Wednesday Night Open Thread

I've been writing mostly about crime issues here today. In case there are other things you'd like to discuss, here's an open thread for you.

All topics welcome.

< Rep. Delahunt to Introduce Companion to Webb Crime Bill | Waas on the Bush DOJ and Former Rep. Rick Renzi's Corruption Probe >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    I'm pooped (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Jun 24, 2009 at 09:58:04 PM EST
    The latest on my son is that he is very comfortable, a little morphine helping right now but he'll probably be on just Tylenol3 tomorrow.  He hasn't moved around much today, but the goal is for tomorrow.  Had many errands to run today after my speed walking and also did a dog safety public education at a local library with kids again, mostly about teaching little ones how to avoid being bitten by a dog.  The AKC requires our club to do public education and this is what we have chosen to do as a club, it is more fun than it should be, and the kids are always so awesome.  I have some very gentle German Shepherds that I take, and I have to talk about how few German Shepherds are of this temperament and level of socialization and then the kids just pile in.  We got to take part in the awarding of the library's two top elementary school summer readers too.  It was fun, Zoey was uncontrollable in contrast to the many dogs there :)

    Aw, the magic of morphine... (none / 0) (#14)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Wed Jun 24, 2009 at 10:32:32 PM EST
    ...you may not move much, but your mind sure does get a work-out.  Best dreams ever.  The absense of pain is a big plus too.  Comfortably Numb.

    I used to raise bloody hell when they were late with my shots--and I absolutely, positively, without a doubt hate needles with the intensity of a thousand suns.  Giving them up was always a rough go.  

    How far do you walk when you're out training and how far is walking marathon?  I hate running (my track days took the joy right out of it), but I've never minded seeing how far I can walk.  Helps to live in Colorado too.


    I decided to start training for a walk (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Jun 24, 2009 at 10:40:37 PM EST
    marathon, gives me a goal and I'm always much better with a goal than just hanging out and putting in my exercise time.  Without a goal it seems like I can find little things that need to be done everyday too that get in the way.  I'm doing three miles 5 days a week right now.  In two weeks I will throw in some core strengthening exercise the two days of the week when I'm resting from walking.  My goal is a month from now to be walking at least 20 miles a week, after that I will be working on improving my time, endurance, and recovery.

    Good for you! (none / 0) (#39)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Thu Jun 25, 2009 at 08:43:31 AM EST
    Goals are good, but so is having some time to yourself and a way to work off whatever is weighing on you.  

    It is amazing how the little things (like playing on TL) can get in the way of getting out and exercising.  Especially so in my case when I'm tired or don't feel the best, it is tough to make yourself get out and do things like walking.  

    I'm happy when I can get out a couple times a week for a lap around the park--which is about 1.75 miles roundtrip.  Better than nothing...


    Unfortunately my old walking regimen (5.00 / 2) (#45)
    by ruffian on Thu Jun 25, 2009 at 09:03:53 AM EST
    was enforced by my dear departed dog Ruffian, who was a very good taskmaster - he would nag me in the mornings and evenings until we got out there. My other dog is just as lazy as I am and lets me get away with shorter walks, and even skipping them now and then.

    But I still do at least a little bit each morning and evening. It is a good time to think without many distractions.


    I should have taken one of my puppies today (5.00 / 1) (#86)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Jun 25, 2009 at 10:37:48 AM EST
    maybe two.  I have four from my last litter, and they are 7 months now.  Second thought it may have been a bit too hot, boy are my dogs coats and skin having a terrible time in this heat.  They were all four laying in the shade in the driveway and I got a couple of whines but I didn't want company today when I'm focusing and challenging myself.

    FYI (5.00 / 2) (#19)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Wed Jun 24, 2009 at 11:36:31 PM EST
    This is my favorite site for walking/running/training programs.


    If you click on any of the links, you'll see detailed training programs for each running or walking distance, from a 5K to a marathon.

    Good site.


    Morphine (5.00 / 2) (#23)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed Jun 24, 2009 at 11:49:55 PM EST
    My late mother had had several surgeries in her life.  At one point when she was in her 70s, she had to have another one, and when I went in to see her as soon as they brought her back, she was amazingly awake and chirpy for a 70-something old lady who'd just had fairly major surgery.  After a little bit, she started to hurt and rang the bell for the nurse, who came in and started the IV morphine drip.

    Within seconds, my tiny little elderly mother breathed out drowsily, "Oh, this is the part I like the best!" and went sound sleep with a beatific smile on her face.


    You must be (none / 0) (#22)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed Jun 24, 2009 at 11:45:19 PM EST
    EXHAUSTED!  How on earth do you do it?

    Today I'd say worried parent adrenaline (5.00 / 2) (#31)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Jun 25, 2009 at 01:02:57 AM EST
    poured over two scoops of parental guilt that I'm the one home and not at his bedside.  If you keep moving it's easier.  I'm trying to get sleepy and it's reluctant too right now :(

    Watching a bit of the President (5.00 / 2) (#3)
    by kenosharick on Wed Jun 24, 2009 at 09:58:39 PM EST
    on ABC.  I wish he would be more forceful- tell the repblicans "we won-go to hell!"  Lets pass REAL REFORM without the repubs. It seems he and the Dems are much too concerned with keeping insurance companies profitable.  

    Top Chef Masters (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by nycstray on Wed Jun 24, 2009 at 10:01:29 PM EST
    Much easier on the brain and more relaxing :)

    Yup, (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by andgarden on Wed Jun 24, 2009 at 10:02:54 PM EST
    I recognized the mexican chef from PBS, but none of the others.

    Now my recording of Pitchmen!


    Rick Bayless is one of my favorite (5.00 / 1) (#74)
    by Anne on Thu Jun 25, 2009 at 10:10:12 AM EST
    chefs, so was happy to see him win.

    Could the French chef have been any more irritating?  Knew he would lose, though, since TC likes to edit in ways that humiliate the braggarts.  That he lost convincingly, and to Bayless, was even better.


    I really like the Masters shows (none / 0) (#136)
    by nycstray on Thu Jun 25, 2009 at 12:45:49 PM EST
    most of them are quiet fun to watch and are very good-natured about it, especially the ones that have judged before, lol!~

    I want Bayless to cook for me :) and I want to sit in the kitchen and watch. But instead, I'll just have to let him inspire tonight's dinner . . .


    I've been watching Nightline w/ Obama answering (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by jawbone on Wed Jun 24, 2009 at 10:57:13 PM EST
    questions. No mention of single payer or its advantages. No definition of what "public plan" means other than run by government, but must pay its own way.

    Obama did say people who are eligible for healthcare through their employers are not eligible for the public plan and "large employers" who don't offer healthcare will have to pay fines or something.

    A guy from the Lewin study said a family plan could be "as much as $2500" cheaper than a for-profit private insurance plan. Which is not much, given the cost of health insurance. That was a scary moment.

    Now, Obama is going into his Repub talking points that SocSec and Medicare are going to overwhelm the Federal budget.

    I can't watch any longer.

    No mention of how having hundreds of different insurance plans costs providers, actual caregivers, a lot of money to try to administer, keep straight, etc. This came out of question from Baptist minister from MD who likes his plan, thinks government will not do it well, and SocSec is in big trouble. Obama did not disabuse him of that notion.


    David Brooks on NewsHour, iirc, said that Obama hasn't decided between adopting the idealism of Reagan (Wha'!!!) and the pragmatism of --get this--Bush. And no one even suggested those weren't the best comparisons for a Democratic president.

