home

Tuesday Night Open Thread

What's on your mind tonight?

Here's an open thread to tell us, all topics welcome.

Update 12:21 am: If I could be anyone tonight, who would it be? The girl who got to sing Karaoke with Jon Bon Jovi on Jimmy Fallon tonight. Talk about having a fantasy come true, that had to be it for her.

< Isikoff on the Released DOJ Memo | Obama Transparency And The OLC >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Herbert's column (5.00 / 0) (#1)
    by lentinel on Tue Mar 03, 2009 at 08:20:10 PM EST
    Bob Herbert wrote a column in today's Times.
    It is called "Wars - Endless Wars".

    I haven't seen another column stating so plainly the absurdity of Obama's pursuit of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan in the midst of the incredible economic nightmare that confronts us.

    Wars Endless Wars

    I saw that also. Wasn't (5.00 / 2) (#5)
    by oculus on Tue Mar 03, 2009 at 08:51:45 PM EST
    Herbert hugely advocating Obama's candidacy?

    Parent
    Oops! Yes, he was an Obama advocate! I read (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by DeborahNC on Tue Mar 03, 2009 at 09:37:22 PM EST
    your post wrong. I must need to go to bed!

    Parent
    Scared me there for a sec.! (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by oculus on Tue Mar 03, 2009 at 09:53:17 PM EST
    Yes (5.00 / 4) (#104)
    by cal1942 on Wed Mar 04, 2009 at 12:31:01 AM EST
    Herbert was a big Obama backer. Now sher you can rate me a 2 just as you did oculus for committing the unpardonable sin of asking an innocent question or making a statement of fact.

    Parent
    Ha. (none / 0) (#109)
    by oculus on Wed Mar 04, 2009 at 12:42:00 AM EST
    I don't recall ever seeing Bob Herbert (none / 0) (#15)
    by DeborahNC on Tue Mar 03, 2009 at 09:35:03 PM EST
    advocate on behalf of Bush. In fact, I'd be very surprised if he did.

    Parent
    He did (none / 0) (#26)
    by lentinel on Tue Mar 03, 2009 at 09:47:26 PM EST
    He was a big Obama advocate.

    It is a hopeful sign that he is focusing on reality.

    Parent

    "He was a big Obama advocate." (5.00 / 2) (#92)
    by NYShooter on Wed Mar 04, 2009 at 12:07:14 AM EST
    Unfortunately, his Obama advocacy was accompanied by the most terminal case of Hillary CDS imagineable. Also, his "advocacy" was more like Obama-worship than support.

    It was sad to witness, and his opinions will never again have the impact they could have had.

    That's just my opinion, of course, and I'm none too happy for it.

    Parent

    I agree (none / 0) (#141)
    by lentinel on Wed Mar 04, 2009 at 09:46:48 AM EST
    with what you said vis a vis Herbert.
    His advocacy of Obama was irrational - as was his contempt for Clinton.

    That's why it is notable to me that he is taking on Obama on the issue of the war(s) which Obama is comatosedly pursuing.

    He can't be accused of having an ulterior motive in challenging Obama on this because of his previous sycophantic behavior.

    I wish more of the people on the left would start screaming about pouring all this money down the drain (the war in Iraq is costing about a half million dollars a minute). But they all seem to have something else to do than worry about unjust wars draining our already depleted treasury.

    Parent

    Is there a conspiracy (5.00 / 3) (#10)
    by andgarden on Tue Mar 03, 2009 at 09:13:51 PM EST
    to put nothing interesting on TV on certain nights?

    Yup!!! (5.00 / 4) (#11)
    by nycstray on Tue Mar 03, 2009 at 09:23:15 PM EST
    That's what some of the cable channels and PBS are for. Learnin' breaks {grin}. Or perhaps we're just supposed to do something else on those nights?

    Parent
    Except (5.00 / 2) (#99)
    by cal1942 on Wed Mar 04, 2009 at 12:20:23 AM EST
    when your local PBS station is doing pledge week.  

    In the past, during pledge week, our PBS station telecast very good past PBS series.  More recently pledge week is full of stuff like Suze Orman or some guy rattling on for two hours about relationships.  To make matters worse, pledge week has become two weeks.

    Parent

    Yes, definitely (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by Plutonium Page on Tue Mar 03, 2009 at 09:28:38 PM EST
    We found something on HDNet, but that was after looking through a bunch of channels.

    Parent
    I'm not often behind the tech curve (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by andgarden on Tue Mar 03, 2009 at 09:36:27 PM EST
    but I'm actually the only person in my family to have not yet gone HD. I can't justify the $1000 to buy a decent set. 1080p or bust!

    My snobbery trumps my early adopterism in this case!

    Parent

    I think the only reason we have it... (5.00 / 2) (#19)
    by Plutonium Page on Tue Mar 03, 2009 at 09:40:28 PM EST
    ... is because Frank wanted to get EuroNews, so we have DirectTV.

    HD is actually very cool, although there are many things not meant to be seen in HD.

    Certain news anchors come to mind.

    Parent

    Actually (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by TheRealFrank on Tue Mar 03, 2009 at 09:47:35 PM EST
    We have Dish, not DirecTV :-) Dish has EuroNews, DirecTV has not. Or at least, that was the situation last year when we got it.

    HDnet is kind of a weird channel. They have Dan Rather's excellent reports, and the HDnet World Report, which also has great stuff.

    And then they have "Bikini Destinations" and "HDnet Fights". Weird.


    Parent

    It is (or was) Mark Cuban's product (none / 0) (#31)
    by andgarden on Tue Mar 03, 2009 at 09:49:41 PM EST
    I remember that he started it before just about anyone had an HDTV or an HD capable receiver. I think that's why it's survived as long as it has.

    Parent
    What I love about HD (none / 0) (#21)
    by andgarden on Tue Mar 03, 2009 at 09:43:30 PM EST
    is that it's forcing the cable companies to finally improve the quality of the product they deliver. Many of the smaller ones are going all digital to save bandwidth, and that's a wonderful thing.

    Ten years ago, the small dish guys absolutely had a superior product, but there are things they can't do that the cable guys can: namely On Demand and interactive services.

    Parent

    You do not have to have HD (none / 0) (#91)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed Mar 04, 2009 at 12:04:22 AM EST
    to have digital.  Digital makes HD possible, but cable was pushing people to switch to digital before HD was a gleam in anybody's eye.  You get all the benefits you cite with digital without HD.

    That is, if your system has it.  I don't know about Comcast cable, but satellite has been all-digital for a long time.

