Wednesday Morning Open Thread

Open Thread.

< Politics and Palins Run Dancing With the Stars Into the Ground | Wednesday Early Evening Open Thread >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    we might need more popcorn (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Nov 17, 2010 at 10:24:15 AM EST
    Social Conservative Group's Withdrawal from CPAC to Protest Gay Participation Prompts Statement from Organizers

    The American Principles Project

    "Last year, of course, the American Principles Project participated in CPAC despite the presence of GOProud. That was a mistake, just as it was, in our opinion, a mistake for CPAC to countenance GOProud's participation. Having now examined closely GOProud's mission and its behavior since its inception, we can only conclude that the organization's purposes are fundamentally incompatible with a movement that has long embraced the ideals of family and faith in a thriving civil society. Needless to say, we are deeply persuaded that a thriving civil society is an indispensable bulwark against the relentless expansion of government, a phenomenon that has gripped much of the Western world and helped to fuel the present fiscal and economic crisis."

    from CPAC

    "Our role at CPAC is to bring conservative groups together on the core issues. We ask that those interested in being participating organizations agree with the ACU statement of principles. To date, we have over 80 groups involved with CPAC. We are pleased that we will continue adding groups over the next several weeks leading up to CPAC. CPAC has the unique opportunity of hosting more than 10,000 conservatives from across the nation and abroad and provides a forum for them to organize and interact on the issues that are important to them. We certainly respect that many conservatives will have to weigh the costs and benefits to joining CPAC as a participating organization. We respect the decision groups come to when deciding whether to participate in CPAC. If they are not able to be at CPAC 2011, we hope they will be at a future conference and will continue to invite them to do so."

    civil war is coming to the republican party.

    Actually (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Nov 17, 2010 at 10:41:24 AM EST
    the GOP civil war has been stewing underneath the surface for about 20 years since the collapse of the Soviet Union. They really only had the cold war to unify them but 9/11 delayed the war. It's now full blown and out there for all the public to see. What's interesting is that social conservatives know that they are fighting a losing battle but they continue on with it anyway. Frankly, I respect the Amish more since they don't choose to force their values on anybody else. If social conservatives want to live like they are in the 50's then have at it. Just don't try to drag the rest of us back there with you.

    Social Conservatives want to go back to the 1890s (5.00 / 0) (#27)
    by MKS on Wed Nov 17, 2010 at 11:50:13 AM EST
    The 1950s really had a lot of intellectual ferment beneath the calm.  

    Civil Rights was starting to percolate.....

    The stage was being set for an advance in women's rights...

    The social conservatives really want to go back to a time pre WWII.  WWII is what changed society here in the U.S.--away from what the conservatives love....

    The calm of the 1950s was the desire for peace and quiet after WWII.....But society was shifting...

    You have to go back to the 1890s--as Glenn Beck has by saying that Progressivism, which got its start at the beginning of the 20th Centry, is the bane of all God-fearing folk.  

    In the 1890s, women knew their place....and I don't think one can underestimate the burgeoning equality in fact of women in all corners of society as part of the underlying forces that unhinge the Right.

    In the 1890s, the monied elite had no check and balance at all.....

    The Armed Forces had not yet been integrated.  


    No labor unions (5.00 / 0) (#69)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed Nov 17, 2010 at 02:13:32 PM EST
    to speak of, either.

    BTW, have you ever read Dennis Lehane's "The Given Day"?  Fascinating novel about working-class Irish Boston in the early 20th century-- labor unions, communists, anarchists, police force-- and baseball!


    will check that out (none / 0) (#174)
    by MKS on Thu Nov 18, 2010 at 01:09:29 PM EST
    Well said. (none / 0) (#14)
    by lilburro on Wed Nov 17, 2010 at 10:59:12 AM EST
    I keep hearing that (none / 0) (#5)
    by kenosharick on Wed Nov 17, 2010 at 10:38:51 AM EST
    but am not convinced.  When it comes to crunch time they all fall into line.

    Yes and the Republican Party (5.00 / 3) (#10)
    by MO Blue on Wed Nov 17, 2010 at 10:52:58 AM EST
    is in such shambles it will be dead for decades to come. So saith many "very serious people" on the Democratic blogs after the 2006 and 2008 elections.  

    I think there was a chance for (5.00 / 3) (#17)
    by masslib on Wed Nov 17, 2010 at 11:14:08 AM EST
    Democrats to be the dominate political Party for at least a generation, but they blew it when they failed to pass a strong, jobs-based stimulus.  Now it's all up in the air.

    Darn... (none / 0) (#19)
    by Thanin on Wed Nov 17, 2010 at 11:16:16 AM EST
    was beat out by 37 seconds.

    The GOP will never fall apart (none / 0) (#11)
    by observed on Wed Nov 17, 2010 at 10:55:17 AM EST
    while there is a Democratic President.

    Exactly, MO... I remember reading (none / 0) (#12)
    by jeffinalabama on Wed Nov 17, 2010 at 10:55:25 AM EST
    on the Orange and other sites about the end of the GOP. That worked out well, didn't it?

    Ain't that the truth! (none / 0) (#15)
    by lilburro on Wed Nov 17, 2010 at 11:00:08 AM EST
    How the hell did that happen anyway?  I mean really.

    A rehabilitation program was started (5.00 / 2) (#20)
    by MO Blue on Wed Nov 17, 2010 at 11:21:12 AM EST
    during the primary and continued throughout the last 2 years.

    The Republicans try to put a stake through the heart of the Democrats at every opportunity. The Democrats come to the aid of the Republicans by endorsing the Republican's "good ideas," treat their most radical proposals and activist as rational while attacking the "loony left," spend months publicly deferring to their recommendations on legislation and ultimately pass their plans. No real mystery as to how it happened. Why is another question.

    BTW, Obama won't give people any tax cuts but he might extend the "Bush" tax cuts. So if you benefit in any way from the tax cuts, remember Bush gave them to you. You get the idea.  


    They are in shambles... (none / 0) (#18)
    by Thanin on Wed Nov 17, 2010 at 11:14:45 AM EST
    its just that democrats suck so bad, republicans can still get elected.

    Actually (none / 0) (#7)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Nov 17, 2010 at 10:44:08 AM EST
    I even saw the split here in GA during the GOP primaries. I think the thing is not that they won't fall in line because they do but that they won't show up. I remember Pat Robertson talking back in 1992 about how social conservatives didn't show up to vote. The only person that has really been able to rally the social conservative vote was W. but then he promptly blew the party up with Terri Schaivo.

    they are not going to all fall in line (none / 0) (#48)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Nov 17, 2010 at 01:08:11 PM EST
    when it comes to gay rights.  they simply are not.
    there is a substantial faction that wants to move beyond the social issues like gay rights and abortion and there is a substantial faction that will absolutely not allow them to do that.

    threading the pork needle (5.00 / 0) (#55)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Nov 17, 2010 at 01:25:25 PM EST
    Tennessee's Lamar Alexander  calls ending earmarks merely a "timeout" and says, "I will respect this moratorium, although in an emergency case I reserve the right to ask Congress and the president to approve measures of urgent importance to Tennesseans."

    Georgia's Saxby Chambliss says that "there are times when crises arise or issues come forth of such importance to Georgia, such as the Port of Savannah ... that I reserve the right to ask Congress and the president to approve funding."

    Orin G. Hatch of Utah says, "I have always said I have an obligation as your senator to make sure that our state, our communities and our people get back the hard-earned tax dollars we contribute to the federal Treasury. That's only fair and right, and is something I will not stop fighting for."

    worth noting (none / 0) (#56)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Nov 17, 2010 at 01:26:15 PM EST
    that Hatch is one of those with a primary nipping at this heels.

