home

Some Saturday News and Open Thread

By Jeralyn, Section Blog Related
Posted on Sat Aug 01, 2009 at 12:33:00 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit
  • A federal judge in PA has rejected the plea agreement for the former judges who engaged in a kickback scheme that sent juveniles to private detention facilities.

What are you finding of interest today? this is an open thread, all topics welcome.

< Friday Night Open Thread | Wrongful Convictions Have an Impact on Victims >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Some Saturday News and Open Thread | 91 comments (91 topical)
    That's $22,500 per song (5.00 / 0) (#2)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Aug 01, 2009 at 12:51:00 PM EST
    You can probably buy and download them on Amazon for ninety nine cents each...

    btw, (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by cpinva on Sat Aug 01, 2009 at 01:39:24 PM EST
    michael phelps seriously trounced milorad "boy, do i have a big yap!" cavic in the 100m butterfly, setting yet another world record. he did this in his speedo.

    sometimes, it just doesn't pay to be a jerk in public! lol

    Re case of "faith-based parents" (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by Cream City on Sat Aug 01, 2009 at 02:41:47 PM EST
    whose daughter died of diabetes because they refused to seek medical care, a case that was discussed here a couple of days ago, the jury is deliberating now on the father.  Per the AP:

    Updated: Aug. 1, 2009 1:45 p.m. | Wausau - A central Wisconsin jury deliberating in the trial of a father charged with killing his dying daughter by praying instead of taking her to a doctor has asked the judge if the man's faith made him "not liable."

    The jury is in its second day of deliberations and submitted the question to the judge after five hours of deliberations Saturday.

    Dale Neumann is charged with second-degree reckless homicide. He testified this week that he couldn't seek medical help for his 11-year-old daughter without disobeying God. The girl died of undiagnosed diabetes.

    The jury asked the judge whether Neumann's belief in faith healing made him "not liable" for not seeking medical care even if he knew his daughter was sick.

    Howard told the panel to study their jury instructions for the answer.

    Btw, I don't know if others here following this case realize that the mother already was convicted.  And I don't recall that the jury had this question in that case.  If this jury differs on that basis, this will get even more interesting.

    And case is being live-blogged (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by Cream City on Sat Aug 01, 2009 at 02:45:54 PM EST
    by the local paper, if interested in more detail.

    And if interested in the apology from the reporter for no updates for a while today -- because it's farmer's market day there, and here as well, which reminds me to get going for some yummy lunch, too.  But I bet that Wausau's farmer's market doesn't offer what my neighborhood one does: a crepe cart.

    Parent

    that's kind of a scary question. (none / 0) (#16)
    by cpinva on Sat Aug 01, 2009 at 03:06:41 PM EST
    are they suggesting that mr. neumann's religious beliefs were so totally irrational, that only an insane person would hold to them, rendering him not liable for his actions?.

    other than that, his religious beliefs don't give him leave to knowingly cause harm to others. that's never been considered part of the establishment clause.

    Parent

    I think so, too, so am interested (none / 0) (#18)
    by Cream City on Sat Aug 01, 2009 at 03:32:31 PM EST
    in others' thoughts here, especially from lawyers who may have insight into the jury's question and what it may portend.  Note from the link that this jury reported itself deadlocked yesterday, the first day, but was ordered to try again.  Note also that in the mother's case, the jury took only four hours to decide to convict.

    Parent
    I don't think that's the idea. (none / 0) (#82)
    by Fabian on Sun Aug 02, 2009 at 06:46:18 AM EST
    Insanity is real, and another issue entirely.

    I think the situations where religion versus medicine is a murky area is where neither has the advantage.  The options that medicine offers are sometimes risky and uncertainty.  Religion can often offer some measure of moral, emotional and spiritual support that medicine can't.  It's sometimes a question of what you believe will be more beneficial.

    In this story, the family was urged repeatedly by others to seek medical attention.  The parents didn't seek medical help at all, not even once.  The time period is long, the symptoms were significant and debilitating.  There's no doubt that the parents knew something was very wrong with their daughter.  They knew that others thought she should be seen by a doctor.

    There's not a lot of doubt.  The child was very ill.  The parents were aware of it.  The parents chose, over and over again, to refuse even to take her to see a doctor.  They were willing to sacrifice her health and life for their beliefs.  

    That is wrong.  "My beliefs(/relationship with G_d) is more important than another's life." is wrong.  It's the best argument for the separation of church and state I've ever seen.

    Parent

    Update: There is a verdict (none / 0) (#19)
    by Cream City on Sat Aug 01, 2009 at 03:34:14 PM EST
    as reported on the live blog.  But what it is remains to be seen.