    Parent

    Believe it or not, the Japanese developed (5.00 / 1) (#96)
    by andgarden on Wed Mar 04, 2009 at 12:14:30 AM EST
    an analog HD system in the 80s. But it required way too much bandwidth for popular use.

    In fact, the technology that allowed for digital cable and satellite was developed concurrently with HDTV and DVD technology. The reason digital has been so popular everywhere is that it allows for substantially more efficient use of bandwidth. Where once you could have one analog cable channel, now you can have 3 HD channels or 10 SD channels. The only reason cable operators didn't go all digital 10 years ago is that the converter boxes cost several hundred dollars a piece. Today they've gotten it down to about W80 for the basic ones, and some manufacturers are working at $40-50.

    As I say above: I've seen HD, and the difference is like night and day to me.


    Parent

    Replying to myself (none / 0) (#25)
    by Plutonium Page on Tue Mar 03, 2009 at 09:46:13 PM EST
    Before Frank can!

    DISH NETWORK.

    Yes, Frank, I am sniffing glue here.

    Parent

    Dish has usually been the better deal (none / 0) (#30)
    by andgarden on Tue Mar 03, 2009 at 09:48:26 PM EST
    mostly because Charlie Ergen is a cheap SOB.

    Parent
    Don't feel too left out (5.00 / 2) (#102)
    by cal1942 on Wed Mar 04, 2009 at 12:25:14 AM EST
    Many people haven't replaced their old sets.  We haven't.  We're still using the 36 inch set we bought 10 years ago. The biggest reason is that I really don't know what to do with the damn thing.  

    What do you do with a 10 year old monster?

    Parent

    I'll bet you can't even give it away (none / 0) (#103)
    by andgarden on Wed Mar 04, 2009 at 12:26:01 AM EST
    Some people have been known to throw them away.

    Parent
    Yeah (5.00 / 2) (#110)
    by cal1942 on Wed Mar 04, 2009 at 12:46:22 AM EST
    But it does seem like such a waste.

    For us it will come to a head very soon.  My wife is starting to look at ads.  When she starts looking at ads it's all over but the shouting.

    I give the old set about 3 months.

    Still don't know what to do with the old set.

    Parent

    Look up the "Freecycle" group (5.00 / 3) (#115)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed Mar 04, 2009 at 12:53:00 AM EST
    for your area.  It's a bunch of Yahoo groups, I believe.  The purpose is to give away or get stuff that's perfectly good but you don't need and other people would appreciate having.  We have a very active group where I am, and it's been terrific to be able to give stuff I don't need to people who do, rather than having to pay (as we do for all trash) to throw away.  WOrking TV sets of any vintage get snapped up immediately.

    Parent
    Fair point (5.00 / 1) (#116)
    by andgarden on Wed Mar 04, 2009 at 01:01:13 AM EST
    I was exaggerating, of course; I just think the market must be flooded with such models these days. And just wait until the kitchen LCDs get cheap! The used market will be flooded with every white 12in Sony in the country.

    Parent
    That why we cheap folks wait. (none / 0) (#126)
    by Fabian on Wed Mar 04, 2009 at 03:46:56 AM EST
    Why spend more now on something I don't need now?

    Still haven't bought the box and antenna for the digital switchover.  I like imagining life without television - especially when it's pledge week and the Power Of Intention is on!

    Parent

    Is this (none / 0) (#123)
    by cal1942 on Wed Mar 04, 2009 at 01:51:19 AM EST
    a nationwide organization?  Is there a web site that can be accessed to find local groups?

    Or have I misunderstood the whole thing?

    Parent

    Freecycle (5.00 / 1) (#140)
    by daring grace on Wed Mar 04, 2009 at 09:44:13 AM EST
    Many thanks (none / 0) (#149)
    by cal1942 on Wed Mar 04, 2009 at 04:55:34 PM EST
    I found a local freecycle group.  5,991 members in our area.

    Parent
    In my (ahem, former) bedroom in Philly (none / 0) (#114)
    by andgarden on Wed Mar 04, 2009 at 12:52:09 AM EST
    sits a 1991 ~32in Sony Trinitron. It must have cost my dad a right fortune when he bought it new. It even has S-Video! It still chugs along, and could probably keep working for the next 18 years. The problem is that it's really heavy and takes up so much space.

    It will probably end up given away to someone's housekeeper, just like the similar 1987 model we parted with a few years ago.

    Parent

    My one that went POOF was about that old (5.00 / 1) (#119)
    by nycstray on Wed Mar 04, 2009 at 01:37:16 AM EST
    as was my friend's that POOFED 2 months before mine. We started wondering if TWC was jacking the lines or something for a kickback, lol!~

    I bought from a place that would haul mine away. I'm not sure, but I think they attempt to dispose of them properly? Even if they didn't, I don't think I could have hauled my old set down from the fourth floor/stairs only.

    I was originally going to wait for the prices to come down more after the conversion/time. I got a 32" full HD for around 650. Perfect size for a smaller LR (or workroom with lots of other equip). I've had it since Nov (Oct?!) and I'm still amazed at the pic quality. Some of the PBS nature shows just blow me away. The Swiss alps never looked so good! I'm a visual person by trade and thought I was jaded as all heck . . . Also, the graphics (anything not video) are sharp as all heck. I can once again read the little score boxes in the corner during games (saved me on new glasses!). My set has pre-settings for football, baseball etc, lol!~ The upgrade was def worth it and still enjoyable.

    Parent

    TWC NYC now has (5.00 / 1) (#122)
    by andgarden on Wed Mar 04, 2009 at 01:49:47 AM EST
    one of the best HD lineups in the country, mostly as a result of competition from FIOS. To make that happen, they had to kill all of the expanded basic in analog. Easier to do here than in many other places because you've always needed a descrambler for expanded basic.

    Most people don't have all that you have in the 700s (though some with DirectTV do).

    Oh, and word to the wise: most TVs ship way to bright and with the contrast turned all the way up. You owe it to yourself to get your nice new TV calibrated.

    Parent

    I was forced by my old TV going *POOF* (none / 0) (#54)
    by nycstray on Tue Mar 03, 2009 at 10:14:57 PM EST
    darn glad I was. Excellent pic. I went the full HD route (whatever that is, lol!~). I am going to get a box for my little old TV in the kitchen as long as they are giving out the coupons.

    Parent
    Forget the HD unless (none / 0) (#90)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed Mar 04, 2009 at 12:02:02 AM EST
    you have way too much money and/or are embarrassingly stimulated by 3-D sports.  Yes, it's definitely nicer, but the thrill wears off after a short time for most programming, IMHO.

