Tuesday Open Thread

Your turn.

This is an open thread, all topics welcome.

< Charlie Sheen Hospitalized: What About His Probation? | Supreme Court Lifts Stay in Landrigan Exeuction >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Carly Fiorina hospitalized (5.00 / 0) (#2)
    by MO Blue on Tue Oct 26, 2010 at 02:16:55 PM EST
    SACRAMENTO, Calif. -- California GOP Senate challenger Carly Fiorina was admitted to a hospital Tuesday to be treated for an infection associated with her reconstructive surgery after breast cancer. HuffPo

    Surprised that she has been able to maintained a busy campaign schedule. Periods of fatigue often continues after treatment is over. Best wishes for a speedy recovery.

    When I heard about that (none / 0) (#100)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue Oct 26, 2010 at 11:11:11 PM EST
    I was thinking what she must have been dealing with over the last few days, with an undoubtedly increasingly painful infection getting worse, trying to just grit her teeth and deal with it through all the pressure of the campaign (a losing one, I most fervently hope, but still) and finally having it get so bad that she had to give in and get it treated in the hospital.  Yikes.

    I had pretty much dismissed (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by brodie on Tue Oct 26, 2010 at 05:12:49 PM EST
    the thesis presented last decade that Abe was gay, but it seems (via Sully) a few respected historians are now coming to that conclusion, so now I'm a little more inclined to believe it, and Sully himself on this one appears reasonable.

    Interesting too that one of the oldest Lincoln scholars still around and publishing, Wm Hanchett, someone one might assume would defend the old paradigm, is also now on board with the new view.  Together with Harvard prof Stauffer, and with respected biographer Jean Baker already on record as inclined to accept it, we have the beginning of a possible paradigm shift.

    Something similarly controversial, though slower to develop and still a work in progress, has happened with a few Lincoln historians coming to view the assassination as not a simple but a grand conspiracy involving planning and direction from the Confederate gov't.

    Well, it's only been 145 years, but eventually the historians get around to getting things right.

    Wow.. two gay presidents in a row! (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by observed on Tue Oct 26, 2010 at 05:17:05 PM EST
    Yep, and not only that (none / 0) (#42)
    by brodie on Tue Oct 26, 2010 at 05:38:29 PM EST
    but odd how both Buck and Abe represent opposite ends of the spectrum in terms of presidenting ability.

    Funny too how historians rather more easily accept that JB might have been gay but, till lately, have dismissed a similar line of reasoning about Abe.  It was okay to associate gayness with badness but not okay to impute it with Our Greatest President.


    Doug Ireland's (none / 0) (#41)
    by MO Blue on Tue Oct 26, 2010 at 05:31:39 PM EST
    article is an interesting read.

    Depends on the blog, (none / 0) (#45)
    by brodie on Tue Oct 26, 2010 at 05:48:49 PM EST
    but otherwise not sure I follow you.  Both issues are worthy of discussion, imo, though for me it's far more important to look into the assassination and the whys of that as opposed to who he liked to sleep with.

    That gives a (none / 0) (#46)
    by Zorba on Tue Oct 26, 2010 at 05:51:52 PM EST
    whole new perspective to the "Log Cabin Republicans" and their choice of a name for their group.  Interesting stuff, brodie, thanks.

    Thx, but I wouldn't have (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by brodie on Tue Oct 26, 2010 at 06:03:49 PM EST
    come across it, since I don't read Andy S.,  unless Greg Mitchell had mentioned Sully's take on his Nation blog today.

    I don't know if Doug Ireland mentioned this, but this Abe angle is also similar in the way it's playing out with the historians as the Tom Jefferson-Sally Hemings union, long dismissed by traditional esteemed historians but lately, with DNA evidence, no longer in dispute.  Also the Eleanor Roosevelt situation comes to mind, and her "friendship" with that female journalist who for a while lived in the WH.


    The female journalist (none / 0) (#52)
    by Zorba on Tue Oct 26, 2010 at 06:14:23 PM EST
    linked to Eleanor Roosevelt was Lorena Hickok.  Actually, there has been speculation about that for quite awhile, and of course, the rumors about the Jefferson-Hemmings connection have been around even longer.  The "Lincoln was gay" theory seems to be more recent than those.

    I actually know (none / 0) (#130)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Oct 27, 2010 at 10:21:16 AM EST
    some of the progeny of Jefferson and Hemmings.  One of my best friends married into the family.  They have had the DNA evidence for over ten years now.  Something that was striking to me, this is an American family that would be considered African American....and America still discriminates, but even before this family had scientific evidence that they were the progeny of Jefferson they excelled and the family members that I know are all working in government jobs too.  One is an Air Force Academy graduate, and his Uncle we later discovered had been my Uncle's boss within the BLM.  It is a small world sometimes :)

    The evidence seems pretty strong (none / 0) (#73)
    by MKS on Tue Oct 26, 2010 at 07:39:14 PM EST
    Lincoln slept in the same bed as another man for three years....

    .....and wrote him very flowery and what could be called love letters......


    I haven't followed this (none / 0) (#107)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue Oct 26, 2010 at 11:45:39 PM EST
    and don't actually care much, but... people of the same sex shared beds fairly routinely back in the day out of necessity (even with total strangers in inns) and many no doubt got used to it and preferred it when it was no longer necessary. With no contraception and an awful lot of marriages of convenience, husbands and wives did not sleep in the same bed on a daily basis.  So I'm not sure how much that means in the historical context, IOW.  And people used MUCH more flowery language with friends and even acquaintances as a matter of cultural custom.

    Happy birthday, Madame Secretary! (5.00 / 2) (#71)
    by Joan in VA on Tue Oct 26, 2010 at 07:34:39 PM EST
    Happy birthday to you,
    Happy birthday to you,
    Happy birthday, Madame Secretary,
    Happy birthday to you!

    And many happy returns.

    one of my old friends from Disney (5.00 / 1) (#122)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Oct 27, 2010 at 09:02:24 AM EST
    who also never bothered to grow up.

    Brandywine Cemetery

    DO YOU BELIEVE IN LUCK? (5.00 / 1) (#126)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Oct 27, 2010 at 10:00:16 AM EST
    Ray Allen's  pregame routine never changes. A nap from 11:30am to 1:00pm, chicken and white rice for lunch at 2:30, a stretch in the gym at 3:45, a quick head shave, then practice shots at 4:30. The same amount of shots must be made from the same spots every day - the baselines and elbows of the court, ending with the top of the key. Similar examples of peculiar rituals and regimented routines in athletics abound. Jason Giambi would wear a golden thong if he found himself in a slump at the plate, and Moises Alou, concerned about losing his dexterous touch with the bat, would frequently urinate on his hands. This type of superstitious behavior can veer from the eccentric to the pathological, and though many coaches, teammates and fans snicker and shake their heads, a new study headed by Lysann Damisch at the University of Cologne and recently published in the journal Psychological Science suggests that we should all stop smirking and start rubbing our rabbit's foot.