    Yikes. To bed now--day started off ugly, hearing about our drones bombing a funeral in Pakistan, and now, this stuff.


    I couldn't bear to watch (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by cal1942 on Wed Jun 24, 2009 at 11:44:05 PM EST
    I backed off watching when I decided that getting boiling mad would mean another sleepless night.


    Obama did say people who are eligible for healthcare through their employers are not eligible for the public plan and "large employers" who don't offer healthcare will have to pay fines or something.

    This sounds like the death of any effective public option that might lead to single-payer.

    If he said that large employers must, in effect, keep their private plans then he's guaranteeing the largest market be reserved for private health insurers. If he said that then there is no reform at all.  The nation continues to decay.

    I'm not surprised with the lack of support for Social Security and Medicare.  Many of us warned about this during the primaries.

    In addition to his tepid new superficial "regulatory" structure for the finance industry his legacy may be the worst "Democratic" President since the 19th century.


    Give it up on single payer (3.50 / 2) (#27)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed Jun 24, 2009 at 11:58:01 PM EST
    It's not going to happen, isn't on the radar, totally off the table for your and my lifetime, no matter its superiority to any other scheme.

    I can't for the life of my understand why folks keep getting so PO'd about the fact that this or that person never mentions single payer.  It is not an option politically or economically, period, end of story.  Not gah happen.  Not.  Give it up.  Fuggedaboudit.

    A reasonably well-designed public option, as HRC knew, is the backdoor way into single payer down the road (not in my lifetime, but eventually).  THat's what you want to work for and hope for.  Nobody (well, maybe my senator, Bernie Sanders)) is going to vote to wipe out the entire health insurance industry in this country at one blow, and especially not in this economy.

    The only way to make it go away is to have it wither away gradually, which is what a well-run public option will do-- which is why the Forces of Darkness are so hysterically opposed to it.

    That's the battle, not yearning over single-payer right now out of this legislation.


    The key to your comment is (5.00 / 2) (#36)
    by Anne on Thu Jun 25, 2009 at 08:34:34 AM EST

    A reasonably well-designed public option

    which we are not going to get; I don't know how many more signs or clues or hints people need in order to grasp that essential truth.

    And this:

    the backdoor way into single payer down the road

    is also off the table, with Sebelius already having confirmed that any public option plan will be written to foreclose the possibility that it could morph into single-payer over time.

    Now comes the word that the public option would not be available to anyone who is eligible for an employer-sponsored plan.  Great.  How then, would this pnblic option serve to, as Obama said in his presser on Tuesday, "discipline" private insurance companies if that aspect of competition would be eliminated?

    Seems to me that for all the assurance that no one would have to give up a health plan or a doctor one was happy with, where is the concern that people be able to dump a plan they are unhappy with?   How happy are people going to be if they find that their only recourse if they are not happy with an employer-sponsored plan is to seek insurance coverage on their own, but will not be able to choose the public plan?

    So, let's see...the old will be in a Medicare plan, hoping their coverage will not be eaten away at in order to pay for reform.  The poor and the sick who are not employed, or whose employers do not offer insurance coverage, will be in the public plan.  The healthy and the wealthy will still be able to have whatever they want.  The healthy and the not-poor who have jobs and whose employers offer insurance will not be part of any public risk pool.

    Looks like a winner for the insurance industry to me.

    And, via CQ Politics, something that makes it all make sense:

    Nearly four dozen members of Congress have spouses employed in the health care industry -- ties that lawmakers acknowledge are influencing their thinking about how the health system should be overhauled.

    Financial disclosure forms made public in mid-June showed that at least 39 members were tied to the industry by their spouses in 2008. In addition, 13 full-voting House members are medical doctors.

    Six senators reported that their spouses earned income from health industry jobs. An additional two, Republicans Tom Coburn of Oklahoma and John Barrasso of Wyoming, are physicians.

    The influence and connections that result from this little-examined reality of Washington life rarely violate ethics rules or laws. But the experiences can make a significant difference in how members view health care overhaul proposals.

    Yeah, single-payer is "politically not feasible;" maybe this is one of the reasons.  Makes me think that every member of Congress who speaks on this issue should be wearing a placard around his or her neck that states (1) how much money he or she accepted from the health care/insurance/big pharma industry, and (2) who in their family works in the industry and who they work for.

    Seems fair.


    You make my point (5.00 / 0) (#116)
    by gyrfalcon on Thu Jun 25, 2009 at 11:17:34 AM EST
    Everybody's pining for single-payer, which isn't even within radar range, instead of putting their energy toward keeping the Dems and Obama from crumpling on a decent public option, which is smack in the center of the radar.

    I wish the hot afternoon sun didn't hit my porch, but I'm putting up an awning to blunt its effects.


    I don't think questioning the (5.00 / 2) (#135)
    by Anne on Thu Jun 25, 2009 at 12:37:40 PM EST
    piddling few details there are, or raising the point that the health care industry's hands are deeply and firmly in the pockets of too many members of Congress equates to "pining for single-payer."

    I'm pining for real reform.  I'm pining for less PR and more details.  I'm pining for some disclosure of the conflicts that accrue from taking money from industries which will be affected by reform.

    It's all well and good to push Obama and push the Dems - that effort is ongoing - but why give up pushing something that works?  Why give up pushing elements of single-payer that would be less expensive and result in better delivery of care?  

    There has been far too much whipping of a public option that has no real shape and for which pitifully few details have been offered - I'm sorry, but I don't subscribe to the "trust us" component of this plan.

    And that's why it makes no sense to just give up on something that "everybody wants."  Not when we have a president whose instincts seem to always lead him to giving away and giving in in the interest of bipartisanship.


    Here's my question (none / 0) (#49)
    by jbindc on Thu Jun 25, 2009 at 09:18:05 AM EST
    Now comes the word that the public option would not be available to anyone who is eligible for an employer-sponsored plan.

    So, wouldn't a smart employer just drop their coverage, thereby making all their employees "ineligible" for the plan?  My guess is, for many companies, it would be cheaper to pay the "fee" than to continue to carry coverage?  Since this statement was put in to blunt criticism of people dropping out of employer-sponsored coverage for the public option, doesn't it just prompt companies to do exactly that?


    I think it's likely to get much more (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by Anne on Thu Jun 25, 2009 at 09:42:15 AM EST
    complicated than it needs to be.

    If there is no requirement that employers offer a plan, and an employer decides not to offer one, I think the employee does become eligible for the public plan.

    What I think they will do to prevent that is to require that companies with more than some number of employees - say 50 - offer a plan or plans - or - join some kind of exchange where employees would have more than one plan to pick from - just not the public one.

    I see a huge mess coming - one that proves to be more expensive than estimated, one that will not improve care or outcomes, that will boost sales of Advil and Excedrin and Zantac and Tums for the headaches and stomach aches more people will suffer from trying to make sense of something that never had to be this complicated.

    Very frustrating.  Not to mention disappointing.


    And mandating (none / 0) (#57)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Thu Jun 25, 2009 at 09:31:10 AM EST
    employer paid coverage would ensure that employers get railroaded by insurance companies.  They would have no choice but to pay the "fee".

    If the public option is in fact taken away while employer mandates remain, it could possibly lead to less coverage.

    At this point, I'm waiting for the living of the Time Machine movie, wherein the wealthy class become so stupid from not having to think for themselves, that the poor go underground and then come up and capture the wealthy as a food source....it's my only hope for justice;-).