    Get a TIVO type thing instead.  My satellite DVR can search for stuff I like in the middle of the night and record it automatically.  I've got a huge backlog of interesting stuff to watch if there's nothing on, from a couple weeks worth of Jon Stewart to my local news for the week to movies, PBS Nature programs, American Experience, a coupla cooking shows, yada, yada, yada.  It's easier with satellite because I can record stuff on one channel while watching another, so the recording doesn't interfere if I happen to be watching something else.

    But even without that, the DVR is a huge boon to those of us who don't find a lot to watch when we happen to want to watch.

    Parent

    I disagree (5.00 / 1) (#95)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Mar 04, 2009 at 12:11:21 AM EST
    There's a very noticable difference between HD and regular digital, and even more of a difference with blue-ray. I didn't see it at first but when it was pointed out to me and I could see it by switching between the HD version of a show or movie and digital, I couldn't go back. I only watch the HD channels and movies now.

    Blue ray (which you get on a separate blue-ray player) is the best by far.

    That said, I'm also keeping a non-HD tv to watch my old VCR tapes on. When you transfer them to dvd and play them on an HD tv, they skip and don't play back right.

    My advice would be to buy the biggest HD tv screen you can afford, you won't be sorry.

    Parent

    Each to his own (5.00 / 5) (#113)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed Mar 04, 2009 at 12:50:57 AM EST
    I find HD pleasant, and if it didn't cost more, of course I'd go for it.  But I don't and never have watched TV for visual stimulation, so it's just thoroughly in the non-essential category for me.  Definitely nowhere near the "gotta have it" category.

    Besides, I need an extra few bucks a month for chicken feed for the hens I'm about to add to my household!  Gimme chickens and fresh eggs over HD any day.

    Parent

    Can I subscribe to your (none / 0) (#125)
    by Fabian on Wed Mar 04, 2009 at 03:43:28 AM EST
    egg laying channel?

    We just had a local turf war here when a family that had three illegal hens had problems with the neighbor's dog.  Zoning requires chickens be kept 150 ft from the nearest residence, which is almost impossible in most urban or suburban lots.  I may try to become a beekeeper sometime since there are few zoning issues with hives.

    HD is pretty awesome, but I'm too cheap to pay for it.  

    Parent

    Heh! (5.00 / 1) (#151)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed Mar 04, 2009 at 09:41:58 PM EST
    They don't like to let anybody actually see them doing it, I gather, so they're happier with little burlap flaps over the doors to the nestboxes.

    The Boston suburb I used to live in has a bunch of people hoping to get approval for a hen ordinance, but I doubt very much they'll succeed in an area where the soccer moms call the police in a panic when they see an opossum.


    Parent

    I don't think it's worth it anymore (none / 0) (#153)
    by MrConservative on Wed Mar 11, 2009 at 07:31:56 PM EST
    Cost on HD has gone so far down over the years it's pretty much stupid to by anything but an HDTV unless you're REALLY tight on the cash.  I walked into my friends moms trashy trailer the other day, looked on the wall, and lo and behold, an HDTV sat there.

    We Americans sure have our priorities in line.

    Parent

    I couldn't agree more, Jeralyn (none / 0) (#134)
    by easilydistracted on Wed Mar 04, 2009 at 08:03:26 AM EST
    That is all I watch, too. Unfortunately Charter Cable does not offer a wide variety of HD channels,as of yet. My apartment is situated so that we do not have a direct line of sight for DirectTV or Dish Network (crap).

    My only other addition to what you've said is that, go for a 120Htz for the refresh rate. A little pricier, but well worth it IMHO.

    Parent

    How are you sure (none / 0) (#152)
    by MrConservative on Wed Mar 11, 2009 at 07:29:38 PM EST
    That it isn't the placebo effect?  Although anyone with good vision could see a difference between HD and SD, it isn't THAT great.  And I don't believe there's a technical difference between over the air HD and Blu-Ray HD besides progressive scan either, so it might be placebo there as well.

    I know I used to be obsessive about getting all of my music in pristine FLAC's.  Then I did a blind test one day and realized I literally couldn't tell the difference between a low quality 128 Kbps MP3 and a perfect FLAC.  That realization has saved me a lot of hard drive space...

    Parent

    I do have a DVR (none / 0) (#93)
    by andgarden on Wed Mar 04, 2009 at 12:07:27 AM EST
    But HD really is that much better. It's greater than the difference between youtube and a DVD.

    Parent
    It's my budget, not my snobbery, that (none / 0) (#130)
    by DFLer on Wed Mar 04, 2009 at 06:54:43 AM EST
    prevents me from going that route

    Parent
    Silly - some eye candy (5.00 / 3) (#13)
    by Plutonium Page on Tue Mar 03, 2009 at 09:27:54 PM EST
    I'm getting a kick out of some of the photos of Hillary in Israel, especially this one.

    All of the photos of her trip so far are pretty cool.

    I was hoping that would be (none / 0) (#29)
    by NJDem on Tue Mar 03, 2009 at 09:47:43 PM EST
    with HRC and Perez, so wonderful to see the video of the two of them!

    Parent
    Back in the world of the living (5.00 / 5) (#24)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Mar 03, 2009 at 09:45:48 PM EST
    Hope to start posting again tomorrow.

    Hope everyone is well.

    Hope your hearing went well. (5.00 / 3) (#27)
    by andgarden on Tue Mar 03, 2009 at 09:47:28 PM EST
    It did (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Mar 03, 2009 at 09:51:41 PM EST
    Judge ruled from the bench after taking an hour to deliberate.

    I expected a bad result. told the client so while we were waiting.

    It was the strangest thing, it was as if the Judge had no absorbed or agreed with anything I wrote in the briefs during the hearing but when he came back and read a decision from the Bench, it was all there.

    Which just proves the old legal saying - "youneverknow."

    Parent

    Hope your judge doesn't read (5.00 / 2) (#37)
    by oculus on Tue Mar 03, 2009 at 09:58:49 PM EST
    talkleft!

    Parent
    Heh (5.00 / 8) (#41)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Mar 03, 2009 at 10:00:56 PM EST
    Well, I doubt it, but, just in case, he was brilliant . . .

    Parent
    I've got dummy oral arguments on Fri (none / 0) (#35)
    by andgarden on Tue Mar 03, 2009 at 09:56:14 PM EST
    after doing a brief last week so. . .I take that to heart.