    I dunno about luck (none / 0) (#127)
    by CST on Wed Oct 27, 2010 at 10:09:42 AM EST
    But I believe in Ray Allen and the Celtics!

    the brain is an amazing thing (none / 0) (#128)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Oct 27, 2010 at 10:15:32 AM EST
    Once you acknowledge that performance is a function of what goes on in your brain rather than a product of any mystical properties of the object itself, it becomes useless.

    it makes this and faith healing work for some people.


    That 9 point... (none / 0) (#133)
    by kdog on Wed Oct 27, 2010 at 10:26:45 AM EST
    output by the Heat in the 1st quarter was sweet viewing...odd place to find myself, rooting hard for the Celtics.  Good show Beantown!

    The Heat looked like they never played organized basketball before at times...lets hope they don't work out the kinks anytime soon.


    sports makes strange bedfellows (none / 0) (#138)
    by CST on Wed Oct 27, 2010 at 10:54:56 AM EST
    that's how I felt rooting for the Rangers.

    I actually missed the game as it was my last outdoor soccer game of the year.  But I was happy to hear the news when I got home.

    Let's hope they never work out the kinks.


    hope others are having a better day than me (none / 0) (#1)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Oct 26, 2010 at 02:09:03 PM EST
    I woke up this morning to find the power off so I was in absolute darkness.  I stumble toward the kitchen and step in water, did one of the dogs have an accident?  um, no this is way to much water for that.
    I move into the living room and hear a pleasant "waterfall" sound that under the circumstances was not pleasant at all.
    so I dig around in the dark for batteries for the flashlight.
    for some reason when the power went off the pump for the large tank started leaking.  I still dont know exactly why because all I had time to do before work was clean up the worst of it. but roughly 60-65 gallons of water got dumped in the floor.  
    thank god I dont have wall to wall carpet anywhere.  everything absorbent in my house is now piled in my bathtub.
    the fish are fine, at least.
    and at work it has been no better.  the worse day EVER.  does low barometric pressure make you stupid?  there is some kind of monster low creeping across the midwest.

    hope your day is going better.

    Ouch... (none / 0) (#3)
    by kdog on Tue Oct 26, 2010 at 02:24:52 PM EST
    tough break brother...at least the fish are allright, helluva mess though...that sucks.

    Maybe backflow from the discharge when the pump went out?  Not sure if sump pump logic applies to fish tank pumps, but a check valve on the pump discharge might prevent a repeat.


    yeah (none / 0) (#5)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Oct 26, 2010 at 02:38:15 PM EST
    honestly I think it was my fault.  I cleaned the pump last night and I fear I did not hook it back up properly.

    Interesting little study... (none / 0) (#4)
    by kdog on Tue Oct 26, 2010 at 02:31:11 PM EST
    does credit card "on the arm" living contribute to obesity?  Researchers at SUNY Cornell think so.

    Hear that Gov. Paterson?  Lay off soda and crack down on VISA for making us fatties.  Anecdotally I support these findings...high fructose corn syrup swillin' skinny as a rail cash only guy that I am:)

    An often mis-pronounced word. (none / 0) (#6)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Oct 26, 2010 at 02:50:23 PM EST
    It's "fructose" with an "uh" like "up", not "oo" like "fruit" or "sucrose."

    I've been pronouncing it right then... (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by kdog on Tue Oct 26, 2010 at 03:10:43 PM EST
    just like f&ck with an R:)

    Ha! (none / 0) (#9)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Oct 26, 2010 at 03:11:29 PM EST
    Interesting (none / 0) (#21)
    by ruffian on Tue Oct 26, 2010 at 03:58:09 PM EST
    I'll start using cash for food purchases and see if I can drop a few pounds. I'm not obese, but a few pounds could not hurt. maybe that is just the edge I need!

    What I can't figure is... (none / 0) (#36)
    by kdog on Tue Oct 26, 2010 at 04:55:34 PM EST
    the good healthy food is more expensive...unless cc buyers just buy more junk:)

    I do definitely think there is a second thought to purchases when you gotta peel off 20's to pay the tab, instead of the same old swipe whether a 5, 50, 500 dolla purchase.  When I ask my friends with 4-5 figure cc debts how they do it to themselves, they are as mystified as I am...this psychological phenomenon seems silly, but I think it is very real.

    It carries over to internet poker...making bad calls with a click of the mouse is easier to do than counting out the chips from your stack...or at least thats my excuse for being so lousy at internet poker:)


    You need to (none / 0) (#44)
    by Zorba on Tue Oct 26, 2010 at 05:45:35 PM EST
    take lessons from my son- he's pretty good at internet poker.   ;-)

    Or TL's very own Dadler... (none / 0) (#118)
    by kdog on Wed Oct 27, 2010 at 08:17:10 AM EST
    dude is on a rush of epic proportions!  

    Not to toot my own horn but I did win my 2006 WSOP seat online, so I am techincally still a net winner even though its been a whole lot o' losin' since to where I hardly play online anymore.  I just couldn't seem to get over the "treating it like a video game" hump...brick & mortar games for me, one less online fish for your boy and Dadler to feast on, sorry:)


    I think you nailed it (none / 0) (#109)
    by ruffian on Tue Oct 26, 2010 at 11:52:59 PM EST
    If I am limited to cash on hand I may just get an appetizer rather than a full meal. Or one drink instead of 2. I can easily see where it would matter, even though I mostly use my debit card for stuff like that rather than credit.  So I would probably lose weight AND save money if I do this. I need to do both, so thanks for passing it along!

    Stomper ID'd as Paul county coordinator (none / 0) (#7)
    by magster on Tue Oct 26, 2010 at 02:55:26 PM EST
    for Bourbon County. Now former coordinator.

    Hard to believe that it is more likely than not that the Paul, Angle, Buck, Rubio, Toomey, Johnson are all going to be elected next week.

    Update on Stomper (none / 0) (#10)
    by MO Blue on Tue Oct 26, 2010 at 03:22:03 PM EST
    Today, October 26, 2010, detectives identified the suspect, involved in the assault, as Tim Profitt. Mr. Profitt is currently being served with a criminal summons ordering him to appear before a Fayette County District Court Judge.


    Is there a link to the stomp? (none / 0) (#11)
    by republicratitarian on Tue Oct 26, 2010 at 03:26:48 PM EST
    And...... (none / 0) (#12)
    by Zorba on Tue Oct 26, 2010 at 03:34:04 PM EST
    Here it is, courtesy of YouTube.

    Also (none / 0) (#14)
    by Zorba on Tue Oct 26, 2010 at 03:35:49 PM EST
    some photos.

    in a sane world (none / 0) (#15)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Oct 26, 2010 at 03:36:18 PM EST
    that would be it for Randy

    Who says (none / 0) (#17)
    by Zorba on Tue Oct 26, 2010 at 03:37:59 PM EST
    we're in a sane world right now?   ;-)

    not me (none / 0) (#18)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Oct 26, 2010 at 03:40:05 PM EST
    In our world... (none / 0) (#19)
    by kdog on Tue Oct 26, 2010 at 03:45:58 PM EST
    this display of "tough on liberal thought crime" by Paul supporters will probably win some votes.

