Thurday Afternoon Open Thread

Here is one of the funniest dkos diaries and threads I have read in some time. I think that most of the humor is unintentional. I admit to uncertainty on that point.

There has been a lot of "news" on the Sotomayor confirmation that I have not written about. I have chosen not to because well, they are pretty much just staged endorsement rollouts by the Obama Administration that, to me at least, add nothing to the story. I know they are doing their political job on this, and good for them, but I have no interest in writing about press releases on endorsements. I will return to the Sotomayor confirmation story when the confirmation hearings start and hope to see a real discussion about judicial philosophies. That would be of interest to me.

One last thing, the Tour de France begins in earnest tomorrow in Stage 7 with the first trip into the mountains. Can Armstrong or anyone stay with Contador? I say no. We'll see.

This is an Open Thread.

< Once Again On Preventive Detention | Supermax Won't Allow Inmates to Read Obama's Books >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    heh, indeed (5.00 / 4) (#1)
    by andgarden on Thu Jul 09, 2009 at 12:20:32 PM EST
    Reminds me of something I think Frost said: that a liberal is someone who refuses to take his own side in an argument.

    Heh (none / 0) (#2)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jul 09, 2009 at 12:22:00 PM EST
    Good line.

    Okay, I finally clicked on the diary (5.00 / 2) (#99)
    by Cream City on Thu Jul 09, 2009 at 04:56:24 PM EST
    and it and the comments are purely painful to read.  I couldn't get through a third of them.  If you get a laugh from reading such inanities, I've got some term papers from the past that would have you in stitches.  

    There is so much good reading -- including good student work -- in this world that it is hard to imagine that anyone actually worked through all of those comments.


    I passed on the comments (5.00 / 1) (#113)
    by Fabian on Thu Jul 09, 2009 at 05:34:06 PM EST
    since I thought the diary itself was painful enough.

    I just read it this morning (none / 0) (#130)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Jul 10, 2009 at 08:22:10 AM EST
    and I haven't had a coffee yet.  Bleh, made me feel like I needed to brush my teeth and spit out the nasty film covering my teeth.

    draws from the stereotype of the wimpy liberal (none / 0) (#3)
    by andgarden on Thu Jul 09, 2009 at 12:24:25 PM EST
    but I think it fits here.

    I very much enjoyed reading (5.00 / 3) (#9)
    by lilburro on Thu Jul 09, 2009 at 12:49:20 PM EST
    this interview with Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg in the NYTimes.  Lots of interesting insights on sexism.

    I did too (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by Maryb2004 on Thu Jul 09, 2009 at 12:53:21 PM EST
    Yes (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by Dr Molly on Thu Jul 09, 2009 at 12:53:25 PM EST
    This article was just sent around in my work department, as we are currently having intense and uncomfortable discussions here about non-inclusiveness and gender issues in the workplace.

    Good article.


    In college, (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by lilburro on Thu Jul 09, 2009 at 01:56:54 PM EST
    we discussed it constantly in classrooms about classrooms.  The starting point is usually - "why do girls never speak up?"  From there it progresses to the idea that if you're not willing to speak up, then I guess you simply won't be heard, and that's your fault.  The learning experience as a brutal pseudo-social Darwinism.  The starting point is generally a total lack of sensitivity to the fact that everyone has something to say - if we listen more carefully and create a less competitive, more thoughtful environment, we'll actually hear more than we would otherwise.  And learn more.  

    We made some progress on that in school, not as much as we could've.  Certainly it was not perfect.  But I imagine in esp. a larger workplace it's much more difficult to discuss (I work at a really, REALLY small business where the dynamics are a lot different from other places I've been).


    A great article that came out last year... (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by Dr Molly on Thu Jul 09, 2009 at 02:13:35 PM EST
    "Constructing a Broader and More Inclusive Value System in Science"

    in the January 2007, Vol. 57, issue of BioScience.

    Talks about these issues in the context of science and academia, but they are obviously generalizable to other types of work environments. Can probably get it at the website for BioScience.


    Good luck on the job front... (5.00 / 3) (#96)
    by CST on Thu Jul 09, 2009 at 04:50:17 PM EST
    I just made the switch to a woman-owned company and I can already tell it's such a huge difference.  I went from being the "token" (only female who wasn't a secretary) to being one part of 40% and growing.  It makes such a difference personally and professionally.  It's really nice to be just another engineer.

    CST, be sure and review the many opportunties (none / 0) (#129)
    by easilydistracted on Fri Jul 10, 2009 at 08:04:06 AM EST
    for woman-owned small businesses in government contracts. Most all government contracts have small business goals that a prime contractor must agree to meet during the procurement phase. There are plenty of opportunites to team with those primes. FedBizOps is a good site to review.  

    Congrats! (none / 0) (#132)
    by nycstray on Fri Jul 10, 2009 at 04:40:03 PM EST
    I haven't worked for a woman owned company, aside from myself, lol!~, but have worked for a couple of companies in depts that were women heavy. It does make a difference in the overall feel of the workplace etc. Enjoy your new job and being "just another engineer".

    Places! (none / 0) (#27)
    by Sumner on Thu Jul 09, 2009 at 02:15:02 PM EST
    Places, please.

    Touche! (none / 0) (#32)
    by Dr Molly on Thu Jul 09, 2009 at 02:23:48 PM EST
    Nice (none / 0) (#133)
    by squeaky on Fri Jul 10, 2009 at 04:42:18 PM EST
    and don't forget the shaggs

    "...a plague of certainty" (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by inclusiveheart on Thu Jul 09, 2009 at 12:50:51 PM EST
    That is LOL funny.