    Parent
    Isn't that 'mock" or "moot"? (none / 0) (#38)
    by oculus on Tue Mar 03, 2009 at 09:59:57 PM EST
    Enjoy them (none / 0) (#39)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Mar 03, 2009 at 10:00:06 PM EST
    If you are meant to be a litigator, you'll enjoy it.

    Though I assume, if it is a moot court, it will be like an appellate argument - which is a different animal than the trial court.

    Both are fun - if it is for you.

    Then again, the criminal lawyers here will tell you we civvies do not even know what a trial is - and they are right in a way.

    Parent

    It's before the "Supreme Court" (none / 0) (#43)
    by andgarden on Tue Mar 03, 2009 at 10:04:55 PM EST
    (AKA, my legal writing professor's law firm associates who need CLE credit).

    It's a criminal case, and I'm arguing for the government. (I know. booo!)

    Parent

    Hey, it's OK (5.00 / 2) (#82)
    by Radiowalla on Tue Mar 03, 2009 at 11:16:22 PM EST
    to argue for the government.  No need to boo.

    Parent
    Defense site, etc., etc. ;-) (5.00 / 1) (#83)
    by andgarden on Tue Mar 03, 2009 at 11:23:53 PM EST
    yes, yes (5.00 / 1) (#98)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Mar 04, 2009 at 12:16:08 AM EST
    we're a defense site and don't argue for the Government. But we also try to be accurate.

    Parent
    Oculus will give you some tips . . . (none / 0) (#44)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Mar 03, 2009 at 10:05:36 PM EST
    heh (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by andgarden on Tue Mar 03, 2009 at 10:08:51 PM EST
    Most of my grade comes from my brief, so I'm just going to have fun with the oral arguments (though I'm obviously doing some prep).

    Parent
    You better prep (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Mar 03, 2009 at 10:10:52 PM EST
    or it can get ugly. Even, maybe especially, in moot court.

    Parent
    He's hoping for a snow delay. (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by oculus on Tue Mar 03, 2009 at 10:11:37 PM EST
    Heh (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Mar 03, 2009 at 10:14:39 PM EST
    I was ready on Monday, for the record.

    Parent
    Oh, sure. (none / 0) (#55)
    by oculus on Tue Mar 03, 2009 at 10:16:11 PM EST
    I would protest (none / 0) (#56)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Mar 03, 2009 at 10:17:43 PM EST
    But then you'll cite Shakespeare and then what will be my rejoinder?

    Parent
    No doubt (none / 0) (#53)
    by andgarden on Tue Mar 03, 2009 at 10:14:48 PM EST
    FWIW, I just did a fair amount this evening.

    Parent
    So, you get to wear the white hat. (none / 0) (#47)
    by oculus on Tue Mar 03, 2009 at 10:10:28 PM EST
    Isn't the "Supreme Court" the trial court in NY State?  

    Parent
    U.S. Supreme Court (none / 0) (#50)
    by andgarden on Tue Mar 03, 2009 at 10:13:43 PM EST
    on appeal from the Second Circuit.

    In NY the Supreme Court is a bit up from the bottom, but what everyone else calls the SC is the Court of Appeals here.

    Parent

    Just give us a tiny clue about the (none / 0) (#57)
    by oculus on Tue Mar 03, 2009 at 10:17:47 PM EST
    issues on appeal.  I am "inactive" member of the state bar, but has that ever stopped curiousity?

    Parent
    Two issues (none / 0) (#60)
    by andgarden on Tue Mar 03, 2009 at 10:24:12 PM EST
    1) Evidence found in a hotel room without a warrant but after checkout time, and 2) statements made after an arrest where the affidavit for arrest didn't disclose important information about a cooperating witness.

    I'm responsible for 1 on friday.

    Parent

    No standing/inevitable (none / 0) (#64)
    by oculus on Tue Mar 03, 2009 at 10:30:59 PM EST
    discovery?  Isn't this an actual appellate opinion?

    Parent
    If you're interested (none / 0) (#69)
    by andgarden on Tue Mar 03, 2009 at 10:36:16 PM EST
     I can find out if I'm allowed to send you the Join Appendix.

    Parent
    I am interested. (none / 0) (#70)
    by oculus on Tue Mar 03, 2009 at 10:36:48 PM EST
    I'll look into it (none / 0) (#75)
    by andgarden on Tue Mar 03, 2009 at 10:40:13 PM EST
    just shoot me an email. (Pretty easy to figure out: me at Gmail).

    Parent
    Got it. (none / 0) (#77)
    by oculus on Tue Mar 03, 2009 at 10:44:04 PM EST
    issue number 1 (none / 0) (#97)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Mar 04, 2009 at 12:14:50 AM EST
    the issue is the expectation of privacy. I don't think you have standing to contest a search in a room you have vacated -- you don't have an expectation of privacy in it. So even if there was no warrant, you have no standing to complain about it.  Just like garbage you leave on the street.

    Parent
    see. We agree on some things! (5.00 / 2) (#100)
    by oculus on Wed Mar 04, 2009 at 12:22:24 AM EST
    I knew we'd find something! (5.00 / 3) (#112)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Mar 04, 2009 at 12:49:24 AM EST
    The Second Circuit agrees with you (none / 0) (#101)
    by andgarden on Wed Mar 04, 2009 at 12:23:17 AM EST
    See United States v. Rahme, 813 F.2d 31 (2d Cir. 1987).

    But other courts have partially disagreed. See United States v. Kitchens, 114 F.3d 29, 32 (4th Cir. 1997), and United States v. Dorias, 241 F.3d 1124, 1129 (9th Cir. 2001).

    Of course, I will be arguing the former.

    Parent

    In state court, yes (none / 0) (#51)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Mar 03, 2009 at 10:14:04 PM EST
    NY's highest state court is the Court of Appeals. Our appelate courts are also "Supreme Courts" but the "Appellate Divisions" (4 "Departments").

    We have federal courts too though . . .

    Parent

    Great news (5.00 / 4) (#88)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Mar 03, 2009 at 11:55:39 PM EST
    Hope to start posting again tomorrow.

    You've been missed!

    Parent

    Hoping you will (none / 0) (#59)
    by oculus on Tue Mar 03, 2009 at 10:21:28 PM EST
    call upon your Constitutional law expertise and address the recently released memos of last Bush administration.

    Parent
    I read the one memo - well, to the point (5.00 / 2) (#66)
    by Anne on Tue Mar 03, 2009 at 10:32:24 PM EST
    where I feared my head was going to explode.  I kept trying to understand that it was just a couple weeks after the 9/11 attacks, but I still could not grasp how easily Yoo found justifications for letting go of basic Constitutional protections - it was as if those no longer mattered.

