Weds. Morning Open Thread

Big Tent Democrat is traveling (maybe he'll post from the air if he's on a flight with wi-fi access like the other day) and I'm just getting online.

If the new ad on the right for cloned cows has you scratching your head, I'm told it's timely for April Fools.

Here's an open thread, all topics welcome.

< Obama Backtracks on Progressive Civil Rights Chief | New Immigrant Detention Report >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Here's a dour editorial (5.00 / 2) (#2)
    by lilburro on Wed Mar 25, 2009 at 09:57:55 AM EST
    on the Geithner plan from the Financial Times.  To quote:

    I fear, however, that the alternative - adequate public sector recapitalisation - is also going to prove impossible. Provision of public money to banks is unacceptable to an increasingly enraged public, while government ownership of recapitalised banks is unacceptable to the still influential bankers. This seems to be an impasse. The one way out, on which the success of Monday's plan might be judged, is if the greater transparency offered by the new funds allowed the big banks to raise enough capital from private markets. If that were achieved on the requisite scale - and we are talking many hundreds of billions of dollars, if not trillions - the new scheme would be a huge success. But I do not believe that pricing legacy assets and loans, even if achieved, is going to be enough to secure this aim. In the context of a global slump, will investors be willing to put up the vast sums required by huge and complex financial institutions, with a proven record of mismanagement? Trust, once destroyed, cannot so swiftly return.

    The conclusion, alas, is depressing. Nobody can be confident that the US yet has a workable solution to its banking disaster. On the contrary, with the public enraged, Congress on the war-path, the president timid and a policy that depends on the government's ability to pour public money into undercapitalised institutions, the US is at an impasse.

    It is up to Barack Obama to find a way through. When he meets his group of 20 counterparts in London next week, he will be unable to state he has already done so. If this is not frightening, I do not know what is.

    Also, this seems like a political headache in the making (from same op-ed):

    If this scheme works, a number of the fund managers are going to make vast returns. I fear this is going to convince ordinary Americans that their government is a racket run for the benefit of Wall Street. Now imagine what happens if, after "stress tests" of the country's biggest banks are completed, the government concludes - surprise, surprise! - that it needs to provide more capital. How will it persuade Congress to pay up?

    An Unduly Dour Commentary... (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by santarita on Wed Mar 25, 2009 at 10:24:37 AM EST
    Martin Wolf is a respected commentator.  But his parade of horribles is a little too much.  

    If the Geithner plan doesn't work and the banks need more capital, Congress will do what is necessary - either in the form of more money or in authorizing more drastic alternatives like "nationalization" or restructuring by forcing unsecured creditors into swapping debt for equity in NewBigBank.  

    At the end of the day, what other choice is there but to deal with the problem?


    Considering (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by lilburro on Wed Mar 25, 2009 at 10:28:37 AM EST
    that the Geithner plan seems to be based in part on avoiding Congress, I don't see how you can be so confident that the Obama Administration will find it easy to pump them for money when they need to.

    Who Said Easy? (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by santarita on Wed Mar 25, 2009 at 10:45:25 AM EST
    It won't be easy but the alternatives won't be pleasant.   I'm not suggesting that Geithner will be able to get Congress to pump more money into plans that have failed.  But if his current plans fail, the next steps will be restructuring, liquidation and/or some RTC-like scenario.  

    Dour, yet my own sentiments exactly (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Mar 25, 2009 at 11:42:53 AM EST
    MT, (none / 0) (#43)
    by jeffinalabama on Wed Mar 25, 2009 at 11:46:14 AM EST
    I sent you an email-- don't know how often you check the addy you gave me.

    About once every 36 hrs (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Mar 25, 2009 at 12:00:15 PM EST
    unless I know I have something coming in :)  I'm headed out the door to take some pencils to the Joshman on his lunchbreak and will send one back to you in about an hour.

