Tuesday Open Thread

I'll be in court today. Here's an open thread, all topics welcome.

< Julian Assange Gets Bail, Sweden Appeals | Breaking! Republicans Think Tax Cuts Stimulate Economic Growth And Job Creation >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Paging Oculus... (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by kdog on Tue Dec 14, 2010 at 10:46:12 AM EST
    wanna go see a unique reading of Dicken's "A Christmas Carol" on Thursday after your concert? :-)

    the image is great (none / 0) (#2)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Dec 14, 2010 at 10:55:37 AM EST
    I love pinup art.

    speaking of the village voice (none / 0) (#3)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Dec 14, 2010 at 10:56:53 AM EST
    are they really done for?  I read they were because a judge said they can be sued for trying to drive a competitor out of business.

    sued for a LOT.


    Interesting (none / 0) (#5)
    by SOS on Tue Dec 14, 2010 at 11:06:05 AM EST
    Actually Chris Hedges new book, Death of the Liberal Class is worth check out. Kind of explains much of whats going on.

    I'll try to find that one. (none / 0) (#6)
    by jeffinalabama on Tue Dec 14, 2010 at 11:07:31 AM EST
    It's here (none / 0) (#9)
    by SOS on Tue Dec 14, 2010 at 11:11:35 AM EST
    Ill check my library. (none / 0) (#13)
    by jeffinalabama on Tue Dec 14, 2010 at 11:22:00 AM EST
    I've been economizing, and this one may not need to be a keeper... I'm finding that a lot of books are just as good from the library.

    Probably the biggest hit I've taken is book buying. Thank goodness we have a good public library and a college library that's, well, under constraints, but has a good interlibrary loan policy.


    here (none / 0) (#10)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Dec 14, 2010 at 11:12:00 AM EST
    Hos did I miss that? (none / 0) (#14)
    by kdog on Tue Dec 14, 2010 at 11:23:37 AM EST
    I love the Voice, best investigative reporting in the game locally...unafraid to p*ss off powerful people and interests, like good journalists should not be afraid.

    Looks like they're getting the Craigslist treatment...I'd imagine, as a free paper, they really depend on the advertising from the sex industry.  My question is could they be sued for running adverts for a clothing company found to exploit workers?  Why isn't the lawsuit filed against the exploiter?  Deep pockets thing?


    When are y'all getting together? (none / 0) (#4)
    by jeffinalabama on Tue Dec 14, 2010 at 11:04:40 AM EST
    I might send a godawful picture of me and my dog to pretend like I'm there.

    if you have a (none / 0) (#7)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Dec 14, 2010 at 11:09:35 AM EST
    godawful picture of you and your dog I think you should post it  here.

    ^^ above message for Kdog and Oculus... (none / 0) (#8)
    by jeffinalabama on Tue Dec 14, 2010 at 11:10:10 AM EST
    posted in the wrong place.

    Thursday Night... (none / 0) (#12)
    by kdog on Tue Dec 14, 2010 at 11:16:46 AM EST
    is the plan...was looking for some music to go hear and that was the first event that popped up on the Voice website...I looked no further:)

    top 14 (5.00 / 1) (#82)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Dec 14, 2010 at 04:12:35 PM EST
    Bloomberg (none / 0) (#11)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Dec 14, 2010 at 11:16:09 AM EST
    On Sunday, Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg flatly ruled out an independent run for president in 2012.

    It's possible that Mr. Bloomberg is discouraging his supporters because he really has closed the door on a presidential run. It's also possible, though, that he understands something about the modern political culture that many of those speculating about the purpose of No Labels do not -- that an independent not only no longer needs to spend time encouraging the formation of a party organization to run for president, but he's also probably better off without one.

    Ugh (none / 0) (#15)
    by jbindc on Tue Dec 14, 2010 at 11:42:03 AM EST
    ugh indeed (none / 0) (#16)
    by sj on Tue Dec 14, 2010 at 11:46:55 AM EST
    Maybe CT voters will intervene...

    Apologies -- how could I have been so wrong? (none / 0) (#17)
    by Baal on Tue Dec 14, 2010 at 11:50:46 AM EST
    During the early part of the 2008 presidential campaign, during the Democratic primaries, I was a strong supporter of Obama and argued with people here at Talk Left on many comment threads that he would be the stronger candidate than Hillary Clinton.  I believed he was somewhat to the left of her, carried less baggage, and would be a stronger voice for progressive issues.  Some of these threads were heated.  