    I get that the powers-that-be did not know if there were more attacks coming, what form they would take or how coordinated they would be, and they had to have been in a panic.  Even so, I don't understand why there was so little regard given for what it would mean to so blur the lines between military actions and domestic legal responsibilities.

    I finally decided that someone like Cheney said, "We need a memo that justifies the president doing whatever he wants, whenever he wants to whomever he wants, and we need it yesterday!"  And Yoo complied.

    Really just makes me feel sick and scared.

    Parent

    I think what bugs (5.00 / 5) (#105)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed Mar 04, 2009 at 12:33:49 AM EST
    me so much about this is their overwhelming need for prior justification for doing extraordinary things in a real emergency.

    For instance, I thought it was entirely OK for Dick Cheney to have given the order to shoot down the Penn. plane (even though it was down already).  He did that, as he should have, regardless of whether there would be legal consequences for him as a result.  It was an emergency, he did what was necessary, legal or not.  He didn't wait for John Yoo to write a memo about it, nor should he have.

    Before he went down the rabbit hole, Dershowitz not long after 9/11 was arguing for essentially the same thing with the issue of torture-- if you really have one 'o those ticking bomb scenarios, do what you have to do and fight it out in court, if necessary, afterwards.

    The obsession these people had with indemnifying themselves in advance for stuff they might have to face some day is to me sickening.  That to me is the test.  If it is a genuine national emergency, if you're any kind of patriot (or mensch), you'll do what you're certain has to be done and be willing to take the consequences for it.

    Parent

    Can't remember if Doris Kearns (none / 0) (#68)
    by oculus on Tue Mar 03, 2009 at 10:36:02 PM EST
    Goodwin's book Team of Rivals addressed such issues as to Lincoln's Presidency and Civil War.  As I recall, he suspended writ of habeas corpus.  

    Parent
    But isn't suspending (none / 0) (#117)
    by cal1942 on Wed Mar 04, 2009 at 01:05:01 AM EST
    the writ of habeas corpus constitutional in times of rebellion?

    The 9/11 attacks were not a rebellion.

    Parent

    David Savage, LAT: (none / 0) (#94)
    by oculus on Wed Mar 04, 2009 at 12:10:42 AM EST
    If I Never (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by wickedlittledoll on Tue Mar 03, 2009 at 10:09:21 PM EST
    hear the words Rush, Blago, Wall Street and bailout again, it will be too soon.

    http://democralypsenow.blogspot.com/

    What about Michael Steele, and, (none / 0) (#58)
    by oculus on Tue Mar 03, 2009 at 10:18:54 PM EST
    BTW, had anyone ever heard of him before about a week ago?

    Parent
    *raises hand* (5.00 / 3) (#62)
    by nycstray on Tue Mar 03, 2009 at 10:24:39 PM EST
    Yup, I had heard of him before a week ago {grin} I think his name started popping up after the election, lol!~

    Parent
    Is he supposed to be the GOP (none / 0) (#65)
    by oculus on Tue Mar 03, 2009 at 10:31:52 PM EST
    antidote to President Obama?

    Parent
    I have no clue (none / 0) (#79)
    by nycstray on Tue Mar 03, 2009 at 10:49:57 PM EST
    I zone out on that kinda stuff these days. I think we have a couple of years of GOP "antidotes" ahead of us, lol!~

    Parent
    He and Jindal (none / 0) (#108)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed Mar 04, 2009 at 12:41:07 AM EST
    are supposed to be the GOP Obamas.  Hah.

    Parent
    As a Maryland resident, (5.00 / 1) (#78)
    by Anne on Tue Mar 03, 2009 at 10:46:58 PM EST
    I am well-acquainted with Michael Steele, and for that reason, just have to shake my head at him being chosen to lead the RNC.

    He's not the sharpest knife in the drawer.

    He was Lt. Gov under (urk!) Bob Ehrlich, and then ran for the Senate against Ben Cardin, and lost.

    The more you get to know him, and see him in action, the more you will wonder how he managed to get to where he is.  Not a good businessman, not real successful as a lawyer - finally found his niche in politics...sounds a little like GWB in that regard.

    Parent

    Ben Cardin, OTOH, is a really good Senator (none / 0) (#80)
    by andgarden on Tue Mar 03, 2009 at 10:55:55 PM EST
    I've been pretty happy with him.

    Parent
    I'm not sure (none / 0) (#111)
    by CoralGables on Wed Mar 04, 2009 at 12:47:42 AM EST
    he found a niche in politics. At least he hasn't in the election side of politics. To the best of my knowledge he has never run for public office (without being a tagalong) and won an election.

    Parent
    Oh, yeah! (5.00 / 1) (#107)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed Mar 04, 2009 at 12:40:39 AM EST
    He was quite the sensation a few years ago for having run for something he ultimately lost, Senate, I think, maybe governor, using mailers and bumper stickers that deliberately tried to deceive people that he was a Democrat, not a Republican.

    He's a dope, but he's no ideologue.  I doubt he'll last long as RNC chairman.


    Parent

    Who would you think (none / 0) (#127)
    by Fabian on Wed Mar 04, 2009 at 04:05:24 AM EST
    would have a long tenure as head of the RNC now?

    I'd almost say Huckabee, but he's about himself and not really about the party.  You need someone who can be affable, genial and lie like a rug to promote the GOP.  Rush and company aren't really about promoting the GOP, like Huckabee, they are all about promoting themselves - witness Limbaugh rushing to his own defense against Steele.  Limbaugh doesn't care about the GOP except as an easily identifiable brand and exploitable audience.

    The GOP is in trouble entirely of their own devising.  It's a pity they wouldn't look to someone like Voinovich.  He may be white [gasp!] but he is also a relatively moderate northern Republican.  That's someone who has the potential to stabilize the Republican party as opposed to radicalize it.

    Parent

    Didn't he run for the Senate (none / 0) (#67)
    by caseyOR on Tue Mar 03, 2009 at 10:34:59 PM EST
    from Maryland a few years ago? or did he run for governor? Anyway, he is not totally new to the scene. I'd heard of him before, but obviously the details did not stick.

    Parent
    Okay, I checked (none / 0) (#71)
    by caseyOR on Tue Mar 03, 2009 at 10:39:15 PM EST
    and Steele served as Maryland's Lt. Governor. He then ran for the senate, to replace Paul Sarbanes. He lost that race to Ben Cardin.

