Tuesday News and Open Thread

I'm not seeing a lot of hard news today. In the other news department:

This is an an open thread, all topics welcome.

< Bachelor Finale Tonight: A Jawdropper or a Fleecing? | NY Assembly to Vote on Reform of Rockefeller Drug Laws Today >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    To the Rocky Mountain News reporters (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by scribe on Tue Mar 03, 2009 at 12:15:34 PM EST
    and their blog, IwantmyRocky.com:  

    Here's hoping they succeed.

    Note To Congressman Polis:

    You need to remember that Video Killed The Radio Star.

    In my mind, and in my car
    We can't rewind
    We've gone too far ...

    Or, in other words, technology and time march on.

    They have no ads, donate button, or subscrips (none / 0) (#69)
    by magster on Tue Mar 03, 2009 at 03:16:55 PM EST
    How does that new blog expect to make $$$?

    Probably all in due time (none / 0) (#162)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Mar 04, 2009 at 08:14:43 AM EST
    For now I'm sending them traffic.

    The Pope has a point I think..... (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by kdog on Tue Mar 03, 2009 at 12:40:29 PM EST
    from the linked article....

    "obsessive" use of mobile phones or computers "may isolate individuals from real social interaction while also disrupting the patterns of rest, silence and reflection that are necessary for healthy human development".

    We need to stay concious of it and be sure the machines are our tools, and we aren't the tools of the machines.  There is no substitute for flesh and blood social interaction....handshakes, high-fives, and hugs.

    Still don't believe in Lent though, I'm confident my creator wants me to enjoy all earthly pleasures all year long.

    My son lives in Europe (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by BernieO on Tue Mar 03, 2009 at 01:42:42 PM EST
    and I have moved a lot during the years, so this would be a ridiculous idea for me. There is a difference between using these technologies and abusing them. If the Pope wants to address that, fine. But giving them up for Lent won't help people learn how to use them in a way that enriches, not detracts from their lives. Besides, it trivializes the serious moral issues the Church should be addressing.
    Pope Benedict is making as many blunders as Michael Steele.

    I don't really think the Pope needs (none / 0) (#14)
    by oculus on Tue Mar 03, 2009 at 12:47:11 PM EST
    to worry so much.  Just got my ATT bill for using Blackberry in Ensenada for phone call to U.S., text messages, and Internet browsing:  50 USD!!!! In addition, although ATT says Blackberry has international roaming, I was disconnected in both India and Copenhagen.  Well, except for Internet cafe and hotel lobby computer.  

    Maybe he's just tired... (5.00 / 6) (#17)
    by kdog on Tue Mar 03, 2009 at 12:52:02 PM EST
    of people texting during Mass:)

    Like my cousin, he stops by last night to say hi and chill out, ends up sitting there texting his special lady the whole time.  I jokingly kicked him out and said next time leave the crackberry in the car or don't bother:)  How rude!


    One of my friends, a (5.00 / 5) (#21)
    by oculus on Tue Mar 03, 2009 at 12:56:44 PM EST
    devout Morman, checks the MLB scores during church!  But she won't go to a game on a Sunday.  

    What is really amazing is watching a couple eat dinner in a nice restaurant while constantly checking messages, answering the phone, texting, etc.  Who's important here?


    I know.... (5.00 / 2) (#35)
    by kdog on Tue Mar 03, 2009 at 01:23:16 PM EST
    video killed the radio star, and handheld electronics killed manners.

    The ultimate answer these days (none / 0) (#55)
    by scribe on Tue Mar 03, 2009 at 02:44:18 PM EST
    Q.  "Where can you be reached?"

    A.  "I can't."

    Being able to say that is, well ....


    Cribbing off me, much (none / 0) (#56)
    by scribe on Tue Mar 03, 2009 at 02:45:06 PM EST
    Absolutely.... (5.00 / 1) (#68)
    by kdog on Tue Mar 03, 2009 at 03:13:40 PM EST
    knew I saw it somewhere today:)

    Forgot about that trip, how'd it go? (none / 0) (#20)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Mar 03, 2009 at 12:56:20 PM EST
    Heard on the local news yesterday that Mexico has just issued some warning or another that touristas should avoid Rosarito and Ensenada due to drug cartel violence.

    I tried very hard to talk my brother (none / 0) (#26)
    by oculus on Tue Mar 03, 2009 at 01:07:52 PM EST
    into going to Palm Springs this year instead of Ensenada.  Even the news accounts of people stuffed into sealed oil barrels filled with lye did not deter him though.  So I drove in pouring rain.  Saw a couple of marked federal patrol on the toll road but no drug cartels.  Ensenada:  peaceful.  Buffadoro:  peaceful, but sellers of things were really pusing Viagra.  Starbuck's, downtown Ensenada, Christmas Eve morning:  10-15 open bed trucks filled with young military personnel, each with a weapon across the knees, each truck also had two people standing with automatic weapons sited.  Luckily, no excitement on the toll road north.  20 minutes to cross the border.  Amazing.  Business is down, way down.  Tijuana announced yesterday it will give U.S. tourists a "fast pass" to scoot back across the border!

    I'm glad things worked out, (none / 0) (#29)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Mar 03, 2009 at 01:15:17 PM EST
    I love going to Mexico.

    We had a really good time. (none / 0) (#46)
    by oculus on Tue Mar 03, 2009 at 01:59:51 PM EST
    Of course, then my brother got to say:  I told you so.

    I like your bro.... (none / 0) (#54)
    by kdog on Tue Mar 03, 2009 at 02:40:18 PM EST
    No Fear!

    Well, as he sd. before we (none / 0) (#108)
    by oculus on Tue Mar 03, 2009 at 04:03:57 PM EST
    started out, I'll be on floor behind the front seat!

    I used to (none / 0) (#24)
    by CST on Tue Mar 03, 2009 at 01:00:26 PM EST
    lose or break my phone at the beginning of every summer.  Not on purpose, it just happened that way.  But then I wouldn't get a new one until the fall.  I kinda liked being unreachable, especially in the warm weather.  The one problem with that is there are no pay phones anymore, so in a pinch, you are really in a pinch.

    No pay phones.... (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by kdog on Tue Mar 03, 2009 at 01:22:19 PM EST
    is the only reason I even got a cell phone, which currently sits on my dresser, turned off until I know I'm gonna need it.

    Some nights I turn the ringer on my landline off, never mind the cell.  Like I tell all my friends when they make fun of my luddite ways, if you wanna talk or hang, you know where to find me...knock on my door, show me your face.  If I'm not home, ya got some fresh air out of the deal...win/win:)


    Yeah, but he (none / 0) (#75)
    by Wile ECoyote on Tue Mar 03, 2009 at 03:25:20 PM EST
    only meant while driving.  Rimshot!

    With regard to newspapers dying (5.00 / 2) (#19)
    by eric on Tue Mar 03, 2009 at 12:56:19 PM EST
    I heard an interview on NPR that discussed this.  Believe it or not, the biggest problem that many newspapers have is the loss of classified advertising.  Apparently, this was very profitable and is now all but dead.

    So, you can't really blame bloggers so much as you should blame Craigslist.

    Correct (5.00 / 3) (#22)
    by andgarden on Tue Mar 03, 2009 at 12:57:53 PM EST
    No wonder it was so profitable (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by sj on Tue Mar 03, 2009 at 01:27:06 PM EST
    Insnly xpnsve for 3 lns, inc ph no & loc. No way to rent apt w HW flr; secure bldg.

    As both a renter and landlord, I thank my lucky stars for Craigslist.  "Blame" may be the wrong word, I think :)


    I second that.... (none / 0) (#47)
    by kdog on Tue Mar 03, 2009 at 02:11:28 PM EST
    I've heard from all over that classified ads are/were highway robbery.

    I love my papers, but when people feel ripped off, they'll find an alternative eventually.  Classifieds were the only game in town for a long time.


    Yep, classified linage the main measure (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by Cream City on Tue Mar 03, 2009 at 02:46:38 PM EST
    of a newspaper's health, as well I know from years in the field.  The other type of ads, display ads, might seem to take up more space, but those advertisers -- such as grocery stores, department stores -- actually are less lucrative and less useful measures, because they get huge discounts to be repeat advertisers, day after day.