    Is this the kind of person who would keep dropping truck loads of watermelons off of a roof top "just in case" one of them floats rather than falls?

    "Gene McCarthy . . (5.00 / 2) (#15)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Jul 09, 2009 at 01:11:42 PM EST
    . . used to say that the process was more important than the result"

    that explains a lot.

    My husband got laid off last week. (5.00 / 3) (#34)
    by Dr Molly on Thu Jul 09, 2009 at 02:26:50 PM EST
    I guess now we're going to start taking the utter ineffectuality of Washington vis a vis the economy and jobs pretty personally.

    Between this, watching our house value plummet until we'll probably go upside down on the mortgage fairly soon, and our son starting college this fall, yow. Never thought we'd be facing a situation like this.

    I'm so sorry (5.00 / 3) (#36)
    by jbindc on Thu Jul 09, 2009 at 02:34:40 PM EST
    That really $ucks.

    Yikes (5.00 / 3) (#38)
    by lilburro on Thu Jul 09, 2009 at 02:36:28 PM EST
    That's no good.  Best of luck to you and hang in there!

    Tough news, Dr... (5.00 / 3) (#41)
    by easilydistracted on Thu Jul 09, 2009 at 02:44:03 PM EST
    Yeah, I wish you the best.

    Keep your chin up Doc... (5.00 / 3) (#46)
    by kdog on Thu Jul 09, 2009 at 02:52:53 PM EST
    and better luck to ya.  If your husband is half as sharp as you are he will have a new gig in no time.

    You can only roll with the punches...and like I always say, everyday you eat is a good day.  Might not feel like it, but it is true...hang in there.


    Thanks, kdog, and to all the rest of y'all. (5.00 / 3) (#69)
    by Dr Molly on Thu Jul 09, 2009 at 03:51:31 PM EST
    Yeah, we're not alone, that's for sure. And I have a good job, so grateful for that. Things could be much worse.

    The worst part is the ego blow to my sweetie - that's hard to watch.


    Molly (5.00 / 3) (#90)
    by NYShooter on Thu Jul 09, 2009 at 04:40:10 PM EST
    Your Sweetie is going through Hell. One day you're whole, and in an instant, your self-worth, dignity, self respect, and manhood is ripped away. The sense of emptiness and helplessness is so overwhelming; the blow is almost too hard to take.

    I don't know how to help; I wish I could. All I can say is, it's not forever.

    Sadly, there's 15,000,000+ in the same boat.


    I've always liked the saying... (5.00 / 1) (#100)
    by kdog on Thu Jul 09, 2009 at 04:57:55 PM EST
    "I came here looking for a job, and I'll leave here looking for a job"....thats how you gotta look at it.

    Easy for me to say though with no kids to feed.

    Its what steamed me up the most about my friend getting locked up for dealing...he got laid off, was check to check like so many, made some moves to keep his daughter in diapers and formula...and gets caged for years over it.  Crazy.


    Not To Mention (5.00 / 1) (#105)
    by squeaky on Thu Jul 09, 2009 at 05:04:51 PM EST
    Will forever be denied equal access to employment, training and benefits everyone else has. IOW, punished for the rest of his life.

    I know. (5.00 / 1) (#114)
    by Dr Molly on Thu Jul 09, 2009 at 05:38:58 PM EST
    He's really depressed. And angry. And humiliated. And scared.

    Like lots of others - that's what I keep telling him. It's not about him.  


    Well, that's a fine cess! (5.00 / 2) (#81)
    by Radiowalla on Thu Jul 09, 2009 at 04:16:23 PM EST
    Wishing you the best as you navigate through this new terrain.

    CIA Misleads Congress For 8 Years (5.00 / 2) (#67)
    by squeaky on Thu Jul 09, 2009 at 03:49:11 PM EST
    Panetta explains that it is true. Pelosi vindicated, but the pack of lies that the CIA has been telling Congress are still too secret to reveal.

    Yet Obama wants to make the process even more secret and threatens to veto legislation that would increase the number of congresscritters who are allowed to view top secret material.

    Why? As digby says:

    Because it's worked out so well up to now.

    Only 8 years? (none / 0) (#73)
    by kdog on Thu Jul 09, 2009 at 03:58:49 PM EST
    I woulda thought 60 years.  The Federal Reserve, followed closely by the CIA, are the two shadiest outfits we've got.

    Could Be (none / 0) (#76)
    by squeaky on Thu Jul 09, 2009 at 04:04:19 PM EST
    "cept this time they were caught. Not sure what they lied about but considering that we attacked and occupied Iraq and set up black prison sites, flipped the bird at the Geneva Conventions, incarcerated americans and foreigners without charge or trial.. to mention a few things.

    I think that the last 8 years stands out in stark contrast to previous years. A new low for America, imo.


    Niebuhr? (none / 0) (#4)
    by Shainzona on Thu Jul 09, 2009 at 12:35:16 PM EST
    "President Obama's favorite theologian, Reinhold Niebuhr..."

    I could have sworn that Obama's favorite theologian was Rev. Wright?

    When did that change?

    Oh come on (5.00 / 0) (#7)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jul 09, 2009 at 12:45:03 PM EST
    Enough about Wright please.

    I thought Rick Warren was his favorite (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by scribe on Thu Jul 09, 2009 at 02:16:35 PM EST
    Goes to show you, I don't pay enough attention or something.

    I read the Obamas were going (none / 0) (#119)
    by oculus on Thu Jul 09, 2009 at 06:02:49 PM EST
    Southern Baptist, at least at Camp David.