    Parent
    Yes, according to Wiki: (none / 0) (#73)
    by oculus on Tue Mar 03, 2009 at 10:39:34 PM EST
    Steele ran for a Maryland United States Senate seat being vacated by retiring senator Paul Sarbanes, but he lost the 2006 election to Democratic Congressman Ben Cardin.


    Parent
    One more hand raised! Yes, I've heard of him (none / 0) (#72)
    by DeborahNC on Tue Mar 03, 2009 at 10:39:32 PM EST
    before, and it wasn't pretty!

    Parent
    Didn't he run for Lt. Governor (none / 0) (#118)
    by cal1942 on Wed Mar 04, 2009 at 01:16:30 AM EST
    or the Senate in Maryland?

    Parent
    Hasn't he been (none / 0) (#124)
    by Amiss on Wed Mar 04, 2009 at 01:57:36 AM EST
    a commentator on CNN along with Brazille et al?

    Parent
    Jerry Brown, elected Attorney (5.00 / 1) (#86)
    by oculus on Tue Mar 03, 2009 at 11:52:51 PM EST
    General of the State of California, has a diary up on Huffington Post about why Cal Supremes should rule against Proposition 8

    I like the new U2 album (none / 0) (#2)
    by magster on Tue Mar 03, 2009 at 08:23:14 PM EST
    better than "How to Build an Atomic Bomb", but not as good as "All That You Can't Leave Behind." Probably my least favorite song is the one they chose for the single.

    I haven't bought a U2 album (none / 0) (#3)
    by Joelarama on Tue Mar 03, 2009 at 08:37:07 PM EST
    since Achtung Baby in college.  I'm dating myself.  

    Parent
    Well, you're younger than me... (none / 0) (#4)
    by magster on Tue Mar 03, 2009 at 08:42:22 PM EST
    Me too (none / 0) (#8)
    by ruffian on Tue Mar 03, 2009 at 09:07:14 PM EST
    Achtung Baby was the last U2 album I bought as well...but I was well out of college!!

    Parent
    You guys (gals?) missed out on some ... (none / 0) (#12)
    by magster on Tue Mar 03, 2009 at 09:25:57 PM EST
    decent albums. "Pop" was the only truly mediocre one...

    Parent
    Achtung Baby.... (none / 0) (#136)
    by kdog on Wed Mar 04, 2009 at 09:20:26 AM EST
    is my fav U2 record...the Edge at his absolute best.

    Parent
    Just started listening to it a minute ago (none / 0) (#20)
    by Plutonium Page on Tue Mar 03, 2009 at 09:41:01 PM EST
    So far, so good!

    Parent
    Jer--no special post about (none / 0) (#6)
    by NJDem on Tue Mar 03, 2009 at 09:02:04 PM EST
    the Bachelor "After After" special tonight?

    Does anyone else care?  Probably not, huh? :)

    I'm done with the Bachelor (5.00 / 1) (#85)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Mar 03, 2009 at 11:51:28 PM EST
    this season. Jason is a wuss. I'm tired of watching him cry and ABC trying to spin it into something it wasn't.  I do still like Jesse though.

    Parent
    I hope Melissa wasn't watching tonight (none / 0) (#120)
    by nycstray on Wed Mar 04, 2009 at 01:43:01 AM EST
    The more he tries to dig himself out, the deeper he buries himself, imo. What a freakin' insult. "She's the perfect little wife, but not what I really want."

    I guess I'm just not that into wusses, lol!~  ;)

    Parent

    Roadrunner entertainment news (none / 0) (#9)
    by oculus on Tue Mar 03, 2009 at 09:09:26 PM EST
    cares.

    Parent
    Jason = Wuss; Cad; Jerk; Drama Queen; (none / 0) (#17)
    by Angel on Tue Mar 03, 2009 at 09:36:43 PM EST
    Self-indulgent; Creep.

    Parent
    I agree (5.00 / 1) (#87)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Mar 03, 2009 at 11:53:37 PM EST
    and even used the same word, "wuss" before seeing your comment! He needs a shrink, not a wife.

    Parent
    Tell me how you really think :) (none / 0) (#22)
    by NJDem on Tue Mar 03, 2009 at 09:45:15 PM EST
    I was hoping you'd ask. :) (none / 0) (#42)
    by Angel on Tue Mar 03, 2009 at 10:04:16 PM EST
    MD Senate Tries to Repeal Death Penalty (none / 0) (#7)
    by Alegre on Tue Mar 03, 2009 at 09:04:43 PM EST
    I've gotten a few updates from my state senator, Richard Madaleno regarding today's efforts to repeal our state's death penalty.  They got past the committee's failure to report the bill favorably, but an amendment designed to gut the bill was approved so they're trying to work out where to go from here.  You can read more about it at our site HERE.

    NM state senate is, too (none / 0) (#23)
    by Plutonium Page on Tue Mar 03, 2009 at 09:45:24 PM EST
    The latest is that the death penalty ban passed the Senate Public Affairs committee.

    Straight party line vote: Dems for the ban, wingnuts against.

    Parent

    Maryland resident here - (none / 0) (#61)
    by Anne on Tue Mar 03, 2009 at 10:24:20 PM EST
    sure wish I knew why it is that the people who represent us seem to think that it's a bad idea to take off the table the option to kill people who kill other people, or why they think the world might come to an end if they close that door.

    Call me crazy, but I think it would make so much more sense to take people who have done bad things and help them to become better people.  There are so many people who have more or less raised themselves, in less-than-ideal circumstances, who could contribute something positive to society if they could be taught how to do that.

    I know we can't save everyone, but I would much rather my tax dollars were going to an effort to do that than to warehousing them for finite periods before releasing them with no skills, or just executing them.

    As long as I live, I will never understand how killing those who kill others makes any sense.

    Parent

    I agreed w/you until I was asked (5.00 / 3) (#63)
    by oculus on Tue Mar 03, 2009 at 10:27:33 PM EST
    to look at the sentence about to be imposed on a serial murderer.  I made the mistake of reading his journal.  I am convinced some people are beyond redemption, have absolutely no conscience, and wouldn't hesitate for a second to kill again.  But I'm ok w/life sentence w/o possibility of parole.

    Parent
    Clearly, there are people who, for (5.00 / 4) (#74)
    by Anne on Tue Mar 03, 2009 at 10:39:47 PM EST
    reasons we may never understand, are not and never will be rehabilitated, and those people should be kept locked away, with no possibility of ever being released into society.

    And, I'm not sure that someone who did commit a heineous crime, but who has become a better person while incarcerated, should necessarily be released.  

