home

Wednesday Night Open Thread

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Blog Related
Posted on Wed Jan 07, 2009 at 09:11:33 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Your turn.

Update (TL): I've been gone all day, I'm just catching up now. Today's headlines seem like the same as yesterday's to me so right now I have nothing to add. What am I missing?

One new story: Chris Matthews decided against running for the Senate.

< To Get Paid To Write Nonsense . . . | Plastic Surgeon Gets a Year For Third DUI >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Wednesday Night Open Thread | 173 comments (173 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    Wasn't this a phenom (5.00 / 2) (#5)
    by txpolitico67 on Wed Jan 07, 2009 at 09:38:28 PM EST
    oh, say....around the Great Depression?

    Restaurants close after 86 years (5.00 / 2) (#27)
    by Cream City on Wed Jan 07, 2009 at 10:30:25 PM EST
    and no warning tonight in my city, leaving regular groups like the Wisconsin Polka Boosters out in the cold.  Literally, of course, in this climate.

    And in this economic climate, the fourth generation of this family restaurant chain had to give up.  And lay off more than 100 employees.

    The list of restaurants closed and closing is long in this food-loving city -- and it doesn't even include the restaurants closing only part of the time, like one of the most popular ones, which  shut down in daytime a week ago and also laid off dozens . . . including the day manager, my daughter.

    Many like the one that closed tonight are longtime businesses that made it through the Depression but can't make it now, because they can't get credit at decent rates or at all.

    So much for the bailout that was supposed to help banks help businesses keep people at work.

    Parent

    Hey, Cream, (none / 0) (#82)
    by easilydistracted on Thu Jan 08, 2009 at 07:47:56 AM EST
    I mentioned this to a friend of mine earlier this morning who lives in the Milwaukee area, who just happens to listen to too much talk radio. His take, based on what he heard from some blowhard on your local radio, is that the restaurants purportedly can't afford the cost of some recent legislation regarding additional employee benefits(?). When I pressed for more details, he didn't have any.  What's the spin?  

    Parent
    That's really right-wing spin (5.00 / 1) (#86)
    by Cream City on Thu Jan 08, 2009 at 08:15:38 AM EST
    so I can guess which radio station he listens to -- talk radio squawkers here screw up so many good people.  Of course, so does our lone remaining newspaper, which also is quite conservative now.

    In a recent referendum, we Milwaukeeans voted for (doesn't mean it's binding, but. . . .) a law requiring sick leave for most workers in this city.

    Underscore: in this city.  Thing is that two of the chain's three restaurants are not in this city.

    Ergo, it's spin.  But it's all over the media, part of a pushback and scare tactics by our business sector.  But it's up to worse than that; watch TChris' posts for what's coming at the state level, where the business sector already has polluted our state supreme court with two corrupt justices -- and now the business sector has set its sights on running out our wonderful chief justice, Shirley Abrahamson.

    I.e., it's all part and parcel of what has happened and is happening in our so-called progressive state, still run and being run down by the business sector that gained incredible power under the longest-serving governor ever here, Tommy Thompson.  Our current governor Doyle just does not have what it takes to take apart that cabal -- plus he went Obama-botish so wants to follow in Tommy's footsteps by going to Washington or off to an ambassadorship.

    And both Thompson and Doyle share the dislike of most of the state for Milwaukee.  There 'tis.

    Parent

    Thanks!! I appreciate your remarks. (5.00 / 1) (#97)
    by easilydistracted on Thu Jan 08, 2009 at 09:17:19 AM EST
    I know my friend well enough to suspect that his gobbledygook was direct from the right. Yet, I was not in a position to refute his allegations (unlike my buddy, I rely on facts).

    Are we talking sick leave, as in a daily allowance, or is it short term diability insurance that only applies after, say, an illness of five days? California, for example, requires that an employer provide short term disability, for employees to purchase at a reduced rate.

    I'll be watching this closely.  Thanks for the information    

    Parent

    Here's more info for you (5.00 / 1) (#103)
    by Cream City on Thu Jan 08, 2009 at 09:54:02 AM EST
    from the local paper; google jsonline.com and sick leave and etc.  (And I was wrong re being binding; it is, although it can be overturned in two years.)  Hope it helps:

    City of Milwaukee residents overwhelmingly approved a binding referendum Tuesday [November election day] that calls for private employers in the city to provide paid sick leave for all their workers, a measure strongly opposed by business leaders and Mayor Tom Barrett. The final vote tally showed 69% voted for the referendum with 31% against.

    Milwaukee now becomes only the third city in the country to require private employers to provide paid sick days. San Francisco and Washington, D.C., have approved similar measures. . . .

    Under the measure, a full-time worker would earn a minimum of one hour of paid sick time for every 30 hours worked, or nine days a year. Businesses with 10 or fewer employees would be required to provide five days a year of paid sick time to full-time employees.

    The paid leave could be taken for illness or medical care for the employee or the employee's child, parent or other relative. The time could also be used to attend to medical and legal issues resulting from domestic violence, sexual assault or stalking.

    Proponents [led by 9to5, which is hq'ed in Milwaukee] waged a grass-roots, door-to-door campaign, distributing more than 200,000 pieces of literature that said no workers should have to lose a job because they are sick or have to care for a sick child. . . .

    Fyi, our mayor is a pretty smart guy, so I do share concerns that this could run more businesses in the city to the burbs -- but since they're already doing it anyway with the white-flighters from this majority-minority city, and there is so much misinformation on this from the business sector, I'm not sure and would want to know more before believing any of the spin, much less all.  I think this did go through a bit too fast to be sure, considering our city's suffering economy . . . but I also think that if businesses do leave, it's because of the spin more than because of any real deleterious effect, because a lot of workers in this union town already have pretty good coverage.  So the businesses that would leave would be not good businesses, anyway.

    Parent

    Yes (none / 0) (#8)
    by SOS on Wed Jan 07, 2009 at 09:42:18 PM EST
    it was.

    Parent
    Obama's Inauguration Poster (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Wed Jan 07, 2009 at 09:39:20 PM EST
    Obama's Inauguration Poster - As seen here at HuffPo: "BE THE CHANGE", a poster designed by skater-boy cum street-artist Shepard Fairey. Connotations anyone?

    Google Soviet posters if you want to see where the heavy-handed aesthetic comes from.

    Let me guess (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by SOS on Wed Jan 07, 2009 at 09:43:48 PM EST
    that's a "Fav" slogan. Obamas bad boy speech writer.

    Parent
    Shepa;rd Fairey is an accomplished artist (5.00 / 0) (#10)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Jan 07, 2009 at 09:47:35 PM EST
    He designed the 5280.com cover poster for the Democratic National Convention. Larger version here.

    Parent
    Accomplished artist (5.00 / 5) (#33)
    by nycstray on Wed Jan 07, 2009 at 10:53:20 PM EST
    is a matter of opinion ;)
    He's a commercial artist. No different from the thousands out there. Names you may never know, but they get along quite fine and you know their work.

    IMO, what he's done for O is very unimpressive. More of a direct ripoff with little personal style/originality. If you look at all his O designs, well, I could knock them out in a day. Really, a no brainer for those of us who have been around the block more than once ;) I'll give him credit as he may have picked the appropriate "style" to reflect "the movement"  ;) Or was it the O camp that picked him for his style to represent "the movement"? Me thinks it was the later . . .

    Parent

    Many Don't Like Picasso (5.00 / 0) (#42)
    by squeaky on Wed Jan 07, 2009 at 11:12:59 PM EST
    It is always a matter of opinion.

    Love to see the taste of all those who are criticizing. I am certain that there will be little agreement as to what is good.

    Parent

    I work in "the field" (5.00 / 4) (#49)
    by nycstray on Wed Jan 07, 2009 at 11:31:17 PM EST
    I'm allowed to have an opinion (lol!~). Experienced one at that  ;)

    I've used this style before when appropriate. That's why I can say it's not all that original. Most commercial artists* my age are familiar with it and know when to use it and how it works. It's what keeps us working  ;)

    *not sure about the youngsters and what they are being taught etc

    Parent

    Exactly My Point (5.00 / 0) (#59)
    by squeaky on Thu Jan 08, 2009 at 12:24:39 AM EST
    You are certainly allowed to have an opinion. Still I think others, expert or not, may really like the poster however hokey and obvious you think it is. Experience is not necessarily the arbiter of taste. To call the artist a hack, seems harsh to me.

    As far as I am concerned some of the greatest artworks have been ripoffs. Originality is overrated, imo.

    Parent

    Where did I call the artist a hack? (5.00 / 4) (#62)
    by nycstray on Thu Jan 08, 2009 at 12:57:21 AM EST
    Or hokey and obvious? Or say anyone shouldn't like the poster?

    And quite frankly, if you think originality is overrated, you should feel the same about these works. They were once original pieces ;)

    Parent

    Sounds Like the Description of a Hack To Me (none / 0) (#66)
    by squeaky on Thu Jan 08, 2009 at 02:03:17 AM EST
    He's a commercial artist. No different from the thousands out there.

    [snip]

     More of a direct ripoff with little personal style/originality. If you look at all his O designs, well, I could knock them out in a day. Really, a no brainer for those of us who have been around the block more than once ;)

    And that was in response to someone saying that they like the artist's work....

    Parent

    You are obviously (5.00 / 6) (#69)
    by nycstray on Thu Jan 08, 2009 at 02:54:23 AM EST
    clueless about the field I work in.