    2012 (none / 0) (#77)
    by jbindc on Wed Nov 17, 2010 at 02:33:04 PM EST
    Dems are defending 23 Senate seats and Rs only 9.  Watch how fast earmarks get hushed up for those defending seats.

    more (none / 0) (#107)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Nov 17, 2010 at 03:54:18 PM EST
    Republicans on notice: Get ready for 2012 primary challenges

    Senate Republicans' campaign chief has warned colleagues to expect conservative primary challengers in 2012, and many are already moving to shore up their right flank in case of Tea Party-endorsed insurgencies back home.

    Sen. Olympia Snowe (Maine), one of the Republicans most likely to vote with Democrats, this week announced . . .

    Sen. Dick Lugar (Ind.), the Republican co-sponsor of legislation to grant permanent residency to the children of illegal immigrants who meet certain requirements, has . . .

    And Sen. Orrin Hatch (Utah), who could have to square off against Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah), recently filed a friend-of-the-court brief challenging . . .

    Make the members (none / 0) (#114)
    by jbindc on Wed Nov 17, 2010 at 04:06:23 PM EST
    Move to the right until the RNSC has scared them enough.  The RNSC is broke right now - they need to focus any money they get on any pickups they can get and not on "show" primaries.

    I dont think (none / 0) (#117)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Nov 17, 2010 at 04:11:37 PM EST
    the TPers care

    Idaho being one of the many red states of course (none / 0) (#145)
    by DFLer on Wed Nov 17, 2010 at 05:59:32 PM EST
    that get more in federal dollars than they pay in hard-earned tax dollars

    funny (5.00 / 1) (#166)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Nov 18, 2010 at 09:16:42 AM EST
    recently someone sent me a list of the way states get money from and give money back to the US government.

    guess what. pretty much all the "blue" states send more money back to the govt than they get and virtually all the red/southern states get more money from the US govt than they give back.

    what a surprise, huh?


    until this election, (none / 0) (#167)
    by jeffinalabama on Thu Nov 18, 2010 at 09:27:34 AM EST
    Red State pols, both parties, would run on the "I bring money to the state" meme. I've heard Sessions, I think, talk about bringing in 1.25 for every dollar sent from here in taxes. It may have been in a different state different politician, though. Memory isn't 100 percent.

    here ya go (none / 0) (#168)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Nov 18, 2010 at 09:40:12 AM EST
    10 highest ratios of spending to tax:
    North Dakota
    South Dakota
    West Virginia
    New Mexico
    10 lowest ratios of spending to tax
    Rhode Island
    New Hampshire



    House (5.00 / 0) (#95)
    by lentinel on Wed Nov 17, 2010 at 03:21:39 PM EST
    Democrats have voted to retain Nancy Pelosi as their leader.

    This is important because she articulates liberal views very well and gives the progressive electorate a sense of being represented shortly before they are abandoned.

    still (none / 0) (#96)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Nov 17, 2010 at 03:25:42 PM EST
    light years better than Steny or Heath who would not even veil their contempt for the left

    Well, (none / 0) (#101)
    by lentinel on Wed Nov 17, 2010 at 03:32:32 PM EST
    I guess veiled contempt is better than outright contempt.

    who do you suppose (none / 0) (#102)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Nov 17, 2010 at 03:34:12 PM EST
    would have been better

    Kucinich (5.00 / 0) (#123)
    by lentinel on Wed Nov 17, 2010 at 04:17:59 PM EST
    Kucinich could not do that job. (5.00 / 1) (#133)
    by caseyOR on Wed Nov 17, 2010 at 05:06:33 PM EST
    Dennis may be a nice guy who has many liberal beliefs, but he does not have either the personality or the skills to lead the caucus. He has shown himself to be a terrible in-fighter. Say what you will about Pelosi, she has ridden herd on the Dem caucus pretty ferociously. If the Senate had passed half the bills that came out of the House during the past two years, we would be in much better shape than we are now.

    Apparently Schumer is now (none / 0) (#136)
    by nycstray on Wed Nov 17, 2010 at 05:19:33 PM EST
    wielding some new power in the Sen. Could be interesting . . . .

    Reid is still the majority leader, (5.00 / 1) (#143)
    by caseyOR on Wed Nov 17, 2010 at 05:48:14 PM EST
    and, as such, holds our fate in his hands as far as legislation goes. I don't understand why the Dem caucus reelected Reid to this job. Clearly, even though his performance pretty much s^cks if you are someone who, you know, needs government to actually work for the American people, the Senate Dems like him just fine.

    I can only conclude that the Dem caucus does not what to actually take any action that would help those of us not connected to Wall St. and big corporate leadership.

    What a bunch of frikken' losers.


    Should read (none / 0) (#144)
    by caseyOR on Wed Nov 17, 2010 at 05:49:26 PM EST
    does not WANT to, not does not what to. Typing too fast.

    Schumer (none / 0) (#160)
    by lentinel on Thu Nov 18, 2010 at 07:45:12 AM EST
    is a scary pol, from my point of view.

    He is as draconian as anyone with respect to the wars and "national security" ie: suppression of our civil rights.

    I will never forget the gleeful manner in which, almost like someone who had just found the love of his life, he announced his support for Bush's nomination of Michael Mukasey for Attorney General Michael Mukasey.



    My contention (none / 0) (#159)
    by lentinel on Thu Nov 18, 2010 at 07:41:04 AM EST
    is that Pelosi has not, in fact, been able to produce meaningful legislation. She pushed through the lukewarm at best insurance reform bill. She supports the funding of the wars...
    I simply don't care about her.

    Her only function is to articulate liberal points of view, and then let them wither away by the time the actual legislation is in front of the House.

    Dennis could articulate these ideas much better and much more forcefully. How effective he might be is an open question, obviously. But he would bring more attention from the media, I believe, because he is saying pure progressive stuff. It would appear outrageous. They would cover it. Perhaps public opinion would be aroused. Pelosi is a wet rag by compassion at this point. She had her chance, and let Bush run all over her with his "Iraq commission" and "surge".

    But, to me, Pelosi is the face of the House that compromised and weakened everything that I care about. Any new face would be welcome at this point. I wouldn't have minded if old Harry Weed has gone down also.


    like that was going to happen . . . (none / 0) (#125)
    by nycstray on Wed Nov 17, 2010 at 04:21:02 PM EST
    I can't imagine (none / 0) (#2)
    by ruffian on Wed Nov 17, 2010 at 10:31:17 AM EST
    Needless to say, we are deeply persuaded that a thriving civil society is an indispensable bulwark against the relentless expansion of government....

    without a thriving gay society, be they GOProud or progressive. I am continuously amazed that such direct insults are deemed part of a 'civil society'. As I said before on another topic, I don't why I am still amazed, but I am.

    ooops - meant that as a reply to comment#1 (none / 0) (#3)
    by ruffian on Wed Nov 17, 2010 at 10:31:47 AM EST
    thriving civil societies (none / 0) (#108)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Nov 17, 2010 at 03:55:44 PM EST
    dont have the gheys

    for some reason, (none / 0) (#4)
    by jeffinalabama on Wed Nov 17, 2010 at 10:35:15 AM EST
    I can't get SCTV's Schmenge Brothers singing "Cabbage Rolls and Coffee" out of my head.

    I guess it could be worse.

    this always works (none / 0) (#53)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Nov 17, 2010 at 01:18:02 PM EST
    Nooooooo! (none / 0) (#134)
    by Zorba on Wed Nov 17, 2010 at 05:12:10 PM EST
    You gave me this advice awhile back when I complained of an ear-worm, Captain, and then the Three Stooges got stuck in my head- thanks a lot!  ;-)

    3rd Party run? (none / 0) (#8)
    by MO Blue on Wed Nov 17, 2010 at 10:49:51 AM EST
    Howard Fineman: "There's no campaign yet, and there may never be, but New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg and MSNBC's morning talk-show host Joe Scarborough have begun trying to figure out whether they could be an independent presidential ticket in 2012 -- and who would be better to be on top if it happens.