    Companies with (none / 0) (#60)
    by Wile ECoyote on Thu Jun 25, 2009 at 09:41:11 AM EST
    union contracts will not be able to do that.

    There's always a way... (none / 0) (#63)
    by jbindc on Thu Jun 25, 2009 at 09:42:41 AM EST
    Ah, that's what bankruptcies (Ch 11) or leveraged (none / 0) (#159)
    by jawbone on Thu Jun 25, 2009 at 07:08:08 PM EST
    buyouts are for, getting out of commitments to the those greedy unions.

    Meeting budget requirements are there for Obama getting out of commitments to SocSec, Medicare, and Medicaid.

    As Glen Ford at Black Agenda Report has been saying lately, Obama is givng Repubs things they've wanted since the beginning of SocSec and the start of Medicare--ways to cut the programs to make them weak enough to not really aid people. Our Dem prez!

    There is no Obama healthcare plan, "just mouthfuls of generalized rhetoric that changes with the moment, as Obama constantly woos the insurance, drug and hospital corporations." However, Obama's proposed cuts to Medicare and Medicaid will take on lives of their own. That's what Republicans have "been clamoring for for generations," and Obama offered it to them, upfront. "In his rush to mollify the private healthcare profiteers, Obama has given away the pubic store."

    Read the whole piece, not too long. But it will hurt. "Republican wetdream."


    There would be a huge fine in store for them (none / 0) (#97)
    by Inspector Gadget on Thu Jun 25, 2009 at 10:52:10 AM EST
    if they do that.

    The more the "public option" (none / 0) (#83)
    by KeysDan on Thu Jun 25, 2009 at 10:33:11 AM EST
    develops, the more I worry.  It has become a progressive mantra--if a public option is included the plan will be a success and without it, a failure.  An effective public option is a threat to  the health care industry and cannot be allowed.  President Obama seems to be constantly finessing the issue, and we can probably get to his true thinking through the disparaging  words (sort of recanted) of Tom Daschle who no doubt still plays a key role. If Obama is politically forced to provide a "public option" it will be one so disadvantaged, it will be like a fighter with both hands tied in back.  Indeed,  the resultant and vulnerable "public option" will be akin to Medicaid with slightly broadened eligibility to cover those not completely destitute and maybe,with minimal property assets. Get the message, forget the public option and fight for national standards, no preexisting condition disqualification, affordability (with government subsidies) and, of course, big time regulation and enforcement.

    I started watching (none / 0) (#26)
    by nycstray on Wed Jun 24, 2009 at 11:58:00 PM EST
    then realized I shouldn't and went and deep cleaned litter boxes. It was oddly relaxing compared to how I was feeling watching Nightline! Then I had one of the Berry Chocolate brownies I made last night {grin} I feel good!

    I have been distracted by my real life (none / 0) (#6)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Jun 24, 2009 at 10:02:54 PM EST
    Are the Republicans putting up a fight now after the last presser? I caught a headline in my email tonight too, something about Krugman saying Obama needs to draw the line in the sand with the Republicans?

    It's worse than that (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by cal1942 on Wed Jun 24, 2009 at 11:27:44 PM EST
    This time Obama didn't wait a full day to reverse himself or at least backtrack on what he said.

    After giving a fairly good defense of a public option in his press conference he softened.

    Her's a link to the Krugman blog entry.

    Once again, never break out the champagne on an Obama statement until the last shoe has dropped.


    Krugman asks a good question which (5.00 / 2) (#32)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Thu Jun 25, 2009 at 01:16:13 AM EST
    he chooses not to answer:
    Question: What was the point of [Obama] signaling, right at this crucial moment, that he's willing to give away the public plan?

    Answer: maybe Obama actually wanted to give away the public plan long before this "crucial moment". Like maybe from the get-go.

    I've come to the conclusion that Obama's refrain of "bi-partisan compromise" is a total ruse to hide a more problematic truth: he is essentially no more progressive than many of the Republicans he courts. How much more evidence is needed before somebody in the 'free press' has the gumption to step up and say: hey, Obama's a big old DINO (a Democrat In Name Only) who poses as a sage bi-partisan pragmatist.


    Baucus in the new today (5.00 / 1) (#132)
    by MO Blue on Thu Jun 25, 2009 at 12:04:46 PM EST
    saying that $1 trillion health care legislation possible. What he isn't saying is what his bipartisan plan contains or that it is worth a penny let alone $1 trillion.

    From all previous indications, a Baucus bipartisan plan would be worse than no plan at all.


    Baucus gets more $ from big medicine than (5.00 / 1) (#141)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Thu Jun 25, 2009 at 01:59:56 PM EST
    any other member of Congress:
    The Montana Standard, a news outlet in his home state, found that Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont. (the chairman of the Senate Finance Committee) has received more campaign money from health and insurance industry donors than any other member of Congress.

    "In the past six years," the Standard found, "nearly one-fourth of every dime raised by the Montana senator and his political-action committee has come from groups and individuals associated with [those industries]."

    I agree with what you said MoBlue: "a Baucus bipartisan plan would be worse than no plan at all". Meaning that it might be harder to undo a rotten bipartisan sham 'reform' bill than to start from scratch at a later point in time. Especially if any of this current proposed legislation screws over Medicare in the process - as I expect it will.

    Here's the supreme irony in all of this: the GOP is steering a militarist/corporatist agenda more effectively now than when they were in power.

    The beauty of it is that nobody has to take ultimate responsibility for anything. Obama and complicit Dems absolve themselves of responsibility by insisting that they have no choice but to "compromise" with Congressional Republicans. And, meanwhile, the GOP can't be accused of primary responsibility for policies that defy the public's wishes because, after all, they're only the minority party.

    *I doubt the GOP will actually want to win back the White House in 2012 - why should they when a Democratic President is so thoroughly willing to indulge their agenda while thoroughly covering their a@@es?


    Groveling to the Republicans is (5.00 / 1) (#150)
    by Anne on Thu Jun 25, 2009 at 03:01:05 PM EST
    always a great way to get the legislation we want:

    From Bloombereg:

    Senate legislation to overhaul the U.S. health-care system will likely drop a proposed mandate that all employers offer medical benefits to their workers or pay a penalty, a senior Democratic lawmaker said. The move may make it easier to reach a compromise with Senate Republicans on a bill.

    Senator Kent Conrad of North Dakota, a member of the Finance Committee, said the panel is considering an alternative that would force employers to pay part of the cost of employee insurance if their workers are covered by Medicaid or are poor enough to qualify for a proposed new tax credit that can be used to purchase a health-insurance policy.

    Conrad and committee Chairman Max Baucus, a Montana Democrat, also said a bill being drafted by the panel will tax employer-provided health benefits to help offset the cost of legislation they say will total about $1 trillion. Senators have discussed applying a tax on benefits valued at more than $15,000 to $17,000 for a family of four, but Baucus said the level is still under discussion.

    "It is hard for me to see how you can have a package that is paid for that does not reduce the subsidy" on employer-paid benefits, Conrad said.

    There's more, it doesn't get any easier to comprehend, and it confirms for me that health care is poised to be about as FUBAR as it is possible to be.

    Are they kidding?  They are working harder at making this bipartisan than they are making it better for the American people.

    I put the entire blame for this on Mr. Bipartisan himself - you know who he is - who could have taken the "we won, get over it" attitude and tasked Congressional Dems to unite behind the kind of reform we need, pass it with a simple majority and tell the GOP to go to hell.