    Parent
    Verdict: Guilty (none / 0) (#20)
    by Cream City on Sat Aug 01, 2009 at 03:35:56 PM EST
    says the paper's front page.  Same as for the mother.  Interviews with the jury, if done, may be interesting re those questions it asked.

    Parent
    Do you know (none / 0) (#85)
    by BackFromOhio on Sun Aug 02, 2009 at 01:14:41 PM EST
    why child welfare authorities did not intervene earlier to prevent the death -- or if they tried and the faith-based claims of the parents prevailed?

    Thanks.

    Parent

    Hope you see this (none / 0) (#89)
    by Cream City on Sun Aug 02, 2009 at 05:53:41 PM EST
    because my comments are being deleted here, without explanation -- and I'm only back briefly, because another commenter is going over the line to the point of scary. . . .  But to your courteous request, I can tell you that the whole, long answer can be found in files of wausauherald.com, jsonline.com, etc.  It's a complicated case.

    Bye.

    Parent

    Thanks,Cream (5.00 / 1) (#92)
    by BackFromOhio on Sun Aug 02, 2009 at 07:03:27 PM EST


    Parent
    I have deleted comments between (none / 0) (#91)
    by Jeralyn on Sun Aug 02, 2009 at 06:58:12 PM EST
    you and another poster that turned into a name-calling, insulting back and forth. The comments were unfair to both of you and made other readers uncomfortable. Everyone needs to refrain from attacking other posters and name-calling.

    Parent
    Please, then, delete the (none / 0) (#93)
    by Cream City on Sun Aug 02, 2009 at 07:32:02 PM EST
    last words from that person, as the exchange stands without my reply, which is a disservice to me.

    G'bye.

    Parent

    CC, please e mail Jeralyn. Don't (none / 0) (#94)
    by oculus on Sun Aug 02, 2009 at 07:35:39 PM EST
    leave.  

    Parent
    Good. Obama speaks out (5.00 / 2) (#25)
    by Cream City on Sat Aug 01, 2009 at 05:04:54 PM EST
    well on the health care coverage plan, from a soundbyte just seen on CNN.  A bit of passion back in his voice, which is what is needed -- for a start.  Let's see what happens in Congressional recess. . . .

    Except he said . . . (5.00 / 2) (#33)
    by nycstray on Sat Aug 01, 2009 at 06:14:25 PM EST
    "This historic step," Obama said, "moves us closer to health insurance reform than we have ever been before."

    link

    Check out Rep. Weiner here and here

    Parent

    More Democrats like (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by MO Blue on Sat Aug 01, 2009 at 09:13:07 PM EST
    Rep. Weiner, please.

    Parent
    I'm in the same camp as you . . . (5.00 / 2) (#60)
    by nycstray on Sat Aug 01, 2009 at 09:35:06 PM EST
    More please

    He did some good work supporting Hillary in the primaries and also did a great smackdown of a CA Rep re: 9/11 health funding. I say we encourage him to speak out.

    Parent

    More from Weiner (5.00 / 5) (#35)
    by nycstray on Sat Aug 01, 2009 at 06:25:36 PM EST
    The public option would prompt Americans to ask a basic question of the insurance company that is chasing their business: "What is it that you guys do, exactly?"

    Link

    Parent

    Love that guy! (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by gyrfalcon on Sat Aug 01, 2009 at 09:09:56 PM EST


    Parent
    I call it "Brooklyn in da House!" (none / 0) (#59)
    by nycstray on Sat Aug 01, 2009 at 09:31:33 PM EST
    He's not my Rep, but I've seen mine also go the the mat. Especially on woman's issues. It's so going to suck when I move to a Red district!!!

    I've got to give him a lot of credit for his plain/street speak. We all get that. We just need to make sure he gets the support he needs on the floor and hopefully the airwaves :)

    Parent

    More (none / 0) (#61)
    by squeaky on Sat Aug 01, 2009 at 09:35:23 PM EST
    Anthony Wiener offered an amendment to repeal Medicare. It was, by his own admission, intended as a political trap to force the Republican members to vote for single-payer health care. It was a hilarious debate to watch.

    [snip]

    The debate on Wiener's amendment got pretty heated, with Rep. Steve Buyer calling Wiener an "intellectual smart-ass" and Wiener calling all the Republicans hypocrites (with good reason, though). Initially, Chairman Waxman not amused by the amendment, since he was trying to keep the markup moving quickly in order to finish on Friday. By the end of the debate, though, Waxman was clearly enjoying it. In the end, despite Wiener's "double-dare", all the Republicans voted no (how often do you see a unanimous "no" vote?), thus proving on the 44th anniversary of the signing of the Medicare Act that nobody's going to mess with Medicare anytime soon.

    yglesias via digby


    Parent

    Heh . . . (none / 0) (#62)
    by nycstray on Sat Aug 01, 2009 at 09:40:29 PM EST
    Waxman was clearly enjoying it.