    I can't find ya Jeff (none / 0) (#78)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Mar 25, 2009 at 02:36:16 PM EST
    shoot me another one, liberalbarking at yahoo.com

    please only quote a short paragraph or two (none / 0) (#4)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Mar 25, 2009 at 10:16:24 AM EST
    of articles published elsewhere. There are copyright issues and bandwidth issues. Thanks.

    sorry Jeralyn (none / 0) (#5)
    by lilburro on Wed Mar 25, 2009 at 10:20:08 AM EST
    you can delete and I can repost if you want.

    I'll leave it just (none / 0) (#50)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Mar 25, 2009 at 12:06:22 PM EST
    keep in mind for next time, thanks.

    hi (5.00 / 3) (#9)
    by Steve M on Wed Mar 25, 2009 at 10:25:42 AM EST
    baby sleeping on me.  only one hand free ;)

    Awwww (none / 0) (#12)
    by andgarden on Wed Mar 25, 2009 at 10:26:28 AM EST
    Two gems From Yesterday's Geithner... (5.00 / 2) (#23)
    by santarita on Wed Mar 25, 2009 at 10:42:08 AM EST
    roast on the Hill that I don't think received much attention...

    Geithner was asked about paying foreign counterparties on AIG CDS swaps 100% rather than asking for a reduction.  He replied that to do so would have sparked a move by foreign counterparties to reduce payments to American banks.  In my mind, his response illustrates two aspects that I have not seen discussed much:
    (a) The problem of dealing with foreign entities in general - most discussion seems to take place in the context of US politics and impacts even though many of the stakeholders (in the broadest sense are foreign).  It's one thing to demand that American companies take "haircuts" on debts owed.  It's quite another thing to demand that foreign entities take "haircuts". (b) Reducing what counterparties receive on CDS (or any other debt obligation) is likely to exacerbate the counterparties' situation.  So AIG might benefit but Citibank suffers.  

    The second gem was Geithner talking about a global regime for executive compensation.  The Europeans, in particular, are pushing for stricter international protocols on banking and finance.  How will this sit with those Americans who don't want other countries being able to dictate the rules of the road?

    when other countries own you, (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by cpinva on Wed Mar 25, 2009 at 10:59:55 AM EST
    How will this sit with those Americans who don't want other countries being able to dictate the rules of the road?

    they kind of own the road, and can set the rules. if we don't like it, then perhaps we need to rethink our sales of debt to those other countries.

    Is That Feasible? (none / 0) (#45)
    by santarita on Wed Mar 25, 2009 at 11:47:28 AM EST
    Do we think we live on a self-sustaining island?  International commerce requires international banking.

    Robert Scheer: "Obama's Toxic Advisers" (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by DFLer on Wed Mar 25, 2009 at 12:01:00 PM EST
    He's referring to the financial advisers.

    Apparently, Sen. B Sanders has put a hold on the nomination of Gary Gensler to head the Commodity Futures Trading Commission.

    Sanders gets right to the point: "Mr. Gensler worked with Senator Phil Gramm and Alan Greenspan to exempt credit default swaps from regulation, which led to the collapse of A.I.G. and has resulted in the largest taxpayer bailout in U.S. history."


    Um....yeah (5.00 / 2) (#51)
    by coast on Wed Mar 25, 2009 at 12:10:49 PM EST
    not what I would call a resume enhancer.  Tell me this, who hasn't worked for Goldman Sachs?  Seems like every person in this game has played on both sides.  I can't tell who is actually looking out for us taxpayers...if anyone at all.

    Yes, one of the reasons that it's been (none / 0) (#52)
    by DFLer on Wed Mar 25, 2009 at 12:15:41 PM EST
    difficult to fill out the ranks of Treasury. There's more to that delay than the so-called "difficulty" of the vetting process.

    Every one IS a player. The notion of government service went extinct, well at least endangered, years ago.


    This sounds like something that only (5.00 / 2) (#59)
    by desertswine on Wed Mar 25, 2009 at 01:00:18 PM EST
    would happen to Dwight Schrute.

