home

Thursday Afternoon OpenThread

Our morning open thread is full, BTD and I are still busy at our respective day jobs. Here's another open thread, all topics welcome.

< Thursday Morning Open Thread | 6 Hours That Shook The Health Debate World? >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Reading recommendations: (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by oculus on Thu Feb 25, 2010 at 06:11:15 PM EST
    Just finished reading "The Uncommon Reader," by Alan Bennett. Short, droll, very funny. Have started reading "Uncivil Society: 1989 and the Implosion of the Communist Establishment," by Stephen Kotkin (easy-to-read contemporary history on a subject re which I am woefully ignorant).

    It just wasn't ever important (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Feb 25, 2010 at 06:54:11 PM EST
    to understand a contemporary imploding communist establishment, the only thing that was important was to cheer and seem to be very happy about it :)

    Parent
    Oh, boy (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by gyrfalcon on Thu Feb 25, 2010 at 08:59:04 PM EST
    isn't that the truth!

    And it's still nearly impossible to get anything approaching a non-ideological analysis of what actually did happen.  The academic "Russia centers" are still deeply infested with very grumpy right-wing Kremlin analysts who got almost literally everything wrong but can't admit it.

    Parent

    Here is the NYT Sunday review (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by oculus on Thu Feb 25, 2010 at 09:50:39 PM EST
    of the book I am reading:  NYT

    Parent
    From the previous thread (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by Left of the Left on Thu Feb 25, 2010 at 06:32:29 PM EST
    Just wanted to chime on on something gyrfalcon said:

    He's doing a rather interesting thing here, which is trying to put his money where his mouth is on the idea of "bipartisanship" while not giving ground on key issues of fact about health care and the health insurance industry.


    I understand where you're coming from, its hard not to enjoy a good zing on the Republicans, and Obama can provide a decent one here and there. We have people better on that, like Barney Frank.

    But in his meeting with the Republicans before, as great as the theatrics was, in the end what it boiled down to was "Why are you attacking, look at how Republican it is."

    The ground has already been given. As impressive sounding as it might be to see him call out their petty obstructionism, nothing will be gained. Political cover to go it alone? The public gave them that months back when it said they would take a good partisan bill over a bad bipartisan one. They dont lack support, they lack will.

    And let me say (none / 0) (#41)
    by gyrfalcon on Thu Feb 25, 2010 at 09:08:39 PM EST
    what I said very late over on the other thread.  I think public persuasion is only part of what this was about.  I think he's literally actually hoping to shame/persuade the very few sane Republicans in Congress that the Dems really do know what they're talking about on this and that they should break ranks and come along.

    I didn't hear anything much in the way of calling out "petty obstructionism," btw, except with Eric Cantor, whom Obama, to his credit, clearly just loathes for the flaming a****le that he is.  What he was doing was patiently explaining over and over and over again why this or that talking point was simply factually incorrect and therefore not a basis on which anybody can compromise or work together.

    He's knocking himself out to be the Reasonable Man.  Doing a pretty good job of it on this, too. I think it's fruitless, which is why I'm more interested in seeing how long he keeps on this track and what he decides to do if and when he ever realizes it's fruitless.

    I'll say one more time to emphasize my bona fides.  I think the guy is a disaster.  But he is determinedly trying to do something entirely new in modern U.S. politics, and it's fruitless for us to keep trying to evaluate it using standard political paradigms.

    Parent

    Well.. (none / 0) (#46)
    by Left of the Left on Thu Feb 25, 2010 at 09:48:14 PM EST
    As to the shaming, I think thats as misguided as the PPUS. I have no doubt he thinks he could reason/charm them onto his side. I just shake my head at it. He's been nothing but reasonable, and catered to them at almost every instance, and in return they've labeled him a socialist.

    I'll say one more time to emphasize my bona fides.  I think the guy is a disaster.  But he is determinedly trying to do something entirely new in modern U.S. politics, and it's fruitless for us to keep trying to evaluate it using standard political paradigms.

    I guess I just dont see how its such a new thing that we have to throw out the old paradigms. Mr Obama goes to the Lions Den was new. People fawned, and nothing changed. Its the unity shtick. Greenwald had a great column on this last year.

    So whats new, the setting? A good movie is good, whether in the theater or on TV, and a turkey is still a turkey, no matter how big your screen is.

    Parent

    Not what I meant (none / 0) (#54)
    by gyrfalcon on Thu Feb 25, 2010 at 11:37:12 PM EST
    I don't think our paradigms for what should be done are wrong or outdated, just that trying to figure out what Obama's up to with traditional political yardsticks on tactics is fruitless because he's not following those yardsticks.

    Parent
    I think its safe to say (none / 0) (#66)
    by Left of the Left on Fri Feb 26, 2010 at 02:58:22 AM EST
    Even if this were some magical new thing, the results are still looking the same.

    Parent
    You persist (none / 0) (#107)
    by gyrfalcon on Fri Feb 26, 2010 at 09:43:40 AM EST
    in trying to make me say something I didn't say and don't believe.  Didn't say it was magical, said it was interesting.  Understand the difference?

    Parent
    Sure (none / 0) (#140)
    by Left of the Left on Fri Feb 26, 2010 at 05:52:19 PM EST
    But then at no point did a say anything about how "interesting" you find this. While I quoted that part, I didn't question or touch on that at all. I replied to him not "giving ground", and then this "new" stuff you started talking about.

    I just consider this newness thing of yours wrong. There is no aspect of this, be it tactics or political yardsticks, or whatever else you wish to focus on, that is new. Or rather, new enough that the old "yardsticks" don't apply. I'll assume that while we don't agree, at least you can understand that.


    Parent

    if I rated comments (none / 0) (#110)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Feb 26, 2010 at 09:51:53 AM EST
    I would give that a 10

    Parent
    Omega Point by Don Delillo (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by bridget on Thu Feb 25, 2010 at 06:40:04 PM EST
    Has enyone read this latest novel? I haven't yet.

    Ron Jacobs writes about it in his article "The Hollow Man Reaches His Omega Point" and he says that it reminded him of two very different poems: TS Elliot's "Hollow Man" and Randal Jarrell's "The Death of Ball Turret Gunner." (see www.counterpunch.com)

    The book is about the cruelty of war and so is the Jarrell poem. It is powerful and everything what has to be said he managed to do in only 5 lines.

    Its been years but I had to analize this poem as part of an English Final exam ... and it is heartbreaking ... just like war.

    The professor had made a drawing of the plane on the blackboard and I remember I had to ask him a question about the Ball Turret Gunner's position in the plane. I will never forgot the impact it had on me.

    http://www.fistfullofcode.com/writings/thedeathoftheballturrentgunner.pdf

     

    I'm moved (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by gyrfalcon on Thu Feb 25, 2010 at 11:42:22 PM EST
    by the fact that you're moved by this, and reading your comment wish I could be supportive, but I don't have it in me.  I went through all that with Vietnam in the '60s and it drained me totally.  Don't want to go there again.  The "cruelty of war" is simply a fact that's long been part of my core.

