Tuesday Night Open Thread

Love the Goo Goo Dolls who were on DWTS tonight. (I'm just starting to watch, having DVR'd it earlier.) Bristol is in the bottom three, where she belongs. I doubt she'll be leaving tonight. Not when her mom was in the studio audience last night. (All the tea partiers will call in to vote for her.) Mike "the Situation" is the more likely choice. Neither one can dance, but since the Situation has a lot of personality, I hope it's not him.

After DWTS, it's the Good Wife.

This is an open thread, all topics welcome.

< Factors in the Killing of the Mexican Investigator in Lake Disappearance | Rescue in Chile: Success >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    trying hard to contain expletives here (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Oct 13, 2010 at 09:38:49 AM EST
    WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Obama administration decided on Tuesday to appeal a judge's rulings  that prevented the U.S. government from banning same-sex marriages, a move that could undermine support among President Barack Obama's traditional liberal base ahead of a key election.

    this was a bad day (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Oct 13, 2010 at 09:41:00 AM EST
    for me to get my absentee ballot

    This should (5.00 / 4) (#14)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Oct 13, 2010 at 10:39:16 AM EST
    come as no surprise. Remember the gay bashing gospel tour? It's who he is. He's really uncomfortable with the whole idea of gays having any rights I think.

    I, and I suspect many others, (none / 0) (#15)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Oct 13, 2010 at 10:46:28 AM EST
    are beginning to agree with you.

    one thing is clear.  he wants a republican congress.


    if he (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Oct 13, 2010 at 12:30:40 PM EST
    wants a GOP congress, then he is even more politically stupid than I ever imagined. I know he thinks that the GOP just hates Bill Clinton and the reason they went after Ole Bill was because well, we all just know that Bill wasn't "our kind of people" and that they will just see the "awesomeness" of Obama and do what he wants. Boy, does he have a very rude awakening coming down the pike if the GOP takes over the house. Issa will probably make crazy Dan Burton look sane.

    Obama is just not the kind of President we need at this time in the country.

    What really surprises me is that people even thought he might do something for gays after the way he ran the primaries.


    I agree (5.00 / 2) (#30)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Oct 13, 2010 at 12:43:55 PM EST
    but I honestly think that is what he wants.  so he can be the hero or something.  strengthening his chances in 12.

    I saw this morning in response to the solidifying village opinion that this is the most feckless and in over their head administration since Carter that some in the administration said that (paraphrase) "they were not arrogant they were over confident".

    well that is a bit of semantics isnt it.


    oy. (none / 0) (#32)
    by nycstray on Wed Oct 13, 2010 at 12:46:55 PM EST
    he obviously (none / 0) (#49)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Oct 13, 2010 at 02:57:01 PM EST
    never gets outside of his bubble then. I wonder does he realize that the GOP plans to impeach him?

    In order to be the hero, he's going to have to drop the PPUS (pee-puss is what I call it) and every indication is that he has no plans for that. Now, for it to make his chances better in '12 a series of things would have to happen:

    1. He would have to get a spine and quit the ppus crap.
    2. The GOP would have to nominate someone as vile as Newt Gingrich to run for President.

    So you could argue that in a small way it makes his chances better but not just because of the GOP taking over the house. It has to be more than that but you can never underestimate the stupidity of the GOP when it comes to picking candidates now that the tea party has taken over.

    It is horrible to read today (none / 0) (#26)
    by Cream City on Wed Oct 13, 2010 at 12:00:41 PM EST
    that gays in the military are being advised not to come out now, because Obama, et al., will appeal.

    I am reminded of the sad accounts of the day when woman suffragists finally won Congressional approval of their bill -- more than half a century after the woman suffrage bill was submitted to Congress, after many court decisions in their favor that had been overrules as well.

    One woman's account I read said that by then, "there was no rejoicing, there were no hallelujahs" -- as after all, that bill had been nearly won and then lost the year before, and even in 1919 had barely made it by only two votes.

