here's some crime and justice stories (none / 0) (#14)
    by scribe on Fri Jan 02, 2009 at 09:33:16 AM EST
    fer ya:

    A capital defendant has to sue to get a lawyer.  It's Georgia (you're surprised?) and he's represented by their (woefully underfunded) public defender's office.

    But he's only gone all of 8 months without a lawyer....

    Then, there's this interesting story on progress on resentencing people convicted and sentenced under the crack-powder disparity rules.  From the story, it appears that in the Eastern District of Virginia, about 2/3 get a sentence reduction.  In the District of the District of Columbia, about 16/17 get a sentence reduction.

    More on the capricious nature of Bush and his pardon power.  It's clear it helps to know someone, and even more to hire someone, who works in the Bush WH.  From the article:

    Of the 20 felony offenders to whom Mr. Bush granted clemency on Dec. 23, most of the attention has focused on Isaac R. Toussie, the New York real estate swindler who had hired a lawyer with political connections and bypassed the normal review process. A day later, the White House took the unusual step of saying it was stopping his pardon.

    But Mr. Toussie, who was represented by a former associate counsel to Mr. Bush [Bradford Berenson], was just one of at least four people who gained special access. Two others were also represented by former associate counsels to Mr. Bush. And a White House meeting was devoted to Mr. Prior's case in part because his lawyer knew the wife of Gov. Chet Culver of Iowa.

    . . .

    But over the last few presidencies, the incentive to try to go around the normal process has increased, said P. S. Ruckman Jr., a political scientist who specializes in clemency.

    A huge backlog at the Justice Department's pardon review office combined with the relatively small number of clemency grants by recent presidents, Professor Ruckman said, "encourages people to try to end-run the process -- to try to cheat, for lack of a better word, to gain access to the White House directly."

    . . .

    Alan S. Maiss, once president of Bally Gaming Inc., was convicted in 1995 in a case related to a video-poker scandal in Louisiana. In seeking a pardon, Mr. Maiss was represented by H. Christopher Bartolomucci, an associate White House counsel from 2001 to 2003.

    Mr. Maiss applied on Dec. 26, 2007, far later than most of the other pardon recipients. A Justice Department spokeswoman, Laura Sweeney, said Mr. Maiss did not get through quickly because of special treatment. Ms. Sweeney noted that two others who were granted pardons in December had applied recently -- in August 2007 and February 2008.

    . . .

    One [otherwise ineligible for a pardon] case was that of the late Charles T. Winters, to whom Mr. Bush granted a posthumous pardon for a conviction stemming from illegally sending arms to Israel in 1948. The department normally does not process applications for deceased people.

    Mr. Winters was represented by Reginald Brown, an associate White House counsel from 2003 to 2005. Mr. Brown said the volunteer team also included Frank Jimenez, the Navy general counsel and a friend of Mr. Winters's son, and Noam Neusner, a former White House aide to Mr. Bush.

    . . .

    The other case that was ineligible for a pardon under normal circumstances was that of Mr. Toussie. The Justice Department requires five years to have passed since the end of a sentence before it will consider a pardon application, and that time period was not yet up.

    Mr. Toussie hired Bradford Berenson, an associate White House counsel from 2001 to 2003. Mr. Berenson declined to comment, but Mr. Fratto said that Mr. Berenson had visited the White House to discuss the case.

    . . .

    Justice Department officials say clemency should be rare. They say the review process is fair, but Karen Orehowsky, a volunteer clemency consultant who advised Mr. Prior's commutation team, said that ordinary people going through the department process have virtually no chance.

    "It takes a `Hail Mary' from people who have a lot of connections and who are willing to put their neck out for people they care about, and it's unfair to people who don't have those connections," Ms. Orehowsky said.

    We wouldn't be having these problems if (a) pardons and commutations were not rare and (b) there were an expungement procedure which would allow people who'd completed their sentence and gone straight to get their record cleared by applying to a Court, rather than having to find a connected lawyer who still has friends in government.


    i think florida (none / 0) (#26)
    by sancho on Fri Jan 02, 2009 at 10:04:07 AM EST
    will easily handle the overrated oklahoma. a great matchup for them. but uf should be playing texas who would be more difficult but uf would also likely conquer. usc-uf should have been the game but the bias against the pac-10 kept that from happening.

    speaking as a texas fan.

    Agree, the BCS championship (none / 0) (#37)
    by brodie on Fri Jan 02, 2009 at 10:58:11 AM EST
    game should be USC v UF.  

    Of the few times I've seen the top collegiate gridiron teams in action this year, SoCal strikes me as the most talented and best coached.  

    Even with the Pac10's overall perceived weakness working against them, one would think a program's great success year after year would somehow be factored into the ratings system.

    UF has a very talented QB, and speed on both sides of the ball.  It would have been a great game.  OU isn't shabby either, but I think they just don't have as many ponies as the Gators.

