Tuesday Morning Open Thread

Another busy day ahead.

This is an Open Thread.

< WaPo Poll: 60% Say Palin Unqualified for Presidency | Blagojevich Trial: And Then There Were Two >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Anyone else as sick (5.00 / 4) (#3)
    by kenosharick on Tue Nov 17, 2009 at 09:47:25 AM EST
    of the palin hoopla as I am?

    I like him in 'Pole to Pole' (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by ruffian on Tue Nov 17, 2009 at 10:21:10 AM EST
    Watching it in my Netflix instant Q. Funny guy!

    hoopla? (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by Inspector Gadget on Tue Nov 17, 2009 at 10:23:13 AM EST
    I don't notice the hoopla since it's nothing more than media ratings. I am sick of the bashing of all women who put themselves in the public eye, though. I went to youtube to see how Oprah handled the interview and was terribly disappointed to hear the questions on "how did you think you could do this with 5 children to take care of?"

    Really? (none / 0) (#40)
    by Fabian on Tue Nov 17, 2009 at 04:35:09 PM EST
    There's at least one book out there written by a nanny employed by the rich'n'famous.  I'd bet some of those rich'n'famous mothers and fathers have been on Oprah's show - so why didn't she press them on the subject of parental duties?

    Since September 2008. (none / 0) (#5)
    by tigercourse on Tue Nov 17, 2009 at 09:50:56 AM EST
    Eric Idle is the Monty Python (none / 0) (#10)
    by me only on Tue Nov 17, 2009 at 10:15:34 AM EST
    actor in "Nudge Nudge Wink Wink," not Micheal Palin.  But I agree, this is like the third Monty Python video linked in the last month or so and I am tired of all this Palin hoopla.  He is funny and at, but not that funny.

    Where is the link to Monty Python? (none / 0) (#16)
    by oculus on Tue Nov 17, 2009 at 10:36:31 AM EST

    In yesterday's (none / 0) (#18)
    by me only on Tue Nov 17, 2009 at 10:54:51 AM EST
    Manly Men post.

    I've always been... (none / 0) (#14)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Tue Nov 17, 2009 at 10:31:39 AM EST
    ...more of John Cleese fan myself.  Faulty Towers is classic stuff...

    Yes, But Digby recognizes Palin's (none / 0) (#15)
    by oculus on Tue Nov 17, 2009 at 10:35:46 AM EST
    the truth (none / 0) (#17)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Nov 17, 2009 at 10:42:32 AM EST
    Palin is Bush in a dress.  

    she is "so darn likeable" as the african american journalist and Obama supporter who was present at the Oprah interview explained this morning on MSNBC.   "you just cant help but like her"

    get used to the hoopla.  it is only getting started.
    this woman is Bush in a dress.  misunderestimate her at you own risk.



    Stupak threatening to kill reform (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by Anne on Tue Nov 17, 2009 at 11:04:26 AM EST
    if his amendment does not make it into the final bill:

    From Salon:

    Rep. Bart Stupak, D-Mich., isn't making many friends with one of his party's key constituencies. The amendment he drafted and got attached to the House's healthcare reform bill, which restricts abortion coverage, has become perhaps the most controversial aspect of the legislation on the left. And now he's taking a tough line on the possibility that the amendment could be changed or stripped altogether.

    "They're not going to take it out," Stupak said of Senate Democrats during an appearance on "Fox and Friends" Tuesday morning. "If they do, healthcare will not move forward ... At least 10 to 15 to 20 of us will not vote for it."

    Without those votes -- and those numbers about line up with a count that House Majority Whip James Clyburn, D-S.C., has previously offered -- the House can't pass the bill.

    I don't know whether to be mildy optimistic that Stupak will manage to kill this terrible legislation with his temper tantrum, or resign myself to Stupak getting his way, others like him getting what they want and further weakening this effort, and the resulting pitifully bad bill sailing on to Obama's desk for signature.

    Oh, wait...I guess there's always reconciliation, but we know that whatever ends up going through that process will already have had all its teeth pulled.

    Absolutely disgusting (5.00 / 2) (#26)
    by nycstray on Tue Nov 17, 2009 at 11:40:50 AM EST
    that with a Dem majority in the House, they can't pass a health insurance bill without stepping on women's rights.