    Well since it was never the case (none / 0) (#19)
    by Socraticsilence on Thu Jul 09, 2009 at 01:45:04 PM EST
    its not all that hard to have changed- it would have been kind of impossible for Obama to go to Neibuhr's church what with him dying before Obama turned 10 and all (Niebuhr's died in the early 70s right?).  

    So if someone's favorite theologian (none / 0) (#91)
    by Cream City on Thu Jul 09, 2009 at 04:40:33 PM EST
    is, say, Thomas Aquinas . . . oh, fuggedit.

    Where does that leave Christianity? (none / 0) (#120)
    by oculus on Thu Jul 09, 2009 at 06:03:38 PM EST
    Or Islam, or Buddhism.

    Exactly. I guess it's time to turn (none / 0) (#128)
    by Cream City on Thu Jul 09, 2009 at 10:18:53 PM EST
    to the Rastafarians.  Or this church I read about in my state that started a couple of years ago in some guy's garage.  

    Glad somebody else sees the illogic.  Of course, an oculus would be all-seeing, wouldn't it be? :-)


    No profanity please (none / 0) (#6)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jul 09, 2009 at 12:44:41 PM EST
    On Neibuhr - I'll always remember Peter Beinart's focus on him when criticzing DFHs on the War on Terror. I always thought he was way overrated. I hope he really is not Obama's favorite.

    Niebuhrian? (none / 0) (#8)
    by Radiowalla on Thu Jul 09, 2009 at 12:48:40 PM EST
    Isn't that someone from West Africa?

    I ask with humility because I'm no longer sure of anything.

    Heh (none / 0) (#10)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jul 09, 2009 at 12:49:58 PM EST
    Niebuhrian humility (none / 0) (#11)
    by Dadler on Thu Jul 09, 2009 at 12:50:10 PM EST
    I find an anti-fungal cream works best for this malady.  

    I love the quote from McCarthy, as if the exception should somehow define the rule.  Obviously, the dark side of "the ends justify the means" is not what a good progressive would ever mean when thinking, first, of a results-based goal for policy/process.  Heaven forbid more stuff than not should actually work.  But to this dolt, worrying too much about results is a bad thing.

    And the coherent national security strategy quote from Obama, nice, sheesh, show me a quote half as critical of any traditonally conservative political causes.  It's always we who must bend to them, never the other way around, even when "we" are supposedly in "power".

    Neiburhian humility, that really is funny.  What it makes me think I could use is some Shakespearian ale.  Is it noon yet?

    Witness list (none / 0) (#16)
    by jbindc on Thu Jul 09, 2009 at 01:17:40 PM EST
    The witness list for the Sotomayor confirmation hearings is out.

    The top three most interesting are:

    1. Mayor Mike Bloomberg, Sotomayor's self-apppointed defender, a man who needs to court Latinos to win reelection in NYC next year.

    1. Ex-Fireman Frank Ricci, the guy who brought the New Haven reverse discrimination firefighters case thrown out by S'mayor.

    2. Former Mets-Yankees pitcher David Cone, who was active member of the Major League players' association during the mid-1990s strike effectively ended by Sotomayor.

    Bloomberg needs to court Latinos (none / 0) (#20)
    by nycstray on Thu Jul 09, 2009 at 01:48:52 PM EST
    to win reelection?

    Who else has Bloomie come out and defended to garner votes? What's the history there?


    David Cone? Should be Don Fehr. (none / 0) (#121)
    by oculus on Thu Jul 09, 2009 at 06:16:53 PM EST
    Actually should be Selig testifying (none / 0) (#125)
    by oculus on Thu Jul 09, 2009 at 06:56:30 PM EST
    against her, as her decision barred scab players.

    I don't read (none / 0) (#17)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Thu Jul 09, 2009 at 01:28:31 PM EST
    DailyKos.  I read TMZ.  Much funnier and equally likely to be "unbiased".

    GM leaving bankruptcy (none / 0) (#18)
    by jbindc on Thu Jul 09, 2009 at 01:34:02 PM EST
    today -  a full 39 days after entering it -  a record.

    How many dealers and small support (none / 0) (#24)
    by Inspector Gadget on Thu Jul 09, 2009 at 02:08:01 PM EST
    businesses to auto manufacturing did they leave behind in their wake, though?

    Glad you asked! (none / 0) (#29)
    by jbindc on Thu Jul 09, 2009 at 02:18:26 PM EST
    Apparently, there is legislation snaking through Congress at this very moment to reverse the dealer closings of both Chrysler and GM.

    Link (none / 0) (#31)
    by jbindc on Thu Jul 09, 2009 at 02:18:48 PM EST
    It will be very interesting to see how it (none / 0) (#48)
    by Inspector Gadget on Thu Jul 09, 2009 at 02:57:30 PM EST
    all plays out. I doubt I'll buy another Chrysler with the way they treated their dealers.

    Wow (none / 0) (#62)
    by eric on Thu Jul 09, 2009 at 03:40:56 PM EST
    what a profoundly troubling piece of legislation.  The government, by force of law, forcing a company to change a business decision?

    I am not too keen on economic due process, but this would cross the line for me.

    Reading the text, I see that the bill is asserting authority because the government is part owner of these companies.  That changes things a bit.  But WOW, is the language of the bill is scary.  All sorts of things about "economic rights" of dealers.  What about the economic right of a manufacturer?  These dealerships are not being "forced to close", they are simply losing their franchise contracts.  They want to keep selling cars?  Call KIA, maybe they are interested.

    Congress should stay out of this.