    She wrote that among the women, there was more of a grim recognition of all that still remained ahead for ratification, too.  And that took another year and a half and was won by only one vote in one state, too -- and then, for three years after 1920, suffragists had to use up every cent they had saved (after millions already spent) for GOTV campaigns to instead go all the way to the Supreme Court to get some states to abide by the 19th Amendment.  And they had to fight repeal campaigns throughout the country, too.

    I thought of all that in thinking that there ought to be rejoicing and hallelujahs by and for gays as well, but that is sadly not how it will go.


    its honestly (5.00 / 2) (#31)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Oct 13, 2010 at 12:46:28 PM EST
    like they have no idea how completely devastating this little backhand is to many people.

    personally I am getting angry enough to accept president Gingrich or whoever.  just get this guy the hell outta here so we can move on.

    Hillary can still run and win in 16.  maybe even more so.


    When will you understand? (none / 0) (#34)
    by jbindc on Wed Oct 13, 2010 at 01:01:46 PM EST
    It isn't about you, me, anyone on this board, or 99% of the people in this country?

    Wow (none / 0) (#50)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Oct 13, 2010 at 03:00:03 PM EST
    that is really angry. I'm not even that angry.

    more so (none / 0) (#54)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Oct 13, 2010 at 03:13:00 PM EST
    because I was, to some extent, had.

    never again.


    It has to be this way (none / 0) (#22)
    by jbindc on Wed Oct 13, 2010 at 11:38:58 AM EST
    Everyone us waiting for the SC to eventually get this.

    it didnt have to be this way (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Oct 13, 2010 at 11:47:40 AM EST
    Kind of like how Republican governor Schwarzenegger didn't appeal the California federal district court decision on Prop. H8 or Republican governor Crist didn't appeal the Florida state court of appeal decision striking down the ban on gay adoption.

    No, but (none / 0) (#27)
    by jbindc on Wed Oct 13, 2010 at 12:01:00 PM EST
    The Ninth Circuit will probably issue a stay.  If not them, my guess is the Supremes will.

    Of course, I don't believe this ruling does anything to the UJMC ban on homosexuals serving either.  There's also the question of if DADT is unconstitutional (and thus, "void"), does that mean the military goes back to pre-DADT rules where they could ask and really go after gays.


    I thought this (none / 0) (#35)
    by CST on Wed Oct 13, 2010 at 01:06:26 PM EST
    was about DOMA not DADT.

    There is no "process" needed to rescind DOMA.  It's about people who are legally married under state law not being recognized by the Feds.

    Have they decided whether to appeal DADT yet?  I'm not holding my breath...

    But I think we're getting our laws confused here.


    they certainly have (none / 0) (#37)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Oct 13, 2010 at 01:09:49 PM EST
    decided.  see link upthread.

    my god. (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Oct 13, 2010 at 01:12:26 PM EST
    you are right.  need to either pay more attention to work or surfing.

    its DOMA they are appealing.  oh well.  wait until tomorrow.  I will just cut and paste all my outraged DADT comments to THAT thread.


    no need to apologize (none / 0) (#44)
    by CST on Wed Oct 13, 2010 at 01:34:28 PM EST
    personally I'm pretty ticked off about the DOMA appeal.

    to put it another way (none / 0) (#45)
    by CST on Wed Oct 13, 2010 at 01:37:59 PM EST
    Congress might actually vote to overturn DADT one of these days.

    DOMA isn't going away unless it's through the courts.  That much is clear.


    No (none / 0) (#41)
    by jbindc on Wed Oct 13, 2010 at 01:28:13 PM EST
    It's DADT.

    DOMA has nothing to do with military servicemembers.


    again (none / 0) (#43)
    by CST on Wed Oct 13, 2010 at 01:32:51 PM EST
    to clarify - it was the DOMA ruling that was appealed today not DADT.

    The DOMA ruling was issued by a MA judge who said it was unconstitutional for the federal government not to recognize legal state marriages.


    This comment thread, though (none / 0) (#46)
    by jbindc on Wed Oct 13, 2010 at 01:43:39 PM EST
    Is about the DADT injunction that came out yesterday.