    I thought the amendment (none / 0) (#23)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Nov 17, 2009 at 11:13:42 AM EST
    couldn't be stripped in reconciliation.

    Don't worry (5.00 / 2) (#50)
    by hookfan on Tue Nov 17, 2009 at 06:29:53 PM EST
    it can always be changed later, so our noble warriors of compromise tell us. There's nothing that cannot be changed later, so there's nothing that cannot be sacrificed. When later? Oh, sometime. . . don't worry your pretty head about it.

    Later may be decades away (5.00 / 2) (#56)
    by Inspector Gadget on Tue Nov 17, 2009 at 07:21:00 PM EST
    I was just at my dad's, he was listening to some talk radio program (being a life-long, loyal democrat, it was not even a right wing program). They gave some poll results:

    46% of the people who did vote for Obama last year say they would not vote for him again.


    Go forth, citizens, make Krugman's Law So (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by Ellie on Tue Nov 17, 2009 at 12:37:52 PM EST
    Proposed extensions of Godwin's Law (by Paul Krugman, Nov 16, 2009/NYT)

    Godwin's Law -- which says that in any sufficiently long online discussion, someone will compare his opponent to Hitler -- is often interpreted to mean that if you do, in fact, start making Nazi comparisons, you've lost the argument and can no longer be taken seriously. I'm all for that. (Does this mean that we should no longer take any significant figure in the Republican Party seriously? Yes, it does.)

    But there are a lot of moral equivalents of Nazi comparisons, and they should receive the same treatment. I propose that we officially declare that anyone who

    1. Responds to calls for more government action in some area -- employment creation, health care, whatever -- by invoking the example of the Soviet Union


    2. Responds to suggestions that moderate inflation and/or dollar depreciation is acceptable by invoking the example of Zimbabwe


    3. Responds to any demonstration that projected debt levels, while high, are within the range advanced countries have successfully dealt with in the past by invoking the example of Argentina

    be summarily consigned to the outer darkness.

    Make it so.

    I'm not biased about this, although I have in the past offered to bear Prof. Krugman's young.

    The Law not only makes sense and is a good and fine law -- unlike the dreck we've seen in the Aughts -- it damn well should bear the name of someone who showed true courage as far back as when some nincompoop with a megaphone at Ground Zero was calling it Curge.

    I was hoping for a more ignominious penalty than consignment to the outer darkness, namely, one that I could personally witness, awash in pleasure, or even apply myself one-handedly (while enjoying some blini & cav with the other).

    Just quibbling now.

    Not sure about this... (none / 0) (#35)
    by ruffian on Tue Nov 17, 2009 at 02:29:20 PM EST
    I agree in spirit, but it seems only a matter of time before we need another law about making "moral equivalents of Nazi comparisons".

    Just sayin... (none / 0) (#37)
    by Samuel on Tue Nov 17, 2009 at 03:43:01 PM EST
    1. Responds to criticisms of more government action in some area -- employment creation, health care, whatever -- by invoking the example of someone citing the Soviet Union.

    2. Responds to suggestions that moderate inflation and/or dollar depreciation is not necessarily possible under current circumstances by invoking the example of someone citing Zimbabwe.

    3. Responds to any demonstration that projected debt levels, while high, are not remotely comparable to any advanced countries - let alone one that has successfully dealt with in the past - by invoking the example of someone citing Argentina

    In fact (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by Steve M on Tue Nov 17, 2009 at 04:01:02 PM EST
    Paul Krugman offers thoughtful responses to thoughtful criticisms all day long.  If a conservative economist questions Krugman, he doesn't deflect by saying "hey, someone else brought up the USSR!"  So your comment is just a cheap shot.

    OT. I just heard on NPR Pontiac Silver (none / 0) (#42)
    by oculus on Tue Nov 17, 2009 at 04:49:06 PM EST
    Dome sold for $250,000.  

    I seem to recall (none / 0) (#55)
    by Steve M on Tue Nov 17, 2009 at 07:07:11 PM EST
    that they accidentally built the Silverdome on a fault line and had the darndest time buying insurance.  Apparently in Michigan checking for fault lines isn't the first thing you do.