    Was Waxman the one who asked him to speak English? Dawg, that was funny, imo :)

    Parent

    Now that's (5.00 / 2) (#76)
    by cal1942 on Sat Aug 01, 2009 at 11:55:27 PM EST
    a proper US Representative.

    Bless the people of his district for electing him to office.  Please keep voting to re-elect him for as long as he cares to serve.

    Damn is that ever refreshing.

    Fill the House and Senate with people like Weiner and this country will actually have a future.

    Parent

    Anyone know if this is on video? Obama doesn't (none / 0) (#71)
    by jawbone on Sat Aug 01, 2009 at 10:35:29 PM EST
    usually have much passion about health CARE. Digital medical records, not that's something he does show enthusiam for.

    Parent
    For those old enough....... (5.00 / 2) (#26)
    by NYShooter on Sat Aug 01, 2009 at 05:14:36 PM EST
    to remember:

    Since getting "both sides of the story" is of paramount importance, ABC should get Professor Irwin Corey to debate Malkin.

    Finally, A Debate of Equals!"

    I don't know (none / 0) (#75)
    by cal1942 on Sat Aug 01, 2009 at 11:38:29 PM EST
    I don't think that Malkin can rise to his level.

    Parent
    Nice move by Prof. Gates (5.00 / 2) (#28)
    by Peter G on Sat Aug 01, 2009 at 05:34:03 PM EST
    He sent a big bouquet of roses to the woman who made the 911 call, and who didn't say "two black males with backpacks."

    It is alleged Prof. Gates sd., why (none / 0) (#36)
    by oculus on Sat Aug 01, 2009 at 06:27:40 PM EST
    would you believe a white woman over a black man?

    Parent
    Oculus (none / 0) (#50)
    by squeaky on Sat Aug 01, 2009 at 08:16:40 PM EST
    The Cambridge Police spokesperson...  a little PR job on the side?

    Parent
    Link? Alleged or said by whom? n/t (none / 0) (#72)
    by jawbone on Sat Aug 01, 2009 at 10:36:12 PM EST


    Parent
    Here is the link. CNN interview of (none / 0) (#80)
    by oculus on Sun Aug 02, 2009 at 01:33:34 AM EST
    Sgt. Lashley, who sd. he heard Prof. Gates say I am being arrested in my own home because a white woman called police.  CNN

    Parent
    Why didn't we think of this: (none / 0) (#41)
    by oculus on Sat Aug 01, 2009 at 06:48:06 PM EST
    "sudssummit."AP

    Parent
    Did you see the picture (5.00 / 2) (#54)
    by robert72 on Sat Aug 01, 2009 at 08:43:01 PM EST
    of the three coming down the stairs of the White House at the end of the talks? Mr. Gates' friend Obama is charging ahead to the press and photographers, and the horrible racist cop is gently and politely helping Mr. Gates down the steps. Sometimes a picture is worth a thousand words.
    I don't have a link, but the picture is called afterbeers_ps  - just google it.

    Parent
    think a little deeper (5.00 / 0) (#57)
    by NYShooter on Sat Aug 01, 2009 at 09:17:20 PM EST
    A person doesn't have to be fire breathing, noose carrying wildman to act out racist behavior.  One can even believe themselves to be an enlightened, progressive, fair minded person, and still, occasionally,  behave in a racist manner.

    The question isn't whether Mr. Crowley is a racist; the question is, did Mr. Crowley act in a racist manner?

    The answer is, Mr. Crowley may be a "nice" man, and yet he succumbed to racial stereotyping in his outrageous arrest of Mr. Gates.


    Parent

    NO (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by squeaky on Sat Aug 01, 2009 at 09:23:18 PM EST
    The question is whether Sgt Crowely acted in an willfully illegal manner entering the house of a citizen and arresting him regardless of his race.

    Parent
    LOL (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by NYShooter on Sat Aug 01, 2009 at 10:04:31 PM EST
    Even accounting for the fact that your retorts to me seem to trigger some type of involuntary, uncontrollable reflex mechanism in your psyche, where, pray tell, do we differ?

    I would argue, however, that Mr. Crowley doesn't think he acted in a[n] willfully illegal manner."