    I now sincerely apologize to the majority of posters here, who by in large supported Hillary.  There is no doubt now that you were right, I was wrong, and that this error has cost the nation badly.

    I still can't fathom how ineffective, disappointing, and generally worthless this administration has been.  Obama was a strong candidate and articulated progressive issues well as long as he was running for office.

    I wonder if there are many of these ideas left that he will not abandon.

    Most of you were right and I was wrong.  Badly wrong.

    He was a strong candidate - no question about that (5.00 / 2) (#26)
    by ruffian on Tue Dec 14, 2010 at 01:10:30 PM EST
    but I did not see a progressive track record, despite what he was saying. Reading 'The Audacity of Hope' was enough to predict how he would govern.

    I don't claim to know for sure what Hillary would have done differently, but I am 99% sure she would have fought Republicans a lot harder on the domestic policy issues.

    Apology accepted! i think I remember you from back then.


    If it helps, there isn't any comfort (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by Anne on Tue Dec 14, 2010 at 01:40:32 PM EST
    or pleasure to be taken in having been right about Obama; I would so much prefer that he had proven me wrong, because that would mean that, on so many of the issues I care about, he would be guided by real, traditional Democratic principles, and the country would be much better off.

    I can't tell you whether being right about Obama meant I was right about Hillary, but it's hard to imagine she could have been much worse; given her record on advocating for women and children, I just don't see her selling them out over and over again in favor of the corporate overlords.  I cannot imagine her taking single-payer off the table from the beginning and not even allowing it to be discussed.

    Would she have replaced all the US Attorneys and nominated more center-left candidates?  Would she have fought hard to put someone like Dawn Johnsen in the OLC?  Would she cut Democrats out of negotiations with Republicans, and make concessions without expectation of getting anything in return?  Would she still be talking up the stimulative effect of the Tax Deal even as the GOP sharpen their knives to slash spending and lower the debt limit?

    Would Hillary have even done this deal?  Would she have been cowed into a smaller stimulus to begin with?  

    Who knows, really?  

    There's almost no point in wondering how things would have been different; for my money, you don't need to apologize for being wrong about Obama - it is Obama who should be apologizing to those who voted for him for staging one of the biggest bamboozle-and-okey-doke festivals ever, and hurting millions of people in the bargain.

    He owes the country an apology - and I'm pretty sure we're never going to get one.



    It was the primaries :) (none / 0) (#18)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Dec 14, 2010 at 12:02:16 PM EST
    They all lie :)  The only thing we have in our arsenal is how much they fear our anger at that ballot box and the social circles about the depth and breadth of the lies we will experience at their hands.  We don't know how Hillary would have handled any of this.  She may have been just as bad.

    Obviously (none / 0) (#27)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Tue Dec 14, 2010 at 01:14:10 PM EST
    I disagree with the Obama bashing but I have respect for his critics that admit that there is no indication that Hillary would have leaned further left.

    I tend to think that Hillary would have been more moderate than Obama, and that's why much of the criticism is frustrating.

    We chose the more liberal person.  The problem, for those who are on the further left, is that a true liberal has a hard time winning the general election while a true conservative can.

    There are simply more people on the far right than there are on the far left. For now.


    Have you read 'the Audacity of Hope'? (5.00 / 3) (#29)
    by ruffian on Tue Dec 14, 2010 at 01:16:58 PM EST
    How can you get more moderate than that?

    We have no evidence that we chose (5.00 / 4) (#34)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Dec 14, 2010 at 01:28:17 PM EST
    the more liberal person either....none.  It is like how people insisted that Obama's AUMF vote was the correct one.  That vote never happened any place except in make believe land.  And if you want to play track records, then Obama voted for FISA and expanded the war in Afghanistan.  But I'm supposed to believe that he would have never voted for the AUMF.  Ain't happenin here in my head.

    Well, Tracy, (5.00 / 2) (#40)
    by shoephone on Tue Dec 14, 2010 at 01:36:10 PM EST
    clearly, you are not drinking enough kool-aid. Get it straight: Up is down, and the FISA fiasco was a good thing. It showed that Obama could succeed with bipartisanship while further destroying the fourth amendment. The kool-aid drinkers said so!