    I was at the first and last regular-season games the Pistons ever played in the Silverdome.  I watched the Hagler-Leonard fight on simulcast there.  When I was in high school I worked concessions for the Michigan Panthers, the very first USFL champions!  Lots of memories for a pretty unsightly stadium. :)


    ... or 'Whyn'cha move to RUSSIA ya (@*#(@ Pinko! (none / 0) (#54)
    by Ellie on Tue Nov 17, 2009 at 07:02:44 PM EST
    Or other well-considered, thoughtful responses in the same vein.

    Yea real cheap. (none / 0) (#59)
    by Samuel on Wed Nov 18, 2009 at 12:17:34 PM EST
    I'm not sure we're talking about the same Paul Krugman.  He chooses criticisms of republicans or other keynesians...I mean did you read his freaking history of economic essay?

    With this he's basically instructing his fans (you types) to ignore actual economics when debating people on economics.  

    The suggestion he's making is hypocritical in that he purports a desire to further knowledge while encouraging people to entirely ignore those that compare say gm's takeover to a ussr type policy.

    But I mean, look at the USDX, smell reality Steve.  


    ABC Nightly News is on in the background (5.00 / 2) (#57)
    by Inspector Gadget on Tue Nov 17, 2009 at 07:50:34 PM EST
    appears they have done some investigative reporting and that 650,000 saved/created jobs the administration was claiming is about to drop significantly...they got caught padding the numbers by including districts that don't exist, and other little tricks like counting 317 employee raises as new hires at one factory. I hate being lied to.

    I'm sure (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by hookfan on Tue Nov 17, 2009 at 08:57:07 PM EST
    the Obama administration will set up a blue ribbon commission to get ideas to handle the problem. 'Course he can always make pretty speeches about workers' employment problems without those ideas. Or perhaps without any ideas. . .

    America's Worst Prosecutor resigns (none / 0) (#1)
    by Ben Masel on Tue Nov 17, 2009 at 09:28:21 AM EST
    Mary Beth Buchanan has one regret, accepting the plea deal from Tommy Chong.


    Excellent news. Thank you! (none / 0) (#2)
    by ruffian on Tue Nov 17, 2009 at 09:47:19 AM EST
    I really wanted her gone. That took about 10 months too long.

    What is she doing now? My work server blocked the link for some reason - maybe the word 'stoner'....


    Praise the lord... (none / 0) (#9)
    by kdog on Tue Nov 17, 2009 at 09:58:44 AM EST
    pass the Chong glass, andlet the joyous news be spread, "Loose Cannon" Buchanan as a prosecutor at last is dead.

    No one mourns the wicked (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by ruffian on Tue Nov 17, 2009 at 10:27:53 AM EST
    I do mourn that 'Wicked' (none / 0) (#21)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Nov 17, 2009 at 10:59:20 AM EST
    will never play anywhere near my residence though :)  I bought the book for my daughter when she was in high school because it looked interesting but I didn't investigate it any farther until she explained to me what a bold mover and mother I was.

    Great show (none / 0) (#25)
    by Steve M on Tue Nov 17, 2009 at 11:39:07 AM EST
    I saw Wicked with my wife on the night I proposed to her.  Original cast and everything.  It was fantastic!  Of course at the time I had no idea there was a book.

    So, did you buy the book (none / 0) (#33)
    by Inspector Gadget on Tue Nov 17, 2009 at 02:17:37 PM EST
    as an anniversary gift?

    Oooh, a man after my own heart (none / 0) (#34)
    by ruffian on Tue Nov 17, 2009 at 02:23:51 PM EST
    How could she refuse? That's kind of cheating on your part!

    I read the book after I had already seen the show. It is not quite the same, to say the least. A friend of mine started to read it and got disgusted with the nasty-nasty in the first part. I liked his 'Confessions of an Ugly Stepsister' better, actually.

    Gotta say I like the ending of the show better too.


    I liked the book. (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by Fabian on Tue Nov 17, 2009 at 04:50:18 PM EST
    Never saw the stage production and knew they threw an awful lot out to cram it into two hours.