    But, no...


    Public Option - What Public Option (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by MO Blue on Thu Jun 25, 2009 at 08:35:05 AM EST
    The White House may be indicating to Senate allies that it is open to dropping the public plan option as part of a health reform deal. Sen. Kent Conrad (D-ND), who has been pushing a proposal to replace the public plan with regional cooperatives, said chief of staff Rahm Emanuel indicated Obama is "open to alternatives."
    Think Progress

    Well, actually, (5.00 / 1) (#143)
    by NYShooter on Thu Jun 25, 2009 at 02:09:19 PM EST
    Obama didn't exactly say they would have to "pry the public option from his cold dead hands" to begin with. So when he was criticized for being so mealy-mouthed, he tried again and lip-synced the words slightly louder. Then, when the Republicans barely started clearing their throats to protest, Obama panicked, wet his pants, and said, "I didn't mean a real public option, I meant, some people might've mistaken my words for conviction. but you know me better than that. I just said it as a joke, like, you know, boo!

    Please don't yell at me.


    I'm angry enough to find (none / 0) (#146)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Thu Jun 25, 2009 at 02:28:27 PM EST
    that comment very funny NYS ;-)

    then I truly hope it does not pass (none / 0) (#154)
    by ruffian on Thu Jun 25, 2009 at 03:39:38 PM EST
    I can't see anything in there worth anyting.

    I actually agree with the Republicans that employers should not be manadated to pay for health care. There should be a public option that is affordable for people to pay for themselves, with subsidies for those who are so poor they cannot afford anything.

    And we can repeal the Bush tax cut on the top 1% to pay for it.

    Seems to me that was the basic proposal of someone named Hillary in the campaign. Sounded good to me then, sounds even better now.


    Bet any subsidies will be paid for by cutting (none / 0) (#158)
    by MO Blue on Thu Jun 25, 2009 at 05:44:48 PM EST
    Medicare and Medicaid and by taxing employees for employer paid benefits.

    The super wealthy can not survive on less don't ya know.


    Truthdig has a good column (none / 0) (#33)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Thu Jun 25, 2009 at 02:16:23 AM EST
    by Joe Conason. He examines The Sickening Influence of Campaign Contributions on Democratic politicians and health care legislation:  
    They insist that the country can't afford universal care, or that the public option won't pass (before debate has even begun)...all of these lawmakers have something in common--namely, their abject dependence on campaign contributions from the insurance and pharmaceutical corporations fighting against real reform.

    Conason cites the CRP (Center for Responsible Politics) and provides details about campaign contributions to a number of prominent Democrats who oppose a public option. However, Conason fails to include this other relevant fact from the CRP:

    between 2001 and 2006, Obama received more than $708,000 from the medical, insurance and pharmaceudical corporations.

    I imagine Obama, and other Dems, must be thinking about where these guys might put their money in 2010 and 2012 if they don't manage to neutralize the public option this time around.


    These Finance Wing Dems, including Obama, are on (5.00 / 1) (#160)
    by jawbone on Thu Jun 25, 2009 at 07:16:31 PM EST
    their way to destroying the brand image of the Democratic Party. You know, that party that supported the little people, tried to make their lives better, tried to even the actual playing field?

    Democratic Party principles? Meh, so 20th Century. This is not your father's Democratic Party! This is the New Improved Democratic, er, Obama Party! Maybe Obama is our Blair. Seemed so fresh, new, idealistic -- turning more authoritarian, miitaristic, oonservative.... Oh my.

    He did warn us: That praise of Reagan, admiration for all those great Republican ideas.


    Guardian reports Great Britain will (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by oculus on Wed Jun 24, 2009 at 10:08:57 PM EST
    Hold hrgs. Re run up to war in Iraq. Not under oath but mostly public.

    We should follow their example (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by Steve M on Wed Jun 24, 2009 at 10:17:30 PM EST
    and hold hearings on Great Britain's run-up to war.

    I thought that was what they were (none / 0) (#13)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Jun 24, 2009 at 10:22:57 PM EST
    holding hearings on.  You want us to also hold hearings on it?  I mean, I'm certain there's juice there but I'm confused.  Is this a way around state's secret stuff, a way around Britain's nastier secrets laws?

    Just a joke! (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by Steve M on Thu Jun 25, 2009 at 06:41:47 AM EST
    I could be persuaded to settle for that (none / 0) (#8)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Jun 24, 2009 at 10:11:11 PM EST
    in America.  Along with many many documentaries made.

    I'd like under oath myself (5.00 / 4) (#11)
    by nycstray on Wed Jun 24, 2009 at 10:18:47 PM EST
    not being under oath reminds me of sumthin' . . .  .

    Well, per The Guardian, each witness (none / 0) (#58)
    by oculus on Thu Jun 25, 2009 at 09:35:41 AM EST
    will receive a letter stating the witness is expected to testify truthfully.  (This is not a joke.)

    Also, some evidence and testimony may be private, not public, if state security involved or another country objects to the evidence being made public.


    There will be 10 Best Picture Oscar nominees (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by ruffian on Wed Jun 24, 2009 at 10:18:07 PM EST
    next time. Only in that category, the others will still be 5.

    Pretty sure I'm gonna hate it.

    Um, voting system?! (none / 0) (#12)
    by andgarden on Wed Jun 24, 2009 at 10:21:12 PM EST
    Talk about have lots of possible spoilers!

    More movies (none / 0) (#25)
    by cal1942 on Wed Jun 24, 2009 at 11:55:10 PM EST
    will be able to advertise "Nominated for Best Picture"

    Is anyone surprised?


    have been ten nominees previously (none / 0) (#38)
    by DFLer on Thu Jun 25, 2009 at 08:40:39 AM EST
    Casablanca won best picture in 193? from a field of ten.

    whatever, just saying.


    Probably won't have much of a change on the (none / 0) (#42)
    by ruffian on Thu Jun 25, 2009 at 08:54:35 AM EST
    outcome, but I think it is an excuse to have more clips and stars of action movies and Seth Rogan vehicles on the actual show. Which is the part I won't like. but hey, it's not all about me, I realize that!

    At least in 193? they did not have to sit through clips of the 10th best movie on the list, much less the also rans.


    I agree with all of that (5.00 / 1) (#90)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Jun 25, 2009 at 10:42:15 AM EST
    but having worked in film I also think its great that more work will have the opportunity to be recognized.  who wants to bet UP will be nominated for best picture now this year.  and it might not have been before.

    Casablanca won best picture (none / 0) (#105)
    by cal1942 on Thu Jun 25, 2009 at 10:59:12 AM EST
    in 1942.

    Yes, I understand that there were more nominees in the past.

    Over the last couple years I've grown progressively more cynical.


    Casablanca (none / 0) (#144)
    by jondee on Thu Jun 25, 2009 at 02:19:39 PM EST
    I can never get past the part where Bergman asks "Who's the BOY playing the piano?"

    thats sad (5.00 / 1) (#147)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Jun 25, 2009 at 02:32:25 PM EST
    I have a feeling Dooley Wilson would want you to see the film.

    Well especially (none / 0) (#149)
    by jondee on Thu Jun 25, 2009 at 02:58:20 PM EST
    when you consider that Dooley was probobly a good ten years older than Bergman at the time. The line was written by a screen writer who, in some ways, perfectly embodied the controversial critique Brando made some years before his death about what was wrong with Hollywood.

