Friday Afternoon Open Thread

The eagle flies on a Friday.

Happy Labor Day Weekend everyone.

< A Health Care Reform Capitulation Even Ezra Klein Won't Support | Huge Win for Detainee Against Gov't and Ashcroft Personally >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Stormy Monday... (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by desertswine on Fri Sep 04, 2009 at 03:49:58 PM EST
    Yes the eagle flies on Friday, and Saturday I go out to play

    3 Day Weekend!!!

    Trumka stands firm (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by gyrfalcon on Fri Sep 04, 2009 at 05:00:12 PM EST
    on public option just now on Matthews, despite pretty heavy pummeling from Tweety.  He seemed quite serenely certain it will pass.

    At one point, Matthews said something like, "What about all those Democrats in the Senate who think it's a bad idea?"  Trumka smiled sweetly and said, "We will help them to see that it's a good idea."  Coming from a Teamsters guy, I got a mental image of guys with crowbars aimed at Senatorial knees...

    I am not one who usually (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by caseyOR on Fri Sep 04, 2009 at 05:34:23 PM EST
    supports, or resorts, to violence. That said, the visual image of cowardly sell-out senators quaking before the wrath of crowbar wielding union members brought a little smile to my lips.

    FYI, Trumka is AFL-CIO, not Teamsters; James Hoffa, who just sold out on the public option, heads the Teamsters.


    AFL-CIO (none / 0) (#23)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Sep 04, 2009 at 05:37:27 PM EST
    nothing to do with the Teamsters.

    It's very brave of Jimmy Hoffa to say this (5.00 / 2) (#27)
    by steviez314 on Fri Sep 04, 2009 at 05:54:42 PM EST
    considering they're building a new Giants Stadium out in the Meadowlands.

    Oops. Sorry. (none / 0) (#29)
    by gyrfalcon on Fri Sep 04, 2009 at 06:11:38 PM EST
    United Mine Workers guy, not Teamster.  Got Teamsters on the brain...

    Trumka is AFL-CIO (none / 0) (#32)
    by MO Blue on Fri Sep 04, 2009 at 06:21:48 PM EST
    The Teamsters guy said: Public option - we don't need no public option.

    Ummm....I thought it was "...no (none / 0) (#40)
    by oldpro on Fri Sep 04, 2009 at 07:15:07 PM EST
    stinking public option."

    Same guy, tho.


    DNA evidence makes inmates millionaires (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by Saul on Fri Sep 04, 2009 at 06:34:44 PM EST
    I guess one positive think coming out of being wrongfully imprisoned in Texas is you get to become a Slammer Dog Millionaire

    I am glad they get it to.

    1.8 million... (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by kdog on Sat Sep 05, 2009 at 11:00:16 AM EST
    for 23 years of freedom is f*ckin' chump change.  Better than the states who don't award d*ck for wrongful imprisonment aka kidnapping and torture, but still woefully inadequate imo.

    Liberty is priceless of course, but sliding the decimal point over a column or two seems appropriate...as well as an exemption to ever paying taxes to the state that did you so dirty.


    Clarissa, um, I mean Michelle (none / 0) (#1)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Sep 04, 2009 at 03:44:00 PM EST
    That's typical (5.00 / 2) (#6)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Sep 04, 2009 at 04:02:14 PM EST
    Malkin boilerplate. That being said I dont think that he should be sending a video to the schools. I do believe that it's politicizing the schools AND I would be highly upset if George W. Bush did this. He would do better to have a show on Nickelodeon where he explained the importance of staying in school etc.

    Just my humble opinion.


    As I recall, W did do this... (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by oldpro on Fri Sep 04, 2009 at 07:09:40 PM EST
    or something very similar...so did Reagan...maybe others as well.

    Absurd to make it an issue.

    Fer crissakes.


    If the issues don't favor you (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by Fabian on Fri Sep 04, 2009 at 07:39:01 PM EST
    Make it about the issues that do.

    The right wing noise machine is what it is.  Students came up with a Day Of Silence to support LGBT issues.  Incredibly, the Right managed to make an issue out of students not saying anything! How dare they not say anything!  In school!

    Pretzel logic hurts my brain.


    Well, the obvious answer (5.00 / 4) (#43)
    by oldpro on Fri Sep 04, 2009 at 07:48:50 PM EST
    should have been:  "But...we're praying!"