    I just think the prison system in general is not serving us well - too many people serving time and not getting skills or education or therapy or anything that will enable them to function better once they have served their time and are sent back into the community.

    I understand punishment; what I don't understand is how punishment benefits society if those who are punished never learn how not to repeat the mistakes and behavior that landed them in prison.

    Parent

    Seems to be an ebb and flow, (none / 0) (#76)
    by oculus on Tue Mar 03, 2009 at 10:43:02 PM EST
    least in CA.  Sometimes education and rehabilitaion is insisted upon by the public and the state Legislature, sometimes public and Legislature want only punishment--take out the free weights, vocational training, etc.  No its money.

    Parent
    Because the people who (none / 0) (#89)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue Mar 03, 2009 at 11:56:47 PM EST
    represent us, even if they know better, are in terror of the revenge of the way too many voters who lust for it.  See Bill Clinton, sorry to say, and Ricky Ray Rector.

    The good news is that it's getting better and public sentiment against the death penalty is slowly, slowly rising.

    Personally, I'd be perfectly happy to put the totally irredeemable ones away forever on some nice island they can't get off of.  Just keep 'em away from the rest of us for our own safety, but I don't personally feel any desire for revenge on them because only someone with hopelessly disordered thinking would murder people, IMHO.

    Parent

    The cable "news" pundits (none / 0) (#33)
    by AX10 on Tue Mar 03, 2009 at 09:52:32 PM EST
    have declared war on the President of the United States.  They are all "leading" in this "venture".
    Cramer, Santelli, Kudlow, Hannity, O'Reilly (or as Olbermann likes to call him "Orally"), Cooper. You name it, they are hellbent on blaming Obama for the stock market situation.

    Yeah, really (5.00 / 3) (#36)
    by TheRealFrank on Tue Mar 03, 2009 at 09:58:25 PM EST
    It's random nonsense. I could just as easily claim that the news network caused the crash because they constantly report on the bad economy, causing a mood of depression.


    Parent
    You could argue that CNBC inflated (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by andgarden on Tue Mar 03, 2009 at 10:00:45 PM EST
    the various bubbles. Tom Frank wrote a very funny book on the topic about 10 years ago.

    Parent
    CNBC is a disgrace, IMHO (5.00 / 2) (#106)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed Mar 04, 2009 at 12:38:30 AM EST
    Believe it or not, from what I've seen of Fox Business, they're much, much less hysterical and self-aggrandizing and a lot more sober and informational.  They have a distinct bias, but it's pretty much the bias all "market" types have anyway, and they make the bias quite clear.

    They also have plenty of people who have a different perspective on the shows and give them a thoughtful, respectful hearing-- mostly.  I've seen Dennis Kucinich on there twice in recent weeks, for instance, and he hasn't been ridiculed, he's been taken seriously-- mostly disagreed with, but actually listened to, debated respectfully, and taken seriously.

    Parent

    You hit the target right on (none / 0) (#131)
    by joze46 on Wed Mar 04, 2009 at 07:11:40 AM EST
    Totally agree that the cable pundits across the board, those of CNN, MSNBC, CNBC, and Fox news are now turning the corner about the blame game. Trying to blame Obama, who has so little time in national politic is really idiotic. All these Journalist professionals that have been embedded in the War in Iraq through the years have brought America to this point of chaos. They have been complicit with Bush and Company and are core part of this serious economic problem.

    These cable networks have exposed themselves, all this time covering up, horrible stuff like torture, mercenaries, or the corruption and war crimes Bush is guilty of even the surge which was nothing more than money pay off rather than troops. Through simple denial for the past eight years. Now just in this last quarter of 2008 it seemed every thing was resilient in the economy and America was wining in the war in Iraq and Afghanistan. Now after Obama is in the driver seat, think about it no even two months, Obama is responsible for this crazy situation.

    Even MSNBC will talk down the Bachelors even condemning the ABC series as so phony Mika co host of Morning Joe say's she can't stand the Bachelor series its worse than pornography. Yike whats up with that? Or even Keith Olberman slammed the Bachelor series. Then talks swing into condemnation of the banks the bail out referring to that horrible term toxic assets which no body understands now addressing the banks with a new term called zombie banks continuously bantering then blame Obama for bashing the banks. Its nuts.

    From my view, Andrea Mitchell analyst on MSNBC wife of former Federal Reserve board chairman Allen Greenspan is the most conflicting corruption rich connection any network can have. Imagine all these years Andrea Mitchell being privy to trillion dollar deal before they happen; makes Martha Stewart stock deals look like a girl scout. Madoff with only fifty billion in scams is small stuff compared to MSNBC and CNBC with those connections to General Electric Financial Services huge, huge insider manipulations likely took place. It's no wonder Cramer of CNBC rants and raves.

    Please understand this is just a hunch by me however, now Andrea Mitchell is following Clinton all over the Middle East and Europe. One must consider that the Secretary of State has serious in put and guidance for the World Bank the IMF and International Monetary Fund all key players in the money crisis that is a huge, huge problem that is deliberately ignored by the networks.    

    Parent

    What's on my mind tonight? (none / 0) (#81)
    by oculus on Tue Mar 03, 2009 at 11:01:07 PM EST
    let me tell you.  The recession/depression/high unemployment rate is having an adverse effect on the younger generation, which is looking to the recently-retired older generation for bail out funds.  

    Not sure that's all about the economy (5.00 / 4) (#84)
    by Inspector Gadget on Tue Mar 03, 2009 at 11:47:37 PM EST
    The trend of kids staying home years beyond school has been going on for a good decade already. There was even a book published about it. The book was written by a young woman who pretty much told parents they had no right to charge their adult freeloaders rent. It's why the boomers are also called the "sandwich" generation. We're taking care of our elderly parents and our adult children at the same time.


    Parent
    Sandwich generation (5.00 / 2) (#121)
    by cal1942 on Wed Mar 04, 2009 at 01:43:57 AM EST
    Yes.

    I'm a pre-boomer, a war baby, but my generation (actually about a half generation off) has had the same experience.

    But there is this consideration:  War babies and very early boomers had many, many more opportunities than the generations that preceded them and succeeded them.

    People in my generation, for the most part, walked out of college or high school and into good paying jobs. For most there were few if any interruptions throughout their working lives.  A bit dicey from time to time but much steadier overall than today's newer workers and certainly more than the prior generation. Those who went to college in my age group didn't leave school with massive debt.