    That's also why I won't bother to see the Watchmen movie.  The book was brilliant - good concept, well executed.  The complex interactions between people and society and politics are rarely done, let alone done well.  Smoosh that all into a two hour movie or even a three hour movie?  Not worth it.  I can spend that time enjoying the book all over again.

    If a brilliant director makes a mini series for cable - I'll watch it.


    Lots of Idina and Kristen (none / 0) (#36)
    by ruffian on Tue Nov 17, 2009 at 02:39:19 PM EST
    "Wicked" clips on the YouTube. I got inspired to look after 2 of the cast of 'Glee' did 'Defying Gravity' last week.

    There is one video that must be near the beginning of the run of the show when no one knew it, or them. They are singing 'For Good' at some Macy's to-do with Stephen Schwartz at the piano. Very casual and fun, if not the best sound quality.


    Obey rips into Obama Administration (none / 0) (#4)
    by MO Blue on Tue Nov 17, 2009 at 09:50:31 AM EST
    for inaccuracies on the Web site created by the Obama administration to track the $787 billion stimulus. Web site lists Jobs 'Saved or Created' in Congressional Districts That Don't Exist.

       "The inaccuracies on recovery.gov that have come to light are outrageous and the Administration owes itself, the Congress, and every American a commitment to work night and day to correct the ludicrous mistakes.

        "Credibility counts in government and stupid mistakes like this undermine it. We've got too many serious problems in this country to let that happen.

        "We designed the Recovery Act to be open and transparent and I expect the the Recovery Accountability and Transparency Board, who oversees the recovery act web site and data to have information that is accurate, reliable and understandable to the American public. Whether the numbers are good news or bad news, I want the honest numbers and I want them now." link

    All the problems seem specifically (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by ruffian on Tue Nov 17, 2009 at 09:56:54 AM EST
    to be a problem with the number field for the congressional district on whatever reporting form they are filling out. Does not seem to be an attempt to mislead.  Still, it is sloppy and should have been QA'd.

    Whatever the reason for the discrepancies, (none / 0) (#19)
    by MO Blue on Tue Nov 17, 2009 at 10:55:23 AM EST
    to publish a completely inaccurate report on such a sensitive issue, is beyond stupid. The taxpayers are definitely not getting a good return on their investment from this site.

    The site is a well-funded enterprise; the General Services Administration updated it earlier this year with an $18 million grant.

    Also, other areas of the report are questionable not just the district field.

    In Connecticut's 42nd district (which also does not exist), the Web site claims 25 jobs created with zero stimulus dollars.

    $1.5 million spent and .3 jobs created in the 69th district and $35 million for 142 jobs in the 99th district of the Northern Mariana Islands.

    Not the first time (none / 0) (#28)
    by jbindc on Tue Nov 17, 2009 at 12:20:36 PM EST
    Remember this?

    President Barack Obama's economic recovery program saved 935 jobs at the Southwest Georgia Community Action Council, an impressive success story for the stimulus plan. Trouble is, only 508 people work there.

    The Georgia nonprofit's inflated job count is among persisting errors in the government's latest effort to measure the effect of the $787 billion stimulus plan despite White House promises last week that the new data would undergo an "extensive review" to root out errors discovered in an earlier report.

    About two-thirds of the 14,506 jobs claimed to be saved under one federal office, the Administration for Children and Families at Health and Human Services, actually weren't saved at all, according to a review of the latest data by The Associated Press. Instead, that figure includes more than 9,300 existing employees in hundreds of local agencies who received pay raises and benefits and whose jobs weren't saved.

    That type of accounting was found in an earlier AP review of stimulus jobs, which the Obama administration said was misleading because most of the government's job-counting errors were being fixed in the new data.

    The administration now acknowledges overcounting in the new numbers for the HHS program. Elizabeth Oxhorn, a spokeswoman for the White House recovery office, said the Obama administration was reviewing the Head Start data "to determine how and if it will be counted."

    But officials defended the practice of counting raises as saved jobs.

    "If I give you a raise, it is going to save a portion of your job," HHS spokesman Luis Rosero said.

    The latest stimulus report, released Friday, significantly overstates the number of jobs spared with money from programs serving families and children, mostly the Head Start preschool program. The report shows hundreds of the programs used nearly $323 million to provide pay raises and other benefits to their existing employees.

