Friday Morning Open Thread

I'm off to court for the day. In case BTD is also busy, here's an open thread, all topics welcome.

Update: In the news, there will be no social security increases this year for the second year in a row. Michelle Obama campaigned for Michael Bennet yesterday. The Ken Buck is ethically challenged ad aired at least five times last night.

The judge in the Ghailani terror trial released his newly redacted 63 page opinion barring the testimony of cooperator Hussein Abebe. The opinion doesn't just say his testimony was tainted by Ghailani's CIA questioning at a black hole prison, it says the judge found him incredible and that he lied about his motives for testifying.

Did Texas execute an innocent man? The case of Cameron Todd Willingham is being re-examined. (More background here and here.) A court hearing was held yesterday. No ruling yet.

< Thursday Afternoon Open Thread | Report: No Justice in Paradise >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Note to the American Workers... (5.00 / 0) (#45)
    by kdog on Fri Oct 15, 2010 at 11:44:47 AM EST
    and the American SS recipients getting stiffed.

    This is how you do it.

    Prisons are already overcrowded (none / 0) (#52)
    by Yes2Truth on Fri Oct 15, 2010 at 12:09:22 PM EST

    IF SS recipients rioted, they'd be thrown into those
    new, secret "holding facilities", and that way, O
    could pretend that we don't treat our seniors like we do those terrusts we send to Cuba.

    I still think O won't run in 2012, but if he does, he'd be well advised to switch parties.


    So typical.... (5.00 / 0) (#61)
    by kdog on Fri Oct 15, 2010 at 01:00:59 PM EST
    The "personal responsibility" brigade on Wall St. blaming the entire foreclosure clusterf*ck on dirty unwashed Main St.  

    The "don't tread on me, tread on them" philosophy is really taking off!  "Personal responsibility" lectures were strangely absent back at bank bailout time.

    That might work as long as (none / 0) (#79)
    by ruffian on Fri Oct 15, 2010 at 03:02:24 PM EST
    the focus is on the "foreclosure crisis", which is bad enough, rather than on the mortgage security fraud. But the day of reckoning for fraud at the root of the whole mess iscoming soon. Link h/t Atrios. Half those homeowners would not have gotten loans if Wall St. was not encouraging lax standards.

    I think it is an excellent time for Eliot Spitzer to have a TV show. Hope he makes the most of it.


    The guy in the office next to me was a mortgage broker for a couple years, back in the halcyon days. He got loans every day for people he absolutely knew were lying on their apps.

    He did "seminars" on weekends for people who had bad credit, his pitch was that he could fix their credit and get them home loans. The seminars, of course, were just his way of finding customers.

    He laughed about one loan app that came back to him because the SS# was for a dead guy but he was still able to get that guy a loan.

    And this mortgage broker guy made some serious dough for those couple years...


    Everyone had incentive to cheat (5.00 / 3) (#85)
    by ruffian on Fri Oct 15, 2010 at 03:29:42 PM EST
    or to ignore the cheating by the previous link in the chain. But the people making the loans and buying the securities had the power to stop the chain of fraud, and they did not, as long as their own pockets were getting lined. Now that they are not getting paid, they are pretty quick to blame the people at the bottom of the food chain.

    I see your point, (5.00 / 1) (#93)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Oct 15, 2010 at 03:59:26 PM EST
    but I blame the entire chain for their greed and fraud.

    A huckster is a huckster whether they're operating out of the 50th floor of a NYC high rise or an industrial building in Chatsworth, CA...


    We shall see... (5.00 / 0) (#84)
    by kdog on Fri Oct 15, 2010 at 03:24:08 PM EST
    Uncle Sam has a way of making sure banksters never see their day of reckoning....days of reckoning are for those who must be held personally responsible, aka Main St. people.



    Sad but true (none / 0) (#86)
    by ruffian on Fri Oct 15, 2010 at 03:34:08 PM EST
    the only thing that gives me hope is the sheer magnitude of the problem and the fact that the economy simply cannot possibly as long as homeowners are sinking. It just can't happen. Pols are just starting to get that message, way too late in the game.

    And it is not the tea party giving them the message - you never hear the tea party talk about this. They only bemoan the bailouts in terms of the 'big government' aspect. They love Wall St as much as the pols do.


    'cannot possibly recover' (none / 0) (#87)
    by ruffian on Fri Oct 15, 2010 at 03:34:41 PM EST
    I meant to say

    This economic model... (5.00 / 1) (#90)
    by kdog on Fri Oct 15, 2010 at 03:50:10 PM EST
    could not possibly recover...frankly I don't know how much a future there is for this economic model regardless of how we proceed, and I am not sure if its even worth slapping another band aid on it.

    Maybe its time for a new economic model...a daunting undertaking, to be sure...but if we don't do it our grandkids will have to, under much more trying and dire circumstances than this.


    Val yer slip is showing. a lot. (5.00 / 2) (#67)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Oct 15, 2010 at 01:39:34 PM EST
    then popped up a new problem for the Democratic administration -- and one that may well help explain the inexplicable delays in Obama changing federal policies. Valerie Jarrett, the president's senior adviser who seems at his elbow virtually everywhere, this week gave a videotaped interview (see below) to Jonathan Capehart, an editorial writer at the Washington Post.

    In it, she described the pain of a gay man's family after his suicide: "They were aware that their son was gay. They embraced him. They loved him. They supported his lifestyle choice."

    "Lifestyle choice"? Is that what they really think in the Obama White House after all this time? How could someone so close to Obama get his thinking so wrong in public on tape? Unless....

    Capehart did not press her on that surprising, perhaps revealing slip.

    eventually 2+2=4. even on the unicorn ranch.

    Thurday (none / 0) (#80)
    by MO Blue on Fri Oct 15, 2010 at 03:16:30 PM EST
    DOD states they will abide by Judge Phillips ruling on DADT.


    The Defense Department on Friday warned gay troops that if they disclose their sexual orientation now, they could still get in trouble.

    Defense Department has said it will comply with the court order for now -- freezing any discharge proceedings and technically ending its decades-long policy of discriminating against gays. But it is uncertain what would happen if the court grants the administration's request for a temporary stay on the ruling.

    If the court agrees to the stay, it is presumed the military would reinstate the old policy.

    "We note for service members that altering their personal conduct in this legally uncertain environment may have adverse consequences for themselves or others should the court's decision be reversed," wrote Clifford Stanley, the undersecretary of defense for personnel and readiness.

    The DOD and the military never (5.00 / 0) (#106)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Oct 15, 2010 at 05:02:07 PM EST
    was the big stumbling block of late, we have a few voices saying don't repeal it but we have just as many big gun voices shouting to do it. It is this administration and a President who can't handle it when Fox News says bad things about him.  And that's the size of those big boy britches.

    Someone emailed me this (none / 0) (#108)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Oct 15, 2010 at 05:06:27 PM EST
    thing about some Washington insider who says this President now has bunker mentality.  He thinks the big banks are gunning for him and also the military.  He probably feels that way largely in part because of this, the DOD left him hanging in the breeze.  But damn it, DADT does not work....we are the laughing stock of NATO...everybody who is anybody in the military is done with it.  The military doesn't want it anymore though because it isn't good for the troops and it actually puts our national security at risk.  But Obama would throw that under the bus too for politics and so Fox won't say mean crap about him.  If he gave Fox News the bird, more people would actually like him better.