    French employees of a US company have barricaded their boss in his office south of Paris as they demand better terms for workers facing redundancy.

    A union official said Luc Rousselet, who is allowed out for toilet breaks, could not leave the building until workers secured better conditions.

    I love it.... (none / 0) (#65)
    by kdog on Wed Mar 25, 2009 at 01:32:23 PM EST
    we need to barricade Obama and Geithner in the White House...maybe we'll get better terms out of the corporate welfare program.

    If employees tried doing that in the US... (none / 0) (#76)
    by desertswine on Wed Mar 25, 2009 at 02:30:05 PM EST
    we would be scraping them off the sidewalk with spatulas.

    I was thinking that the gendarmes (none / 0) (#77)
    by Cream City on Wed Mar 25, 2009 at 02:35:55 PM EST
    must have different orders than would our cops and National Guard, which undoubtedly would be called in here to help "re-establish law and order."  The question then becomes whose law, whose idea of order.

    Probably right.... (none / 0) (#79)
    by kdog on Wed Mar 25, 2009 at 02:36:47 PM EST
    unless we've got large numbers, then the victor is a using the spatula to scrape up freedom fighter and mercenary alike.

    They Already Did (none / 0) (#81)
    by squeaky on Wed Mar 25, 2009 at 02:54:15 PM EST
    But took the building hostage instead of the CEO.
    About 200 workers from the United Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers of America have conducted what they called a "peaceful occupation" of the Republic Windows and Doors factory since Friday, the day layoffs were supposed to take effect.


    The workers said Republic gave them three days notice that they were losing their jobs, telling them Bank of America had cut off credit to the company. Federal law requires either 60 days notice or 60 days pay for the laid-off workers.


    "The company told us very clearly they are shutting down, shutting their doors because Bank of America refused to continue their credit and their financing," she said. "They also told us very clearly that Bank of America did not authorize any expenditures towards people's vacation pay or any money they would be owed. Now, that can't be clearer to me that Bank of America is calling the shots."



    They were successful, too. (none / 0) (#87)
    by desertswine on Wed Mar 25, 2009 at 04:18:07 PM EST
    At least in collecting what was owed to them. Unfortunatly that company is history. But it would have shut down anyway.

    Photo essay... (none / 0) (#1)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Wed Mar 25, 2009 at 09:56:51 AM EST
    ...on the Pirates of Somalia for our would-be buccaneers.


    Looks like you need to get some RPG's and a rusty AK if you're going to control the high seas, kdog.

    Great photos... (none / 0) (#7)
    by kdog on Wed Mar 25, 2009 at 10:23:28 AM EST
    Nice find Mile...I enjoyed that.

    It's plain as day who to root for if you look hard at those pics...the skin and bone mofos with the rusty AK's vs. the well fed mofos with armed to the teeth assault helicopters and battleships.

    If we get that skinny over here...look out Jack!


    kdog, (5.00 / 0) (#17)
    by jeffinalabama on Wed Mar 25, 2009 at 10:33:53 AM EST
    can't agree with you on whom to root for.

    Piracy is not good, whether it's Somalia, the Moluccan Straights, or elsewhere.


    Understood.... (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by kdog on Wed Mar 25, 2009 at 10:43:21 AM EST
    I know its not righteous jeff...but I still can't help but root for them.

    The Clash can explain my feelings better than I...




    I do understand the sentiment. (none / 0) (#29)
    by jeffinalabama on Wed Mar 25, 2009 at 10:53:49 AM EST
    I have a soft spot for the Zapatistas in Chiapas.

    I tell ya... (5.00 / 3) (#33)
    by kdog on Wed Mar 25, 2009 at 11:00:37 AM EST
    it does make you appreciate what Ghandi and MLK were able to accomplish without taking up arms...they set the highest of standards.

