Friday Morning Open Thread

Depending on what Bart Stupak gains in his hardball negotiations with the White House, I think it is better for the health bills to pass than not to pass. But it is not a big deal imo. If it fails, it's not a big loss on policy. I am not even sure it is a loss on the politics frankly.

In terms of progressive activists, it is clear that they have been completely rolled in this process and were given absolutely nothing. The good parts of the bill (Medicaid expansion, theoretically, the better regulations, though I have no confidence in the enforcement mechanisms) were not controversial and should not be seen as concessions to progressives. Indeed, I expect they would be passed separately if the Senate bill fails. In short, progressives got nothing in the political bargaining.

In my view, they should not lift a finger to get these bills passed. If progressives EVER want to wield even a smidgen of influence, they have to be prepared to sit on the sidelines if they do not get what they want. Let the winners in this bill do the work for getting it passed. It's their bill after all. Not progressives.

This is an Open Thread.

< Asking Progressives To Lobby For The Senate Health Bill | Obama Advisers to Recommend 9/11 Military Tribunal Trials >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    HCR is not a suicide pact. (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by robotalk on Fri Mar 05, 2010 at 11:24:46 AM EST
    And a mandate without a public option is political suicide.  

    Political Suicide & Corporate Empowerment (5.00 / 1) (#113)
    by norris morris on Fri Mar 05, 2010 at 05:45:34 PM EST
    Actually the Insurance Corporations will have it better than ever. Millions of new customers who are mandated to use them without any choice about going elsewhere for health coverage.

    Drug companies will reap windfall profits exceding the 77 billion made last year, and generics will  rarely reach the market. Drug importation is not allowed. Medicare may not negotiate for better prices, and the donut hole will be open for who know how long?

    The  chipping away of Women's rights by Stupak and Nelson in the House and Senate versions of HC bill will seriously inhibit Women from acting in their own behalf when making medical and moral decisions about abortion. Equal protection and freedom of choice have been limited to Women by a Democratic congress and inserted arbitrarily and callously. Constitutional protection belonging to Women is being seriously undermined by Democrats they elected to protect their rights.

    Pelosi  embraced The Council Of Catholic Bishops and invited them to make their speech condemning abortion. So Pelosi's bait and switch is one of the reasons Stupak felt emboldened, aside from all the other obvious implications.

    This Healthcare bill was not about abortion until this happened.

    Democrats By Suicide?  Imagine Obama running as a Republican for re-election in 2012?
    He really doesn't have to as his policies are basically Republican, but I doubt when he is up for re-election too many Democratic and independent voters will be there for him.

    Can we expect Lindsay Graham to be Obama's next pick for the Supreme Court?


    Republicans don't need a bigger tent (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by MyLeftMind on Fri Mar 05, 2010 at 12:16:51 PM EST
    They need a bigger closet.

    Another version of "fake but accurate?" (none / 0) (#24)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Mar 05, 2010 at 12:32:30 PM EST
    It's looking more and more like he is gay, but, for the record, on the night in question:
    Mike Johnston, the chief financial officer of Faces Nightclub would not confirm if the senator was spotted there.  "We had a management meeting with the management staff and none of the managers saw him and none of the staff we spoke with saw him. We can't confirm he was here, we can't confirm it," Johnston said.

    Ha (none / 0) (#33)
    by MyLeftMind on Fri Mar 05, 2010 at 12:57:06 PM EST
    Mike Johnston, the chief financial officer of Faces Nightclub: "We had a management meeting with the management staff..."

    Read: "Thank God we got to the employees before the news reporters did."


    Yep, probably so... (none / 0) (#38)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Mar 05, 2010 at 01:12:48 PM EST
    The Republican Tent (none / 0) (#114)
    by norris morris on Fri Mar 05, 2010 at 05:52:11 PM EST
    Just became bigger with the election of Obama.

    Now without a majority Republicans are running the show.

    Imagine what happens after the midterms with the timid Democrats when they are certain to get clobbered?

    We really won't be rolled any more than we've already been.  Throw most of these bums out as they are faux Democrats and deserve no better.


    Bill Clinton (none / 0) (#131)
    by Socraticsilence on Sat Mar 06, 2010 at 01:29:47 AM EST
    is often considered  the best Republican Pres since Ike.

    Of course he is (none / 0) (#133)
    by Yman on Sat Mar 06, 2010 at 07:39:48 AM EST
    ... by the "I'm more 'progressive' than you" types.

    Did you ever notice how they always try to deflect any criticism of Obama by bringing a Clinton (any Clinton will do) into it?

    "But Hillary ...", "But Bill ..."!!!

    It would be funny, ...

    ...if it weren't so transparent.


    Yes (none / 0) (#134)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Mar 06, 2010 at 07:43:46 AM EST
    it's the same thing the Bushies did too.

    Transparently (none / 0) (#139)
    by jondee on Sat Mar 06, 2010 at 03:01:17 PM EST
    revealing what: a deeply irrational, abiding hatred of the Clintons, or an acknowledgment that Obama and Clinton both represent the limits of how far things are allowed to go in the "progressive" direction?

    Whats wrong with using Clinton, Obama or whoever as historical examples?


    The first one (none / 0) (#140)
    by Yman on Sat Mar 06, 2010 at 04:08:37 PM EST
    Why?  Are you suggesting SS thinks that Clinton and Obama are pretty much the same - both representing the latter?  Strange ... since he frequently defends Obama, even says "Obama's done a pretty good job at this point", while consistently attacking the Clintons.

    Why do you ask?


    That's his business (none / 0) (#141)
    by jondee on Sat Mar 06, 2010 at 04:46:00 PM EST
    Im not his lawyer.

    He may be exaggerating the contrarian schtick just a tad to counterbalance the out-of-historical-context "Omg, how did Democrats suddenly sick so low.." stuff that flies around here frequently.


    Not his lawyer, ... (none / 0) (#142)
    by Yman on Sat Mar 06, 2010 at 05:06:41 PM EST
    ... but you can read his mind?



    THE EARLY DAZE, part 6 (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by Dadler on Fri Mar 05, 2010 at 12:30:41 PM EST
    Sit down (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by jondee on Fri Mar 05, 2010 at 02:08:35 PM EST
    with a pen and paper and open up a vein..

    Keep goin' at this rate, and soon you'll be like Balzac: cranking out five completed novellas a year, while slamming down fifty cups of coffee a day..

    But..strike while the iron's hot, by all means, my friend.