    Yeah, I know, "greatest screen play ever" etc, etc. To each his own.


    not sure what "screen writer" (5.00 / 1) (#153)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Jun 25, 2009 at 03:34:20 PM EST
    you are talking about.  there are 5 credited writers and one uncredited one for that film.  which was based on a play.
    personally I think judging the movie Bergman or any writer for the word "boy" being used 67 years ago is a little silly.
    no, actually more than a little.
    and actually I dont think its the greatest screen play ever.  but it is one of the greatest movies ever made.

    I never said I wasnt silly (none / 0) (#155)
    by jondee on Thu Jun 25, 2009 at 03:47:07 PM EST
    But then, dont forget that you're at a site where rolling your eyes at the wrong person can get you pegged as a closet wife beater.

    So we're all a little hyper-sensitive at times about different things.


    not me (5.00 / 1) (#156)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Jun 25, 2009 at 03:59:08 PM EST
    or it would have to be someone elses wife.
    but seriously.
    try watching Casablanca some time.  Sam may be referred to as "the boy" but he is also portrayed as one of the only truly good characters in the whole movie.

    Hey Capt (none / 0) (#157)
    by jondee on Thu Jun 25, 2009 at 04:09:23 PM EST
    one of my best friends has told me (repeatedly) he's seen it forty seven times, so Im sure there's something there and that I'll HAVE to get around to giving it another shot.

    The other problem is that Bergman reminds me a little too much of an old girlfriend from long ago, but I'll save that one for my (analyst) lol


    okay (none / 0) (#161)
    by DFLer on Thu Jun 25, 2009 at 07:27:54 PM EST
    194?, then.

    It should be "up to 10" (none / 0) (#101)
    by Inspector Gadget on Thu Jun 25, 2009 at 10:54:02 AM EST
    depending on the movies each year. There are times when 5 is too many.

    it probably will be (5.00 / 1) (#108)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Jun 25, 2009 at 11:02:25 AM EST
    they have already done that for years.  in 1995 there was only two films nominated for effects.  Apollo 13 (which I got a credit for) and Babe.
    the pig skunked us.

    So I read the emails (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by andgarden on Wed Jun 24, 2009 at 11:37:24 PM EST
    They are a little sad, yes. But especially towards the end I couldn't help but realize that Sanford is exactly the person I thought he was.

    And that's damn depressing.

    You knew he was so poetic? (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by gyrfalcon on Thu Jun 25, 2009 at 12:01:04 AM EST
    I confess I didn't think he had it in him.

    Do read the transcript of the entire press conference.  It's also quite poetic in places, but overall bizarre in the exteme.  The reports and sound bites don't even begin to do it justice.

    This is one extremely, extremely confused dude.


    He was a lot more honest about it (5.00 / 2) (#40)
    by ruffian on Thu Jun 25, 2009 at 08:47:39 AM EST
    than most pols in that situation. A little more information than I needed actually. At times he sounded like a lovelorn youth describing how he fell in love. If I were betting, I'd say that marraige is over.

    In answer to our hypothetical of yesterday, my breaking point would be when my husband told a world audience that he started a deep deep friendship with another woman because he didn't have anyone else to talk to. He'd be talking to my lawyer at that point.


    My real life favorite (none / 0) (#78)
    by Fabian on Thu Jun 25, 2009 at 10:29:09 AM EST
    A young woman went to college with a young man.  After they graduated, they both got a job with the same company states away from home.  They shared an apartment.  They shared a relationship.  She thought they shared common goals.

    Until he took her out for her birthday and told her [direct quote] "I've met the woman I want to marry." and it wasn't her.  She just spent years of her life dating a man who not only wasn't in love with her, but was a total jerk as well.  


    I skipped the press conference (none / 0) (#29)
    by andgarden on Thu Jun 25, 2009 at 12:09:30 AM EST
    If sanford is poetic. . .

    I think his writing barely lives up to the quality of most of what's written here in the TL comments (a pretty high standard, actually).

    No, what I see in this emails is a vanilla white guy of middling intelligence paraphrasing scripture at his love interest.

    I don't blame him for falling in love with her. That happens. I'm just disappointed to find out that the governor of a mid-sized state, in whose hands rest a considerable amount of power, is so ordinary. He's in a position to make the world a better place for people, and his asides are about his second home.

    I think there's more to unpack, but I have to sleep. . .


    Yes, creative email, (none / 0) (#93)
    by KeysDan on Thu Jun 25, 2009 at 10:45:13 AM EST
    like where asked Maria, coining a phrase, "do you have any pearls of wisdom'.

    poetic? (none / 0) (#121)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Jun 25, 2009 at 11:25:37 AM EST
    if he is hounded out of politics he probably has a career as a Harlequin Romance novelist.

    I hate even reading my own old emails (none / 0) (#41)
    by ruffian on Thu Jun 25, 2009 at 08:50:37 AM EST
    Sorry for him and his family that they are available to all. Probably more embarrassing than even the 5 day disappearance 'on the appalachian trail', if that's what the kids are calling it these days.

    Sanford and Fox News (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by cal1942 on Wed Jun 24, 2009 at 11:50:15 PM EST
    Once again Fox News has identified a scandal ridden Republican as a Democrat.

    I finally watched his (5.00 / 0) (#48)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Jun 25, 2009 at 09:17:43 AM EST
    presser.  OMG!  that was an official meltdown.  he is a political dead man walking.
    if you have not seen that creepy press conference do so at once.

    "The biggest self of self is indeed self,"

    and why do they always have to talk about "gods laws" when they get caught with their pants down.


    coming soon (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Jun 25, 2009 at 09:20:31 AM EST
    Wouldn't surprise me (none / 0) (#107)
    by cal1942 on Thu Jun 25, 2009 at 11:02:01 AM EST
    one bit

    RIP Farrah (5.00 / 1) (#133)
    by Dadler on Thu Jun 25, 2009 at 12:11:02 PM EST
    I just heard (5.00 / 0) (#148)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Jun 25, 2009 at 02:55:04 PM EST
    Thank you Farrah for giving us a glimpse into your leave taking as well.  It was poignant.

    Ah jeez. (none / 0) (#140)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Jun 25, 2009 at 01:31:16 PM EST
    To paraphrase Virgil: (5.00 / 1) (#145)
    by jondee on Thu Jun 25, 2009 at 02:27:09 PM EST
    The underworld is filled with so many of the beautiful.

    Feds arrest head of anti-gang group in LA (none / 0) (#1)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Jun 24, 2009 at 09:51:57 PM EST
    LOS ANGELES - A man who said he left a ruthless street gang in Central America and later won praise for his anti-gang work in Los Angeles was arrested Wednesday by authorities who allege he conspired to kill a rival even as he spoke out against gang life.

    O continuing on Nightline, Public Option (none / 0) (#15)
    by nycstray on Wed Jun 24, 2009 at 10:37:33 PM EST
    starting off

    Potential Home Grown (none / 0) (#30)
    by CoralGables on Thu Jun 25, 2009 at 12:34:28 AM EST
    Terrorist (even though that word has become overused)

    The FBI has arrested one of the nation's most provocative white supremacists, the host of an Internet talk show and Web site, for saying that three federal judges should be killed.

    Hal Turner, 47, was arrested Wednesday at his home in North Bergen, N.J., and accused of posting statements on his Web site calling for the murder of three federal appeals court judges in Chicago who recently ruled on a gun rights case.