    Parent

    So isn't it almost as ugly (5.00 / 1) (#67)
    by robert72 on Sat Aug 01, 2009 at 10:17:25 PM EST
    to call people racist when you don't have all the facts?
    How do you know he succumbed to racial stereotyping? How do you call it outrageous when you were not there and you don't really know what happened?
    Maybe you are right, and Mr. Crowley did the wrong thing. But if you have read anything about the man - that is rather unlikely. Can you not accept that you could be wrong, and Mr. Gates was so outrageous that either a black or a white man would have been arrested? Yes - it could have easily been that way.
    You must be careful when you say the word 'racist'. Racism is nasty, ugly and horrid. But this term is used indiscriminately with liberals. Don't think Obama is awesome? Racist. Say that he isn't keeping his promises? Racist. Didn't vote for him? Racist. A cop arrested a black professor? It must be racist.
    The real meaning and horror of that word is thrown at anyone who doesn't agree with you (plural) and the real meaning of that terrible word is becoming lost.

    Parent
    yes it is (none / 0) (#84)
    by Jeralyn on Sun Aug 02, 2009 at 01:13:09 PM EST
    ugly and potentially libelous to call people racists and when I see comment that states that about anyone, I delete it.

    Parent
    no one's given (none / 0) (#81)
    by The Last Whimzy on Sun Aug 02, 2009 at 01:47:36 AM EST
    a good reason why it's a bad idea to say "two black males with backpacks," if that's what you see?

    this tangent on the entire incident might have proved crowely a liar, but it also proved that people piling on to call people racist had no valid reason to do so.

    which begs the question why?

    Parent

    Wow (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by squeaky on Sat Aug 01, 2009 at 09:49:40 PM EST
    US first effort to punish the (non) coup in Honduras, via raw story
    The United States this week cancelled diplomatic visas for four members of the interim government, and Micheletti on Friday threatened to retaliate by cancelling visas of US diplomats.

    But don't mess with Micheletti, he snapped back:

    "The [Honduras] government ... reserves the right to apply reciprocity in canceling the visas of diplomatic and consular personnel of the United States," read a government statement.

    This is after some more bloodshed, 3000 supporters of Zelaya marching on the capitol,  and a group of Zelaya supporters training in Nicaragua near the Honduras border.

    Not much of a gesture from the US which is one of the few countries in the world that has not recognized the Micheletti takeover as a coup. Thing is if the US does call it a coup, congress has mandated that all non humanitarian $$ cease.

    That is a pretty penny. The US money is still flowing to Micheletti's government.


    Update (none / 0) (#102)
    by squeaky on Sun Aug 02, 2009 at 10:02:44 PM EST
    Regarding the canceling diplomatic visas. Evidentially is does not mean a thing. Just a bit of Smart Power rhetoric. lol

    Tourist visas for these individuals, however, have not been revoked, which means they are still free to travel to the US. No ban has been placed on members of the coup regime to prohibit entry to the US. That is the key. The mere revocation of diplomatic visas is by no means a sign of US pressure on the coup regime. It was minimal effort to comply with the law.

    eva

    Parent

    Go Al (5.00 / 1) (#74)
    by squeaky on Sat Aug 01, 2009 at 11:23:00 PM EST
    Politico via emptywheel
    Five years after he put his money behind the Swift Boat ads that helped tank John Kerry's presidential campaign, Senate Democrats gave T. Boone Pickens a warm welcome at their weekly policy lunch Thursday.

    Or at least most of them did.

    Kerry skipped the regularly scheduled lunch; his staff said the Massachusetts Democrat "was unable to attend because he had a long scheduled lunch with his interns and pages."

    Sen. Al Franken managed to make time for the lunch -- but then let Pickens have it afterward.

    According to a source, the wealthy oil and gas magnate and author of "The First Billion Is the Hardest" stepped up to introduce himself to Franken in a room just off the Senate Floor after the lunch ended

    Franken, who was seated talking to someone else, did not stand when Pickens said hello. Instead, Franken began to berate him about the billionaire's financing of the Swift Boat ads in 2004.
    I am in complete agreement re the (5.00 / 1) (#96)
    by oculus on Sun Aug 02, 2009 at 07:43:56 PM EST
    regurgitating of information from long ago comments.  Seems quite distructive to good order and open discussion here. Also, the name-calling is tolerated from the instigator.

    the comment you are replying to (none / 0) (#99)
    by Jeralyn on Sun Aug 02, 2009 at 09:30:58 PM EST
    has been deleted for accusing a poster here of amassing personal information and by implication, this site of ignoring it.

    The first I heard of the dispute between two posters here was this morning. I cleaned the thread of insults on both sides and wrote both participants.