    The raises themselves were appropriate -- the stimulus law set aside money for Head Start salary increases -- but converting that number into jobs proved difficult. The Obama administration told Head Start officials to consider a fraction of each employee as a job saved.

    Obey's right on this -- but (none / 0) (#32)
    by Cream City on Tue Nov 17, 2009 at 01:25:40 PM EST
    he has to say it, as the largest paper in his state has been hitting hard on this in story after story.

    However, Obey did NOT have to vote for Stupak-Pitts, as he did, despite not being at all threatened in his district.  He just does not like women's rights, women politicians, women. . . .

    So it's about time to threaten him.  Primary Obey, Dems.  His ego and tantrums are just too tiresome.


    Progressive Senate Dems to Reid (none / 0) (#6)
    by MO Blue on Tue Nov 17, 2009 at 09:54:18 AM EST
    Hold firm on public option

    Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid met on Monday night with a group of Senate Democrats who urged him not to back down from his decision to put a public option in health care legislation.

    Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio) requested the meeting, saying that progressive lawmakers had concluded that they had compromised enough.

    "Most of us in the caucus want a strong public option, support the Reid way of doing it," he told the New York Times. "And we're confident that over time, as the debate unfolds and we take amendment after amendment after amendment, that we can get 60 votes."


    I like that (none / 0) (#8)
    by ruffian on Tue Nov 17, 2009 at 09:58:08 AM EST
    Brown saying what they want is the Reid way of doing it. Good framing there!

    Persistent rumor that the (none / 0) (#20)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Nov 17, 2009 at 10:56:20 AM EST
    "other Georgia" is committing 600 to 1,000 special forces troops to Afghanistan in 2010.  In fact, the list of nations seeking NATO inclusiveness through committing troops to Afghanistan is getting deeper and deeper and the numbers of troops larger and larger.  If you are a reigning member of NATO though....you are talking about scaling back and you work to appear that you long for home.  I don't know what Georgia's definition of "special forces" is, it isn't the same standard for every military.  They did send 2,000 troops to Iraq and we were 100% happy to care for them and ship them to and fro. I wondered to self if BTD would allow Georgia to join NATO soon?

    Polanski languishing: (none / 0) (#24)
    by oculus on Tue Nov 17, 2009 at 11:14:57 AM EST
    Speaking of gender equality..... (none / 0) (#27)
    by vicndabx on Tue Nov 17, 2009 at 11:56:15 AM EST
    .....says veteran New York City divorce attorney Raoul Felder. "This is one of the dark sides of women's accomplishments in the workplace -- they're getting a raw deal in custody cases, while men are being viewed more favorably."

    Or is it a raw deal? Is it not, in effect, the same presumption -- the parent who works harder, parents less -- that men have faced for years?


    Interesting (5.00 / 4) (#29)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Nov 17, 2009 at 12:32:05 PM EST
    I do believe that men have been discriminated against earnestly in the past when it came to custody.  I always felt the only sane thing that could happen to kids is that parents part friends, because they have to work together raising you one way or the other or not.......and then you get to go to therapy.  I had sole custody of my daughter because the other half was not someone I should have bred with in the first place, and I was too young to have known better.  The next time I bred, I made certain I could trust him as well with the kids as myself (he just needs a cleaning lady).  If we split, he can have them most of the time.  I already did that, I'll get a job and pay support and have quiet time to read again :)  I'll show up with expensive gifts I only have to shell out for a couple of times a year, be the parent who they can't remember hearing NO from that often, and a virtual hero.  I don't get to read at all right now between Joshua and granddaughter Zoey, and baby Naomi.  I bet it gets quiet in Afghanistan sometimes.

    This is interesting, if not particulary (5.00 / 2) (#31)
    by oculus on Tue Nov 17, 2009 at 01:06:49 PM EST
    The standards are higher. (5.00 / 2) (#39)
    by Fabian on Tue Nov 17, 2009 at 04:28:06 PM EST
    Perhaps someone has done a study where people are given a short description of a parent and a child in a public setting where the child is acting up, engaging in risky behavior or falls and hurts him/herself.  The participants are asked to grade the parent on their performance.  The study uses both gender in identical stories.  Heck, you could use both genders for the child or children.