    So Craigslist and Monster.com and the like, online, have given individuals an alternative -- and newspaper management didn't deal in time with clear signs of that competition coming, despite many warnings.

    What is not being said, though, is that it is the MBA mindset coming into newspaper management, and the Madoff minset coming into ownership, that is killing them.  It is the mindset that demands that large newspapers' longtime high profit levels continue.  Those profit levels long were much higher than for other businesses.  

    So, many papers now are making adequate profit levels for most businesses but are considered in crisis -- because only the high expectations of owners/stockholders/etc. have continued.


    Exactly so (5.00 / 2) (#97)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue Mar 03, 2009 at 03:53:53 PM EST
    There is virtually no even local media of any kind left that's anything more than a division of some large profit-oriented conglomerate that treats it as no more than a profit center.

    FDA stopped (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by SOS on Tue Mar 03, 2009 at 01:02:00 PM EST
    lots of food stuff imports from China contaminated with melamine and poisonous food stuff products in Feb. How much has escaped detection is now on our grocery store shelves that's the other question.

    98% (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by nycstray on Tue Mar 03, 2009 at 02:30:45 PM EST
    inspection rate is below 2% and they let the stuff flow in for far too long before they get around to slapping an inspection order on a food group from China. And then they don't order a broad enough inspection order (like all the products that aren't obviously dairy products, yet contain dairy and the same with grain products).

    Eat at your own risk!  ;)


    Thank you, Arianna (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by ruffian on Tue Mar 03, 2009 at 02:46:05 PM EST
    She has a great post on my own pet peeve of the week, Karl Rove on This Week. Money quote:

    Having Karl Rove on to pontificate about the economy is like having Bernie Madoff on to offer advice about investing.

    She goes on to enumerate the many ways it was wrong to even have him on the show, and make the case that he is the one, not Limbaugh, that is the intellectual voice of the Republican party. He is a lot slyer and much more dangerous. I'm glad she is using her megaphone on this one.

    Is it correct that until (none / 0) (#72)
    by oculus on Tue Mar 03, 2009 at 03:18:42 PM EST
    she married a Republican, she was actually Dem.?

    I never heard that before (none / 0) (#76)
    by Inspector Gadget on Tue Mar 03, 2009 at 03:27:55 PM EST
    I thought she got furious with the Republicans when they shut her husband out of the party for being gay.

    She was a leftie at one point (none / 0) (#96)
    by ruffian on Tue Mar 03, 2009 at 03:53:31 PM EST
    before she got married to Michael Huffington - she even was involved with Jerry Brown - I didn't know that. Wikipedia just says something like she drifted left again after she and Huffington divorced, and now describes herself as a progressive populist.

    I just heard about Jerry Brown/Adrianna (none / 0) (#113)
    by oculus on Tue Mar 03, 2009 at 04:08:04 PM EST
    and her previous incarnation as a Dem.

    at a townhall type lunch conference I attended years ago. She's very impressive in person, and, it seems, a very good business person.

    Doubt it (none / 0) (#106)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue Mar 03, 2009 at 04:02:24 PM EST
    My understanding is she had no knowledge of or interest in U.S. politics until after she married.  Then she ended up on TV all the time arguing right-wing policies on his behalf when he ran for Senate.  He lost badly because he was an idiot.  Then he came out as gay after he had quit politics. (He was initially a big deal local TV news guy in California before he decided to run for office, I think.)

    I don't much like Arianna, but my sense is that her politics evolved over a number of years and had nothing to do with the Republicans "rejecting" her husband.  I don't think they ever had a chance to, actually.  And she split with him not long after he came out anyway.

    I could have the details wrong here, but that's what I remember.


    So much for my memory (none / 0) (#110)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue Mar 03, 2009 at 04:05:36 PM EST
    Thanks for looking it up in Wiki.  You're right, I'm wrong!

    I hardly ever remember to look stuff up (5.00 / 1) (#147)
    by ruffian on Tue Mar 03, 2009 at 09:10:22 PM EST
    You remembered it pretty much like I did!

    Uh oh! (none / 0) (#163)
    by jbindc on Wed Mar 04, 2009 at 09:16:01 AM EST
    She's not parroting the Dem talking point set out by Rahm!  The talking point is that Rush Limbaugh is the leader of the Republican Party - set out to scare people who don't pay attention (OOH!  Boogedy boo!)

    She's going to lose her all-access pass if she doesn't get the talking points right!


    So? He has the documentation. (5.00 / 1) (#132)
    by Fabian on Tue Mar 03, 2009 at 05:53:55 PM EST
    Can the other contractors in the biz say the same?

    If he's going by the book, he has nothing at all to complain about.  They want documentation, he can provide documentation, then it's just a standard bureaucratic hassle.  While he's at it, have him make copies and keep a couple on every truck.  If it happens once, it will happen again.

    He is mad because they have never (5.00 / 1) (#134)
    by Teresa on Tue Mar 03, 2009 at 05:57:56 PM EST
    asked for this before. I guess you just have to know these people Fabian. He's about ready to give the account up. We need their money but they are a bunch of little people in power and it has gone to their head.

    Why didn't they ever ask this before? I think we know the answer to that.


    Did he ask them? (5.00 / 2) (#136)
    by nycstray on Tue Mar 03, 2009 at 06:00:45 PM EST
    lol, he plans to make an as* of himself at (none / 0) (#139)
    by Teresa on Tue Mar 03, 2009 at 06:03:58 PM EST
    the next meeting, which I think is Monday. He wants to be sure no sex offenders work here.

    The lady that is the President lives directly next door to me and she is old and alone and he does everything for her. I know he'll ask her who asked her to put that in.


    I would ask her (5.00 / 4) (#141)
    by Steve M on Tue Mar 03, 2009 at 07:03:44 PM EST
    because you never know, it might turn out that there was only one person who complained, or whatever.  I'd hate to see your husband burn any bridges with the entire HOA if it turns out most of them aren't even the problem.

    Handled the right way it could even be a teachable moment for someone, who knows.  But I'd hate to see those kids stuck working on Mitt Romney's lawn because your husband decided to ditch the contract...


    Your husband should be delighted, actually. (none / 0) (#160)
    by Inspector Gadget on Wed Mar 04, 2009 at 08:09:25 AM EST
    He follows the law when so many don't. The HOA is simply bringing his above the norm employment practices to the surface for all to see. :)

    It's the economy. (5.00 / 1) (#138)
    by Fabian on Tue Mar 03, 2009 at 06:03:06 PM EST
    It will make a lot of people anxious and worse.  This is not a good time to be a furriner anywhere, legally or otherwise.

    I know he's mad, but he should consider that may only be the first time he'll have to do this.  If he has to do this again, can he afford to pitch a fit?  Better to be as (superficially) cooperative as possible than to make people think you want to hide something.


    I also think it's partly the economy. (5.00 / 2) (#140)
    by Teresa on Tue Mar 03, 2009 at 06:09:28 PM EST
    I'm sure all these folks think they are "illegals" from Mexico. They are good kids.

    None of his other commercial clients have asked for this. I wouldn't be surprised if some individual homeowners do.

    Wouldn't we be responsible if they weren't legal and not the HOA? We are the ones who have to have insurance on them, no the HOA.

    Maybe he'll chill out but he is protective of them and it really set him off.


    Good for him (5.00 / 3) (#156)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed Mar 04, 2009 at 01:18:53 AM EST
    But it is entirely legitimate for them to ask for this.  They may well be worried about being discovered to be employing illegals, as Mitt Romney was, even though it's through a contractor.

    I vote he should make his unhappiness with this clear -- calmly -- as he's handing over the documentation.


    I agree (none / 0) (#159)
    by Inspector Gadget on Wed Mar 04, 2009 at 08:07:07 AM EST
    The HOA should probably have asked for the documentation when they first contracted your husband's company. They are within their rights.

    Do remember that Walmart got in big trouble for the illegals who were working for the company they hired to do their janitorial work.