    FYI, liking someone's work doesn't make them credible ;)

    Anyone in my "industry" who has any ounce of history/education/training could have produced that style of Obama graphics. Anyone in the "biz" who thought that was cool, new, original, ground breaking, sending a message etc, needs to get a clue. It's been done, over and over again.

    Stating the obvious is not saying he's a hack, unless it's you doing the describing ;)

    I realize you like to take my POV and distort it, but frankly, it's getting old and losing credibility. If you can speak from experience in this area, let's hear it. Otherwise . . . .

    Parent

    Perhaps You Should Brush Up (none / 0) (#122)
    by squeaky on Thu Jan 08, 2009 at 12:17:24 PM EST
    On the meaning of the word hack:

     Hack writer, a hack; one who writes for hire. "A vulgar
          hack writer." --Macaulay.
          [1913 Webster]

    2. To use frequently and indiscriminately, so as to render
          trite and commonplace.
          [1913 Webster]

    3: a mediocre and disdained writer [syn: hack writer, literary
            hack]



    Parent
    I work in the 'field' too and... (5.00 / 3) (#129)
    by DXP on Thu Jan 08, 2009 at 12:58:31 PM EST
    I don't think nycstray is saying the work is 'hack' work. It is obviously very competent and well executed.

    My take on it is that it is an image of hero worship. It is in an old style, one of rigid stability. It is trying to say that this hero is both blue and red, with the tiny masses (that's us) at the bottom in a blue field tightly banded by rigid lines of blue and red - mostly red. The white house lives in a sea of red as is reflected on the heroic face. IMO it is a step backwards in visual language. But well done and comforting to those who want 'change' to mean 'going back' to a safer more predictable era before the massive changes of the Bush reign.

    Parent

    Really? (none / 0) (#137)
    by squeaky on Thu Jan 08, 2009 at 01:15:38 PM EST
    Your analysis is quite different from nycstray's, imo. It is actually analysis as opposed to a slam.

    Her comment was in response to someone saying that they liked the artist's work. First she set the record straight and pointed out that the artist was not an artist but a commercial artist one of a thousand..

    Second she said that the work was vulgar (commonplace), and showed no skill in the execution, as it would take her a day to churn out a similar piece of hackery. And the artist didn't even bother to do something original but ripped off someone else..

    To me that is the description of the work of a hack.

    Parent

    me too! (5.00 / 1) (#80)
    by sarany on Thu Jan 08, 2009 at 07:12:39 AM EST
    I'm an illustrator, but I admit it, I'm no Picasso :-)

    Parent
    more substance (5.00 / 3) (#83)
    by sarany on Thu Jan 08, 2009 at 07:50:11 AM EST
    I don't love seeing this style for Obama.  It feels too much like a personality cult and too mythic, and that feels like a set up.

    Parent
    and furthermore (5.00 / 2) (#141)
    by sarany on Thu Jan 08, 2009 at 01:37:22 PM EST
    The design feels static and lifeless.  There's no real drive to this layout.

    Parent
    I think "static" is the point (5.00 / 3) (#146)
    by DXP on Thu Jan 08, 2009 at 02:00:13 PM EST
    This image cries "conservative" and it a direct counter to the "change" message. It is a comforting non-threatening image we can all relate to on some level. It is a reassurance that "change" is not going to be too new, too unstable, out of control. In this sense it is a brilliant image in that it is very effective (if not affective).

    I, personally, am not attracted to images of hero worship (maybe this is one reason rock posters have been mentioned as they are very obvious in attempts to create heros). They are often subtly sexist and homophobic. No coat tails here! is one visual message (in my reading of it).

    Parent

    too bad this is an old thread because (5.00 / 4) (#149)
    by DXP on Thu Jan 08, 2009 at 02:19:51 PM EST
    I'm fascinated with visual language. It is a full language like mathematics music and french.

    People react viscerally to visuals but usually without knowing why. This image is a reassurance that authoritarianism will NOT be threatened. It has been de-racialized (a new word?) and affirms the masculine 'virtues' of power and authority. Cannot imagine the same poster with an image of a woman, say Hillary or Palin.

    Also, it says that "be the change" actually reads as "HE will be the change" which lets us off the hook for lots of unpleasantness and effort. He'll take care of it. Whew!

    Personally I think this poster could have been much better imaged and could have included the masses (us) in a more interactive way and not just barred into lower spaces, separate from the hero and the grand images of government (buildings). Hope this is not a prophetic image.

    Parent

    I agree with your interpretation (5.00 / 2) (#151)
    by Fabian on Thu Jan 08, 2009 at 02:48:00 PM EST
    I never used to think of myself as visually oriented.  Now I have a son who very strongly visually oriented.  He gets some exposure to print ads which do their job well - creating a positive response.  His reactions to television commercials is extremely enlightening - but it usually only happens when we take a trip to McDonald's.  His reactions to commercials are very strong, even when he doesn't understand what the product is.

    Parent
    Not Visually Oriented (none / 0) (#154)
    by squeaky on Thu Jan 08, 2009 at 03:09:29 PM EST
    Well then read the text. Nothing about complacency there. And certainly not an invitation for anyone to be off the hook. Quite the opposite.

    Also, it says that "be the change" actually reads as "HE will be the change" which lets us off the hook for lots of unpleasantness and effort. He'll take care of it. Whew!

    That is a really out there interpretation. BE THE CHANGE is an invitation to activism. And the active crowds below backing that up hardly suggest that Obama is the change as the above poster suggests. Nothing about complacency, imo.

    Parent

    Not really that 'out there' (5.00 / 1) (#155)
    by DXP on Thu Jan 08, 2009 at 03:19:57 PM EST
    but interpretation DOES have much to do with what we bring to our eyes.

    You see the crowds as active and I see them as contained by the "v" shape - the inverted pyramid, the direction of movement therein is moving down, containing the masses.

    I suppose I could see a woman in such a heroic pose, but often women image differently. And here is a huge can of worms!

    Nevertheless, I think the basic "hero" authoritarian pose reads, culturally, as manly.

    Now, this is not a commentary on anything but a poster. Just a visual romp...

    Parent

    Hero? (none / 0) (#156)
    by squeaky on Thu Jan 08, 2009 at 03:26:08 PM EST
    Hardly
    I think the basic "hero" authoritarian pose...

    Obama has done nothing heroic and there is zero of that in the pose, imo. The guy is POTUS. The leader of 350 million people and a world leader to boot.

    If anything the pose is soft and dreamy, questioning not dictating, Obama is looking up which exemplifies hope. An egoistic hero (wannabe) would be looking down at the people.

    And to distort the invitation to become active into the reverse seems like a crazy stretch to me. Something tells me that you are not happy that he was elected.

    Parent

    Looking up and away. (5.00 / 1) (#157)
    by Fabian on Thu Jan 08, 2009 at 03:42:40 PM EST
    That's better than looking down and away - a pose that indicates fear, indifference or submission.  Up and away can't indicate submission, but it may be interpreted as indifference.

    Looking directly at the viewer can be seen as hostile/threatening or assertive/strong or open/welcoming depending on the facial expression.

    A view from above the subject minimizes them.  A view from below makes the subject look larger, more impressive.  A view that is level with the subject's eyes makes them seem most human and approachable.

    Parent

    Nothing soft about that image! (5.00 / 2) (#172)
    by sallywally on Thu Jan 08, 2009 at 09:06:21 PM EST
    Very structured, very hard.

    Parent
    Possibly..... (none / 0) (#164)
    by DXP on Thu Jan 08, 2009 at 04:02:16 PM EST
    I'm in a wait and see mode - and in a mode of making our country and world work better.

    Our US presidents have a tradition of "hero" poses. Look at Mt. Rushmore! They comfort us. Obama is already a hero to many, also. He is a hero, in part, because he is NOT a wannabe at this point, he was elected and is in an authoritarian position. I don't think that is insignificant or should be overlooked.

    Yes, in a way the gaze is dreamy. And it is in direct and stark contrast with the other compositional elements. The dreamy/looking-into-the-future gaze is nothing new for Obama and so I interpret the other elements as an attempt for a sort of balance. A conservative balance. Many of his early messages are such, like his appointments. Is this "bad" or "good"? Am I "happy" or "sad"? Seems to me the world does not work that way.

    Parent

    I'm actually more visually oriented (none / 0) (#159)
    by Fabian on Thu Jan 08, 2009 at 03:45:09 PM EST
    than I thought.  I now avoid many visuals, especially news because visuals often distort more than they inform.  I'm big on maps, graphs and other analytical visuals.

    Parent
    maybe its a matter of sensitivity (none / 0) (#160)
    by DXP on Thu Jan 08, 2009 at 03:48:29 PM EST
    Your son just seems to NOTICE visuals. Harnessing it is a further challenge and skill. Visual analysis is very complicated in our culture.

    But not noticing can be a blessing - as some musically attuned person could probably tell you what destroyed tune everyone was just bombarded with as it was piped into the elevator.

    I have a hard time getting into a movie star's big close up on the big screen. I always seem to be wondering how big their nose (for example) is IRL - is it 8' or actually 10'? And look at those 5 inch pores!

    Parent

    Close ups are useful (none / 0) (#165)
    by Fabian on Thu Jan 08, 2009 at 04:06:53 PM EST
    but can be horribly abused.  Why bother to compose a shot when you can do a lot of closeups - cheap, easy and lazy.