    The Obama administration in asking (none / 0) (#114)
    by KeysDan on Fri Oct 15, 2010 at 05:32:37 PM EST
    the federal judge for an emergency stay, Clifford Stanley, the undersecretary of defense argued as part of a 48-page court filing, that the military, particularly in wartime, should not be required to "suddenly and immediately restructure a major personnel policy that has been in place for years."

    Mr. Stanley's declaration was the centerpiece of a set of filings that claimed that  ending the policy would require training of military service members,  as well as a reworking of issues like "housing, benefits, re-accession, military equal opportunity anti-harassement, standards of conduct, rights and obligations of the chaplain corps, and others."   All of these things, he continues, cannot be done overnight requiring a massive undertaking by the Pentagon.

    To me, this surprise and the need for massive undertaking does not speak well for the Pentagon from just about any perspective, including evaluation of a personnel policy in effect for over 17-yearsas well as preparedness and contingency planning. Concerns for "reworking" housing (e.g. segregation) betrays sexuality stereotypes of yesteryear.  It can only be hoped that these shortfalls do not extend to other massive undertakings in the Pentagon's purview, like defense.  


    Pardon me if I think all of the excuses (5.00 / 2) (#116)
    by MO Blue on Fri Oct 15, 2010 at 06:10:37 PM EST
    put forth are mainly B.S. IMO there is no need for a military manual or training on "How to Love The Gay." Soldiers have been sharing housing etc, etc. with gay personnel since the inception of the military and do so today.  

    agree (5.00 / 1) (#123)
    by nycstray on Fri Oct 15, 2010 at 06:52:17 PM EST
    it actually sounds a bit dense.

    What has sharing houses got to do with it? (none / 0) (#128)
    by Politalkix on Fri Oct 15, 2010 at 07:52:40 PM EST
    The Rutgers Univ student who committed suicide also shared a room with someone else!
    There is a need for miltary manual or training despite what you think. Most civilian workplaces also have diversity training despite non discriminatory laws being in place for many years.

    You might want to ask the question of (none / 0) (#130)
    by MO Blue on Fri Oct 15, 2010 at 08:45:58 PM EST
    "What has sharing houses got to do with it?" of ranking members of the military and the DOD who have stated that it might be a problem.  

    Irrespective of whether houses are shared or not (none / 0) (#133)
    by Politalkix on Fri Oct 15, 2010 at 09:42:44 PM EST
    training and manuals have to be provided.

    One wants to ask President Obama (none / 0) (#129)
    by Cream City on Fri Oct 15, 2010 at 08:36:27 PM EST
    if the Emancipation Proclamation ought to have been delayed until the manual for implementing it could be written.  By committee.  And vetted.  By committee. . . .

    Idiotic Comparison (none / 0) (#131)
    by Politalkix on Fri Oct 15, 2010 at 09:37:36 PM EST
    and I say this even though I support repeal of DADT and find the mentioned policy reprehensible.

    "particularly in wartime"? (5.00 / 1) (#126)
    by Zorba on Fri Oct 15, 2010 at 07:14:24 PM EST
    The armed forces were desegregated during the Korean War.  Yes, it took longer than it had to, but also yes, wartime was going on when it was instituted.

    I have the perfect solution to that problem (5.00 / 0) (#127)
    by MO Blue on Fri Oct 15, 2010 at 07:26:32 PM EST
    End the wars tomorrow and DADT the day after. Problem solved.

    Man takes ride on baggage claim carousel (5.00 / 1) (#88)
    by shoephone on Fri Oct 15, 2010 at 03:37:14 PM EST
    and films the crowd watching him as he makes the rounds.

    A good poke in the eye to silly airport security measures. (But they did arrest him. He made bail.)

    Good stuff... (none / 0) (#92)
    by kdog on Fri Oct 15, 2010 at 03:57:33 PM EST
    it is a public service to get locked up mocking the whole sorry scene at the airport.

    Kdog, I thought of you (none / 0) (#101)
    by shoephone on Fri Oct 15, 2010 at 04:39:16 PM EST
    when I first read the story! ;-)

    Thanks shoe... (none / 0) (#104)
    by kdog on Fri Oct 15, 2010 at 04:49:23 PM EST
    I think:)

    If only I had the stones (and/or the loose screw) of my everyday hero here.

    Hit the chute, hit the conveyor...keep it up party people.


    Poor Barack.... (1.00 / 0) (#4)
    by vml68 on Fri Oct 15, 2010 at 09:29:34 AM EST
    he is really missing the love.

    the president sometimes sounds wistful when noting the differences between this year and 2008.

    "Sometimes I feel as if we had such a high on election night, and then there was the inauguration and Bono was singing and Beyonce," Mr. Obama said at a fundraiser in Chicago last week. "That was the start, not the finish, of the journey. And it made each of you a shareholder in the mission of rebuilding our country and reclaiming our future."

    First lady Michelle Obama recently told Democratic supporters that the big-stadium events of 2008 were "very exciting and people should know that those rallies invigorate Barack as well."

    It really IS all about him! (5.00 / 4) (#7)
    by jbindc on Fri Oct 15, 2010 at 09:40:59 AM EST
    I'm so tired of hearing this cr@p!

    Me (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Oct 15, 2010 at 10:14:53 AM EST
    too. If I hear him whining one more time about himself when unemployment is hovering around 10%, I am going to scream!

    Whining about himself? (1.00 / 1) (#109)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Fri Oct 15, 2010 at 05:06:27 PM EST
    I don't see what he said that way at all.

    Maybe more concern and effort (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by MO Blue on Fri Oct 15, 2010 at 09:44:43 AM EST
    should be devoted to invigorating the economy for those in the 90 percentile than providing rallies to invigorate Barack.

    Needless to say though, those savvy businessmen are doing extremely well during Obama's presidency. Memo to Obama: There is no trickle down going on here.  



    Two years in and he's wistful for (5.00 / 9) (#36)
    by Anne on Fri Oct 15, 2010 at 11:19:44 AM EST
    the good ol' days of Campaign '08...probably because two years is about the longest he's held any elective office before getting the campaign for the next one going.

    Poor thing.

    The problem is that the "shareholders" in this investment haven't been getting the dividends they were promised, and the value of the underlying asset has gone down, not up, and the decisions of the CEO have not been in sync with the wishes of the shareholders - some of whom have already sold, and others of whom are at least thinking about it.

    That he can still draw a crowd is meaningless; Bush was drawing them even when he only had a 30% approval rating.  I get that appearing before an adoring crowd is energizing, but what is he planning to do with that energy?  Give us more Republican policies?  Sell out more of the base?  Double-down on his desire to "fix" social safety-net programs?  Find more Republican members of Congress with good ideas?


    "Obama-Biden 2012: The Other Guys Are Worse, But We're Getting There!"

    Order Yours Today!


    Seriously, Anne (5.00 / 6) (#47)
    by jbindc on Fri Oct 15, 2010 at 11:54:20 AM EST
    In your spare time, you should write your own blog while continuing to post here and at Corrente.

    I would give this comment a '10' if I could.