    Kicking the dog is all the rage...all the kool kids are doing it.


    There you go again.... (none / 0) (#112)
    by NYShooter on Wed Oct 27, 2010 at 05:09:29 AM EST
    Leave it to you Libruls to make a mountain out a mule hill. I, on the other foot, being of sound ( and lyrics ) too, went to THE SOURCE: When you want to know the truth about anything, obfuscately you can't use the  Commie Rag MTV, you have to tune in Rush, I'm a dildo from Oklahoma, Limbow wow.   

    And right there, right next to his bib...le, is THE TRUTH. Rusty said, on the air for all to hear, that, as usual, the Libs eggsach....exgs ahj...made the whole thing up. The guy didn't stomp on the ladies head, he stompped on her shoulder. And then, just so you no it's the truther, he showed him stompping over and over and over again ON HER SHOULDER!!!!

    I hope Bonnyor demands an apology from those lying, Amurrcan hating Democrats.


    That little love tap? (kidding) (none / 0) (#20)
    by republicratitarian on Tue Oct 26, 2010 at 03:50:03 PM EST
    Lead story on Kos right now (none / 0) (#16)
    by magster on Tue Oct 26, 2010 at 03:36:23 PM EST
    but it's embedded all over the liberal blogosphere.

    It's pretty egregious. The guy is lucky he didn't do more damage, although some KY reader of TPM says that if victim's claim that she has a concussion is true, it would be a felony.


    Profitt is not, (none / 0) (#23)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Oct 26, 2010 at 04:00:23 PM EST
    it appears, a random campaign volunteer. Almost immediately after admitting his role, a picture of him and Paul surfaced.

    see his smilin face on huffpo


    I read that he was a county coordinator, or some (none / 0) (#25)
    by Angel on Tue Oct 26, 2010 at 04:06:34 PM EST
    such....  Despicable act.

    Words (none / 0) (#28)
    by Zorba on Tue Oct 26, 2010 at 04:16:45 PM EST
    fail us all, su.

    What about (none / 0) (#48)
    by christinep on Tue Oct 26, 2010 at 06:02:07 PM EST
    all the hateful, violence oriented words of the "angry people" that preceded this? Mike Lux on OpenLeft has an interesting column.

    It may be seredipitous. But, hate talk usually leads to something? Hate crimes?


    AP headline (none / 0) (#38)
    by MO Blue on Tue Oct 26, 2010 at 05:16:00 PM EST
    Rand Paul volunteer ordered to court for scuffle

    LEXINGTON, Ky. (AP) -- The volunteer with Rand Paul's Republican U.S. Senate campaign who stepped on the head of a liberal activist and pinned her face to the concrete said Tuesday the scuffle was not as bad as it looked on video and blamed police for not intervening.

    "I'm sorry that it came to that, and I apologize if it appeared overly forceful, but I was concerned about Rand's safety," Tim Profitt told The Associated Press.

    This @1%%@ guy is a real winner.  


    people get the government (none / 0) (#13)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Oct 26, 2010 at 03:35:02 PM EST
    they deserve:

    "I disagree strongly with the concept of separation of church and state," said Buck at a forum for GOP Senate candidates last year. "It was not written into the Constitution. While we have a Constitution that is very strong in the sense that we are not gonna have a religion that's sanctioned by the government, it doesn't mean that we need to have a separation between government and religion. And so that, that concerns me a great deal."

    Gees , wonder whose opinion I trust more (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by ruffian on Tue Oct 26, 2010 at 03:59:27 PM EST
    Buck's or Thomas jefferson's? Think I'll go with Jefferson.

    Makes you wonder how they'd react... (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by Dadler on Tue Oct 26, 2010 at 04:34:49 PM EST
    ...if you tried to tell them that Jefferson edited his own version of the Bible, in which he'd gotten rid of what he thought was all the gobbledy-gook, and to him there was a lot of it.

    I've (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by lentinel on Tue Oct 26, 2010 at 04:20:17 PM EST
    heard that before...

    But I still feel that the American people deserve better than this.


    Yes, we do, lentinel (none / 0) (#35)
    by Zorba on Tue Oct 26, 2010 at 04:54:12 PM EST
    But until the majority of the American people wake up, realize what is being done to them, and stop voting against their own self-interests, it's simply not going to happen.  The antidote to the money and propaganda coming from people like the Kochs and the corporations and Fox News, et al, is a truly informed, educated citizenry.  Too many of the citizenry do not wish to be informed.  I weep for our country.

    And then (5.00 / 2) (#62)
    by lentinel on Tue Oct 26, 2010 at 07:07:43 PM EST
    there is the portion of the citizenry that is informed, but feels it is incumbent upon them to vote for the person that appears to be the least worst. To me, that leads nowhere.

    I was thinking about the protection racket.
    Some thug comes into your place and offers to "protect" you from some other thug (who is them) for a price.

    That's the way I feel about our current system. The only motivating factor that the Democrats have is the Republicans are more dangerous than they are. They are running to protect us from the Republicans. I don't blame anyone who goes for it, but I do believe that it is a revolving door to nowhere.

    Having said that, I refuse to blame the electorate.
    We are the victims. I blame the perpetrators of this horrible and deadly scam: the amoral politicians, the media and the amoral corporate entities that control them and pay them.


    Protection racket (none / 0) (#102)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue Oct 26, 2010 at 11:17:16 PM EST
    Well said.  That's exactly what it is.

    I can blame the electorate... (none / 0) (#121)
    by kdog on Wed Oct 27, 2010 at 08:59:08 AM EST
    100%...its not the fairest of deals but we are victims because our our actions, or lack of actions...no other reason.

    If and when we wise up and elect several true monkeywrenchs to prominent office and we're in the same boat I'd rethink our victim status...its not like we gotta build a Great Wall of China here, just check off a different box on a couple ballots for god's sake...not exactly hard labor.


    Karl Rove (5.00 / 1) (#101)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue Oct 26, 2010 at 11:16:29 PM EST
    just delivered a long, long, passionate rant on Fox about how fabulous it is that the Tea Party people are "unsophisticated" and don't know much about much because to be "sophisticated" like those egghead perfessers and such is obviously horrible by definition. He didn't quite come out and say "un-American," but that was the idea.

    I hate Karl Rove. Whew! I said it, now I feel (5.00 / 1) (#119)
    by Angel on Wed Oct 27, 2010 at 08:23:03 AM EST

    You must be (none / 0) (#132)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed Oct 27, 2010 at 10:26:00 AM EST
    nicer than I am.  I've been saying it for many years.

    Plus the added benefit for him (5.00 / 2) (#131)
    by ruffian on Wed Oct 27, 2010 at 10:21:53 AM EST
    that they are easily manipulated, especially by telling them that not knowing anything is the true wisdom.

    Mmmmmmm (none / 0) (#134)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Oct 27, 2010 at 10:28:59 AM EST
    The cream filling in the Twinkie.