    The likelihood a group as small as an HOA would get investigated is pretty slim, but it is the diligence of all that is needed to solve the problem of jobs.


    I'd bet many companies are starting (5.00 / 2) (#152)
    by Inspector Gadget on Tue Mar 03, 2009 at 11:31:32 PM EST
    to ask for documentation. If jobs are destined to be lost as predicted by the administration, you can be sure there are people who want the illegals to be sent home and the jobs retained for the citizens. Even with some of the stimulus items that will create jobs there could easily be tighter rules to make sure the construction and subcontractor jobs (like landscapers) are hiring American citizens.

    The rules have been there with the I-9 for decades, but not much enforcement or checking was taking place.

    There must be other contractors working through the HOA. If you know who they are, ask them if they got the same request before making a big deal out of it.


    Maybe there is a reason? (5.00 / 3) (#133)
    by nycstray on Tue Mar 03, 2009 at 05:56:07 PM EST
    Like the HOA has had complaints? New guidelines have gone into effect that could leave them liable? Or checking up has started and they are responsible for making sure all contractors/hires are legal or they will be hit with pricey fines? Lots of folks are cracking down on many things we used to look the other way on. That's how they're getting money in their budgets. Fining people for stupid sh!t. My LL got a ticket/fine attached for not having a recycling decal on BOTH sides of the trash can. This is a man who makes sure the trash is properly sorted before he puts it to the curb and the cans are labeled on the lids and front. It's pretty freakin' hard not to know what can to use . . .

    I'm sure they have had complaints. They (5.00 / 1) (#137)
    by Teresa on Tue Mar 03, 2009 at 06:01:15 PM EST
    prefer the two white druggies to the nice polite brown skinned boys. I know that's the reason. They don't worry about following any rules around here, trust me.

    I think he's so mad because these are two good kids and they work hard. He thinks they are being picked on for their color and I agree with him.


    No offense taken... (5.00 / 1) (#142)
    by kdog on Tue Mar 03, 2009 at 07:12:36 PM EST
    you know me better than that...but can't we just call them the lazy crackers?...:) Not for nothing, I know me some lazy straight-edge folks too.

    Homeowner Associations can be some petty tyrannical outfits, I don't blame your man for not wanting to have to eat that sh*t, but I fear we're all gonna be in for more sh*t than our stomachs can handle for the foreseeable future...that's a tough spot.  How much of your principles can you afford kinda deal.

    They were a little lazy too! :) (none / 0) (#144)
    by Teresa on Tue Mar 03, 2009 at 07:44:38 PM EST
    Actually, we didn't care about the pills and pot until my husband found them in his business truck that one of them was responsible for. If that guy got stopped, they would take the truck so he asked them not to light up until after work and then he caught them again.

    Even in this economy, my husband needs one more worker to add to his two guys I wrote about and one other that he has. The rich people around here aren't about to do their own landscaping! I worry about them losing their houses though. He says he can do without it if he wants to but I hope he doesn't until he replaces them.

    I'll try to calm him down. He just thought they were being prejudiced and it mad him really mad.


    Send back a counteroffer (5.00 / 1) (#146)
    by andgarden on Tue Mar 03, 2009 at 08:34:45 PM EST
    with the paragraph deleted.

    Does the HOA president (5.00 / 2) (#150)
    by ruffian on Tue Mar 03, 2009 at 09:20:27 PM EST
    want a cabinet post someday?

    Facebook and texting for Lent? (5.00 / 0) (#161)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Mar 04, 2009 at 08:13:26 AM EST
    I adore it.  I can't text worth beans and I'm so thankful nobody who regularly contacts me is a big texter.  I just became active on Facebook with other "dog" people.  I have to say that that is way cool, so easy to keep in touch and I was also able to get connected with a professional handler via facebook that I had wanted to make a connection with for over a year....but how?  The handlers are always on the show circuit and if you are't at a show where they are and they have the time to meet with you then tough luck.

    "Amateur Hour at our Darkest moment" (none / 0) (#1)
    by Slado on Tue Mar 03, 2009 at 12:07:37 PM EST
    Cramer on Obamanomics

    That's absurd. (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by Samuel on Tue Mar 03, 2009 at 12:52:10 PM EST
    A crashing stock market isn't Obama's fault.  Keeping prices from resetting and liquidation of capital is and will be his fault - but the reason the stock market is crashing so much is because it got up-speculated by "experts" like Cramer who should have known that all growth since Reagan has been illusory.  Unless Cramer was against the bailout of the banking system (which his insane rant from 18 months ago was encouraging - so he wasn't) he's clearly alternating between capitalism and socialism depending on whether he gets the newly printed dough.  This is the same garbage as Santelli - they say capitalists things that consistent people can support - but when it comes to the banking industry they're giant socialists.  

    The stock market is crashing because US businesses aren't worth the dollar values associated with them.


    Crashing or correcting? (none / 0) (#33)
    by Inspector Gadget on Tue Mar 03, 2009 at 01:20:14 PM EST
    Seems that the outrageous speed the economy grew was far more questionable. In 1999 I recall my employer (Banking Association) announcing that Seattle now has 60 Billionaires. Imagine that. Just a few years earlier it was hard to reach millionaire status, and these people all had more than 1,000 million.

    I stayed at the same general rate of pay from 1995-2008, and now it's half that. To me, this correction is long overdue.


    I'm a Hayekian. (none / 0) (#36)
    by Samuel on Tue Mar 03, 2009 at 01:25:42 PM EST
    Of course it's correcting. That's why "stimulating" is so ridiculous.  

    I agree the market is (none / 0) (#40)
    by Slado on Tue Mar 03, 2009 at 01:41:42 PM EST
    correcting but Obama is still going ahead with massive spending and a war on the rich.

    This will insure that the market stays low along with the economy much longer then it should.

    It's undeniable however that everytime Obama or one of his advisors or secretary's opens their mouth the market crashes.


    "War on the rich" my arse... (none / 0) (#43)
    by kdog on Tue Mar 03, 2009 at 01:51:25 PM EST
    Slado...if anything he's just asking for an increase in the vig for the services of the protection racket for the rich...aka the US Govt.

    I don't think that's the case. (none / 0) (#52)
    by Samuel on Tue Mar 03, 2009 at 02:36:25 PM EST
    The stimulus spending will keep asset values from falling naturally.  This will delay the crash needed to allow restructuring.  The need to restructure by allowing capital to liquidate will persist until the inefficient capital is liquidated.  The necessity will only be muted by stimulus flooding the economy with debt/expansion dollars.  In other words, we will be fighting deflationary pressures in the form of government expenditure until we either can no longer borrow and are forced to print OR the dollar's status as world reserve currency ceases - either of which will eliminate deflation by causing hyperinflation.

    Real economic growth, as you said, will not occur until artificial demand hikes in the form of G are eliminated and the longterm viability of the dollar has a chance at being restored.  A rapid period of deflation would once again make the US an attractive investment vehicle and businesses will have the chance to structure around real economic numbers.  

    Despite popular opinion - we shouldn't ignore the fact that bank's aren't lending with overnight rates of 0.  

    Obama's not warring with the rich - he's abusing the anger of the middle-class against the rich to push through massive spending when it's not in their interests.  

    Who cares what the markets do in the short term?  It's not like their moves necessarily reflect where they see the economy more than 2 days from now.


    Cramer is "Amateur Hour" (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by santarita on Tue Mar 03, 2009 at 12:57:54 PM EST
    But he is always good for a good laugh.  Like Kudlow, he is almost a parody of himself.

    It's not amateur hour. (none / 0) (#64)
    by Samuel on Tue Mar 03, 2009 at 03:06:29 PM EST
    He's purposefully lying.  

    Marist sez (none / 0) (#2)
    by andgarden on Tue Mar 03, 2009 at 12:07:56 PM EST
    Paterson is toast.

    Dems need to find a primary challenger, or we're going to have a problem.

    Paiging Fran Drescher...Ms. Drescher to Albany (none / 0) (#3)
    by kdog on Tue Mar 03, 2009 at 12:12:43 PM EST
    She wanted to be senator, why not governor?  I'd vote for her under any brand name.