    Some of us... (none / 0) (#11)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Wed Mar 25, 2009 at 10:26:24 AM EST
    ...already are that skinny, my friend.  But at least I don't have to hi-jack cargo ships to put food on my table (yet).  And am lucky enough to have decent medical care...  

    Point taken sir... (none / 0) (#16)
    by kdog on Wed Mar 25, 2009 at 10:32:30 AM EST
    And I'm still going old-school low-tech if I take to piracy...arrows of fire and slingshots...maybe a catapault:)

    For some reason... (none / 0) (#22)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Wed Mar 25, 2009 at 10:40:57 AM EST
    ...I'm reminded of MP and the Holy Grail with you as the French defending the castle against the Knights of the Round Table.  

    Loading bovine into the catapault, pouring boiling oil over the walls...


    It seems that (none / 0) (#19)
    by eric on Wed Mar 25, 2009 at 10:34:35 AM EST
    Yamaha is the preferred outboard motor of pirates and anti-pirates alike!

    Arlen Specter (none / 0) (#3)
    by andgarden on Wed Mar 25, 2009 at 10:14:43 AM EST
    is on track to be plastered by Pat Toomey in the Republican primary.


    So the question is... (none / 0) (#6)
    by Anne on Wed Mar 25, 2009 at 10:22:13 AM EST
    what's the deal with Toomey?  He came close last time - if he survivies the primary, can Toomey be defeated in the general and if not, is he better or worse than Specter?  Considered to be more of a "real" Republican?

    Lots of undecideds at this stage, but it bears watching, for sure.


    Yes (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by andgarden on Wed Mar 25, 2009 at 10:26:18 AM EST
    In a normal year, he's far too conservative to win statewide.

    Chzech Republic (none / 0) (#13)
    by CST on Wed Mar 25, 2009 at 10:26:53 AM EST
    Government has collapsed, apparently not for economic reasons.  In the middle of their EU presidency.  Although that hasn't stopped the (former) Prime Minister from attacking Obama's economic plan.

    Apparently the U.S. and Britain are pushing for more stimulus while France and Germany are pushing for tougher regulations.  I hope at the bare minimum we get a global financial regulatory system coming out of the G-20 meeting.

    This could be the EU's failure moment (none / 0) (#15)
    by andgarden on Wed Mar 25, 2009 at 10:30:46 AM EST
    It's apparently not mature or cohesive enough to tackle this crisis.

    Define failure (none / 0) (#21)
    by CST on Wed Mar 25, 2009 at 10:37:38 AM EST
    The currency is not going anywhere, it's too entrenched.  But I do not think they will ever be a real "union" in terms of cohesive domestic and foreign policy/agenda.

    They're not leading internationally (none / 0) (#31)
    by andgarden on Wed Mar 25, 2009 at 10:54:45 AM EST
    and they are apparently unable to save themselves collectively.

    The bare minimum I'm hoping for... (none / 0) (#18)
    by kdog on Wed Mar 25, 2009 at 10:34:34 AM EST
    out of the G20 is the protestors scaring the sh*t out of the attendees to the point where they can't even enjoy their caviar in peace.  

    And that the police give them leeway to be heard.


    Wonder if they'll have (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Wed Mar 25, 2009 at 10:35:50 AM EST
    well fenced "free speech" zones.

    It is in London.... (none / 0) (#25)
    by kdog on Wed Mar 25, 2009 at 10:44:59 AM EST
    their more big-brother nanny-state then we are...I'm not confident the protestors will get a fair shake.  And they will all be caught on candid camera.

    oops (none / 0) (#30)
    by CST on Wed Mar 25, 2009 at 10:54:32 AM EST
    I thought I read Prague - nope you are right, it's in London

    it's in Prague (none / 0) (#28)
    by CST on Wed Mar 25, 2009 at 10:53:04 AM EST
    so it's not really up to us.