    "Let me be the first to say this plainly: these Judges deserve to be killed." He included their pictures, phone numbers, work address and room numbers

    Obama's plan for gay rights (none / 0) (#35)
    by jbindc on Thu Jun 25, 2009 at 08:32:46 AM EST
    It's funny (5.00 / 2) (#52)
    by Carolyn in Baltimore on Thu Jun 25, 2009 at 09:22:30 AM EST
    but I actually think he has a plan.
    1. Say nice things and speak eloquently about rights and fairness
    2. Wine and dine and get contributions from LGBTs with money
    3. Insist that changes need to be legislated (but not ask legislators to do anything).
    4. Provide a few crumbs that would have been nice 15 years ago when under pressure.
    5. Continue to defend DOMA and DADT in Federal Courts
    6. Continue to suck up to Evangelicals and the Black Church

    Fierce Advocate has a new definition. Language is a wonderful thing.

    true (none / 0) (#54)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Jun 25, 2009 at 09:24:33 AM EST
    but its not funny



    I meant (5.00 / 0) (#64)
    by Carolyn in Baltimore on Thu Jun 25, 2009 at 09:45:29 AM EST
    jbindc's link was funny

    I know (5.00 / 0) (#67)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Jun 25, 2009 at 09:53:34 AM EST
    Heading out to do that walk thing (none / 0) (#43)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Jun 25, 2009 at 08:55:04 AM EST
    Jeselyn Radack has another one of those diaries up at Dkos.  I have always liked her work.  Common sense slugging it out in the uphill fight.

    Have a good walk! (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by ruffian on Thu Jun 25, 2009 at 08:58:04 AM EST
    Get out there while it is reasonably cool.

    I've been doing my working out in the mornings now too, instead of after work.  Much better - I don't dread it all day.


    Whew it's hot today (none / 0) (#82)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Jun 25, 2009 at 10:33:00 AM EST
    I'll be leaving earlier tomorrow.

    HBO does it again (none / 0) (#47)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Jun 25, 2009 at 09:14:50 AM EST
    HBO and SHO have been competing to see who could make Hollywood look the most lame.  so far its a pretty much a tie.  this weekend HUNG starts.
    it looks great.

    How To Make An Indecent Living

    Heh (none / 0) (#50)
    by andgarden on Thu Jun 25, 2009 at 09:19:29 AM EST
    I think 10-15 years ago that premise might have been controversial. Now it just seems stupid.

    they seem to love (none / 0) (#53)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Jun 25, 2009 at 09:23:23 AM EST
    to start with a premise that seems stupid or weird.
    a serial killer who kills serial killers.  a pot dealers complicated life. the complicated life of a multiple personality disorder sufferer.

    and on and on.

    I think it will be awsum.  


    I guess so (none / 0) (#55)
    by andgarden on Thu Jun 25, 2009 at 09:28:04 AM EST
    I haven't been able to justify an HBO subscription to myself for a while.

    Come on Captain (none / 0) (#56)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Jun 25, 2009 at 09:30:27 AM EST
    I can't wait for it.  I'm so tired of only women being portrayed as the prostitute type.  All girls know that certain guys will give you a hand will periods of singleness coupled with nobody around you are even interested in dating :)  I never paid anybody though :)  I just love the twist.  I bet I watch every episode.  I'm already glued to the trailers :)  Now I really must walk :)

    I'm with you MT (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by ruffian on Thu Jun 25, 2009 at 09:37:23 AM EST
    the trailers look really funny. I'll be watching at least the first couple of episodes.

    "We're all whores.... (5.00 / 2) (#61)
    by kdog on Thu Jun 25, 2009 at 09:41:18 AM EST
    in our own way, Mr. Finkelstein."

    Just look at Congress...mostly male, whores all:)


    They get paid very well too (none / 0) (#89)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Jun 25, 2009 at 10:40:56 AM EST
    and full health coverage and it is no secret they are whores.

    very pricy (5.00 / 2) (#91)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Jun 25, 2009 at 10:42:53 AM EST

    And in the case of the NY State Senate... (none / 0) (#100)
    by kdog on Thu Jun 25, 2009 at 10:53:47 AM EST
    they don't even put out!

    plus (5.00 / 1) (#65)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Jun 25, 2009 at 09:50:54 AM EST
    the guy is really hot.
    that is the guy who played the Punisher which happens to be one of our game titles.

    also (5.00 / 1) (#66)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Jun 25, 2009 at 09:53:00 AM EST
    the woman who is his "pimp" is wonderful.  she is one of my favorite disturbing depressing depraved films, Happiness.

    I wasn't going to bring that up :) (none / 0) (#81)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Jun 25, 2009 at 10:31:58 AM EST
    And he's in my age range.  I'm bad I know.  I've already ordered and here I am looking at the menu.  Nothing is more sickening to watch though than when my husband gets lucky enough to work with a female pilot in his age range...I have to hear about her special interests all the time :)  She's usually a genius of some sort.  He's such a sucker for strong women.

    Who isn't? (5.00 / 1) (#92)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Thu Jun 25, 2009 at 10:44:07 AM EST
    He's such a sucker for strong women.

    Strong coupled with genius?  Sign me up for some of that.


    even me (5.00 / 1) (#95)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Jun 25, 2009 at 10:48:57 AM EST
    and I pitch for the other team.
    I could say some of my best friends are strong women but the truth is almost all my friends are strong women.

    I'll tell ya who isn't.... (5.00 / 1) (#104)
    by kdog on Thu Jun 25, 2009 at 10:55:55 AM EST
    a weak man...but that don't apply to us my brother:)

    Are they providing the star with (none / 0) (#99)
    by KeysDan on Thu Jun 25, 2009 at 10:52:41 AM EST
    a prosthesis?  (cf.  "Boogie Nights").

    heh (none / 0) (#106)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Jun 25, 2009 at 11:00:17 AM EST
    actually I read that will not be necessary.


    if you can believe what you read it was part of the casting.


    OMG NO! (none / 0) (#114)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Jun 25, 2009 at 11:11:44 AM EST
    I'm not touching the google on this!

    ha (none / 0) (#118)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Jun 25, 2009 at 11:20:25 AM EST
    I have not googled it (but I might) I got an email from a friend who works at HBO.

    this is being called "adult programming" so full frontal would almost be surprising in its absence.

    pass the popcorn.


    Why don't you just come clean (none / 0) (#123)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Jun 25, 2009 at 11:32:12 AM EST
    HBO is paying you to float around the blogosphere and insure that a bunch of girls won't be missing an episode.

    actually (none / 0) (#138)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Jun 25, 2009 at 12:51:49 PM EST
    the only girls I have told about it so far are here.

    I agree (none / 0) (#84)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Jun 25, 2009 at 10:33:28 AM EST
    and with the subject matter the potential for pathos is pretty vast.

    SC rules in favor of girl strip searched at school (none / 0) (#68)
    by jbindc on Thu Jun 25, 2009 at 09:57:36 AM EST

    The Supreme Court ruled Thursday that a school's strip search of an Arizona teenage girl accused of having prescription-strength ibuprofen was illegal.

    The court ruled 8-1 on Thursday that school officials violated the law with their search of Savana Redding in the rural eastern Arizona town of Safford.

    Redding, who now attends college, was 13 when officials at Safford Middle School ordered her to remove her clothes and shake out her underwear because they were looking for pills - the equivalent of two Advils. The district bans prescription and over-the-counter drugs and the school was acting on a tip from another student.