    No way to prove it either way (1.50 / 2) (#38)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Tue Dec 14, 2010 at 01:34:42 PM EST
    All I have is her husband's track record and the fact that they were in line on pretty much everything except for fidelity when he was in office.

    Every decision and concession made by Obama could easily have been made by Bill if he were in office.

    I will concede that Bill would have done a better job of explaining it, but the substance is straight triangulation 101.


    She is not her husband (5.00 / 3) (#41)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Dec 14, 2010 at 01:38:59 PM EST
    Sexist much?  Project much?

    Moby speaks for me when it comes to Obama worshipful love philosphy though



    What a crock (5.00 / 3) (#43)
    by shoephone on Tue Dec 14, 2010 at 01:41:22 PM EST
    All you have is her husband's track record? Sexist much?

    It was pretty easy to judge HRC on her own terms, considering that she had a Senate record.

    And FTR, her husband raised taxes on the rich. Just in case you forgot.


    Well, that's a pretty revealing comment... (5.00 / 6) (#46)
    by Anne on Tue Dec 14, 2010 at 01:50:51 PM EST
    In case it slipped your notice, Hillary Clinton has her very own track record; she did not spring from Bill's forehead, like Athena from the head of Zeus, as "Hillary Clinton, Presidential Candidate."

    Seriously, if there was a candidate with a paper-thin resume, it was Obama, not Clinton, for crying out loud.

    Truly, your comment of only having her husband's track record by which to judge her strikes me as one of the most moronic, short-sighted, chauvinistic and ignorant comments I have read in a while.



    And Hillary had a record (5.00 / 4) (#88)
    by robert72 on Tue Dec 14, 2010 at 05:17:28 PM EST
    of competence. And hard work. And care for the weak in society. And the ability to explain what she is doing and why in simple terms.

    un effin' believable. (5.00 / 2) (#57)
    by nycstray on Tue Dec 14, 2010 at 02:28:18 PM EST
    Did you seriously ... (none / 0) (#100)
    by Yman on Thu Dec 16, 2010 at 09:36:53 AM EST
    .... just claim that Hillary would have been more moderate than Obama based on Bill Clinton's record and what HE might have done if he were in Obama's shoes?!?


    Ignoring the sheer idiocy and sexist nature of such a statement, I'm just shocked that someone would actually put those thoughts out there.


    Tracy, you know better! (none / 0) (#45)
    by jbindc on Tue Dec 14, 2010 at 01:49:18 PM EST
    Obama didn't have a vote on AUMF!  He supposedly made a speech about it - that's it! He never had to put rubber to the road!

    I have read some bots though (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Dec 14, 2010 at 01:54:38 PM EST
    who literally put him the room the day that vote went down.  You and I are correct though, he wasn't going to be held responsible for anything, he wasn't there, he gave a speech and nothing more....from the safety of his armchair quarterback position.  He turned that speech though literally into a vote and so did his supporters.

    I dunno (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by CST on Tue Dec 14, 2010 at 02:16:12 PM EST
    I think from the standpoint of that vote, it wasn't so much what he did or didn't do - as about what she did do.

    I was really really p*ssed off about that (at the time).  Because before that I was really happy she was a senator.  And after that... the "thrill" was gone, so to speak.

    And being from NY to me is no excuse.  I don't care.  If anything, it was more of a reason she should have known better.  People in NY were not nearly as pro-iraq as most - which had nothing to do with 9/11 - which was blatantly clear to a whole lot of people at the time - "no one could have known" - not gonna fly.

    It felt like a serious betrayal, and yea, I kind of held that against her.

    In retrospect, I don't think I was wrong to hold it against her, I'm still ticked off about that vote.  Obama would probably have done the same - but he didn't, and I can't really hold a hypothetical against him.

    All that being said - I would've been pretty happy with Hillary as president regardless.


    You can hold a hypothetical against him (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by jbindc on Tue Dec 14, 2010 at 02:37:05 PM EST
    Since he and his supporters used it to bolster their argument of why he was a superior choice.

    He can't have it both ways.


    that doesn't really make sense to me (none / 0) (#65)
    by CST on Tue Dec 14, 2010 at 02:54:33 PM EST
    I'm not one to believe the speech was "fabricated" as some have suggested.  It was a speech and not a vote, but it is what happened at the time.

    You can't say he voted against it.  But he did speak out.  So that part is not a "hypothetical"...