    Open threads are not invitations to bully, name-call or personally attack or accuse other posters of personal misconduct. This blog has never tolerated these things.

    As for trotting out a commenter's past comments on threads of different topics, that is almost never warranted or relevant. Commenting here is intended to give readers the opportunity to state their opinions and discuss matters of interest to them.

    Whoever makes a thread uncomfortable to read through, overly personal or intimidating to others who might want to comment but don't want to be ridiculed, will be suspended.

    And while I'm at it, the elections are over. You may not call people cult-like, PUMAs, Obamabats, etc. Those are being used in a derogatory fashion by some here. Disagree with the idea, don't trash the person posting.

    Parent

    No Oculus, it is not (none / 0) (#100)
    by Jeralyn on Sun Aug 02, 2009 at 09:37:42 PM EST
    I deleted name-calling and offensive comments by both of these posters. I spent more than an hour this morning going back through both posters last 100 comments and ratings to 4 days ago. If I missed any, feel free to send it to me.

    I do not read all the comments on this site. Unless someone emails me about an offensive comment, I likely won't see it. Neither post abused the "1" ratings.

    Parent

    neither poster (none / 0) (#101)
    by Jeralyn on Sun Aug 02, 2009 at 09:41:55 PM EST
    not neither post.

    Parent
    Thank you for your attention. (none / 0) (#103)
    by oculus on Mon Aug 03, 2009 at 12:03:19 AM EST


    Parent
    This is only the second American ... (none / 0) (#1)
    by Robot Porter on Sat Aug 01, 2009 at 12:46:04 PM EST
    to be go to trial over file-sharing of music.

    But this case seems different from the previous.  In this case, he attempted to settle, but the settlement wasn't accepted.

    There's been steady coveage... (none / 0) (#5)
    by EL seattle on Sat Aug 01, 2009 at 12:56:52 PM EST
    ... of this trial at the Copyright and Campaigns website, including an post-trial interview with one of the jurors.

    Excerpt:

    On the jury deliberations:

    We worked in a spirit of true compromise. We worked very well together. It wasn't easy to get to a number.... The jurors were very fair, very diligent, very careful. It gave me confidence we made the right decision.


    Parent

    This is interesting ... (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by Robot Porter on Sat Aug 01, 2009 at 01:06:16 PM EST
    from that sight you mention:

    And he continued to infringe, even after his father warned him in 2002 that he would get sued, even after he received a harshly-worded letter from the plaintiffs' law firm in 2005, even after he was sued in 2007, and all the way through part of 2008.


    Parent
    Very savvy juror. At least his comments (none / 0) (#7)
    by oculus on Sat Aug 01, 2009 at 01:06:49 PM EST
    shouldn't form the basis for a mistrial.  Wish all jurors were as circumspect.

    Parent
    His lawyer claims they're ... (none / 0) (#10)
    by Robot Porter on Sat Aug 01, 2009 at 01:21:34 PM EST
    going to appeal based on fair use.

    Wouldn't a better appeal be on the use of MediaSentry?  The software tool that was used to gather the data on his filesharing.

    The RIAA discontinued its use in January of this year for "undisclosed reasons."  But most believe it's due to increasing civil rights challenges over its use.

    Also, supposedly. MediaSentry, cannot prove a file was shared other than to MediaSentry itself. It can only show that the file was available for sharing.

    Parent

    I really don't care--this is simply malicious (none / 0) (#73)
    by jawbone on Sat Aug 01, 2009 at 10:39:23 PM EST
    overkill on the part of the RIAA>

    I've decided I'm probaly old enough to never purchase another thing with their hooks into it.

    They're just being wildly unfair. There must be a legal term for it.

    Parent

    I don't care for the ICE admin. warrants. (none / 0) (#3)
    by oculus on Sat Aug 01, 2009 at 12:51:35 PM EST
    Do my Senators know about this?  Did they authorize it?

    Kudos to the federal judge who reject the state court judges plea bargain.

    Man, $675k for 30 songs? (none / 0) (#4)
    by jtaylorr on Sat Aug 01, 2009 at 12:54:30 PM EST
    If I were ever caught, my bill would be in the hundreds of millions! And my library is tiny compared to some of my friends.

    If you used your campus email (none / 0) (#9)
    by Cream City on Sat Aug 01, 2009 at 01:11:38 PM EST
    stop talking about it now.

    That's a big part of the problem.  Cases I've seen, including one locally, arose owing to use of campus email at campuses where email is public record and/or private campuses caved to pressure to open records.