    I don't think (none / 0) (#6)
    by lilburro on Fri Oct 15, 2010 at 09:40:08 AM EST
    there's anything wrong with that...judging by the NYT Magazine profile, the WH is trying to figure out a new communications strategy.  If that entails breaking out of the inner circle, holding rallies, and using the bully pulpit, that's all for the good IMO.  Although it's tragic (and perhaps purposeful) that this is only coming when it looks like we may lose our House majority.

    IMO the WH would be better off (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by MO Blue on Fri Oct 15, 2010 at 09:59:36 AM EST
    enacting good policies and so would the country. It is easier to run political campaigns when the legislation that is passed actually does some good for people other than those already wealthy.

    Much harder to win when your major selling points are "We don't suck as much as the other guys" or "If the voters weren't so stupid, they would like us more."


    I disagree (5.00 / 0) (#112)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Fri Oct 15, 2010 at 05:16:10 PM EST
    It's actually harder to make the right decision with the long term in mind while being attacked by both the left and the right.

    Seems to me that that is the tough thing to do.

    The easy thing to do would be to give your base everything it wants when it demands it. No downside to that.


    Uh, yeah (none / 0) (#16)
    by lilburro on Fri Oct 15, 2010 at 10:16:34 AM EST
    no kidding.  My point is that I would like to see them do less inside baseball, and be more combative, more aware of framing, the Overton Window, etc.  I think that's a possibly more effective PR strategy in terms of getting things done.

    And I'm glad they're trying it now, because the Bush tax cut vote is coming up soon, and they're going to need to motivate a lame duck session and fight back against crowing Republicans.  Obama's going to have to be out there firing away.


    Are you talking about the (none / 0) (#21)
    by MO Blue on Fri Oct 15, 2010 at 10:41:09 AM EST
    New York Time Magazine about Obama's plans for the next 2 years?

    I didn't get the impression from that article that Obama was going to be more combative but rather more willing to enact Republican legislation.

    Rouse and Messina see areas for possible bipartisan agreement, like reauthorizing the nation's education laws to include reform measures favored by centrists and conservatives, passing long-pending trade pacts and possibly even producing scaled-back energy legislation. "You'll hear more about exports and less about public spending," a senior White House official said. "You'll hear more about initiative and private sector and less about the Department of Energy. You'll hear more about government as a financier and less about government as a hirer."

    And despite the predictions that Democrats may relinquish a large degree of legislating power, including perhaps control of the House and even Senate, President Obama isn't thinking of the next two years as a period that will be marked with the same obstructive nature from the GOP.

    "It may be that regardless of what happens after this election, [Republicans] feel more responsible, either because they didn't do as well as they anticipated, and so the strategy of just saying no to everything and sitting on the sidelines and throwing bombs didn't work for them," Obama says in the article. "Or they did reasonably well, in which case the American people are going to be looking to them to offer serious proposals and work with me in a serious way."

    More about PPUS 2.0 from Obama Dems:

    Dick Durbin says Obama's post-election agenda "will have to be limited and focused on the things that are achievable and high priorities for the American people." Tom Daschle says Obama has to reach out more: "The key word is inclusion. He's got to find ways to be inclusive."

    blechhh.... (none / 0) (#27)
    by sj on Fri Oct 15, 2010 at 10:50:33 AM EST
    Truth (none / 0) (#38)
    by CST on Fri Oct 15, 2010 at 11:24:54 AM EST
    if we lose the house, and possibly the senate - what other option is there?  Do nothing?

    As BTD so frequently likes to point out, elections have consequences.


    Doing nothing is IMO better than (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by MO Blue on Fri Oct 15, 2010 at 11:39:03 AM EST
    enacting legislation that does more harm than good.

    The 2006 and the 2008 elections had consequences. It brought us more failed Republican legislation sold under the progressive label.  


    tell that (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by CST on Fri Oct 15, 2010 at 11:46:36 AM EST
    to the people who work for GM.

    we are not (none / 0) (#40)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Oct 15, 2010 at 11:32:33 AM EST
    going to lose the Senate.  and I still dont think we lose the house.

    Sh*t... (5.00 / 3) (#41)
    by kdog on Fri Oct 15, 2010 at 11:38:01 AM EST
    I didn't know they were ours to lose, sure feels like those entities belong to somebody besides regular schmoes like us.

    "Every way you look at this you lose..."


    Did you see (1.00 / 0) (#95)
    by jbindc on Fri Oct 15, 2010 at 04:10:42 PM EST
    Any of the Nevada Senate debate last night?  By most people's accounts that I've read, both locally and nationally, Sharon Angle won because she wasn't the rabidly crazy that people think she is, while Harry Reid was stuck in Senste-speak and all over the place.

    going in (5.00 / 1) (#98)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Oct 15, 2010 at 04:20:23 PM EST
    the CW seem to be something like if she managed to not defecate on stage she would win.

    I hope you're right (none / 0) (#43)
    by CST on Fri Oct 15, 2010 at 11:40:52 AM EST
    but I don't know why people seem surprised or disappointed that when you elect more republicans you get more republican policy.  What else was gonna happen?

    not surprised at that (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Oct 15, 2010 at 11:43:55 AM EST
    surprised that O would seem so happy about it.  and so naive that just because they might control of the house they will "work with him".

    more like try to impeach him or launch endless investigations of pointless BS.  and it would almost serve him right.


    Obama's not the one I'm worried about (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by CST on Fri Oct 15, 2010 at 11:57:25 AM EST
    He'll be fine, it's the rest of us...

    I think we're already getting (5.00 / 4) (#49)
    by Anne on Fri Oct 15, 2010 at 11:56:52 AM EST
    GOP policy, aren't we?  Policy that was shaped by Obama's and Dems' efforts to be more accommodating to Republicans who then never voted for any of the more conservative-friendly legislation they manipulated the Dems into.

    And now, the message is that Obama wants to try harder to be more inclusive and bipartisan - and considering that this new messaging follows the one to the left wing of the party to sit down and STFU, I don't see why anyone would take any significant encourgagement from the possibility that the Dems will hold onto the Congress.

    Even if the Dems do manage to hang onto their majority, the reality is that as long as there is a strong enough coalition of Blue Dog Dems among their numbers, the alliance - and the power - will be with the right, not the left.

    And, try as I might, I can't bring myself to believe that Obama finds that to be a bad thing; I think it's much more in line with his overall philosophy, which isn't - as far as I'm concerned - in line with what used to be the Democratic Party platform.


    Blue Dogs (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by jbindc on Fri Oct 15, 2010 at 12:15:22 PM EST
    You realize, of course, that if the Democratic Party purged itself of the Blue Dogs, it would forever be a small, minority party, so no liberal legislation would get passed anyhow, right?  There is no way, especially in this political climate, that you are going to run someone of the temperment and leanings of Bernie Sanders in Bart Stupak's district or Heath Shuler's district or any other Blue Dog's district, and expect to win.  Most left and far-left liberals live around urban areas, where a majority of minorities also live, so you have sporadic heavily Democratic areas where liberal candidates can get elected.  But that's not true for most of the country.  A strong leader would have been able to work with liberals and the still give the BD's cover without caving to Republicans.