    I also don't really base my opinion on what other people might have said or not said.


    He spoke out about FISA, too, (5.00 / 1) (#76)
    by Anne on Tue Dec 14, 2010 at 04:02:16 PM EST
    and when he did, he was in the Senate and he did get a vote, and his vote was not consistent with his stated position.

    So, am I now to believe that, if he had had a vote on the AUMF, it would be consistent with his rhetoric, or do you think there's any chance he'd have done a 180 there, too?

    I mean, it's not like Obama has any kind of history of saying one thing and doing another, does he?


    I agree with you (none / 0) (#78)
    by CST on Tue Dec 14, 2010 at 04:06:00 PM EST
    And said as much in my earlier posts on this thread.  But that's not the point I was making.

    he took down references to (none / 0) (#83)
    by observed on Tue Dec 14, 2010 at 04:13:42 PM EST
    the speech from  his website in 2004 or so,after he admitted Bush had succeeded.

    Yes, I was very disappointed too (none / 0) (#54)
    by ruffian on Tue Dec 14, 2010 at 02:26:22 PM EST
    I do hold it against her as a craven political move.

    Obama's actions in office have convinced me he would have done the same thing.


    Yea (none / 0) (#56)
    by CST on Tue Dec 14, 2010 at 02:28:13 PM EST
    that's pretty much where I am too.

    But that doesn't mean I stop being mad she did it.  Now I'm just also mad that he has acted like an @ss in office too.


    In 1972 (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by brodie on Tue Dec 14, 2010 at 02:38:58 PM EST
    lib Dems didn't hold it against McGovern that he'd voted for LBJ's bogus Gulf of Tonkin Res, the cynical blank check to wage war only a few senators clearly were able to see.  THe 2002 vote was a tough one, and many pols with ambition for higher office were being advised not to risk being wrong on the issue of whether Saddam had WMDs.

    I wish she'd seen the obvious LBJ-Shrub parallels -- both manipulators and liars looking for a legal pretext to wage war -- but no, alas, that didn't happen.

    Obama, another highly ambitious pol, almost certainly had in been in the senate would have voted -- reluctantly and with deep regret -- the same way with all the other highly ambitious Dem senators eyeing the next presidential contest.


    After I listened to her speech (none / 0) (#59)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Dec 14, 2010 at 02:29:59 PM EST
    I felt like she did the only thing she could do.  I felt the same way when it came to packing my husband up and putting him on the bus and working everyday to keep our family up and runnning. You we aren't being led astray, it feels like we are but the country is divided right down the middle and traumatized after an attack.

    after listening to her speech (none / 0) (#64)
    by CST on Tue Dec 14, 2010 at 02:40:26 PM EST
    I was even angrier, because of the fact that she was good at it - at convincing people to support something that I felt was wrong to my core.

    And the inevitability of it all from the get go was really demoralizing.


    It was very demoralizing for me too (none / 0) (#99)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Dec 15, 2010 at 08:12:32 AM EST
    And of course I had never been through an experience where my true love was headed for "battle".  It was surreal, like a movie I would have labeled dumb and not worth watching, yet I took a lot of time watching what was going on around me.  I watched the army trains move into Fort Carson and leave.  They looked like they were hauling predators from the age of the dinosaurs.  People were going to die, anybody who got in the way of those things was going to die.

    But Colin Powell said there was danger and I convinced myself that he wouldn't lie to me.  I trusted nobody else though.  I watched the protests in Colorado Springs, one was very big and shut down Academy Blvd....a major artery.  I stood on the outskirts scared and uncertain.  I marched in a downtown march to support our troops though, and the guy with the megaphone was leading chants and he tried to change the chant to "We support our President" and nobody would follow him.  It was the most amazing thing.  The soldiers had not left yet, and already people were saying they supported the troops but choked before they could scream out to the world that they supported the President.  That was wild to experience.

    But there were no WMDs.  I slept with the television on....terrified my children's father would be killed.  I saved all the extra pay too, they made the soldiers tax free...I saved it all.  I was too petrified to even think about wanting something from a shopping mall anyhow.  And if the kids did lose their dad I figured we would need all the extra we could come by.

    After losing my whole family when I was little, it was the worst experience in my life.  And while going through all that Tricare kept denying Joshua the Titanium Rib surgery that eventually saved his life.