    The Minimum I'm Hoping for... (5.00 / 2) (#27)
    by santarita on Wed Mar 25, 2009 at 10:50:03 AM EST
    is an agreement that uniform procedures for international bank restructures are necessary and have a high priority.

    H:ypothetical: (none / 0) (#34)
    by oculus on Wed Mar 25, 2009 at 11:02:26 AM EST
    BTD is blogging on a plane. One or TL wi-fied. Commenters are on the same plane.

    With pseudonymity (5.00 / 2) (#35)
    by scribe on Wed Mar 25, 2009 at 11:08:01 AM EST
    that can happen.

    I often get some yuks out of walking past an internet cafe or wifi hotspot and seeing someone reading TL (or Kos, or FDL) and commenting furiously.

    Though I cannot say I recall ever seeing someone commenting (with or without flames) in response to one of my comments.

    And, no, I do not introduce myself.


    Funny I probably (none / 0) (#39)
    by oculus on Wed Mar 25, 2009 at 11:30:23 AM EST
    Wouldn't be able to resist saying something  Must keep eyes open whilst temp. In NY.  

    You Chicken! (none / 0) (#44)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Mar 25, 2009 at 11:47:16 AM EST
    Where I live I'm typing furiously alone, utterly in the desert.  I would be all over saying something damn it.  I need some fellowship.

    I should be so lucky to bump into (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by lilburro on Wed Mar 25, 2009 at 12:22:02 PM EST
    either you or oculus!  And plenty of others here for that matter.  I just got a new laptop...I'll have to take it out in public and see who I can find.

    Possible end result: (5.00 / 3) (#36)
    by Cream City on Wed Mar 25, 2009 at 11:09:22 AM EST
    Flight attendants sorely stressed by customer base.

    In entertainment news: (none / 0) (#37)
    by scribe on Wed Mar 25, 2009 at 11:14:22 AM EST
    That Former United Technologies CEO v. Swedish Countess Steel Cage Divorce matchup has descended into a new level of ... I dunno what.  He testified that she had a propensity to ... force herself on him.

    Two sets of rules (5.00 / 3) (#40)
    by Inspector Gadget on Wed Mar 25, 2009 at 11:37:18 AM EST
    Imagine how different the report would be if she had been denying him.

    do you read that article (none / 0) (#41)
    by Bemused on Wed Mar 25, 2009 at 11:42:37 AM EST
     as being something other than pointed mockery of him?

    No, bemused, my comment was about (none / 0) (#57)
    by Inspector Gadget on Wed Mar 25, 2009 at 12:37:37 PM EST
    the media. No discussion warranted.

    so was mine (none / 0) (#61)
    by Bemused on Wed Mar 25, 2009 at 01:11:42 PM EST
     with the point being the media (or at least the Post in that article appeared to be mocking the man with palpable glee. i read your comment as implying the "media" is biased against the woman.

    The poor man, so worn out (none / 0) (#38)
    by Cream City on Wed Mar 25, 2009 at 11:25:59 AM EST
    from -- if you caught the too-brief mention -- bedding his mistress?  

    Err. According to his testimony (none / 0) (#60)
    by scribe on Wed Mar 25, 2009 at 01:07:36 PM EST
    it was the other way around - she wore him out and just wouldn't leave him alone.

    Err, nope; read again -- he declined (5.00 / 1) (#75)
    by Cream City on Wed Mar 25, 2009 at 02:15:11 PM EST
    her requests for sex in the instances to which he testified.  But yes, he also said he was too worn out.  So the question becomes, worn out from what?  Or, shall we say, whom, if not her, hmmmm?

    I suspect that such followup questions will make for more fun media coverage of the "horny countess" and the, um, multimillionaire who not only won't give it up but couldn't get it. . . .  Nuff said.


    Blue pills for the blue bloods? ;) (none / 0) (#88)
    by DFLer on Wed Mar 25, 2009 at 05:49:35 PM EST
    Too rich..... (none / 0) (#46)
    by kdog on Wed Mar 25, 2009 at 11:48:01 AM EST
    Even if true, who would admit that?  What a bunch a weirdos they've got in high society.