    No, it is not the same (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Sep 04, 2009 at 10:26:42 PM EST
    Clinton and Bush both addressed/read to small groups of children. I think Reagan had a video available. Neither tried to address every child in the nation and none had a "study guide" sent to the school system.

    Vast differences. And the country knows it.


    Reagan and first Bush (none / 0) (#53)
    by caseyOR on Fri Sep 04, 2009 at 10:37:30 PM EST
    Both Reagan and GHW Bush addressed the nation's schoolchildren. Bush mostly talked about education, but Reagan talked about the need for tax cuts among other things.

    You are right, though that Clinton and GW Bush spoke to small groups and read to students in classrooms.

    What Obama is doing is not a "vast difference" from Reagan and Bush I, and the furor over this is at best ridiculous.


    Neither GHWB or Regan (none / 0) (#63)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Sep 05, 2009 at 09:01:51 AM EST
    had a study guide made up.

    What's next, tell your teacher if Daddy says something bad about Obama??

    What's next, tell mommy and daddy you want to join Obama's Youth Corp for the big demonstration?

    Over statements? Yes, but it is a slippery slope.

    And the real problem is that people don't trust Obama after the bank and auto take over.


    Well (none / 0) (#45)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Sep 04, 2009 at 07:52:09 PM EST
    I probably wouldn't have liked it when Reagan did it either. My issue is that really why should they waste time with this? I read there was a huge uproar when George HW Bush wanted to do it.

    Really? That's Contrary (none / 0) (#48)
    by daring grace on Fri Sep 04, 2009 at 08:09:24 PM EST
    to what the Dallas Morning News is reporting.

    In October 1991, the first President Bush staged a similar speech at Alice Deal Junior High, a high-achieving, racially diverse school in Washington, D.C.

    Just as the Obama presidency is struggling now with its health care agenda, Bush was tangling with the Senate over the controversial Supreme Court nomination of Clarence Thomas and with allegations that he was paying scant attention to domestic issues.


    Democrats blasted Bush for spending nearly $28,000 from the Education Department budget to hire a TV crew - apparently to ensure a more polished production than the networks would have ponied up for.

    Alexander was forced to defend the expenditure at a congressional hearing: "We don't send messages by smoke signals anymore. ... We do it by microphone and camera," he said.

    This was tame compared to the allegations zipping through the airwaves and blogs this week. Obama was compared, uncharitably, to Chairman Mao and to assorted fascists.

    It's a fierce derision that Obama seems to inspire in his most vocal critics, some of whom have indulged conspiracy theories about his birthplace and his agenda. Similarly, Bill Clinton and the younger Bush saw increasing political nastiness as the country's partisan divisions cemented.

    Maybe you're right, and that's what passed for a 'huge uproar' back then. Sure seems kind of quaint now.


    Reminds me of (none / 0) (#7)
    by Inspector Gadget on Fri Sep 04, 2009 at 04:14:07 PM EST
    He would do better to have a show on Nickelodeon where he explained the importance of staying in school

    Magic Johnson's message to the elementary school kids.


    Presidents should stick to reading (none / 0) (#56)
    by ruffian on Fri Sep 04, 2009 at 11:14:44 PM EST
    "My Pet Goat"?

    I can't find a thing wrong with sending an inspirational video.


    Many people, based on Obama's (none / 0) (#62)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Sep 05, 2009 at 08:57:35 AM EST
    actions, don't believe this speech is anything but politics.

    That is their right.  It is also their right to control who gets to speak to their children, and what their children see on TV.

    Politicians should leave children alone.


    mind numbing (none / 0) (#3)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Sep 04, 2009 at 03:50:55 PM EST
    thats (none / 0) (#4)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Sep 04, 2009 at 03:53:27 PM EST
    I have no idea where you come up with this (none / 0) (#5)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Sep 04, 2009 at 03:59:58 PM EST
    stuff, and it probably wouldn't be healthy for me to know :)  Been sick all day, I'm headed to the shower to try to freshen what probably won't last long.

    That is every bit as mean as (none / 0) (#38)
    by oldpro on Fri Sep 04, 2009 at 07:07:59 PM EST
    Michelle Malkin...and that's going some.

    Actually, MM is (none / 0) (#9)
    by Inspector Gadget on Fri Sep 04, 2009 at 04:28:36 PM EST
    seriously troubling, but did you watch the video that is being shown in schools? It has Ashton Kutcher written all over it, though I have no idea who actually produced it.