    The top floor of Evans Army Hospital on Fort Carson had been closed prior to Iraq.  They had to reopen it though because the whole facility was packed with spouses having a nervous breakdown.  I sat at a birthday party with one evil unmarried nurse next to me laughing about the women packed into the facility.  She said they were all pretending in order that their husband could be sent home on hardship.  I remember peering back at her, and I'm a very tough woman, and thinking to myself that I was barely clinging to sanity on my good days and this person was one of the most evil people I had ever met.

    Later on George Lopez came to sit at our table, because we were a bunch of war widows.  He was very kind and sweet.  And the evil nurse woman did get really drunk and grab his genitals at our table.


    Actually (5.00 / 3) (#68)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Dec 14, 2010 at 03:51:13 PM EST
    she was to the left of him on the economy and on health care in the primary but there were too many people who got enthralled with his little chi chi anti war speech to see it. She had a record to go by. Of course, to believe that Obama would put forth progressive policy you had to believe that he was lying about all the bipartisan crap he was shoveling. Well, to our eternal dismay, he was actually telling the truth about that.

    Yup, not a schtick after all (5.00 / 3) (#70)
    by ruffian on Tue Dec 14, 2010 at 03:53:40 PM EST
    I imagine she would be as bad (none / 0) (#20)
    by waldenpond on Tue Dec 14, 2010 at 12:15:00 PM EST
    She has increased contracts to mercenaries and ordered spying on UN officials.  I guess you could still suppose she might have been better on domestic issues because it's hard to live through someone as bad as Obama, but the Clinton's have always been corporatists and are members of the oligarchy.

    Hard to believe such (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by brodie on Tue Dec 14, 2010 at 01:00:12 PM EST
    Hillary would have been as weak in negotiating with the Repubs as Obama has been.  On the contrary, even her detractors in the primaries noted her tough as nails persona -- of course back then it was referenced with the name Thatcher.

    On the economy and health care, I don't see her as wanting merely to replicate hubby Bill, making her first term in effect his 3d term.  She was always an independent, strong-minded thinker as FL, and so likely would have done things differently.  I always thought one of her greatest assets in fact in the primaries was all the experience she had from trying to get through health care reform in the 90s.  

    She also had first hand experience in up close combat with the slash-n-burn GOP as they tried to smear her and Bill constantly pre-Monica.  No way would she have been inclined, as prez, to want to sing kumbaya with the Goopers the way the naive (or Demican) O has for 2 years now.


    Just keep blaming the Repubs? (none / 0) (#33)
    by waldenpond on Tue Dec 14, 2010 at 01:27:02 PM EST
    That just isn't going to work anymore.  The Dem party is infested with conservatives as focused on collapsing wages and disappearing the middle class as any Republican.  The Nelson's and Bayh's will ALWAYS side with the Repubs when it comes time to choose between the people and the oligarchy.  Conservatives will have enough to stop any progressives tweaks.

    The conservatives  have the majority in the Senate.  D and R is irrelevant now.


    Of course not just (none / 0) (#44)
    by brodie on Tue Dec 14, 2010 at 01:46:53 PM EST
    blame the Repugs, but rather understand them, get rid of the naive assumptions that this group of Goopers is capable of working reasonably with Dems towards responsible governance, as Obama somehow believed to be the case, maybe still does.

    Sometimes I wonder whether the history-reading Obama has any clue about how the GOP has changed radically in the past 45-50 yrs, and is now a party of the right to far right only.  He sometimes gives the impression he's dealing with Ev Dirksen and his crop of ca 1964 reasonable Goopers who came around to embrace things like civil rights and who could be reasoned with and counted on in the end to play ball fairly.

    A lack of understanding of the oppo, or perhaps it is true that Obama is au fond as much a moderate Dem as conservative Repub and has been governing consistently according to his inner political swingman.


    I second... (none / 0) (#21)
    by kdog on Tue Dec 14, 2010 at 12:52:11 PM EST
    just because Obamaphiles were wrong, does not automatically mean the Clintonistas were right.

    I'd love to see us get a Madame President Clinton in '12 or 16', just so we can put the faux differences to bed once and for all, and get to work getting actual representation in government for common folk.


    Oh, I'd take that any day. (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by masslib on Tue Dec 14, 2010 at 12:56:42 PM EST
    But regardless of her performance, one thing is for damn sure, no way liberal and progressive Democrats would have twisted themselves into pretzels to try and make her mistakes look like 12th dimension chess.  They would have pushed back, not rolled over and played dead.