    Is Caroline available? (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by oculus on Tue Mar 03, 2009 at 12:19:15 PM EST
    Don't you like Cuomo? (none / 0) (#11)
    by ruffian on Tue Mar 03, 2009 at 12:29:30 PM EST
    I don't know beans about NY politics, but those polls in that article look good for him.

    Agreed. Who do (none / 0) (#114)
    by BackFromOhio on Tue Mar 03, 2009 at 04:09:19 PM EST
    you suggest?

    What do you think of Tom Suozzi?


    Hey Sarc... (none / 0) (#4)
    by kdog on Tue Mar 03, 2009 at 12:14:33 PM EST
    they banned the A-11 offense in high school by tweaking the rules.


    Yeah - that came down (none / 0) (#6)
    by scribe on Tue Mar 03, 2009 at 12:16:12 PM EST
    right around the time of the Super Bowl, and BTD didn't notice....

    Either had I... (none / 0) (#9)
    by kdog on Tue Mar 03, 2009 at 12:21:53 PM EST
    until reading espn today.

    So much for imagination and innovation...the haters win again.


    Something else of which I (none / 0) (#8)
    by oculus on Tue Mar 03, 2009 at 12:21:04 PM EST
    never heard!

    Aw man. What's up with that? (none / 0) (#16)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Mar 03, 2009 at 12:51:51 PM EST
    Glad the "rules" committee wasn't around in 1895 when the game of football was perverted forever with the invention of the forward pass:
    That's right, John Heisman himself was there when UNC was playing Georgia in 1895. The Tar Heels were forced to punt, but the line didn't do a very good job of blocking, and their punter was quickly surrounded by Bulldogs defenders. In a moment of panic, he ran to his right, saw a wide open UNC player downfield and threw the ball up. George Stephens caught it and ran for the 70 yard touchdown.
    Weinreb's a great writer kdog, thanks for turning me on to him:
    [a-11 is a] complex hybrid of the spread offense, a Dunder-Mifflin fire drill and a game of capture the flag
    Of course, the A-11 was already banned in West Virginia and North Carolina and a handful of other states before the committee voted to ban it nationally, all of which makes it seem as if Humphries and Bryan are somehow using this offense to artificially drive up stock prices or kidnap small children.
    They discount the ingenuity Humphries and Bryan have shown in implementing an entire system based on a loophole no one had noticed before; they discount the value of sheer inventiveness. But this has always been the case, and it always will be. After all, at least 50 percent of the purpose of the game of football is to retard forward progress.

    antibiotic resistant infections (none / 0) (#10)
    by CST on Tue Mar 03, 2009 at 12:27:05 PM EST
    on the rise.  Not shocking, surprised it didn't happen sooner.  I have thought for a while that doctors place way too much emphasis on drugs and not enough emphasis on strengthening the immune system.  I hope we'll start to see an increase in homeopathic medicine.  The shift has long been necessary.

    I'll never forget the time I asked my doctor about "alternative treatments" since I am allergic to most common antibiotics.  Her response "they come out with new drugs all the time".  I for one am tired of being a guinea pig, but such is life I guess.  I have also noticed that since I stopped going to the doctor every time I get sick, I don't get sick nearly as much anymore.

    Doctor's offices.... (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by desertswine on Tue Mar 03, 2009 at 12:32:41 PM EST
    and the (not so) Urgent Cares are great places to get sick from.

    At the rising cost of drugs, many people are (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by Inspector Gadget on Tue Mar 03, 2009 at 01:10:45 PM EST
    switching to vitamins and supplements and naturopaths.

    I found an unbelievably great Oriental reflexologist here. He fixed a 10 year long shoulder problem for me in one sitting, and I've been more than 3 years pain free. Reflexology is not a foot massage, it is painful and takes a very skilled practitioner to do it right.

    The overuse and problem of new virus mutations has been known for decades. There was an over-the-counter cleanser called Phisohex back in the 60's that was for acne, but also used as hand cleanser in hospitals and doctor offices...it was banned and taken off the market. Now it's by prescription only and used to kill the MRSA virus.

    In recent years, I've refused to use anti-bacterial soaps and put liquid Johnson's baby wash at the sinks since it was impossible to find a liquid hand soap that wasn't anti-bacterial. I've noticed lately that numerous choices are now back on the shelves. I'm hoping to see antacids drop the added calcium next.

    I haven't had a prescription for anything for over 3 decades, and plan to keep it that way. Both of my kids reached adulthood with less than half dozen prescriptions in their history.


    IG, if you want to (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue Mar 03, 2009 at 01:44:48 PM EST
    protect your health, better go learn the difference between viruses and bacteria.

    Antibiotics only impact bacteria.  They have no effect whatsoever on viruses.  Viruses do not mutate because of antibiotics, bacteria do.

    This difference is precisely why it's flat-out stupid to prescribe or take antibiotics for viral infections such as head colds.  They don't work on the virus and indiscriminate use is a major contributor to the development of antibiotic-resistant bacteria.

    Common bacterial infections, as a general but by no means universal rule, tend to be far more virulent and potentially life-threatening.  Bacterial pneumonia, for instance, can quickly kill you if not treated with antibiotics right away.  Viral pneumonia just makes you miserable for a while.


    Thanks (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by Inspector Gadget on Tue Mar 03, 2009 at 02:26:10 PM EST
    Guess it's all the better I haven't taken an antibiotic for more than 35 years, and don't use antibacterial anything.

    My health is excellent with rarely even a little cold more often than once every 7-10 years.


    Sounds like you have (5.00 / 1) (#90)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue Mar 03, 2009 at 03:50:05 PM EST
    a very well-behaved immune system.  I do, too, thank goodness.

    I'm 100 percent with you on the "antibacterial" craze in household products and hand cleaners, etc. I can't help but think there's a connection between the enormous increase in asthma, peanut allergies and all that kind of stuff and the increasingly frantic efforts of parents to keep their kids from ever encountering a germ over the last 20 years.  The immune system actually needs something useful to do now and then or it turns on the body or throws a hissy fit over peanuts.

    Just don't get yourself into such a mindset that you end up spurning antibiotics when you may really need them sometime.  Although I'm very healthy, I do know I'm not immortal or invulnerable. :-)


    when I was pregnant with my (5.00 / 1) (#105)
    by Anne on Tue Mar 03, 2009 at 04:01:51 PM EST
    older daughter, we interviewed a pediatrician who had come highly recommended.  One of the things he said to us was that if we expected him to prescribe an antibiotic every time our baby/child got the sniffles, he was the wrong pediatrician for us - that antibiotics were being wildly overprescribed and were only going to make it harder to treat the bacteria in the future.

    Don't misunderstand - when the kids clearly had infections that called for them, he prescribed.

    The other thing he told me was that I shouldn't be so quick to medicate fever - that it served a purpose, and as long as my child seemed to be tolerating it well - was otherwise acting "normal" I needn't worry.  He was a firm believer that the child's behavior said more about the fever than the numbers on the thermometer - a listless kid with a 99 degree fever was sicker and in need of medication much more than the kid running around and eating well with a fever of 101.

    My kids are 25 and 22, and I loved this doctor; he died not long ago and I just felt tremendously sad for his loss.


    Yep, my sibs and I never had antibiotics, (none / 0) (#111)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Mar 03, 2009 at 04:07:08 PM EST
    my mom wouldn't allow it, and that was 40+ years ago.

    Very cool, Anne (none / 0) (#154)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed Mar 04, 2009 at 01:04:49 AM EST
    One of the things few people realize and almost no docs bother to explain is that the nasty effects of your average cold, or even most viruses, don't come from the virus itself but from what the immune system is doing to fight it off.

    The people who died from the flu epidemic in 1917 were overwhelmingly the young and vigorous-- the folks with the strongest immune systems that reacted most vigorously to the flu bug.

    I remember there was a time some years ago when they thought maybe raising the body temperature of AIDS patients to fever levels and keeping it there for a while might kill off the AIDS virus in them.  It did, but didn't get all of the viruses, so it came back after a while.