    I remember the days when my kids would come home from school after the D.A.R.E. program was introduced. They accused me of everything under the sun because there are some things kids need more than blip guidance on.


    The video? Not good. (5.00 / 2) (#46)
    by oldpro on Fri Sep 04, 2009 at 07:56:47 PM EST
    A servant to Obama?  WTF?

    Cult of personality.

    I might show it in a class if the kids were old enough to understand and learn about propaganda.  A teachable moment.

    Sigh...just terrible.


    God, that's creepy (5.00 / 3) (#49)
    by Spamlet on Fri Sep 04, 2009 at 08:59:37 PM EST
    Though I have to say I enjoyed the movie stars' pledge to reduce their use of plastic. Does that extend to surgery?

    Plastic (none / 0) (#50)
    by nycstray on Fri Sep 04, 2009 at 09:10:35 PM EST
    My mind went to surgery and then went, duh, bottles, lol!~

    Think of all the video out there of people's devotion to Obama . . . the internet does not forget.


    Funny (none / 0) (#61)
    by daring grace on Sat Sep 05, 2009 at 08:42:02 AM EST
    My mind went to credit cards!

    They actually started the kids on (none / 0) (#15)
    by cawaltz on Fri Sep 04, 2009 at 04:45:11 PM EST
    that program in kindergarten when we lived out in California. Nothing like having your kindergartener call daddy a drunk because he drinks a beer. It's a lot of fun trying to explain nuances to a not quite 5 year old.

    I wonder how they feel now? (none / 0) (#16)
    by nycstray on Fri Sep 04, 2009 at 04:47:49 PM EST
    That vid is from Jan.

    This is becoming a big issue (none / 0) (#19)
    by Cream City on Fri Sep 04, 2009 at 05:19:17 PM EST
    here, after one of the top school districts -- but in a very conservative burb -- nixed the speech as of yesterday.  Then two more districts, in Dem areas, followed today.  And the expectation is that several more districts won't air the speech, either.

    I am hoping that our local paper will do some reporting, for once, and find out if these districts had such an issue with it when Reagan and Bush I did exactly this: speak to students about the importance of school.

    (That said, the White House was a bit tone-deaf in its original materials to the schools on this, and if it had anticipated its opposition as well as it did in the campaign, it would have rewritten those parts of the materials before sending them out -- rather than revising them now, which is just another walkback by this group that is looking like the gang that couldn't shoot straight.)


    Bad, bad start to Ducks football season (none / 0) (#8)
    by caseyOR on Fri Sep 04, 2009 at 04:15:36 PM EST
    The Oregon Ducks lost 19-8 on the smurf turf of Boise State last night in what was something of a grudge match after last year's loss in Eugene to the boys from Boise. Not a good debut for new head coach Chip Kelly.

    Then, turning a loss into a debacle, after the game ended Ducks' running back LaGarrette Blount responded to a verbal comment by a BS player by sucker-punching the guy in the face. Blount followed that up by fighting with BS fans as he was escorted (more like restrained and dragged) from the stadium by police, teammates and Coach Kelly.

    Today's big question in Oregon: should Blount be kicked off the team? I think he should be let go. This is not the first time the Ducks have had problems with Blount. However, he picked up a whole lot of yardage last season. So, who knows what they will do.

    Oregon State (none / 0) (#10)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Fri Sep 04, 2009 at 04:36:22 PM EST
    suspended Blount for the rest of the season.

    The punching of the Boise State player was bad; the attacking of his own team-mate was bad; but the threatening of a fan was the last straw, I believe.  He was too volatile.  The school didn't want a lawsuit.

    Oh, and he went from being a 2nd round draft pick to off the draft roles.


    Um, (none / 0) (#12)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Fri Sep 04, 2009 at 04:39:23 PM EST
    Oregon not Oregon State.  Silly me.

    Um (none / 0) (#13)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Fri Sep 04, 2009 at 04:40:11 PM EST
    potential 2nd round draft pick.

    I need a nap.


    You can't have that (none / 0) (#11)
    by Steve M on Fri Sep 04, 2009 at 04:37:02 PM EST
    Way over the line IMO.  Suspend him for a bunch of games at a minimum.

    The Ducks are my wife's favorite team, by the way.  I always make sure to tell her how they're doing since she's not exactly the type to bookmark ESPN.com.


    Is your wife from Oregon? (none / 0) (#17)
    by caseyOR on Fri Sep 04, 2009 at 04:51:26 PM EST
    Blount has not been a model team member even before this latest. He was way over the line, and I am glad Oregon took swift action. Although, given Bellotti's past rather lax approach to team discipline, I am surprised. I think Teresa may be right-- fear of lawsuit. And I'm guessing pressure from the Pac-10 and maybe the NCAA.

    Even though he is off the team, Blount keeps his scholarship. He is d@mn lucky they didn't pull that, too. Here's hoping Blount devotes his senior year, which will now be uninterrupted by varsity athletics, to his studies. With his potential NFL draft ranking now down the tubes he'll need that college degree.


    I suspect they didn't (none / 0) (#20)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Fri Sep 04, 2009 at 05:23:10 PM EST
    pull his scholarship because he has a history of mental illness that they already know about.  No, I don't know that, but anyone who conducts such self-destructive behavior should logically have their scholarship yanked.  And if it wasn't yanked there has to be a reason why.  And the only reason I can see that fits the NCAA guidelines is mental illness.

    NCAA Bylaw 15.3.4


    The lovely Mrs. M (none / 0) (#21)
    by Steve M on Fri Sep 04, 2009 at 05:23:37 PM EST
    was born in southern Oregon and grew up in very very northern California, well within the boundaries of the State of Jefferson.  I believe Oregon is the closest major-college team.

    Yes, the State of Jefferson, (none / 0) (#24)
    by caseyOR on Fri Sep 04, 2009 at 05:38:56 PM EST
    and Ecotopia. Are you old enough to have read and been influenced by that book?

    Yes, if Mrs. M grew up close to the OR-CA border, U of O is the closest big school. That part of N. Cal. can be pretty desolate, but strikingly beautiful. Was she on the coast or inland?


    A link (none / 0) (#14)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Fri Sep 04, 2009 at 04:42:24 PM EST
    Said Grijalva: (none / 0) (#25)
    by NealB on Fri Sep 04, 2009 at 05:41:29 PM EST
    Said Grijalva: "I didn't come away from this discussion feeling that we were dead."

    That after a conference call with Mr. Obama this afternoon about whether Grijalva and the progressive caucus was willing to cave.

    What does 'I didn't feel we were dead' mean? I'll tell you what I think.

    I think it means that Obama's trying to make it perfectly clear that he intends to kill progressives if they/we insist on a progressive option. What a jerk Obama is turning out to be.

    I do not know what happened (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Sep 04, 2009 at 05:45:29 PM EST
    but the quote is indicative of the opposite of what you say to me.

    He didn't say... (none / 0) (#28)
    by NealB on Fri Sep 04, 2009 at 06:06:30 PM EST
    ..."we're alive and kicking."

    IMO (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Sep 04, 2009 at 06:17:32 PM EST
    it means nothing. I wouldnt be surprised to hear that Obama told them he supports the PO then work to have the PO killed off.

    Woolsey "Confident" (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by daring grace on Fri Sep 04, 2009 at 07:00:13 PM EST
    But Rep. Lynne Woolsey (D-Calif.), one of the leading voices of the Progressive Caucus, just released a statement on the call with Obama, saying they were confident Obama was still on their side.

    (Emphasis added)

    "Caucus leaders expressed absolute commitment to the idea of a robust public option, and said they expect it to be part of any health care reform legislation," Woolsey's office said in a statement. "The president listened, asked many questions, and suggested that the dialogue should continue. A follow-up meeting between the president and caucus leaders will take place next Tuesday or Wednesday at the White House."

    Wish I could say I felt that way...

    This, from Politico, BTW.


    She's (5.00 / 4) (#47)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Sep 04, 2009 at 07:57:50 PM EST
    hearing what she wants to hear. Obama is really good at convincing people he's on there side when in reality he isn't. From what you quote above there's nothing to back up what she's saying. He just wants to continued the dialogue? Ugh. What does he think governing is? Another chapter of the Dr. Phil Show?

    You know it's okay though (5.00 / 2) (#51)
    by cawaltz on Fri Sep 04, 2009 at 09:32:41 PM EST
    because what really matters is that Woolsey believes he doesn't really mean to cave on the public option. If that is what holds her and the progressive caucus firm I'm okay with them believing that deep deep deep deep deep down (have I mentioned deep) down the President supports what they are doing?

    Faith-based politics (5.00 / 5) (#54)
    by Spamlet on Fri Sep 04, 2009 at 10:51:38 PM EST
    What's to "dialogue" (none / 0) (#57)
    by gyrfalcon on Fri Sep 04, 2009 at 11:19:29 PM EST
    about a flat-out demand as expressed by the PC?

    Not at all (none / 0) (#31)
    by The Last Whimzy on Fri Sep 04, 2009 at 06:20:24 PM EST
    But I'd agree with you if you said it'd be nice to see the conference call described with a more positivist warm fuzzy feeling.  and i'd almost make an argument that it's a PR issue with progressives in general...  and one of the reasons why Obama was so appealing at first.

    "I came away feeling we were very much alive and we're eager to move forward......"

    personally.  i'm never been much of a cheerleader about anything at all.  couching everything in positivist terms is something i almost distrust because I can't tell the difference between a positive attitude and the smile on a used car salesman.


    Meant no offense to Grijalva (none / 0) (#37)
    by NealB on Fri Sep 04, 2009 at 07:00:44 PM EST
    I have the impression that Rep Grijalva from Arizona tells it precisely the way he hears it. And what he heard, to judge from what he said, was not discouraging. Neither was it encouraging and it's long past time for Obama to say something encouraging to progressives.

    Like I said, Obama's a jerk.


    i've heard (none / 0) (#42)
    by The Last Whimzy on Fri Sep 04, 2009 at 07:44:56 PM EST
    his problem is just the opposite.

    The quote comes from Greg Sargent (none / 0) (#44)
    by Spamlet on Fri Sep 04, 2009 at 07:50:47 PM EST
    Here are the final 2 grafs:

    In another newsworthy tidbit, Grijalva says Obama signaled that discussions about the public option would continue even after his big speech before a joint session of Congress next week. That may be an indication that Obama won't be mentioning the public option in his speech, but doesn't want liberals to despair at that prospect.

    Said Grijalva: "I didn't come away from this discussion feeling that we were dead."

    I take this as Grijalva's response to an untranscribed question from Sargent: "So is the public option dead?"


    How about that AP and distractions? (none / 0) (#33)
    by diogenes on Fri Sep 04, 2009 at 06:30:21 PM EST
    Going into a holiday weekend with a big Obama speech coming the AP runs a picture of dying marine, creating a huge national uproar and getting red and purple America in yet a worse mood.  

    I'm a journalist (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by Spamlet on Fri Sep 04, 2009 at 10:56:09 PM EST
    and I find the publication of that photo reprehensible, apart from the pleas of Lance Corporal Joshua Bernard's family. It was an egregious invasion of privacy as well as an assault on the family's emotions. Indefensible, imo.

    I'm not sure (none / 0) (#58)
    by gyrfalcon on Fri Sep 04, 2009 at 11:22:25 PM EST
    I'm wildly sympathetic to the family, but not to run pix like that once in a while is to essentially be complicit in a cover-up of what's going on over there and what war essentially consists of.  Soldiers' families know, but the rest of America just wants to avert its eyes, and that's not a good thing.

    So I'm ambivalent.  I'm really, really, really glad I don't have to be the one to make the decision about whether to run it or not.


    This is different (5.00 / 2) (#60)
    by Spamlet on Fri Sep 04, 2009 at 11:44:28 PM EST
    from Bush's order to censor photographs of coffins returning from Iran. I'm all in favor of photographing the coffins.

    Here's an AP spokesman:

    "AP journalists document world events every day. Afghanistan is no exception. We feel it is our journalistic duty to show the reality of the war there, however unpleasant and brutal that sometimes is," said Santiago Lyon, the director of photography for AP.

    Speaking of journalistic duty, as the high-minded AP now wants to frame its activities, where was the AP in the run-up to Bush's war in Iran? What did the AP have to say about "the reality of war" in that connection ("that was in another country / and besides . . . ")?

    This is certainly not a criticism of you, gyrfalcon, and it's not even a particularly direct response to your comment. I understand that you are ambivalent, and I understand why. I, however, am outraged.


    Cameron Todd Willingham case (none / 0) (#34)
    by Dadler on Fri Sep 04, 2009 at 06:32:20 PM EST
    Extraordinary piece (none / 0) (#59)
    by gyrfalcon on Fri Sep 04, 2009 at 11:24:05 PM EST
    I just read it, and it's hair-raising and fascinating.  Long, but absolutely worth the read.

    I will never again be able to take local fire inspectors' assertions about arson seriously.