    Keep 'em comin'

    I have to reread a couple of these, you're getting ahead of me.


    i'm ahead of me, too (none / 0) (#75)
    by Dadler on Fri Mar 05, 2010 at 02:51:19 PM EST
    i'm just trying to stay focused, keep my mind on the larger shape i know it needs, so it doesn't spin outta control.  editing a life sucks.  too many pages.

    but it's only volume one.  ahem.

    seriously, this stuff has always influenced the fiction i've written and made a few bucks at (even a bad episode of SILK STALKINGS I wrote the story for, now that i think about it, was about broken family crap, which is funny), but i've never tried to really write a memoir.  we shall see, we shall see.

    thanks for the encouragement.  helps when i have to keep myself from feeling like it's self-indulgent drivel no one could possibly be entertained by.  


    I used to be a rep for a vendor (none / 0) (#80)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Mar 05, 2010 at 02:59:18 PM EST
    to Stu Segall Prods, spent quite a bit of time hanging around SS sets...

    San Diego's Finest (none / 0) (#87)
    by Dadler on Fri Mar 05, 2010 at 03:05:33 PM EST
    Stu Segall Prods HQ is only a few miles from my house, still cranking them out.

    Quite the little fiefdom (none / 0) (#97)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Mar 05, 2010 at 03:32:29 PM EST
    Stu has built down there...

    It's never "self indulgent" (none / 0) (#89)
    by jondee on Fri Mar 05, 2010 at 03:15:07 PM EST
    when so many other people in Indra's web connect with it.

    Just tell the truth..the blues, greens, reds, aquamarines, vermillions..If that's self indulgent, than the pretentious, repressed *%#@ who first used that term can go play ring toss with themselves at Dunkin' Donuts.


    Heck... (none / 0) (#90)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Fri Mar 05, 2010 at 03:18:18 PM EST
    ...I'm even entertained by the comments over there.  Especially SD's...

    Certainly not drivel in any manner or shape.


    Nice show, Sam. (none / 0) (#117)
    by MKS on Fri Mar 05, 2010 at 06:03:47 PM EST
    Well done! (none / 0) (#40)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Mar 05, 2010 at 01:15:12 PM EST
    TY (none / 0) (#47)
    by Dadler on Fri Mar 05, 2010 at 01:28:26 PM EST
    Public first-draft prototype testing.  I have no idea what I'm doing.

    Fooled me.... (none / 0) (#58)
    by kdog on Fri Mar 05, 2010 at 01:54:13 PM EST
    Find a publisher, I'll buy the first copy off the line....so much nicer to read bound pulp than read off a screen, and it lends a certain legitimacy missing from computerized text.

    i agree, and that's the plan (none / 0) (#60)
    by Dadler on Fri Mar 05, 2010 at 02:04:37 PM EST
    which is why i don't know how much more i'll put up, or how long i'll keep anything up. and why i say i have no idea what i'm doing. just a little ol' blog for now, i guess.  thanks for the props.

    All the luck in the world bro... (none / 0) (#62)
    by kdog on Fri Mar 05, 2010 at 02:12:12 PM EST
    scoring a deal.

    thanks (none / 0) (#64)
    by Dadler on Fri Mar 05, 2010 at 02:25:31 PM EST
    we'll see how it goes.  

    friends of our published their own travel book several years ago, after venturing halfway around the world in a VW van (LINK).  

    They did a little lecture tour of libraries, travel clubs, got local media coverage, and made a good penny selling books this way and through their website. not what i'm looking to do, but nice to know for that kind of thing it can be done sans publishing house b.s..  Our friends are insane though.  Good insane.  But gonzo.  


    is now fairly recognizable writer/filmmaker/etc for the BBC, and he recently wrote an autobiography about his formative years, of which I grace a few pages.

    Thankfully, he and I got along fine, and I didn't wince (too much) when I read what he wrote about me!

    Anyway, the "hook," I think, for most people who read the book, is that he's semi-known (in the UK anyway) and that the book really relevant - it's about his emotional/spiritual journey as a brown-skinned Muslim born in Pakistan and raised in the UK.

    Anyway, I'm rambling on, but I think yours, his, Helen Keller's and Anne Frank's autobiographies are the only ones I've ever read!


    I'm in good company (5.00 / 1) (#66)
    by Dadler on Fri Mar 05, 2010 at 02:26:59 PM EST

    My dad is mentioned in Jerry Stiller's autobio (none / 0) (#81)
    by Dadler on Fri Mar 05, 2010 at 02:59:41 PM EST
    But he swears Jerry has the story all wrong.  They grew up together and started acting together in New York.

    Hope the bedwetters are happy.... (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by kdog on Fri Mar 05, 2010 at 12:43:11 PM EST
    two kids are crying their eyes out on LI over air traffic control-gate.

    I'd just like to tell the kids it ain't your fault...its your country that has something very very wrong with it.  

    Never, ever blame the true culprit. (none / 0) (#26)
    by oculus on Fri Mar 05, 2010 at 12:44:25 PM EST
    Thought I was... (5.00 / 2) (#27)
    by kdog on Fri Mar 05, 2010 at 12:47:57 PM EST
    a nation enamored with pissing itself and making sure some poor soul pays for their embarassment at walking around in piss-stained pants.

    strongly disagree. Save it for the big ones. (none / 0) (#28)
    by oculus on Fri Mar 05, 2010 at 12:49:58 PM EST
    My daughter opines you should be against (none / 0) (#29)
    by oculus on Fri Mar 05, 2010 at 12:50:41 PM EST
    any kind of air traffic control.  Let 'em fly unrestricted.

    Nah... (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by kdog on Fri Mar 05, 2010 at 12:54:44 PM EST
    Even my freedom evangelical-arse sees the need for air trafiic control...just not a need to panic (or punish) when a controller brings their kid to work and lets 'em bark out a few radio transmissions...thats just insane.



    Reagan & Air Traffic control (none / 0) (#115)
    by norris morris on Fri Mar 05, 2010 at 05:59:26 PM EST
    Does anyone here remember when Reagan deregulated Air Traffic Control with a lotta other regulations that were designed to protect us?

    The kids in the Tower are an end result &  pathetic reminder of what  contempt for regulation and the inability to implement law leads to.  Nowhere.


    I thought the flipside.... (none / 0) (#132)
    by kdog on Sat Mar 06, 2010 at 07:34:24 AM EST
    Reagan threatened our safety and now the current bueracrats are, as the public yells "flog harder, I'm scared".

