Thursday Afternoon Open Thread

Bulls-Celtics Game 6 tonight at 7. Must see TV.

One other thing, Matt Yglesias calls Cass Sunstein a "progressive lawyer," proving yet again, that when it comes to the law, Yglesias is utterly clueless.

This is an Open Thread.

< Chrysler to File For Bankruptcy | Al-Marri Pleads Guilty to Terrorism Charge >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    What's next? (5.00 / 4) (#1)
    by Anne on Thu Apr 30, 2009 at 05:42:17 PM EST
    Tim Geithner: Man of the People?

    Mr. Geithner is destined to (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by NYShooter on Thu Apr 30, 2009 at 06:48:04 PM EST
    crash and burn, before this debacle, engineered and implimented by him, and his blood brothers, runs it's course. Unfortunately, tethered to Mr. Geithner, will be his adoring acolyte, Barack Obama.

    How long will the American public tolerate this:

    WASHINGTON -- "The Senate handed a victory to the banking industry on Thursday, defeating a Democratic proposal that would have given homeowners in financial trouble greater flexibility to renegotiate the terms of their mortgages....."NYT Thurs. Aprl 30, 2009


    If you want to know who's running the country... (5.00 / 2) (#22)
    by lambert on Thu Apr 30, 2009 at 10:09:18 PM EST
    ... that story makes it crystal clear.

    Since when do the members of the world's greatest deliberative  body "negotiate" with lobbyists? Even lobbyists for the banking industry?


    Maybe if we get (5.00 / 2) (#24)
    by NYShooter on Thu Apr 30, 2009 at 10:21:12 PM EST
    80 "democrats" we'll have a majority.

    They, at least, used to try and hide their sleaze, now they behave publicly like soy bean pit traders screaming, "buy me. buy me!"


    Attention span (5.00 / 2) (#23)
    by waldenpond on Thu Apr 30, 2009 at 10:21:08 PM EST
    Sadly, the attention span is short and slogging through an overabundance of info can be a challenge.  Also, if it wasn't something important to Obama, there is little chance the media will provide the coverage.

    Watching H1N1 2009 variant (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by Fabian on Thu Apr 30, 2009 at 06:01:51 PM EST
    and the reaction to it.

    Bizarre, just bizarre.

    There are people leaping overboard in every direction:
    Investigate huge hog farms!  (aka This Story Needs A Villain!)
    It's Just The Flu!  (Completely out of season and killing the healthy, not just the weak.)
    The media is going overboard!  (The media ALWAYS goes overboard.)
    The WHO is going overboard!  (Let's wait and see, shall we?)
    Plus the usual conspiracy theories.

    What I find more annoying than anything is that people are already pushing supplements and herbal and homeopathic remedies.  Be prepared!  Buy my products!

    We barely know anything about Influenza A H1N1 v2009.  We don't know how it acts or why people are dying.  We don't know what treatments are effective or ineffective.  It's just people being people, I guess.

    I know. (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by Dr Molly on Thu Apr 30, 2009 at 06:56:04 PM EST
    I'm trying not to worry about. Still haven't seen or heard any real science about it, so don't know what to think.

    My favorite (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by Jen M on Thu Apr 30, 2009 at 07:21:21 PM EST
    email offering to sell "guidebook" to the flu

    which is available on the cdc website.


    Heh. Good one! n/t (none / 0) (#27)
    by Fabian on Fri May 01, 2009 at 04:52:35 AM EST
    The war in Iraq (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by lentinel on Thu Apr 30, 2009 at 06:38:38 PM EST
    The war in Iraq is costing us, last I read, 500,000 dollars a minute.
    It is still killing our soldiers.

    Yet it is not even a topic of conversation.

    That's because millions thought that (5.00 / 3) (#6)
    by Cream City on Thu Apr 30, 2009 at 07:04:24 PM EST
    the vaccine to inoculate us against continuing to spread the disease of war and torture was . . . their ballot.  Now it turns out that didn't work, either.  We can't just wash our hands of the war to keep it from spreading (which many of us knew, of course, but we were bad Dems for saying so).  

    Yeah (none / 0) (#8)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Apr 30, 2009 at 07:38:42 PM EST
    I basically Obama playing the Nixon game. Keep saying we're getting out but we dont and we move into other areas. The country is going to collapse sooner or later and nobody wants it to happen on their watch so how much longer do you think we'll be there? I'm guessing at least six years.