    Those Blue Dogs will be replaced - with Republicans.  And
    with the R's expected to pick up over 500 seats in state legislatures and to claim 34 total governorships, wait until they start redistricting and gerrymandering next year.  

    This problem will only get worse, and liberals will be more isolated  in small, dense urban pockets. This will set the political scene for years.


    Redistricting -- yes! Too little attention (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by Cream City on Fri Oct 15, 2010 at 12:31:46 PM EST
    is being paid by the NuDem Party, from Obama on down, to state legislative elections in this crucial year with redistricting ahead from the results of the 2010 census -- and as I study that, I know that population shifts are going to have huge impact.  In my region alone, the Midwest, there will be House seats lost.  And retaining the others will rely on Dems doing the redistricting.

    But Repubs are two seats away from taking my state Senate and four seats away from taking my state Assembly.  And I think that they're going to do it.

    So in one of the most purple states in the country, expect that it will be even harder to hang onto Dems in the House . . . and perhaps to regain the Feingold seat, if it is lost, etc.


    focus (5.00 / 1) (#72)
    by dandelion on Fri Oct 15, 2010 at 02:11:44 PM EST
    a strong and focused minority party, though, while it wouldn't be able to pass legislation, could be hugely beneficial in shifting and shaping the dialogue.  The problem with the Big Tent Democrats is that in making the tent so big, they've lost any kind of definition.  It's true that Democrats don't stand for anything, because much of their leadership doesn't even support the basic tenets of the Democratic party platform.

    Much much better to be small and vocal and focused.

    And a minority party, too, as we've seen, that does know what it stands for can play strong on defense.

    I think anyone who doesn't support every single element in the Democratic party platform should be brought to heel or invited to leave -- and that would include Lieberman, Tim Kaine, Donna Brazille, Kent Conrad and Harry Reid, among others.


    Interesting (none / 0) (#136)
    by christinep on Sat Oct 16, 2010 at 12:47:27 PM EST
    If most people are "invited to leave," history might suggest that it won't be too long before the purgers are purged.
    Seriously, it is the dilemma of a "big tent" democracy. In families, in friendships, and in organizations, guess what? There are differences, sometimes big differences. The choices: Live in an inclusive party by working out acceptable consensus points and agree-to-disagree points or break the whole thing up. I support a large, diverse, open Democratic party. I also understand the periodic desire that one portion/part of the party or another may hold wherein the "nonbelievers" are driven out. The problem with that is...it usually backfires by isolating the purgers, and then the remainder start squabbling with themselves. And so it goes.

    What I think would help is the old-fashioned focus on common ground. When you really consider it (and, if we lose, we will have lots of time to consider it) there are at least a dozen major points of agreement held by people who call themselves Democrats. Define those first; separate out the major points of disagreement to work on & refine in the off-years; and, with the knowledge that no one group in a large organization ever realizes all the items it might want, figure out how to compromise on the lesser points of disagreement.

    We could also be helped by re-reading John Stuart Mill's "On Liberty" and other essays wherein we find discussion of the challenge of balancing different interests and of representing different interests in a constitutional republic like ours.


    I think a lot of people in this blog (none / 0) (#137)
    by Politalkix on Sat Oct 16, 2010 at 01:49:04 PM EST
    do not care much about retaining a big tent Democratic party. More important to them is keeping control of the party through purges even if it means retaining a permanent minority party status and collecting 16% vote from the entire country. Carping about how much life stinks is a very invogorating exercise to many of them.

    I have been visiting this blog for 2 years now. The tone has not changed since my first visit.


    Yes It's Sad (none / 0) (#138)
    by squeaky on Sat Oct 16, 2010 at 03:03:37 PM EST
    Kaffee Klatch constantly lamenting.....  mostly anyway

    Hillary's loss turned the bunch who came here two years ago into radicals. Now they want Bloomberg to replace Obama.... lol...


    I hear you, squeaky (none / 0) (#141)
    by christinep on Sat Oct 16, 2010 at 06:08:55 PM EST
    While I must be a late-arriver, I can say that my husband, myself, and almost all the relatives were always strong Hillary Clinton supporters. We worked hard; she didn't win, and she had the grace to take the next step and transform in the most positive sense. My view became (and has been since shortly after the primaries ended) to follow her gallant lead. My view also became one of the utmost respect for the new President Barack Obama, who took on and is making progress with overcoming some of the greatest challenges facing a President in modern times. Added to that the almost unbelievable waft of hate from the right--there since the inauguration--I am favorably impressed with all that he (and his cabinet) have been able to do. Far from perfect; but, I firmly believe that it will grow better...bit by bit...as he grows in the years he will be in charge.
    You have a lot of staying power, squeaky. Good for you.
    P.S. Now, that Bloomberg thing...whose fantasy is that? New Yorkers, maybe?  

    No, ... (none / 0) (#145)
    by Yman on Sat Oct 16, 2010 at 11:08:18 PM EST
    Now, that Bloomberg thing...whose fantasy is that? New Yorkers, maybe?

    ... it's Squeaky's.


    BS (none / 0) (#146)
    by squeaky on Sun Oct 17, 2010 at 02:28:24 AM EST
    You just have not been paying attention.,,,  

    It was eagerly discussed earlier this week.


    BS (none / 0) (#147)
    by Yman on Sun Oct 17, 2010 at 07:36:48 AM EST
    I know what was discussed re: Bloomberg.  BS to both the sarcastic "radicals" claim and the claim that two people are "the bunch that came here two years ago".  Then again, ...

    ... I'd expect nothing else.


    Yes (none / 0) (#148)
    by squeaky on Sun Oct 17, 2010 at 11:18:08 AM EST
    But more than two.  I suppose that Hillary's loss made you a radical too, or are you just on the payroll...?



    Yeah ... right. BTW - "LOL" (none / 0) (#149)
    by Yman on Sun Oct 17, 2010 at 11:56:29 AM EST
    You use that a lot.  It's usually used as a sign of a joke or humor, yet when you use it, it's almost ...

    ... "inconceivable".


    Yes (none / 0) (#150)
    by squeaky on Sun Oct 17, 2010 at 01:18:37 PM EST
    Your ability to conceive, aka imagination, does seem quite limited.... lol

    True, I'll admit. Then again, ... (none / 0) (#151)
    by Yman on Sun Oct 17, 2010 at 04:29:41 PM EST
    ... you are at an advantage.  Your imagination isn't limited ...

    ... by facts or reality.


    lol (none / 0) (#152)
    by squeaky on Sun Oct 17, 2010 at 06:33:10 PM EST

    Sigh.... (none / 0) (#140)
    by christinep on Sat Oct 16, 2010 at 05:55:06 PM EST
    What to say, Politalkix...hmmm? You did say it well.  A few differences, perhaps. E.g., you refer to the style as "carping," and I would say that the ones to which you refer strike me as clssic whiners or bellyachers who love the acerbic strike when someone doesn't follow the frequent gnashing and moaning.  It took me awhile to learn the central "rules": The interloper's role is to agree or add to the typical screed, because disagreement or dissent seems to call for a pile-on of outrage, etc.  It is too bad (and sad) that a few people here--people who have a wonderful way with words and an obvious, very genuine concern for the welfare of our country--strive so mightily to shut out different points of view.
    And to myself I say as well: "Oh the gift he gae us, to see ourselves as others see us." (Yep, I've been whining too. Time for me to clear the cobwebs, take a deep breath, and smile.)