    But if Congress (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by eric on Thu Jul 09, 2009 at 03:45:06 PM EST
    is going to go down this road, I would like to request that Starbucks be forced to reopen its store in Calhoun Square in Minneapolis.  How dare they deprive me of my right to a latte?

    This might not be so bad... (none / 0) (#68)
    by kdog on Thu Jul 09, 2009 at 03:51:15 PM EST
    I demand Harrahs open a casino in the NY metropolitan area!

    Me, too! (none / 0) (#72)
    by easilydistracted on Thu Jul 09, 2009 at 03:54:55 PM EST
    (I like the way this works)

    I changed my mind. (5.00 / 1) (#74)
    by easilydistracted on Thu Jul 09, 2009 at 04:00:06 PM EST
    Now I want an "In an Out" within walking distance of my house here in Texas. I'm tired of Whataburger.

    Ha. I'd settle for postal service (none / 0) (#92)
    by Cream City on Thu Jul 09, 2009 at 04:42:29 PM EST
    -- a simple mailbox -- within walking distance of my home.  But I guess asking Congress to run a government agency is asking too much, huh?

    I thought that too (none / 0) (#63)
    by jbindc on Thu Jul 09, 2009 at 03:44:21 PM EST
    What's to say that the government will (as part owners, of course), tell them how to negotiate labor contracts (which they are kind of doing already)?  

    Yet, I haven't heard one word about the government telling banks that received taxpayer money how to run their businesses - have you?  Oh, there was a little outrage over the bonuses, but did anything come of that?


    Ah Ha. A new "pork." (none / 0) (#70)
    by easilydistracted on Thu Jul 09, 2009 at 03:53:28 PM EST
    And the same attitudes: go ahead and eliminate it -- just so long as you do so in any backyard but mine.

    14 million Americans (none / 0) (#21)
    by Jlvngstn on Thu Jul 09, 2009 at 01:52:33 PM EST
    Have filed initial claims for unemployment in the past 22 weeks.

    Yet another reason not to donate to Bush's library....

    When jailhouse ingenuity goes wrong... (none / 0) (#23)
    by kdog on Thu Jul 09, 2009 at 02:02:21 PM EST
    I give 'em an A for effort.  Link

    Let the prisoners smoke for god's sake before somebody dies from smoke inhalation:)

    I thought the Justice Department of (none / 0) (#26)
    by KeysDan on Thu Jul 09, 2009 at 02:14:06 PM EST
    Alberto Gonzales was about as bad as it gets. But, is Eric Holder trying to outdo Al's record?  The briefs on DADT, DOMA, detention....and, now, as reported in today's NYT,  the handling of the whistle-blower who accused prosecutors of misconduct in the Siegelman trial.   Tamarah Grimes filed a complaint in 2007 under whistle-blower protection laws On June l, 2009 she sent a letter to Holder that set forth her claims (that letter was included in filings for a new trial); Ms. Grimes, who had been on administrative leave was notified of her dismissal on June 9, 2009.  A Justice Department spokesperson said that Ms.Grimes firing had nothing to do with her whistle-blowing.  Last October, the DOJ found no substance to her accusations, but the House Judiciary Committee criticized that DOJ report as incomplete and one-sided. Maybe just a private personnel matter, or maybe a tin ear or a lesson to be noted.

    No Hershey's bars for me, for a while (none / 0) (#30)
    by scribe on Thu Jul 09, 2009 at 02:18:31 PM EST
    Regardless of what the headline on this post says,  he was not boiled to death in the molten chocolate.  He fell into the vat and was hit by the agitator which paddled through the molten chocolate.  That's what killed him.

    WTF? (none / 0) (#33)
    by squeaky on Thu Jul 09, 2009 at 02:24:32 PM EST
    What is up with the picture? Is that random pic supposed to be funny? seems to be bordering on racism, because other than that what does it have to do with the story?

    Anyway at the very least it is quite insensitive.


    Um (5.00 / 2) (#37)
    by jbindc on Thu Jul 09, 2009 at 02:36:01 PM EST
    The guy works at the chocolate factory where the other man died?  Are you saying AA's can't work at a chocolate factory?

    No Surprise (1.00 / 1) (#44)
    by squeaky on Thu Jul 09, 2009 at 02:48:37 PM EST
    From you. And I am not sure what kind of twisted logic would make you think I am saying that AA's can't work at a chocolate factory.

    Oh, come on (5.00 / 3) (#52)
    by Inspector Gadget on Thu Jul 09, 2009 at 03:11:15 PM EST
    squeaky.  No one knows twisted logic and shoving creative meaning into what someone else says better than you do. Need sobering up?

    Only you would try to assign a negative meaning to that photo. Most see it as a grieving co-worker who just may be covered in chocolate because he tried to help get his friend out of that vat.


    I can only imagine the outrage (5.00 / 2) (#55)
    by Anne on Thu Jul 09, 2009 at 03:18:16 PM EST
    had the man in the photo been covered in white chocolate...

    Insensitive (none / 0) (#59)
    by squeaky on Thu Jul 09, 2009 at 03:30:12 PM EST
    Obviously the man did not want to be photographed.

    As I understand it, the worker in the picture (5.00 / 2) (#47)
    by scribe on Thu Jul 09, 2009 at 02:56:40 PM EST
    was one of the dead guy's co-workers and had chocolate on his shirt from trying to help rescue him.  He was too distraught to talk to reporters.

    I don't think anyone was trying to be insensitive, let alone racist.