    I say again...these 2 deserve each other.


    Hey CST... (none / 0) (#54)
    by kdog on Wed Mar 25, 2009 at 12:23:32 PM EST
    what's goin up up in Mass?  The state giveth, the towns taketh away in regards to the recent decriminalization of my beloved reefer? Link

    What a buzzkill....

    Hmmm (none / 0) (#56)
    by CST on Wed Mar 25, 2009 at 12:35:29 PM EST
    Most of that is just fines on top of fines - similar to public drunkeness.  I agree the misdemeaner stuff has got to go - that's what we voted on.  I think it's only one small town or two that is going there.  My advice - stay out of the burbs.  Not really much to do there anyway if you're coming to visit :)

    To be honest, in order for this to really work - it's gotta be national, and legal to grow/sell.  But I'll take the baby steps where I can get them I guess.


    The feds... (none / 0) (#62)
    by kdog on Wed Mar 25, 2009 at 01:24:18 PM EST
    need to take the lead, no doubt.  And they're the toughest nut to crack.

    I was just a little disappointed that a baby-step forward was immediately followed by backsteps.

    And I actually had a wild good night of debauchery in Lawrence Mass when I was traveling up that way for work...the local people seemed to think it was insane to hang out in Lawrence, I guess it's considered a rough 'burb...but I thought everyone was real nice:)


    Not any kind of burb (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed Mar 25, 2009 at 01:30:38 PM EST
    actually.  Lawrence is one of Mass. cities.  It has its own burbs.

    I stand corrected.... (none / 0) (#66)
    by kdog on Wed Mar 25, 2009 at 01:35:37 PM EST
    looked and felt like a Boston burb...no offense to the citizens of the fine City of Lawrence.

    We had the same thing happen... (none / 0) (#68)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Wed Mar 25, 2009 at 01:37:26 PM EST
    ...when we decriminalized possesion.  The coppers were still making it an enforcement priority.  It took a little public outcry--along with the organizers of the ballot measure--to get them to make it the lowest priority.  

    And, I have no doubt if they want to get you for possession, nothing is going to stop them.


    Worse than that.... (none / 0) (#69)
    by kdog on Wed Mar 25, 2009 at 01:43:00 PM EST
    if a cop doesn't like the look on your face, he/she has all the tools they need to get ya regardless.

    True 'dat. n/t (none / 0) (#70)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Wed Mar 25, 2009 at 01:45:56 PM EST
    Oh, for gawd's sake (none / 0) (#89)
    by oculus on Wed Mar 25, 2009 at 06:28:49 PM EST
    You doubt it Oc? (5.00 / 1) (#90)
    by kdog on Wed Mar 25, 2009 at 06:41:41 PM EST
    You don't think somebody gets arrested for the look on their face everyday in America?

    Or... (5.00 / 1) (#91)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Wed Mar 25, 2009 at 07:21:01 PM EST
    ...the color of their skin, the length of their hair, the kind of clothes they wear or for having a disability that the law doesn't understand/finds repulsive?

    I know it of course there (none / 0) (#92)
    by oculus on Wed Mar 25, 2009 at 09:53:43 PM EST
    Are exceptions, buy generally law enforcement officers are trained to and are law abiding at leastin my experience and I have dealt with many both as a prosecutor and as their counsel.

    Theory and Practice (none / 0) (#94)
    by squeaky on Wed Mar 25, 2009 at 10:07:06 PM EST
    Many who are trained wind up hacks nonetheless.

    generality (none / 0) (#95)
    by oculus on Wed Mar 25, 2009 at 10:24:54 PM EST
    I guess... (none / 0) (#96)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Thu Mar 26, 2009 at 08:14:29 AM EST
    ...not everyone gets to lead as charmed of a life as you.  