    I'm a huge fan of top notch cinematography.  I'm also a huge fan of well done foley and music.  Pixar is awesome because they start with good writing, add fantastic virtual camera work and finish it up with excellent sound and music.  In Ratatouille, the rats wouldn't have pushed my Ick! button if they hadn't had the sound of all those scampering feet.  Ah.  Quality work.  Then there is all the cheap crud....  Ferget it.  I'd rather watch Pixar a hundred times than watch Pokemon once.

    Parent

    You Sound Pretty Visual TO Me (none / 0) (#166)
    by squeaky on Thu Jan 08, 2009 at 04:27:39 PM EST
    Perhaps you have not done much deconstructing/analysis of images, but from your descriptions of visual enjoyment you have experienced, I think you are selling yourself short by defining yourself as not visual.

    Sometimes family dynamics predujice traits of one family members over others who may have the same or better aptitude but for due to reasons regarding family cohesion they choose to not identify with it.

    Parent

    DXP, let's continue the dialogue (5.00 / 1) (#167)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Thu Jan 08, 2009 at 06:41:41 PM EST
    about visual communication and the Obama poster campaign in the next open thread. That was a fantastic discussion and there's still lots left to explore.

    I'm also "in the field" of teaching (and practicing) visual art; along with contemporary art history and some earlier 20th century movements like Futurism, Dadaism and Constructivism - particularly as applied to posters/printed matter. I'll post something later this evening.  

    Parent

    dead heroes are acceptable (5.00 / 1) (#150)
    by sarany on Thu Jan 08, 2009 at 02:46:23 PM EST
    That sounds kind of stark, but I think it's about right.  Live heroes are kinda risky, 'cause, you know how those humans can be, well, so human! Predictably fallible, that is.

    But yeah, maybe you're right, that this is meant to convey conservatism and comfort.  I still have a problem with the iconic heroic Obama treatment.  

    "Brand" Obama, too, gives me the heebie jeebies.

    Parent

    Google (none / 0) (#153)
    by squeaky on Thu Jan 08, 2009 at 03:00:38 PM EST
    The portrait, right, a mixed-media stenciled collage that depicts Mr. Obama above the word "hope," was created by Mr. Fairey, a Los Angeles artist known for rock-music album covers

    link

    Obviously the red and blue intermingling are visual metaphors for the the two parties coming together.   Be The Change is a clear invitation, not proscription,  for all to becoming activists.

    And if you cannot imagine a woman on the poster I think that is says more about your imagination that what is possible.

    Here is a poster of Hillary. Yes Mao but also more like Hendrix, imo.

    Parent

    Mythic, but not in a good way, imo. (5.00 / 1) (#171)
    by sallywally on Thu Jan 08, 2009 at 09:03:21 PM EST


    Parent
    I still think it is Art Nouveau. (none / 0) (#126)
    by oculus on Thu Jan 08, 2009 at 12:53:17 PM EST
    Also, the poster diminishes emphasis of Obama's ethic background.  No opinion on why or whether that is a good idea.

    Parent
    Amalgam of Styles (none / 0) (#132)
    by squeaky on Thu Jan 08, 2009 at 01:04:24 PM EST
    But Art Nouveau? Maybe you mean art deco.. think Chrysler Building.

    Mostly like a 70's rock poster to me..  toned down of course..

    Parent

    Fabrege jewelry. (none / 0) (#134)
    by oculus on Thu Jan 08, 2009 at 01:09:31 PM EST


    Parent
    Oops. Poor spelling. (none / 0) (#136)
    by oculus on Thu Jan 08, 2009 at 01:12:57 PM EST


    Parent
    And check out the "Jugend" (none / 0) (#135)
    by oculus on Thu Jan 08, 2009 at 01:12:10 PM EST
    magazine cover in this Wiki piece on art nouveau:

    art nouveau

    I can't compare and contrast w/'70s rock posters.  Not my thing.

    Parent

    Don't Get It (none / 0) (#140)
    by squeaky on Thu Jan 08, 2009 at 01:26:15 PM EST
    I can see the sun portion from your jugendstyl example as relation to some of his web page design, but I cannot see the connection to your example with the Obama poster we are discussing.

    And as far as being willfully ignorant about rock posters that is your choice. Considering that you are making visual comparisons, it seems to behoove you to expand your vocabulary.

    Looking at rock posters for style analysis comparison, won't dirty you, or hurt your ears or eyes.

    Parent

    Did you ever consider going into the (none / 0) (#142)
    by oculus on Thu Jan 08, 2009 at 01:38:36 PM EST
    ministry?

    Parent
    Ministry? (none / 0) (#143)
    by squeaky on Thu Jan 08, 2009 at 01:43:11 PM EST
    No I think making art and music is enough. Besides my poor social skills and allergy to organized religion would rule out the Ministry as a profession..

    Parent
    Here's a nice poster (none / 0) (#161)
    by Fabian on Thu Jan 08, 2009 at 03:53:42 PM EST
    in red, blue and a little white.

    Heh.

    Parent

    Or this one... (none / 0) (#162)
    by Fabian on Thu Jan 08, 2009 at 03:58:19 PM EST
    Rush: A Farewell To Kings

    Parent
    His Hope Portrait was accepted (none / 0) (#12)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Jan 07, 2009 at 09:50:09 PM EST
    by the Smithsonian today and will be  a permanent part of the National Portraits Gallery.

    Parent
    Fine with me (none / 0) (#14)
    by SOS on Wed Jan 07, 2009 at 09:53:03 PM EST
    Of course the paranoid are going on the rampage now because it reminds them of 1960's Berkeley California.

    Parent
    I thought this style was perfect... (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by EL seattle on Wed Jan 07, 2009 at 10:14:36 PM EST
    ... with the Andre "Obey" posters.  Twenty years ago.

    Now that style looks almost corporate to me ... not nearly so creative or interesting as it was back in the old days.  It's almost as though the primal power of its 'propoganda' visual core has become merely ornamental.

    Parent

    Soviet posters (5.00 / 3) (#26)
    by Plutonium Page on Wed Jan 07, 2009 at 10:18:23 PM EST
    Oh, we were Googling those way back in June, in the same context, kind of.

    Weird poster.

    Parent

    Who is supposed to (5.00 / 3) (#29)
    by Pepe on Wed Jan 07, 2009 at 10:38:42 PM EST
    "Be The Change'? Obama? Because that who is bigger than life on the poster.

    If that poster is supposed to be aimed at Americans 'Being The Change' then it misses it's target badly. What poor marketing. If he is trying to reach out to people then it's "people" who should be on the poster.

    The artist may be accomplished but he forgot to check with PR and marketing for what was supposed to be communicated which makes the poster a total waste of time.

    Parent

    He may have confused it with (5.00 / 3) (#71)
    by andrys on Thu Jan 08, 2009 at 03:31:24 AM EST
    Obama's "I am The Change" said a couple of weeks ago when some were carping about his appointments.

      Now it's back to "BE the Change"  (Thanks to Gandhi) and it's on our backs again, but we are hardly seeable in that poster.

    Parent

    Due to my strong reaction (5.00 / 2) (#110)
    by Fabian on Thu Jan 08, 2009 at 10:26:33 AM EST
    to most visuals, I read this entire discussion first before I looked up the image.

    The design says OBAMA - POTUS.
    The slogan says Be The Change.

    Together it comes out as POTUS "Be The Change" Obama.

    Just my opinion of course.

    (I understand the choice of red, white & blue but it comes across a bit ghoulish to me.)

    Parent

    Obama's stimulus package speech: (none / 0) (#127)
    by oculus on Thu Jan 08, 2009 at 12:55:18 PM EST
    "we" caused this problem:  government and business.

    Parent
    That's a new twist. (none / 0) (#144)
    by Fabian on Thu Jan 08, 2009 at 01:57:44 PM EST
    Business did the deeds.  Government allowed & to some extent, encouraged the deeds.

    To use a garden analogy, government created a hospitable environment and business flourished in it.  

    Parent

    Let us know how that turns out. (5.00 / 4) (#128)
    by oculus on Thu Jan 08, 2009 at 12:55:59 PM EST


    Parent
    PL = wicked funny! (5.00 / 1) (#174)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Thu Jan 08, 2009 at 10:51:19 PM EST


    Parent
    Inaugurations (5.00 / 1) (#145)
    by jondee on Thu Jan 08, 2009 at 01:57:50 PM EST
    are semi-deification ceremonies anyway.

    Though somehow I suspect that if the subject portrayed were a certain flower of the hinterlands of NY/Arkansas/Illinois, all that Triumph of Will aesthete would be cause for celebration.

    Parent

    Consume (none / 0) (#52)
    by SOS on Wed Jan 07, 2009 at 11:48:55 PM EST
    Shepard Fairey
    Signed & Numbered Poster
    Product Code: J0503
    Price: $500.00

    Shepard Fairey Poster
    Product Code: J0501
    Price: $100.00

    Parent

    Heavy Handed? (none / 0) (#56)
    by squeaky on Thu Jan 08, 2009 at 12:14:14 AM EST
    Seems a little like more like Warhol/Kruger based on Jimi Hendrix and 70's rock posters more, because of the solarization,  than socialist realism, but not totally unrelated. If anything they relate to WPA posters which I grant you, were clearly influenced by the russian avant guarde.

    I think that the solarization aspect is very american 70's style with a touch of Barbara Kruger.  

    Besides the soviet posters you linked are far from heavy handed, and quite beautiful, imo, but to each his or her own.