    Rolling Stone: Obama's Historic Progressive Victor (none / 0) (#24)
    by Dan the Man on Tue Oct 26, 2010 at 04:03:59 PM EST

    Taken together, Barack Obama's achievements are not only historic in their sweep but unabashedly liberal. By contrast, President Clinton's top legislative victories -- NAFTA and welfare reform -- catered to the right wing's faith in free markets and its loathing of big government. "When you add them all together, it's clear that Obama's accomplishments have been underrated," says Brinkley. "Saving the auto industry, health care, getting out of Iraq -- these are big things for the progressive movement."

    "Health care" my as$ (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by observed on Tue Oct 26, 2010 at 04:12:16 PM EST
    Not even Obama claims he was reforming out health care system.

    He got results (none / 0) (#50)
    by christinep on Tue Oct 26, 2010 at 06:08:29 PM EST
    Noone else did. He moved it all forward. You might not find the results perfect. But, a lot of us who have worked for health care reform/insurance reform or whatever you want to call it recognize the advance in protections to the consumer that did not exist heretofore. And, we recognized from the beginning the Sisyphean task needed in this lobbyist-money dominated field to accomplish anything. This is truly an area where the "I must have the perfect/I must have what I want" is the enemy of the meaningful advance that has been long in coming. Read your political history.

    come on (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by Dadler on Tue Oct 26, 2010 at 06:23:30 PM EST
    the only real reform in the health bill is expanded medicare coverage, which i am all for, we should extend it to ANY american who wants it -- but obama took that option off the table without the republicans having to do or give a thing. hmm. the rest of it props up the private paradigm that is killing us.

    and it was so poorly written that there is a good chance republicans could kill it in the future anyway.

    it was a horribly negotiated, horribly written, marginally helpful bill, which for the most part doesn't take effect for another three plus years.

    jobs, jobs, jobs, shoulda been job one.

    it was a no-brainer.

    but this admin actually had no brain when  go-time came.

    and if you really think i will only settle for percfect, or that we're all just a bunch of whining perfection seekers, pfft, then you're ridiculous and not worth the time.  i think, simply, that what obama has actually achieved has been minimal and that overall he has been a terrible disappointment as a leader. he has dropped the ball over and over.  you disagree, fine, it's a free country. but i don't need to accuse you of being a moron to do it (and, believe me, telling reasoned obama critics on the left that they are simply a bunch of whining perfection-seekers...you're calling them morons, in case you didn't know.)


    Well, Dadler, I cannot agree (none / 0) (#58)
    by christinep on Tue Oct 26, 2010 at 06:51:30 PM EST
    If it is "jobs jobs jobs" (none / 0) (#61)
    by Politalkix on Tue Oct 26, 2010 at 07:05:23 PM EST
    You should note that the health care bill was written to also partly sustain a jobs program in this country.
    Health care reform that primarily focussed on "reduction of administrative costs" meant more job losses in this economy.

    He put a check mark in (5.00 / 2) (#57)
    by MO Blue on Tue Oct 26, 2010 at 06:42:25 PM EST
    the column that said pass anything that I can call health insurance legislation. That was his goal and he achieved it.

    The goal of obtaining high quality affordable universal health care was thrown out the window during his behind the scenes deals with the insurance companies, pharma, AMA and hospitals.

    Even after implementation (if it occurs), the U.S. will be paying 2 - 3 times more for health care and 35 - 50% more for prescription drugs than other countries and millions of Americans will be without health care.

    This is nothing more than using a tired screed about "Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good." to excuse a p!ss poor piece of legislation that was written by and for the insurance and medical industries.


    And results count (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by Politalkix on Tue Oct 26, 2010 at 06:52:21 PM EST
    Even Neera Tanden who shaped Hillary's health care proposal has said "The health care bill alone is the most significant and far-reaching piece of domestic social policy in my lifetime," She also said "It is hard to see a more productive session of Congress in decades."

    Wow .... impressive (5.00 / 3) (#63)
    by Yman on Tue Oct 26, 2010 at 07:09:40 PM EST
    You mean the same Neera Tanden who was the Director of Domestic Policy for the Obama campaign and helped him shape his health care plan?  

    She thinks it's great?

    Heh ...


    Not a surprise that Tanden (5.00 / 1) (#67)
    by MO Blue on Tue Oct 26, 2010 at 07:25:07 PM EST
    would praise it.

    Tanden was the Obama campaign's domestic policy director. She had planned to work with former Sen. Tom Daschle (D-S.D.) -- who withdrew from consideration as Obama's Health and Human Services secretary because of tax problems -- to craft an overhaul of the American health-care system, an issue near to her heart......link

    Each and every Clinton and every member of their staff past and present could be good soldiers and sing its praises to all who will listen and it will still not be good legislation.

    Also, so far it hasn't reached many people since the majority of the legislation will start being implemented beginning in 2014 and final implementation by 2019. Meanwhile, back where real people could use affordable health care, millions of people go without health care, health insurance premiums and prescription drug prices are increasing by double digit percentages for less and less coverage. Even if and when implemented, we will still be paying 2 - 3 times more for health care and 35 - 50% more for prescription drugs than other countries. Not affordable and not universal with no real cost controls other than making out of pocket expenses so high people will be reluctant to use it.


    The only (5.00 / 0) (#69)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Oct 26, 2010 at 07:29:39 PM EST
    good thing I can see coming out of this is that it is going to force people to start looking at opening up Medicare for everybody. Even my husband, a former staunch conservative, now a liberal thinks that single payer is the way to go after having paid large insurance premiums for years.

    I totally agree (none / 0) (#76)
    by christinep on Tue Oct 26, 2010 at 07:48:52 PM EST
    And, that is why it is so significant to get the "foot in the door" as we now have done.

    would that be the foot (5.00 / 1) (#84)
    by nycstray on Tue Oct 26, 2010 at 08:59:58 PM EST
    that got the door slammed on it?

    One of those "misspoke" kinda things (none / 0) (#88)
    by MO Blue on Tue Oct 26, 2010 at 10:08:39 PM EST
    It is the hind end of the camel inside the tent.

    Cute. Cute is always easy. (none / 0) (#89)
    by christinep on Tue Oct 26, 2010 at 10:17:24 PM EST
    Maybe in your world. . . . n/t (none / 0) (#92)
    by nycstray on Tue Oct 26, 2010 at 10:27:37 PM EST
    But (5.00 / 1) (#113)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Oct 27, 2010 at 05:15:16 AM EST
    this is not a "foot in the door" so to speak. It is policy that's so bad that it's going to cause something else to happen. A foot in the door would have been having a public option.

    Sure, he got "results," (5.00 / 1) (#82)
    by Anne on Tue Oct 26, 2010 at 08:47:56 PM EST
    but for whom?  The insurance industry not only got the mandate it wanted, but the opportunity to ratchet up premiums for four more years.  

    And it managed to get that mandate without a significant amount of regulation, and is already working the loopholes - and it has four more years to do that, too.