    Frankly (5.00 / 5) (#9)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Apr 30, 2009 at 07:46:06 PM EST
    I'm all for dumping the "progressive" label. I'd rather call myself a liberal. At least liberal means something. Progressive means nothing more at the current time than "whatever Obama wants".

    Glad to know I'm not the only (5.00 / 2) (#10)
    by Anne on Thu Apr 30, 2009 at 07:54:28 PM EST
    one who prefers "liberal" to "progressive," a label which has come to symbolize for me a squishy, wishy-washy, bland-as-oatmeal, really-afraid-to-take-a-definite-stand philosophy.

    Or as you so eloquently put it: "whatever Obama wants."


    To me, "progressive" means... (5.00 / 0) (#20)
    by lambert on Thu Apr 30, 2009 at 10:04:00 PM EST
    ... everybody who hasn't been thrown under the bus by the Democratic party.

    The Busunder Party! (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by nycstray on Thu Apr 30, 2009 at 10:07:51 PM EST
    we were pretty good at being a party during the primaries {passes the shrimp cocktails}

    Perhaps... (none / 0) (#31)
    by lambert on Fri May 01, 2009 at 04:47:44 PM EST
    The Unterbussen?

    Ugly Betty's Back! (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by Anne on Thu Apr 30, 2009 at 07:56:22 PM EST
    I love the show and have been missing it for the month it's been on hiatus...

    Just pure entertainment, beautifully done.

    Commenters disagree w/the praise (5.00 / 0) (#12)
    by oculus on Thu Apr 30, 2009 at 08:10:29 PM EST
    of Cass Sunstein.

    If this fellow is the first Obama SCOTUS appointee, I'll . . . .

    So will a lot of the rest of us... (none / 0) (#13)
    by Anne on Thu Apr 30, 2009 at 08:14:14 PM EST
    I hate to even think about it.

    Rumors about Souter (none / 0) (#14)
    by andgarden on Thu Apr 30, 2009 at 08:56:21 PM EST
    seem to make this an imminent issue.

    Never in a million years did I think (5.00 / 4) (#17)
    by Anne on Thu Apr 30, 2009 at 09:17:57 PM EST
    I would be apprehensive about who a Democratic president might nominate to the Supreme Court, but now that that might be imminent, I realize I am very worried about who Obama might choose.

    I'm prepared to cause trouble (5.00 / 2) (#18)
    by andgarden on Thu Apr 30, 2009 at 09:19:28 PM EST
    if it's Sunstein.

    Stevens is ancient too (none / 0) (#16)
    by andgarden on Thu Apr 30, 2009 at 09:16:16 PM EST
    There's been a pretty long wait. . .

    Stevens (none / 0) (#25)
    by cal1942 on Thu Apr 30, 2009 at 11:45:59 PM EST
    sure appears very strong, absolutely remarkable.

    The trouble is that at that age health situation can change overnight.


    Triple Overtime! (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by aeguy on Thu Apr 30, 2009 at 09:50:30 PM EST
    What a great game!

    Wow (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by CST on Fri May 01, 2009 at 09:36:37 AM EST
    I knew it was going to 7.

    Here's to hoping the Celts close it out at home.

    7 overtime periods in 6 games, unbelievable.

    I'm surprised they didn't have to carry anyone off on a stretcher.  They looked exhausted.


    Were you able... (none / 0) (#29)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Fri May 01, 2009 at 09:47:56 AM EST
    ...to sufficiently self-medicate yourself for that drama?  

    That game 7 is going to another down-to-the-wire, heart stopping nailbiter, I have a feeling.


    Yes (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by CST on Fri May 01, 2009 at 10:09:27 AM EST

    With the Celtics winning in the end of course.


    Health care redux (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by nellre on Thu Apr 30, 2009 at 11:50:09 PM EST
    Will health care reforms include reforms in how we deal with brain disease?

    Will those who have brain disease continue to be treated only in our prison system and once released be left with no treatment at all?

    Does the legal profession have any responsibility in these matters?

    How much do we have to evolve to recognize that someone suffering from schizophrenia or other recognized brain disease is not suffering due to a character flaw, but because a major organ is not operating according to our established norms?

    I think it's in the legal system's power to change all this and recognize that there is a significant percentage of folks charged in criminal courts who are not criminal, who are in fact sick, and should be treated like they are sick and not like they are "bad".

    If a guy plows into a crowd in his car because he has a stroke all of us understand that that act was not within his power to prevent.

    When are we going to understand that a stroke is not that much different than a brain disease like schizophrenia? Do any of us here think schizophrenia is the result of a person wanting to be schizophrenic?