    OK (none / 0) (#50)
    by squeaky on Thu Jul 09, 2009 at 03:06:38 PM EST
    Makes sense....   Caption did not help.  I guess that the leap is that he was one of the three men on the platform who tried to pull Smith out. It does not seem fair that they would publish the picture of someone who obviously did not want to be bothered by the press.

    But what else is new..  I still think it is insensitive, now for other reasons, namely privacy.


    Yes because (5.00 / 2) (#58)
    by jbindc on Thu Jul 09, 2009 at 03:25:37 PM EST
    "Shown is an employee of the chocolate factory with his shirt and shorts covered in chocolate. The man declined to give his name when asked."

    is very confusing and racially insensitive.


    Yes (none / 0) (#61)
    by squeaky on Thu Jul 09, 2009 at 03:32:30 PM EST
    It is insensitive, for different reasons as I pointed out. Sorry that you are stuck, I have adjusted my point of view thanks to Scribe's take.

    So, it appears (none / 0) (#35)
    by jbindc on Thu Jul 09, 2009 at 02:28:02 PM EST
    That there is a bit of dissension in the ranks about the Obama health care plan.

    In today's WaPo, Henry Waxman said:

    Waxman, lead House architect of the landmark health legislation, warned yesterday that he is not obligated to abide by deals struck recently by the White House, Senate Finance Committee, industry executives and interest groups such as AARP.

    "The White House is not bound. They tell us they're not bound by that agreement," Waxman, the chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, said at a National Journal breakfast. "We're certainly not bound by that agreement. The White House was involved, and we were not."

    So, if you were one of these industry exective who made this deal with the WH, and then you find out the WH doesn't see their part of the agreement as binding, wouldn't you be a little less willing to work with them on this or anything else in the future?

    If you had heard Waxman on NPR (5.00 / 2) (#51)
    by Anne on Thu Jul 09, 2009 at 03:11:09 PM EST
    with Diane Rehm the other day, you would not be so confident, I don't think.  He reeled off the usual talking points, and like many others, including Obama, he seems to think that the answer to all of our health care problems is for everyone to have his or her own shiny insurance policy.  Sigh.  I hear very little talk from anyone in Congress that suggests they understand that what we all need is CARE.

    In their fight to make sure the insurance industry reaps a huge windfall from "reform," it looks to me like Congress is making this so complicated, unwieldy and unintelligible that the one - and maybe only - thing I think we can count on is a clusterfu*k of epic proportions.  And "no one could have anticipated" that result, and the Obama administration will admit to having "misread" the whole thing.

    Are we having fun yet?


    You know who should be crafting the bill? (5.00 / 1) (#84)
    by nycstray on Thu Jul 09, 2009 at 04:20:11 PM EST
    doctors and care givers. period, end of story. The "industry" has had their chance, along with congress and both failed. There wouldn't be any favor trading, lobbying etc. Just professionals from the various walks of the health CARE profession. Then the industries that are killing our health care can figure out how to work within the framework of the health care providers prescription :)

    Your last paragraph is spot on. If I hear "no one could have anticipated" in regards to failed HCR, I have a feeling I'll have an exploding head and multiple broken TeeBees . . . . and it will be really fugly.


    You're killing me with your logic (none / 0) (#87)
    by jbindc on Thu Jul 09, 2009 at 04:29:50 PM EST
    Stop the insanity!

    I hope you have insurance!! (none / 0) (#88)
    by nycstray on Thu Jul 09, 2009 at 04:36:33 PM EST

    I'd put it a little differently. (none / 0) (#40)
    by dk on Thu Jul 09, 2009 at 02:40:14 PM EST
    If American voters found out that their President was striking deals with industry executives regarding federal legislation, would you be less likely to vote for that President in the future?

    Well (none / 0) (#42)
    by jbindc on Thu Jul 09, 2009 at 02:45:38 PM EST
    The WH has already struck deals with industry executives, so the horse has already left the barn on that one.  Now they're saying (via Waxman) that they aren't bound to those deals.

    Not really. (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by dk on Thu Jul 09, 2009 at 02:49:36 PM EST
    The white house can strike deals with whomever it wants, but Congress, not the white house, not industry executives, are the ones who constitutionally are in charge of writing and voting on legislation.

    If the industry executives don't understand the constitution, that's their problem.


    True, but (none / 0) (#65)
    by jbindc on Thu Jul 09, 2009 at 03:45:48 PM EST
    what's to say anybody will talk to the WH if it means that anything they agree to is bound only by them and not the WH?

    Sastre (none / 0) (#39)
    by Sui Juris on Thu Jul 09, 2009 at 02:37:08 PM EST
    can stay with Contador.  But it won't matter.  Cervelo, as much as I like them, is not Astana.  

    And also! begins tomorrow?  Evans, Menchov, and even Gesink wish that were true . . .

    Fair point (none / 0) (#43)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jul 09, 2009 at 02:48:28 PM EST
    It seems almost impossible to think Sastre, et al can get back that time against Contador.

    For those riders, the first 6 stages were incredibly damaging.


    Go take a look at the official site (none / 0) (#49)
    by scribe on Thu Jul 09, 2009 at 03:01:19 PM EST
    for the Tour, here.  And then look at the profiles of the coming stages in the Pyrenees.

    Like Stage 7, tomorrow.  It ends with the last 10.6 kilometers at an almost unbroken 7.1 percent uphill grade.  At the top of a ski mountain.

    It hurts to even think of walking, let alone trying to ride, up that hill.


    Contador (none / 0) (#60)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jul 09, 2009 at 03:31:27 PM EST
    is probably the greatest bike climber in the world.