    An elevated temperature is precisely the body's attempt to kill the virus in your system.  WHen we take fever reducers, odds are we're just prolonging the infection.  On the rare occasions I get a cold or even flu now, I mostly try to just stay home and suffer with it, rather than trying to alleviate the symptoms unless I really need to be functional or have real trouble sleeping.


    Watching the ongoing release of research (none / 0) (#99)
    by Inspector Gadget on Tue Mar 03, 2009 at 03:56:53 PM EST
    data is enough to turn anyone off from the medical sciences. Today coffee causes cancer, tomorrow it prevents it.

    Another problem today is the over use of SPF. People are now dealing with major depletions of vitamin D and a rate of skin cancer that seems far higher than it had been when we simply wore a hat.

    Medicine seems to have become a fad.


    Totally with you on the (none / 0) (#153)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed Mar 04, 2009 at 12:59:11 AM EST
    sunscreen.  Big, big mistake.  One of the ironies is that it's Vit D that has most to do with the skin's ability to repair itself from minor sun and other damage.  So people who never set foot outside without heavy SPF coverage may actually be setting themselves up for more skin damage and a greater likelihood of skin cancer down the road.

    That's not even to mention what adequate Vit D does for your basic energy level and mood, immune system functioning, etc.  I think this sunscreen fetish is going to turn out to have been a big, big mistake.


    Unbelieveable.... (none / 0) (#164)
    by kdog on Wed Mar 04, 2009 at 09:31:37 AM EST
    I've been saying for years that sunblock is bad for you and causes skin cancer, while the sun is good for you...thought I was just being my usual knuckleheaded self, you mean I might have been right all along?

    Too funny.

    Too funny.


    Define "you" (none / 0) (#165)
    by CST on Wed Mar 04, 2009 at 09:43:10 AM EST
    Speaking from very painful experiences, sunblock is very important for me.  Although the real answer is don't stay in the sun too long.

    Wait until you get 2nd degree burns from the sun due to a lack of sunblock.  You might be singing a different tune.


    I've gotten some bad burns... (none / 0) (#166)
    by kdog on Wed Mar 04, 2009 at 09:52:28 AM EST
    because of my anti-sunblock beliefs, don't know to what degree...it hurts for a day or two and then you've got a nice tan.  But that first shower...agony!  And the peeling is kinda gross, pulling off patches of skin as big as post-its.

    Probably the best thing, as you say, is to limit your time in intense sun and wear a hat.  Slapping on chemicals can't be good for ya.  And there is definitely something to be said for the sun god, the giver of life.  


    You would know (none / 0) (#167)
    by CST on Wed Mar 04, 2009 at 10:00:06 AM EST
    If it was 2nd degree.  That's when the blisters start, or as my sister called them, "alien bubbles".  Your skin literally boils.  And it takes waaay more than a day or two of pain to fix.  Not to mention the embarrasment factor in having to walk outside with an unbrella in the sun.

    Lemme put it this way, when you are taking a freezing cold shower, and the water that hits your feet is hot, you've got a problem.

    Then again, I am so white I reflect the sun and blind people who look directly at me.


    Too funny. My little joke is (none / 0) (#169)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Mar 04, 2009 at 12:37:25 PM EST
    that people love to lay out next to me on the beach becuase I reflect the sun onto them.

    History of melanoma in my family, we use sunblock every day. As fair skinned as we are, it takes very little exposure to get our daily Vit D requirement. Lots of sun here in CA, we get sun on our skin and it makes Vit D despite using sunblock. We also take Vit D supplements (among other things). Seems to work...


    Wise decision. (none / 0) (#170)
    by oculus on Wed Mar 04, 2009 at 01:03:44 PM EST
    I used to never get sick either, (none / 0) (#98)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Mar 03, 2009 at 03:55:39 PM EST
    sounds like you don't have young kids in school. As one who does, I'm not sure the antibacterial soap thing is much of an issue with them. Damn kids never wash their hands anyway...

    Kids are grown (none / 0) (#101)
    by Inspector Gadget on Tue Mar 03, 2009 at 04:00:00 PM EST
    but they also never got sick. If they missed a day of school it was because they hadn't done their homework.

    Bingo! Kids Are Disease Vectors... (none / 0) (#107)
    by santarita on Tue Mar 03, 2009 at 04:03:43 PM EST
    I got 5th Disease from my sister who got it from her grandkids.    At least, that's where I think I got it and even if I didn't, I'll blame my sister anyway.

    And 5th disease for adults is not so much fun.


    What is 5th Disease? (none / 0) (#122)
    by Inspector Gadget on Tue Mar 03, 2009 at 04:48:02 PM EST

    5th Disease (none / 0) (#129)
    by daring grace on Tue Mar 03, 2009 at 05:31:43 PM EST

    Wow, I learn something new here every day.


    More (none / 0) (#131)
    by squeaky on Tue Mar 03, 2009 at 05:50:13 PM EST
    Colds are not bacterial (none / 0) (#155)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed Mar 04, 2009 at 01:06:02 AM EST
    they're viral.  The antibacterial soap is perfectly useless.

    There ya go. (none / 0) (#171)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Mar 04, 2009 at 04:18:21 PM EST
    Alternative medicine? (none / 0) (#28)
    by andgarden on Tue Mar 03, 2009 at 01:12:56 PM EST
    Drop calcium from antacids?




    heh (none / 0) (#31)
    by andgarden on Tue Mar 03, 2009 at 01:17:50 PM EST
    Mine sure don't:)...n/t (none / 0) (#32)
    by kdog on Tue Mar 03, 2009 at 01:18:34 PM EST
    But, they do take insurance now (none / 0) (#38)
    by Inspector Gadget on Tue Mar 03, 2009 at 01:33:26 PM EST
    and, PERK accounts can be used to pay for them with pre-tax dollars.

    Amen sister... (none / 0) (#15)
    by kdog on Tue Mar 03, 2009 at 12:47:54 PM EST
    Think twice before you take antibiotics...let your immune system do its thing whenever possible.

    Ya can't beat mother nature, no need to rush along a superbug.  

    Or as Bradley Nowell said "We're only gonna die for our own arrogance, that's why we might as well take out time."


    Some 3 decades ago (none / 0) (#39)
    by Inspector Gadget on Tue Mar 03, 2009 at 01:39:28 PM EST
    I for one am tired of being a guinea pig, but such is life I guess.

    Every time a doctor scribbled something on his prescription pad and, as he would hand it to me, said "let's try this, and if it doesn't work, let me know and we'll try something else" that prescription would go in the trash bin as I left his office. Eventually, I switched my timeline for visits and go in for my 15 year checkup when that rolls around.


    15-year plan is fraught w/peril, IMO. (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by oculus on Tue Mar 03, 2009 at 01:55:34 PM EST
    Very important to have necessary blood work analyzed, try to stave off diabetes, high blood pressure, high cholesterol, various cancers which may be survived if detected early.  Too much of a gamble.

    Yes, well, being uninsured more often (5.00 / 1) (#79)
    by Inspector Gadget on Tue Mar 03, 2009 at 03:31:45 PM EST
    than not has made that a necessity at the price of medical services, and I don't see that ending anytime soon.

    Calling BTD. Need your overview (none / 0) (#45)
    by oculus on Tue Mar 03, 2009 at 01:56:58 PM EST
    re Bush admin. memos released recently by Obama admins.  

    Bongs back in the news... (none / 0) (#50)
    by kdog on Tue Mar 03, 2009 at 02:34:29 PM EST
    this time though, instead of a gold medal winner, we just have a real winner.  Link

    Obviously not a very nice thing to do to the cat, but a criminal offense?  That's a bit much.  

    And what a piece o'crap bong!  Smoking out of that eyesore...now that should be a criminal offense:)

    It's called animal abuse (5.00 / 2) (#53)
    by nycstray on Tue Mar 03, 2009 at 02:39:26 PM EST
    and as a criminal offense, it happens a bit much.

    Honestly I don't know... (none / 0) (#60)
    by kdog on Tue Mar 03, 2009 at 02:54:18 PM EST
    if it is any more abusive than putting your cat in a small confined cage.