    Parent
    I don't ask for your support (5.00 / 1) (#143)
    by bridget on Fri Feb 26, 2010 at 07:58:57 PM EST
    just wondering if someone had read the book.

    btw. lots of Americans don't want to go there -
    that is obvious otherwise there would be a anti-war movement.

    Wars - one after the other - are part of the core of the US citizens now. The just don't care anymore.

    Parent

    Prickly responses (2.00 / 1) (#144)
    by gyrfalcon on Fri Feb 26, 2010 at 10:51:17 PM EST
    like yours to sympathetic comments are the ind of mentality that gets us into wars.

    Sorry I bothered.  Enjoy your wallowing.

    Parent

    Oh honey, this has nothing to do with me. (5.00 / 1) (#147)
    by bridget on Mon Mar 01, 2010 at 05:59:06 PM EST
    Your posts are all about youyouyou. Anyone who lived thru the Vietnam war knows that nothing was learned from it ..... just like nothing was learned from the Iraq war, the Afghanistan war ....  

    So What got us into the wars again? Lies, supremacy, greed, empire building, arrogance, ignorance, jingoism, AND total carelessness and apathy by the people.  

    btw. posts that reek of condescension are so not cool.

    Parent

    Lets Camp Out Now for Peace (5.00 / 1) (#148)
    by bridget on Mon Mar 01, 2010 at 06:19:33 PM EST
    I was wrong.
    The Indefatigable Cindy Sheehan still cares. Of course, she does.

    http://www.counterpunch.org/beattie02262010.html

    And I completely agree with Missy Beattie who writes:
    "Shame on progressive websites tht stopped publishing Sheehan's articlws after she called out Dems for th same reeasons she and they called out Repubs. But she's been vindicated .... "

    read on

    Maybe we meet in Washington in March?

    Peace!

    Parent

    Shooting Looters (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by squeaky on Thu Feb 25, 2010 at 06:48:34 PM EST
    NOLA PD detective pleads guilty to conspiring to obstruct justice in Katerina shootings. Police lying and obstruction evidentially to cover up at least ten shootings by fellow officers. The investigation is continuing.

    Link

    Well.... (none / 0) (#81)
    by kdog on Fri Feb 26, 2010 at 08:57:36 AM EST
    law and order must be maintained, otherwise people might get shot.

    Oh, people did get shot...in the name of law and order...never mind:)

    Parent

    Ben Stein.....High I.Q. (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Feb 25, 2010 at 06:51:08 PM EST
    Zero common sense

    not good at critical thinking (5.00 / 2) (#23)
    by observed on Thu Feb 25, 2010 at 06:57:19 PM EST
    I'd say.
    Rather like Marilyn Vos Savant who is truly almost insane, in an intellectual sense.


    Parent
    Ageist? (Yes, I scored amazingly (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by oculus on Thu Feb 25, 2010 at 07:09:41 PM EST
    high on yesterday's "Millenial" quiz.  But, still.

    I'm embarrassed to admit (none / 0) (#42)
    by gyrfalcon on Thu Feb 25, 2010 at 09:11:29 PM EST
    I scored way, way, way down on the far end at "silent generation" or whatever they call pre-Baby Boomers.  I think it's because I still don't own a cell phone.

    Parent
    I am impressed (none / 0) (#70)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Feb 26, 2010 at 06:25:59 AM EST
    I held out on getting a cell phone until the Iraq War broke out.  Then I inherited my spouses phone, and when he called home if nobody picked up the house phone he then called the cell and tada...family contact.  Once we crossed into that territory, we couldn't go back.  He is the only person though that I pick up for 24/7.

    Parent
    HCR Summit: Mission Accomplished (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by RonK Seattle on Thu Feb 25, 2010 at 07:12:39 PM EST
    A good format for Obama, and a good day for (minimal) HCR's (residual) chances of enactment via reconciliation.

    Context: The real intended purpose/audience of today's summit (h/t Politico's Ben Smith):

    The audience that matters most here is the handful of House Democrats whom Nancy Pelosi needs to flip to pass the Senate bill, and the larger number of wavering House Democrats.

    The summit demonstrated both the residual merits of a residual bill, and the futility of attempted negotiations with GOP.

    well (5.00 / 0) (#31)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Feb 25, 2010 at 07:28:22 PM EST
    I'm at a loss at to how this helps the bill in the house. The senate bill still stinks to most house members summit or no summit.

    Parent
    I'll be Senate bill +/- reconciliation fixes (none / 0) (#36)
    by RonK Seattle on Thu Feb 25, 2010 at 08:16:12 PM EST
    ... and the battle lines will be drawn around starkly re-emphasized "philosophical differences" between D's and R's.

    D's are on notice they'll pay for being philosophical D's whether they pass something of not, and their ire is redirected toward philosophical R's who don't think insurance should be regulated, think people should pay their way whether they can or not, think HSA's are magic, think tort reform is magic, think they can fool most of the people most of the time, etc, etc.

    No D's will imagine they can still win R votes with compromises, either.

    So there's a chance the reconciliation version can pass, and even a chance the viable version gets progressively more progressive over time between now and passage.

    Parent

    Well, there's always a chance (none / 0) (#59)
    by lambert on Thu Feb 25, 2010 at 11:46:24 PM EST
    Certainly the performance of the Democratic Party so far gives every reason for hope!

    Parent
    What you say makes sense (none / 0) (#29)
    by observed on Thu Feb 25, 2010 at 07:14:14 PM EST
    as to the intended purpose of the summit.
    Good luck with getting over 100 votes for the Senate bill from the House.


    Parent
    hey (none / 0) (#73)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Feb 26, 2010 at 08:39:57 AM EST
    I thought you wanted to bet someone that Obama would not pass the health care bill with reconciliation.

    Im waiting.


    Parent

    Per your intel bill post on last thread (none / 0) (#30)
    by shoephone on Thu Feb 25, 2010 at 07:17:54 PM EST
    I believe it's now been taken out of the "manager's amendment" and will sponsored as a stand-alone bill.

    Parent
    Yeah, leadership spiked it (none / 0) (#33)
    by RonK Seattle on Thu Feb 25, 2010 at 07:55:35 PM EST
    O/T about painting books (none / 0) (#115)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Feb 26, 2010 at 10:09:21 AM EST
    I have one book, can't recall off the top of my head who wrote it...but it was very pricey.  I think I paid sixty bucks for it used and it is a sort of faux finish Bible.  The best effects still seem to be done with oil based paints.  I did some of the faux marbles in it in oil base and it is pretty impressive to work with and the results you get.  I bought a couple of newer Trompe L'oeil, a couple of decorative borders (even a Donna Dewberry who I have never been real fond of in the past but this book looks like it has some things in it I'd like), and the two furniture books. The most interesting one just based on internet shopping looked to be 'The House that Faux Built'.

    Parent
    Trompe L'oeil (none / 0) (#124)
    by shoephone on Fri Feb 26, 2010 at 12:11:57 PM EST
    takes a great deal of talent and planning. I really respect anyone who can pull it off. (I can't.) I used to have a bunch of large paperback books that were for decorative w/ latex paints. Marbelizing can look good with latex, but the glaze has to be just right... Don't be shy if you feel like posting any links to photos of your "finished products."

    Parent
    I have only seen a few things (none / 0) (#146)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Feb 27, 2010 at 08:03:04 AM EST
    Trompe L'oeil that covered a large area that I really liked.  I suppose if I want something that large and detailed I would probably want to frame a piece of artwork from someone who was a better artist than I am.  I do like small things though like a faux window.  We painted the main area of our house a flat sage green.  The house was built in all "country" colors in the mid 80's so we had a lot of country blue and mauve to deal with when we bought it.  I also like green things and to grow things and notice that in Alabama, because almost nothing eats daffodil bulbs and they survive the heat of summer and bloom next year, they are the Alabama bulb flower and people put one or two in strange place all over their yards like little presents that open.  I'm thinking about doing a few daffodils along the floor mouldings imitating that Alabama habit.  And then I have the standard over the fireplace mantle with the big mirror slapped over it.  I would like to do something with that space in perhaps decorative bordering.  Something to freshen it up that doesn't lead to more and more dust crannies if I can.

    Parent
    The Summit was a success... (none / 0) (#35)
    by BigElephant on Thu Feb 25, 2010 at 08:13:02 PM EST
    I actually had a couple of friends who listened to the summit today at their jobs.  The thing they came away with out of it was, and I near-quote, "The proposed bill sounds pretty close to what both parties want".  They got the impression that there are just some loose ends to tie-up.

    If the Summit gave that impression then I think it was worth it.  Because I think there will be more people called into question if nothing passes, given you were that close.

    Parent

    Sounds to me like a reason to kill the bill (none / 0) (#60)
    by lambert on Thu Feb 25, 2010 at 11:47:16 PM EST
    Not pass it.

    Parent
    Not to me... (none / 0) (#65)
    by BigElephant on Fri Feb 26, 2010 at 12:26:47 AM EST
    then again I'm not especially partisan -- although fairly liberal.  

    To much about Washington, and the pundits around DC are about who gets credit and who doesn't, not what is good policy.  

    Parent

    Neither am I (none / 0) (#71)
    by lambert on Fri Feb 26, 2010 at 08:09:59 AM EST
    I want both legacy parties abolished, since all they do is hand off the ball to each other.

    Parent
    Dawn Johnsen (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by squeaky on Thu Feb 25, 2010 at 09:28:49 PM EST
    The Senate Judiciary Committee Thursday postponed for the fourth time a vote on on the nomination of Dawn Johnsen to head the Justice Department Office of Legal Counsel because of the White House health care summit with members of Congress this morning.

    Committee chairman Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) said the health care summit, which several members of the panel attended, was an "extraordinary circumstance." Traditionally, panel members can only ask to hold over a nominee once.

    Any excuse is a good excuse. Note, however, that the Senate Judiciary Committee was able to find time today, in spite of the healthcare summit, to pass a witness protection bill the DOJ sought. Oh, and the SJC also found time to approve the nominations of two US Attorney candidates, both of whom were just nominated by President Obama two months ago on December 24th. But they just couldn't find time for Dawn Johnsen, who was tapped by Obama to lead the OLC over a year ago, before Obama was even inaugurated.

    [snip]

    But the Senate, whether the Judiciary Committee or having 60 votes to obtain cloture on the floor, has never really been the hold up on confirmation of Dawn Johnsen; the failure has been an utter lack of desire by the Obama White House to confirm their own nominee.

    bmaz

    Sounds shady... (none / 0) (#84)
    by kdog on Fri Feb 26, 2010 at 09:00:05 AM EST
    real shady.  There must be some real dirt beyond our dirtiest imaginations the powers that be don't want to see the light of day.

    Parent
    Pelosi brought up PO to Obama! (5.00 / 1) (#68)
    by observed on Fri Feb 26, 2010 at 06:04:06 AM EST
    I read in the other thread that Pelosi was just horrible. HA.. SHE bluntly reminded Obama that he had been in favor of the public option one year ago as the best way to contain costs.
    I didn't' see anyone mention that here, yet.

    It is impossible for (1.00 / 1) (#83)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Feb 26, 2010 at 08:58:58 AM EST
    Pelosi to be anything but horrible.

    But I don't remember her dissing Obama.

    Parent

    Washington Post kills Quinn's print column (none / 0) (#1)
    by esmense on Thu Feb 25, 2010 at 05:19:25 PM EST
    The thankful end of an era. According to Politico, "The Washington Post has decided to no longer run Sally Quinn's "The Party" column in the print edition of the paper, following an uproar after she used it to weigh in on a family spat last Friday."

    I actually read that column, the first thing I had read by her in much more than a decade, and was shocked -- I wondered if senility hadn't set in. I couldn't imagine even "the Village" caring about the self-involved prattling of someone so convince that she and her family and friends are the center of the universe.

    Really stunning (none / 0) (#37)
    by gyrfalcon on Thu Feb 25, 2010 at 08:48:01 PM EST
    She wasn't even "settling scores," as somebody said.  It wasn't that interesting.  She was just using the pages of the Washington Post to explain to far-flung family and friends why the weddings of two other family members ended up being on the same day.

    It's like the Post is just her own personal FaceBoook page, for heaven's sake.  The self-involvement is breathtaking.

    And what editor approved that for publication anyway?

    Parent

    It really was off the wall (none / 0) (#44)
    by esmense on Thu Feb 25, 2010 at 09:16:30 PM EST
    and hard to believe that any editor could justify printing it.

    Parent
    Gene Lyons of the Arkansas (none / 0) (#51)
    by hairspray on Thu Feb 25, 2010 at 11:10:03 PM EST
    Democrat outed her long ago.  It was in "The Hunting of the President" as I recall.  Its amazing that she is still viable.

    Parent
    Oh, we've all had her number (none / 0) (#53)
    by gyrfalcon on Thu Feb 25, 2010 at 11:30:42 PM EST
    long before Gene Lyons's book.  "HotP" is one of the truly great nonfiction books of all time, I think, but he didn't discover Sally Quinn for the moron she is.

    I always had a lot of respect for Ben Bradlee, until he got tangled up with her, and has stayed tangled.  It's one of those marriages that really does make me seriously question the integrity of the other party.

    Parent

    I'm even going to give (none / 0) (#111)
    by brodie on Fri Feb 26, 2010 at 09:54:44 AM EST
    a back of the hand slap at Bradlee.  Okay, for a brief period he had journalistic glory with Watergate (though clearly he wouldn't have acted unless he got the green light from upper management).  

    But then he got big headed and wrote a pretty awful and dishonest book claiming to be chummier with JFK than he probably was, putting language in Kennedy's mouth that some, who knew both, thought sounded more like the salty-tongued Bradley.  Good for Jackie for cutting off all communication with this snake after that one.

    Then later Bradlee's (and the WaPo's) sucking up to the Reagan admin and the CIA with plenty of soft coverage on what should have been the paper's second Watergate period of glory with Iran-Contra.

    Curious fellow with a curious deep background himself as he came up quickly through the ranks, almost as fast as Sally did.

    Parent

    Jeralyn, are you following the Darrent Williams... (none / 0) (#2)
    by magster on Thu Feb 25, 2010 at 05:21:08 PM EST
    ... murder trial?  Judge Habas had put two witnesses in jail for refusing to testify, and the prosecution is in jeopardy.  Do you know if these witnesses testified at a preliminary hearing, which testimony might come in under Rule 804?  Is there an exception to double jeopardy if the prosecution can prove witness intimidation?

    Can't cover that trial (none / 0) (#5)
    by Jeralyn on Thu Feb 25, 2010 at 05:38:51 PM EST
    at least not now. I can't have it discussed here either, sorry.

    Parent
    More CNN (none / 0) (#4)
    by waldenpond on Thu Feb 25, 2010 at 05:38:35 PM EST
    Erick Erickson (Redstate) is on saying the people would have liked it if the conference had delved more deeply into the 'constitutionality' of the bill.  Scary stuff.

    Right, should have predicted that. (5.00 / 0) (#7)
    by observed on Thu Feb 25, 2010 at 05:46:38 PM EST
    It's the ol' wrestling with a pig aphorism at work.


    Parent
    Much better analysis (none / 0) (#24)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Feb 25, 2010 at 06:58:33 PM EST
    I don't know how this ended (5.00 / 0) (#25)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Feb 25, 2010 at 06:59:41 PM EST
    here. It was a response to Ben Stein not being able to think critically :)

    Parent
    Im sure he would have (none / 0) (#77)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Feb 26, 2010 at 08:52:18 AM EST
    then they could have whined that constitutional law professor Obama was being professorial.


    Parent
    they and (5.00 / 1) (#78)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Feb 26, 2010 at 08:52:53 AM EST
    of course the peanut gallery here too.


    Parent
    Captain, I am on your team. (none / 0) (#96)
    by KeysDan on Fri Feb 26, 2010 at 09:30:21 AM EST
    President Obama was impressive.  His professorial demeanor clearly outdistanced the teaching assistant behaviors of the Republicans.  Moreover, the Republican's call for a "blank page"  was more than matched with the blank look on their faces. But then, Republicans are at a distinct disadvantage in that they are innately opposed to government programs, especially when out of power.  Without fact checking, it is my further opinion that the President was wrong on this statement: "this is not political theater".  Indeed, the play we were treated to should safely permit the long overdue jettisoning of that center stage bipartisanship.  Having dealt with the Republicans, the real task remains: dealing with himself and fellow Democrats to do the right thing for Americans.

    Parent
    absolutely (none / 0) (#109)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Feb 26, 2010 at 09:50:08 AM EST
    but I dont think he was wrong.  I think the told a white lie.
    he knows better than anyone what yesterday was.

    Parent
    I'm crazy busy too (none / 0) (#6)
    by andgarden on Thu Feb 25, 2010 at 05:43:36 PM EST
    Just one of those weeks, I guess.

    Ben Stein? The qualifications required (none / 0) (#8)
    by esmense on Thu Feb 25, 2010 at 05:57:18 PM EST
    to comment on matters of national import on the country's serious "news" channels are pretty hard to discern.

    Look him up (none / 0) (#39)
    by gyrfalcon on Thu Feb 25, 2010 at 08:55:59 PM EST
    It's hard to believe, I know, but he started out in life as an attorney, worked for the FTC, was a speech writer for Nixon and then Gerald Ford, and more recently has been a professor of law at Pepperdine.

    Parent
    and starred in (none / 0) (#72)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Feb 26, 2010 at 08:37:08 AM EST
    Ferris Buellers day off

    Parent
    Starred in (none / 0) (#82)
    by CST on Fri Feb 26, 2010 at 08:57:44 AM EST
    might be a bit of a stretch.  Appeared in.  Although he's probably got the most quoted line of the movie.

    Parent
    exactly (none / 0) (#85)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Feb 26, 2010 at 09:00:10 AM EST
    quote one other line from that movie

    Parent
    "Cameron is so tight... (none / 0) (#87)
    by kdog on Fri Feb 26, 2010 at 09:05:04 AM EST
    if you stuck a piece of coal up his arse, in a week you'd have a diamond."

    "You're Abe Froman, the sausage king of Chicago?"

    I could go on...:)

    Parent

    I should have said (none / 0) (#88)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Feb 26, 2010 at 09:06:05 AM EST
    anyone but you quote another line from that movie.

    Parent
    hah! (none / 0) (#90)
    by CST on Fri Feb 26, 2010 at 09:20:18 AM EST
    kdog took the good ones.

    "I recall, central park in fall..."

    Yes I realize that's kind of cheating.

    "nine times"; "nine times?"; "nine times"

    Parent

    the only thing I remember about that movie (none / 0) (#92)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Feb 26, 2010 at 09:23:08 AM EST
    aside from Stein was the house.
    which I want.


    Parent
    the car (none / 0) (#99)
    by CST on Fri Feb 26, 2010 at 09:31:37 AM EST
    I definitely wanted.

    And the boys of course - when I was 10.

    I loved that movie.  I never managed to make my "hookie" days count that much.

    I don't know all the lines, but I know pretty much every scene.

    Parent

    Who could?... (none / 0) (#102)
    by kdog on Fri Feb 26, 2010 at 09:37:01 AM EST
    No way you can squeeze all that action into one day of hookie...a Cubs game, the Sears tower, museum, stealing Abe Froman's reservations, the parade with "Twist & Shout" performance...impossible!

    Parent
    And of course.... (none / 0) (#97)
    by kdog on Fri Feb 26, 2010 at 09:31:26 AM EST
    "They think he's a righteous dude."

    I must be slippin' because I don't remember the whole "dweebs, wasteoids, sportos" preamble to that quote from Rooney's secretary:)

    Parent

    and the the single (none / 0) (#119)
    by CoralGables on Fri Feb 26, 2010 at 10:16:59 AM EST
    greatest recipe name ever from TBS's Dinner and a Movie:

    Can't Go to School, I Falafels

    Parent

    Stein's comment (none / 0) (#9)
    by Zorba on Thu Feb 25, 2010 at 06:08:25 PM EST
    has to be one of the stupidest things I've heard on television "news" programming.  TV news is dumbed down, print journalism has been dumbed down (although there are at least a few papers that still do a reasonable job at least most of the time).  And the scary thing is that many of the electorate are getting most of their news from networks like CNN and, worse, Fox News.

    I don't have the exact (none / 0) (#108)
    by brodie on Fri Feb 26, 2010 at 09:43:45 AM EST
    quote, but even dumber -- because he's a more prominent and influential commentator than the whiney annoying Stein -- was the summing up of the event by one David Gergen on CNN.

    In essence, he said that it was the Greatest Day for Republicans since Ford replaced Nixon.  Something ridiculous like that.

    More media stupidity:  Over on Msnbc, Tweety Matthews implying that Obama was impolite (!) in referring to the Repubs assembled only by their first names and not their titles of Senator, Congressman.

    This from the guy who makes millions a year in interrupting and rudely talking over his guests.

    Parent

    Matthews is probably still smarting (none / 0) (#125)
    by oculus on Fri Feb 26, 2010 at 12:22:36 PM EST
    from the President's remark it isn't a good idea to "start all over again" because then FOX news and MSNBC would have a field day all over again.

    Parent
    Ben Stein (none / 0) (#10)
    by tworivers on Thu Feb 25, 2010 at 06:08:49 PM EST
    is so incredibly smug/awful

    He should go back to his specialty: parlaying his monotonously drab speaking voice into lucrative acting gigs.

    Whether it be Visine pitch man or Ferris Bueller's deadly dull teacher, no one does boring like Ben Stein.

    do we have to tell them again that Red States (5.00 / 2) (#12)
    by DFLer on Thu Feb 25, 2010 at 06:16:19 PM EST
    on average receive more Federal dollars than they pay in taxes and Blue States pay more in taxes than they receive in Federal dollars?

    Parent
    LOL! (none / 0) (#15)
    by Zorba on Thu Feb 25, 2010 at 06:37:52 PM EST
    "Bueller?  Bueller?  Bueller?"  "Anybody?  Anybody?"  Definitely Stein's forte.  That and "Win Ben Stein's Money"- best thing he's ever done, and he should have stuck with that.

    Parent
    Oddly there are some websites (none / 0) (#48)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Feb 25, 2010 at 10:14:01 PM EST
    that have the same opinion of Al Franken...

    Parent
    You've earned your moniker (none / 0) (#79)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Feb 26, 2010 at 08:53:19 AM EST
    lol

    Parent
    Yes, but his performance in the Senate (none / 0) (#145)
    by Kent Allard on Sat Feb 27, 2010 at 08:02:17 AM EST
    hasn't been objectionable, unless you're a Republican who voted for contractors protecting rapists overseas, I'm sure there are some blogs that defend said Republicans..........

    Ben Stein, OTOH, got kicked out of the NYT because of his shilling for a company that does 'free credit reports', so if you can find when and where Franken got kicked off a columnist or writing gig for similar reasons, that would be interesting.........

    Parent

    Jonathan Chiat at TNR seems disappointed (none / 0) (#14)
    by esmense on Thu Feb 25, 2010 at 06:36:40 PM EST
    with the summit. He has a post up entitled "Why you can't discuss health care with the GOP."

    Why did anyone think you could "discuss" health care with the GOP? All the summit did was present the Republicans with a nice platform for presenting, in an environment that provides the impression that they are to be taken seriously, all their ill-founded criticisms and really bad but somewhat plausibly packaged (in a marketing sense) ideas -- while, at the same time, forcing the Democrats to do the much harder job of both explaining and FACTUALLY defending their ideas while also refuting the Republicans' arguments and emotional assertions.

    The Republicans understand that crafting an effective marketing message doesn't have much to do with facts or "truth," but instead requires grabbing attention, stoking emotion, and building identification. This summit gave them an opportunity to do all three things.

    Why, when a couple of centuries of advertising and politics prove otherwise, do Dems keep thinking that when it comes to the art of persuasion intellect easily trumps emotion?

    You can't counter an effective fear campaign with little more than the President's confidence that he is the smartest guy in the room.

    Do the Democrats even prepare or (none / 0) (#17)
    by observed on Thu Feb 25, 2010 at 06:40:40 PM EST
    rehearse their lines?


    Parent
    They need to just pass something (none / 0) (#26)
    by esmense on Thu Feb 25, 2010 at 07:09:02 PM EST
    Just get on with it. Stop trying to cater to the Republicans, show up the Republicans, or convince the American people that they are encouraging bi-partisanship. If their ideas work, no one will care if they were "bi-partisan." If they genuinely believed in their ideas they would pass something instead of wasting so much time in on tactics that ultimate accomplish nothing more than demonstrating the fact that they fear the political consequences of enacting their ideas.

    If they think they've got a good plan for the American people, pass it and let the chips fall where they may. People are dying.

    Parent

    The problem is, this bill won't work. (5.00 / 2) (#50)
    by MyLeftMind on Thu Feb 25, 2010 at 10:39:09 PM EST
    Although it has some excellent ideas such as insurance reforms, purchasing across state lines, reducing prescription prices, and the exchange, it's still healthcare-welfare and it forces us to give our money to the insurance industry that already owns Congress.

    In the long run, we'll have better provisions like coverage of pre-existing conditions, but we'll pay much, much more than what we'd pay for health CARE instead of insurance coverage.

    People are dying, but they'd be much better of with Medicare than insurance coverage. And the country would be better off without this behemoth.


    Parent

    Amen, brother (none / 0) (#55)
    by gyrfalcon on Thu Feb 25, 2010 at 11:39:09 PM EST
    The insurance companies are totally useless middlemen who contribute nothing to the system, they just suck money out of the system and get between people and their health care providers.

    This whole idiotic debate over this absurd bill stands as proof of that, IMHO.

    Parent

    Why on earth would you think... (none / 0) (#61)
    by lambert on Thu Feb 25, 2010 at 11:49:28 PM EST
    that the Dems have "a good plan for the American people" on their agenda? The plan is a bailout for the insurance companies, plain and simple.

    Parent
    "rehearse their lines?" (none / 0) (#74)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Feb 26, 2010 at 08:41:33 AM EST
    thats great.

    really. should they do dress rehearsals or could they do it in casual clothes?


    Parent

    If they have your attitude, they (none / 0) (#114)
    by observed on Fri Feb 26, 2010 at 10:03:08 AM EST
    will never win a debate.
    Reagan practically sealed the 1980 election with one line, which he had rehearsed and prepared.
    Democrats need to take the threatical aspects of politics seriously if they want to win.

    Parent
    They won that election (5.00 / 1) (#137)
    by jondee on Fri Feb 26, 2010 at 04:58:10 PM EST
    by cutting deals with the Iranians, imo.

    Parent
    really (none / 0) (#117)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Feb 26, 2010 at 10:11:18 AM EST
    I have been doing ok with you

    Parent
    Ouch. See Lloyd Bentsen. (none / 0) (#126)
    by oculus on Fri Feb 26, 2010 at 12:24:43 PM EST
    In your own mind. (none / 0) (#131)
    by observed on Fri Feb 26, 2010 at 03:14:52 PM EST
    You're not making much sense to me.

    Parent
    thats a good sign (5.00 / 1) (#132)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Feb 26, 2010 at 03:18:30 PM EST
    as far as I can see.
    you can give me a "2" rating if it makes you feel better.

    I know it always makes me feel better when you guys do that.

    badge of honor and all that.


    Parent

    I'm with you (5.00 / 3) (#135)
    by Socraticsilence on Fri Feb 26, 2010 at 04:40:00 PM EST
    its just getting sick watching people who should know better argue that we should kill the current Bills and start over as if they don't realize that doing so means noone will even attempt to achieve reform for another decade.

    Parent
    they dont care as long (5.00 / 4) (#136)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Feb 26, 2010 at 04:46:02 PM EST
    as Obama is denied a win.  its worse than a republican tactic.  at least they are honest.

    Parent
    You are on a tear, Capt. (none / 0) (#133)
    by shoephone on Fri Feb 26, 2010 at 03:20:28 PM EST
    I can smell your bitterness from here. Anger off the rails. Don't know what's going on with you the last couple of days, but I hope it's gets better. Sincerely.

    Parent
    simple (5.00 / 3) (#134)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Feb 26, 2010 at 03:26:59 PM EST
    I sick of republican enabling under the veneer of progressivism.

    and I am calling it out.

    Parent

    I dont know about that.. (5.00 / 3) (#138)
    by jondee on Fri Feb 26, 2010 at 05:02:14 PM EST
    this place has kinda been bitterness-central since sometime in 08.

    Parent
    it was one thing (5.00 / 1) (#139)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Feb 26, 2010 at 05:11:00 PM EST
    when it was just ambient bitterness.  when it starts undermining the passage of something like this healthcare bill it becomes something else.


    Parent
    Ambient Bitterness? (5.00 / 2) (#141)
    by squeaky on Fri Feb 26, 2010 at 06:03:10 PM EST
    Perhaps your perspective has changed enough to see the extent of the bitterness here, and only now notice it in its fullness. Kind of like the ex smoker who all of a sudden notices that being around smokers makes your clothes and hair smell like cigarette smoke.

    From my perspective I agree with jondee, TL has been bitterness-central since sometime in '08.


    Parent

    Sen Gillibrand answers question on the PO (none / 0) (#19)
    by nycstray on Thu Feb 25, 2010 at 06:45:00 PM EST
    it's the second video about 5 or 5 and a half min in

    Um, so what (none / 0) (#57)
    by gyrfalcon on Thu Feb 25, 2010 at 11:43:06 PM EST
    did she have to say?

    Parent
    She talked about Medicare for All re:PO (none / 0) (#63)
    by nycstray on Thu Feb 25, 2010 at 11:55:44 PM EST
    vote count etc. I found it interesting since she was one of the original letter signers and I knew what her position was. Actually, all 3 vids are good to watch for those unfamiliar with her.

    Parent
    Here's a random snippet of (none / 0) (#32)
    by observed on Thu Feb 25, 2010 at 07:55:22 PM EST
    text from Obama's summit today:

    "We can have a philosophical disagreement in terms of how much insurance regulation is appropriate," the president also said. "We agree there has to be some, what are the specific ones you have to object to. Pre-existing conditions is one we theoretically all agree on. Let's not pretend that any form of regulation is some onerous burden that's going to result in some terrible thing that's going to happen to consumers."

    I'd say he shows that he learned how to talk like a Senator:) yawn

    "Consumer" is such a vile talking point (5.00 / 2) (#62)
    by lambert on Thu Feb 25, 2010 at 11:51:00 PM EST
    1. I'm a patient and citizen, not a "consumer"

    2. "Consumer" assumes that the market for health care isn't broken. But it is.


    Parent
    It really is vile (5.00 / 2) (#64)
    by nycstray on Fri Feb 26, 2010 at 12:04:14 AM EST
    I also hate when they use it re food recalls. They worry about "consumers" as in they want us to keep handing over our money for their poison. Hello! Quit make PEOPLE sick/dead. And I would also prefer citizen to consumer.

    Parent
    Hey, did Obama explicitly (none / 0) (#34)
    by observed on Thu Feb 25, 2010 at 08:06:48 PM EST
    mention reconciliation in his closing remarks?
    I know he said the Democrats would move forward, but that could simply mean an ultimatum to the House Dems to pass the Senate bill.
    I didn't find the answer at TPM.

    I don't think he did (none / 0) (#43)
    by gyrfalcon on Thu Feb 25, 2010 at 09:16:05 PM EST
    actually.  But there was a lot of pissing and moaning from Republicans about "ramming the bill through" via reconciliation, and Obama at least nodded to that when he said something about "doing what we have to do" about the bill if the Gopers don't demonstrate they intend to play ball.

    And I actually don't think he's in any position to issue any ultimatums to Nancy Pelosi and the House Democrats.  WHether he can break down their resistance or not is another matter, but it won't be through an ultimatum.

    Parent

    Look, suppose you're correct. (none / 0) (#67)
    by observed on Fri Feb 26, 2010 at 05:49:24 AM EST
    The political calculation is that the more Obama extends himself, the bigger the political loss if no HCR passes. Yesterday's summit, by its mere existence, gave the Republicans even more reason to stick to their guns.
    If I can rephrase what you said, it's almost as if Obama is begging for Republican votes.
    Further, he believes that he personally can break a logjam that no one else can.
    My question would be: why??? He would be serving the public if he had been driving a tractor over the  Republicans from day one.
    Want Republicans to start acting sane? First, take away some more of their seats. When there are fewer than 40 Republicans in the Senate, you'll see some sanity emerge.

    Parent
    He did put reconciliation on the (none / 0) (#69)
    by observed on Fri Feb 26, 2010 at 06:11:21 AM EST
    table when he said that Americans favor a majority vote on health care. I don't think that was in his closing statement though.

    Parent
    does that mean the bet (none / 0) (#75)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Feb 26, 2010 at 08:43:35 AM EST
    is off


    Parent
    Ok, if you win, I watch District 9 (none / 0) (#76)
    by observed on Fri Feb 26, 2010 at 08:51:27 AM EST
    again.