    "What was missing from the suspected facts that pointed to Savana was any indication of danger to the students from the power of the drugs or their quantity, and any reason to suppose that Savana was carrying pills in her underwear," Justice David Souter wrote in the majority opinion. "We think that the combination of these deficiencies was fatal to finding the search reasonable."

    But the court ruled the officials cannot be held liable in a lawsuit for the search. Different judges around the nation have come to different conclusions about immunity for school officials in strip searches, which leads the Supreme Court to "counsel doubt that we were sufficiently clear in the prior statement of law," Souter said.

    "We think these differences of opinion from our own are substantial enough to require immunity for the school officials in this case," Souter said.

    Thank goodness... (5.00 / 0) (#71)
    by kdog on Thu Jun 25, 2009 at 10:01:23 AM EST
    this one went Liberty's way...scary though that is wasn't a 9-0...f*ckin' Clarence.

    This (none / 0) (#72)
    by AlkalineDave on Thu Jun 25, 2009 at 10:01:31 AM EST
    blows my mind in the best way possible.  I really thought after reading transcripts of the oral arguments that the court was going to swing heavily the other way.  I live in AZ have friends in Safford, and this is welcome news.

    Immunity for the (none / 0) (#73)
    by AlkalineDave on Thu Jun 25, 2009 at 10:04:04 AM EST
    school officials and the school district I'm taking it.  pretty lame

    Interesting lineup in (none / 0) (#76)
    by andgarden on Thu Jun 25, 2009 at 10:11:45 AM EST
    Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts. I'm thinking Jeralyn will like this decision.

    how can they (none / 0) (#77)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Jun 25, 2009 at 10:28:08 AM EST
    "ban prescription and over-the-counter drugs"

    if you are taking medication you just have to stay home.  thats nuts.  


    Because (5.00 / 2) (#85)
    by jbindc on Thu Jun 25, 2009 at 10:33:48 AM EST
    If you are taking prescription drugs (or even aspirin), they can require you to go to the office or the school nurse to dispense them.

    Elementary schools have always done this - you aren't going to give a 1st grader a prescription and think they will take the right amount at the right time.


    ok (5.00 / 2) (#87)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Jun 25, 2009 at 10:39:01 AM EST
    not a parent so I didnt think of that but this girl was 13.
    but I see your point.

    It is very difficult right now (none / 0) (#94)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Jun 25, 2009 at 10:48:01 AM EST
    Schools worry so much about any damage that could come to the kids they are responsible for.  Joshua's school nurse has a whole gang of children she has to monitor and care for daily, diabetes...stuff like that.  I'm so lucky that Joshua doesn't require daily meds.  When he has a surgery during the school year I usually go at lunchtime to give him Ibuprofen and just check on him while he's still healing.  The doctors used to give him permission to stay out of school for about ten days when he got home but he gets very bored and misses his friends so he's usually back in school a week from the day of his surgeries if they haven't been too extensive.  I can't imagine being in junior high or high school though and having to go to the damn nurse for Ibuprofen for your cramps.  It almost seems degrading in a way.

    I cant imagine what it would (5.00 / 1) (#96)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Jun 25, 2009 at 10:51:56 AM EST
    be like to grow up now.  more like running a gauntlet.  it was so much easier to grow up I think in the 50s and 60s.
    that was sort of heartbreaking hearing about Joshua.
    as if growing up was not enough.
    god bless him.

    So worried (none / 0) (#102)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Thu Jun 25, 2009 at 10:54:12 AM EST
    that they strip search a girl for Ibuprofen.

    That's not worried, that's called a power trip.


    That's my take (none / 0) (#111)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Jun 25, 2009 at 11:05:38 AM EST
    Well, to be fair (none / 0) (#103)
    by jbindc on Thu Jun 25, 2009 at 10:55:05 AM EST
    1) I wouldn't trust a 13 year old to have enough sense to come in out of the rain, but 2) here's what caan happen from an overdose of ibuprofren - it's not as innocuous as you think.  Plus, this girl was accused of having prescription strength ibuprofren - not justifying the search, but it's different than what you buy at CVS for cramps.

    Prescription strength Ibuprofen (none / 0) (#109)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Jun 25, 2009 at 11:04:24 AM EST
    Is also known as Motrin 800 and is the military vitamin.  They hand them out like candy and the only person they haven't given any to so far is Joshua.  Probably because he's too small to be consuming an 800 dose.  I have a whole cabinet full and they just keep sending a giant bottle home everytime my spouse has a back ache.  Just for the record, have you ever had to deal with that cramp thing that girls get stuck with?  It happens very early and quickly that we figure out what we need to take care of ourselves during that time.  It is part of our developing sexuality and for teenage girls it is an extremely private matter.

    Yes I have (5.00 / 1) (#112)
    by jbindc on Thu Jun 25, 2009 at 11:10:09 AM EST
    I'm a girl :)

    Not surprised because you are brilliant (5.00 / 1) (#119)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Jun 25, 2009 at 11:23:58 AM EST
    That aside, where do we draw the line here?  When I was thirteen I had no interest in harming myself and I carried a bunch of stuff around for my period because it was rough when I was very young before I had children.  I had terrible terrible cramps.  In the end my doctor ended up wanting me to take a very large dose of aspirin about twice a day.  More than the label said to take.  He could have drugged me with a narcotic but chose not to and I'm glad that he went the route that he did because a large dose of aspirin really did do the trick.  I would have been mortified if I where this girl and my period had anything to do with my having a Motrin 800 on my person.

    Not for nothing... (5.00 / 1) (#124)
    by kdog on Thu Jun 25, 2009 at 11:34:20 AM EST
    more than one old flame swore by the medicinal use of my favorite plant for cramp relief...and much easier on the kidneys.

    I think you can still bring brownies to school...but we're nowhere near enligtened enough to even touch that with a ten foot pole, so I'll just shut up:)


    I couldn't even sit squarely on a toilet (none / 0) (#126)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Jun 25, 2009 at 11:36:43 AM EST
    when stoned.  I wasn't a good candidate for hemp relief :)

    If you were 13 now, wouldn't you (none / 0) (#128)
    by oculus on Thu Jun 25, 2009 at 11:46:50 AM EST
    deposit the aspirin with the school nurse?

    Me? Me? (none / 0) (#131)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Jun 25, 2009 at 12:03:07 PM EST
    Hell no, it was my body and my business if I was having my period and nobody elses.  God, when I was in junior high school my male gym teacher gave us all this big speech about shaking off your cramps.  He told us there were no excuses and he knew this to be true because he had daughters too.  Later on we found out his daughters were still in diapers or barely potty trained.  What a jerk and he wasn't the only one out there.  I would find a better hiding place that I guess would lead to a strip search.  My daughter would not have gone to a virtual stranger during her period either.  Joshua would because all the rules are very important to him no matter what and here he is a boy!

    Your comment re Joshua: justice! (5.00 / 1) (#134)
    by oculus on Thu Jun 25, 2009 at 12:19:36 PM EST
    He is his military officer father's son (none / 0) (#151)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Jun 25, 2009 at 03:03:12 PM EST
    when it comes to rules.  He was also born without the cussing gene.  He simply will not say "bad" words because you aren't supposed to.  My husband is the same way but deeply intrigued by women who can at opportune moments imitate old sailors.