    It managed to get state exchanges rather than a national program, guaranteeing that access and affordability and coverage will still vary from state to state, and keep the quality of affordable care low for people in insurance-friendly, regulation-averse states.

    Great result, yes - but not for us.  

    Yes, there are some aspects of the ACA that will benefit some people - maybe - depending on when they are slated to take effect, whether and how the insurance companies will find ways around them, and whether or if the states can afford to fund them.  

    Lots of "ifs" there.

    My firm's plan for the coming year - one I don't participate in - after passage of the Act, is more expensive, has reduced coverage, higher co-pays and deductibles and the cost of out-of-network care is now borne 100% by the insured.

    Great results, eh?

    You simply cannot convince me that if ANY effort had been made to put ALL the options on the table, if the President and the Dems in Congress had had the courage to put together a good plan and be accountable for it NOW, instead of deferring it for years, safely past critical elections, that we would not have had at least a fighting chance to have a lot more than we have now - or can expect in four years - including the opportunity to pry the fingers of the insurance industry off our necks and wallets.

    There simply is no excuse for not even trying, unless you consider protecting the cash flow from industry to lobbyist to legislator a good enough reason - I certainly don't.

    It didn't have to be perfect; no one expected that.  But Obama taking single-payer off the table was a little like - to invoke something medical - your doctor telling you that the best treatment for your cancer simply wasn't an option because he wasn't comfortable with it, offering you only a variation on treatment that had never been proved to be effective, and then telling you that you'd have to wait four years to get even that.  

    It was unconscionable for him and the rest of the Dems to have so abandoned the people on this issue - and we will be paying for it, and millions more will die from it - for years and years to come.


    The only speck of hope (none / 0) (#104)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue Oct 26, 2010 at 11:24:02 PM EST
    is that this is turning out to be SUCH a POS that, combined with GOP sabotage, it will really completely collapse of its own weight and they'll have to start over and do it right a few years down the road.

    I think what we might see is a (none / 0) (#111)
    by MO Blue on Wed Oct 27, 2010 at 12:21:19 AM EST
    complete reversal of the few decent parts of the legislation while the most draconian parts (i.e. cuts to Medicare, excise tax on good policies, mandatory insurance, selling insurance across state lines) are maintained.

    While corporate money rules government, I don't see when or how this will change. The current legislation adds additional life to a system that IMO was ready to collapse of its own weight. The insurance and medical industries may well become the next entities that will be deemed "too big to fail."  


    Oh, pullEASE! (5.00 / 0) (#103)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue Oct 26, 2010 at 11:19:14 PM EST
    What I would like to know (none / 0) (#66)
    by lentinel on Tue Oct 26, 2010 at 07:24:10 PM EST
    exactly did Obama move forward?

    Give the man some credit (5.00 / 3) (#70)
    by MO Blue on Tue Oct 26, 2010 at 07:29:49 PM EST
    He did move implementation of much of this POS legislation FORWARD to 2014. Just think 4 years for annual double digit health insurance premium increases, annual double digit prescription drug increases and for Republicans with ample help from some Democrats to make a extremely bad piece of legislation even worse.

    If you are really interested, you can look up (none / 0) (#90)
    by christinep on Tue Oct 26, 2010 at 10:18:43 PM EST
    the summaries.

    I'm (5.00 / 1) (#117)
    by lentinel on Wed Oct 27, 2010 at 07:20:09 AM EST
    like Velma Hart.

    I think I should be able to know when something is improving without having to google a "summary".


    We aren't (5.00 / 2) (#29)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Oct 26, 2010 at 04:17:52 PM EST
    out of Iraq and we probably never will be. Is that an accomplishment? Health care is warmed over '94 GOP plan and that's progressive? This just reinforces in my mind that "progressive" means whatever Obama does. Welfare reform would be "progressive" if Obama did it i'm sure.

    we're required (none / 0) (#40)
    by CST on Tue Oct 26, 2010 at 05:30:39 PM EST
    to have all troops out of Iraq by Dec. 2011 according to the SOFA.

    Do you really (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Oct 26, 2010 at 05:59:24 PM EST
    think they are all coming out? As I understand it, we are leaving 50,000 there.

    there are 50000 (none / 0) (#93)
    by CST on Tue Oct 26, 2010 at 10:31:12 PM EST
    "Non combat" troops there now - whatever that means.  But it is my understanding that all u.s. forces must be out by Dec 2011.  Getting it down to what it is now was the first step in that.

    At least that's what Wikipedia says... and the interviews I've seen on tv with reporters who left with the "combat" troops.


    Combat troops (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by waldenpond on Tue Oct 26, 2010 at 06:12:46 PM EST
    The agreement is to have combat troops out.  Some have merely been renamed with the new mission and actually perform the same exact duties.  Some troops are not happy about the portrayal.

    That doesn't (5.00 / 2) (#53)
    by Zorba on Tue Oct 26, 2010 at 06:19:29 PM EST
    even count the armed contractors.  Somebody has to protect our huge embassy and our interests there, after all.  Mercenaries, troops not called "combat troops" (what are they then, "advisers" I guess?  Shades of Viet Nam).  Whatever.  If they're armed, I don't see much difference.

    Difference (none / 0) (#56)
    by waldenpond on Tue Oct 26, 2010 at 06:37:16 PM EST
    Is one group may have a legitimate concern for serving their country (or simply no job opportunities) the other group are merely vermin looking to get paid to murder people.  It pisses me off I'm forced to pay a premium for sociopaths that hate brown people.

    Oh, (none / 0) (#64)
    by Zorba on Tue Oct 26, 2010 at 07:18:13 PM EST
    too true.  

    There are (none / 0) (#125)
    by CST on Wed Oct 27, 2010 at 09:58:24 AM EST
    7000 contractors in Iraq right now to "protect" 2400 State Department officials.

    I'm not saying that's a good thing - but it's not an army.



    "the forces employed by the State Department will not have immunity from Iraqi prosecution, will be required to register with the country, and will be trailed by State Department regional security officers for extra oversight."


    no it's (none / 0) (#99)
    by CST on Tue Oct 26, 2010 at 10:58:05 PM EST
    all troops

    you are thinking of the 50,000 people there now. They are coming home.

    Here is a link:

    "Obama cited progress toward meeting his deadline of withdrawing all U.S. combat troops from Iraq by the end of this month. A transitional force of 50,000 troops will remain to train Iraqi security forces, conduct counterterrorism operations and provide security for ongoing U.S. civilian efforts. Under an agreement negotiated in 2008 with the Iraqis, all American troops are to be gone from Iraq by the end of next year. "

    emphasis mine.


    SOFAs get rewritten all the time (none / 0) (#110)
    by ruffian on Tue Oct 26, 2010 at 11:55:53 PM EST
    That is just a technicality. If both our gov and the Iraqi gov want them there past Dec. 2011, they will be there.

    true (none / 0) (#123)
    by CST on Wed Oct 27, 2010 at 09:32:59 AM EST
    they could re-write it.  But they have been following it thus far with the draw-down to 50,000.  Frankly, Obama has zero reason to stay, politically.  Negative reason.  Rewriting the SOFA would be really stupid.  And as you mentioned, the Iraqi government would also have to agree.  Maliki might like it, but the parliament in Iraq would have to approve it and they don't appear to be inclined to do so.