    Parent

    Wow (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by lilburro on Wed Jan 07, 2009 at 09:52:35 PM EST
    thanks for the good news Jeralyn.  I'm glad my old home state won't suffer the embarrassment of Chris Matthews as junior Senator.

    LOL (5.00 / 1) (#89)
    by jedimom on Thu Jan 08, 2009 at 08:24:48 AM EST
    you ain't kidding! can you even imagine the brigades of HRC supporters of PA taking to the streets to stop Tweety frOm getting a seat, I can, I would fly in to help!! hear him the other day say Todd 'lost his virginity' at the PEBO presser?..it's like a boys school locker room(or so I imagine HA!)

    Parent
    Whew! (5.00 / 1) (#91)
    by jbindc on Thu Jan 08, 2009 at 08:30:30 AM EST
    Now I won't have to send money to Arlen Specter and go campaign for him!

    Parent
    My thought exactly (none / 0) (#95)
    by ruffian on Thu Jan 08, 2009 at 08:54:16 AM EST
    Thanks Chris!  I would have hated to spend money on that race, but I would have to keep him out of the Senate.

    Parent
    Digging through the basements of the internet (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by Plutonium Page on Wed Jan 07, 2009 at 10:05:08 PM EST

    Opposition research is fun.

    Re the German billionaire who killed himself (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by scribe on Wed Jan 07, 2009 at 10:07:22 PM EST
    As some of you will recall, I regularly listen to German radio through the magic of the internet.  

    The basic scoop on the death of the late Mr. Merckle is that Monday night he walked in front of a train near his home.  He left a suicide note.  He was 74 years old.  The reason given for his suicide was his having recently lost about a billion Euros in speculation on Volkswagen stock;  VW has been the subject of takeover rumors and threats/promises for months now and the stock has been highly volatile.

    It appears Mr. Merckle may have run into a margin call or a demand for payment from a bank about a week ago, between Christmas and New Years', and was facing having to sell one of the companies which makes up his industrial empire, an outfit called "ratiopharm", a generic drug maker.  

    As the news of his suicide moved across the German media, another item was moving about the same time which led me to think he would have been well-served had he waited another day:  VW stock was up 12 percent or so Tuesday.

    So, for all of those thinking "it's people jumping out windows like 1929", I'd say "not so fast."  Merckle took a beating and decided, rather self-indulgently (read up sometime on the effects on train crews of suicidal people throwing themselves in front of trains), to go out.  But, he was born to wealth and lived the life, and had only lost about 10 percent of his net worth, if published reports are to be believed.

    The French-named gentleman who killed himself in relation to the Madoff scandal appeared to have done so out of pure shame for having been so duped and having lost the money of his friends and family.  He offed himself in an entirely classy way - slit his wrists and made sure there was a bucket under them so as not to inconvenience the cleaning crew or anyone else.

    Nothing CLASSY ever about suicide (5.00 / 0) (#50)
    by befuddledvoter on Wed Jan 07, 2009 at 11:31:24 PM EST
    It makes me profoundly sad for these people that their whole self-worth is wrapped up in money.  Perhaps those of us who are used to having very little are lucky.  I do feel fortunate, though no retirement savings and still paying off school loans.  Ironically, I have lost nothing in the stock markets since I had no stocks.

    Parent
    'He' was 'valued at' $9 billion last year (none / 0) (#72)
    by andrys on Thu Jan 08, 2009 at 03:35:26 AM EST
    according to a report I read today.

    Scary that a year later he kills himself because he may be worth only $7 billion now.  But he was being confronted on all sides as to money owed, and it's a total turn around from what he was used to.

    Scary nevertheless that we already have 3 extremely rich guys who killed themselves due to the downturn in the economy.

    Parent

    As a former railroader involved in (5.00 / 0) (#81)
    by easilydistracted on Thu Jan 08, 2009 at 07:16:49 AM EST
    a grade crossing accident, I can attest to what Scribe says about the emotional impact on the train crew.

    Parent
    Snip (none / 0) (#23)
    by SOS on Wed Jan 07, 2009 at 10:10:46 PM EST
    There's no smug satisfaction in watching this spectacle, just utter amazement at mankind itself, and the magnitude of our capability for folly, death and cruelty.

    Parent
    If you were born, you will one day die. (5.00 / 2) (#25)
    by scribe on Wed Jan 07, 2009 at 10:16:09 PM EST
    It's how you go about living and, at the end, dying, that counts.

    Given the choice (now purely notional, given their demises), I think the French banker would be the one I'd rather spend time with, and not the late Mr. Merckle.

    Class counts - and I could have taught him a lot about living on little money.

    Parent

    Didn't know about the bucket. (none / 0) (#77)
    by Fabian on Thu Jan 08, 2009 at 05:05:46 AM EST
    Very thoughtful.

    I knew someone who was a major depressive (when I was totally clueless about mental illness and depression).  He had problems with suicidal thoughts but promised his family that if he did take his own life, he couldn't traumatize anyone else or leave a mess.  So - no drama, no trauma, mo mess.

    I lost contact with him after he graduated from college.

    Parent

    Things to come. (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by lentinel on Wed Jan 07, 2009 at 10:32:58 PM EST
    I don't wish to be morbid, but it always occurs to me when a new President is taking office that he or she might soon be responsible to killing people. I wonder how long it will be before it happens. Is it like a primitive ritual to show who is the new boss?  It didn't take Bush long to slaughter hundreds of thousands, as we know. It didn't take Clinton long either. He bombed Iraq shortly after taking office because, he said, there had been some plot to kill George Bush Sr. Many civilians were killed.

    So, when Obama takes office, he will be responsible for continuing the slaughter in Iraq - or he can end it. He will be responsible for killing people in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and maybe Iran - if his rhetoric is any indication of his predilections.

    I don't know how these folks live with it.
    I really don't.
    It's not like self-defense.

    I'm reminded of Bill Clinton's explanation for why he did what he did with Monica Lewinsky. He said he did it, "because I could".
    Sometimes I feel that Presidents drop bombs on people because they can.

    Did he really say that? Well rather (none / 0) (#60)
    by hairspray on Thu Jan 08, 2009 at 12:33:36 AM EST
    that foolishness than dropping bombs like GWB.

    Parent
    Yes, he did. (none / 0) (#85)
    by lentinel on Thu Jan 08, 2009 at 08:08:24 AM EST
    Clinton said it, and wrote it.

    I have thought for some time that his "foolishness" with Lewinsky is what made GWB possible. People were truly disgusted. Spitzer just resigned, but Clinton held on for years while the details oozed out.
    Gore would have been President. With a booming economy, he would have trounced Shrub.

    As it was, Gore distanced himself from Clinton. He picked Lieberman, a slug if there ever was one, as his running mate based on the fact that Lieberman had been one of the first to condemn Clinton. They ran a defensive and stupid campaign.

    The rest is history.

    Parent

    disagree (5.00 / 3) (#90)
    by jedimom on Thu Jan 08, 2009 at 08:28:46 AM EST
    well I for one am damn glad he 'held on' HA! highest popularity ratings ever...Big Dawg was a superb POTUS I could care less if he got a BJ he accomplished great work AFTER the ridiculous overreach of Starr brought out details of his sexual life....and Eric Holder IMO should never have advised that Starr could expand the inquiry into that crxp...

    and Big Dawg did not 'enable' Dubyah to do jack, Dubyah was enabled by the Congress and the voters who elected him....

    Parent

    People weren't disgusted. (5.00 / 2) (#168)
    by sallywally on Thu Jan 08, 2009 at 08:43:46 PM EST
    He had tremendously high ratings through the whole impeachment debacle and likely could have been re-elected easily if he could've run.

    Parent
    I am not sure we know this: (5.00 / 2) (#173)
    by hairspray on Thu Jan 08, 2009 at 09:31:50 PM EST
    Clinton held on for years while the details oozed out.
    Gore would have been President. With a booming economy, he would have trounced Shrub.
      The media hated Gore as much as Clinton as I recall and remember reading so much about his "lying and stiffness."  The right wing was at its peak with hundreds of blathering wingnuts on the radio.  People may have been disgusted by Clinton, but they liked his presidency.  It was the right wing that finally did themselves in.  I have a theory that certain events are cyclical and must run their course.  Even the loss of the Democratic congress in 1994, which some want to blame on Clinton, was well deserved by a bunch of tired and lazy men who were no longer effective.  In fact we still have some of them around and if they don't watch out they may suffer some big reversals in the next 2-4 years.

    Parent
    Didn't JFK sign off on (none / 0) (#73)
    by andrys on Thu Jan 08, 2009 at 03:38:18 AM EST
    the CIA plans to assassinate Castro?

      I remember reading that (though I don't know that this is true but since there was an assassination plot by the CIA it may be true) and thinking that anyone who wants to be president nowadays (1960s) has to be capable of murder -- for the public good of course.  It was unsettling and one of those things having to do with "realities."

      Anyone here know whether or not this was true?  Or did the CIA plan this w/o 'advising' the President?

    Parent

    "Being Gay is a gift from God" (5.00 / 3) (#30)
    by nycstray on Wed Jan 07, 2009 at 10:41:13 PM EST
    Said by a minister on Oprah today. Oprah's response? She said it's the first time she ever heard a minister say that. Second minister on the show chimes in, well, Oprah, you're about to hear another first (2 ministers agreeing on this issue), I agree, "Being Gay is a gift from GOD".