    Parent

    Bill Maher had his best show, evah! (none / 0) (#8)
    by ChiTownDenny on Sat Aug 01, 2009 at 01:09:44 PM EST
    If you don't subscribe to HBO, as I don't, you can catch Real Time with Bill Maher on YouTube.  No tangents, for a change.  The facts and opinions are on topic.  And he (sorta) redeems himself with a parallel of Whitewater and the "birther" movement in his New Rules segment.  Must see YouTube.

    won't watch (5.00 / 2) (#46)
    by bocajeff on Sat Aug 01, 2009 at 07:17:14 PM EST
    He was (and is?) one of the early and 'influential' people who questioned Sarah Palin's pregnancy to Trig. Unless you have definitive proof I find this line of questioning to be vile...Either you respect women or you don't...

    Parent
    Can't say I disagree. (none / 0) (#47)
    by ChiTownDenny on Sat Aug 01, 2009 at 07:55:09 PM EST
    Maher's conduct during the Dem primaries proves your point.  I've just decided he's not O'Reilly or Beck.  The parallel he drew of Whitewater and the birther movement was eye-opening.  

    Parent
    perhaps, (none / 0) (#11)
    by cpinva on Sat Aug 01, 2009 at 01:35:57 PM EST
    if the buying public stopped buying music from the big boys, they might reconsider their ill-considered lawsuits. i know, it probably is copyright infringement. that said, since the artist isn't going to get a cent of that jury award (they never do, oddly enough), why should the big distributors suck even more blood out of them?

    if this boy were really, really smart, he'd be working on a high school/college/university wide boycot of the major labels, on his own isp of course.

    probably not, and they don't care:

    Do my Senators know about this?  Did they authorize it?

    good for that federal judge. i personally hope those two enjoy their stay, as guests of the penal system. i also hope there are civil suits being filed against them, so they have nothing to look forward to when released.

    The artist will get nothing (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by shoephone on Sat Aug 01, 2009 at 02:07:19 PM EST
    Many musicians don't own the publishing rights to their own music, and royalty payments are all over the map. (It depends on the music company and how good the artist's lawyers are.) Most musicians make so little on the sale of their recordings they have to go on tour in order to earn a decent living -- and a lot of the revenue from the tour is in merchandise (t-shirts, hats, etc.). It's a lot like being an author who gets the $25,000 advance but has go on a book signing/reading tour to sell the product, for which maybe only 20,000 copies have been pressed for the first printing. Regardless the amount of the advance, it all has to be paid back and then some -- because musicians often incur their own recording studio and touring costs upfront.

    The whole system stinks. The people who create the music get screwed and music fans who don't want to spend upwards of $20 for a new CD get screwed. The music companies have made out like bandits for years.

    Parent

    Songwriters Get Something (none / 0) (#22)
    by Randinho on Sat Aug 01, 2009 at 04:24:07 PM EST
    When a recording of a song is manufactured or a song is legally downloaded, the mechanical rights are split evenly between the songwriter(s) and music publishers, unless the songwriter specifically sells his rights to someone else, an unusual occurrence in this day.

    Parent
    Must Watch Clip... (none / 0) (#17)
    by kevsters on Sat Aug 01, 2009 at 03:27:48 PM EST
    You absolutely must watch this clip of pure economic stupidity on the part of The Glenn Beck Show.

    Holy Cow!!!

    http://progressnotcongress.org/?p=2369

    Well, the Soviet Union did work (none / 0) (#21)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Aug 01, 2009 at 04:09:10 PM EST
    so well, didn't it?

    The fact that central planning has never worked aside... can you tell me why my tax money should be used to buy a car for someone???

    Parent

    I understand that is a theory (none / 0) (#27)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Aug 01, 2009 at 05:22:26 PM EST
    that doesn't seem to work very well.

    As Biden said, We need to spend more to keep from going bankrupt.

    hehe

    The other points are that this does distort demand, say from buying a fridge to buying a car. It also pulls demand forward, kind of a robbing next year for this year.

    If Obama wanted to get the economy started he would announce an extension of the Bush tax cuts which are scheduled to go away next year, chop the corporate tax by 75% and just do away with capital gains taxes for two years.

    But Obama doesn't want that. He wants to be King. To do that he must insure that all the serfs are beholding.

    9.5% now.... 17% in Michigan....11% nationwide by 10/1....