    Politicially it's bad for the Iraqi government and the US government.


    To mean "progress" means moving forward (none / 0) (#60)
    by christinep on Tue Oct 26, 2010 at 06:55:04 PM EST
    It is fact. It is beyond theory.  

    Look, I like a lot of your comments (and even agree here and there.)  But, this ongoing fight on what "shoulda been" on health care doesn't do it for me.  For me, who lived so much of that issue for at least 15 years, we got further than we have before.  That means something.  It means a lot.  (Yes, I want more.  First, we consolidate and refine. Then we add. That works for me.)


    Moving forward does not always equate (5.00 / 2) (#78)
    by MO Blue on Tue Oct 26, 2010 at 08:04:01 PM EST
    to moving in the right direction. Making the insurance, pharma and medical industries richer and more powerful at the expensive of our citizens is not a step in the right direction. It will be these industries that will consolidate their power and not the people who need health care. We have given up on providing universal health care and have instead devised an unsustainable system by which taxpayers subsidize overpriced insurance premiums which may not even provide the health care that people need for an affordable price and IMO this is entirely the wrong direction. Maintaining a system that results in our country paying 2 - 3 times more for health care and 35 - 50% more for prescription drugs is not moving in the right direction. We are just beginning to see where all hefty price increases and all the defects of the current insurance and medical industry system are now being blamed on the government and not on the industries themselves. Wrong legislation and wrong direction.  

    What we have given up on (none / 0) (#91)
    by christinep on Tue Oct 26, 2010 at 10:24:09 PM EST
    is the past. We are not stuck in the status quo that the Republicans have had everyone in for years.  We are moving out of that--inching out--but moving out.  There are a lot of families that feel those real health reform effects.  They see it; you don't.  We often perceive precisely what we want to; so, if you want to deny the yearned for relief that numerous families now have because it doesn't fit what you would have done...that is certainly your prerogative.

    A lot more families are feeling the burden (5.00 / 1) (#96)
    by MO Blue on Tue Oct 26, 2010 at 10:48:08 PM EST
    of paying double digit increases for their premiums for less coverage, higher deductibles and copays and higher costs for prescription drugs. These families definitely see that they are just having to pay more for less. This trend will continue for the indefinite future for most people now that Obama has decided to prop up a defective system with government subsidies. That is the reality that you chose not to face. Your loyalty to a person and a party has resulted in your supporting legislation that you as a loyal Democrat would have and probably did refuse to support when the Republicans offered it 1993.

    This legislation is so fantastic that every Democrat who is running for reelection has ads running non stop touting his support for this great Democratic achievement. Sure, they are.


    We all know that "now" (none / 0) (#139)
    by christinep on Wed Oct 27, 2010 at 11:51:24 AM EST
    is the imperative. In my life and in my political experience, there are very few (almost negligible) things or changes that happen "now." Heck, looking back: In my youth, my comments would have made this blog seem relatively mild from a progressive or liberal perspective. And no, I didn't sell out or turn away or grow stale...what happened instead was the realization that, for me, incrementalism seemed more promising than the roller-coaster of the "it-has-to-happen-now."  On an earlier thread, I've mentioned my fortune in meeting & speaking with the community strategist Saul Alinsky. A lesson about finding one's personality and how it fits in a movement was something that I will always remember. Namely: Recognize that many people may subscribe to the same goal and maybe the same general direction, but that the tactics and approaches to getting there often differ...so, find the aspect of the movement that best fits your personality and work for it. Also: Fight for the 100%, but be willing to take 1/2 loaf...and come back to push for the rest after consolidation. (Alinsky actually said that directly to me in answer to my 18 year-old self's question about practical strategies.

    I've also noted before that my preference would have been a single-payer system (for a long time, many years that has been my goal.) Yet, there were a lot of reasons that wasn't to be--there were many and are many competing interests here that make it extremely difficult to convince people to tear down what is and superimpose what might look like a European system. Maybe in future; but, if you think that people are hesitant, disappointed, confused (from the right and the left) at this juncture, multiply that by any integer to get an idea of how much worse the public would feel.

    The legislation isn't fantastic. It is good in that the direction of movement is what so many of us Democrats (and many others) have sought. What it does need--very much--is some time. Time for each component to become operational; time for people to see how it is working (and what more is needed); time for the fear and apprehension generated especially by the right that this system will not destroy American life as we know it; time to function.  Time is what we all normally afford any person or project or program when we are open to a new notion.

    And, since I do appreciate your sense of urgency, let me just express my wish that in years to come, those like you & those like me will figure out a new way to live in the big tent.


    If Lyndon Johnson and the (none / 0) (#140)
    by Anne on Wed Oct 27, 2010 at 01:39:38 PM EST
    Democratic Congress had subscribed to the incremental approach, I'm pretty sure Medicare would never have happened.

    That was indeed a bold move, made in the face of opposition and competing interests, with all the same scariness of change, and when it became law, was up and running nationwide within one year.

    If Barack Obama had run on a platform of incrementalism, instead of transformative change backed up by the Yes-We-Can mantra, maybe what ended up being passed would make more sense, but when he spends two years whipping people into a frenzy and having them believe that ANYTHING is possible and he's the one who can GET IT DONE, there is no excuse, none.

    And when he and the rest of the Dems spend the entire run-up to the legislation agreeing with the American people that we have a huge crsis in health care that must be addressed NOW, and then package a bill that will take another four years to be fully operational - assuming it even still exists four years from now - the only conclusion that sane people can draw is that the bill wasn't written for us, but for the "competing interests" that are largely responsible for the crisis to begin with.

    As far as I'm concerned, it's indefensible.


    The circumstances (none / 0) (#141)
    by christinep on Wed Oct 27, 2010 at 03:05:32 PM EST
    in the mid'60s were markedly different in terms of old-school controls in the Congress. The iron-hand leaders of the times were respected and followed--partly consonant with the times (before the deteriorating views of government taking hold in the 70's in the aftermath of Vietnam and following Watergate.) And, one big plus for LBJ: Not all that long before he became President, he was the unrivaled Senate ruler, who knew how to strong-arm and wheel-deal behind closed doors.
    Today, we also have an unusually obstreporous opposition--as I'm sure we can all agree--with the well-delivered "no" theme and voting pattern.

    Another thought: Thinking about trends in power--the hard knocks power that has usually made the Branches of government operate--it may well be that 2008 ushered in a period of Legislative hegemony. It may appear that they are completely disordered; but, remember the circumstances in early 2008. Historians have a view toward power centers--just as we consider strong mayoral/weak council or strong city council/weak mayoral in local matters--as they ebb & flow from/to strong Executive vis a vis strong/weak Legislative Branch. A lot needs to play out there.  In any event, the dynamics of the past almost two years do not resemble the situation inherited by LBJ 47 years ago.