    I can think of people who I would prefer a lot better than that combination for a 3rd Party run.

    If they jump in, we will have the choice between 2 - 3rd way candidates and one  Republican candidate. Whoopee. I'm so excited.

    LOL... (none / 0) (#9)
    by masslib on Wed Nov 17, 2010 at 10:52:23 AM EST
    Joe Scarborough?  He's an "independent" type now.  What a joke.  

    Yeah, such an independent (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by ruffian on Wed Nov 17, 2010 at 11:53:27 AM EST
    Swings between conservative and very conservative.

    I'm with you MO... (none / 0) (#22)
    by kdog on Wed Nov 17, 2010 at 11:29:43 AM EST
    I'd fiending for a third party viable option, been settling for unviable ones...but not Wall St. Bloomie, thats just more of the same without the D or R after the name.

    He might be the best choice though, of the 3, sad as that is.  He's not the worst pol, he's just not what we need....we desperately need somebody with a clue about the issues facing the under 100k a year set...a true understanding of how quality of life for regular folks is slippin' hardcore.


    Wouldn't surprise me (none / 0) (#24)
    by brodie on Wed Nov 17, 2010 at 11:38:36 AM EST
    if Bloomie did run -- he's got a huge ego, billions to spend, and probably considers the WH the next logical step up from being NYC mayor.

    Problem is, 2012 is setting up to be a populist election, and with the GOP, and to a lesser extent Obama, already taking care of Wall St needs quite nicely, where is Bloomie going to get votes?

    But if he does run, I think Mikey Moore might be right -- look for a counter 3d party from the left making it a 4-party race.  Not Nader -- washed up and people are sick of him after 2000 -- and not Dennis K. or Cynthia McKinney, but someone with a strong lefty-lib profile who could speak to middle-class and poor people's economic concerns, plus withdrawing from Afghan.


    yeah (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Nov 17, 2010 at 11:42:35 AM EST
    but who would that be? I can't think of anyone right now. Do you have any ideas?

    A lefty-lib who could (none / 0) (#32)
    by brodie on Wed Nov 17, 2010 at 12:07:08 PM EST
    present a viable challenge?  Well, if indy Bernie Sanders got angry and fed up enough with Obama by then -- O still catering too much to the Wall St bankers, plus reneging on the pledge to withdraw from Afghan in 2011, mebbe, but kinda doubtful especially since he knows he'd always have to answer for unashamedly calling himself a socialist.

    Btw, I guess that eliminates Lawrence O'Donnell, too ...  ;-)

    Certainly an Ed Schultz has some of the right qualities for such a run -- Midwestern beer-drinking and hunting real guy and very pro-union, but again doubtful.  He's got his nifty Msnbc gig and, unless he senses that Comcast might fire him -- a real possibility as 2012 approaches -- he's likely to want to maintain his media job.

    Feingold possibly, given all his experience and all the time he now has free.  But funding is an issue, as is his personal marital status.  He's got not only Gene McCarthy potential, but could broaden that narrow antiwar white middle-class appeal with outreach to Hispanics and disaffected poor blacks.


    From everything I read lately, (none / 0) (#37)
    by MO Blue on Wed Nov 17, 2010 at 12:20:17 PM EST
    Obama reneging on the pledge to withdraw from Afghan in 2011 is a done deal and the new deadline to start withdrawing troops is 2014.

    WASHINGTON -- The Obama administration has decided to begin publicly walking away from what it once touted as key deadlines in the war in Afghanistan in an effort to de-emphasize President Barack Obama's pledge that he'd begin withdrawing U.S. forces in July 2011, administration and military officials have told McClatchy.

    The new policy will be on display next week during a conference of NATO countries in Lisbon, Portugal, where the administration hopes to introduce a timeline that calls for the withdrawal of U.S. and NATO forces from Afghanistan by 2014, the year when Afghan President Hamid Karzai once said Afghan troops could provide their own security, three senior officials told McClatchy, along with others speaking anonymously as a matter of policy. link

    Whoops (none / 0) (#46)
    by MO Blue on Wed Nov 17, 2010 at 01:05:36 PM EST
    Even the 2014 time frame may be slipping.

    Just days after the Obama administration stopped talking about 2011 entirely and started touting 2014 as the end of the combat mission in Afghanistan, the NATO envoy in Kabul says we can forget that date too.

    Many European countries that contribute troops see the plan as their ticket out of an unpopular war, but Sedwill warned that success was not guaranteed and the 2014 date was merely an "inflection point" in a campaign that would continue for a long time. In some areas of the country transition could run "to 2015 and beyond" he said.

    Bernie's my senator (none / 0) (#73)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed Nov 17, 2010 at 02:19:42 PM EST
    and I adore him, but he's a genuinely eccentric guy.  I could just barely see him making a symbolic run at it, but that's about it.  And I don't think he would because he's one of the very rare pols out there who's genuinely passionately committed as a matter of principle to serving the people who elected him first, last and always, and I believe he's up for reelection in 2012.

    That would be sweet... (none / 0) (#26)
    by kdog on Wed Nov 17, 2010 at 11:46:51 AM EST
    get a communist and a hardcore libertarian in there for an even half dozen and we're really talking!

    My choice for a real run (none / 0) (#30)
    by MO Blue on Wed Nov 17, 2010 at 11:58:47 AM EST
    from the left is Sen. Bernie Sanders. He IMO can and does speak very well on middle-class and poor people's economic concerns. Don't know who I would chose for the second spot.

    Doubt Bernie would consider a run. Can't predict what I will do two years from now but I am half way considering voting for Bernie using the write in option.


    Bernie was my first thought, (none / 0) (#33)
    by brodie on Wed Nov 17, 2010 at 12:09:47 PM EST
    too, but my second thought was he knows that the media and GOP would hound him constantly about being or calling himself a socialist and so his campaign would largely turn on that silliness.  Maybe he could overcome it, but not sure he'd want to go through all the tremendous hassle.

    The difference would be that (none / 0) (#38)
    by MO Blue on Wed Nov 17, 2010 at 12:24:19 PM EST
    Bernie could and probably would stand tall and say yes I am a democratic socialist and here is where I stand on the issues. Jobs, jobs, jobs, jobs, and more jobs.

    He could do a great service by educating the (none / 0) (#40)
    by ruffian on Wed Nov 17, 2010 at 12:28:34 PM EST
    public. I hope the media would focus on him.

    I'm all for educating the (none / 0) (#43)
    by brodie on Wed Nov 17, 2010 at 12:40:04 PM EST
    public, particularly on what socialism entails in a democracy and all the goodies that come with that.  It would require a lot of patience and level-headedness and thick skin from the candidate as he faced the same name-calling day after day.

    Maybe Bernie would be up to it, but with his semi-fiery personality and at his age, he may not be the right person for the tough long slog of trying to change deep-seated public fears.  I suspect the MSM would Howard Dean him as a nut, and the GOP, and possibly even Obama, borrowing from the HST playbook, might Henry Wallace him as a dangerous lefty radical to a 2% showing.


    Bloomie could get some votes on (none / 0) (#31)
    by nycstray on Wed Nov 17, 2010 at 12:03:07 PM EST
    social/domestic/economic issues, I think. He's also done a lot in greening NYC. I wouldn't just equate Bloomie with WS.

    Yeah, he's great on the economy... (none / 0) (#35)
    by masslib on Wed Nov 17, 2010 at 12:13:37 PM EST
    His support for extending the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy certainly scores him some points in my book.  Actually, his policies are in keeping with Obama, so I don't see where there would be much of a difference, healthcare, education, etc., he's just as neoliberal as Obama.  