    Okay, so my Oprah watching isn't a thing I do consistently, but I was sitting there doing needle work (hey! it's my job/project at the moment!) and didn't change the channel. It was a show on spirituality, which the ministers made sure to clarify was different than religion, but it seemed neither was willing to exclude LGBTs based on religion. They are actually the type of minister I can listen to and have no problem with giving public appearances/speeches (think Jan 20th)+. Why can't Obama have one of them speaking instead of Warren? They have their religion, but they encourage all to find their spiritual place++.

    +yes, I realize that the religious that don't agree would have as much outrage as we do about Warren, but isn't it better to be inclusive?

    ++I'm sans religion, but don't have a problem with spirituality/peaceful place :)

    The 2 ministers/pastors/revs (not sure of proper title) deserve to be named, imo:

    Rev. Ed Bacon and Michael Bernard Beckwith

    Should also note, Oprah was very pleased with the remarks. Don't want anything wrong read into my typing of her response  :)

    Language (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by lentinel on Wed Jan 07, 2009 at 11:08:31 PM EST
    I don't identify with homosexuality or heterosexuality being described as a "gift". I could consider sexuality in itself to be a gift because it is so pleasurable and in some cases leads to some sweet children.

    Parent
    The impression/message I got was (5.00 / 4) (#45)
    by nycstray on Wed Jan 07, 2009 at 11:18:07 PM EST
    that we are born as and with gifts. So just being born as to who you are is a gift and should be celebrated/proud of. Everything else is gravy  ;) Celebrate and be who you were born to be. Accept it. Spirituality, to me, sounds like it transcends religion in those terms  ;)

    Parent
    I can agree (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by lentinel on Wed Jan 07, 2009 at 11:30:48 PM EST
    with the way you express the thought.
    We are who we are.
    But, for example, if some guy had gone on Oprah's and said that "heterosexuality is a gift from God", it would have probably caused a ruckus. I would feel like saying, as opposed to what?
    That's why I would prefer to simply refer to sexuality as not even being called a "gift" from someone or other, but a natural condition. That way no one is excluded.

    Parent
    The conversation came about from a gay guy (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by nycstray on Wed Jan 07, 2009 at 11:49:28 PM EST
    on Skype (sp?) during the show.

    And the basic I got out of it was that it was natural, therefore a gift from God. Being LGBT was no different from straight as it was a "born" state. So it wasn't so much about sexuality from the 2 religious folks, but more about you are born who you are. Kinda like I was born a Californian and somebody else was born a New Yorker  ;) Yes, LGBT is more of a hot button vs NYers and Californians, but basically the same. We're all people and gifts. And for the record, I'm a Bi-Stater! ;) Born in Ca and accepted as a NYer.

    What both of the religious representatives said was that they accepted people as they were born to be and considered it a gift. They did not follow the religious line of the Bible says "this". They said other religions may interpret/believe that, but they didn't. Being spiritual was about self (and others) and was different from religion which was interpretation about belief. And I have to say, I was damn floored and happy to hear that.

    We are who we are as we were born to be. I personally get that one  :)

    Parent

    I disagree -- it's a good message (none / 0) (#84)
    by sarany on Thu Jan 08, 2009 at 08:01:21 AM EST
    for people of faith to hear right now.  Also, gays are struggling against long discrimination and, as we all know, recent setbacks.  I don't think there's anything wrong with singling out gayness as a gift right now, and using language (God) that has meaning for religious folks, and  making a special point of it.

    Why, I also wonder, do we have to feel slighted when something like this is expressed in this manner?  It's not as though any other group is diminished when one is praised in some way. This isn't a zero sum situation.

    Anyway, kudos to Oprah for this.

    Parent

    Maybe (none / 0) (#31)
    by txpolitico67 on Wed Jan 07, 2009 at 10:49:12 PM EST
    Oprah is prepping her audience for her own coming out.

    Parent
    will she invite Tom Cruise for that (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by ThatOneVoter on Wed Jan 07, 2009 at 10:51:24 PM EST
    day?

    Parent
    You 2 are baaaaad! ;) (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by nycstray on Wed Jan 07, 2009 at 11:00:43 PM EST
    I will say, I was totally surprised. The guy that said it first was wearing the collar (no, don't go there. It was of the white religious kind!)

    As much as we can bust on Oprah, I will say this pleased me. They were very good at stressing that people were born GLBT, so it they are a gift as we all are. She'll prob get sh!t for it, but I think it's an area she would defend. What can I say, it was the last thing jaded me expected to hear coming from my TeeVee from the mouth of religious folks, lol!~

    And I certainly hope TC doesn't show up unless he's willing to give it up  ;)

    Parent

    That sounds like a risky business (none / 0) (#36)
    by ThatOneVoter on Wed Jan 07, 2009 at 11:04:24 PM EST
    proposition for him.

    Parent
    Obama to overhaul social security? (5.00 / 8) (#37)
    by nellre on Wed Jan 07, 2009 at 11:04:30 PM EST
    WASHINGTON -- President-elect Barack Obama said Wednesday that overhauling Social Security and Medicare would be "a central part" of his administration's efforts to contain federal spending, signaling for the first time that he would wade into the thorny politics of entitlement programs
    Obama Says He Will Seek to Overhaul Retiree Spending
    Am I dreaming? Social Security taxes have been financing some of the deficit for decades.
    I've been paying about 7.5% of my gross into it for over 30 years, my employer has matched it.
    It is an annuity, not welfare. That congress raided this cookie jar should not punish retirees.

    I wonder what Hillary would have said and done.

    Ouch. This was my number 2 worry (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by ThatOneVoter on Wed Jan 07, 2009 at 11:07:49 PM EST
    about Obama (war in Afghanistan and Pakistan was the first).

    Parent
    mine as well (5.00 / 2) (#92)
    by jedimom on Thu Jan 08, 2009 at 08:31:29 AM EST
    oh me too! yes his advisers U ofC friedmanites like Jason Fuhrman and Goolsbee of NFTA fame are very very interested in screwing with SS and not in a good way...big concern....

    Parent
    mine as well (none / 0) (#93)
    by jedimom on Thu Jan 08, 2009 at 08:31:45 AM EST
    oh me too! yes his advisers U ofC friedmanites like Jason Fuhrman and Goolsbee of NFTA fame are very very interested in screwing with SS and not in a good way...big concern....

    Parent
    If he's going to F*** with it (5.00 / 5) (#40)
    by nycstray on Wed Jan 07, 2009 at 11:08:59 PM EST
    I want my 25+yrs worth of "donations" back.

    This was mentioned during the primaries. And iirc, looking at his advisers made it seem very "real".

    Parent

    I was pillloried, over and over, (5.00 / 4) (#43)
    by ThatOneVoter on Wed Jan 07, 2009 at 11:13:09 PM EST
    for saying I didn't trust Obama on SS.

    Parent
    I had actually forgot about my (5.00 / 6) (#47)
    by nycstray on Wed Jan 07, 2009 at 11:26:04 PM EST
    lack of trust on this issue with Obama. So many other things came into play during the primaries and general. Ya know, he has SO many other areas that need immediate attention, if he goes here early on, he's in deep trouble. This should be a second term issue*, imo, because we have so many immediate needs as far as leadership goes.

    *also an issue I don't want on the table in any term, unless of course, I get to make decisions about the money I've put into it. Anything I've ever seen about taking SS to private puts me on the curve. Life history tells me that would screw me

    Parent

    Right, promising to act on SS (5.00 / 3) (#58)
    by ThatOneVoter on Thu Jan 08, 2009 at 12:23:16 AM EST
    before he's even taken office is disturbing.

    Parent
    It is considered a (5.00 / 5) (#44)
    by SOS on Wed Jan 07, 2009 at 11:17:29 PM EST
    High Crime for an administration to take money out of the sacrosanct public trust funds. The money does not belong to the United States Government. It belongs to the people of the United States.

    Parent
    He better not try to reduce my benefits (5.00 / 5) (#54)
    by Jeralyn on Thu Jan 08, 2009 at 12:04:45 AM EST
    I've been paying in more than 30 years too. To call it an entitlement is ridiculous. I'm still years away from collecting or retiring, but I want it there when I do. There were hints he would tinker with this during the campaign and I called him out for it then. I wonder what other unpleasant surprises he has in store for us.

    Parent
    When I say 25 yrs paying in (5.00 / 4) (#57)
    by nycstray on Thu Jan 08, 2009 at 12:16:12 AM EST
    I'm talking after college. I've been working since I was a wee one and through college. Yes, I was raised to save for retirement etc, and my parents are great examples. My mom was amused by her first SS check, but understood the value of it. They planned well, but SS and MCplus are important to them now (and when they first received it).

    I think we are about the same age, and I surely do NOT want my benefits reduced. Sadly, I think we are on the curve. Those older than us are OK, those younger will be able to adjust their planning. Hitting retirement age may end up being a catch 22. SS not there, but MC plans are. I say if you're going to change SS, come up with a plan and apply it to all new workers. ANYONE who has money in SS should not be raped.

    Parent

    Right. I've paid in for 50+ years. (5.00 / 3) (#74)
    by andrys on Thu Jan 08, 2009 at 03:43:36 AM EST
    This annoyed me plenty during the GE but it's really getting to me now.  I posted a couple of times on this today.

      The only hope I have is that it was announced on a day he was nominating some efficiency expert, and PERHAPS he means he would find a way to reduce administrative costs.  BUT if the actual benefits are where he wants to cut govt spending, the Dem Congress had better not be with him!