    Yet, if one takes a little time to think (none / 0) (#143)
    by Politalkix on Sat Oct 16, 2010 at 06:29:38 PM EST
    through and leave aside personality based politics, it is not so difficult to see the stakes.

    Yoiks! (none / 0) (#144)
    by christinep on Sat Oct 16, 2010 at 08:24:37 PM EST
    Thanks for the reminder. Argh. The Return of CREEP. A nightmare from which you want to awake.

    One problem (none / 0) (#54)
    by CST on Fri Oct 15, 2010 at 12:27:44 PM EST
    with your long-term scenario is those small dense urban pockets are getting bigger every day.  
    People are moving into cities, not out.

    Doesn't matter (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by jbindc on Fri Oct 15, 2010 at 12:41:58 PM EST
    You still have more Dems living in the same area - you aren't greatly increasing the number of representatives.

    And there's still Waaaay more geigraphy to cover than a few pockets of urban areas.


    Especially when (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by jbindc on Fri Oct 15, 2010 at 12:43:33 PM EST
    The Republicans will redistrict to minimize the impact.

    I disagree (none / 0) (#110)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Fri Oct 15, 2010 at 05:07:37 PM EST
    It's actually harder to make the right decision with the long term in mind while being attacked by both the left and the right.

    Seems to me that that is the tough thing to do.

    The easy thing to do would be to give your base everything it wants when it demands it. No downside to that.


    That you disagree is no surprise (5.00 / 1) (#115)
    by MO Blue on Fri Oct 15, 2010 at 05:49:56 PM EST
    That Obama made the right policy decisions, either for the short or long term, is definitely debatable.  I would not doubt that the people referenced below think Obama made the right economic decisions.

    NEW YORK (Reuters) - Half of financial professionals on Wall Street expect to get a higher bonus this year, and some of those expect a much bigger payout, according to an annual survey by financial job board, eFinancialCareers.com.

    Eleven percent expect bonuses that are at least 50 percent higher than those paid out at the start of 2010, according to eFinancialCareers, a unit of Dice Holdings Inc , even though 2010 was seen as a "sideways" year for the stock market. ABC

    I seriously doubt that the people below share that view.

    The proportion of people jobless for six months or more has accelerated in the past year and now makes up 46 percent of the unemployed. That's the highest percentage on records dating to 1948. By late summer or early fall, they are expected to make up half of all jobless Americans.

    Economists say those out of work for six months or more risk becoming less and less employable. Their skills can erode, their confidence falter, their contacts dry up. Their growing ranks also will keep pressure on Congress to keep extending jobless benefits, which now run for up to 99 weeks. link

    But hey, if Obama is doing O.K. everything is just fine and dandy.


    Yes there is ... (5.00 / 2) (#119)
    by Yman on Fri Oct 15, 2010 at 06:35:39 PM EST
    The easy thing to do would be to give your base everything it wants when it demands it. No downside to that.

    Giving his base what it wants would require him to spend political capital and actually place himself at risk.  It would require him to actually fight for those things he promised back when he needed votes.  So don't worry, ...

    ... it won't happen.


    Sorry (none / 0) (#120)
    by Yman on Fri Oct 15, 2010 at 06:38:04 PM EST
    Reply to ABG #112.

    We should have known (none / 0) (#11)
    by brodie on Fri Oct 15, 2010 at 09:56:08 AM EST
    it wasn't 2008 and the glory days anymore for Obama when he stepped up to the podium on 1-20-09 and he and the CJ proceeded to botch the rather simple oath of office.  Early indicator that we wouldn't be getting a bold leader who was on top of the matter and who would take charge and determine the desired outcome.  Instead, he allowed that idiot Roberts to spoil an historic moment.  Embarrassing.

    Inaugural address rather disappointing, too.  


    not to mention (5.00 / 1) (#73)
    by dandelion on Fri Oct 15, 2010 at 02:14:52 PM EST
    Rick Warren.

    Huge huge slap in the face of women and the LGBT community.

    I'm always surprised at how much people make of Obama's time as a community organizer, and how little attention they pay to his conversion narrative where he accepted Jesus into his heart.  That conversion narrative is very little different from what you hear from Republicans, and it was a bigger (and longer) part of his Chicago experience than the organizing days.


    Hillary spoke at Rick Warren's church (none / 0) (#113)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Fri Oct 15, 2010 at 05:16:52 PM EST
    Small reminder.

    Of course, we will never (5.00 / 2) (#117)
    by KeysDan on Fri Oct 15, 2010 at 06:12:38 PM EST
     know if Hillary Clinton would have had the Reverend Warren at her inauguration, but we do know that she did not have a  campaign gospel sing with Donnie McClurkin.

    Small reminder (5.00 / 2) (#122)
    by Yman on Fri Oct 15, 2010 at 06:45:34 PM EST
    That was a a Global AIDS Conference hosted at Saddleback Church and attended by all kinds of political leaders, including Obama who attended the year prior.

    Not to mention the fact that speaking at an AIDS conference is hardly analogous to having Warren give your inauguration invocation, or touring SC with homophobes and then attempt to rationalize it by saying lots of African-Americans share those beliefs.  Wow, ...

    ... could you imagine the reaction if someone else had said that?


    Good point about (5.00 / 1) (#125)
    by brodie on Fri Oct 15, 2010 at 06:57:21 PM EST
    actually inviting the bigoted dude to give the Invoke at your Inaugural.  A reminder that with the botched oath taking, there was actually still another good reason for a Dem to be a bit grumpy about that historic day.

    And, Obama's body language (none / 0) (#77)
    by KeysDan on Fri Oct 15, 2010 at 02:45:12 PM EST
    when his vice president, joked about Robert's oath flub.  Those looks must have given Biden's secret service detail a pause.

    One of Biden's best (none / 0) (#121)
    by brodie on Fri Oct 15, 2010 at 06:43:42 PM EST
    moments so far, and appropriate after the disaster of the previous day to at least acknowledge it.  Double points for trying to squeeze some humor out of it.

    Double deduction for the humorless Obama however.  And, again, an early indicator that he was going to coddle the Right.


    Right or left (none / 0) (#132)
    by gyrfalcon on Fri Oct 15, 2010 at 09:38:05 PM EST
    It's wildly direspectful, not to mention just plain unfair and stupid, to ridicule the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court for a nerves-induced flub of that kind in public.  I'm lefter than most, and no fan of Obama's, but I thought Biden was absolutely out of line and really thoughtless for doing that.

    I thought it was (5.00 / 1) (#134)
    by brodie on Fri Oct 15, 2010 at 11:07:45 PM EST
    disrespectful of Roberts to show up not having either committed the short and rather well-known oath to memory or to have brought a hardcopy of same.  It's not only a fairly easy one to remember but it's one which is the most important oath the CJ administers in his lifelong position.

    Nerves?  From the pov of someone in very high position just having to recite some simple words over maybe a 20 second period, then getting to sit down for the rest of the afternoon, I'd say they are rather low-level at most.