    He pulled NYC out of the dumps (none / 0) (#42)
    by nycstray on Wed Nov 17, 2010 at 12:33:25 PM EST
    and turned a surplus. He also managed to stash a few billion away "for a rainy day", which came. He'd be dif on HC, LGBT issues, has actual experience with turning schools around, green economy, etc.

    I'm not saying I agree with all he does, etc, but he's actually got some stuff to run on besides "Hope" and "Change" and "PPUS". He's also not so timid on "sticky" issues like PBO.


    "Turning schools around" is highly (none / 0) (#45)
    by masslib on Wed Nov 17, 2010 at 12:58:49 PM EST
    debatable.  And, I find many of his policies take the Nanny state concept to a whole new level.  I'm just not a fan, and I don't think, without a Party apparatus and with his closeness to Obama in terms of policy, he would be able to knock off an incumbent President.

    I think he can show documented improvement (none / 0) (#49)
    by nycstray on Wed Nov 17, 2010 at 01:09:04 PM EST
    in the schools (iirc), so whatever you or I may think, it's a talking point for him.  I can say many schools in my 'hood physically improved after he took office. Sh*t, just the fact they had functioning playgrounds again was a noticeable improvement. The HS I lived across from was one of the worst. They changed quite a bit and even got a library. (sad but true)

    I really haven't paid much attention lately as to how close in policy he is to Obama on a national level, but as a Mayor, he hasn't been all that bad (when I was still there). He's actually pretty good on some issues I cared about (food deserts, greening the city, etc)


    Yeah... (none / 0) (#51)
    by kdog on Wed Nov 17, 2010 at 01:14:38 PM EST
    his healthy-eating crusades ain't gonna play nationwide, they barely fly in NYC.

    He's gonna tell the South how to cook?  He'll start a 2nd civil war!


    Here's a secret no Dem likes to admit: (none / 0) (#50)
    by vicndabx on Wed Nov 17, 2010 at 01:13:22 PM EST
    Guiliani actually did most of the pulling.

    Bloomberg merely continued a lot of his policies - albeit w/a nicer face. Note, I'm no fan of Guiliani, but credit where credit is due.  

    Agree w/you on Bloomberg's management skills.


    Where did he pull us? (none / 0) (#52)
    by kdog on Wed Nov 17, 2010 at 01:16:44 PM EST
    From a fun, freewheeling place albeit with a high crime rate to a less fun, regimented, police state with fudged crime stats where all my friends have been dragged through the system to some degree?

    Somebody pull us back! :)


    Hasn't NYPD been shrinking in man power? (none / 0) (#58)
    by nycstray on Wed Nov 17, 2010 at 01:29:57 PM EST
    True... (none / 0) (#62)
    by kdog on Wed Nov 17, 2010 at 01:49:14 PM EST
    but that's strictly an economic decision imo, if we had the cash we'd have more cops.

    The glass half-full of being broke as a joke:)


    Did Bloomberg continue the stop and frisk? (none / 0) (#59)
    by republicratitarian on Wed Nov 17, 2010 at 01:33:41 PM EST
    If so, he can always be the head of the TSA.

    Yep... (none / 0) (#61)
    by kdog on Wed Nov 17, 2010 at 01:47:37 PM EST
    that criminal policy is alive and well under Bloomie...NYPD is out of control as ever, Bloomie just doesn't revel in the tyranny-lite like the Ghoul did...he's more understated about it, he lets Kelly run the show no questions asked.

    Hey, kdog, what will happen to (none / 0) (#72)
    by oculus on Wed Nov 17, 2010 at 02:19:10 PM EST
    me when we are catching that after-concert drink?  I've only been frisked at airports and when I went to an Eric Clapton concert!

    We'll be fine... (5.00 / 2) (#80)
    by kdog on Wed Nov 17, 2010 at 02:36:31 PM EST
    my swine detector is finely tuned, and as a member of the police state generation I've learned a trick or two as to how to stay off the radar.

    And I'm caucasian...stop and frisk with no probable cause is mostly a problem for my breathren of darker shades in certain neighborhoods.

    Lastly, walking with a fine upstanding woman like yourself will only deepen my cover...we'll be golden.

    I should warn ya I will in no way shape or form measure up to the image you've created of me in your head:)


    My image of you closely relates to (5.00 / 1) (#157)
    by oculus on Thu Nov 18, 2010 at 12:02:26 AM EST
    "Clerks" and "Slacker."  But you are obviously a nose-to-the grindstone type of guy with intellectual abilities exceeding your present job.  But how will we spot each other?  Mets/Padres gear?  Secret handshake and code word?  This will be lots of fun.

    You're too kind... (none / 0) (#178)
    by kdog on Thu Nov 18, 2010 at 03:11:08 PM EST
    intelluctual abilities are there own reward my dear...but again I think you give me too much credit.  Some people live for their work, I work to live my life of leisure.

    I won't be wearing Mets gear unless Wally Backman is hired to manage...look for me in my Chivas De Guadalajara jersey:)


    Be sure to bring some pics of your inamorata. (none / 0) (#181)
    by oculus on Thu Nov 18, 2010 at 06:44:57 PM EST
    I told a colleague, "I work to travel."  He didn't believe me until he started paying closer attention.  It was true.

    She is beautiful... (5.00 / 1) (#184)
    by jeffinalabama on Fri Nov 19, 2010 at 08:45:40 AM EST
    kdog, you have to show the pics!

    Just the fact that you offered to (none / 0) (#86)
    by vml68 on Wed Nov 17, 2010 at 03:03:21 PM EST
    escort Oc to her hotel,says you measure up to the image.
    Unless you are talking physical image. Then,I picture a skinny, slightly balding, hairy guy who will probably be smoking a cigarette.... :-)!!!

    Can you tell I have waaaayyyy too much time on my hands?


    I picture kdog (5.00 / 1) (#91)
    by jbindc on Wed Nov 17, 2010 at 03:10:29 PM EST
    As someone who looks like Kid Rock.

    Combine vml's descript... (none / 0) (#99)
    by kdog on Wed Nov 17, 2010 at 03:29:29 PM EST
    with Kid Rock's plain white T-shirt and torn-n-frayed jeans and you're not that far off.

    But the hairline is just receeding, I firmly object to the "balding" category...let me enjoy my last few years of the Jimmy Dean wave:)


    My apologies... :-) (none / 0) (#105)
    by vml68 on Wed Nov 17, 2010 at 03:45:53 PM EST
    An old friend (none / 0) (#115)
    by sj on Wed Nov 17, 2010 at 04:08:56 PM EST
    Used to refer to his high intelligent forehead.

    kdoc, you and oculus will have a much (none / 0) (#127)
    by jeffinalabama on Wed Nov 17, 2010 at 04:25:26 PM EST
    better time than you and I would have! I tend to poop out early!

    More than one version... (none / 0) (#140)
    by kdog on Wed Nov 17, 2010 at 05:28:13 PM EST
    of a good time sir, I had debauchery in store for you old man.

    I just called Miller Theatre box office. Event (none / 0) (#177)
    by oculus on Thu Nov 18, 2010 at 03:04:29 PM EST
    is free!  Woman sd. take 116th St. stop re subway and theatre is right there.  Yeah.

    Free eh? (none / 0) (#179)
    by kdog on Thu Nov 18, 2010 at 03:13:37 PM EST
    Maybe I will bang out early and expand my cultural comfort zone with some traditional Japanese music.

    Do people get all dressed up for this type of shindig or is bohemian working class casual attire acceptable?