    Hillary definitely (5.00 / 2) (#25)
    by brodie on Tue Dec 14, 2010 at 01:05:09 PM EST
    would have gotten a much shorter honeymoon period from the lib-left as compared to the year or more Obama was given.  Of course, I don't think she would have been so stupid or weak as to allow another drawn-out health care process to so seriously diminish her political capital.  That bill would have been done quickly -- probably more robustly -- if it would have been done at all.

    IIRC, she wasn't going to do HCR (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by nycstray on Tue Dec 14, 2010 at 02:26:10 PM EST
    right away. She wanted to tackle the economy/jobs first. That lil' place called Main St was needing some help . . . .

    Yep, agree there too -- (5.00 / 2) (#58)
    by brodie on Tue Dec 14, 2010 at 02:29:02 PM EST
    the economy and jobs, first priority for her.  And again given her stronger personality and tendency to go for bolder strokes, we likely would have seen a much larger stim bill out of Congress.

    I actually think this is right (none / 0) (#32)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Tue Dec 14, 2010 at 01:21:27 PM EST
    I think Hillary would not have stretched the battle out and would have opted for no healthcare reform, for better or for worse.

    Whether you see that as preferable depends on how you view HCR that passed.


    Yes, I very much doubt (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by brodie on Tue Dec 14, 2010 at 02:27:06 PM EST
    if Hillary would have both allowed the process to drag on and then only to get a watered down thin soup of a bill.  Obama got almost the worst possible outcome; unlikely the more experienced Hillary would have allowed that.

    You think (5.00 / 1) (#72)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Dec 14, 2010 at 03:58:07 PM EST
    she would have stretched the battle out over the 15 months Obama had? I think she knew better than do that from the first try. Anyway, she wasn't really planning to do anything about health care right away. Her big thing was fixing the economy and in hindsight she was right about that.

    Slight variation (4.00 / 2) (#80)
    by Inspector Gadget on Tue Dec 14, 2010 at 04:11:40 PM EST
    I don't think she would have put it to congress as the first order of business while watching unemployment skyrocket, and the economy tank. Those decisions alone could have made her administration look much different than this one.

    I think (none / 0) (#28)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Tue Dec 14, 2010 at 01:15:30 PM EST
    the left is pushing back pretty darn hard.

    The level of criticism Obama's getting from the left is unprecedented in recent history.


    Gosh, are they pushing back now? (5.00 / 4) (#31)
    by masslib on Tue Dec 14, 2010 at 01:20:09 PM EST
    Too bad we already lost the House, and gave away the farm on tax policy.

    It's too (5.00 / 2) (#74)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Dec 14, 2010 at 03:59:22 PM EST
    late now though. They let Obama get away with everything for 2 years and now they are criticizing him?

    I don't know about liberals... (none / 0) (#35)
    by kdog on Tue Dec 14, 2010 at 01:28:36 PM EST
    and progressives, but Clintonistas would be twisting like Chubby Checker, same as the Obamaphiles have...that's what a devoted fan base does, make excuses for their beloved.

    Clintonistas, as you call them, (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by masslib on Tue Dec 14, 2010 at 01:30:28 PM EST
    don't have the voice among the Dem activist community.

    Yeah, except on that whole tax issue. (none / 0) (#22)
    by masslib on Tue Dec 14, 2010 at 12:54:53 PM EST
    She looked better on domestic (none / 0) (#67)
    by observed on Tue Dec 14, 2010 at 03:45:35 PM EST
    policy only; on foreign policy, they were both conventional and bad.

    Propaganda post (none / 0) (#19)
    by waldenpond on Tue Dec 14, 2010 at 12:08:21 PM EST
    That was weird.  A 'sponsored post' popped up.  It was on behalf of private colleges ripping people off.  It linked to a site with a multidude of propaganda commercials.

    Help Please (none / 0) (#30)
    by CoralGables on Tue Dec 14, 2010 at 01:19:28 PM EST
    Why is it assumed that DADT would pass more easily as a stand alone bill rather than attached to a defense spending bill? Shouldn't it be more difficult as a stand alone?