    Parent

    The money we have been forced to pay (none / 0) (#78)
    by Wile ECoyote on Thu Jan 08, 2009 at 05:10:26 AM EST
    to the ponzi scheme known as social security does not exist anymore.  The benefits we receive will be paid into the system at a future time.  

    Parent
    I don't think she'd have touched it. (5.00 / 1) (#169)
    by sallywally on Thu Jan 08, 2009 at 08:47:37 PM EST
    Mess with the minimum cost of living raises for people on very limited incomes? No way!

    We might have hoped she'd fight him tooth and nail on this, but as SoS she can't do it, eh?

    Parent

    One thing is obvious the (5.00 / 2) (#41)
    by SOS on Wed Jan 07, 2009 at 11:12:31 PM EST
    past 8 years have been a total disaster.

    End of Homeland Security? (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by squeaky on Thu Jan 08, 2009 at 12:39:02 AM EST
    The plan being discussed would eliminate the independent homeland security adviser's office and assign those duties to the National Security Council to streamline sometimes overlapping functions. A deputy national security adviser would be charged with overseeing the effort to guard against terrorism and to respond to natural disasters.

    [..]

    Mr. Bush's aides, including the national security adviser, Stephen J. Hadley, have privately urged Mr. Obama's advisers not to get rid of the separate homeland security office, warning that it would load too many responsibilities on the National Security Council and risk important matters' falling through the cracks.

    The likely selection of Mr. Brennan to take over domestic security issues in the White House represents a turnaround..

    NYT

    Brennan is back? WTF?

    Uh oh. Brennan? Domestic (none / 0) (#63)
    by oldpro on Thu Jan 08, 2009 at 01:07:21 AM EST
    security?

    Parent
    Yep (none / 0) (#67)
    by squeaky on Thu Jan 08, 2009 at 02:10:58 AM EST
    Not good. He is for telecom immunity was possibly key in Obama's reversal re: FISA spying.

    For enhanced interrogation and rendition..

    Not good..

    Parent

    Exactly so. (5.00 / 2) (#108)
    by oldpro on Thu Jan 08, 2009 at 10:16:44 AM EST
    Who'll be keeping an eye on HIM?

    Parent
    BLAH (none / 0) (#87)
    by lilburro on Thu Jan 08, 2009 at 08:18:20 AM EST
    increased integration of domestic systems of intelligence gathering and law enforcement was one of Brennan's pet ideas.  I believe he wanted to improve the flow of information between homeland security and your local police station.

    At least he won't be able to order any extraordinary renditions.  But I doubt domestic wiretapping is going anywhere fast.

    Parent

    And... (5.00 / 1) (#88)
    by jbindc on Thu Jan 08, 2009 at 08:22:27 AM EST
    if you read the article, this position will not require Senate confirmation.  So, Brennan will slip in, and most people (who don't pay that close attention) will never know what's going on.

    Parent
    Cass Sunstein (none / 0) (#107)
    by KeysDan on Thu Jan 08, 2009 at 10:15:11 AM EST
    is also in to oversee regulations.

    Parent
    He Would Get Confirmed Anyway (none / 0) (#123)
    by squeaky on Thu Jan 08, 2009 at 12:19:35 PM EST
    And most people would not think twice about it anyway....

    On the other hand some will notice and we will keep an eye on Brennan.

    Parent

    Guess Obama got us back. (none / 0) (#170)
    by sallywally on Thu Jan 08, 2009 at 08:51:56 PM EST
    Like, somehow he had to drop Brennan but now, revenge! How bad can this actually be?

    I said from the start that Bush was trying to destroy the system of govt, and would wreck the economy, but even I didn't imagine how bad it would be.

    So how bad could this be?

    Parent

    my GOV (none / 0) (#94)
    by jedimom on Thu Jan 08, 2009 at 08:34:42 AM EST
    Well since my Gov Napolitano plans to abandon us to a GOP SoS, sniff, can she stay here if running DHS isnt going to be all that and a bag of chips?!

    AZ is in trouble with housing and schools getting cut first as always in the budget, Janet would fight for us....if she isnt going to have a 'real' job running DHS she should stay here and run against MAC in 10!!!

    Parent

    My Favorite Story of the Day (5.00 / 1) (#102)
    by ruffian on Thu Jan 08, 2009 at 09:52:25 AM EST
    so far anyway...a Dem woman mayor of a FL town bought a dress to wear to Gore's inaugural ball in 2000. Of course, we know how that turned out. She promised herself she would only wear that dress to an inauguration...so she is wearing it this year. That is what I call keeping hope alive!

    Yikes (none / 0) (#1)
    by SOS on Wed Jan 07, 2009 at 09:27:42 PM EST
    CHICAGO -- Real-estate executive Steven L. Good was found dead of an apparently self-inflicted gunshot wound Monday in his Jaguar in a forest preserve outside Chicago, said the Kane County Sheriff's Department.

    Mr. Good, 52 years old, was chief executive of Sheldon Good & Co., one of the nation's largest real-estate auction firms. His father founded the company in 1965.

    And (none / 0) (#2)
    by SOS on Wed Jan 07, 2009 at 09:31:49 PM EST
    Hours earlier, German billionaire Adolf Merckle also killed himself by throwing himself under a train after his company suffered financial losses brought by the current global economic crisis.

    Thierry de la Villehuchet, a French investment manager who lost more than a billion dollars in the alleged pyramid scheme of Wall Street finance adviser Bernard Madoff, also committed suicide in December.

    Parent

    Right, this reminds me (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by befuddledvoter on Wed Jan 07, 2009 at 11:19:27 PM EST
    of how my mother has always described the Great Depression.  She said people threw themselves off buildings.  Amazing what money, or lack thereof, can do.  

    Parent
    Money isn't everything. (none / 0) (#76)
    by Fabian on Thu Jan 08, 2009 at 04:55:53 AM EST
    Look at the descriptions - billionaires?  Even in times of economic downturn, how much can a billionaire suffer?

    Whatever is going on there, it's not about money.  Crimes?  Ego loss because people were going to perceive them as frauds?

    Parent

    I agree, how much can people spend? (5.00 / 1) (#96)
    by befuddledvoter on Thu Jan 08, 2009 at 09:08:50 AM EST
    There is pathology there; their self-worth is tied to $$$$ and their perception of "achievement."  May also be complicated that they may be implicated in wrongdoing, whether legal or illegal.

    Parent
    Two's company, (none / 0) (#3)
    by Radiowalla on Wed Jan 07, 2009 at 09:37:46 PM EST
    three's a very bad omen.

    Let's hope this won't be as bad as it appears.

    No doubt (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by SOS on Wed Jan 07, 2009 at 09:39:46 PM EST
    Hopefully these guys aren't doing this because of what they knew lies ahead for the rest of us.

    Parent
    Last week, the first of three happened (5.00 / 1) (#70)
    by andrys on Thu Jan 08, 2009 at 03:26:52 AM EST
    That was someone very closely affiliated with Access,
    Thierry de la Villehuchet

    Parent
    These are guys who spent (none / 0) (#4)
    by SOS on Wed Jan 07, 2009 at 09:37:56 PM EST
    decades grooming and squeezing Americans, who until recently were the most profitable herd of so-called "citizens" on the planet.

    It was announced today (none / 0) (#11)
    by Amiss on Wed Jan 07, 2009 at 09:49:05 PM EST
    that Florida leads the Nation in people on food stamps.

    Our illustrious governor and legislature are cutting funding for education, which is already second from the bottom in the Nation, and health care for the poor.

    Thank God Jeb Bush is not going to take Daddy's advice and run for the senate.

    It's bad everywhere . . (5.00 / 2) (#17)
    by SOS on Wed Jan 07, 2009 at 09:57:55 PM EST
    getting nasty.

    The middle class can also forget "wealth building" for some time.

    Parent

    That's what anti-tax ideology will get you (none / 0) (#15)
    by andgarden on Wed Jan 07, 2009 at 09:54:15 PM EST
    But I have to say, the weather was perfect in Miami this week

    Parent
    What were you missing? (none / 0) (#16)
    by scribe on Wed Jan 07, 2009 at 09:55:17 PM EST
    Other than the San Francisco BART police officer executing a kid (lying on his belly) for not being sufficiently submissive?  And then dragging him like a deer?  All caught on video?  There's a diary over at Kos (the linky button is not working for me today).

    But we've been talking about football and Euro billionaires walking in front of trains....

    This is what you get (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by SOS on Wed Jan 07, 2009 at 10:03:51 PM EST
    when you elect Repubs. The Return of the Dark Ages and the Wild West, where you are on your own and you better be quick with the trigger because everyone is armed to the teeth.

    Parent
    We already know we are a (none / 0) (#18)
    by SOS on Wed Jan 07, 2009 at 09:59:01 PM EST
    mess.

    Parent
    Summary (none / 0) (#19)
    by SOS on Wed Jan 07, 2009 at 10:00:55 PM EST
    The 24/7 totalitarian state message. Which mainly comes down to.

    BE AFRAID. KEEP PAYING MONEY. OBEY AUTHORITY.

    Parent

    Boycott! (none / 0) (#34)
    by Artoo on Wed Jan 07, 2009 at 10:54:56 PM EST
    Bill James on the BCS:

    http://www.slate.com/id/2208108/?from=rss

    Terrific article; but I thought (none / 0) (#68)
    by oculus on Thu Jan 08, 2009 at 02:50:36 AM EST
    James just did baseball.