    No, I say shame on Roberts for what looked like being unprepared.  He wouldn't tolerate being unprepared with the lawyers appearing before his Court, and this citizen won't tolerate his unpreparedness on such a simple yet important function he's tradition-bound to carry out competently.  

    Biden wasn't out of line, but Roberts was.


    they have come to take Carl home (none / 0) (#1)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Oct 15, 2010 at 08:46:40 AM EST
    Why do you hate aliens? (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by jbindc on Fri Oct 15, 2010 at 09:26:58 AM EST
    Why must you lump them in with Carl?  Do you not like "green people"?

    To thicken the plot... (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by kdog on Fri Oct 15, 2010 at 10:13:50 AM EST
    some NORAD guy predicted 10/13/10 as the day the aliens make themselves known to us...pretty wild eh?

    I, for one, hope our new alien overlords are better at keeping bankers in check than our current human overlords.


    Alien Response ... (5.00 / 2) (#78)
    by Robot Porter on Fri Oct 15, 2010 at 02:53:48 PM EST
    ALIEN:  So let me get this straight.  These "bankers" through greed and incompetence caused a planetwide financial crisis.

    HUMAN: Yes.

    ALIEN:  And then to solve this financial crisis, you gave these same bankers more money?

    HUMAN: Yup.

    ALIEN:  Guess the council of elders were right.  There is no intelligent life on this planet.


    According to a few of (5.00 / 1) (#124)
    by brodie on Fri Oct 15, 2010 at 06:52:34 PM EST
    the more prominent early 1950s "contactees", your imagined exchange isn't that far off the mark, though it was usually put by the Alien as "deficient spiritual development".

    I think They were/are also wary of one of those aggressive Army vs Saucers encounters -- as seen in the quality SciFi movie The Day the Earth Stood Still -- should they decide to land on the WH lawn.

    Not to mention all the hassles in just getting there -- past the incoming fighter jets upon entering WH airspace, violating fed law in the process, plus, probably, having on Their permanent earthly record the underlying fed crime of failing to file a flight plan in the first place.


    Very unfair to the "aliens"... (none / 0) (#5)
    by vml68 on Fri Oct 15, 2010 at 09:33:39 AM EST
    they have come to take Carl home

    There's UFOs over New York (none / 0) (#9)
    by brodie on Fri Oct 15, 2010 at 09:50:19 AM EST
    and I ain't too surprised.

    Strange days indeed.  Strange days indeed.


    Stay away from the acorns (none / 0) (#28)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Oct 15, 2010 at 10:53:24 AM EST
    You never know what can happen on a day like today.

    recently (none / 0) (#31)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Oct 15, 2010 at 11:01:39 AM EST
    I could be seen in my backyard trying to catch one in the back of my pants.

    just to see what it feels like.



    Someone should tell Carl (none / 0) (#3)
    by Harry Saxon on Fri Oct 15, 2010 at 09:29:21 AM EST
    the mothership is waiting.

    I don't think... (none / 0) (#17)
    by kdog on Fri Oct 15, 2010 at 10:17:12 AM EST
    Dr. Funkenstein has Carl Paladino on the guest list Harry:)

    That reminds me of this (none / 0) (#30)
    by Harry Saxon on Fri Oct 15, 2010 at 10:57:13 AM EST
    from The Onion(dot)com:

    Clinton Threatens To Drop Da Bomb On Iraq

    CHOCOLATE CITY--In an address before an emergency session of Parliament Monday, George Clinton said he is prepared to drop Da Bomb on Iraq if Saddam Hussein does not loosen up and comply with U.N. weapons inspectors by the Clinton-imposed deadline of March 1.

    "For Saddam Hussein to refuse to let U.N. officials inspect Iraqi weapons facilities as per the terms of Iraq's 1991 Gulf War surrender is decidedly unfunky of him," Clinton said. "While the decision to drop Da Bomb is never an easy one, unless Saddam gets down with this whole U.N.-inspection thang and seriously refunkatizes his stance by March 1, we will have no choice but to tear the roof off Baghdad."
    Preparations for the military strike, dubbed Operation Supergroovalisticprosifunkstication Storm, are already underway. The Mothership is ready and on standby at Starchild Air Force Base in Detroit, where more than 5,000 bop gunners are making final preparations for deployment to the Persian Gulf. Clinton has also ordered an additional 2,500 Aquaboogie Amphibious Assault units to the Gulf, bringing the total P-Funk Nation military presence in the region to 23,000.

    Click Me


    This is the first deployment of (none / 0) (#33)
    by jeffinalabama on Fri Oct 15, 2010 at 11:04:52 AM EST
    the Aquaboogie Amphibious Assault units since their up-funking, IIRC.

    Ryan Bingham... (none / 0) (#10)
    by kdog on Fri Oct 15, 2010 at 09:53:35 AM EST
    took it home last night boy....wow what a talent, what a show.  Heavy lyrics still running through my brain...from "Depression".

    If I held your hand in this town
    They would lock me up for possession
    But now they're strung out on heroin
    And we've gone out to California

    In this depression
    Breaks my heart in two
    In this depression
    All I need is you

    I could make some friends down at the courthouse
    Get bailed out and go on welfare
    I'd rather lay down in a pine box
    Than to sell my heart to a f*cking wasteland

    Amen brother.

    And the Dead Horses?  Jesus H. do they rock like a quarry. All stupendous, but especially the bass player Elijah Ford...that dude has more energy than amphetamines and plays like rolling thunder...rattling souls on the Bowery.

    Another poignant... (none / 0) (#13)
    by kdog on Fri Oct 15, 2010 at 10:07:09 AM EST
    highlight was "Hard Times"...this guy was born to write songs for our era.

    You got yours and I have mine
    Mostly good folks have tried and tried
    To make a livin on your minimum wage
    Your coming up short nearly every day

    And what's enough and what's the cost
    You can't stand up cause all is lost
    You roll us up and your doors are locked
    There's a poor boy livin on every block

    Yeah man... (none / 0) (#51)
    by kdog on Fri Oct 15, 2010 at 12:06:01 PM EST
    a texture to it way beyond his years.  Picked up the new album at the show, ready to dive deep into it.  I wore the groves off "Roadhouse Sun" and "Mescalito".

    Easy on the eyes too, judging by the cat calls of "take off your pants!" from the ladies in the crowd.  The dude has it all.


    Cigarettes and singing loud for hours every day is the general consensus. Guess I'll have to pass!

    Takes more than that... (none / 0) (#59)
    by kdog on Fri Oct 15, 2010 at 12:51:08 PM EST
    I smoke like a chimney and love to sing, yet my voice remains unraspy, off key, and generally unappealing:)

    Maybe its breathing in all that dirt on the rodeo circuit.


    Ha! (none / 0) (#62)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Oct 15, 2010 at 01:12:31 PM EST
    Get this...a guy just left my office a few minutes ago, he did a video for Rascal Flats yesterday, and I had Bingham playing on my computer on Youtube. Dude says "We did a video for him last year." Small world...

    You meet some characters... (none / 0) (#64)
    by kdog on Fri Oct 15, 2010 at 01:21:03 PM EST
    out in Hollyweird man...how's my girl Salma doing? :)

    Highlight of my career... (none / 0) (#66)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Oct 15, 2010 at 01:36:03 PM EST
    ...although I guess I never did make it on her Christmas card list...