    I think the latter. At Columbia. Free. (none / 0) (#180)
    by oculus on Thu Nov 18, 2010 at 06:43:34 PM EST
    Plus, I've noticed many people dress down even for the opera these days.  Might as well be comfy, I think.  

    He's also pro (none / 0) (#151)
    by BackFromOhio on Wed Nov 17, 2010 at 09:07:55 PM EST
    Dream Act

    Bloomie (none / 0) (#71)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed Nov 17, 2010 at 02:16:19 PM EST
    A divorced Jewish Republican who fervently believes in the nanniest of nanny states ain't going nowhere as any kind of national candidate as long as there is a breath left in the Republican Party smear machine and the religious right.  Oy.

    What I like most about (none / 0) (#150)
    by BackFromOhio on Wed Nov 17, 2010 at 09:01:32 PM EST
    Bloomberg is that he has so much $ of his own, he cannot be bought.

    Why (none / 0) (#13)
    by lilburro on Wed Nov 17, 2010 at 10:57:04 AM EST
    can't I just vote for digby.  Off the top of my head I can't think of one thing I've disagreed with her about.  Her most recent post is a perfect example.  Obama/Digby '12.

    Digby/BTD (5.00 / 2) (#16)
    by jeffinalabama on Wed Nov 17, 2010 at 11:00:51 AM EST
    more to my liking...

    No (5.00 / 2) (#36)
    by lilburro on Wed Nov 17, 2010 at 12:19:26 PM EST
    Digby is threatened by BTD.  She'll appoint him to SoS.

    Where's your TL Party loyalty? (5.00 / 2) (#60)
    by kdog on Wed Nov 17, 2010 at 01:37:33 PM EST
    Jeralyn/BTD 2012...cabinet to be filled with commenters.  MileHi heads Health, Dadler over at Treasury developing our new human-friendly currency system, CST has got infrastucture over at Interior...just for a few ideas.

    If deemed worthy I'd like to head a new Dept. of Vice, replacing the DEA, coming up with safe distributuion system recommendations for all the sh*t currently illegal that shouldn't be.


    I humbly apply (5.00 / 1) (#148)
    by CoralGables on Wed Nov 17, 2010 at 08:53:16 PM EST
    to be Ambassador to Margaritaville

    You'll be needing a secretary? (5.00 / 1) (#155)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Nov 17, 2010 at 10:39:08 PM EST
    Absolutely (5.00 / 1) (#172)
    by CoralGables on Thu Nov 18, 2010 at 12:22:17 PM EST
    Bring your Rainbows in case there is a need to dress up for head of state dinners.

    I can gain more weight and grow a beard (none / 0) (#173)
    by jeffinalabama on Thu Nov 18, 2010 at 12:32:23 PM EST
    Can I be the official Hemingway lookalike? I already like to drink daiquiri's.

    Hemingway lookalikes (5.00 / 1) (#176)
    by CoralGables on Thu Nov 18, 2010 at 02:32:44 PM EST
    are important. In addition to the daiquiri and margarita, the job may also require a taste for the occasional rum runner or goombay smash to hold the title of Offcial Hemingway Lookalike

    I was thinking that I would like (5.00 / 1) (#156)
    by MO Blue on Wed Nov 17, 2010 at 10:51:11 PM EST
    to be an Ambassador to somewhere warm, with great beaches, good food and friendly, interesting people. Don't want to spend a lot of time actually working unless it is on the beach or at a fine restaurant. Have to do some research before I apply for a post.

    May I petition to be head of (none / 0) (#74)
    by oculus on Wed Nov 17, 2010 at 02:20:14 PM EST
    Neational Endowment for the Arts?  And DOJ?

    If I've read Kdog right so far.... (5.00 / 1) (#83)
    by vml68 on Wed Nov 17, 2010 at 02:56:27 PM EST
    head of NEA is yours but DOJ...not in this lifetime!

    I'll take agriculture... (none / 0) (#128)
    by jeffinalabama on Wed Nov 17, 2010 at 04:26:26 PM EST
    or education, if either is open!

    There's a spot... (5.00 / 1) (#131)
    by kdog on Wed Nov 17, 2010 at 05:01:06 PM EST
    for all the TL brainiacs, you kidding? :)...even PPJ's got a job  as head of the new federal gaming commission, keeping the games straight since gambling will be legalized in all 50, pending top o' the ticket approval.

    And how could I forget my man sarc as Director of Bullsh*t Detection...checks and balances.

    We'd have this place running tip-top in a year with minimal congressional cooperation...likely won't make many friends in the 1% bracket that currently owns everything...come to think of it we might all die of mysterious causes within a year.


    I want ag! :) (none / 0) (#130)
    by nycstray on Wed Nov 17, 2010 at 05:00:41 PM EST
    I'll finally... (none / 0) (#165)
    by kdog on Thu Nov 18, 2010 at 09:02:35 AM EST
    get my namesake plant!

    cut corn production and subsidies (none / 0) (#170)
    by nycstray on Thu Nov 18, 2010 at 11:14:44 AM EST
    bring on the hemp! subsidized of course  ;)

    DOJ is for Jeralyn (none / 0) (#152)
    by BackFromOhio on Wed Nov 17, 2010 at 09:10:31 PM EST
    I was hoping for SC (none / 0) (#158)
    by jeffinalabama on Thu Nov 18, 2010 at 07:17:30 AM EST
    for Jeralyn, not for myself. (none / 0) (#169)
    by jeffinalabama on Thu Nov 18, 2010 at 10:06:05 AM EST
    Something about 'not being a lawyer or knowing the law' might present an issue or two.

    But you must know (none / 0) (#171)
    by jbindc on Thu Nov 18, 2010 at 11:36:41 AM EST
    You don't have to be a lawyer to be a justice - at least, constitutionally. :)

    I can see it now... (5.00 / 5) (#132)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Wed Nov 17, 2010 at 05:02:35 PM EST
    ...95% of America in NEA re-education camps for violation of the DOJ's Opera Appreciation Act.  :)

    Well played sir... (none / 0) (#135)
    by kdog on Wed Nov 17, 2010 at 05:18:15 PM EST
    poor oculus...here we are constantly railing on background check nation and making people slaves to their past being a bad scene, yet we never let oculus forget the scarlet letter of her former occupation...we're terrible:)

    That being said, jbindc gets nowhere near a position having to do with crime & punishment either:)


    Ha! I wanted to nominate (5.00 / 1) (#139)
    by vml68 on Wed Nov 17, 2010 at 05:23:50 PM EST
    Jbindc for DOJ just to tweak you but felt bad for picking on her...and as much as I love reading your views about L&O, I tend to agree with her more often.

    Dude....that hurts :) (5.00 / 1) (#161)
    by jbindc on Thu Nov 18, 2010 at 07:53:48 AM EST
    Anyway, I want WH Chief of Staff - where the REAL power is!

    That's a nonpartisain position... (none / 0) (#162)
    by jeffinalabama on Thu Nov 18, 2010 at 08:31:18 AM EST
    Pit bulls are nonpartisain, right? Also, your command of English will lead to a heck of a lot better insults!

    I could learn (none / 0) (#164)
    by jbindc on Thu Nov 18, 2010 at 08:58:49 AM EST
    Some f@$%#*! words from Rahm I bey

    Feeling a little left out, kdog... (none / 0) (#147)
    by Anne on Wed Nov 17, 2010 at 08:33:04 PM EST
    but just a little... :-)

    if you could name me commissioner of the NFL, that would be awesome...


    Anne, you should be (5.00 / 1) (#153)
    by BackFromOhio on Wed Nov 17, 2010 at 09:12:07 PM EST
    WH Director of Communications; would ensure that nothing poorly written, illogical or wimpy gets released.