    An 8-team playoff format is needed.  

    Parent

    The PAC 10 (none / 0) (#45)
    by jb64 on Fri Jan 02, 2009 at 12:06:38 PM EST
    might be weak, but they haven't lost a bowl game yet this year.

    Parent
    exactly. (none / 0) (#54)
    by sancho on Fri Jan 02, 2009 at 03:16:59 PM EST
    they are not as weak as advertised. but the sec and big 12 coaches are happy for the misperception.

    Parent
    Africa (none / 0) (#28)
    by bernardab on Fri Jan 02, 2009 at 10:16:51 AM EST
    Did you have reports on the Easter Congo where more than 4 million have been killed in the last few years and now is attacked by the Lord's Resistance Army in Uganda.

    This is probably the biggest catastrophe of our day.

    The U.S., the UN, and the EU have not done much, but at least Western mulit-nationals have a field day exploiting the resources. One could also mention China's involvement in Africa, which is not always to the benefit of the inhabitants.

    Reading (none / 0) (#29)
    by lilburro on Fri Jan 02, 2009 at 10:22:10 AM EST
    the confirmation hearing schedule at DK.  

    What's the story about (none / 0) (#30)
    by Lil on Fri Jan 02, 2009 at 10:24:54 AM EST
    the 8 or 9 Muslims they took off a plane?

    Maybe I missed it... (none / 0) (#31)
    by EL seattle on Fri Jan 02, 2009 at 10:32:17 AM EST
    ... but Nat Hentoff's layoff (and what that might signify) was something that I'd have thought would get more attention on the blogs in general.

    Again, maybe I just missed this discussion....

    A cute story (none / 0) (#32)
    by Steve M on Fri Jan 02, 2009 at 10:37:43 AM EST
    from comments at another blog...

    Sometimes when I'm walking to work I see Mr. Hentoff walking his dog. Once he was scolding the pooch for barking. I was going to say "Mr. Hentoff -- what about free speech!" I didn't...he looks like a serious dude.


    Parent
    I hate Nat Hentoff (none / 0) (#33)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Jan 02, 2009 at 10:43:03 AM EST
    and was not going to gloat over his being laid off.

    Parent
    I can't resist (none / 0) (#42)
    by lentinel on Fri Jan 02, 2009 at 11:32:24 AM EST
    gloating or at least experiencing a sense of relief that this pseudo-intellectual blowhard will have one less outlet for his pompous stupidity.

    Parent
    Hentoff didn't appear on my (none / 0) (#35)
    by brodie on Fri Jan 02, 2009 at 10:50:02 AM EST
    radar in any controversial way (though I probably missed plenty) until 98-9 when he began screaming and foaming about how Bill Clinton needed to be impeached for all his felonies related to Monica.  A big backer of Starr and the Goopers and curious characters like Paula Jones and Linda Tripp.

    So much for this alleged defender of the Constitution.

    So I'm glad he got the boot.  But it comes about a decade too late ...

    Parent

    PEBO stimulus pushed back to FEB 20TH!! (none / 0) (#48)
    by jedimom on Fri Jan 02, 2009 at 01:00:42 PM EST
    I think this is a huge story just starting to break...the stimulus is pushed back to February 20th it appears, Feldstein is in the room as PEBO adviser of all knowing Harvard economists and he knows the scoop...

    can housing hold on that long? are they waiting for cloture number? ie february Coleman challenge settled and quinn appoints another DEM in IL to get to 60??

    story here

    Housing is fine. (none / 0) (#51)
    by Fabian on Fri Jan 02, 2009 at 01:16:38 PM EST
    It's the rest of the economy I'm worried about.  After all, the financial scam created a serious surplus in the housing market.

    The current projection is 3-5 years for the whole finance & credit mess to be resolved.  That means dealing with the bad credit on the books and more accurately valuing loans and properties.  Once the surplus decreases and lending institutions are sure that they aren't making loans on properties with inflated prices, the the housing market will begin to approach normal.

    But until then, the housing market will suffer.  It will be rough.  There's just no way around that.  The housing market reaped the benefits of the bubble, now it will have to pay the price.

    Parent

    the politics of crime overlooked issues (none / 0) (#55)
    by shaharazade on Fri Jan 02, 2009 at 06:28:42 PM EST
    or the politicization of crime. The over all view of revisionist law. As in the crimes committed by the Bush administration. Neither side seems willing to examine the possibility of the obvious the ones coming or the ones going. Where does politics let off and the law draw the line?  Is the law a flexible line open to movement by power, or is it a fixed point that should and can override politics.  

    Public campaign financing reform (none / 0) (#57)
    by Alien Abductee on Sat Jan 03, 2009 at 03:08:47 PM EST
    What proper public campaign finance reform would look like.