    At the risk of angering you, my dear animal loving friend, one of my old dogs loved to get high with me.  Match would hit the green and she would come running to my lap for some second hand smoke.  She went with an old-ex when we broke up, at last report she is still going strong and still chasing that smell at age 10.

    That being said I never would trap her in a reefer prison like this marmaluke in Nebraska...but again, is it any worse than your standard cat cage?


    I've never been in a bong. (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by Samuel on Tue Mar 03, 2009 at 03:04:57 PM EST
    But from the outside they look disgusting.  What are you talking about?  Shoving a cat in a space much smaller than a typical carrier - with carcinogen laced water and filling it with smoke while not allowing the animal to choose whether or not to walk away is not comparable.  Typically cat carriers have a purpose - like safe transport.  Shoving a cat in filth water and replacing breathable air with thick smoke is abusive.  

    You don't have to be an animal lover to understand the basics of respect and abuse.


    I said... (none / 0) (#70)
    by kdog on Tue Mar 03, 2009 at 03:18:05 PM EST
    I'd never do it, just asking if it is any more abusive than a small cage.  Did you see the bong?  It ain't that small.

    Obviously it isn't cool or a nice thing to do, if I didn't make that clear already.  But criminal charges?


    Dude... (5.00 / 2) (#85)
    by Samuel on Tue Mar 03, 2009 at 03:39:44 PM EST
    you condescendingly addressed the other commenter as an animal lover.  And it was small - the thing with the garden hose?  

    Comparing a cat carrier - which is used for a purpose - to a filth wet bong interior with no oxygen is ridiculous.  Stop effin with me.  I get the criminal charges bit - but it's still abuse.


    I'm not messin' wit ya bro.... (none / 0) (#100)
    by kdog on Tue Mar 03, 2009 at 03:59:53 PM EST
    I thought you of all people might see it that way, being libertarian and all.  I'm one of your few fans 'round here for balancing out the debate:)

    As I said below, I think I jumped the gun with me anti-law enforcement bias taking hold...your points are taken.  I love animals too!

    Though I still kinda wonder if he simply put the cat in a cage the size of that bong if he would be charged, or if this is some kinda drug war madness spreading to the animal kingdown.  iow, is it the abuse or the reefer angle?  If you laid a plate of reefer out the cat might eat the stuff....I know my old dog would start feasting if I left a sack in reach.


    And I did not intend... (5.00 / 1) (#103)
    by kdog on Tue Mar 03, 2009 at 04:00:51 PM EST
    to be condescending towards nycstray...she's the coolest.

    Yea I'm critical... (5.00 / 1) (#112)
    by Samuel on Tue Mar 03, 2009 at 04:07:44 PM EST
    cause you make sense on everything else.  Inside of the bong is nothing like a cat cage.  You gotta be messin.

    From the pic.... (none / 0) (#124)
    by kdog on Tue Mar 03, 2009 at 04:55:08 PM EST
    I can't even see any water, or a stem off that bowlpiece...looks more like a poorly designed shoebox pipe.

    Don't get me wrong man, I think putting sweaters and assorted human accessories on animals is cruel, never mind this and cages in general...I only question the criminality.  


    My dog will be sportin' a jacket (none / 0) (#135)
    by nycstray on Tue Mar 03, 2009 at 05:59:10 PM EST
    when she goes out tonight. Has been the past couple days. Too cold for her short hair  ;) I draw the line at dressing her because she's "my baby" however!

    Standard cat cage (5.00 / 5) (#84)
    by nycstray on Tue Mar 03, 2009 at 03:37:49 PM EST
    cat should be able to stand up and turn around. That may even be law as far as kenneling animals go. For the cat to shut down as it did is a sign it was in distress. That's abuse.

    My dog used to live with a couple of crack heads. This is abuse also. leaving a dog tied to a radiator in the basement and never feeding or walking that is . . .


    Should have said cage/carrier (5.00 / 2) (#88)
    by nycstray on Tue Mar 03, 2009 at 03:44:43 PM EST
    with cages for kenneling there are requirements for food/water/waste. But in either case, they have to be able to stand and turn. In the case of my dog, stretch out on her back with her legs straight, lol!~

    No argument there... (none / 0) (#93)
    by kdog on Tue Mar 03, 2009 at 03:51:03 PM EST
    what a sad picture...my current pooch wasn't as in bad a shape when I found him, but almost....skin and bones.  He's lookin' good now except for his teeth being a wreck...I have to soak his dry food in gravy to soften it so he can get it down, otherwise he would just pick around it to get to the Alpo, and I know the dry is where the nutrients are.

    You've made me re-think it stray...my anti-law enforcement bias is showing I think.  Thank you, our resident St. Francis:)

    Quick question...my dog seems to love women, but is very aggressive towards men, he snaps at and growls at many of my male friends until he gets used to them, yet he loves the ladies right off the bat.  Do you think it is because he was abused/beaten by the previous owner that abandoned him, who I assume must have been a male?  Or is he just a ladies man?  


    Your pup could have been owned by women (5.00 / 3) (#116)
    by nycstray on Tue Mar 03, 2009 at 04:16:24 PM EST
    It's either lack of early socialization or possible abuse. Men also carry themselves a bit different than women, so lack of exposure and/or confidence could play in. Small dogs are more likely to be afraid of me than larger dogs, and I'm pretty sure it's my manner. I walk in the small dog room at the city shelter and am not too fondly greeted, lol!~ My dog is reactive to obviously drunk or drugged men on the street. Luckily, we don't see them often, but she'll alert to one a good block away. For all her lack of socialization, she's pretty accepting of men women and kids.

    Dot weighed about 27-30lbs there, after 4 days of meals. That's a puppy collar she has on. She should have weighed closer to 45lbs. Took awhile to teach her to walk one block. Took a couple hours of sitting by her cage with the door open before she decided to check me out (my back was to her). It's a good thing I wasn't anywhere near her former "owners" in those days.


    Thanks a lot... (none / 0) (#126)
    by kdog on Tue Mar 03, 2009 at 05:09:45 PM EST
    my dog is awesome with the kids too, just the fellas he gives a hard time.  Some kind of boxer mutt I think.  

    Personally I think its a sin to pay money for a dog when they're literally giving 'them away.  My sister both paid for a dog and used a cage...I never ceased to give her sh*t.


    It's most commonly a fear reaction. (none / 0) (#127)
    by nycstray on Tue Mar 03, 2009 at 05:20:38 PM EST
    My dog's been attacked by other dogs, so if she's unsure of a dog, she'll react before it gets too close. More than likely to react at night when she can't read another dog as well. She could see the same dog during the day and be fine. They're all about body language  :) My dog has schooled me in the many issues of "dog", lol!~

    Bold and Progressive (none / 0) (#51)
    by Jlvngstn on Tue Mar 03, 2009 at 02:36:17 PM EST
    I love this paper http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2009/02/time-for-a-new-%e2%80%9cnew-deal%e2%80%9d/

    My favorite part is this

    "It also built or renovated 2,500 hospitals, 45,000 schools, 13,000 parks and playgrounds, 7,800 bridges, 700,000 miles of roads, and a thousand airfields. And it employed 50,000 teachers, rebuilt the country's entire rural school system, and hired 3,000 writers, musicians, sculptors and painters, including Willem de Kooning and Jackson Pollock."

    45,000 schools.  What if we built 45,000 schools with technology in classrooms, green buildings, and funded the system better?

    Our investment would be in our children and their childrens' futures as opposed to bailouts for banks.  For 1.4 trillion dollars you could build 45,000 schools at the cost of 32 million per.  

    When our kids or grandkids ask us what we spent 2 trillion of their dollars on, I would hope we could say "you."

    Obama's budget and stimulus are timid.  I am sure there is a broader strategy that fuses more together but I simply do not get the lack of urgency for job creation that "gives" us something long term.

    I wasn't there but I am sure building/rebuilding 45,000 schools had many a fiscal conservative ranting about national bankruptcy.  

    Hope is sustainable as long as it remains more powerful than concern or doubt.  "And hope don't pay no bills......"