    Anne (none / 0) (#175)
    by jbindc on Thu Nov 18, 2010 at 01:57:31 PM EST
    Can't do WH Communications Director.  She "speaks" in complete, and coherent sentences with a lot of thought put behind them.  She doesn't do soundbites.

    I was trying to think of a job I wanted (none / 0) (#149)
    by ruffian on Wed Nov 17, 2010 at 08:53:41 PM EST
    But I couldn't.

    That's cuz your smart:)... (none / 0) (#163)
    by kdog on Thu Nov 18, 2010 at 08:57:43 AM EST
    but either you or Anne would make a fine diplomatic SOS.

    Terrific campaign material. (none / 0) (#29)
    by oculus on Wed Nov 17, 2010 at 11:54:05 AM EST
    Glad to see you put the (none / 0) (#39)
    by MO Blue on Wed Nov 17, 2010 at 12:27:05 PM EST
    self identified "centrist" in the second slot. Not to mention I would like to see a woman president in my lifetime. ;D

    but but but (none / 0) (#88)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Nov 17, 2010 at 03:05:32 PM EST
    BTD can be like Rahm Emanuel with the finger (I crack myself up)

    Newsweek's bigotry of low expectations (none / 0) (#21)
    by Dadler on Wed Nov 17, 2010 at 11:25:20 AM EST
    The latest Newsweek cover, which I wish I could find a photo link for, is so insidious it makes my skin crawl.  It shows a six-handed Vishnu-like Obama, a globe in one hand, cash in a another, an Apache helicopter in another, a (presumably foreclosed house) in another, a dove in another, and a stethescope in the last.  The headline is "GOD OF ALL THINGS," with the subtitle reading (most disturbingly) "Why the modern presidency may be too much for one person to handle."


    One person, or one person of a certain hue?


    I want to scream.  Enough already.  Hey, Obama, get angry...NOW!!!

    I know, I know, wishful thinking.

    But, come on, would Newsweek have ever run that cover with a honky in office?

    I highly doubt it.

    And in completely frivolous news...SAN DIEGO STATE HOOPS ARE FOR REAL. Sweet takedown of Gonzaga on the road last night.

    Have you read the article itself? (none / 0) (#34)
    by Anne on Wed Nov 17, 2010 at 12:11:44 PM EST
    I thought maybe I should do that - and I have sort of skimmed it - but so far it doesn't seem to so much about Obama, the person, but about what the presidency has become.  Hard not to reference Obama, but I'm just not hearing any dogwhistles, even if that photo seemed to be one, for you, at least.

    It also appears that the photo you saw has been pulled from the website, so it looks like the reaction to it was very negative.  I suspect most people would have had more problem with the Obama=God thing than about "can a black man really handle the job?"

    With respect to the O=G thing, let's remember how Obama sold himself, the optics he chose, and how he likes to remind people that so many presidents have tried to do "X," but he's the only one who actually has?  I mean, who else could do that but a...god?

    Here's a snip that's pretty much what the article is all about:

    Can any single person fully meet the demands of the 21st-century presidency? Obama has looked to many models of leadership, including FDR and Abraham Lincoln, two transformative presidents who governed during times of upheaval. But what's lost in those historical comparisons is that both men ran slim bureaucracies rooted in relative simplicity. Neither had secretaries of education, transportation, health and human services, veterans' affairs, energy, or homeland security, nor czars for pollution or drug abuse, nor televisions in the West Wing constantly tuned to yammering pundits. They had bigger issues to grapple with, but far less managing to do. "Lincoln had time to think," says Allan Lichtman, a professor of history at American University. "That kind of downtime just doesn't exist anymore."

    Among a handful of presidential historians NEWSWEEK contacted for this story, there was a general consensus that the modern presidency may have become too bloated. "The growth is exponential in these last 50 years, especially the number of things that are expected of the president," says presidential biographer Doris Kearns Goodwin, who had dinner with Obama and a handful of other historians last summer. Obama aides speaking on background say that the president's inner circle can become stretched by the constant number of things labeled "crises" that land on his desk--many of which, like the mistaken firing of Department of Agriculture employee Shirley Sherrod in Georgia or the intricacies of the oil cleanup in the gulf, could easily be handled by lower-level staff. "Some days around here, it can almost be hard to breathe," says one White House official who didn't want to go on the record portraying his boss as overwhelmed. Another senior adviser says that sometimes the only way to bring the president important news is to stake out his office and "walk and talk" through the hall.

    The growth of the presidency has been a sort of Catch-22. Most presidents after Roosevelt, at least until the Vietnam era, got by with only a few dozen advisers. Ted Sorensen, the Kennedy speechwriter who died last month, was actually hired as a domestic-policy counselor, one of only a handful (he wrote speeches in his spare time). Today there are more than 35 staffers devoted to domestic policy, plus more who parachute in on particular issues, like health care or energy. Yet as the president's responsibilities have grown, the instinct has been to hire more people to help manage the work, including the flow of information. "That's wrong; the more people you have in the White House, the more problems are sucked into it," says James Pfiffner, a George Mason University professor of public policy whose 2007 book, The Modern Presidency, examined the enormous growth of the office. Other historians point to the changing role of cabinet secretaries. While Obama has more department leaders than ever before--15, compared with Gerald Ford's 11 and Lincoln's 7--many of them have less power and influence, which has required minor decisions about trade, energy, and economic strategy to be handled by White House staffers.

    I think this might be a case of a photo that doesn't really mesh with the content of the article - but you can be sure it is driving up readership...


    Yeah, that section stuck out to me (none / 0) (#44)
    by Dadler on Wed Nov 17, 2010 at 12:54:26 PM EST
    But I still don't buy it. There is always going to be a chief executive. And are you really going to believe that in two short years the presidency has just become too much for one poor guy to handle?  If so, how did it take the media so long to figure this out?  All these cabinet positions have existed for a long time.  And you could easily make the reverse argument that it's an easier gig because you actually have LESS to do and much more delegated authority, more and easier access to expert opinion and experience. As always, choose the wrong expert with the wrong experience, as Obama has done more than once, and you will get bad results. And those results have nothing to do with the job just being too hard for one poor guy. They are the result of bad choices, poor agendas, faulty humans.

    And, let's be serious, the Depression and WWII dwarf, by chasms of degree, anything any prez has faced since. Same with Lincoln and the Civil War.

    The cover, IMO, is really bad (the eastern imagery along with the suggestion of low expectations are too much for me to ignore), as is the article/essay. Sure, I can easily agree it's a tough job with many voices chirping in your ear. Democracy is like that. Chirp, chirp, chirp.  Takes a very strong AND evolved personality to withstand all that chirping and filter out which isn't useful.  Takes a highly rational and confident and humble and not easily intimidated person.  

    And our skewed system doesn't elect those kinds of people.  It hates them.

    Maybe we do, too.


    I love how this seems to always come up (none / 0) (#112)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Nov 17, 2010 at 04:02:51 PM EST
    "Why the modern presidency may be too much for one person to handle."

    when someone is elected who cant handle it.


    Another case of ODS, from TPM (none / 0) (#23)
    by Harry Saxon on Wed Nov 17, 2010 at 11:30:58 AM EST

    So was it an ambush? Well, My God, not even close. Here's the press release from Mike Pence, Chairman of the House Republican Conference, thanking the president on January 13th for "accept[ing] our invitation to meet with the Republican Conference later this month." And here's the Politico's write up from January 12th, the day before. In other words, that's more than two weeks before these House Republicans who must have spent the month in a sensory deprivation chamber were stunned to see the president's motorcade driving up unannounced to crash their party. And if they'd forgotten here's the write-up from The Hill the day before the event ...


    Emboldened by an unexpected victory in Massachusetts and frustrated with a "partisan" State of the Union address, House Republicans are eager to meet with President Barack Obama on Friday.