    In both cases we are left with a less experienced tower the next day. Who's in that seat now?  Not the starter, not the guy who worked it everyday and knows the in-n-outs of JFK.


    Get your Depends ready... (none / 0) (#31)
    by kdog on Fri Mar 05, 2010 at 12:52:09 PM EST
    get a load of this cat whose been flying without a license for over 10,000 flight hours.

    Obviously a license ain't all that important after all...he never crashed or anything.  Hope the man ain't too hard on him.


    Pilot's license, like motor vehicle (none / 0) (#34)
    by oculus on Fri Mar 05, 2010 at 01:01:12 PM EST
    DL, of course, does not assure the license holder is competent.

    I agree wholeheartedly.... (none / 0) (#36)
    by kdog on Fri Mar 05, 2010 at 01:09:54 PM EST
    just as lack of the piece of paper doesn't assure incompetence.

    Which naturally begs the question...why do we bother issuing licenses again?


    Because (none / 0) (#43)
    by cawaltz on Fri Mar 05, 2010 at 01:21:17 PM EST
    we don't want people to die because someone who clearly lacks even the most rudimentary knowledge of a vehicle got behind the wheel of a car.

    When caught law enforcement does actually do its best to ensure those that violate or are incapable of following the rules of the road do lose thier liscences. I for one am glad that a drunk that gets behind the wheel of a car has a liscense to yank(and yes I realize many of them flaute the law an STILL get behind the wheel of a car).


    Everybody has gotta get to work.... (none / 0) (#51)
    by kdog on Fri Mar 05, 2010 at 01:38:34 PM EST
    and in places without adequate public transport, which is most places in America, that means driving.  Whether the man likes it or not, regardless of past mistakes.

    I'm crazy, not stupid...I totally get it cawaltz, don't mind me:)

    Though I often wonder if we'd even notice the difference if we scrapped the whole thing, outside of ledger differences in state coffers for fees and fines associated with licensing of course.  And arrest numbers, obviously.  I'm not sold we'd notice a lick of difference on the actual roads.  I know of nobody who let a suspension or revocation keep them off the roads if they have someplace they gotta be...like work.


    I know you get what I'm saying! (none / 0) (#57)
    by cawaltz on Fri Mar 05, 2010 at 01:52:16 PM EST
    You've got a wide libretarian streak but I have never seen you as a complete anarchist. I get a kick out of your posts and most times find myself nodding my head in agreement with you. I actually agree with you that the brouhaha over the children is a bit much. Admonish the guy that in the future such behavior is no longer allowed and tell him to play air traffic controller with the kids at home(because allowing him to allow his kids opens up the idea that anyone can do so and the results could be less then optimal). In this instance no one was hurt, just insure there is no instance in the future where someone can be hurt and be done with it. Suspending the guy when he was there directly supervising them and there was no accident seems like overkill. It seems to me the appropriate action should have been to just say that only someone actually hired by air traffic control can direct air traffic control and leave it at that.

    I feel bad for the kids. They were directly being supervised by an adult and thought they were doing a "good job" and Daddy is now in trouble. That's a pretty big weight.


    It's something that always... (none / 0) (#59)
    by kdog on Fri Mar 05, 2010 at 01:58:25 PM EST
    seems to get lost in the shuffle in our zeal to punish everybody over every little thing...the collateral damage.  

    For every suspension, arrest, incarceration, fine, you name it...somebody suffers besides the intended target.  It something we should give more weight too when deciding how to best deal with a problem, imo.


    Sure (none / 0) (#116)
    by norris morris on Fri Mar 05, 2010 at 06:02:19 PM EST
    We should overlook it all. Who cares if planes crash, if people die becuse the kids are peeing in their pants because of their irresponsibly dangerous and immoral parents?

    Irresponsibly dangerous (none / 0) (#118)
    by cawaltz on Fri Mar 05, 2010 at 06:09:41 PM EST
    would have been allowing these kids to direct traffic unsupervised. That didn't happen.

    Furthermore, if making a singularly bad decision means you lack morals than might as well call the whole country immoral.

    The appropriate response would have been to create rules that said you are no longer allowed to hand the controls over to your children and then penalized anyone who did otherwise.

    Putting this guy out of work when no one got hurt and no rule existed that told him that this was not allowed seems like overkill.


    Not entirely true (none / 0) (#41)
    by cawaltz on Fri Mar 05, 2010 at 01:17:21 PM EST
    In order to get said liscence you are required to take an eye exam that validates the idea that you are able to see signs, a  written exam that tests your understanding of the rules of the road and then a test that requires a minimum standard in proficiency on actually driving a vehicle.

    Now there are varying degrees of proficiency out there on the road but in order to actually legally drive you do have to prove you are a competent driver. Once you prove that competence it then becomes the responsibility of enforcement to ensure that if you don't remain competent then you are off the road.


    And has been said before (none / 0) (#65)
    by jbindc on Fri Mar 05, 2010 at 02:26:56 PM EST
    You have absolutely no right to drive.  It is a privilege bestowed by the state.  But no right.

    That's the accepted view... (none / 0) (#68)
    by kdog on Fri Mar 05, 2010 at 02:31:53 PM EST
    but I tend to think if you have the know-how to build or obtain a motorized vehicle you have a natural right to operate it...like a natural right to ride a bicycle or walk....the right to traverse this orb.

    Well (none / 0) (#69)
    by jbindc on Fri Mar 05, 2010 at 02:33:30 PM EST
    It's the legal view, anyway.

    You do have right to operate it at will, (none / 0) (#72)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Mar 05, 2010 at 02:37:27 PM EST
    on your own property. If you want to use someone else's property you need to get permission first, and that permission can revoked at any time. The gvt's permission is that little card you carry in your wallet...

    weekend reading (none / 0) (#35)
    by Dadler on Fri Mar 05, 2010 at 01:07:10 PM EST
    I'm on it Holmes... (none / 0) (#37)
    by kdog on Fri Mar 05, 2010 at 01:12:26 PM EST
    Got some more good news to start the weekend...my personal ticket broker (aka dear friend of a bro-in-law) scored us tix for Bob Weir and Phil Lesh at Cyclones Park in Coney Island in June.

    Let it be a reminder to y'all to start planning your personal summer concert series...only 3 summers left till the world ends!  You snooze, you lose.


    Sweet (none / 0) (#39)
    by Dadler on Fri Mar 05, 2010 at 01:15:10 PM EST
    The Grateful Alive.  No heresy intended.  Lots of cool hippy chicks at that one, I'm sure.