    Probably (none / 0) (#117)
    by Sui Juris on Thu Jul 09, 2009 at 05:50:25 PM EST
    But we'll see what A. Schleck (cf. Bro. Frank, in the ditch) has to say about that, this year.

    (brief plug for PodiumCafe.com.  Smart commentary/discussion, with minimal LA distraction.  Not my site.  Just a fan/contributor.)


    Size of Stimulus (none / 0) (#53)
    by Jlvngstn on Thu Jul 09, 2009 at 03:11:41 PM EST
    size of stimulus (none / 0) (#16)
    by Jlvngstn on Mon Feb 02, 2009 at 09:50:30 AM EST

    ...One of the major reasons the stimulus is too small is because our elected officials waited too long to put one in the works.  As I stated last June, the free cash stimulus held the economy over for a few months but was a band-aid for gangrene.  
    The substantial increase in downsizing could have been averted had our representatives been busy creating legislation to address the situation.  Instead, you had a party on the left waiting to win the election so they could take credit for a job creation program and a party on the right filled with confusion and failed policies.

    Had a jobs program been passed in September, some of the money would be hitting the street and companies and people would feel cautiously optimistic as opposed to downright scared to spend.  Layoffs and reduced spending are partners and a very costly partnership.

    We have what we have now not only because of CDS, Derivatives, greed etc. Addressing problems before they become crises is leadership.  We saw leadership from no one.

    The longer we go without a stimulus the worse the problem gets and the longer it takes to recover.  An economy our size breaking down takes months to kick-start and get moving again.

    In September of 2008 I stated that any bail out bill without a jobs program should not be passed as it did nothing to address the mounting labor issues which would be a direct contributor to a weaker economy and a weaker financial system.  

    Working Americans keep the economy moving. With more than 10 million unemployed, state gov'ts going broke because the tax revenue losses and more layoffs forthcoming because people are afraid of losing their jobs as well, what did your representative do about it?

    In September I stated that the bailout needed to be at least 1.4 trillion to include jobs and money for states.  Since we waited and allowed the problem to spiral to its current state, the new cost stands at 2.5 trillion.

    So for President Obama and the democratic party, the funding needed has tripled because they wanted to be the heroes.  What they are going to get is a prolonged recession to the middle of 2010 and employment deficits until 2011.  Which could turn out very nicely for Jindal and Romney.

    Today, the great oracle said that a second stimulus is most likely necessary.  

    If (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by jbindc on Thu Jul 09, 2009 at 03:19:41 PM EST
    Obama proposes a second stimulus, that may seal his fate as a one-termer.  People are not seeing the results of the first stimulus as planned, and many see the administration spending oodles of money that we don't have (whether it's actually a good idea or not is a different argument). Already we are seeing independents pull away from Obama (and in fact, in Ohio, Obama is polling below 50%) - of course, these polls don't mean much since Obama is not up for re-election right now, but come the fall, we are in the mid-term races, and lower poll numbers might erase some political capital Obama thinks he has to accomplish other priorities.

    Poll after poll shows voters are leery about a second stimulus plan, although Obama may have no choice and he will be putting everything he has on red to win.  

    One shot - all or nothing.


    job creation (none / 0) (#57)
    by Jlvngstn on Thu Jul 09, 2009 at 03:25:22 PM EST
    and stability will change their mind come next election.  High UE and instability will seal his fate.  

    It will take another 2-3  full years to get a second stimulus spent to near completion which puts it right around election time.  More than 60% of the populace also favored the war in Iraq, and you and I both know how that turned out....


    It will either be stimulus or (none / 0) (#75)
    by Anne on Thu Jul 09, 2009 at 04:00:24 PM EST
    health care, and at the rate things are going, and the mess they are fixing to make of health care, I would gladly sacrifice the Health Insurance Industry Windfall Act in favor of a second stimulus.

    The sad thing is that if they would do health system reform right, it could be stimulative in and of itself.


    Yet another bailout/stimulous? (none / 0) (#71)
    by Sumner on Thu Jul 09, 2009 at 03:54:38 PM EST
    not sure what gs and deepcapture (none / 0) (#82)
    by Jlvngstn on Thu Jul 09, 2009 at 04:17:35 PM EST
    has to do with job creation relative to the stimulus and Jim Cramer is a boob.  Buffett has no political ax to grind as far as I know and several economists stated the first stimulus was woefully inadequate.  

    Anne : I said 6 months ago that the administration was relying too heavily on the stimulative effects of HC reform short term.  I believe long term it will have a significant effect (pending the final bill of course) but short term the rate of job loss is unsustainable to the economy as a whole.

    I fear the inflationary effects in 3-5 years of another stimulus and the 1937 style spike in UE if another stim is passed in a few years.  

    We are again in the same situation as last september where what is politically judicious trumps the needs of people.  We all know our infrastructure is crumbling and we failed to address it in 2006 because we were funding two wars and were googly eyed by the housing bubble.  We cannot fix the errors of the last administration and the price to be paid will be painful.

    We need to change our gross over-consumption but we also have record debt that can only be addressed by employment, foreclosure or bankruptcy as i see it.....


    The global economy was jacked. (none / 0) (#95)
    by Sumner on Thu Jul 09, 2009 at 04:46:09 PM EST
    Perhaps California can do what the federal government does whenever it gets found out - rename the varmint. When the banks turn up their noses at California's I.O.Us tomorrow, perhaps the state can simply rename them to something else.

    Perhaps California can use a massive suggestion box, for a larger idea-pool. If I.O.Us constitute currency, perhaps California could set up a committee to examine all options including secession. As many have already pointed out, Civilization itself is now crumbling.