    So here they are all gunned up and eagerly awaiting President Obama's ambush of them that they didn't know anything about.

    That's the Story(#GalacticFail Edition)

    I think it is totally hilarious (none / 0) (#63)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Nov 17, 2010 at 01:51:19 PM EST
    that they b!tch and moan and whine that they are not being "consulted".  waaaaa.  the president never talks to us.  waaaaaa.

    what happens when they get invited to the White House?  they are afraid to come.  its wonderful.


    As I tell some folks (5.00 / 1) (#65)
    by Harry Saxon on Wed Nov 17, 2010 at 02:04:11 PM EST
    I don't resent the opposition for being dishonest, I resent the fact that they get away with their lies so easily.

    Ads in-line w/Posts (none / 0) (#41)
    by vicndabx on Wed Nov 17, 2010 at 12:33:04 PM EST
    Is anyone else seeing ads in-line (on the left side) w/posts?  This is a new phenomenon for me so just wanted to be sure my browser is going kablooey.

    I'm not seeing ads in funny places (none / 0) (#75)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed Nov 17, 2010 at 02:27:23 PM EST
    no, although I'm honestly not sure what exactly you're trying to describe.  But I'm not seeing any ads on the left-hand side of anything.  What's your browser?  Have you updated it recently?

    I think what the poster is describing (none / 0) (#79)
    by Anne on Wed Nov 17, 2010 at 02:35:50 PM EST
    is a "feature" where the sidebar ads "follow" you as you scroll down the page, so that you can't scroll past them - I'm trying to think of the sites where I've encountered this - Salon, maybe?

    It's distracting and rather annoying - but I'm not having that problem here.


    Thanks to you all (none / 0) (#84)
    by vicndabx on Wed Nov 17, 2010 at 02:57:02 PM EST
    Lilburro describes what I saw.  I am seeing the Buy Blogads! link now.  

    No big deal, just wanted to see if others saw the same.


    Oh, geez, yes (none / 0) (#182)
    by gyrfalcon on Thu Nov 18, 2010 at 11:48:02 PM EST
    I hate that!  But like you, I'm not seeing it here, thank goodness.  I wonder why Liburro is?

    Sorry, meant (none / 0) (#183)
    by gyrfalcon on Thu Nov 18, 2010 at 11:49:27 PM EST
    vcind-etc-I-can't-remember-how-the rest-of-it-goes. :-)

    I think possibly (none / 0) (#76)
    by lilburro on Wed Nov 17, 2010 at 02:31:48 PM EST
    Jeralyn is experimenting with ads between stories.  I had an actual ad pop up and I can see "buy blogads" links in the body of the site now.  There was some discussion about this a while ago.  I am in favor, I don't think it's disruptive.

    Thanks much (none / 0) (#85)
    by vicndabx on Wed Nov 17, 2010 at 02:57:37 PM EST
    and ditto on the lack of disruption.

    GM going public (again) tonight. (none / 0) (#47)
    by steviez314 on Wed Nov 17, 2010 at 01:08:06 PM EST
    Another corporate giveaway.  No, wait!  It was another socialist plot.  No, wait!  Maybe it was anti-colonial, or even anti-American.

    Maybe it was just the right thing to have done.

    hide the children (none / 0) (#54)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Nov 17, 2010 at 01:20:28 PM EST
    its a food stylist

    bonus question: what the hell is a food stylist?

    I had to pack Josh's lunch today (none / 0) (#90)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Nov 17, 2010 at 03:10:22 PM EST
    I ate the school lunch with him yesterday.  They have gone extreme fat free low calorie this year.  I'm dead serious when I say this, our dog Othello would not have eaten that lunch.  It was the worst thing I've ever tried to taste.  I apologized to Joshua for not taking him more seriously when he tried to explain how horrible tasting everything had become, and he is going to take a lunch now.  I can't afford to lose a pound on this kid.  And if I had that school lunch when I was a kid I would have run home and bolted a bag of potato chips at 3:30.  They had already gone low cal last year, but fat free now has made everything basically not edible....even if you were one of our dogs who has a picky streak.

    fat free is a total joke (5.00 / 0) (#93)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Nov 17, 2010 at 03:15:49 PM EST
    I have been trying for years to get my obese sister to understand that if its fat free all that means is that its full of sugar which is actually worse for you because turns into fat pretty much instantly and creates nasty byproducts in the process.

    I ran into another mom (none / 0) (#111)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Nov 17, 2010 at 04:02:06 PM EST
    this afternoon.  She said that whatever they changed the cheese to that they put on the daily pizza choice gave her daughter acid reflux so bad that she was taking a prescription medication for awhile before they figured out what was causing it.  Her daughter loves pizza though, eats all other pizzas from the pizza joints around here just fine.

    thanks for (none / 0) (#113)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Nov 17, 2010 at 04:04:04 PM EST
    reminding me to stop by the drug store on the way home.

    I don't know if you watch "Glee," (5.00 / 1) (#103)
    by Anne on Wed Nov 17, 2010 at 03:37:57 PM EST
    but in last night's episode the Evil Sue Sylvester, cheerleading coach and Glee Club nemesis, managed to become the principal, and one of her first acts (after firing the Glee Club director) was to convert the school lunch menu to the no-fat, low-cal foods and get rid of the Tater Tots...in one scene, Mercedes, who has a real fondness for the Tots, and enraged by the sight of her precious Tots being dumped in the garbage, stands on a table in the cafeteria and holds up a sign that reads "TOTS!" - causing the crowd to chant "Tots!  Tots!  Tots!" much like the scene in "Norma Rae" when Sally Field climbs up on the machine on the factory floor and holds up the "Union" sign.  It was just perfect - maybe Josh needs a sign to hold up and rally the kids in an act of civil protest!

    There sure must be a lot of cranky, hungry kids arriving home from his school these days...


    I don't think what they eat is the problem (none / 0) (#109)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Nov 17, 2010 at 03:59:11 PM EST
    either, it is that both parents are at work and who plays outside anymore?  If nobody can afford to stay home ever, you can't let your kids roam about a bit. Nobody in this neighborhood plays outside ever.  No neighborhood games going on at all.  We ate like horses when I was a kid too.  I remember in Junior High once eating six pieces of buttered toast and chugging milk before running out the door for school....walked to school too.  I was thin as a rail and I never quit eating back then.

    I think so, too, Tracy (none / 0) (#138)
    by Zorba on Wed Nov 17, 2010 at 05:20:21 PM EST
    I never see kids playing outside any more, either.  Back in the Jurassic, when I was a kid, we were outside all the time.  Come home from school, do homework, go outside and play, run around, get on our bikes.  All during school vacations, we were outside pretty much all the time, except for meals.  Add to that the fact that most schools seem to have given up recess and cut back on P.E., in order to drill the kids on the mandated tests.......when do the kids get to exercise?

    They have very strong thumbs (none / 0) (#141)
    by MO Blue on Wed Nov 17, 2010 at 05:33:59 PM EST
    and fingers from working the controls of Call to Duty etc.

    LOL! (none / 0) (#146)
    by Zorba on Wed Nov 17, 2010 at 07:45:38 PM EST
    Actually, why am I laughing?  This is only too true.

    beginning to like Murkowski part 2 (none / 0) (#57)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Nov 17, 2010 at 01:27:38 PM EST
    What do you know? (none / 0) (#70)
    by MO Blue on Wed Nov 17, 2010 at 02:15:31 PM EST
    A pol actually telling the truth. Will miracles never cease, the truth teller is a Republican.

    Although to be fair, the Republican voters in the Delaware, Nevada etc. do own their share of the blame.  


    she also has (none / 0) (#78)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Nov 17, 2010 at 02:35:41 PM EST
    called BS on the whole earmark thing.