    "Stimulus" causes bills. (none / 0) (#59)
    by Samuel on Tue Mar 03, 2009 at 02:49:40 PM EST
    There's no multiplier effect on real wealth from government spending.  Federally funded education has been garbage for 50 years.  Dumping money in the system now will result in huge debts for the kids.  The correct statement is "we spent your money on you - pay it back plus interest when we're dead.  At that time, you can decide whether or not to screw the future yourself".  

    The stimulus creates jobs and not careers.  It isn't sustainable - government spending at these levels cannot occur year after year.  Simultaneously it will prevent price deflation.  The result being that private investment will not be willing to take government spendings place and all the jobs will disappear - then we'll deflate - then savings and investment will begin anew.  

    If you want to build tons of new schools and roads and whatnot - well I don't think it's a good idea - but certainly do it AFTER we deflate and prices go down.  Whether you are for bigger or smaller government - now is not a time to spend.  The deflation is inevitable - either start your new industries after it occurs in an environment in which they'll sustain - or before in an environment in which they're entirely depending on debt financing.


    wow (5.00 / 3) (#61)
    by Jlvngstn on Tue Mar 03, 2009 at 03:02:34 PM EST
    thankfully Mr. McCain you were not elected.  I could only imagine the depth of the pain the depression your election would have caused.  

    Maybe I'm confused. (none / 0) (#66)
    by Samuel on Tue Mar 03, 2009 at 03:09:00 PM EST
    How does spending 800billion through debt financing help kids?

    seriously (5.00 / 3) (#71)
    by Jlvngstn on Tue Mar 03, 2009 at 03:18:12 PM EST
    either you agree with Krugman, Baker, Kuttner et al or you do not.  I happen to.  You do not.

    So shall we argue semantics as has been done to a sickening degree or should we take a simple poll?

    How many of you out there would rather spend 566 billion and counting on two wars that netted us nothing but contempt?  

    How many of you would like to see your children and their children taught in modern, high tech classrooms that will strenghten our country intellectually for years to come?

    I think I will side with those who stand in the same corner as FDR, who is in the top 3 presidents of all time depending on whose poll you believe as opposed to anyone who is siding on the other.

    I have no intention of having a debate as to the necessity of Keynesian policy.  It has been done adnauseum and at this point if you are not on a side you are painfully unawares.  So there is no point in furthering our discussion.

    What was accomplished by FDR's vision is staggering comparatively speaking to the agenda listed thus far by Obama in my opinion.  That is the point of the post.  


    I urge you to reconsider... (none / 0) (#78)
    by Samuel on Tue Mar 03, 2009 at 03:30:59 PM EST
    Keynesian economics is fallacious to an extreme degree.  Just work through it's premises logically, it makes no sense.  Phillips Curve....ANYONE????  IS-LM model....ANYONE???  Money from nothing?  Keynesian's have always been academic apologists for socialist intervention.  They garner support from the establishment because their view always rationalizes government involvement - based on an ever accelerating rate of inflation.

    I argue this genuinely but if the debate is over in you mind then I'll resign to allow time to argue my case.

    "How many of you out there would rather spend 566 billion and counting on two wars that netted us nothing but contempt?" - I would not for many reasons.

    "How many of you would like to see your children and their children taught in modern, high tech classrooms that will strenghten our country intellectually for years to come?" I would, that sounds great.

    I loved reading Paul Krugman ripping into Bush a lot.  That doesn't mean that he's a saint and above reproach.  Hell, Keynes was a self described "immoralist" and a supporter of eugenics.  His theories have been debunked by competent economists for years.

    History is always quickly forgotten - if I piqued your interest at all check out this 1975 meet the press interview with Frederick Von Hayek - another  Nobel Laureate in economics - http://www.johnlocke.org/fmm/display.html?id=5206


    I read the Hayek piece (5.00 / 1) (#80)
    by Jlvngstn on Tue Mar 03, 2009 at 03:31:58 PM EST

    We will agree to disagree.


    How could any of us forget (5.00 / 2) (#83)
    by jondee on Tue Mar 03, 2009 at 03:37:32 PM EST
    how "Hayekian social forces" were going to stabilize Iraq in a year or so.

    Free markets love me, this I know, for the Free Market tells me so.


    You are conflating. (none / 0) (#104)
    by Samuel on Tue Mar 03, 2009 at 04:01:27 PM EST
    Hayek didn't say this.  People pushing the right-wing agenda may have.  Read anything by Hayek and you will see that he wouldn't come close to this assertion.  

    You are allowing bad people to hijack a good theory so that you yourself cannot see it for what it is.  That is in no way an argument against anything Hayek has EVER written.  The guy that wrote Road to Serfdom wouldn't talk about stabilizing forces in a militarized zones.  That is absurd.


    All I know is (5.00 / 1) (#115)
    by jondee on Tue Mar 03, 2009 at 04:11:57 PM EST
    is that when the chips are down, the Hayekian's almost always end up voting for the ENTIRE Rethug agenda because one part of it seems to them to be more libertarian. Single issue folk, like the anti-abortian crowd, neocon regime changers and gun-humpers.

    If Im lumping (5.00 / 1) (#118)
    by jondee on Tue Mar 03, 2009 at 04:21:35 PM EST
    you in with people you dont wanna be lumped in with, sorry. It may not always be duck when it looks like one and quacks like one, but it usually is.

    SORRY (none / 0) (#120)
    by Samuel on Tue Mar 03, 2009 at 04:28:28 PM EST
    got that after the last comment.

    Well it's time to learn more. (none / 0) (#119)
    by Samuel on Tue Mar 03, 2009 at 04:27:38 PM EST
    Cause you clearly cannot make a comment on the economic argument.  If someone somewhere voted against prochoice legislation - that doesn't change how inflation effects the economy.  Same for guns.  As far as Neo-cons go, they would be for the stimulus in some manner if you look at their spending record - maybe they'd do the tax cuts again, but deficit spending is deficit spending so that would be what it always is - a divisive gesture.  

    I voted for the B man specifically because my economic suffering in the future is less offensive then increased violence abroad.  Not that that has anything to do with the economic arguments of Hayek - nor does just about anything else you have said.  


    Well, its sounds like we agree (none / 0) (#121)
    by jondee on Tue Mar 03, 2009 at 04:37:49 PM EST
    that the regime change misadventures are closer to a true "abomination" than anything the Bible-thumpers have talked about in the last eight years.

    Violence is wrong. (none / 0) (#125)
    by Samuel on Tue Mar 03, 2009 at 05:01:46 PM EST
    We had no right to go there.  But who cares what bible-thumpers even think?  They're external to the serious discussion as you'll agree.

    I would argue the longterm effects of the stimulus are an abomination in their own right - regardless of anything a republican or a republican supporter will or will ever do.  I understand in doing so that I'm directly disagreeing with Paul Krugman which I once thought was unconscionable.  

    If you can see that maybe I'm not a "republican" but actually I former "conscience of a liberal" thumping progressive - and you have the time - looking into the period between 1920 and 1940 a little more closely than what is taught in a state funded school to everyone (and that you are failed for disagreeing with) may be worth the time before turning on the 800billion debt machine.  

    Up until recently, agreeing with people like Krugman was pretty straightforward: Iraq War...duh, Patriot Act...duh, Mandatory Healthcare vs Non-Mandatory...duh - then suddenly we get summaries of dated Keynesian models suggesting that bulking up GDP is imperative while purposely aggregating data in the most unscientific of ways...labeled "wonkish" of course.  I mean - people seem to go along with whatever the guy says and think it's just that simple because everything else he has proposed in the last 8 years was black and white.  Meanwhile, he worked down the hall from Bernanke in an econ department named after the president that enacted the Fed.  

    You may find this blasphemous and what not but hopefully it's somewhat concerning... I mean we have a guy saying "calculate a number for 'potential' GDP and up it be another 50%
    for good measure" and there's a huge lack of criticism simply because he's been right on everything else.  Not to many people arguing for the stimulus knew much about econ before they read Krugman.


    Before (5.00 / 2) (#128)
    by CST on Tue Mar 03, 2009 at 05:21:27 PM EST
    You tell anyone to "study up" on the great depression.  You may want to review your notes from the industrial revolution.