    Re: Tough Lyrics (none / 0) (#68)
    by Harry Saxon on Fri Oct 15, 2010 at 01:50:33 PM EST

    The cattle all have brucellosis
    We'll get through somehow

    Courtesy of Warren Zevon.


    Zevon.... (none / 0) (#71)
    by kdog on Fri Oct 15, 2010 at 02:05:30 PM EST
    that guy could pen a mean tune,...I've really gotten into him a lot more the last year or two.

    "Veracruz" brings tears to my eyes...

    I heard Woodrow Wilson's guns
    I heard Maria crying
    Late last night I heard the news
    That Veracruz was dying
    Veracruz was dying

    Or how 'bout "Play It All Night Long"...powerful creepy images galore.

    Grandpa pissed his pants again
    He don't give a damn
    Brother Billy has both guns drawn
    He ain't been right since Vietnam

    "Sweet home Alabama"
    Play that dead band's song
    Turn those speakers up full blast
    Play it all night long

    Daddy's doing Sister Sally
    Grandma's dying of cancer now
    The cattle all have brucellosis
    We'll get through somehow

    Duh... (none / 0) (#76)
    by kdog on Fri Oct 15, 2010 at 02:18:23 PM EST
    "Play It All Night Long" is what you quoted, could always use some more though:)

    Now I'm living in Honduras and I'm a desperate man (none / 0) (#97)
    by jondee on Fri Oct 15, 2010 at 04:19:13 PM EST
    Send lawyers, guns and money
    The sh*t has hit the fan..

    As they say, it don't get better than that.



    It really don't... (none / 0) (#107)
    by kdog on Fri Oct 15, 2010 at 05:04:39 PM EST
    Don't get me started on "Roland the Headless Thompson Gunner".

    Roland the headless Thompson gunner...
    The eternal Thompson gunner
    still wandering through the night
    Now it's ten years later but he still keeps up the fight
    In Ireland, in Lebanon, in Palestine and Berkeley
    Patty Hearst heard the burst of Roland's Thompson gun and bought it

    That song always reminds me of a poem (none / 0) (#111)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Oct 15, 2010 at 05:13:13 PM EST
    we read in HS.

    The Death of the Ball Turret Gunner

    From my mother's sleep I fell into the State,
    And I hunched in its belly till my wet fur froze.
    Six miles from earth, loosed from its dream of life,
    I woke to black flak and the nightmare fighters.
    When I died they washed me out of the turret with a hose.


    I was wondering if anyone would have the guts... (none / 0) (#94)
    by EL seattle on Fri Oct 15, 2010 at 04:08:52 PM EST
    .. to post more of the words to that song.

    And nobody but nobody can enuciate those lyrics with the same grim nearly-nihilistic venom as Zevon.  Damn what a loss.


    it's the Blakean (none / 0) (#100)
    by jondee on Fri Oct 15, 2010 at 04:29:55 PM EST
    "corrosive method..burning apparent surfaces away to reveal what was hid.."

    The real nihilists are all working on Wall St these days.


    CVS Pharmacy... (none / 0) (#18)
    by kdog on Fri Oct 15, 2010 at 10:31:34 AM EST
    fined 75 million and 2.6 million of their profits jacked by the man.

    Reason?  Nothing to do with a Medicare scam or rip-off drug prices or anything, just for selling psuedoephedrine cold meds to smurfers.

    Leave it to Unlce Sam to make me feel bad for freakin' CVS....this is some bullsh*t.


    IMO (none / 0) (#19)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Oct 15, 2010 at 10:33:18 AM EST
    couldnt  happen to a better bunch of crooks and liars

    I hear ya... (none / 0) (#20)
    by kdog on Fri Oct 15, 2010 at 10:37:55 AM EST
    I'm certainly not a fan, they won't sell me 'cets unless I have a certain piece of paper.  Can ya believe that?...:)

    But compared to the crooks and liars who levied the fine and seized the cash, CVS is a stand up outfit.


    The man is slippin' though... (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by kdog on Fri Oct 15, 2010 at 10:42:22 AM EST
    they forgot to plant the crack pipe on the CEO like they do to the homeless.

    CVS has been handling... (none / 0) (#25)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Fri Oct 15, 2010 at 10:47:35 AM EST
    ...my transplant meds and I couldn't be happier with them.  They call me to see what I need, they got me signed up for discount cards from the drug companies so I don't have to pay for the real expensive ones and they mail my refills to me for free.  

    I'm so happy with them that I HATE that my health plan is now requiring that I get some of the meds from them.  


    its a chain (none / 0) (#26)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Oct 15, 2010 at 10:50:12 AM EST
    no doubt it depends on the individual manager.
    my local SUCKS.

    I didn't know insurance co's... (none / 0) (#29)
    by kdog on Fri Oct 15, 2010 at 10:53:33 AM EST
    sold meds...sounds like a conflict interest Mile, whats up with that?

    Sure... (none / 0) (#32)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Fri Oct 15, 2010 at 11:04:16 AM EST
    ...they all have a 3rd party vendors that they contract with for mail-orders (90 day supplies) and specialty meds.  

    Not much different from them deciding which meds they'll cover and which ones they won't.  It's all about "controlling costs" don't ya know.


    I gotcha... (none / 0) (#37)
    by kdog on Fri Oct 15, 2010 at 11:21:26 AM EST
    only covered through their suppliers, linda like in network doctors vs. more out of pocket outta network docs.

    Good thing the socialists have failed and nobody gets to make healthcare decisions for us but us, eh? LOL


    trouble in paradise (none / 0) (#23)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Oct 15, 2010 at 10:42:48 AM EST
    a new democratic senator from Alaska? (none / 0) (#24)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Oct 15, 2010 at 10:47:11 AM EST
    that would kick the meme in the nads wouldnt it?

    Im hearing that the Ted Stevens crowd wants Murkowski but they are not sure she can pull it off and McAdams is the second choice.

    A new Rasmussen Reports telephone survey of Likely Voters in Alaska shows Republican Joe Miller with 35% support and Murkowski, the incumbent senator he defeated in the state's GOP Primary now running as a write-in candidate, with 34% of the vote. Democrat Scott McAdams runs third with 27%. One percent (1%) prefers another candidate, and three percent

    heh (none / 0) (#34)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Oct 15, 2010 at 11:06:36 AM EST
    As Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) makes her write-in bid for Senate official, filing paperwork with state elections officials Wednesday, she faces a new concern -- some backers worry that opponents are searching for a way to torpedo her campaign by fielding another write-in candidate with a similar name.

    Ah, the ol' Wisconsin ballot trick (none / 0) (#39)
    by Cream City on Fri Oct 15, 2010 at 11:25:56 AM EST
    . . . where a guy with the last name of La Follette, but no relation, got himself elected and re-elected for years to the cushiest state office.

    seriously? (none / 0) (#74)
    by dandelion on Fri Oct 15, 2010 at 02:16:06 PM EST
    that's hysterically funny!

    True (none / 0) (#83)
    by Cream City on Fri Oct 15, 2010 at 03:23:27 PM EST
    but the funniest of them was a while ago.

    However, there still is one in office who is not  exactly no relation -- but he's a first cousin, three times removed.  And those who calculate this sort of thing have stated that lots of Wisconsinites are about as related to ol' Fighting Bob.