    So the sandwich thing, although real enough, is, as far as I'm concerned not as much of a burden as my folks generation faced or even what kids today face.  I'd love to be physically young again but I don't envy the uphill battle that today's kids are facing.  It's a lot tougher road than I faced and I came from fairly poor circumstances.

    Parent

    A thoughtful, philosophical response. (none / 0) (#143)
    by oculus on Wed Mar 04, 2009 at 10:40:35 AM EST
    (I should print it out and post near my checkbook!)

    Parent
    I'm sure it's different (none / 0) (#145)
    by Inspector Gadget on Wed Mar 04, 2009 at 11:42:06 AM EST
    in every section of the country.

    In Seattle the Bill Gates Microsoft phenomenon and all the startup companies that flourished here in the 90s made instant millionaires out of the people who are now just approaching 45-50. Many of those would be the children of the pre-boomers.

    I did notice this week, though, that Seattle rated higher on the list of unhappy people than I would have expected.

    Parent

    Well (none / 0) (#139)
    by CST on Wed Mar 04, 2009 at 09:37:57 AM EST
    The unemployment rate is much higher among the younger generation as well.

    I am not surprised at all.  I don't see anything wrong with people living together in tough times.  Although I think if the kids can help with rent they should.

    Parent

    Jeralyn... (none / 0) (#128)
    by Dr Molly on Wed Mar 04, 2009 at 05:46:07 AM EST
    Who died on Brothers and Sisters the other night? (I fell asleep before the end - wasn't someone supposed to die?)

    here ya go (none / 0) (#129)
    by NJDem on Wed Mar 04, 2009 at 06:41:26 AM EST
    Thanks (none / 0) (#144)
    by Dr Molly on Wed Mar 04, 2009 at 11:38:12 AM EST
    Well, I guess he died for a few minutes.


    Parent
    yes, he had a heart attack (none / 0) (#146)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Mar 04, 2009 at 12:14:06 PM EST
    and there were gruesome scenes of them putting the paddles on his chest to shock him into coming back to life. It worked, and then he had to have a bypass which he didn't want because it would interfere with his ability to campaign for Governor but he has it and then he has Kevin lie to the media and say he suffered a minor incident and will be back on the campaign trail and Kitty tells the new baby it will be just the two of them from now on.

    I think Robert and Kitty will continue next season (unless Rob Lowe's nanny lawsuit turns really ugly -- for all I know it's been settled by now.)

    Tommy is out -- supposedly as others have said, he's going to flee while on bond.

    I really like that Ken Olin is back in an acting role as Rebecca's father -- he and Holly are married in real life -- they were both stars on "30 Something" if anyone remembers that show -- only Olin was married to the Hope character and Wettig to the redheaded guy. Olin and Wettig are really good actors.

    Parent

    I like him, but it's hard to watch her (none / 0) (#147)
    by Inspector Gadget on Wed Mar 04, 2009 at 01:53:07 PM EST
    talk.

    Olin and Wettig are really good actors.

    Olin is a very good actor. He played an abusive husband who murdered his ex-wife probably some 10 years ago. Can't remember if it was based on a real event, but he did such a good job at it, I can't enjoy him anymore without thinking of him as a crazy wife-beater.

    They are one of those Hollywood success stories on marriage, for sure.


    Parent

    The only death was (none / 0) (#132)
    by Anne on Wed Mar 04, 2009 at 07:18:47 AM EST
    Kitty and Robert's marriage, apparently; Rob Lowe must not be in the plans for next season, lol.

    Has anyone noticed that the only member of the Walker family with a functional relationship is Kevin, who's gay?  Well, Tommy and Julia are together, but both have had their dalliances, and I think the embezzlement thing is going to push them over the edge.  Justin and Rebecca are back together, but who knows for how long?

    The rest of them are pretty much of a mess, but, then so is life; if the Walkers were Cleaver Family-normal, we'd be bored to tears and no one would be watching.

    Parent

    Tommy is leaving the show (none / 0) (#133)
    by Inspector Gadget on Wed Mar 04, 2009 at 07:34:40 AM EST
    This "trouble" is going to send him to prison. I read that Balthazar is difficult for them to work with and he's being eliminated from the cast.

    Does look like Rob Lowe is also leaving the cast if Kitty sticks to her guns on the divorce. Not like she didn't know he was a career politician when she married him, though.

    Parent

    And (none / 0) (#135)
    by NJDem on Wed Mar 04, 2009 at 08:55:27 AM EST
    that he already had kids and didn't really want to start a family...

    Great point Anne about Kevin having the only functional relationship on the show.  They are really a great couple!  

    I read on Perezhilton (forgive the indulgence) that Balthazar's character is going to fly the coop and escape before trial.

    Parent

    I'm still trying to comprehend (none / 0) (#150)
    by Anne on Wed Mar 04, 2009 at 09:15:39 PM EST
    the parents that decided that "Balthazar" was a great name for a kid...I can't even come up with a decent nickname (Balthy?  Zar?  BZ?)...

    Parent
    700k job loss,stress test and gov't predicts 10%UE (none / 0) (#137)
    by Jlvngstn on Wed Mar 04, 2009 at 09:29:28 AM EST
    besides the obvious, "stress test this", what does it mean that the gov't is using a 10.3% unemployment measure for the stress test?

    With 700k losses this month that puts us at 7.8%, is the government telling us that we will need to lose another 5-7 Million Jobs this year?  Do you know how long it will take to get 15 million people employed again?  (includes the estimated 11 million unemployed already)

    We are on the precipice of a depression and our gainfully employed, paycheck receiving representatives are haggling over job creation?

    H.O.P.E. -  "Hear Our Prayers, Employ us."

    I remain convinced that (none / 0) (#138)
    by Inspector Gadget on Wed Mar 04, 2009 at 09:37:47 AM EST
    the gov't is manipulating us. We are so much easier to control when we let them tell us what we can and can't expect.

    There are real solutions to this problem, but they are taking the opportunity to control the path to recovery and the people are simply sitting down and resigning themselves to the inevitability of doom.

    Meanwhile, the WH shows no signs of anything but abundance in how they spend.

    Parent

    manipulation (5.00 / 1) (#142)
    by Jlvngstn on Wed Mar 04, 2009 at 09:52:15 AM EST
    I cannot agree with that but I am perplexed.  We are losing 700k jobs a month and their predictor for UE is 10% which means we can expect 700k job loss through this year and part of next year.  At this pace of job loss, the sprial effect which is already spinning too fast is going to make financial repair for the country untenable for at least 2 years.  

    More than 2 million people have lost their jobs in 4 months.  Is that not a national emergency or am I overreacting?

    Parent