    I get the feeling all the "private organizations can do everything" folks never bothered to read the Jungle, or study that period in history.  

    There is a reason we have all these gov't programs, they weren't created in a vacuum.

    I realize this has nothing at all to do with your current post, but it has been bugging me since yesterday and that open thread is full.


    Why don't you just... (none / 0) (#168)
    by Samuel on Wed Mar 04, 2009 at 10:57:38 AM EST
    present a disagreement with my argument that's specific?  That way we can discuss it.  

    If you want specific New Deal analysis I can give it - or you can tell me something you think it did and we can discuss that.


    Out of curiousity... (none / 0) (#82)
    by Samuel on Tue Mar 03, 2009 at 03:36:51 PM EST
    why?  I mean - he's theories predicted this - Keynesian theories did not.

    McCain (none / 0) (#67)
    by Samuel on Tue Mar 03, 2009 at 03:11:03 PM EST
    would have increased military spending amongst other things also delaying deflation.  He would have bailed out banks.  The Republican argument isn't the argument I am making - don't conflate me with it - just address my assertions directly or ignore me - but please stop the false labeling.

    You spout so much nonsense (5.00 / 2) (#63)
    by andgarden on Tue Mar 03, 2009 at 03:05:33 PM EST
    Sure I do. (none / 0) (#65)
    by Samuel on Tue Mar 03, 2009 at 03:08:28 PM EST
    Can you address anything I say just so I can understand why you might think that?  Government expenditure cannot create wealth.  

    You're arguing for deflation (5.00 / 2) (#73)
    by andgarden on Tue Mar 03, 2009 at 03:19:21 PM EST
    and calling for me to state my reasoning? Sorry champ, but you're the one with strange economic ideas.

    What do you think causes deflation? (none / 0) (#74)
    by Samuel on Tue Mar 03, 2009 at 03:22:37 PM EST
    It's a symptom of over valuation of assets.  As long as deflationary pressures exist private investment will be adverse to the US.  Deflation = the value of your money increasing.  Deflation was typically before central banking - as production capacity increases, prices go down, the value of money goes up.

    So central banking is the problem? (5.00 / 3) (#77)
    by andgarden on Tue Mar 03, 2009 at 03:29:19 PM EST
    I notice that you don't even bother to address the reasons why deflation are devastating for the many and enriching for the few.

    There's a reason why we have abandoned your philosophy.


    I didn't address... (none / 0) (#81)
    by Samuel on Tue Mar 03, 2009 at 03:35:24 PM EST
    since there is no avoiding of deflation.  It is an eventuality.  While you hold the moralist's argument in the short-term and are impassioned by this, I hold the moralist's argument in the longterm.  Postponing the inevitable deflation will only ensure that the total amount of suffering and unemployment will be greater in the long run.  

    " "It's not a question of what the country is willing to tolerate. The longer you have inflation, the more.. greater unemployment becomes inevitable. We will have no choice. It's all the matter that government can't avoid the unemployment which is caused by the previous misdirection of labor, which the inflation has produced." - Hayek

    So maybe you disagree with that - but I'm not arguing on some corporatist agenda or because I don't care about people.  I enter the discussion precisely because I do care.


    I suppose you agree completely (5.00 / 2) (#86)
    by andgarden on Tue Mar 03, 2009 at 03:39:50 PM EST
    with Malthus too?

    Essentially, what you seem to believe has been entirely discredited by the 20th century.


    These are matters of faith (5.00 / 2) (#95)
    by jondee on Tue Mar 03, 2009 at 03:53:26 PM EST
    andgarden. The substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

    Don't know who that is. (none / 0) (#87)
    by Samuel on Tue Mar 03, 2009 at 03:41:22 PM EST
    And the current crisis actually is an illustration of what I believe, right?  Otherwise cutting the interest rates would have solved the tech bubble, not shifted it to housing.

    Further nonsense (5.00 / 2) (#89)
    by andgarden on Tue Mar 03, 2009 at 03:46:10 PM EST
    I'm finished with this.

    Then address it. (none / 0) (#92)
    by Samuel on Tue Mar 03, 2009 at 03:50:15 PM EST
    It's not nonsense.  I named something specific - you referenced the entire 20th century - which saw the break down of the Philip's Curve mind you.  Is your argument that because unemployment went down in the late 30's and then our economy grew after WWII that inflation and central planning work?

    And the fact that your positions (5.00 / 1) (#91)
    by jondee on Tue Mar 03, 2009 at 03:50:14 PM EST
    more closely coincides with those whose agenda IS corporatist and whose expression of "care about people" traditionally hasnt extended beyond some variation on piss-on-'em now - tricle-down-on-'em later, is completely beside the point.

    Slandericity (none / 0) (#94)
    by Samuel on Tue Mar 03, 2009 at 03:52:39 PM EST
    How is being against bank bailouts - that is all bail outs - and artificial interest rates - and wealth redistribution through printing corporatist?  I think you're conflating me with Republican's who argue half my points - but then fall short when it comes to their backer's interests.

    No central govt (5.00 / 3) (#102)
    by jondee on Tue Mar 03, 2009 at 04:00:20 PM EST
    at all, you might as well say.

    Entirely feasible in the post-Rapture period, but until then you're just giving aid and comfort to the closest-to-the-ideal Rethug hooey.


    If you didn't notice... (none / 0) (#109)
    by Samuel on Tue Mar 03, 2009 at 04:05:15 PM EST
    Republicans have only grown the government when in office in the last 30 years.  I don't think it's a fair association.  

    We don't need rapture to reign in spending - I mean we will at this point - but the logical argument remains intact.

    Quit it with the false associations.  If you agree with the Keynesian's offer a concise reason why.  Slandering my views isn't necessary.


    G.L.A.D. (none / 0) (#123)
    by CST on Tue Mar 03, 2009 at 04:52:20 PM EST
    Is suing section three of DOMA that bars the federal government from granting certain protections to legally married same-sex couples.

    I wish them the best, this could get ugly.

    Chandra Levy (none / 0) (#143)
    by diogenes on Tue Mar 03, 2009 at 07:29:27 PM EST
    The NY Times says that the alleged killer would face 30-60 years if convicted in Washington DC.  I thought you anti-death-penalty types always say that the alternative is LWOP.  He already is in jail for assaulting two women in the same park; can you imagine her family having to show up in thirty years for his "poor pitiful me" parole hearing?  

    Hm (none / 0) (#145)
    by Steve M on Tue Mar 03, 2009 at 08:30:17 PM EST
    What is he being charged with?  If it's not first-degree murder, doesn't seem like the death penalty would be available regardless.

    He is charged with (none / 0) (#157)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed Mar 04, 2009 at 01:21:37 AM EST
    first degree.

    Really? (none / 0) (#158)
    by Steve M on Wed Mar 04, 2009 at 02:24:13 AM EST
    The penalty for first degree is 30-60 years, not life?  What a strange jurisdiction.

    Doesn't LWOP mean (none / 0) (#148)
    by ruffian on Tue Mar 03, 2009 at 09:15:17 PM EST
    no parole hearings either? Why would there be a parole hearing if the sentence is life without possibility of parole?

    I see - you are saying that for some (5.00 / 1) (#149)
    by ruffian on Tue Mar 03, 2009 at 09:19:27 PM EST
    reason his sentence would be 30-60, not LWOP. I have no idea why.

    But you're right - as someone who is anti- death penalty, my preference is LWOP for crimes that now carry the death penalty.


    Polis was misquoted (none / 0) (#151)
    by msobel on Tue Mar 03, 2009 at 09:49:03 PM EST
    http://www.squarestate.net/diary/7692/denver-post-relies-on-new-media-for-polis-quote-and-gets-it-wr ong

    http://www.squarestate.net/diary/7696/update-to-denver-post-getting-it-wrong-with-a-juicy-meta-cente r

    have the original statement and the distorted quote as well as an apology from Polis.  

    This misquote is of course another example of why we need professional journalist with fact checking and high editorial standards and need to shun all (DFH) bloggers.