    Parent
    WSWS: Israel prepares new escalation (none / 0) (#51)
    by Andreas on Wed Jan 07, 2009 at 11:47:25 PM EST
    Gaza death toll tops 700 as Israel prepares new escalation
    By Bill Van Auken, 8 January 2009

    * * *

    The International Committee of the Fourth International and the World Socialist Web Site denounce the Israeli military's murderous assault on the Palestinian population of Gaza. The combined air and ground attack on the densely populated and virtually defenseless enclave is a war crime. ...

    As unpleasant to the Israeli regime as the comparison may be, the plight of Gaza resembles nothing so much as the tragic fate of the Jews of the Warsaw Ghetto in Nazi-occupied Poland.

    There are, without question, Israeli intellectuals, youth and class-conscious workers who are opposed to the invasion of Gaza and deeply ashamed of the crimes being committed by the regime in their name. They are, we are sure, horrified by the implication of the Jewish people in crimes that recall the atrocities of the Nazis. But if, as is claimed by opinion polls, some 80 percent of Israelis support the military onslaught on this tortured territory, this can only attest to the deep level of disorientation and demoralization among broad sections of the population. Not the least of Israel's crimes is its cynical exploitation of the horrors of the Holocaust to justify its own criminal actions.

    It is not possible to discuss the assault on Gaza without placing central emphasis on the role of the United States. The American ruling elite has served as Israel's chief enabler and co-conspirator for the past four decades--ever since Israel seized Gaza and the West Bank in the 1967 war.

    Hands off Gaza!
    Barry Grey and David North, 5 January 2009

    Rorbert Scheer wrote (5.00 / 1) (#75)
    by andrys on Thu Jan 08, 2009 at 03:50:08 AM EST
    Why Do So Few Speak Up for Gaza?

    A very good question.

    Defense is one thing, and if attacked, it's called for.   What's going on is a taste for obliteration.  13 more days.  Obama at least finally said something and it indicated that the civilian death toll is a thing for concern.  I guess the Israeli hardliners hope to get as much done as possible before Obama is in office.  

    Parent

    DumbassPresident.com (none / 0) (#55)
    by DAP on Thu Jan 08, 2009 at 12:06:24 AM EST
    I am trying to respond to Big Tent Democrat's question about what is new.  Well, this is my first blog ever and I thought I would announce to him and you about my new Website and maybe he and others would go to it and make comments.  It is called dumbasspresident.com and it pretty much speaks for itself.  It was our Christmas present to ourselves this last year and we had it built.  We hope it will become a legacy site regarding George W. Bush. We just got it up and running so not much is happening and we don't really know how to let people know about it.  Hope this is a start.  Any suggestions please let us know.  Hope I have not commited some blog mistake.  As a new blogger it took me over an hour to figure out to pull up a leave a comment.  Thanks, DAP

    Two comments: (1) Obama, who, as yet, (none / 0) (#64)
    by oculus on Thu Jan 08, 2009 at 01:08:52 AM EST
    is only the President-elect, not the President, need not have, at this juncture, announced he will be reforming Social Security and Medicare to help resolve the financial crisis; (2) suicide, by any person, should not, in my opinion, be the subject of comments weighing whose choice of method was better, etc.  Most uncaring.

    Point 2... (5.00 / 1) (#100)
    by kdog on Thu Jan 08, 2009 at 09:23:40 AM EST
    how will we ever hope to understand suicide if we can't talk about?

    I don't wanna go back to the 1950's when appearances ruled and anything taboo was never discussed...thats not healthy, imo.

    Parent

    Exactly (5.00 / 1) (#109)
    by daring grace on Thu Jan 08, 2009 at 10:26:17 AM EST
    My brother killed himself 15 years ago and the family--for the sake of his two teenage daughters and their wanting to hide it from their friends etc. pretended publicly it was some sudden health incident like a heart attack. And within the circles that touched my nieces I kept my mouth shut.

    But in my own life and among people who knew him casually who asked me how such a young (ish) healthy man could die so unexpectedly I was frank. And it sent some people into reeling dismay--NOT that he had done himself in, but that I was actually telling people he did.

    I'm sympathetic with the way that writing on a blog can obscure people's feelings and seem insensitive when it it not intended as such, but I am firmly committed to talking about suicide as the fact of life (death) that it is.

    It's a shame what my brother did. Especially since he left children who needed him in their lives longer. But I'm not ashamed of him. Saddened and INFURIATED. But not ashamed.

    Parent

    My sympathies.... (5.00 / 1) (#112)
    by kdog on Thu Jan 08, 2009 at 10:33:22 AM EST
    my father committed slow suicide via the bottle.

    We had many long talks about it before he passed...and as heart wrenching and pain staking as it was, those talks were vital in helping me understand his feelings and accept what he was doing.  I was really the only one he felt he could talk to about it, and after he passed,  I passed along his thoughts and feelings to the rest of the family, helping them to heal and forgive and come to grips.

    To ignore the two-ton elephant would have left a lot more hurt burining in all of us.

    Good point about blog writing too, I'm always saying it is easy to misconstrue as opposed to the spoken word and face to face conversation.

    Parent

    Oh, Well, If We're Talking Alcohol... (5.00 / 2) (#133)
    by daring grace on Thu Jan 08, 2009 at 01:04:46 PM EST
    I've had that on both sides of my family. My dad died a month shy of his 60th birthday after belting back scotch for breakfast (and then heading out to work) for as long as I was old enough to be aware of WHAT he had for breakfast.

    My brother who was a physician's assistant, opined that dad, who was never sick a day in his life before his last year when his liver and kidneys surrendered, that a man of lesser constitution would have died at 40.

    Your family was 'lucky' that your dad could speak of those things and that you were there to transmit them. My dad had similar conversations with both my brothers, not, of course, with me, the youngest and (ahem) a girl.

    Maybe now with the recovery movement and so much public discourse on addiction, mental illness, and 'otherness' more of these conversations happen. I still know of families where they don't though and that is, to me, a significant part of the whole sadness, that emotional and empathetic isolation.

    Parent

    Uncanny D. Grace... (5.00 / 1) (#158)
    by kdog on Thu Jan 08, 2009 at 03:43:24 PM EST
    I have one sister, two brothers...he could never ever even approach the topic with my sister either.  They had a fiery realtionship...my father, though very loving, was very intimidating and his voice alone would make you quiver...my sister was the only one to ever really stand up to him growing up.  And we all say she takes after him the most, the boys are more like moms emotionally...when dad was yelling we cowered or cried like moms, my sister yelled back louder.  Maybe deep down he knew my sister was the only one who could get him to change his mind, his little girl was his one real weakness, much more so than the bottle, and he didn't want his mind changed.

    It was complicated to say the least...he didn't die from alcoholism per say, he drank to such excess at the end simply to kill himself without "leaving a mess for us" or jeapordizing the life insurance for my moms...no different than a gun or drinking Drain-O, only slower...and so much more painful.  He wasn't mentally ill, imo.  In a nutshell, I learned in our last talks that he feared getting old more than dying. I disagreed, said he had many good years left before he could not care for himself, but could not convince him.  In his eyes he led a full life, raised his kids to adulthood, left his wife cared for financially to the best of his ability...and he wanted it over.

    I was the one who went to see him everyday and get him his quart of vodka, basically assisting his suicide...I still have my doubts if what I did was right, if I should have refused to get his booze and fought harder to get him to reconsider...but I knew my dad, he would have drove drunk and got it himself, no matter how much pain he was in, maybe hurting somebody...tough stubborn son of a b*tch that he was.  Ah man I miss him.

    Thanks for this D. Grace...its good for the soul to get it out every once in awhile like you said.  You hang in there kid:)

    Parent

    Thank YOU, kdog (none / 0) (#175)
    by daring grace on Sat Jan 10, 2009 at 04:32:47 PM EST
    Had to step away for a little while. Coming back to read your memoir of your family and your dad has been very moving.

    Good for your sis. Shouting and fighting back isn't all by itself necessarily the best strategy, but as someone who was a 'cryer'--and even more, a withdraw-er I always envied the ones who got angry right back.

    My dad (and my mom, for that matter) had horrible childhoods with little or bad parenting so they knew nothing of how to do it and did the best they could. But my dad, I think, also just had no clue how to relate to girls. And both my parents liked it lots better when we kids grew up and they could relate to us more as peers (sort of).

    As to your bringing your dad vodka: my philosophy may not be the best in terms of what's ultimately 'good' for people...but then again maybe it is. I believe you strive to bring people comfort when you can, esp. loved ones. My sister had ALS (Lou Gehrig's disease) for almost ten years, progressively paralyzed and robbed of speech while her mind stayed razor sharp. She adored sweets, esp. chocolate. Her VERY doting husband frowned on her having them as much as she liked and we (my mom and I, mostly) were reduced to these hilarious spy-like contraband smuggling capers getting my sister the Hershey bars, Godiva chocs and cupcakes she relished. Her hubby ultimately surrendered...

    I think half the fun of it for Susan was the 'illegal' nature of her getting the forbidden pleasures--and being unable to move or speak, that little bit of resistant disobedience may have been as satisfying as the candy!

    Parent

    Poignant. Brought tears to my (none / 0) (#125)
    by oculus on Thu Jan 08, 2009 at 12:50:22 PM EST
    eyes reading your comment.  I suppose you are correct about acknowledging reality.  My uncle committed suicide sitting in his car--carbon monocide.  But we were told it was an accident.  