    Attaching it to defense spending (none / 0) (#39)
    by masslib on Tue Dec 14, 2010 at 01:34:58 PM EST
    was initially thought to be the better political choice as you suggest.  However, then the opposers just argued that was a cynical political move, and it should be voted on as a stand alone.  But then Gates and most military leaders came out and said it should be repealed.  So now, it may fair better as a stand alone, because the notion that it was being passed through cynical means has been eliminated and support among the military has been greatly strengthened.

    Criminal law question (none / 0) (#48)
    by jeffinalabama on Tue Dec 14, 2010 at 01:58:52 PM EST
    I have a student accused of felony fraud-- I believe s/he's innocent.

    S/he's not thrilled with her representation, but s/he's now indigent.

    How does s/he ask for new cousel? the student's  family-- both parents unemployed now, loaned a sum to hire a lawyer, but the lawyer is subtlely encouraging the student to plead to possession of a forged document, apparently a lesser crime than forging a document.

    alabama has a 'bad check' task force, and this case is caught up in that.

    So, this isn't asking for legal advice, is it? I think it's asking about advice concerning lawyers and court, but not legal advice... splitting hairs, maybe...  

    So... how does one get new or different counsel in a case like this? Is it even possible?

    Yet another reason I wish I knew more about the law and about the courts.

    The court system here really confuses me (none / 0) (#61)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Dec 14, 2010 at 02:36:10 PM EST
    It is very much a good ole boy network too.  The most powerful attorneys who will fight seem to be either also sitting judges or past judges.  Our old attorney was also a judge in a small town not far from here.  My most recent attorney was a past Municipal judge here and HE FIGHTS like hell and represents a lot of people experiencing much more serious problems than I did.

    My daughter's past divorce attorney here was not cut of that cloth, but in family matters if I was paying I wanted a negotiator.  In the case of divorce you still have to look at each other for years and years afterwards if children are involved.


    Interesting statistic (none / 0) (#66)
    by Rojas on Tue Dec 14, 2010 at 02:58:35 PM EST
    In Texas a (slight) majority of the cases that go to trial end in acquittal. Around 97% of cases end in a plea.
    In most counties the judge appoints counsel for the indigent. Some say that judges don't particularly like fighters who might tend to clog up the docket taking cases to trial.

    that is interesting, (none / 0) (#69)
    by jeffinalabama on Tue Dec 14, 2010 at 03:51:57 PM EST
    and given the numbers you cite, I'd think the same for here.  Now, how would one hypothetically 'fire' a lawyer? is this even possible in a circumstance like this one? Hypothetically, I mean...

    Depends (none / 0) (#71)
    by jbindc on Tue Dec 14, 2010 at 03:55:27 PM EST
    Some places (maybe all - I don't know), if the lawyer has made an appearance on the record, the client has to go to court and make a motion on the record to fire the attorney. Or the lawyer may just have to file paperwork with the court.

    She needs to ask the lawyer (unfortunately).


    I'll let the person know. (none / 0) (#73)
    by jeffinalabama on Tue Dec 14, 2010 at 03:58:11 PM EST
    Thanks for the information about my student's hypothetical issue!

    I would have to say in Alabama (none / 0) (#98)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Dec 15, 2010 at 07:50:56 AM EST
    Jeff, one of the things that seemed to upset the magistrate's office here but yet played a big factor in my case being dropped was that a bullhonk ruling was going to be appealed and most likely overturned by a higher court because my attorney doesn't take that crap if his clients can afford an appeal.  Obviously the plan was to railroad me, that was obvious from even what I was charged with, having a reputable attorney that is very well versed in the laws and that fights changed that whole dynamic.

    kdog short anser is "no"!!!! (none / 0) (#49)
    by oculus on Tue Dec 14, 2010 at 02:10:29 PM EST
    jeffinalabama. Does she currently have retained (pd. For counsel)?

    Ok... (5.00 / 1) (#60)
    by kdog on Tue Dec 14, 2010 at 02:32:16 PM EST
    Ms. Scrooge, I'll see what else is happening Thursday.  And I won't even rat you out to Bill O'Reilly for use in his next "War on Christmas" segment:)

    Oculus, yes. (none / 0) (#50)
    by jeffinalabama on Tue Dec 14, 2010 at 02:12:02 PM EST
    Does this make a difference?

    I should have stated, any advice (none / 0) (#51)
    by jeffinalabama on Tue Dec 14, 2010 at 02:15:57 PM EST
    will be considered hypothetical. It's not for me, I'm just trying to help somebody. The process is difficult, or at least it's not transparent to someone like me, unfamiliar with court...

    Festivus! (none / 0) (#75)
    by jbindc on Tue Dec 14, 2010 at 04:00:08 PM EST
    California inmate sues to be allowed to have kosher meals (no salami) in tradition with his Festivus beliefs.

    Luckily, this suit was eventually thrown out, although he did get 2 salami-free months.

    Heh. (none / 0) (#77)
    by jeffinalabama on Tue Dec 14, 2010 at 04:04:45 PM EST
     For the rest of us!

    It's time to unpack the aluminim pole and get ready for the airing of grievances.


    Great episode.

    Don't forget... (5.00 / 1) (#89)
    by kdog on Tue Dec 14, 2010 at 05:22:02 PM EST
    my favorite part of the holiday...Feats of Strength.

    "Festivus is not over until the head of the household is wrestled to the floor and pinned"

    Isn't serving kosher meals based on a "religous need" only basis discriminatory?  Why not just ask every prisoner if they want kosher or non-kosher?

    Oh yeah...money.  We're supposed to try and make some money off the convicted.


    How is (none / 0) (#94)
    by jbindc on Tue Dec 14, 2010 at 06:00:02 PM EST
    A prison supposed to "make money" off serving someone a salami sandwich as opposed to another kind of sandwich?

    What was interesting is that he asked for non-salami sandwiches based on his religious beliefs, in a religion that was made up on TV.  Even if he truly believed in the "tenets" of Festivus, keeping kosher is not one of them.

    This was just a guy trying to cause trouble.


    I'd imagine... (none / 0) (#97)
    by kdog on Wed Dec 15, 2010 at 06:36:54 AM EST
    the kosher meals are more expensive than the quasi-salami since the authorities are grinching on the kosher...a penny saved is a penny earned.  
    If they gave the kosher meals to everybody it would cut into the commissary profits.

    The only way to get the kosher is to claim religous need...that's the discriminatory policy, the prisoner was just playing along.  His mistake was being honest about the holiday he celebrates, he shoulda said he was a jew or muslim....honesty is not valued in America, shady is.


    I heard about this on the radio (none / 0) (#79)
    by jbindc on Tue Dec 14, 2010 at 04:07:44 PM EST
    And since I watched Seifeld for only a year or so, I didn't get the reference.

    But it IS funny!


    If you can find the festivus Seinfeld (5.00 / 0) (#81)
    by jeffinalabama on Tue Dec 14, 2010 at 04:11:50 PM EST
    episode, it's worth watching. That one and the soup nazi were great. I watched for years, but the later years weren't as good, imo. Those two episodes, though...priceless.

    Three best Seinfeld episodes (5.00 / 1) (#93)
    by Zorba on Tue Dec 14, 2010 at 05:53:12 PM EST
    were the Festivus one, the Soup Nazi, and the Master of My Domain.

    heh! forgot the "master" (5.00 / 0) (#95)
    by jeffinalabama on Tue Dec 14, 2010 at 06:04:18 PM EST
    episode. Kramer in that one-- too funny!

    Loved all three (none / 0) (#96)
    by shoephone on Tue Dec 14, 2010 at 09:00:55 PM EST
    But which episode was the one where Jerry had to wear the poofy shirt in his interview on the Today Show and Kramer was trying to pass a kidney stone while working for the circus? It's a classic.

    I did see the soup nazi (none / 0) (#84)
    by jbindc on Tue Dec 14, 2010 at 04:14:26 PM EST
    "You just cost yourself a soup!"

    this silly pet PSA (none / 0) (#86)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Dec 14, 2010 at 04:54:05 PM EST
    brought to you by me.

    It's a Jolly Holi-dog Celebration!

    I'll take (none / 0) (#87)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Dec 14, 2010 at 05:00:38 PM EST
    all of them

    funniest thing I have seen in a loooooog time (none / 0) (#91)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Dec 14, 2010 at 05:42:41 PM EST
    funnier if you saw the Brad Pitt Jessie James movie.

    New "Yogi Bear" movie actually a tearjerking dramatic masterpiece

    I almost peed myself.

    Winter's Bone (none / 0) (#92)
    by jeffinalabama on Tue Dec 14, 2010 at 05:43:51 PM EST
    sounds too much like reality here on Sand (Meth) Mountain. I'll take a pass for now, but remember for later.