    I think of Ibuprofen (none / 0) (#113)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Jun 25, 2009 at 11:10:52 AM EST
    like aspirin.  I have lower back problems and I take prescription strength all the time nad have for years.  which is 4 store tables.

    But again (5.00 / 2) (#115)
    by jbindc on Thu Jun 25, 2009 at 11:14:45 AM EST
    you are an ADULT.

    And can you imagine the lawsuit if some kid gives another prescription ibuprofren at school and the first kid gets sick or dies?  

    Schools are in a lose-lose position here - either don't have zero-tolerance policies and risk getting sued, or have the policies and risk getting sued.


    I can (none / 0) (#117)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Jun 25, 2009 at 11:18:41 AM EST
    Im just sayin.

    And I understand all that (none / 0) (#122)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Jun 25, 2009 at 11:28:06 AM EST
    What I don't understand is how zero tolerance = strip search.

    I think of Ibuprofen... (5.00 / 1) (#125)
    by kdog on Thu Jun 25, 2009 at 11:35:45 AM EST
    like I thinf of Flintstones Vitamins or Trix...that stuff is for kids!

    Percocets are for the grown-ups:)


    Percocets make me stupid! (none / 0) (#127)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Jun 25, 2009 at 11:40:13 AM EST
    I'm not kidding.  I just experienced a very recent reminder of that fact.  Did you watch the last Nurse Jackie?  Nurse Jackie is an effective nurse consuming opioids.  I'm the social worker.

    Me too! (none / 0) (#129)
    by kdog on Thu Jun 25, 2009 at 11:50:47 AM EST
    Thats the point, when used recreationally...especially when combined in a cocktail with my vice of choice, and yours, the margarita...with extra salt!

    When used for pain treatment, its just a nice side effect.


    Either... (none / 0) (#139)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Thu Jun 25, 2009 at 01:26:25 PM EST
    ...I'm already stupid or my tolerence for the Perc's is too high, 'cause they don't have that effect on me.  

    But, hey as long as they do what they're supposed to do, I'm not going to complain.


    Maybe... (none / 0) (#142)
    by kdog on Thu Jun 25, 2009 at 02:03:32 PM EST
    its only when perscribed in conjuction with the cocktail:)

    Opiates and alchohol (none / 0) (#152)
    by jondee on Thu Jun 25, 2009 at 03:16:27 PM EST
    can be more than a little treacherous if you're not VERY careful about what you're doing.

    A good friend of mine woke up one time in the E.R with the words "we're losing him, we're losing him" ringing in his ears after getting too reckless with that combo.


    Yup, when my husband is away from (none / 0) (#120)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Jun 25, 2009 at 11:25:16 AM EST
    home and he's hurting I usually have to remind him that four orange pills equals one military vitamin :-)

    I like that (none / 0) (#69)
    by AlkalineDave on Thu Jun 25, 2009 at 09:58:40 AM EST
    all the women he services aren't supermodel material.  At least the shows going to be genuine.  It would be a lame gimmick if the male prostitute was paid to have sex with a trove of "hotties."

    This is (none / 0) (#70)
    by AlkalineDave on Thu Jun 25, 2009 at 09:59:22 AM EST
    supposed to be in response to the hung thread :[

    I figured it was about that (none / 0) (#75)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Jun 25, 2009 at 10:10:20 AM EST
    or possibly Sanford.

    this is scary (none / 0) (#79)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Jun 25, 2009 at 10:30:32 AM EST
    The Iranian regime has appointed one of its most feared prosecutors to interrogate reformists arrested during demonstrations, prompting fears of a brutal crackdown against dissent.

    Relatives of several detained protesters have confirmed that the interrogation of prisoners is now being headed by Saaed Mortazavi, a figure known in Iran as "the butcher of the press". He gained notoriety for his role in the death of a Canadian-Iranian photographer who was tortured, beaten and raped during her detention in 2003.

    Doesn't the (none / 0) (#80)
    by AlkalineDave on Thu Jun 25, 2009 at 10:31:05 AM EST
    Troy Davis case come before the court again today?

    Thanks for the comments (none / 0) (#88)
    by Fabian on Thu Jun 25, 2009 at 10:39:42 AM EST
    on Sanford.

    I was out of the loop for a bit and stopped in at dkos where the mob mentality was dominant.  Amazing how "Clinton" was a dirty word a year ago and now it's "Remember what they did to Clinton?  Now it's payback time!".  

    Came over here when I saw the Supreme Court decision.  How did Clarence Thomas get confirmed again?  

    With a lot of help, IIRC, (none / 0) (#98)
    by Spamlet on Thu Jun 25, 2009 at 10:52:36 AM EST
    How did Clarence Thomas get confirmed again?

    from Sen. Arlen Specter (D/R/D-PA).

    AMEN (none / 0) (#110)
    by lilburro on Thu Jun 25, 2009 at 11:04:28 AM EST
    I like this piece over at Open Salon.

    The real issue here is the cover up and the lying. THAT'S the cookie jar. And I'm sorry... but you don't get credit for telling the truth, when it's pretty clear that that's the only option left to you (and it also appears that if you don't tell the truth, some reporter probably WILL, since there's always a paper trail with something like this). Facing up to the inevitable and taking control of the spin machine while you still can isn't courage. It's just politics as usual.

    Sanford can live his life the way he wants to, but I'm not going to pat him on the back for his "honesty" or his "touching love letters."  Seems like the media is fascinated with their new character though - the rambling, human cheater!  Hooray!

    I want BTD (none / 0) (#130)
    by kmblue on Thu Jun 25, 2009 at 11:53:21 AM EST
    to post another thread about Health Care Reform.
    Just sayin...

    Charlie Rangels (none / 0) (#137)
    by jbindc on Thu Jun 25, 2009 at 12:51:20 PM EST
    A new twist in the ethics investigation....

    Already embroiled in an ethics probe now entering its tenth month, Rep. Charlie Rangel (D-N.Y.), chairman of the powerful Ways and Means Committee, received more bad news Wednesday night as the House ethics committee announced it would look into Caribbean trips taken by the veteran lawmaker and four other Democrats.

    In a statement released late Wednesday night, Reps. Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.) and Jo Bonner (R-Ala.), the chairwoman and ranking member of the ethics committee, announced that the panel had voted to create a four-member investigative subcommittee to determine whether the trips violated House gift rules.

    In their statement, Lofgren and Bonner said the ethics panel had voted Wednesday to adopt a resolution "establishing an investigative subcommittee to investigate officially-connected travel that was sponsored, funded and organized by an organization knows as Carib News or Carib News Foundation."

    Lofgren and Bonner acknowledged that the ethics committee had begun informally looking into the trips recently, but their statement was the first official acknowledgment by the ethics panel that it would take up the matter.

    In addition to Rangel, other lawmakers who participated in the Caribbean trips include Reps. Carolyn Kirkpatrick (D-Mich.), Donald Payne (D-N.J.), Bennie Thompson (D-Miss.) and Delegate Donna Christian-Christensen (D-V.I.).

    All five Democrats are members of the Congressional Black Caucus, and two -- Rangel and Thompson -- wield full committee gavels at Ways and Means and Homeland Security, respectively.

    A conservative nonprofit group, the National Legal and Policy Center, has charged that the trip may have broken House rules on corporate-sponsored travel.

    The latest step by the ethics committee ensures that Rangel, who is already the subject of a lengthy, and expanding, ethics committee investigation into his personal finances, will remain at the center of the growing fight with Republicans over alleged ethical violations by the majority party.