    Parent

    more money in fewer hands? (5.00 / 3) (#30)
    by Dadler on Sat Aug 01, 2009 at 05:45:02 PM EST
    that's the effect of what you propose.

    more money in more hands is what we need.  well, actually, we need a complete rethining of money and its purpose, but i won't hold my breath on that one.

    as it is, we have, in reality, a terribly regressive tax system.  which warren buffet so accurately summed up in this, by now, well known quote:

    Speaking at a $4,600-a-seat fundraiser in New York for Senator Hillary Clinton, Mr Buffett, who is worth an estimated $52 billion (£26 billion), said: "The 400 of us [here] pay a lower part of our income in taxes than our receptionists do, or our cleaning ladies, for that matter. If you're in the luckiest 1 per cent of humanity, you owe it to the rest of humanity to think about the other 99 per cent."

    Mr Buffett said that he was taxed at 17.7 per cent on the $46 million he made last year, without trying to avoid paying higher taxes, while his secretary, who earned $60,000, was taxed at 30 per cent. Mr Buffett told his audience, which included John Mack, the chairman of Morgan Stanley, and Alan Patricof, the founder of the US branch of Apax Partners, that US government policy had accentuated a disparity of wealth that hurt the economy by stifling opportunity and motivation.

    Link

    Parent

    Incredible (5.00 / 1) (#77)
    by cal1942 on Sun Aug 02, 2009 at 12:21:30 AM EST
    PPJ you are consistently clueless.

    Even a stopped clock is correct twice a day.  You can't even manage that.

    Parent

    The Latest Palindrone (none / 0) (#31)
    by squeaky on Sat Aug 01, 2009 at 05:49:07 PM EST
    AlaskaReport has learned this morning that Todd Palin and former Alaska governor Sarah Palin are to divorce. Multiple sources in Wasilla and Anchorage have confirmed the news.

    [snip]

    Sarah has recently purchased land in Montana and is considering moving the family there. Sarah Palin is originally from Idaho.

    Todd Palin told Fox News last week that he was heading back to his job in the oil fields of Alaska, yet Sarah recently signed a book deal reportedly worth $11 million.

    alaska report

    Isnt (5.00 / 4) (#44)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Aug 01, 2009 at 06:51:18 PM EST
    the Alaska Report the one that claimed Palin was resigning because of an impending scandal that never materialized? They sound like the Alaskan version of Ken Starr.

    Parent
    Hate to spoil your high (5.00 / 2) (#48)
    by Inspector Gadget on Sat Aug 01, 2009 at 07:59:30 PM EST
    but it appears the story has been debunked, and the commentary is worth a read.

    Parent
    Ah, but Facebook is (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by Cream City on Sat Aug 01, 2009 at 08:21:35 PM EST
    a reliable source for the Alaska Report.  And for some here.:-)

    Parent
    If the report is not false, (5.00 / 1) (#65)
    by Peter G on Sat Aug 01, 2009 at 10:11:35 PM EST
    although it probably is, I hope she succeeds at becoming a dental floss tycoon.

    Parent
    Good One (none / 0) (#70)
    by squeaky on Sat Aug 01, 2009 at 10:28:22 PM EST
    Had not heard that tune in over thirty years. As far as I can tell your musical taste is impeccable.

    Thanks for that, and the others.

    Parent

    More (none / 0) (#32)
    by squeaky on Sat Aug 01, 2009 at 05:52:27 PM EST
    The Ventura County Star reports that Palin is canceling her commitment to speak at the 50th anniversary celebratory dinner of the Simi Valley Republican Women, Federated at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library and Museum.

    abc

    Guess she is working on her book instead.

    Parent

    Wonder if Alaska Report is reliable as (5.00 / 3) (#34)
    by oculus on Sat Aug 01, 2009 at 06:17:49 PM EST
    more commone news media outlets hadn't run with this a couple of hours ago.

    Parent
    This is Alaska Report's source (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by Cream City on Sat Aug 01, 2009 at 06:44:02 PM EST
    from clicking on the links.  Hmmmm.

    Parent
    And do read to the end (5.00 / 2) (#40)
    by Cream City on Sat Aug 01, 2009 at 06:47:01 PM EST
    of the linked source (which, wonderfully, backs up its claims by linking to . . . Alaska Report!) for this bit of editorializing:

    Sarah wants to leave the state, but Todd has no intentions of leaving. You know I almost feel sorry for Todd in this case because I had the same issue with MY ex-wife. (Hey maybe he and I can have a beer sometime and talk about our b*tchy exes. . . .)


    Parent
    I read it earlier this afternoon. (5.00 / 5) (#43)
    by oculus on Sat Aug 01, 2009 at 06:50:50 PM EST
    Alaska Report stressed how reliable it has been in the past on the subject of Gov. Palin.  But even Drudge and Huff Post passed on this one.