    The convo at G8 is revolving around a new world reserve currency, we've already blown-out the dollar. If California managed to print its own currency and not be responsible to debt-as-money, economics, it would thrive beyond the global banker's world slavery system coming down-the-pike based on taxing life itself thru carbon taxes.

    California might even just hold out if it could regulate the banks inside the state, and test the court decisions to the contrary, in the meantime.


    a new reserve currency (none / 0) (#109)
    by Jlvngstn on Thu Jul 09, 2009 at 05:16:53 PM EST
    would come with stipulations that China stop manipulating the yuan, which would dramatically improve US exports.  Fortunately for U.S. or us, the banking failure is global as is the recession.  China anticipated 5bn Yuan in credit for the entire year and are at 7.4bn already.  France has overspent and Germany I am not so sure about.  We are all going to suffer through inflation to some degree and simultaneously.  

    So the greater question for me is whether printing money now to stabilize the economy is safer than printing it later to revitalize.  

    In February our gov't conceeded an average 8.5% ue for a 2 year period, we are considerably past that already.  I don't think we are in recovery nor at the tail end of this recession.  I believe October will be black.  Of course I am not an economist so I am not qualified to prognosticate professionally, but we are in a credit crisis that is being doused with accelerant via ue at an untenable pace.  The numbers for recovery even with stabilized UE at 9.5% simply don't add up for me.....


    chronic compound error (none / 0) (#112)
    by Sumner on Thu Jul 09, 2009 at 05:29:56 PM EST
    The events cascade has only just started, the initial dominos have only just fallen. Those unemployment figures are skewed at best, mythical numbers at the extreme. Each person that fails to pay their bills, starts dragging someone else down, down the line.

    The key sign to look for, to know when we are being had: "We have to pass this right away, there isn't time to discuss this."


    And 10% drops in income tax revenue (none / 0) (#118)
    by Cream City on Thu Jul 09, 2009 at 05:53:42 PM EST
    at the least, at federal and state levels, next year . . . so this will not be over soon.

    Orwellian, that dkos diary (none / 0) (#54)
    by Spamlet on Thu Jul 09, 2009 at 03:14:43 PM EST

    It's as if written by elves (5.00 / 1) (#102)
    by Cream City on Thu Jul 09, 2009 at 05:00:28 PM EST
    explaining, at considerable length, why we must simply BELIEVE in Santa Claus -- and based upon that, we will be adjudged naughty or nice.

    Details are emerging (none / 0) (#66)
    by CoralGables on Thu Jul 09, 2009 at 03:46:42 PM EST
    on how Sen Ensign paid money to his mistress after the affair ended. While legal it sure is interesting reading since the money appears to have been paid in gifts from each of Sen Ensign's parents to both the mistress, and her husband, and also to their two children for a total of eight gifts at the max permitted by the IRS.

    Good Article On Hillary (none / 0) (#77)
    by squeaky on Thu Jul 09, 2009 at 04:06:08 PM EST
    By Laura Rozen:

    With foreign-policy speech, Clinton plans to raise her profile

    After missing two overseas trips due to surgery to repair a broken elbow, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton plans to deliver a major foreign-policy speech at the Council on Foreign Relations in Washington next week before departing for India and the ASEAN conference in Thailand on Friday, July 17, aides say.

    If Congress (none / 0) (#78)
    by eric on Thu Jul 09, 2009 at 04:13:11 PM EST
    passes a health care reform bill with a legitimate "public option", how many people will immediately quit their jobs?  I am serious about this.  I think that a LOT of people keep working at jobs they hate simply for health care benefits.

    If there is an option to be covered by a government program, it opens up the option to work at another job that doesn't have benefits, work part-time instead, start one's own business, or maybe even take some time off.

    Depends (none / 0) (#79)
    by andgarden on Thu Jul 09, 2009 at 04:15:55 PM EST
    Does Congress have the guts to make the public plan free for most people?

    Well, if not (none / 0) (#83)
    by eric on Thu Jul 09, 2009 at 04:18:36 PM EST
    free, means tested.  Those that have little should pay less.  And the key would be that it is guaranteed.

    Here's what I worry about a little bit (none / 0) (#85)
    by andgarden on Thu Jul 09, 2009 at 04:24:04 PM EST
    If it takes too much paperwork to get covered, how many kids are going to fall through the cracks?

    IMO the public plan should be more like public schools and less like welfare.


    May depend on the state (none / 0) (#89)
    by nycstray on Thu Jul 09, 2009 at 04:38:57 PM EST
    here there was just another all out effort to get the kids/low income families covered. Schools involved etc. Iirc, we can (in NY) cover all the children etc.

    Honestly, I don't like the idea of having it (none / 0) (#93)
    by andgarden on Thu Jul 09, 2009 at 04:42:56 PM EST
    depend on the state. there should be one nationally administered public plan, and hospitals should be required to presume membership.

    Well, it's all pretty pointless (none / 0) (#97)
    by dk on Thu Jul 09, 2009 at 04:50:59 PM EST
    unless healthy employed adults are allowed to participate in the public plan as well.  Otherwise, it's just a windfall to insurance companies and reshuffling deck chairs.

    No question: it should be for everyone. (none / 0) (#98)
    by andgarden on Thu Jul 09, 2009 at 04:52:46 PM EST
    Agree (none / 0) (#103)
    by squeaky on Thu Jul 09, 2009 at 05:02:04 PM EST
    That everyone should have the option to join a public option, although I think that if only uninsured people are the only ones that join it would not be "just reshuffling the deck chairs"

    If that group had regular coverage, regular checkups, and hospital coverage, the federal government would wind up saving major amounts of money through preventative medicine (regular checkups) and reducing to a trickle the only public option available today for the uninsured, namely expensive emergency room visits.