    I believe the injunction was (none / 0) (#48)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Oct 13, 2010 at 02:30:35 PM EST
    for DOMA
    my bad

    It (none / 0) (#51)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Oct 13, 2010 at 03:03:14 PM EST
    would seem to me that the MA Judge is right on this. I mean the Feds recognize my marriage and I was married in SC a state I no longer live in.

    I thought (none / 0) (#53)
    by CST on Wed Oct 13, 2010 at 03:12:48 PM EST
    it was a fairly solid, clear cut ruling.

    I guess the one possible benefit to this is that it goes all the way to the Supremes and then it's a done deal.  But that's really only a benefit if we can win at the Supreme level.

    Which is certainly debatable.


    oh god (none / 0) (#55)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Oct 13, 2010 at 03:14:36 PM EST
    dont make me think of reasons I might have to vote for president turncoat.

    Heck (none / 0) (#57)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Oct 13, 2010 at 03:17:33 PM EST
    there's no guarantee that he won't put somebody on the court who would vote against the ruling.

    It's kind of too early to tell (none / 0) (#58)
    by CST on Wed Oct 13, 2010 at 04:01:44 PM EST
    but that's actually one area that I think has been handled fairly well.

    Although I was thinking more of the current court.  I guess Ginsburg might step down, but if she does I bet it's before 2012.

    Scalia might drop dead...  He's looking rather fat these days.

    I'm a terrible person.  I hope he retires into complete obscurity.


    Sure. (none / 0) (#56)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Oct 13, 2010 at 03:16:38 PM EST
    I guess the conservatives will all of a sudden abandon their love of "state's rights".

    Novel idea from Barney Frank (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by MO Blue on Wed Oct 13, 2010 at 10:28:52 AM EST
    After a federal judge yesterday ordered the military to stop enforcing Don't Ask, Don't Tell, Rep. Barney Frank called for the Obama administration to wait to appeal the ruling until after Congress can repeal the policy in a lame-duck session.
    "They've got 60 days. We will have the lame-duck session convene in less time than that," he said. "Clearly what they should do is wait and see. I hope they don't appeal it at all, but it would be really foolish to appeal it before we can repeal it." TPM

    Obama wants everyone to know that (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by KeysDan on Wed Oct 13, 2010 at 01:31:03 PM EST
    he hates DADT.  It is unfair, inequitable and unconstitutional. However, he has no choice whatsoever other than to have his DOJ appeal all the way to the Supreme Court on the basis that it is fair, equitable and constitutional.  So much for the courts.

    As for the legislative process, well, look folks, we need to let the legislative process take its course, get the approval of the Pentagon brass following receipt of their study on showers and the like, and check it all out with the families of the soldiers. And, as always, God is in the mix, so we might want to consider what Tony  Perkins of the Family Research Council thinks.

    As for the executive branch, the president's hands are tied, he is powerless to do anything except hold  WH wine and wiener parties for co-opted gay organizations where he forcefully presents his commitment to fierce advocacy.


    Right on except you left out something (5.00 / 2) (#47)
    by MO Blue on Wed Oct 13, 2010 at 01:50:59 PM EST
    ...he is powerless to do anything except hold  WH wine and wiener parties for co-opted gay organizations where he forcefully presents his commitment to fierce advocacy.

    Should be corrected to read where he forcefully presents his commitment to fierce advocacy as he collects their money in exchange for distant (extremely distant) promises of action.


    I wonder if that Barney Frank quote... (none / 0) (#18)
    by EL seattle on Wed Oct 13, 2010 at 10:56:31 AM EST
    ... will make it into any Republican GOTV ads over then next month?

    More grim news from the House (none / 0) (#1)
    by andgarden on Tue Oct 12, 2010 at 10:39:50 PM EST
    Jerry McNerney is one of the good ones. It doesn't look good for him.

    Confirmation that House Dems are likely sunk.

    2nd miner, Mario Sepulveda Espina, (none / 0) (#2)
    by MO Blue on Tue Oct 12, 2010 at 11:20:03 PM EST
    safely to the top. "Hugged President Sebastian Pinera and rescuers, and then handed them pieces of rock from his undergound home."