    Something about the... (none / 0) (#42)
    by kdog on Fri Mar 05, 2010 at 01:17:37 PM EST
    patchouli/sweat/reefer trifecta that is music to my nose:)

    wow, you're taking me back... (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by Dr Molly on Fri Mar 05, 2010 at 01:21:30 PM EST
    how about hairy legs and granny skirts?

    That was me! (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by Dadler on Fri Mar 05, 2010 at 01:25:57 PM EST
    But it was more of a sarong.

    Granny skirts... (5.00 / 2) (#48)
    by kdog on Fri Mar 05, 2010 at 01:29:43 PM EST
    are cool...but I can't get down with hairy legs on the better half of the species, even I have limits:)



    Your hipsterism stops where my safety begins (none / 0) (#45)
    by Ellie on Fri Mar 05, 2010 at 01:23:21 PM EST
    (To paraphrase John Stuart Mill ...)

    I'm 100% in favor of people doing what they they want in their own lives and 0% supportive when they do it at the cost of others. If I'm en-flight, I don't want someone's kid -- no matter how adorable -- playing around with the works, or the flight crew taking hits off a blunt.

    The only part of the conduct of any one, for which he is amenable to society, is that which concerns others. In the part which merely concerns himself, his independence is, of right, absolute. Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign. - JSM

    I'd agree... (none / 0) (#49)
    by kdog on Fri Mar 05, 2010 at 01:32:28 PM EST
    if I thought anyone was in any danger for even a second...but I really don't.

    And now this dead horse has been really flogged the f*ck out....next human interest story of little importance please!


    Welllll ... okayyyyy ... (none / 0) (#53)
    by Ellie on Fri Mar 05, 2010 at 01:42:05 PM EST
    But only because it's the weekend and too nice to be flogging.

    Last person I want floggin' me... (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by kdog on Fri Mar 05, 2010 at 01:48:08 PM EST
    is you Ellie...your keyboard is like an AK47, and I ain't talkin' about the potent strain of ganja.

    She's got a black cat (5.00 / 1) (#77)
    by jondee on Fri Mar 05, 2010 at 02:54:55 PM EST
    bone..and a mojo, too.

    The best, evah.


    Love Ellie (5.00 / 1) (#128)
    by Dr Molly on Fri Mar 05, 2010 at 07:20:07 PM EST
    She is the Kerouac of Talk Left.

    He crossed Steny (5.00 / 1) (#108)
    by DancingOpossum on Fri Mar 05, 2010 at 04:30:58 PM EST
    Now he shall pay.

    What do you think (none / 0) (#1)
    by Dr Molly on Fri Mar 05, 2010 at 10:58:36 AM EST
    about today's jobs numbers?

    Lloyd Blankfein... (none / 0) (#5)
    by kdog on Fri Mar 05, 2010 at 11:27:38 AM EST
    still has a job doing "god's work", so everything is just ducky in the job market, in the eyes of the racketeers anyway.

    Seriously. (none / 0) (#6)
    by Dr Molly on Fri Mar 05, 2010 at 11:31:51 AM EST
    Meanwhile, our governmental representatives fiddle while Rome burns for the rest of us.

    kdogonia is sounding good.


    There is an opening... (none / 0) (#10)
    by kdog on Fri Mar 05, 2010 at 11:42:46 AM EST
    for surgeon general of kdogonia Doc...remind me again of your stance on recreational drug use?...:)

    My stance on that is (none / 0) (#14)
    by Dr Molly on Fri Mar 05, 2010 at 11:51:35 AM EST
    no harm no foul!

    Hired!... (none / 0) (#16)
    by kdog on Fri Mar 05, 2010 at 12:05:16 PM EST
    Salary and benefits pending how many US tax-dodgers make a deposit in the national bank:)

    The only difference is that we have (none / 0) (#13)
    by MO Blue on Fri Mar 05, 2010 at 11:47:29 AM EST
    replaced the Colosseum with reality shows on TV.

    Yeah, thanks for the circus, (none / 0) (#30)
    by desertswine on Fri Mar 05, 2010 at 12:51:49 PM EST
    but where's the bread?

    If Clown Bread is the order of the day ... (none / 0) (#50)
    by Ellie on Fri Mar 05, 2010 at 01:37:53 PM EST
    ... you can't beat Schwebel's. No, really. I'd take on the hungriest lion, mano-a-paw'o, for one of these sammys. (I'm not a shill.)

    kdogonia (none / 0) (#52)
    by jondee on Fri Mar 05, 2010 at 01:39:36 PM EST
    wasnt that in Gulliver's Travels or something :)

    Sounds good to me, too.


    it reminds me of family guy (none / 0) (#54)
    by CST on Fri Mar 05, 2010 at 01:45:31 PM EST

    Nice idea.  In practice, they show up with big guns on your border :)


    Damn straight... (none / 0) (#56)
    by kdog on Fri Mar 05, 2010 at 01:49:08 PM EST
    and no hesitation about shooting unarmed men:)

    I read the Taibbi article about the (none / 0) (#7)
    by ruffian on Fri Mar 05, 2010 at 11:32:41 AM EST
    banksters as con men the other day. I would really like to see the next big televised political event be a group reading and discussion of that article by Obama and the congressional leadership.

    I'm still steaming... (none / 0) (#12)
    by kdog on Fri Mar 05, 2010 at 11:46:13 AM EST
    and the next issue already showed up:)

    Good news in this issue, new tracks from the Stones "Exile on Main St." sessions to be released with the re-issue of the classic record...sign me up to get my Rocks Off!


    Looks grim (none / 0) (#8)
    by Manuel on Fri Mar 05, 2010 at 11:36:55 AM EST
    When discouraged workers are included, along with those working part-time because they can't find full-time work, the so-called "underemployment" rate rose to 16.8 percent last month from 16.5 percent. That reflects a jump in the number of involuntary part-time workers. The figure is below October's all-time high of 17.4 percent.

    In some countries (e.g. Spain), the underground economy including extended families helps people makes ends meet.  Are there any reports available detailing the state of the underground economy in the US?

    Would legalizing and regulating more of the underground economy promote jobs and economic growth or would it just be a wash?  I would think legalizing marijuana would help the jobs and deficit picture.

    Long term, we better be ready to do more with less.  That doesn't autmatically imply worse quality of life.  We waste so much of our economic activity today.  In fact, quality of life could improve if we make the right trade offs.