    The problem, though, (none / 0) (#111)
    by dk on Thu Jul 09, 2009 at 05:25:31 PM EST
    is that without allowing healthy employed adults participate in the public plan, the public plan will be economically unsustainable.  

    Also, wouldn't it leave an opening for (none / 0) (#124)
    by nycstray on Thu Jul 09, 2009 at 06:33:45 PM EST
    Insurance companies to abuse employer based participants worse than they already are. I'm thinking of "the plan" O mentioned about people with employer based insurance not being a part of the public option/not being able to choose it.

    Dawg knows I was beginning to feel abused/robbed when I had it.


    You're correct. That was a poor way for me to (none / 0) (#104)
    by nycstray on Thu Jul 09, 2009 at 05:03:02 PM EST
    answer. I should have left off the "depends on the state" and said, "well here we have been . . ." since it's more about access etc. They did make a pretty big push when the economy crashed to make sure NYers who needed help getting HI/HC knew there were options. Some were practically begging people to at least get the children covered.

    Well, that's obviously a good thing (none / 0) (#107)
    by andgarden on Thu Jul 09, 2009 at 05:05:51 PM EST
    I think SCHIP actually allows for almost all children to be covered.

    Wouldn't it be nice (none / 0) (#108)
    by nycstray on Thu Jul 09, 2009 at 05:14:05 PM EST
    if in the near future they could be practically begging us to join a "robust public plan"?

    {sigh} So if Schip is working, Medicare is working . . .


    Interesting theory (none / 0) (#80)
    by jbindc on Thu Jul 09, 2009 at 04:16:21 PM EST
    Count me as one who is working at I job I don't really care for (I don't HATE it - it has some upsides), but it would be a little freeing to know I could leave and still have health insurance.

    Might also help the unemployment, as people move out of jobs to pursue their passions, other people who are looking for work, could take those vacated jobs.


    I know at least 3... (none / 0) (#94)
    by kdog on Thu Jul 09, 2009 at 04:44:45 PM EST
    people who would quit immediately, as long as the coverage and care was comparable to what they've got and it wasn't a major hassle.

    Not me though...its that paycheck thingy that keeps me going:)

    You might be onto something...probably part of the reason some are against the public option, could cause a shortage of worker-bees in some sectors and raise wages.  


    I know (none / 0) (#101)
    by eric on Thu Jul 09, 2009 at 04:58:57 PM EST
    one for sure.  She is sick (really sick) but can't leave her job.

    Also, I think of those situations where both parents work, but one parent works just for the health care coverage.  I have known office staff that barely make enough to cover the daycare, but they need the coverage because their spouses work in jobs that don't come with coverage.  If there is a public option, that one parent can stay home.


    That would be great for the kids... (5.00 / 1) (#110)
    by kdog on Thu Jul 09, 2009 at 05:20:43 PM EST
    I'm seeing more positives to it then I previously had.

    "What about the children!" has been used to justify plenty of nastiness, why not whip it out here?


    There are also those that joing the armed service (none / 0) (#106)
    by nycstray on Thu Jul 09, 2009 at 05:05:32 PM EST
    to get HC for their families. How F***ed up is that?!

    DOMA challenge (none / 0) (#86)
    by CST on Thu Jul 09, 2009 at 04:24:54 PM EST
    In the works.  Go Martha!


    Sorry about the link, I can't run scripts...

    Roland Burris out of the running (none / 0) (#115)
    by caseyOR on Thu Jul 09, 2009 at 05:47:40 PM EST
    Chris Cilizza at the WaPo is reporting that Senator Roland Burris [will not run for electionhttp://voices.washingtonpost.com/thefix/blagojevich/burris-to-retire.html?hpid=topnews to a full term as senator.]

    Is anybody surprised?

    Sorry for the link (none / 0) (#116)
    by caseyOR on Thu Jul 09, 2009 at 05:48:26 PM EST
    Not sure why it didn't work.

    Women only pharmacy opening in (none / 0) (#122)
    by oculus on Thu Jul 09, 2009 at 06:26:00 PM EST
    Vancouver.  Woman interviewed on NPR sd. if a male comes to ask for his prescription to be filled, she will explain why only women may do so there.  I would hope this wouldn't fly in U.S.  Too close to pharmacist refusing to fill certain prescriptions due to pharmacists religious beliefs.  

    My, my... (none / 0) (#127)
    by Radiowalla on Thu Jul 09, 2009 at 09:14:15 PM EST
    I wager they will be out of business before long.  

    I don't know about that (none / 0) (#131)
    by sj on Fri Jul 10, 2009 at 10:05:27 AM EST
    I heard part of that report.  Other pharmacy services available in that area sounded pretty bad (plexiglass security, etc) and this pharmacy would be a completely different experience.  I believe they were going to also offer some sort of community outreach in the area of Women's Health.  It will be non-profit with the profits being reinvested in (I think) the outreach and educational programs.

    It sounded pretty cool.  I didn't know it was going to be in Vancouver.  It probably has more chance of success there than here.  I hope they make it.


    Hilarious! (none / 0) (#123)
    by robert72 on Thu Jul 09, 2009 at 06:28:24 PM EST
    Look at the picture at the top of Drudge this afternoon.... It needs a caption - quick!

    Oops... (none / 0) (#126)
    by robert72 on Thu Jul 09, 2009 at 07:47:12 PM EST
    Not funny at all. That's the 16 year old daughter of the president of Brazil.