    If you think this is a step in the right (5.00 / 1) (#87)
    by MO Blue on Tue Oct 26, 2010 at 09:35:24 PM EST
    direction, did you work for the passage of the Dole/Chafee bill in 1993? That bill included:

    • An individual mandate enforced by a penalty imposed on those who did not comply.

    • A government voucher to purchase health insurance for individuals to up to 240% of the poverty line. (Which is more generous than what the Democrats passed.)

    • A cap on how much health insurance could be deducted as a tax credit (similar to the Senate Finance Committee excise tax.)

    • The removal of the tax credit for all private health insurance plans that did not provide a "federally guaranteed package of health care benefits." (Which is more radical than anything Obama is proposing - and a greater reach of the government into the private sector.)

    • The elimination of discrimination on the basis of preexisting conditions.

    • Financing through cuts in Medicare Part B and the limits in tax credits discussed above.

    I participated in the early stages of the Clinton (none / 0) (#94)
    by christinep on Tue Oct 26, 2010 at 10:36:59 PM EST
    legislation...doing what I could do. It is important that various forms of legislation have been introduced over many years, and nothing (nothing!) ever passed.  "A miss is as good as a mile."  We could all learn from the late Senator Ted Kennedy's regret that he didn't make a deal when offered years earlier; he didn't make that deal because it wasn't good enough. Time changed his perspective.
    Sometimes you have to start in a different place and build on it. There are too many people out there who depend upon the reform help that we attained. They couldn't afford to await the fulfillment of ideology.

    That wasn't the question asked (5.00 / 1) (#97)
    by MO Blue on Tue Oct 26, 2010 at 10:55:08 PM EST
    The question was did you support and work for passage of the 1993 Dole/Chafee health care bill? The current legislation that you claim is such a great achievement is nothing more than a remake of that bill.  You claim that you have been waiting for this for 15 years. Well you could have had it then by generating enough support to pass the bill that the Republicans put on the table.

    There is nothing to build on (5.00 / 1) (#105)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue Oct 26, 2010 at 11:34:32 PM EST
    in this bill.

    Look, I'm sympathetic to your basic orientation on things like this, but this law only solidifies the death grip of the insurance industry, the pharma industry and the for-profit hospital industry on health care.  There's no crack in the door to stick your foot in here.

    Expansion of Medicaid to many more people is the one major good thing, although Medicaid itself frankly sucks, but the states can't even begin to afford to pay for the full burden of that expansion, as they will have to do in a few years.

    Do you really think taxpayers who are already paying increasingly astronomical fees for their own private health insurance are going to accept their state taxes doubling to pay for expanded crummy Medicaid without a fight?  They are not, I guarantee you.

    This law is like trying to stanch a slice out of a major artery with a hundred band-aids and a dozen handfuls of Kleenex.


    A (none / 0) (#65)
    by lentinel on Tue Oct 26, 2010 at 07:21:46 PM EST
    little variation maybe.

    But "further"-  I don't think so.


    The problem (none / 0) (#68)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Oct 26, 2010 at 07:25:37 PM EST
    that I have with the bill is the framework is poorly done that even if it was a good bill, which btw it is NOT, it can easily be undone. There is little actual good and already the insurance companies are finding ways to undermine it and everything, I mean literally everything, in the bill can be defunded by the GOP. So in the end the bill will consist of people being mandated to buy expensive health insurance or pay a big tax for not having health insurance.

    I have lots of experience in the insurance biz so I know of what i speak here.

    This could have been so simple but Obama made it hard and did preemptive surrender on this issue because, I believe, he really wasn't interested in producing good policy, only producing SOMETHING. It reminds me of my teenage son who slings crap, tells me he did his homework and then is shocked, shocked!! that the teacher gave him an F on it.


    Interesting points (none / 0) (#75)
    by christinep on Tue Oct 26, 2010 at 07:45:32 PM EST
    And, it will be more interesting to see if those same Repubs will venture to take away the rights conveyed--preexisting changes, caps changes, children covered until 25, recission changes, etc. People might complain that they don't understand (and that is the fault of a faulty WH communication system) and/or that more should be there, but it is more than darned hard to seek actively--when in office--to take away what has been legislated/given/perceived as given....you get the drift.

    I get your comments about the throes of the insurance companies.  But, really...to a lot of people, these beinning "rights" make more than a lot of difference. It is a big something.


    From what I see in my daily life (none / 0) (#80)
    by Politalkix on Tue Oct 26, 2010 at 08:39:49 PM EST
    this whole thing about being under "the throes of the insurance companies" or being under "the throes of government bureaucrats" is important only to people who are obsessed with political ideologies. The vast majority of people are not so ideological, they are only concerned about the practical aspects of changes in health insurance, i.e. changes to existing premiums, preexisting changes, caps changes, children covered until 25, recission changes, etc.

    No (5.00 / 1) (#115)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Oct 27, 2010 at 05:26:45 AM EST
    the main thing about insurance is the cost. Those things don't matter if you can't afford it in the first place.

    Ideology (5.00 / 1) (#116)
    by kmblue on Wed Oct 27, 2010 at 05:44:09 AM EST
    has no place in my response. I have a friend whose policy is MORE than her house payment.   And she doesn't dare go bare, because she has a pre-existing condition.  So there's a real world example of someone directly affected by the health care failure by Obama.  She may end up in a homeless shelter, but by god, she'll have health insurance!

    The main (none / 0) (#114)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Oct 27, 2010 at 05:25:58 AM EST
    problem with private insurance is the cost is out of control. The GOP may not take those out but if people can't afford to pay the premiums then what? What good is ending recission if your policy is 5K a month?

    Once again, the costs are going to be sky high for what you are talking about.

    Let me put it to you this way: My insurance premium is almost as much as my house payment. How long do you think people are going to be able to sustain payments like that?


    Now... (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by lentinel on Tue Oct 26, 2010 at 04:19:17 PM EST
    why is it that I don't believe that we're out of Iraq?

    actually (none / 0) (#33)
    by CST on Tue Oct 26, 2010 at 04:28:35 PM EST
    I REALLY wish Dems would run more ads touting the auto industry.

    Every Republican in sight was opposing that loudly at the time.

    That's one real, solid, accomplishment with pretty much no downside - and I haven't heard a thing about it this election season.


    And you'd think it would really play well in (none / 0) (#55)
    by steviez314 on Tue Oct 26, 2010 at 06:26:25 PM EST
    MI, OH, WI, where we're going to lose seats.

    But the American public just has no ability to do one of those "what-if" thought exercises, so saving an industry isn't worth a vote.


    No, that ad would NOT work in Wisconsin (5.00 / 1) (#86)
    by Cream City on Tue Oct 26, 2010 at 09:16:34 PM EST
    where the last car rolled off the line at the Chrysler plant here just a few days ago, to headlines statewide marking the end of the auto era in one hard-hit town, while another -- Feingold's hometown -- still is suffering widespread joblessness from the closing of another GM plant a couple of years ago . . . a plant for which the state taxpayers paid a small fortune not long ago to remodel it, with GM promises to keep it in play.