    I'd be fascinated to find out the results.  

    My expectations:

    Fathers will get more favorable grades in general.
    Fathers will get the most favorable grade in stories involving very young children or infants.
    Mothers will get the least favorable grades when their child is acting in a manner that creates a nuisance to others.

    Boys engaging in risky behavior will be seen as more acceptable than girls doing the same thing.


    Dad used to get lots of credit just for (5.00 / 4) (#41)
    by oculus on Tue Nov 17, 2009 at 04:48:07 PM EST
    being out in public with a kid or two w/no mom in evidence.

    OMG! (5.00 / 2) (#45)
    by Fabian on Tue Nov 17, 2009 at 04:55:30 PM EST
    That poor man, dealing with the kids without his wife there to help him!  Oh the poor dear thing!

    Yes.  Exactly.  


    "Babysitting." (5.00 / 4) (#46)
    by oculus on Tue Nov 17, 2009 at 05:37:28 PM EST
    Not... (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by Fabian on Tue Nov 17, 2009 at 05:49:24 PM EST
    "fulfilling his parental obligations"?  Like caring for his children is a temporary aberration instead a regular part of his life?

    I wonder who Kramer vs. Kramer was more popular with - women or men?


    Ha. I remember well the reaction of (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by oculus on Tue Nov 17, 2009 at 06:30:22 PM EST
    my spouse to that movie.

    A very good read (5.00 / 2) (#48)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Nov 17, 2009 at 06:00:40 PM EST
    I see one thing glaringly that I needed to change when I was a single mom.......I needed to stop working to make him appear to be a better parent,  he sucked and I went out of my way constantly to smooth out those wrinkles, among everything else I was responsible for.  I was his apologist and he did ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to earn such a thing.  I was always filling in the emotional gaps so my child wouldn't "suffer".  Kids aren't stupid, they know who slacks and they know who is the doubled over in exhaustion fixer.  If I taught my daughter anything it was how to carry other people's burdens and her own too, she struggles to stop believing it is all her job to make things work.  Funny, we were just talking about this today.

    Please don't feel guilty about that. (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by oculus on Tue Nov 17, 2009 at 06:32:16 PM EST
    Water over the damn, no?

    It is (5.00 / 2) (#53)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Nov 17, 2009 at 06:39:24 PM EST
    It helps when you can talk about what went down with your child and they are an adult child now.  I think it is good for women to talk about the topic of motherhood and the differing standards and expectations whether we are related to each other or not.  It seems to be a problem that we women are expected to do more every single day with less, and we let public opinion get away with making that our "fate".

    Judge Hamilton beats filibuster (none / 0) (#44)
    by Peter G on Tue Nov 17, 2009 at 04:52:27 PM EST
    The AP is reporting that the Senate "crushed" Sen. Sessions' ridiculous attempt to filibuster the Hamilton nomination to the 7th Circuit.  Now let's get the Obama judge train rolling please!

    The above posting about parenting (none / 0) (#49)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Nov 17, 2009 at 06:17:53 PM EST
    has brought to mind recent conversations about gifted and talented programs too.  On a recent class outing I listened to two other mom's complain about their sons not being in the gifted and talented program here because their test scores weren't high enough.  Both were trying to figure out how to finagle their sons into the program anyhow.  They test every two years for it in grade school and you must request the testing.  If they qualify they spend two days a week at a different location, ride the bus there, and end up doing two days of homework that they missed from their regular school day.  I asked Josh if he wanted to test for it last year and he told me that he wasn't interested in doing all the extra homework.  His best friend told his mom the same thing last year and when I talked to her a few days ago she told me that her son also had SAT scores come in around Junior High level too. I was in a gifted and talented program in elementary school, my spouse was not and he is extremely successful....constantly challenging himself.  He's more successful than I would have ever been, he's so much more driven and he loves what he does.  Our daughter was also in a gifted and talented program in elementary school and she said that it gave her fathead syndrome and she thought of herself as very intelligent so she didn't really need to do all that school work.  She says that one of the worst things that could have happened to her was that someone pulled her aside and told her she was special.  She completely believed them.