    Cops are people and that means they come with their own inherent biases and prejudices.  It's not easy to ignore or turn those off just because they're "on-duty".  


    no doubt (none / 0) (#71)
    by CST on Wed Mar 25, 2009 at 01:54:40 PM EST
    yea, there are places outside of Boston that can be fun, I just like to get in my digs.  There are also a number of city-suburbs, like Cambridge or Somerville that are basically just an extension of the city under a different Mayor.

    But most of the towns in the article are pretty small (not Lynn) and not exactly the "rough" sort.  Which I think can be more fun too.  But then again, when I tell people where I live I get a lot of the same types of comments.  My favorite was "I didn't know people actually lived there".  Pretty clear there was a key-word missing (white) since it's primarily a residential neighborhood...  I've got a bit of a bias against the Boston burbs.  Too many of those types of comments and experiences growing up.


    I stand corrected (none / 0) (#73)
    by CST on Wed Mar 25, 2009 at 01:56:42 PM EST
    Re-reading the link, they are about 1/2 small cities, 1/2 small towns.  For some reason Duxbury just stood out in my mind.

    I think (none / 0) (#58)
    by Bemused on Wed Mar 25, 2009 at 12:37:52 PM EST
    a principled distinction between decriminalizing possession and permitting public use makes a lot of sense. Similar laws with alcohol and tobacco are very common and gaining popularity.

      In a roundabout way this also raises one of my biggest problems with drug laws-- the federalization of drug laws. Many of the  strong policy arguments in favor of criminalizing the sale of certain drugs do not extend very well to favoring central, federal enforcement as opposed to state and local control.


    I've got a problem... (none / 0) (#63)
    by kdog on Wed Mar 25, 2009 at 01:27:48 PM EST
    with laws against drinking in public....public intoxication I can understand, public disturbance I can understand...but just having a drink?  Whats the problem?  More mild tyranny in my book, an excuse to rack up fines...especially when the NYPD targeted tailgaters at the old Shea Stadium...infuriating.  Even the cops would apologize as they wrote the summons...and drop a lame excuse like "my captain is watching, I gotta write it."  So lame.

    Then go somewhere (none / 0) (#67)
    by Bemused on Wed Mar 25, 2009 at 01:36:36 PM EST
     where it is allowed. A price for living in society is that you have to follow some rules you don't like because they have been agreed upon by society. other people have to follow rules that you like and they don't.

       Another solution is to stay put and work to persuade society that the rules you don't like should be relaxed or abolished. But, if you fail to persuade, you can be punished if you choose to ignore the rules.

      Peronally, of all the rules out there the ones against drinking or smoking in public come far down my list of grievances,


    I'll take option C... (5.00 / 0) (#74)
    by kdog on Wed Mar 25, 2009 at 02:00:42 PM EST
    ignore the laws that make no sense and try not to get caught...aka be sneaky, the new American way.  I've got my own code and I feel it is superior to societies, so I'm sticking with it.

    I agree small potatos compared to major injustices...but pet peeves of mine that effect me and mine directly.


    kdog (none / 0) (#80)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Mar 25, 2009 at 02:50:51 PM EST
    You and I know it isn't the new American way :)  It's the same old American way :)

    Dontcha feel like.. (none / 0) (#82)
    by kdog on Wed Mar 25, 2009 at 02:58:28 PM EST
    its getting sneakier and slimier and shadier by the day or is it just my overactive imagination?

    It's like if MLK was alive today he'd be satisfied just to sneak a drink from the white man's water fountain once in awhile, or Alice Paul would be satisfied dressing in drag and sneaking in her vote posing as Al Paul...It makes me ashamed of myself...I just don't have that kinda sacrifice in me.