    Just started a new thread for (none / 0) (#3)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Oct 13, 2010 at 12:25:29 AM EST
    the miners. I'm transfixed by it. What a joy to watch.

    Me too (none / 0) (#4)
    by MO Blue on Wed Oct 13, 2010 at 12:34:02 AM EST
    A real testament to the men's will to survive and what a concerted effort can accomplish. Don't know if I was one of the wives if I could hold it together as well as those I've seen so far.

    hmmmm (none / 0) (#5)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Oct 13, 2010 at 08:29:50 AM EST
    maybe smaller government really is the answer:

    It's crunch-time for many municipalities across the United States, but for one county in Oregon, that means a little more than in most.

    The district attorney in Multnomah County, the state's most populous area with over 710,000 residents, announced recently that it can no longer prosecute dozens of crimes thanks to an ever-shrinking budget.

    Caught with small amounts of heroin, cocaine or methamphetamine? It's a ticket. So's a hit-and-run accident. Small-time shoplifting? You'll still get arrested, but it's still just a violation.

    For these and other lesser crimes, the district attorney will simply refuse to prosecute.

    If you wanna be free... (none / 0) (#6)
    by kdog on Wed Oct 13, 2010 at 09:10:50 AM EST
    the smaller the better baby, at least in regards to the law enforcement and prosecution armks of government...good to finally see somebody prioritizing the law enforcement dollar.

    We could save taxpayers a small fortune coast to coast simply by chilling the f*ck out over minor sh*t...hope this catches on.


    thought (none / 0) (#7)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Oct 13, 2010 at 09:24:35 AM EST
    you would like that

    Speaking of the dope game... (none / 0) (#11)
    by kdog on Wed Oct 13, 2010 at 10:12:21 AM EST
    have you gotten a load of the new menace...meth is out, cheese is in.

    2 bucks a hit?  Damn, I think its safe to call the drug war a total utter fail when the sweet leaf is the expensive buzz and this garbage is dirt cheap.  Think of the children people:)


    that is (none / 0) (#13)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Oct 13, 2010 at 10:31:34 AM EST
    absolutely horrifying

    If you believe the hype it is... (none / 0) (#16)
    by kdog on Wed Oct 13, 2010 at 10:47:20 AM EST
    not sure if I totally believe the hype...remember the infamous crack epidemic was totally overblown, ya gotta watch these drug war cats with their agendas...honesty is not their policy.

    and stuff like "cheese" (none / 0) (#19)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Oct 13, 2010 at 11:00:36 AM EST
    do not always come from the people they would like you to think it comes from.

    stuff like this sets off my conspiracy alarms like all get out.


    `Alien' Prequel (none / 0) (#8)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Oct 13, 2010 at 09:31:30 AM EST
    Breaking news: Damon Lindelof frigging rules. Reports are coming in that the co-creator of Lost has just turned in his script for the Untitled Alien Prequel for director Ridley Scott  and the executives at 20th Century Fox love it. Why do they love it? Well, because Scott originally budgeted the film around $150 million and Lindelof's script has a distinct lack of large action set pieces, thereby bringing that number down. Plus the script reportedly has a more PG-13 edge in terms of language and off camera violence - much like the original 1979 film. And finally, Natalie Portman has met with Scott's team and is at the top of their list for the lead female role of "a female Colonial Marine general." Hit the jump for more on the upcoming project and why PG-13 isn't necessarily a bad thing.

    Obama administration members (none / 0) (#17)
    by MO Blue on Wed Oct 13, 2010 at 10:52:56 AM EST
    always looking for ways to help him keep his promise on DADT. Well not so much.

    WASHINGTON (AP) -- Defense Secretary Robert Gates said Wednesday that abruptly ending the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy as a federal judge has ordered would have enormous consequences.

    ....Gates told reporters that the question of whether to repeal the law should be decided by Congress, and done only after the Pentagon completes its study on the issue.

    "I feel strongly this is an action that needs to be taken by the Congress and that it is an action that requires careful preparation, and a lot of training," said Gates. "It has enormous consequences for our troops."