    Parent
    now way pal (none / 0) (#86)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Feb 26, 2010 at 09:01:28 AM EST
    you wanted to bet.
    put your money where your mouth is.

    Parent
    All three cablers (none / 0) (#38)
    by gyrfalcon on Thu Feb 25, 2010 at 08:52:00 PM EST
    but CNN was the worst, were absolutely disgraceful.  They set aside hours of programming to cover the health care meeting because it's so incredibly important and crucial that all other things have to fade away for a day-- and then constantly, constantly break away not just for commercials but for moronic blathering by their reporters and commentators just when somebody's about to say something promising you might want to actually hear, like maybe Jay Rockefeller.

    ANd then CSpan shifted it to CSpan 3, which only a fraction of the country gets on their systems, and for quite some time there was literally nobody actually showing what was going on because all four nets were doing something else.

    Fer cryin' out loud, either it's worth covering-- or it's not.

    Ron Fournier's analysis for AP of (none / 0) (#49)
    by oculus on Thu Feb 25, 2010 at 10:38:32 PM EST
    today's health care summit:

    link

    Query:  does this conclusion make sense in light of the analysis?  Don't think so.

    But at the end of the day, Obama seemed resigned to waging a procedural fight in the Senate to steamroll Republicans, who otherwise can use their 41 votes to curb any legislation.

    Such a brass-knuckled tactic could backfire on Democrats. Win and they get called arrogant. Lose and they're labeled arrogant failures.

    [emphasis added.]

    In a strange way, the analysis (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by MO Blue on Thu Feb 25, 2010 at 11:22:40 PM EST
    makes sense. The Dems have needlessly backed themselves into a position where they are damned if they do and damned if they don't.

    Had they drafted good legislation back in the summer and passed it with just Democratic support they possibly could have the public behind them. Instead they made back room deals with the health insurance industries, let Baucus diddle around for months, included provisions that are widely unpopular and removed provisions that would have been extremely popular. So now they are in a position where they will have to force unpopular legislation through with only Democratic support or fail to pass any legislation after wasting a year on the issue.

    Parent

    Don't think the analysis works... (none / 0) (#106)
    by BigElephant on Fri Feb 26, 2010 at 09:42:53 AM EST
    If they lose, then they will be deemed as failures by all.  But if they win there will be some that think they are arrogant bullies.  But these are the same people who hate Dems as it is.  You're not changing their opinion.  But I think you actually win back quite a few independents who feel like the Dems need to do what they put them in office to do.  And I think getting this behind will help them, as passed legislation usually looks better than when you're in the middle of debating it.

    Parent
    What did the single payer advocates have to say? (none / 0) (#58)
    by lambert on Thu Feb 25, 2010 at 11:45:22 PM EST
    Oh, wait...

    Dennis K (none / 0) (#80)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Feb 26, 2010 at 08:57:30 AM EST
    was on FNC and he said he would not vote for it.

    Parent
    The media (none / 0) (#89)
    by CST on Fri Feb 26, 2010 at 09:10:58 AM EST
    decided that the health care summit was "theater".  I am pretty certain they decided that long before the summit took place.  Which essentially means that's what it's become.

    I did like the line from Jon Stewart (no i didn't watch the 7 hour summit) -

    Eric Cantor - Insurance would be cheaper if we got the gov't out entirely.

    Obama - "We could set up a system where food was cheaper than it is right now if we just eliminated meat inspectors, and we eliminated any regulations on how food is distributed and how it's stored. I'll bet in terms of drug prices we would definitely reduce prescription drug prices if we didn't have a drug administration that makes sure that we test the drugs so that they don't kill us, but we don't do that"

    I thought that was very well put, it explains the role of government, and why it's important.  I am glad to see someone do that finally.  I think the food/healthcare analogy works pretty well.  And yea, Obama really doesn't like Cantor.  But the look on his face when Obama said that was pretty priceless.

    the Obama Cantor (5.00 / 1) (#91)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Feb 26, 2010 at 09:21:26 AM EST
    moments were the best of the day.
    and the village was not the audience.  last night I watched some of what I missed yesterday.  I thought it was great.  it was substantive.  it was intelligent, at least as far as Obamas responses, and it was timed well.  

    lots of people are paying attention now.  if he had done this months ago it would just have been lost in the town hall tea party media frenzy.

    Parent

    I disagree on the timing -- (none / 0) (#98)
    by brodie on Fri Feb 26, 2010 at 09:31:34 AM EST
    the TPiers had the media field to themselves and after a couple of months of confrontational, angry demonstrating, with some helpful cushy coverage from a suspect press, they actually seemed to move a segment of the public against reform.  

    Meanwhile, the clueless Obama admin was sitting on its hands, naively hoping for a breakthrough with Snowe, Grassley et al, not realizing the other side was just stalling, hoping to run out the clock.

    Parent

    I wonder about that (none / 0) (#101)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Feb 26, 2010 at 09:36:51 AM EST
    I think we can agree that in spite of all evidence to the contrary in his apparent handling of this he is a pretty smart guy.
    I wonder if you ever really expected to get any republican support.  my answer to that would be no because I knew he would not.  and if I knew it he probably knew it.
    I suspect he knew this would be the outcome and the whole bipartisan thing was just a rope a dope.  just a ruse to make the press talk about how much he was trying to be bipartisan instead of how he was planning to use reconciliation because the blowback from that is going to be substantial anyway.
    if it had looked like he planned it all along it would have been way worse.
    I think the timing was good.   with everyone watching he made the effort, now they can move on.

    Parent
    The timing (none / 0) (#113)
    by jbindc on Fri Feb 26, 2010 at 10:02:20 AM EST
    Not good - he should have done this last summer, when a majority of thepeople were still behind him and "the plan".

    No one besides junkies was paying attention yesterday.

    Parent

    really (none / 0) (#116)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Feb 26, 2010 at 10:10:31 AM EST
    you think that the fact that it lead every news broadcast and was the non stop subject on cable news was only seen by junkies.

    as usual you have it backwards.  if he had done it months ago no one but junkies would have been watching.

    Parent

    "As usual" (none / 0) (#118)
    by jbindc on Fri Feb 26, 2010 at 10:14:49 AM EST
    Riiigght....

    And how many people watched the non-stop coverage?  

    People are over the blathering - they were working yesterday (if they are lucky), and then were watching the Olympics.  they may have seen a blurb on the news, but "as usual" you are way off base if you think it was a game changer and is going to get people all excited and seeing the Republicans for what they are.

    It.Didn't.Change.One.Mind.

    Parent

    you really dont pay attention (none / 0) (#120)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Feb 26, 2010 at 10:24:14 AM EST
    I never said it would change a single mind.  it was not intended to do that.

    Parent
    It didn't change one mind (none / 0) (#121)
    by jbindc on Fri Feb 26, 2010 at 10:29:53 AM EST
    of the public.  People who were inclined to agree with Obama and the Dems thought he did a great job and put the Republicans in their place.  People who were inclined to agree with Republicans, thought that they proved that that depsite what the Dems have been saying, the R's have put forth an alternative plan and they held their own with the preachy Obama.

    The rest of the country thinks they're all full of crap and didn't watch and didn't pay much attention to the reporting of the event.

    Parent

    so, you are agreeing with me? (none / 0) (#122)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Feb 26, 2010 at 11:03:19 AM EST
    and for the record how do you know what the rest of the country does or thinks?  thats a pretty good trick


    Parent
    From the highlights I saw (none / 0) (#93)
    by brodie on Fri Feb 26, 2010 at 09:26:54 AM EST
    last night, Obama was effective in rebutting several Goopers, including what I saw as a fairly righteous smackdown of Sore Loser McCain who was put in his place by O.

    To that extent, and in the sense that Obama used the proceedings to prove that Repubs just don't want to help Dems get meaningful HCR passed, I thought the whole thing was a worthwhile exercise for the admin in terms of educating the public.

    I just wish this had occurred many months ago.  Right now, after this 7-hour political teevee show and more than a year of making sausage in Congress on HCR, I think most people are now saying enough talk and let's get something decent passed.

    A six week timetable to finish up, as Obama mentioned in his closing statement, would seem about as much as the public will tolerate.  

    Parent

    I agree with everything but (none / 0) (#95)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Feb 26, 2010 at 09:28:09 AM EST
    the comment about the timing.
    if it had happened months ago it would have been lost and drowned out.

    lots of people are paying attention now.

    Parent

    two feet of snow (none / 0) (#94)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Feb 26, 2010 at 09:27:02 AM EST
    so weird (none / 0) (#100)
    by CST on Fri Feb 26, 2010 at 09:34:45 AM EST
    the weather this year.  We have gotten rain, rain, and more rain.  Almost no snow at all up here this winter.  While everyone to the south of us is getting feet upon feet of snow.

    It's been springlike all week.  And NY is getting snow...  I didn't even wear my winter coat today.

    Parent

    that was really about the "feet" (none / 0) (#104)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Feb 26, 2010 at 09:38:58 AM EST
    but yeah.  weird winter.  it has snowed more here in central IL than in, like, the last 5 winters.


    Parent
    oh, haha (none / 0) (#112)
    by CST on Fri Feb 26, 2010 at 09:56:47 AM EST
    I didn't ckick on the link first.

    Funny.

    But yea, weird.  We are usually at least 5-10 degrees colder than NY on any given day.  Nevermind D.C., etc...  But this winter has been decidedly backwards.  Not that I'm really complaining, I'm just about ready for spring anyway.  As long as snow stays on the mountains up north for the next month or so, I'm happy to have a little heat in Boston.

    Parent

    Yep... (none / 0) (#105)
    by kdog on Fri Feb 26, 2010 at 09:41:51 AM EST
    the hits just keep on comin'....shoveling out with banged-up ribs this morning bit the big one..we only got about 6 inches by me so far, the city got it worse.

    All to come to work and twiddle thumbs...dead as a doornail again.  Beats wasting a sick or personal day though...those are for the summertime!  And I've got y'all to keep me entertained:)

    Parent

    relating deferring health maintenance to deferring car maintenance. While your point is right on the money of course, I did want to pass on a story about car maintenance that relates...

    My wife had an employee who never changed the oil in her car. She bought an Accord brand new and never changed, or even topped-up, her oil. For 98,000 miles. Until finally the car broke down and it cost her about $1000 to fix it.

    As it turns out, that $1000 is less, actually, than it would have cost her to change her oil every 3000 miles. Not to mention it saved her, who knows, 50? hours of her life sitting in Jiffy-Lubes that she could never have gotten back.

    And the car is still running like a top today...

    Parent

    Is this experiment repeatible w/ (none / 0) (#127)
    by oculus on Fri Feb 26, 2010 at 12:27:31 PM EST
    same results?  You first.

    Parent
    Ha! Not me. (none / 0) (#128)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Feb 26, 2010 at 12:42:43 PM EST
    I'm kinda weird about cars though. As long as my cars look good - clean, shiny, no dents, etc. - I have this contest with myself to keep them and see how many miles I can get on them.

    Traded my wife's car in about a year ago at 240k+ miles. The only reason we got her a new one is because the $1000 computer that runs the AC gave up the ghost. My car has 164k+ now.

    I remember as a kid how excited my dad and the whole family got when his odometer hit 100k. I think 100k was pretty unusual back then (the 60's).

    My kids haven't shown the same enthusiasm, even when my wife hit 200k...

    Parent

    That's amazing... (none / 0) (#129)
    by kdog on Fri Feb 26, 2010 at 12:44:07 PM EST
    never changed the oil?  Damn those Hondas are good.

    I remember when my oldest brother bought his first
    brand new car, a Toyota Camry.  He too never changed the oil, it crapped out at 40-something thousand, engine finished, not long after his last payment.  Never saw the road again.  I still bust his chops about it to this day.  

    BTW...I hear 3000 is a scam of sorts, totally unnecessary.  I try to do it every 5-6k.  

    Parent

    Yeah, I try to do it every 5k or so. (none / 0) (#130)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Feb 26, 2010 at 12:57:55 PM EST
    Around every time the odometer ends with a 5000 or a 10000. Easy to remember. Once or twice I've gone as long as 10k, although I added a quart or two during that time...

    Parent
    Bleh! Living with Glenn Beck (none / 0) (#103)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Feb 26, 2010 at 09:38:20 AM EST
    There was a diary up at Orange about Glenn Beck cosponsoring a military charity event.  He isn't, that is a rumor that seems to have been generated by him.  He is speaking at it though and has made a claim that he will not allow this event to lose one dime (cosponsor).  I sent a vile MT email yesterday.  I called today and was put through to the executive director of the event.  The charity in my book has a track record now of officially being apolitical since Hillary Clinton spoke at such an event for them in the past and now Glenn Beck is.  I did not know that Hillary had called them too and they said come on down, luv to have ya.  They took hundreds and hundreds of whining calls that time too. He reminded me that Beck brings with him exposure to 4 million viewers as well and those viewers are historically very very supportive of military charities.  Yes astute retired Air Force officer, please remind me that a large section of my daily friends would feel good if the military just went and effed itself.  Also, Beck enters this situation through his frequent visits and frienship with a wounded special forces soldier who when Beck told him he would do any favor he asked, then asked Beck to do this.  I hate sharing the United States with Glenn Beck, now excuse me as I go to my room to pout.  Spoiler alert, I will be slamming the door.