    You want me to tell the truth on a blog? (none / 0) (#83)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Mar 25, 2009 at 03:07:08 PM EST
    Yesterday I had a long discussion with self about why I have worked so hard my whole life to never defile my own standards and the whole time everyone in charge had none.  That's how I feel about all of it right this minute.  I foresee a future for myself from here on out where I'm not going to worry about coloring in the lines so much!  Seems like those who color freely outside the lines get along just fine as long as you aren't dealing drugs.  Do white collar crime though and you're golden, so here's to buying all my friends and family a nice starched white shirt for Christmas, and several for myself.  Is it any wonder that "collateral damage" is A-OKAY in the beltway these days too?

    To thine own self be true.... (none / 0) (#84)
    by kdog on Wed Mar 25, 2009 at 03:16:14 PM EST
    to quote Omar from "The Wire"...."A man needs a code"...I firmly believe this, it just need not be societies formal code.

    When I contemplate an action, I do not research the criminal code, I research my soul and my conscience.  No lack of integrity from above will keep me from listening to my conscience and soul.  That being said...stealing bread from the mouth of decadence is no sin, dodging an unjust tax is no sin...at least according to my code.

    Cue the law and order crowd saying this will lead to chaos....I say all we've ever known and had was chaos under the banner of a "nation of laws"...order is an illusion.


    That's admirable (none / 0) (#85)
    by Bemused on Wed Mar 25, 2009 at 03:32:00 PM EST
     but goes better with your above comment about not getting caught, because if you are caught your values might provide solace but they won't provide a defense.

      As the protagonist said to sweet Marie-- from prison--"to live outside  the law, you must be honest."


    No defense... (none / 0) (#86)
    by kdog on Wed Mar 25, 2009 at 03:51:34 PM EST
    correct...when I have been unlucky enough to be caught I wasn't foolish enough to try and fight it...I threw myself upon the mercy of the court.

    But my conscience did allow me to lie about promising to "never do it again":)


    Cash Opportunity, imo (none / 0) (#93)
    by squeaky on Wed Mar 25, 2009 at 10:06:00 PM EST
    Just rambling (none / 0) (#55)
    by joze46 on Wed Mar 25, 2009 at 12:33:38 PM EST
    Just rambling

    So Andrea Mitchell is in Mexico reporting about America's situation with drugs and immigration. Now I find out Hillary Clinton is there too. An interesting thing was broadcast by CNBC the MSBC associate, now, Ford is making those gas operated hybrids that AT&T is purchasing, well they are made in Mexico. Yikes what happened to Detroit? Where is the beef? Now I understand that thousands of weapon per day are moving across the boarder to Mexico. The news picture makes one think these weapons are automatic M16 types. Are they? That's terrible!!!

    I am very familiar with the M16, the M50, the M60, M79 grenade launchers, Army 45, Claymore mines, and the good old hand grenades of course the spirit of the bayonet which is kill,  are basic to ground war fair mechanics, Vietnam taught me that lesson.

    Bush's legacy seems to have dropped another bomb on America and Obama with 250 cities in America considered part of a Mexican drug network that could possible be on the brink anarchy. Where the hell was Chertoff, what was he doing all this time? I am out raged, were the hell was the media all these years, it takes time to build up a 250  city network, again what I hear on MSNBC is well ladies and gentlemen we will decode what the president is really saying reporting live form where ever.    

    Please understand I feel to be expressive with some laughter and light humor talking about this stuff. But after reading about the failure of the Czech Republic government along with other countries makes me particularly uneasy. It is not too cool to see Mexican government fail. This whole thing is just incredible even thinking about the millions in Mexican aliens that are likely running for cover.

    Americans should understand how some Middle East countries feel since America invaded Iraq and created an estimated 4 million refuges. Bush's legacy. Bush is one singular bandit, he should not be allowed out of the county, no, he should be under house arrest for convictions. This is totally out of control.    

    Ya know... (none / 0) (#72)
    by kdog on Wed Mar 25, 2009 at 01:54:48 PM EST
    at first glance guns for dope doesn't sound like a bad trade.  Certainly better than the other way around.