    Parent
    likewise, an accident (5.00 / 1) (#152)
    by sarany on Thu Jan 08, 2009 at 02:55:03 PM EST
    story about my grandfather and his suicide...  Finally found out about 8 years ago.

    Families need to talk about these things.  I knew something was odd, but not exactly what.  It makes me wonder about other lies and distortions though...

    The truth is always better, even when it breaks your heart to hear it or tell it.

    Parent

    I Guess There Are Many Facets to It (none / 0) (#138)
    by daring grace on Thu Jan 08, 2009 at 01:22:44 PM EST
    As I said, for my nieces' sakes I inhibited my own furious need to be 'forthright' and not hide it. There was no point in increasing their misery for the sake of making my point.

    It grieved and concerned me that they adapted more to their mother's coping mechanism to sweep all thought/mention of their dad out of their lives and have no further outward mention/acknowledgment of him--gone and seemingly forgotten.

    My sister in law is a decent person and this was just the way she was raised and how she copes. And now so do her children.

    Parent

    Really difficult. How are the (none / 0) (#139)
    by oculus on Thu Jan 08, 2009 at 01:24:49 PM EST
    kids doing?

    Parent
    Eh ~ (none / 0) (#163)
    by daring grace on Thu Jan 08, 2009 at 03:59:44 PM EST
    I could say they're doing predictably the way you might expect with this sweep the bad stuff under the rug approach, but then who's to say? The older I get the less certain I feel about tracking the causes and effects in our lives and the lives of others. Some people are made more resilient, some never recover. Hard to know what would be different if my brother lived.

    The eldest, now 30, is married and high achieving, dutifully in touch with my mom her doting grandma, very, very close with her own mom.

    The youngest, 28, likes to party, dropped out of college, but working hard 24/7 at marginal dead end jobs, and generally not in touch with anyone in the family but her mom and sister who she contacts about once a month.

    Parent

    Most uncaring...the result of (none / 0) (#65)
    by oldpro on Thu Jan 08, 2009 at 01:48:03 AM EST
    living under 8 years of Republican misrule.

    Parent
    So we can talk about (none / 0) (#79)
    by Fabian on Thu Jan 08, 2009 at 05:13:44 AM EST
    assisted suicide but not solo suicide?

    Fascinating.  I wonder if that applies to death in general.  Is discussing violent death more taboo than discussing death from disease?

    Parent

    Why socialism kinda scares me.... (none / 0) (#99)
    by kdog on Thu Jan 08, 2009 at 09:21:01 AM EST
    Check this out...some poor slob in Canada is being forced to pay child support for kids that aren't even his, apparently because he was duped to believe the children were his and he paid for years, and Canadian law says once you start paying you can't stop.  wtf?

    Now, if he has an attachment to the kids and is a father figure, it would be nice if he chose to continue to provide for their care...but to be forced too doesn't sound too righteous.

    I don't think it is as simple as it sounds (5.00 / 0) (#101)
    by ruffian on Thu Jan 08, 2009 at 09:46:35 AM EST
    Would you rather have mandatory paternity tests before any man is required to pay any child support? After all, without the tests there is only a presumption and claim of paternity. Once you make that presumption and claim, should you be allowed to revoke it? What if the woman also thought he was the father, and so thought he would support the children and never made an attempt to find the real father?

    I'm not sure what the right answer is, but there are a lot of questions - just trying to answer the 'wtf' aspect of your post.

    Parent

    I wouldn't mandate... (none / 0) (#104)
    by kdog on Thu Jan 08, 2009 at 10:04:15 AM EST
    paternity tests, but I would mandate that no man or woman should be forced by threat of wage garnishment or arrest to feed and cloth other people's children.

    Yes, if at a later date a paternity tests determines you are not the father, your legal responsibility to care for the children should end.  Whether or not the guy has a moral obligation to continue to support them is another question, like I said above if he loves the kids like a father I think he should, but being forced too is scary and somewhat tyrannical.  If the mother can't support them, there is always public assistance.

    We don't know for sure if he was deliberately duped or the mother didn't know who the father was...if he was duped, Canada just legalized fraud.

     

    Parent

    I think (5.00 / 2) (#106)
    by jbindc on Thu Jan 08, 2009 at 10:09:51 AM EST
    This is the law in many states here too.

    Parent
    Maybe if a man feels that (none / 0) (#113)
    by ruffian on Thu Jan 08, 2009 at 10:35:06 AM EST
    if he finds out later that he was duped he will no longer want to be involved with these children, he better take the test right when they are born to prevent havoc later. I don't see a problem with that, and an honest, practical woman shouldn't either. Otherwise know that when you commit to supporting children, it is indeed a commitment.

    There is not always state support. The ones who lose are the children, who had no part in creating the havoc.

    I'm just saying I can understand the reason for the law being that way.

    Parent

    I hear ya... (none / 0) (#116)
    by kdog on Thu Jan 08, 2009 at 10:46:13 AM EST
    its never cut and dried...I just can't get past the fact that a man is being forced to pay for another man's kids...hard to justify.

    Parent
    But they were his kids (none / 0) (#118)
    by Steve M on Thu Jan 08, 2009 at 10:58:03 AM EST
    for the 16 years he acted as their father, even if there was no biological connection.  Being a parent is about more than DNA.

    Frankly, while I'm sure it's terrible to find out that a spouse cheated on you, there's nothing to be gained by punishing the kids over it.  If the biological father could be located and they could make him pay the child support instead, great, but otherwise the loser is not the cheating spouse but the innocent kids.

    Parent

    Of course... (none / 0) (#119)
    by kdog on Thu Jan 08, 2009 at 11:02:18 AM EST
    the kids are always the biggest losers...and morally I can see the argument for continuing to provide for their care.  I'd like to think if I acted as a father to some kids that weren't actually mine, I'd continue to do so regardless of not being the biological father.

    It's the legal mandate of support for another's offspring that troubles me...it's basically stealing.

    Parent

    I'll second you on that. (none / 0) (#121)
    by vml68 on Thu Jan 08, 2009 at 11:30:46 AM EST
    If the man really loves the kids he will continue to provide for them but he should not be forced to do so by law.
    It makes no sense to me that I can potentially sue McDonald's for traumatizing me by giving me extra hot coffee that burned my mouth but a man has no recourse for something that may be truly emotionally traumatizing to him.


    Parent
    Child support payments are based (none / 0) (#130)
    by oculus on Thu Jan 08, 2009 at 01:00:52 PM EST
    on best interests of the child, not the payor.  If the man held himself out to be the father of the children (i.e., birthday cards, presents, vacations, pay for their upbringing, provide a roof over their heads), or if he was married to the mother and didn't quickly establish he wasn't the father, in the U.S. he would probably be ordered to pay child support.

    Parent
    Ruffian you may not have a problem (none / 0) (#117)
    by vml68 on Thu Jan 08, 2009 at 10:55:15 AM EST
    with your partner doing a paternity test on your child right after they are born but I believe quite a few women would. Isn't trust the foundation of a good relationship?

    If my partner wanted to have a paternity test done on any child we might have, I am pretty sure I would show him the door.

    Parent

    Good point... (none / 0) (#120)
    by kdog on Thu Jan 08, 2009 at 11:04:11 AM EST
    you're married, your wife says she is pregnant...if you wanna stay married I don't think asking for a paternity test is a good idea.

    Isn't infidelity considered fraud in a legal sense for divorce proceedings?  

    Parent

    Has New York never adopted (none / 0) (#131)
    by oculus on Thu Jan 08, 2009 at 01:02:06 PM EST
    no fault divorce law?

    Parent
    It's true (5.00 / 1) (#147)
    by Steve M on Thu Jan 08, 2009 at 02:12:29 PM EST
    Technically, you still need grounds for divorce in New York.  Hence the famous Woody Allen quip: "The Bible says thou shalt not commit adultery... but New York State says you have to."

    Parent
    Ha. (none / 0) (#148)
    by oculus on Thu Jan 08, 2009 at 02:17:34 PM EST


    Parent
    I have to agree with kdog on this. (none / 0) (#111)
    by vml68 on Thu Jan 08, 2009 at 10:27:00 AM EST
    The woman might have believed he was the father but she had to know that there was a possibility he was not. Unless she told him about the extramarital affair right from the start and he chose not to do a paternity test then, he should be under no obligation to pay.
    I am assuming for most men that have loved and cared for children as their own, it would be devastating to find out that the children are not yours biologically.  Add to that the fact that their wife/girlfriend was unfaithful and either intentionally or not they were duped.

    Parent
    Meet Sherriff Dirtbag of Alabama... (none / 0) (#105)
    by kdog on Thu Jan 08, 2009 at 10:08:43 AM EST
    This is unreal...profiting off of near-starvation.  Link
    What is unreal is that (none / 0) (#115)
    by oldpro on Thu Jan 08, 2009 at 10:36:36 AM EST
    the Alabama legislature allows that law to remain on the books.

    Shameful.

    Parent

    And I thought irony was dead... (none / 0) (#124)
    by desertswine on Thu Jan 08, 2009 at 12:33:27 PM EST
    "Bartlett's lawyer, Donald Rhea, said the sheriff would be incarcerated in his own jail."

    I hope he's hungry for a little bloody chicken. mmmm...

    Parent

    Wednesday Night Open Thread | 173 comments (173 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment