Labor Day Morning Open Thread

I am in a NFL fantasy football league. After the draft, I have tried to acquire Percy Harvin. Regular readers know that Harvin was a Gator and I love him. Apparently, the person I am trying to deal with knows this also as he asked for Andre Johnson in return. Well, I love Percy Harvin, but I can't do that deal.

Similarly, no matter how much Progressives want to do health care reform, there is no way they can do a deal that hands over a huge giveaway to the insurance industry through mandates without a public option. The price is just too high for what the insurance industry will get. Like my desire to have Percy Harvin on my team, there has to be a limit to the price progressives will pay for "health care reform."

This is an Open Thread.

< Baucus Courts President Snowe | What Does Snowe Bring To The Table? >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Tip of the day (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by andgarden on Mon Sep 07, 2009 at 10:17:16 AM EST
    Is WiFi interfering with your cordless phones, or vice versa? Go DECT.

    How is Snow Leopard working? (none / 0) (#2)
    by MO Blue on Mon Sep 07, 2009 at 10:33:02 AM EST
    What do you think are the major benefits now that you are using it?

    Works fine (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by andgarden on Mon Sep 07, 2009 at 10:46:50 AM EST
    Safari, Preview and the Finder are a little bit improved. Mostly it feels about the same as Leopard, but the improvements under the hood should be useful later.

    I also like the new, fresh, 64 bitness (which your machine might or might not support).


    Catching up this (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by brodie on Mon Sep 07, 2009 at 10:54:12 AM EST
    weekend on some old Dick Cavett shows on DVD.  He's grouped some of his old ABC late night shows by category -- Rock Stars, Comedians, Hollywood.

    The best group of the lot is the one we're almost finished watching, the Hollywood-Directors shows.  Especially the 90-minute interviews with solo guests Orson Welles and John Huston.  Fascinating story tellers both.  Lots of chain smoking, too.

    The solo shows with Kate Hepburn and Bette Davis are also noteworthy.  Both can't stop talking, with bossy Kate rudely telling Dick at one point to stop interrupting if he wants to hear her story.  Davis barely let Cavett ever finish asking a single question before she would launch into a lengthy response.  Despite this, she still connected with the audience.  

    Comedians series and Rock Stars is a very mixed bag.  John Lennon would have been far more interesting but for the presence of Yoko.  A lot of Janis Joplin, maybe too much.  Woody Allen quite funny (most jokes sex-related); Bob Hope and Jerry Lewis not so funny.  

    Next up:  Dvd's of old Jack Paar.

    Some of my students are laboring (5.00 / 5) (#8)
    by Cream City on Mon Sep 07, 2009 at 11:03:11 AM EST
    today, posting (online) their first assignments -- not due for two days, but the really smart ones work ahead.  And I am getting a glimpse into good minds, so life is good . . . and it is a good reward for an awful first week, with the chaos of a last-minute flood of students trying to get into courses already full.  It's a story we're hearing is happening at many campuses that also were seeing low enrollments -- until the last minute.  So we are seeing another repeat of the '30s in that way, with out-of-work folks figuring out that this is the time to go back to school and be ready for economic recovery, we hope.

    Plus, at my campus, an entire building's classroom technology failed in the first week, which meant some fast band-aiding to be able to wow them with my first-day PowerPoints to see history, not just hear it.  And campus bookstores failed, too, to keep up with enrollment updates and get more books ordered -- but after I got extra exercise on the first day by literally running to the bookstores, too busy to answer their phones, the staffs there came through as best they could, too.

    A better week is ahead, I just know it, with smart students, techies, and bookstore staffers also working through the holiday weekend to make all go well.  And it's always a different sort of education for students to see how important it is in life to be ready with a Plan B.  But now I have to keep working on a Plan C, too, if the flu keeps hitting campus, too.  What a year, already, after only the first week. And I'm supposed to be working less, because of state furloughs!:-)

    I'm glad we've got people like you (5.00 / 3) (#20)
    by MyLeftMind on Mon Sep 07, 2009 at 12:00:55 PM EST
    teaching young adults history.

    Thanks -- but let's be glad (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by Cream City on Mon Sep 07, 2009 at 12:42:00 PM EST
    that we have people like them, learning history -- and so many of them loving it, college-level history (big questions), and learning it so well.

    We need those who may learn from mistakes of the past.


    History is my grandson's (5.00 / 2) (#24)
    by MO Blue on Mon Sep 07, 2009 at 01:22:43 PM EST
    favorite subject. He just started college this year.

    Also, I can have a more enjoyable conversation about politics with him than most of my older friends.


    Remembering labor's slain heroes (5.00 / 5) (#17)
    by Cream City on Mon Sep 07, 2009 at 11:40:16 AM EST
    Where is Obama today?  In Chicago, marking Labor Day at the site of the Pullman Strike.  I can't find info on anything going on at Haymarket Square, the major labor history site since the 1886 police riot against marchers for the eight-hour day movement -- as major events marking that tragedy are held on the anniversary in May.

    So are annual events at the other major site marking the 1886 movement -- and the site of many more workers and others slain by the National Guard, called out by the governor the day after Haymarket Square.  But labor historians did gather today at the site of the Bay View Massacre to honor the dozens who died and the millions who marched for us to have a more humane workday of eight hours and workweek of five days.  If we have work. . . .

    This is your emergency test! (5.00 / 3) (#37)
    by Fabian on Mon Sep 07, 2009 at 04:15:15 PM EST
    Locate your cell phone!

    I thought we did very well yesterday when my brother collapsed.  Nobody freaked, nobody screamed and the only person who had to be removed from the scene was my youngest child.  (for being clueless and in the way)

    However, when my sister yelled "Someone call 911!", no one who carried a cell phone could find it quickly.  I don't have one, so I stayed put and tried to be useful.  The call was made from the house's land line.

    It was a totally unexpected phenomena.  

    Brother seems fine.  They tested him, no red flags came up, held him overnight and released him today.  Hospital staff were all very nice, even security who checked our bags and ran us through the metal detector.  

    I hope your brother continues on this (5.00 / 2) (#38)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Sep 07, 2009 at 04:18:04 PM EST
    boring course.  I don't know where my cell phone is, I hate it.  I know where the house phone is though, old habit.

    It's odd to think (5.00 / 2) (#52)
    by Fabian on Mon Sep 07, 2009 at 06:55:22 PM EST
    that people who seem to rely on their various wireless devices for so much couldn't find them in less time than it took to run for the house and grab the wired phone.  

    Glad your brother is okay. (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by caseyOR on Mon Sep 07, 2009 at 04:19:51 PM EST
    And how fortunate that your household is one of the dwindling number that still has a landline.

    Can't claim credit for that. (none / 0) (#40)
    by Fabian on Mon Sep 07, 2009 at 04:24:13 PM EST
    It's my other brother's house and he has a security system because he lives in a less-than-secure neighborhood.  That's the main reason he has a land line.  :(

    Great photographs (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by lentinel on Mon Sep 07, 2009 at 06:05:24 PM EST
    I was looking at this website.


    They are photographs by Alain Bourgeois - an American photographer.

    They are among the greatest I have ever seen.

    A nice treat (none / 0) (#55)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Sep 07, 2009 at 07:58:53 PM EST

    Baby Zoey loves classical music (none / 0) (#4)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Sep 07, 2009 at 10:48:37 AM EST
    Shipping to oculus as soon as my P.I. gets an address :)  What a relief

    To whoim you attribute thiis? (none / 0) (#5)
    by oculus on Mon Sep 07, 2009 at 10:54:04 AM EST
    Gene mutation :) (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Sep 07, 2009 at 10:57:47 AM EST
    Nah, remember I played the violin for quite a few years until my hormones discovered boys.  After that though, strictly rock and roll :)  I'm thinking though that if we ship her out of here fast we might have a shot at a family member with musical taste :)  She is so sweet though when it is on.  She waves her hands around and dances in circles and tries to hum along.

    A conductor in the making (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by oculus on Mon Sep 07, 2009 at 11:48:50 AM EST
    And it looks like (none / 0) (#9)
    by brodie on Mon Sep 07, 2009 at 11:08:02 AM EST
    one of my favorite movie makers, Oliver Stone, has a new documentary feature that's just premiered in Venice.  "South of the Border", a favorable view apparently on the Hugo Chavez gov't and several other left-leaning gov'ts down there.  

    Good luck trying to get that one into more than a handful of small theaters in this country.

    The project that interests me more though is the one he's producing for Showtime, set for 2010, called "The Secret History of America" -- a 10-part series looking at episodes from our country's dark side, the stuff that doesn't get reported or reported accurately in the history books and in the corp media.

    I much prefer the (occasional) bomb-throwing filmmakers like Stone.  Ken Burns he is not.

    HBO will run it (5.00 / 3) (#10)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Sep 07, 2009 at 11:09:42 AM EST
    They ran Stone's love letter to Fidel Castro.

    I am always amazed of how tolerant of tyranny from "the Left" some progressives are.


    Disagree with the doc (none / 0) (#12)
    by brodie on Mon Sep 07, 2009 at 11:13:06 AM EST
    I saw on Fidel.  

    Saw him asking some tough Qs of FC -- and doing it face to face  -- on human rights violations and harsh prison treatment of political prisoners.

    Hardly a love letter when a filmmaker is basically telling the guy to his face that he's acting like just another dictator ...


    Bwahahaha! (none / 0) (#13)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Sep 07, 2009 at 11:15:40 AM EST
    You must be joking.

    Nah, no joke. (none / 0) (#14)
    by brodie on Mon Sep 07, 2009 at 11:23:54 AM EST
    Maybe you saw a different version -- was there some first-draft film that got shown that was softer?

    The one I saw (did OS make a second visit to Havana?) had him getting direct and to the point with Fidel over human rights issues in Cuba.

    Now, as far as crudely characterizing things negatively just because the filmmaker doesn't approach things exactly the way some here would, the Michael Moore film "Sicko" could be much more seen as a "valentine" to the Cuban revolution (as it looks at health care down there) than the Stone film.

    I found both films worthwhile viewing.



    I saw the one that ran on HBO (none / 0) (#16)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Sep 07, 2009 at 11:27:39 AM EST
    to pretend Stone "got tough" with Castro is the funniest thing I have heard in a long time.

    Hell, that is like saying he got tough with Jim Garrison.


    Checking wiki, it looks like (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by brodie on Mon Sep 07, 2009 at 11:42:39 AM EST
    Stone did 2 docs on Fidel and Cuba.  The first -- Comandante -- sounds like it's the one you saw, more of a wide-ranging, and perhaps not unfavorable, look at the overall picture with the Cuban Revolution.  Not shown on US teevee apparently.

    Next year (2004), after more interviews with Castro presumably, he released "Looking for Fidel", more of a skeptical view of the political freedom situation down there, including interviews with dissidents and former prisoners.  That's the one I saw on HBO.


    That's how the wiki works (none / 0) (#26)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Mon Sep 07, 2009 at 01:54:26 PM EST
    when one uses it - and you did - to your credit.

    Speaking of which (none / 0) (#15)
    by andgarden on Mon Sep 07, 2009 at 11:26:13 AM EST
    I noticed a new book on the history of Bacardi in the bookstore yesterday. I didn't buy it, though.

    Maybe you're amazed BTD (none / 0) (#25)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Mon Sep 07, 2009 at 01:49:13 PM EST
    So, HBO ran Oliver Stone's film about Castro and you are:
    amazed of how tolerant of tyranny from "the Left" some progressives are.

    Really - an Oliver Stone film is amazingly indicative of "progressives" embracing tyranny from the "the Left"? How about broadening the scope to look at this in relation to the long-term, reality-based bigger picture.  

    In the real world, self-described "progressives" and "moderates" and "leftists" and Blue Dogs and the commentariat and the Scotus and the POTUS and the DOJ and every other government agency and corporate entity are vastly more tolerant, nay indulgent, of tyranny from THE RIGHT.

    In that context, yeah, I guess it might seem particularly amazing that Oliver Stone made a complimentary film about Castro which some people got to see on HBO.


    Amazing (none / 0) (#69)
    by jondee on Tue Sep 08, 2009 at 12:02:59 PM EST
    that self-described U.S "progressives" like to adhere to the recieved wisdom that tyranny in Cuba somehow evolved out of thin air without seeing it within the context of a seige mentality that came about to a large extent as the result of the tyrannical and murderous stance of a much more powerful nation toward a poltical experiment in a developing nation that it was decided in advance -- by the kind of unhinged, cold war jihadists who planned things like Operation Northwoods -- would never be tolerated.

    A favorable view of Chavez? (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by gyrfalcon on Mon Sep 07, 2009 at 12:38:25 PM EST
    You have got to be kidding.

    Have a look at last year's Frontline doc on PBS called "The Hugo Chavez Show."  It will bust any illusions you have about Hugo.  He's a thug and a megalomaniac.


    Well, it might be more (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by brodie on Mon Sep 07, 2009 at 01:03:50 PM EST
    accurate to say that it sounds like the doc is going to present a "more favorable" pov on Chavez and other lib/left govts in SA than is usually presented in the US corp media.

    I haven't seen the film, since it's just premiered in Venice and I'm not currently in Venice, so I'm not prepared to comment on it beyond what I've gleaned from a couple of news items.

    As for the PBS doc, I gather the major motivation of Stone with this film was to see whether the US media -- including PBS of course -- has been fair and accurate in depicting Chavez and the other lefties and lib govts down there, to the extent they are covered at all.  

    And though I didn't see the show you refer to, I no longer give the formerly great PBS' Frontline an almost automatic favorable pass for their once hard-hitting/alternative/lib-leaning content.  They've really pulled their punches over the past 15 or so years from what I've seen, probably not wanting to overly upset the noisy Right.

    And, no, I'm not starry-eyed about HC.  I just prefer to see something on South American lib/lefty govts that's different from the standard derisive fare seen in the US media.  I may not agree with the final product, but I want to encourage a broader range of views.


    Yes, well, Frontline's (5.00 / 2) (#28)
    by gyrfalcon on Mon Sep 07, 2009 at 02:13:31 PM EST
    long series of programs on the Iraq war and Dick Cheney's "dark side" maneuverings certainly prove your point.


    The idea that Frontline would deliberately slant a program on Chavez to make the right wing happy doesn't pass the laugh test.

    Chavez is no lefty, not even close.  He's just a garden variety dictator and thug.

    Go watch the Frontline program -- it's on line at their Web site -- and then point out for me, please, the evidence of bias in it.


    Well, it's hardly laughable (none / 0) (#60)
    by brodie on Mon Sep 07, 2009 at 10:39:47 PM EST
    that PBS would tend to want to slant a program on Chavez so as not to offend the US Right.  They are always the quickest to shout Librul Bias! about the media, and especially PBS, whether it's real or perceived.  And PBS management over the past 15 yrs or so has something of a track record of listening closely to these RW voices.

    I'll have to make time to watch the show online, but I gather from some online comments that the doc was very biased against HC, as in too many on-camera talking heads all speaking against him.  

    Perhaps with this doc and the upcoming one from Stone that promises a different pov, we'll have a better rounded picture of the proceedings down there.

    Interesting though that the Frontline filmmaker doesn't agree with you that Chavez is a dictator and thug -- he's an autocrat and "centralist" in her view, but not a brutal dictator who's rounding up opponents and disappearing them.


    Hmm - but aren't we're in a big glass house? (none / 0) (#27)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Mon Sep 07, 2009 at 02:06:08 PM EST
    Like maybe, the biggest, glassiest house in all of the known universes.

    No, we are not and it amazes me that anyone would (none / 0) (#35)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Sep 07, 2009 at 03:45:47 PM EST
    think so.

    Compared to Chavez? (none / 0) (#42)
    by gyrfalcon on Mon Sep 07, 2009 at 05:26:43 PM EST

    Compare Dick Cheney and Hugo Chavez... (none / 0) (#51)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Mon Sep 07, 2009 at 06:44:15 PM EST
    Not so funny, imo, gyrfalcon.

    Cheney was VP for 8 years (2.00 / 0) (#56)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Sep 07, 2009 at 09:05:01 PM EST
    Then he became history per the Constitution.

    He closed down no radio stations or newspapers and committed no "high crimes or misdemeanors." He was quite guilty of poing off many members of the Left. That is not illegal, immoral or fattening.


    Oh, forgot (none / 0) (#11)
    by brodie on Mon Sep 07, 2009 at 11:10:17 AM EST
    to include this Ollie link

    No new Sen. Kennedy for MA (none / 0) (#29)
    by MO Blue on Mon Sep 07, 2009 at 02:32:35 PM EST
    BOSTON - Former Rep. Joseph P. Kennedy II announced Monday he would not run for the U.S. Senate seat held for nearly 50 years by his late uncle, Edward M. Kennedy.

    I like Martha Coakley (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by brodie on Mon Sep 07, 2009 at 03:04:03 PM EST
    from what I've seen so far.  Pretty good on most of the issues, strong for PO in the HCR debate.  Would want to know more about what she thinks of Afghanistan.

    Of course, it never hurts with me as I make some notes on my scorecard that she's not only well-spoked, but also a good looking woman.



    Several people on the blogs I read (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by MO Blue on Mon Sep 07, 2009 at 03:14:01 PM EST
    who live in MA list Coakley as their 1st choice.

    Would like to see another woman in the Senate but only if she is from the "left of the left" so to speak.:-)  IOW someone who puts people before corporations.


    Not sure she's that (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by gyrfalcon on Mon Sep 07, 2009 at 05:30:03 PM EST
    But I like what I've been hearing her saying.  When Matthews asked her about abortion funding in health care reform, she said something to the effect that although she wasn't upon the details of how it's handled in the various bills and the Hyde Amendment, she believes quite strongly that things that are determined to be constitutional rights ought to be made available in government programs.

    I liked that a lot, no pussyfooting around about it.


    I really dislike Martha Coakley (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Sep 08, 2009 at 12:55:35 AM EST
    and the last thing we need in the Senate is yet another gung0ho prosecutor. She was terrible in the Nanny case and if I lived in Mass, I'd be campaigning strongly against her.

    Brodie, when you made (none / 0) (#53)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Mon Sep 07, 2009 at 07:08:00 PM EST
    favorable comments regarding a couple of documentary films about Castro and Chavez, you got trounced by a couple of people who took great offense. You made cogent arguments in your defense and I commended you on that.

    But now here you go making questionable remarks about a female politician (Martha Coakley) and it looks like folks are giving you a free pass on stuff like this:

    Of course, it never hurts with me as I make some notes on my scorecard that she's not only well-spoked, but also a good looking woman.
    Not cool, not cool at all, imo.

    FA, while I thank (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by brodie on Mon Sep 07, 2009 at 09:31:46 PM EST
    you for the compliments on the other matter, on this one I'm puzzled why you're calling me out on what I consider very uncontroversial observations about her presentation and appearance.  

    For me, both substance and style, including good telegenic qualities, count in politics, and that's true for both genders.  All I was trying to note was that with a first early impression she was doing well on these measures, and in addition this male guy finds her easy to look at.  

    It's a job interview basically, and I'm looking at the resume, the person, the positions, and how she presents herself.  Standard stuff really.


    Brodie, egads... (none / 0) (#61)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Mon Sep 07, 2009 at 10:57:43 PM EST
    On the subject of MA Senate candidate Martha Coakley you get out your handy, dandy "scorecard" again and emphasize that:
    this male guy finds her easy to look at. It's a job interview basically, and I'm looking at the resume, the person, the positions, and how she presents herself. Standard stuff really.

    The protocol you're describing certainly used to be standard operating procedure - particularly when it came to hiring women. However, nowadays, unless you're in Hollywood, physical attractiveness is NOT a permissible criteria to be used in assessing the qualifications of a male or female applicant.  

    For instance, you can't say: "well, I think we should give John Edwards a shot at the job because he's just as qualified as all the other candidates AND he's better looking". In fact, if you were an employer, you might very well be fired for that kind of discrimination.

    Oh, I know it still goes on all the time - which is all the more reason to 'call somebody out' when they're being regressive in that way ;-)


    First, evaluating (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by brodie on Tue Sep 08, 2009 at 12:53:10 AM EST
    candidates is similar to a job interview, but not exactly the same thing, especially in the legal ramifications.  While judging physical qualities may not be permissible in one setting, it's pretty standard and acceptable in the political one.  If you were to somehow disqualify all voters who cast a vote based in part at least on physical attributes, you'd have a much smaller electorate.

    Second, last I checked there is plenty of Hollywood in the political process, certainly for the major offices.  While some of this can get out of hand, the principles themselves acknowledge the importance of appearance and sometimes go to great lengths to make improvements.  And how many Howard Taft types have we elected to major office lately, or even nominated?

    Also, I don't recall saying that given two equally qualified candidates, the physical appearance factor should necessarily be the decider.  Could be the stance on the issues, which I value more.  Or the ability to articulate or debate.  Or the quality of the campaign team.

    In any case, this is rather silly.  All I said was I liked her looks, not that I was voting for her because she has a nice face.  

    I guess I must have missed the earlier memo that went out declaring such observations to be off limits and even possibly illegal ...  


    All righty then brodie... (none / 0) (#66)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Tue Sep 08, 2009 at 05:05:35 AM EST
    Unlike several other commenters earlier today, I gave you the benefit of the doubt when you were commenting favorably on Chavez and Castro. I imagined that your tolerance toward those unorthodox characters might be indicative of an open-minded inclusiveness toward a wide-array of other diverse and opposing socio-political viewpoints.

    In short, it seemed like you might be one of those people who welcomes a free-wheeling critique of your own positions.

    Ergo, it's a bit disconcerting to find that you are thoroughly unreceptive to the idea that there is anything remotely problematic about some of the terms you used in your assessment of MA AG/Senate Candidate Martha Coakley. If this total inflexibility is any indication of your overall MO, believe me, I won't make the mistake of getting into it with you again. Peace out.


    I would have no problem if I agreed (none / 0) (#65)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Sep 08, 2009 at 12:57:25 AM EST
    she was good looking, but I think she's unattractive. There's nothing wrong with complimenting someone on their looks. But beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

    Jeralyn, I agree, oftentimes (none / 0) (#67)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Tue Sep 08, 2009 at 06:07:20 AM EST
    there's nothing wrong with complimenting someone on their looks
    Especially in an informal, social setting among peers, I say it myself; I expect to hear it in return - and if I don't, I demand it. On a hot date, well it's decidedly do or die.  

    But, I'm sure you're aware that "complimenting someone on their looks" isn't always an innocuous proposition - especially in terms of how this has historically pertained to women in the workplace - or to any woman who is just walking down the street minding her own business for that matter.

    And, with few exceptions, there is something "wrong" (i.e. legally discriminatory) about a person in a position of authority using "looks" as a criteria for employment - isn't there?

    I don't quite know what to make of you using the TL forum to publicly express your opinion that Martha Coakley is "unattractive". Personally, as a beautiful woman myself, I think it's an ugly thing to do - especially to another woman who is less attractive than me - psych! As a beautiful woman yourself, you also ought to know better Jeralyn. Stick a fork in me, I'm done with this.


    No good deed goes unpunished... (none / 0) (#62)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Mon Sep 07, 2009 at 11:28:42 PM EST
    In a statement, Joseph P. Kennedy II, the former six-term congressman and eldest son of Robert F. Kennedy said he cares about those seeking decent housing, fair wages and health care. But he added, "The best way for me to contribute to those causes is by continuing my work at Citizens Energy Corp."

    The nonprofit organization provides free heating oil to the poor, but Kennedy likely would have faced campaign questions about fuel provided by Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez.

    Perhaps the debate could have played out more fully if Oliver Stone's Chavez documentary had premiered a couple of months ago and provided a wee bit of counter-argument to the hegemonic, derogatory coverage from our MSM.

    Then again, Joe Kennedy is probably right, like Gore - in the current political environment, he can probably do a lot more good as a private citizen.


    Progressives and liberals need (none / 0) (#30)
    by oldpro on Mon Sep 07, 2009 at 02:52:24 PM EST
    to read Jane Hamsher today at FDL.

    Sorry...I don't do the linky thing...

    Jonathan Alter? (none / 0) (#41)
    by waldenpond on Mon Sep 07, 2009 at 04:33:24 PM EST
    Do you mean the Jonathan Alter (kill the PO Alter) piece?   Alter

    Oops....sorry, no... (none / 0) (#46)
    by oldpro on Mon Sep 07, 2009 at 05:57:56 PM EST
    yesterday's post on Van Jones - A Moment of Truth...

    Obama's Labor Day speech (none / 0) (#32)
    by waldenpond on Mon Sep 07, 2009 at 03:11:38 PM EST
    Obama's Labor Day Speech.

    This is interesting (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by MO Blue on Mon Sep 07, 2009 at 03:34:20 PM EST
    I see reform where Americans and small businesses that are shut out of health insurance today will be able to purchase coverage at a price they can afford. Where they'll be able to shop and compare in a new health insurance exchange-a marketplace where competition and choice will continue to hold down cost and help deliver them a better deal. And I continue to believe that a public option within the basket of insurance choices would help improve quality and bring down costs.

    Of course, exactly what he means by a public option is anyone's guess. Also, I would like him to deliver a modified version of this part of his speech to the corporate Dems who are putting the insurance industry's well being over those of their constituents.

    You play by the rules and pay your bills. But in recent years, the American Dream seemed to slip away, because from Washington to Wall Street, too often a different culture prevailed.

    Wealth was valued over work, selfishness over sacrifice, greed over responsibility, the right to organize undermined rather than strengthened.

    The delivery (5.00 / 2) (#44)
    by gyrfalcon on Mon Sep 07, 2009 at 05:32:40 PM EST
    was very fierce.  Reading the text doesn't convey the tone of the speech at all.  I was quite impressed and surprised, but I may just be getting set up for yet another boing on the Obama bungee cord.

    The delivery is form and (none / 0) (#54)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Mon Sep 07, 2009 at 07:31:22 PM EST
    Obama specializes in selling form over content; i.e. same old wine, meet new bottle. So, you're wise not to get too 'all fired up' about this latest, but by now means last, big speech.

    Watching the US Open (none / 0) (#36)
    by caseyOR on Mon Sep 07, 2009 at 03:57:52 PM EST
    And am very excited by the play of 17 year old Melanie Oudin of Georgia. This kid is knocking off ranked players left and right. A couple of days ago she defeated Maria Sharapova, and today her victim was Petrova. Oudin has played her way into the first major tourney quarterfinals of her life.

    The American talent pool in tennis has been very shallow for a very long time. I love the Williams sisters. They can play some exciting tennis still, but both Venus and Serena are coming up on 30 and very few players remain competitive at the highest level much beyond that age ( Navratilova being the exception that proves the rule.)

    So, Yay!! for Melanie! You go, girl!

    Yes...a very exciting match (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by oldpro on Mon Sep 07, 2009 at 06:00:31 PM EST
    today...the kid is quite wonderful

    Breathtaking match (none / 0) (#49)
    by lentinel on Mon Sep 07, 2009 at 06:09:18 PM EST
    Did you see the one between Venus Williams and Kim Clijsters?

    Yes. Venus wasn't playing her (none / 0) (#50)
    by oldpro on Mon Sep 07, 2009 at 06:13:31 PM EST
    best game but it was great to see Clisters play well and make a comeback.

    Obama's speech. (none / 0) (#45)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Sep 07, 2009 at 05:49:11 PM EST
    Here's the text of Obama's school speech. Pretty straight forward stuff but he can't resist taking credit for some of the good stuff.

    Oh well, he is a politician.


    Go 'Canes! (none / 0) (#68)
    by indy in sc on Tue Sep 08, 2009 at 10:05:47 AM EST
    What a thrilling game last night!  I'm so happy for my 'Canes.  Three more tough games to follow, but at least we have a QB now!