    Parent
    Reliable or not (5.00 / 3) (#39)
    by Inspector Gadget on Sat Aug 01, 2009 at 06:46:02 PM EST
    Children are involved. The idea of parents divorcing is devastating to children. If false, can you imagine what spreading this rumor can do to them emotionally? If true, don't they deserve to hear it from their parents first?

    My guess is it is false, and if I'm right I hope it becomes the example of what the Palin's are going to do to the media who publish trash about them.

    You'll remember that the Sarah Palin affair The Enquirer promised to release shortly after she was added to the McCain ticket never did surface.

    I question the nature of people who wish such hurtful things on people they are jealous of, then the jealousy is really nothing more than a sign that someone doesn't have enough of their own life to leave others alone.


    Parent

    Ah, but the Enquirer also (5.00 / 3) (#42)
    by Cream City on Sat Aug 01, 2009 at 06:48:27 PM EST
    is one of the fine sources of the Alaska Report story, which says the affairs did occur.  Uh huh.

    And yes, this is just more evidence of the idiocy of those -- in the media and here -- who just can't get past their Palin problem.

    Parent

    Indeed :) (5.00 / 3) (#45)
    by Inspector Gadget on Sat Aug 01, 2009 at 06:52:33 PM EST
    n/t

    Parent
    "The Media"? (none / 0) (#49)
    by daring grace on Sat Aug 01, 2009 at 07:59:54 PM EST
    When Oculus mentioned seeing the headline in a TL sidebar, I went looking and googling and all afternoon the only places I saw it mentioned were websites unrelated to any mainstream news media source.

    The first credible news media source I saw referring to it was the Monitor which carried a Palin spokesperson's refutation.

    Sarah Palin is a pretty, young-ish provocative talking politician with a colorful family bio who ran for VP a year ago with a fairly dull running mate. She just unexpectedly quit her job as governor and probably has all the hounds of cable news media-dom baying at her butt with fat money job offers.

    Big surprise people make things up about her and in the dull days of August the bored online spread it around furiously.

    But this time no major place I saw bit the bait.

    Parent

    Christian Science Monitor (none / 0) (#37)
    by daring grace on Sat Aug 01, 2009 at 06:32:07 PM EST
    says nope.

    I think Politico does too, FWIW.

    Parent

    All News if Good News (none / 0) (#51)
    by squeaky on Sat Aug 01, 2009 at 08:20:10 PM EST


    Parent
    Glad To Help Her Along (none / 0) (#78)
    by squeaky on Sun Aug 02, 2009 at 12:34:21 AM EST
    And will be glad to see her fail in 2012. The bigger they are the harder they fall, as the saying goes. Just doing my part:

    Politico's Jonathan Martin says Stapleton is responsible for the attention.

    "Palin effectively guaranteed coverage from the mainstream media that otherwise would not report claims attributed to unnamed sources on an anonymous blog," he writes.

    And as far as we can tell, he appears to be correct. Once Stapleton's statement appeared, that's when the mainstream press started reporting on the issue. We jumped in, anyway, once Stapleton's Facebook entry was posted.

    That's all part of the plan, according to the right-leaning "ConservativeComeback" website (which doesn't appear to have any official relationship with Palin or her spokesperson).

    "Palin is one of the few conservative politicians that seems to understand the internet," the blog reads.

    CS Monitor

    Top 5 google hits, go Sarah.


    Parent

    Palin's attorney says he will sue (none / 0) (#86)
    by Jeralyn on Sun Aug 02, 2009 at 01:15:46 PM EST
    that blogger for falsely reporting that. Whether she has a case or not, please don't reprint and continue to spread that story. It's just gossip, even according to the blogger, who claimed he heard it from an unnamed source.

    Parent
    Yes (none / 0) (#87)
    by squeaky on Sun Aug 02, 2009 at 01:23:19 PM EST
    That is why I titled the post Palin drone. Stuff about palin.

    As far as repeating the story that may turn out to have been basless, how can anyone know if a story is baseless or turns out to be disputed, before it is disputed?

    IOW I had no idea that the story was disputed when I posted it, if I did I would have added that the story is disputed by Palin.

    This story was the #5 top hit on the internet. And according to my link from the CS monitor evidentially Palin's PR team worked it up to be the #5 hit.

    Parent

    understood (none / 0) (#88)
    by Jeralyn on Sun Aug 02, 2009 at 01:31:43 PM EST
    I just wanted to point out the official denial. And yes, the denial did not exist at the time you posted.

    Parent
    Another comment deleted (none / 0) (#105)
    by Jeralyn on Mon Aug 03, 2009 at 11:35:04 AM EST
    making accusations. This thread is closing.

    Some Saturday News and Open Thread | 91 comments (91 topical)