    The defense secretary said that besides the changes in training, regulations will need revisions and changes may be necessary to benefits and Defense Department buildings. AP

    The new manual on "How to love the gay" will be ready sometime after 2016 and training should be complete around 2026 so don't get impatient. After all Obama has only been in office for a short time.:-( Or as the Blue Texan said:

    I know, I know. Quit whining, stop sulking, change is hard.

    of course (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Oct 13, 2010 at 11:02:47 AM EST
    it should be done by the people who will never do it.
    and that way its not my problem.

    I cant tell you how pi$$ed I am about this.  this was such a no brainer.  do nothing.  no one important would have cared.  I wonder just who the hell they expect to vote for them?


    The (none / 0) (#52)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Oct 13, 2010 at 03:05:17 PM EST
    New Dem party? The ones that aren't aligned with issues I guess. The ones that think Obama is "awesome".

    I'm getting pretty tired of "we really, (5.00 / 2) (#24)
    by Anne on Wed Oct 13, 2010 at 11:48:31 AM EST
    really want to do [X], but we can't do it just yet because first, we have to do [Y] and then we have to do [Z], and we have to go v-e-r-y  s-l-o-w-l-y."   Delay, delay, delay.

    They can do what they want when it suits them, so the only conclusion I can draw is that it doesn't suit Obama, not really.  Perhaps on an intellectual level, but he's uncomfortable with the reality.  Just like he can say he's all for reproductive choice, but when he's confronted with reality, he hedges, equivocates and contradicts.

    The surprise isn't that this is who he is, it's in realizing how negatively his essential self is affecting those who need strong leadership to help preserve the rights they have, and grant others the ones that will put them on the same level with everyone else.

    The question I find myself asking is whether there is any issue on which Obama has any credibility left?  


    if there is one left (5.00 / 0) (#25)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Oct 13, 2010 at 11:52:46 AM EST
    Im sure they will find a way to f*ck that up too.

    I'm thinking... (none / 0) (#33)
    by sj on Wed Oct 13, 2010 at 12:51:00 PM EST
    The question I find myself asking is whether there is any issue on which Obama has any credibility left?  

    still thinking...


    Well he promised that Social Security (none / 0) (#39)
    by MO Blue on Wed Oct 13, 2010 at 01:17:18 PM EST
    would be on the table and it is. Now if you want an answer about something positive, there is where I join you in still thinking....  

    Sending out an S.O.S.... (none / 0) (#21)
    by kdog on Wed Oct 13, 2010 at 11:25:18 AM EST
    to the bank.

    Novel idea, but I don't think they give two sh*ts Mr. Guzman...start digging a moat and get some gators or something, it's the only language our banks understand.

    Well . . . . (none / 0) (#28)
    by SOS on Wed Oct 13, 2010 at 12:09:44 PM EST
    n 1972, non contributory pension systems began to increasingly break down so with the establishment of IRAs and 401ks you could accumulate savings for your retirement. And don't worry, you were told, the $2000 a year you began putting into your IRA at age 25, after 40 years of investing, would provide you with a million dollar nest egg at age 65, because the S&P average annual return would be 8% forever.

    This is the model for life in America that is now broken -- and it can never be fixed again.


    $2000 a year in 1972? (5.00 / 2) (#36)
    by EL seattle on Wed Oct 13, 2010 at 01:09:05 PM EST
    How many 25 year old workers could have afforded to do that?  I'd think that $40.00 a week would have been a signaificant amount of money for most folks back then.

    Yeh, I remember that (5.00 / 2) (#40)
    by Cream City on Wed Oct 13, 2010 at 01:22:54 PM EST
    as I was in the job market then and just about the target age and type or even more:  A college graduate, in a good career track, a professional position and not even a standard starting job but a step up.

    I was making less than $175 per week.  By the end of '72, I was so excited to land a new position that paid more -- almost $200 per week, $10,000 per year.

    And in addition to rent, food, transportation, etc., I still was paying off student loans.  As if I had any ability to save $40 per week. . . .