    It does seem to look grim. (none / 0) (#15)
    by Dr Molly on Fri Mar 05, 2010 at 12:03:56 PM EST
    On NPR this morning, the analysis of the numbers was not optimistic. They said a return to unemployment levels to under 6% could take 5 or more years due to the numbers of jobs that have to be replaced.

    Dr. Molly. re job reports (none / 0) (#112)
    by DFLer on Fri Mar 05, 2010 at 05:33:03 PM EST
    There were fairly hopeful numbers in the job report here in MN

    The Minnesota job market started 2010 with its best month in close to five years, with employers adding 15,600 jobs in what economists and job seekers hope will be the beginning of a long march toward full employment.

    The jobs gain for January also dropped the state unemployment rate to 7.3 percent from 7.4 percent in December, well below the national rate of 9.7 percent.

    Link Strib

    The best part was that 7 of 11 tracked "industrial" sectors added jobs including 3,000 in manufacturing and 3,100 in construction (this is a somewhat seasonal figure, as folks laid off for the winter, are going back to work as MN thaws. Also, according to the article, some of these contsruction jobs were aided by the stimulus)

    Plenty of pain around, but still, as they say around here, it could be worse.


    Thanks, DFLer! (none / 0) (#126)
    by Dr Molly on Fri Mar 05, 2010 at 06:50:57 PM EST
    That is really good to hear.

    Nathan Silver:Obama needs bigger Democratic Majori (none / 0) (#2)
    by Dan the Man on Fri Mar 05, 2010 at 11:06:30 AM EST
    ty to get things done in Congress.

    When F.D.R. took over the Presidency in 1933, the Democrats controlled 64 percent of the Senate seats and 73 percent (!) of the House seats,counting independents who were sympathetic to the party. And those numbers only increased over the next couple of midterms -- during their peak during 1937-38, the Demorats actually controlled about 80 percent(!) of the seats in both chambers. Obama, by contrast, came into his term with 59 percent majorities in both chambers. That's not much to complain about by the standards of recent Presidencies, but is nevertheless a long way from where F.D.R. stood during his first two terms, or for that matter where L.B.J.'s numbers were during the 1965-66 period, when the bulk of the Great Society programs were implemented.

    Look, the Dems are so freaking pathetic that (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by shoephone on Fri Mar 05, 2010 at 11:22:22 AM EST
    pretty soon the talking point will be that they need 100 votes in the Senate and 435 votes in the House to get anything passed.

    101 (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by waldenpond on Fri Mar 05, 2010 at 12:23:34 PM EST
    And (5.00 / 1) (#67)
    by jbindc on Fri Mar 05, 2010 at 02:28:28 PM EST
    They still wouldn't get anything done.

    Even with those numbers, we would get (none / 0) (#11)
    by MO Blue on Fri Mar 05, 2010 at 11:45:34 AM EST
    the same corporate focused, Republican B.S. Our government, with the help of the SCOTUS, has made buying politicans legal and D.C. has been throughly bought.

    Since no one is going to get those kind (5.00 / 2) (#9)
    by ruffian on Fri Mar 05, 2010 at 11:40:59 AM EST
    of numbers anytime soon, I can see the desire for an effective post partisan unity schtick. Unfortunately, the effectiveness depends on the other party being less than batsh*t crazy.

    I support the hairball (none / 0) (#17)
    by Manuel on Fri Mar 05, 2010 at 12:08:02 PM EST
    because of self interest.  I want to be able to keep my kids on our insurance into adulthood and I would like to know their pre existing conditions won't prevent them from getting insurance after that.  I also support the hairball because I am keenly aware of the limitations of our political leadership and I have no hope that anything better will come along soon.  This is the best they can deliver.  I don't expect progressives to be jumping for joy for this bill as I am not.  I expect them to fight for as much as they can get as they have (the fact that they likely could have gotten more notwithstanding).  I expect them to fight to the end but when the vote comes up, I expect them to do the right thing.  I am very disappointed that all the energy (and media coverage) has been on the Tea Party.  Didn't the left invent grass roots organzing?  IMO the big mistake many progressives made was assuming that Obama shared progressive priorities and that organizing wasn't needed.  If we want more progressive policy we are going to have to get more actively involved.

    News flash: Rove says he wasn't (none / 0) (#18)
    by oculus on Fri Mar 05, 2010 at 12:09:35 PM EST
    W's brain.  link

    It is actually (none / 0) (#19)
    by gyrfalcon on Fri Mar 05, 2010 at 12:16:42 PM EST
    kind of an insult to call him that, when you think about it.

    what he is saying is--hey, don't (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by oculus on Fri Mar 05, 2010 at 12:18:43 PM EST
    be thinking I am that stupid.

    kdog will love this one (none / 0) (#70)
    by jbindc on Fri Mar 05, 2010 at 02:34:18 PM EST

    8-YEAR-OLD ARRESTED WITH GUN An 8-year-old boy has been arrested for bringing a loaded 9mm handgun to his elementary school, according to a report at the Investigative Voice. The gun was discovered at about 3 p.m. Thursday at Sharp Leadenahall Elementary School in South Baltimore, between Federal Hill and M&T Bank Stadium, after a teacher overheard the student threatening to shoot a classmate, the site reported.

    We had a grade-school kid... (none / 0) (#76)
    by kdog on Fri Mar 05, 2010 at 02:53:05 PM EST
    with a loaded weapon in my 'hood not long ago too...scary stuff.

    Obviously I don't think arresting the troubled kid is the answer...find out how the kid got the gun and proceed from there.  I'm not opposed to an arrest of the jerk who gave an 8 year old access to a handgun.


    'Course (none / 0) (#78)
    by jbindc on Fri Mar 05, 2010 at 02:56:18 PM EST
    It sounds like the kid knew what to do with the gun.  There's gotta be SOME punishment for the kid, don't ya think?

    8 year old packing heat.... (none / 0) (#79)
    by kdog on Fri Mar 05, 2010 at 02:57:17 PM EST
    I think he's been punished already.

    Praise the Lord (5.00 / 1) (#83)
    by jondee on Fri Mar 05, 2010 at 03:01:40 PM EST
    and try 'im as an adult.

    It'll teach the little beast a lesson.


    Not to mention... (5.00 / 1) (#84)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Fri Mar 05, 2010 at 03:03:44 PM EST
    ...having to live, much less survive, in the Hellhole that is South Balmer.  

    Amen fellas..... (5.00 / 1) (#88)
    by kdog on Fri Mar 05, 2010 at 03:08:18 PM EST
    Send this small child to juive and see what you get back...you think he's a bad seed now, you ain't seen nuthin' yet.

    What this kid needs is love and the belief that somebody...anybody...gives a sh*t.


    That and some strong parental supervision (none / 0) (#106)
    by cawaltz on Fri Mar 05, 2010 at 04:13:11 PM EST
    I'm all for investigating how this kid got access to this gun and then making sure the responsible party knows to keep his guns locked up so that they don't fall into the hands of someone that doesn't belong into. Irresponsible gun owners ruin it for the rest of us.

    Great - that's just blocks away from (none / 0) (#86)
    by Anne on Fri Mar 05, 2010 at 03:04:46 PM EST
    where I work...now we have to worry about third-graders with guns...

    I'd be more inclined to discipline the child (pending more information on the child's history - I know we all think of third-graders as sweet and innocent, but that's not always the case, especially in the particular location where this happened), and arrest the gun owner who either knowingly gave the gun to the kid, or did not secure it properly to prevent the child from taking it.

    Not going to buy the inevitable argument about no one being hurt or whatever today's reason is why we don't really need laws, don't need to enforce laws and everyone should just chill out and let each other be.


    Shorter version... (5.00 / 1) (#92)
    by kdog on Fri Mar 05, 2010 at 03:20:01 PM EST
    flog the little bastard so I feel safe.

    Not for nothing Anne, your precious laws and punsihment society molded this little guy, not my liberty-friendly visions of utopia.

    I'm guessing his father ain't around, maybe he's locked up.


    Too bad some of (none / 0) (#95)
    by jondee on Fri Mar 05, 2010 at 03:26:44 PM EST
    our neighborhoods -- and our flesh and blood brothers and sisters who live in them, aren't too big to fail.

    Too small to hire lobbyists: (none / 0) (#98)
    by jondee on Fri Mar 05, 2010 at 03:34:11 PM EST
    why we'll keep building more prisons and underfunding the memory hole kids like this one will get dropped down.

    Licenses (none / 0) (#71)
    by DancingOpossum on Fri Mar 05, 2010 at 02:35:12 PM EST
    I always liked the idea of a drinking license rather than a drivers' license. It's not my idea, btw, but I think it's brilliant: In addition to  issuing a license to drive, the state issues a license to drink. If you want to get a drink in a bar or buy alcohol at a store, you have to show your drinking license; if you get convicted for drunk driving, you lose your drinking license--not your driving license.

    Why haven't we gone to this? I know, I know, it's more bureaucracy, but it also gets at the real problem: The drinking, not the driving. After all, most people really do need their cars to get around in our car-centric society. (I can do without one about 90% of the time but even losing that 10% would be a major imposition and humongous drag to me. And most Americans need their cars a lot more than that.) So at some point, that drunk driver is going to get his license back.

    And we know a lot of drunk drivers are repeat offenders -- when I had to go to bad driver school (result of too many speeding tix), most of my classmates were on their fourth or fifth DUI!! There has got to be a better way!

    Well (none / 0) (#73)
    by jbindc on Fri Mar 05, 2010 at 02:42:40 PM EST
    The fact that it usually takes multiple (or egregious) offenses to lose your license (which means there are probably many more times when a drunk driver didn't get caught), should tell you that the drinking isn't the problem.  It's drinking and then being irresponsible enough to get behind the wheel of a 6000 pound weapon.  It's the same thing as waving a loaded gun around - you could wave your arms all day and it would be no big deal, but if you put a loaded weapon in it, then it's a big deal.

    There is no excuse in this day and age to drive drunk - with all the attention it's gotten over the last 30 years, everyone knows it's wrong and illegal.  Call a friend, call a cab, walk, find someplace to sleep for the night - whatever. So it's hard to have sympathy with someone who racks up enough offenses to lose their license.


    It is not just driving "drunk" (none / 0) (#121)
    by MKS on Fri Mar 05, 2010 at 06:20:33 PM EST
    The standard has gotten quite tough....John Kerry's daughter was arrested at .06 blood alcohol.

    In California, a truly drunk driver typically faces two charges: (1) driving at over the .08 limit, and (2) driving while under the influence.

    The State of California now takes the position that anyone over .05 is impaired.  So, even if your blood alcohol is under .08, you can be charged with DUI.  

    Recently, a woman was arrested for second degree murder because of a fatality that she caused while driving.  She was diabetic and had taken her medicine but had not eaten breakfast.  The State is taking the position that she was driving under the influence of a drug and is guilty of murder.  They want to put her in prison for a long time....Sometimes accidents are just accidents.

    In California, you lose your license for at least 6 months upon the first DUI conviction.


    That's insane (none / 0) (#123)
    by cawaltz on Fri Mar 05, 2010 at 06:33:30 PM EST
    Basically anyone with brittle diabetes can have blood sugar problems. Criminalizing it's treatment is absurd. I could completely see taking away her liscence and having a discussion that requires anyone with the disease to undergo a medical evaluation to determine whether fit to continue driving. Incarcerating her though doesn't serve any purpose. It doesn't serve justice, you can't be "rehabilitated" for having a disease and it certainly doesn't bring the dead person back.

    MADD is very, very powerful (5.00 / 1) (#125)
    by MKS on Fri Mar 05, 2010 at 06:44:56 PM EST
    I heard a Judge explain as part of a cautionary tale that he had previsously sentenced a woman to 6 years in prison for the death of a woman jogger.  

    The woman driver had been the sole caretaker of  her husband who had been dying of cancer.  They had been married for over 20 years.  When her husband died, her life went downhill, as the Judge put it.  She was taking various prescription medications as they were prescribed.  But she lost control of her car and it jumped the curb.  She had no prior record.

    These were the facts as explained by the Judge....

    If you come to California, do not drink and drive--at all....Not one glass of wine. And the cops can nail just about anyone for DUI--for being "impaired."  If they fail you under the Field Sobriety Tests, that is how the State can convict you at under .08, or for taking any "drug."  Metamucil, Prozac--whatever.....

    Judges and juries love cops and hate "drunk" drivers, so you are in trouble if they want to nail you.


    Gee (none / 0) (#136)
    by jbindc on Sat Mar 06, 2010 at 11:51:02 AM EST
    What about the jogger?  

    No one here ever seems to care about, oh I don't know, the victims.

    Was this tragic for both parties?  Yes - but then again, diabetics know they are supposed to take their insulin around meals and not skip a meal.


    This site is just (5.00 / 1) (#138)
    by jondee on Sat Mar 06, 2010 at 01:18:16 PM EST
    stocked with people who secretly want others to be maimed by impaired drivers -- is that whats being suggested?

    Winner (none / 0) (#144)
    by jbindc on Mon Mar 08, 2010 at 08:58:32 AM EST
    "Most Ridiculous Comment of the Week"

    Of course we care about the victims (none / 0) (#143)
    by MKS on Sun Mar 07, 2010 at 11:34:23 AM EST
    It is a question of proportion.....

    It is not as if the more pain you inflict on the defendant, the more you care about, remember or honor the victim.  At a certain point it just becomes sadistic.


    Why do they "hate" drunk drivers (none / 0) (#137)
    by jondee on Sat Mar 06, 2010 at 01:12:15 PM EST
    seemingly so much more than they love justice?

    Is someone keeping conviction stat batting averages for future candidates for the tough on crime Hall of Fame?


    They already do that too (5.00 / 1) (#127)
    by MKS on Fri Mar 05, 2010 at 06:57:18 PM EST
    It is, as I understand it, a DMV proceeding.....separate from the criminal charges....

    There is supposed to be a hearing in front of a DMV hearing officer where the medical condition of the driver is discussed.  The driver can bring his own witness such as a doctor.  A DMV hearing can be triggered by any number of things....

    BTW, all DUI arrestees here spend at least 6 hours in the clink--even first time offenders who are not required to post bail--just the time to process and release them, but they are there with others in jail.....Second offenses will get a weekend or so in LA (this was the Paris Hilton sentence that she didn't get the benefit of and ended up serving 20 or so days) and 60 days in Orange County, and I think the same in San Diego County.

    So, if you come to California and go out to dinner in Santa Monica or Laguna Beach, you are in trouble with any alcohol in your system.....Beware.


    That's (none / 0) (#124)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Mar 05, 2010 at 06:41:36 PM EST
    scary. We're past solving a crime and into retribution it seems to me.

    Intriguing idea... (none / 0) (#74)
    by kdog on Fri Mar 05, 2010 at 02:46:43 PM EST
    but I think it makes Al Capone smile in his grave...the return of black market booze for unlicensed drinkers.  We need to take away gangster revenue streams, not add more.

    And the speakeasies for unlicensed drinkers would probably become the hottest spots in town, drawing the licensed and unlicensed alike.

    Moral of the story, there is a certain level of stupidity and risk that is unavoidable in a free society...cross your fingers and hope you make it to a ripe old age...not much else you can do.


    I personally (none / 0) (#107)
    by cawaltz on Fri Mar 05, 2010 at 04:18:23 PM EST
    a) think there should be adequate public transport everywhere and b) believe that if you are found guilty of a DUI that you should have to have that device that you have to blow into in your car to be allowed to continue to drive.

    I recognize that alcoholism is a disease. I realize people need to make a living. I also think that people should feel safe when they get on the road that other people that are on the road are capable and following the same rules as they are. That means there have to be consequences for breaking rules.


    Massa Resigns (none / 0) (#82)
    by waldenpond on Fri Mar 05, 2010 at 03:00:44 PM EST
    There's one vote gone.

    because if he did that would make his actions objectionable.

    If you are referring to the ethics (none / 0) (#91)
    by Anne on Fri Mar 05, 2010 at 03:18:39 PM EST
    allegations, you might want to consider the quality of the sources for the rumors.

    Here's the FDL News Desk with a somewhat fairer assessment/report:

    There's an open investigation in the Ethics Committee of allegations by a junior staffer against Massa, but to date, the only organization willing to report that as sexual harrassment has been Politico. They've started to get around to naming their sources, albeit with one degree of separation, but Massa's Chief of Staff offered his side of the story to a local TV reporter. Mind you this is the only direct source with knowledge of the situation on the record:

    As to Rep. Massa's Health: This is why he announced today that he's not seeking re-election. Racalto tells me he picked Massa up from the hospital in December, the morning of his cancer exam; as you may know, he's survived cancer once already in this life. There were abnormal blood conditions during that physical and there is/was a threat to his health. Racalto says that since then Massa's schedule has been cleared at certain times, most recently last week, so he and his family can discuss what course of action should be taken. "He is retiring for health reasons," Racalto said. "The reality is he's sick."

    Racalto tells me the conversation kept coming back to a simple question: "At what cost do you want to remain a Congressman?" In the end, the answer often included a desire to see his two children graduate college. (A son attends Syracuse University; a daughter is at Big East Rival Georgetown.) [...]

    Various reports swirling seem to reference the sources as "aides from both sides of the aisle" to which Racalto wonders, who? Interns? Ex-employees? Staffers from some other Representative's office? Who is not speaking up as a named source? Personally, I'm sure we're all wondering to some degree where these unnamed sources are coming from... most especially in light of what we're seeing unfold in Albany with Governor David Paterson and a month's worth of rumors and reports. But to this point Racalto tells me he and Rep. Massa are actually looking forward to responding to whatever complaint or allegation may or may not exist. "Just tell me what I'm fighting," Racalto said.

    Left with little knowledge of any actual allegation (so says Racalto), Rep. Massa sort of assumed it must be related to "salty" language - which he made reference to in his announcement Wednesday. "We're talking about a Navy guy, he uses salty language," Racalto said. Racalto also added that there have been other complaints in the office related to language used by Rep. Massa and other staffers.

    To the specific reports circulating about harassment allegations, be them sexual in nature or not depending on the report you read, Racalto had this to say: "I can confirm my sitting staff has not contacted them (Ethics Committee)...I can confirm to the best of my knowledge that the harassment charges are unfounded."

    Take that for what it's worth. I know Politico has no monopoly on the truth in this case and has been peddling a mess of innuendo.

    Just something to consider so judgment does not get ahead of the facts.


    Wrong (none / 0) (#93)
    by jbindc on Fri Mar 05, 2010 at 03:24:55 PM EST
    The Hill reported it Wednesday night.

    House leaders were aware a month ago that an aide to Rep. Eric Massa (D-N.Y.) had accused the freshman Democrat of acting inappropriately toward him.

    The incident, which was described only as a situation where a member of Massa's staff was made to feel uncomfortable, was relayed on Feb. 8 by a Massa staff member to the staff of House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.), according to Hoyer's office.

    After he personally was made aware of the situation, Hoyer instructed his staff to tell Massa that he or someone from his office had 48 hours to lodge the complaint with the House Ethics Committee. Those instructions were followed, according to Hoyer's office, whose staff then informed the senior staff of Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.).

    And while they don't use the words "sexual harassment", but my guess is the fact that the Congressman used "salty" words would not start an ethics probe.


    Mission accomplished. (none / 0) (#100)
    by trillian on Fri Mar 05, 2010 at 03:42:31 PM EST
    "sexual" harassment totally fabricated by Politico....sent viral by the MSM.....and now no one will believe otherwise.  



    Nothing brings out (none / 0) (#104)
    by jondee on Fri Mar 05, 2010 at 03:53:20 PM EST
    the inner feral-dog-fighting-for-the-last-scrap like the "inner game" of the American political tradition: makes Fight Club look like an Olympic dressage event. Which is why I looked a little askance even at that Ashburn story, even though a part of me wanted it to be true.

    But there's no named source in (none / 0) (#103)
    by Anne on Fri Mar 05, 2010 at 03:46:28 PM EST
    the Hill piece, either, is there?

    Fair enough. (none / 0) (#94)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Mar 05, 2010 at 03:25:31 PM EST
    Where were you yesterday when their was much sniggering here on TL about CA Senator Roy Ashburn?

    What, I've been named Chief of (none / 0) (#99)
    by Anne on Fri Mar 05, 2010 at 03:38:21 PM EST
    the Fairness Police now?  When did that happen?

    For the record, I'm pretty good about wanting to get the whole story before I go making jokes and passing judgment; if I didn't put my two cents in yesterday, it wasn't because I don't think Ashburn deserves a fair shake - he does - but because I was (1) busy or (2) focused on other issues.

    If I am now required to step in on every story like this, can you let me know so that I can plan my day accordingly?


    How dare you have a life (none / 0) (#101)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Mar 05, 2010 at 03:42:57 PM EST
    outside the pages of TL...

    And while it may be Politico (none / 0) (#96)
    by jbindc on Fri Mar 05, 2010 at 03:28:53 PM EST
    WaPo, the LA Times, and Newsweek are all linking to the story.

    So, while they always haven't been wonderful on their "journalism", my guess is there's more to this story.


    Linking to a poorly-sourced, inflammatory (5.00 / 1) (#102)
    by Anne on Fri Mar 05, 2010 at 03:44:10 PM EST
    story about a thorn-in-the-side like Massa - who probably wasn't going to hop on the let's-pass-this-cr@ppy-health-care-bill train - is no proof to me - at all - that there is more to the story.

    And, you might as well, and just as easily could have, said "And while it may be the WaPo, the LA Times, Newsweek and Politico are all linking to the story," because none of these outlets is a shining beacon of honest journalism.

    Also, keep in mind that the three media outlets you mentioned (WaPo, LAT and Newsweek) are all owned by the same corporation; that's not a coincidence.


    Funny dat (none / 0) (#105)
    by trillian on Fri Mar 05, 2010 at 04:06:24 PM EST
    "the three media outlets you mentioned (WaPo, LAT and Newsweek) are all owned by the same corporation"


    How to assassinate someone's character in three easy steps.


    How about this? (none / 0) (#109)
    by jbindc on Fri Mar 05, 2010 at 04:33:31 PM EST

    WASHINGTON (AP) -- New York Democratic Rep. Eric Massa, facing a harassment complaint by a male staffer, said Friday that he is stepping down from his seat with ''a profound sense of failure.''

    ''I am guilty,'' Massa said in an interview with a Corning, N.Y., newspaper columnist.

    Later in the day, Massa released a statement saying that after learning he had a recurrence of cancer, he learned he was the subject of an ethics complaint by a male staffer who felt ''uncomfortable'' during an exchange with Massa. The exchange reportedly had sexual overtones.

    ''I will resign my position,'' Massa said in the statement.

    ''There is no doubt in my mind that I did in fact, use language in the privacy of my own home and in my inner office that, after 24 years in the Navy, might make a Chief Petty Officer feel uncomfortable,'' Massa added. ''In fact, there is no doubt that this ethics issue is my fault and mine alone.''

    Some guy in Massa's office did not lodge an ethics probe because Massa may have said dirty words.

    Now, I'm sorry the man has recurring cancer, but he knew what he did was inappropriate.


    Massa is saying he's guilty for (5.00 / 1) (#111)
    by nycstray on Fri Mar 05, 2010 at 04:56:53 PM EST
    the language he uses, not of "sexual harassment" which you seem to be trying to "prove".

    Sexual Harassment 101 (none / 0) (#129)
    by RonK Seattle on Fri Mar 05, 2010 at 09:25:54 PM EST
    Maintaining a hostile environment may constitute sexual harassment.

    Permitting or using derogatory language with sexual connotations in reference to co-workers may create a hostile environment.

    In this case, we might speculate that Rep. Massa used the word "f*gg*t" in reference to a gay subordinate.


    How do you know that? (none / 0) (#110)
    by trillian on Fri Mar 05, 2010 at 04:45:29 PM EST
    Some guy in Massa's office did not lodge an ethics probe because Massa may have said dirty words.

    Some people are very offended by dirty words.


    Are you kidding me? (none / 0) (#122)
    by Anne on Fri Mar 05, 2010 at 06:25:40 PM EST
    The AP takes a few comments by Massa, brackets it with its own narrative, designed to lead you exactly where you went, and you think something has been proven?

    Come on - you are so much smarter than that, jb!

    I'm pretty sure the AP could make all of us look like scum of the earth, but that doesn't mean we are, does it?

    Massa acknowledges that he should not have said whatever it is he's being accused of saying, and I'm not suggesting he has nothing to apologize for, but between Politico and articles like the AP's it's hard not to see that there is an effort being made to completely smear the man; it's the media doing the same kinds of irresponsible "reporting" they routinely did with respect to Hillary Clinton - I'm surprised you don't recognize it - but they don't care - Massa's been a thorn in the leadership's side since he won election, and now, between the cancer and the ethics brouhaha, he's gone.

    Not exactly a shining moment for anyone.


    Well.... (none / 0) (#119)
    by trillian on Fri Mar 05, 2010 at 06:10:57 PM EST
    Just heard from a friend of Eric's.

    Seems like he did use a bad word...three letters beginning with F and ending in G.

    He shouldn't have used it.....but it's a far cry from the innuendos that have been tossed around.

    So rather than harassment (none / 0) (#120)
    by cawaltz on Fri Mar 05, 2010 at 06:18:44 PM EST
    it was likely a discrimatory word that caused the reprimand. Why am I not surprised the media has it wrong?

    That is S.H. - see comment above (none / 0) (#130)
    by RonK Seattle on Fri Mar 05, 2010 at 09:26:55 PM EST