    The auto industry has not come back in Wisconsin, nor have all of the peripheral industries that so relied on it.  Feingold has enough problems, and it would be the GOP that would win with that ad here.


    The pissing and moaning (none / 0) (#106)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue Oct 26, 2010 at 11:38:01 PM EST
    I hear about that, though, is that the auto industry's profits (just like the banks') have come at the taxpayers' expense.  The UAW and the executives, the perception is, are living large as a result of our money, while we're all struggling with reduced or absent paychecks, big cutbacks in state services, massive increases in insurance premiums and big rises in the cost of the stuff that doesn't get counted in the inflation index, fuel and food.

    Nobody outside Michigan is cheering about the resurgence of Ford, believe me.


    that's ironic (none / 0) (#124)
    by CST on Wed Oct 27, 2010 at 09:45:25 AM EST
    considering we own a big chunk of GE.  So their profits are our profits.

    And we never bailed out Ford.

    You'd thing the Amuurrika crowd would love them some U.S. auto industry.

    Any job is one less person competing for another job.

    I'm not saying your wrong.  But if that's true - people are really stupid.


    Judge Burton Roberts. (none / 0) (#30)
    by lentinel on Tue Oct 26, 2010 at 04:17:58 PM EST
    There was a video posted of Burton Roberts.

    There does not appear to be any sound after the first few seconds.

    Perhaps it is my computer, but if not, would it be possible to repost this video.

    Burton Roberts

    On a break from my internet poker run... (none / 0) (#72)
    by Dadler on Tue Oct 26, 2010 at 07:37:01 PM EST
    Horrid scool board member (none / 0) (#74)
    by MKS on Tue Oct 26, 2010 at 07:44:14 PM EST
    posting (on Facebook, I think) a message to gay kids telling them to kill themselves....

    See Big Orange.

    There really are people like that?....and who would write that?  

    Words fail....

    Tony Perkins spews again (5.00 / 0) (#77)
    by waldenpond on Tue Oct 26, 2010 at 08:03:00 PM EST
    Over at Americablog you get a post where TP vomits up that 'gays know they are abnormal, that's why they kill themselves'

    and yet, some still wonder why people reject the Christian religion.


    Equating Tony Perkins (none / 0) (#108)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue Oct 26, 2010 at 11:47:06 PM EST
    with Christianity makes no more sense than equating Mohammed Atta with Islam.

    Just sayin'. (And not a Christian personally, btw.)


    Sure, but Perkins is just as much (none / 0) (#120)
    by observed on Wed Oct 27, 2010 at 08:37:17 AM EST
    a Christian as Bishop Tutu, and Atta was just as much a Muslim as [insert peacenik here]
    The argument goes both ways.
    Perkins IS representative of Christianity as soon as he calls himself a Christian, basically.

    I am not normally a vengeful person (5.00 / 0) (#83)
    by MO Blue on Tue Oct 26, 2010 at 08:48:01 PM EST
    who wishes that bad things happen to people but a person like this could change my mind.

    Any UFO sightings over Wyoming? (none / 0) (#79)
    by MO Blue on Tue Oct 26, 2010 at 08:38:58 PM EST
    President Obama was briefed this morning on a power failure at F.E. Warren Air Force Base in Wyoming that took 50 nuclear intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs), one-ninth of the U.S. missile stockpile, temporarily offline on Saturday.
    On Saturday morning, according to people briefed on what happened, a squadron of ICBMs suddenly dropped down into what's known as "LF Down" status, meaning that the missileers in their bunkers could no longer communicate with the missiles themselves. LF Down status also means that various security protocols built into the missile delivery system, like intrusion alarms and warhead separation alarms, were offline. link

    My subject line is snark based on a story about UFOs shutting down missles. The fact that the Air lost complete command and control and functionality of 50 ICBMs is true.

    Courtesy of FDL (none / 0) (#81)
    by MO Blue on Tue Oct 26, 2010 at 08:42:24 PM EST
    FDL Okay, I know it's a Rasmussen poll, so take it with a pretty huge grain of salt.  But even if it's off by, say, 10%, it still has some pretty interesting results.  Aside from the fact that almost half the Republicans in a traditionally pro-Republican poll agree that the GOP is not "the party of the American people" (and are apparently okay with that), belief in the viability of a third-party presidential candidate was far stronger than the actual historical performance of third-party presidential candidates:

       38% think Republicans and Democrats are so much alike that an entirely new party is needed to represent the American people....

        38% also think it is at least somewhat likely that a third party candidate will be elected president of the United States within the next 10 years, with 11% who say it is Very Likely.

    Quiggin: 'Zero-Dimensional Chess' (none / 0) (#85)
    by RonK Seattle on Tue Oct 26, 2010 at 09:14:15 PM EST
    Over at Crooked Timber, John Quiggin foresees this post-election future:
    ... a series of pre-emptive capitulations, after which the Republicans will demand the repeal of the healthcare act (or maybe abolition of Social Security). When/if that is refused, the Repugs will shut down the government, and this time they will hold their nerve until Obama folds.

    women are no more than benches or hedges (none / 0) (#129)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Oct 27, 2010 at 10:19:42 AM EST
    c'mon, in Italy?! what next.  morality laws in Amsterdam?

    Miniskirts ban planned by Italian resort

    The mayor of a southern Italian beach town has ordered police officers to fine women who wear short miniskirts or show too much cleavage, as part of a battle to raise what he describes as the level of public decorum.

    At a council meeting last night, Luigi Bobbio, who was elected on Silvio Berlusconi's People of Freedom party ticket, won a vote to ban clothing considered "very short" from the town of Castellammare di Stabia, south of Naples. Police will get the power to hand out €300 (£265) fines to offenders.

    "By equating women's clothing with urban decorum, this measure implies women are no more than benches or hedges," said councillor Angela Cortese.

    The irony... (none / 0) (#135)
    by kdog on Wed Oct 27, 2010 at 10:34:18 AM EST
    Luigi Taliban over there is a member of the "People of Freedom" party!

    Is minding your own hem line not considered proper decorum anymore?


    Yeah (none / 0) (#142)
    by squeaky on Wed Oct 27, 2010 at 03:58:09 PM EST
    People are free to make stupid sexist laws.

    We took our money out of the stock (none / 0) (#136)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Oct 27, 2010 at 10:36:20 AM EST
    market a long time ago, but we did not close our IRA account.  My husband didn't want to.  So we left a smidge in there but I told my spouse to move it into bonds because he was the one doing all that stuff that day.  We got a quarterly report last week, when I opened it and saw the balance I immediately thought my husband was pulling fast ones and putting money into the IRA.  He was sitting only feet away so I asked him what the heck was up.  Nothing was up, now they say we have a bond bubble as people try to find someplace safe for their money.  

    great (none / 0) (#137)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Oct 27, 2010 at 10:53:57 AM EST
    but havent they had one for a long time?

    Israel to get its own `Tea Party' movement