    So Doug La Follette now has served more than three decades as Wisconsin's Secretary of State . . . decades replete with repeated headlines like "What Does Doug La Follette Do All Day?"


    I read that as 69% of the people want (none / 0) (#60)
    by tigercourse on Fri Oct 15, 2010 at 01:00:55 PM EST
    a Republican and 27% want a Democrat. Not encouraging. On top of that they have to actually write Murkowski's name in, which I suspect a number of her supporters won't actually do. They'll just vote for Miller. I'd be pretty surprised if the Dem won here.

    the republican machine (none / 0) (#63)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Oct 15, 2010 at 01:15:16 PM EST
    does not want Miller.

    also (none / 0) (#65)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Oct 15, 2010 at 01:25:25 PM EST
    I have a nephew in the military in alaska and he thinks the democrat can win.

    Willingham case on Frontline (none / 0) (#35)
    by gyrfalcon on Fri Oct 15, 2010 at 11:15:42 AM EST
    PBS Frontline is devoting an hour to this case next week (Tuesday evening in most markets)

    Thanks for the heads up (none / 0) (#135)
    by Rojas on Fri Oct 15, 2010 at 11:28:45 PM EST
    New Yorker also had (none / 0) (#142)
    by gyrfalcon on Sat Oct 16, 2010 at 06:26:53 PM EST
    a long, long (17 page!) detailed piece on the Willingham case, focusing in fascinating depth on the fire science-- the observations of the local fire guys that, according to conventional wisdom of the time, were indicators of arson, and the analysis -- way too late for Willingham -- of the modern researchers.

    Turns out almost everything the local fire guys think they know about how house fires behave is wrong.  No idea to what extent the new information and science has spread since then.  My guess is not much.


    and those (none / 0) (#70)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Oct 15, 2010 at 01:52:38 PM EST
    Ack. (none / 0) (#75)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Fri Oct 15, 2010 at 02:17:57 PM EST
    The German beetles are out in force today, swarming all over the balcony.  

    On the other hand, it is 80 and sunny.  Makes for a nice day up at the pool.

    Hows the weather... (none / 0) (#81)
    by kdog on Fri Oct 15, 2010 at 03:17:45 PM EST
    lookin' for Sunday when the Jets come to town to to send the Broncos to the glue factory?

    And can the Chiefs or Raiders actually win that putrid division this year?


    Looks like perfect... (none / 0) (#89)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Fri Oct 15, 2010 at 03:45:38 PM EST
    ...football weather for the loudmouth Jets to be huffing and puffing at altitude.  Can't talk trash when you can't breath...

    Naw, the Chefs will crash and the Chargers will pull their usual late season win streak.  The Raiders will always be the Raiders and find a way to lose.


    I'm not sold... (none / 0) (#91)
    by kdog on Fri Oct 15, 2010 at 03:55:52 PM EST
    on the Bolts this year...Norv Turner is one of the worst in the biz, imo...the guy can't even play blackjack.

    The Chiefs suddenly have a defense...I think they're my pick in the West.


    Tiny Switzerland spends heavily (none / 0) (#96)
    by Politalkix on Fri Oct 15, 2010 at 04:11:06 PM EST
    on infrastructure and environment protection  linkThe Swiss can be justifiably proud of this tunnel achievements.
    Meanwhile our Republican dinosaurs are hell bent on stagnating all technological progress in America. link  Shame on them!  

    this might actually be sort of cool (none / 0) (#99)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Oct 15, 2010 at 04:25:18 PM EST
    Could James Cameron Direct `Cleopatra'

    James Cameron is such a big director that if there's a chance in the slightest he might do a new movie, we're obligated to report on it. So, as unlikely as it may seem, rumors are circulating that the brass at Sony are "exploring the possibility" that the King of the World could direct a new version of Cleopatra starring Angelina Jolie

    its the kind of brainless spectacle they are both good at.

    Did we see this already? Kdog? (none / 0) (#103)
    by jbindc on Fri Oct 15, 2010 at 04:44:15 PM EST
    The Justice Department will still enforce federal marijuana laws, even if Prop 19 passes.

    SAN FRANCISCO -- Attorney General Eric Holder says the federal government will enforce its marijuana laws in California even if voters next month make the state the first in the nation to legalize the drug.

    The Justice Department strongly opposes California's Proposition 19 and remains firmly committed to enforcing the federal Controlled Substances Act in all states, Holder wrote in a letter to former chiefs of the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration. The Associated Press obtained a copy of the letter, dated Wednesday.

    "We will vigorously enforce the CSA against those individuals and organizations that possess, manufacture or distribute marijuana for recreational use, even if such activities are permitted under state law," Holder wrote.

    The attorney general also said that legalizing recreational marijuana in California would be a "significant impediment" to the government's joint efforts with state and local law enforcement to target drug traffickers, who often distribute marijuana alongside cocaine and other drugs.

    He said the ballot measure's passage would "significantly undermine" efforts to keep California communities safe.

    The ex-DEA chiefs sent a letter to Holder in August calling on the Obama administration to sue California if Proposition 19 passes. They said legalizing pot presented the same threat to federal authority as Arizona's recent immigration law that spurred a federal lawsuit.

    Assumed as much... (5.00 / 0) (#105)
    by kdog on Fri Oct 15, 2010 at 04:55:52 PM EST
    Holder is severely confused about who or what is the "significant impediment" here...but what else is new.

    oh good grief (none / 0) (#118)
    by nycstray on Fri Oct 15, 2010 at 06:16:15 PM EST
    what planet are these guys living on? pot is not a problem with regards to "keeping communities safe". give. me. a. f***ing. break.

    they may want to look at our poverty/unemployement, schools, etc though . . . .  and hey! 3 of 6 of the top recent forclosure cites/areas are right here in CA. Stockton, Vallejo/Fairfield and I can't remember the other. Me thinks that is a bigger problem . . .

    but hey, go ahead and waste time/resources/manpower across the board in your war on recreational pot.

    kdog, i'm still gonna grow one in your honor if 19 passes  :)


    Did Texas execute an innocent man? (none / 0) (#139)
    by diogenes on Sat Oct 16, 2010 at 04:52:50 PM EST
    I think you meant to say "innocent of the charge for which he was charged in a capital case", not "innocent and pure as the driven snow".

    From Wikipedia
    ".there is evidence that Willingham hit his wife, even when she was pregnant, but there were no police reports or medical evidence indicating that Willingham had tried to abort or kill his children" and that "Willingham's wife insisted during the trial and under interrogation that Willingham had not physically abused the children."
    "Consistent with typical Navarro County death penalty practice, Willingham was offered the opportunity to eliminate himself as a suspect by polygraph examination, which "was rejected in the most vulgar and insulting manner," according to Jackson.[7]  Against the advice of his own counsel, Willingham also declined a life sentence in exchange for his guilty plea. He insisted he would not admit to something he had not done, even if it meant sparing his life."

    If he had followed his counsel's advice, he'd be in prison for life for being a very unsavory character whose repeated bad actions led to bad karma and being a suspect (wrongly) of arson.  Maybe he'd even have gotten a pardon or commutation now.  Don't blame the system on this one.