    I love this idea (none / 0) (#64)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Nov 17, 2010 at 01:52:59 PM EST
    in theory

    There is nothing quite like the simultaneous combination of dinner and a movie. You sit down, order food, watch a movie, and someone then quietly brings out your order while you're watching. It's one of the things that makes the Alamo Drafthouse so fantastic and AMC Theaters is now rolling out their own unique version. AMC Dine-In Theaters  are currently open in Atlanta, Georgia, Olathe, Kansas and Kansas City, Missouri with one opening in West Orange, NJ on Wednesday. Two additional New Jersey locations, and one near Dallas, Texas, will open by the end of the year.

    actually (5.00 / 1) (#82)
    by lilburro on Wed Nov 17, 2010 at 02:46:56 PM EST
    I kind of hate eating anything other than popcorn while watching a movie.  I don't know if I just have horrible motor skills, or manners, or both, but I end up spilling food and drink on myself regularly even when I'm NOT watching a movie.  But that's just me.  I do like being able to have a beer at our local art cinema though.

    So do I (none / 0) (#66)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Nov 17, 2010 at 02:05:55 PM EST
    You get to do something other than wonder where your food is.

    What kind of food do they serve? (none / 0) (#67)
    by MO Blue on Wed Nov 17, 2010 at 02:11:43 PM EST
    If it is fast food, I am not in favor.

    If it's crunchy food, I'm not in favor. (5.00 / 1) (#68)
    by steviez314 on Wed Nov 17, 2010 at 02:13:26 PM EST
    I would love (none / 0) (#81)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Nov 17, 2010 at 02:38:50 PM EST
    a place where you could have a really good meal.  and I wouldnt mind paying for it.  but you know that they are going to be burgers and bar food for the most part.

    we used to have a theater in StLouis, this is 30 years ago I would be stunned if it is still open, that showed great old movies and really good food.
    at tables.  it was sort of a dinner theater.


    I miss the old drive-in's (none / 0) (#87)
    by republicratitarian on Wed Nov 17, 2010 at 03:04:13 PM EST
    we have a drive in here! (none / 0) (#89)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Nov 17, 2010 at 03:08:33 PM EST
    its great.  I love watching a movie with the dogs and a joint.

    As in puff puff give? (none / 0) (#97)
    by republicratitarian on Wed Nov 17, 2010 at 03:27:26 PM EST
    zactly (none / 0) (#98)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Nov 17, 2010 at 03:28:56 PM EST
    There is a theater like that in Orlando (none / 0) (#104)
    by ruffian on Wed Nov 17, 2010 at 03:42:50 PM EST
    I have been a couple of times. The food is pretty good - gourmet type sandwiches and appetizers, plus popcorn of course. And, best of all, alcoholic drinks.  It is arranged with regular theater seats in the front center, then the tables with waiter service arrayed up a level in back and on the sides.

    Drawbacks in this case: People talk more during the film. Also, if you are seated at a table with friends, only one of you is going to get to look straight on at the screen. The rest of you get to turn your heads or sit otherwise uncomfortably.

    Also, in this case it is the only art house movie theater in town, and they have limited seating that is not at a table. So if all I want to do is enjoy a foreign film or something else obscure in peace in a regular theater seat, it is hard to do.

    Possibly other instantiations of this idea do not have those problems.


    that sounds (none / 0) (#106)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Nov 17, 2010 at 03:49:23 PM EST
    like what we used to have in StLouis.  I think the  new AMC ones have more like an airline table arrangement so everyone faces the screen.

    at least it looked that was in the pic


    Some movies and Tracy with alcohol (none / 0) (#120)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Nov 17, 2010 at 04:13:07 PM EST
    should not happen together :)  I am a laughing giggly drunk.  We did go to one theater like that though in Salt Lake City.

    This could go over big with our family (none / 0) (#116)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Nov 17, 2010 at 04:11:08 PM EST
    One of the things the area has is a terrific drive in.  My husband hates watching a movie in a car though so he doesn't go with Joshua and I.  They serve great homemade burgers though and fries and many many other things.  Josh and I always go early to make sure we have our dinner ready to go when the flicks start.

    you are allowed (none / 0) (#118)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Nov 17, 2010 at 04:12:24 PM EST
    to bring your own cookout to the one here.

    Just sounds like too much darned fun (none / 0) (#121)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Nov 17, 2010 at 04:14:45 PM EST
    Bratwurst at the drive in, how about a T-bone?  In Wyoming they used to do movie nights called dusk to dawn too....huge party.

    once in college days (5.00 / 1) (#124)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Nov 17, 2010 at 04:20:21 PM EST
    I saw a marathon, The Bible, Willie Wonka, 2001 and Barberlla.  with three other people. on acid.  in a honda civic.  when they were about as big as an enclosed golf cart.

    ever so often someone would say




    What a movie line up :D (none / 0) (#126)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Nov 17, 2010 at 04:23:17 PM EST
    Too funny! (none / 0) (#154)
    by BackFromOhio on Wed Nov 17, 2010 at 09:27:34 PM EST
    they have this (none / 0) (#122)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Nov 17, 2010 at 04:17:24 PM EST
    on the site



    roughing it (none / 0) (#92)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Nov 17, 2010 at 03:12:15 PM EST
    Transparent bubble tent puts campers under the stars

    For although they look and feel more like giant goldfish bowls, these latest inventions are actually totally see-through inflatable tents.

    With incredible panoramic views of the surrounding countryside, the bizarre transparent structures are designed to get people as close to nature as possible.

    But they are far from the traditional camping trip - decked out with wardrobes, shelves and electric lights, the bubbles look more like a movable hotel room than a regular tent.

    this is great (none / 0) (#94)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Nov 17, 2010 at 03:21:27 PM EST
    Perhaps the least known aspect about Sarah Palin's relationship with the Tea Party is that though almost all in the movement love her and support her, many of them simultaneously have serious reservations about whether they want her to run for president.

    Interviews over the last few months with numerous Tea Party and conservative voters in states around the country yielded no one who was enthusiastic about Palin running for president, though a handful said they were open to it. In addition, conservative and Tea Party leaders who are speaking to the grassroots regularly report that they have consistently heard the same thing.

    the whole thing is pretty funny

    the thing they are missing is that Palin doesnt give a rats a$$ if the "want" her to run or not.

    Lessons in Caribbean slang (none / 0) (#100)
    by observed on Wed Nov 17, 2010 at 03:31:51 PM EST
    I just finished teaching my afternoon class (math) and it was a HOOT.
    I have a bunch of students from St. Kitts in this class (I think they must register so they can be in classes together) and they are a riot.
    Sometimes other Kittisians (that's the correct plural) sit in the class---probably because of the extremely hot girl who must have only one pair of jeans, because there is no way she could possibly get those off.
    Anyway, they have been teaching my some slang.
    Today the girl said she was going to "jam da batty" and I went "what?!?!" because I thought "batty" meant gay and she was talking about doing something to fags.
    Not at all...batty=booty, and she was talking about dancing, and now I understand where "batty  boy" comes from.

    cat video of the day (none / 0) (#119)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Nov 17, 2010 at 04:12:50 PM EST
    another coup attempt (none / 0) (#129)
    by jeffinalabama on Wed Nov 17, 2010 at 04:45:26 PM EST
    in Madagascar, reprts the NYT.

    I have heard of suffering for your art.... (none / 0) (#137)
    by vml68 on Wed Nov 17, 2010 at 05:19:51 PM EST
    but IMHO this is extreme.

    Former President George H. W. Bush (none / 0) (#142)
    by MO Blue on Wed Nov 17, 2010 at 05:39:49 PM EST
    and Warren Buffett among the 15 people who will be awarded the 2010 Presidential Medal of Freedom. link