home

Tuesday Morning Open Thread

Your turn.

Open thread.

< Fred Hiatt's Continued Penchant For The New McCarthyism | Tuesday Night Open Thread >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Jerome (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by andgarden on Tue Mar 09, 2010 at 11:46:49 AM EST
    makes some interesting comments on HCR. He says something along the lines of what I've been thinking myself:

    There are good things in HCR (mostly looked over), but the big picture is [that it's] largely useless . . .

    The worst is that many who are pragmatic progressives in their backing of HCR really don't believe that this HCR is going to solve the big problems. Instead, that it lays the groundwork for the ultimate bigger failure that will come, and we can fix it better at that point. [I'm not so sure, but "this or nothing" is pretty powerful. -andgarden]

    Now, I find myself in this latter camp usually. . . [b]ut given the investment of time (nearly a year center-stage now), [HCR] can hardly be portrayed as anything other than monumental, by both the media and the administration, if it does wind up passing.

    Moving from s[¢]rewed to success is going to take a massive overhaul of the perception of the bill once it moves from Congress to the desk of the President.

    I would add that what needs to change isn't just perception, it's reality. That goes for healthcare AND jobs.

    Question (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by MO Blue on Tue Mar 09, 2010 at 11:55:32 AM EST
    If the Democratic health insurance legislation

    lays the groundwork for the ultimate bigger failure that will come

    will the American people trust the Democratic Party to fix it or will they decide that "liberal" policies do not work?

    Parent

    Exactly (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by andgarden on Tue Mar 09, 2010 at 11:58:01 AM EST
    The best shot will be "the insurance companies didn't do their part." And by that I guess we'll have to mean that they didn't intentionally put themselves out of business.

    I guess this looks a little different if you truly believe that the Magic Exchanges, the regulations, and the excise tax will work. I sure don't.

    Parent

    Extend the pain (5.00 / 2) (#8)
    by waldenpond on Tue Mar 09, 2010 at 12:01:50 PM EST
    I think funneling tax payer dollars to the insurers are bad as they will extend the time it takes for the insurers business model to implode.  This can as easily be seen as the nose under the tent for the expansion of the private insurance model with resulting vouchers for all instead of MCR for all.

    Parent
    I don't know (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by Socraticsilence on Tue Mar 09, 2010 at 01:23:56 PM EST
    it could conversely be the nose under the tent for transition to the best healthcare systems currently: public-private hybrids such as in Germany and Japan- which were always far, far easier to imagine than the US going to single payer.  

    Parent
    So you believe in the Magic Exchanges (5.00 / 3) (#43)
    by andgarden on Tue Mar 09, 2010 at 01:33:50 PM EST
    Fine. I don't.

    Parent
    Its not "magic" (none / 0) (#94)
    by Socraticsilence on Tue Mar 09, 2010 at 02:57:53 PM EST
    Public-Private hybrids work in the real world- look at Germany, Japan, Taiwan, Switzerland- heck look at France- all operate under p-p partnerships in which basic coverage is both mandated and subsidized while more comprehensive coverage is profitable industry- the only major difference is that basic coverage is highly regulated and basically non-profit.

    Parent
    You must be new to this discussion (5.00 / 1) (#96)
    by andgarden on Tue Mar 09, 2010 at 03:00:16 PM EST
    We tackled "its like Switzerland!" months ago.

    Parent
    Public-Private hybrids (5.00 / 3) (#178)
    by Zorba on Tue Mar 09, 2010 at 06:18:01 PM EST
    do, indeed, work very well in countries where the government is willing to also regulate the insurance companies heavily, as you said.  I don't see that happening here, not when our elected representatives seem to be bought and paid for by said insurance companies.

    Parent
    What's missing here, and which is (5.00 / 2) (#120)
    by Anne on Tue Mar 09, 2010 at 04:01:36 PM EST
    something I think even less likely to pass than this poor excuse for reform, is stringent regulation of the industry; without that, ya got no chance of making a hybrid system work.

    Lessons from the Netherlands is an excellent article that discusses, well, the lessons we might learn from the Dutch efforts at reform.

    When the Dutch embarked on this reform, those understanding health policy raised many red flags. Here we'll discuss only the basic premise that private plans are more effective in controlling costs than was the public/private dual system. After all, cost containment was given by the Dutch government as the primary reason for health financing reform.

    What did those of us who were concerned about their model predict? We predicted that the private plans would not be able to control costs, that there would be consolidation of the private plans, and that health care would become even less affordable for the Dutch citizens.

    After almost three years of this experiment, what has happened? Health care costs have continued to grow well in excess of the rate of inflation. Health insurers attempted to keep their premiums affordable in order to gain market share, but because of insurer losses, premium increases have been greater than would have been anticipated based on the market competition theory. In spite of these premium increases, insurer losses have been increasing. Insurers with less penetration in the marketplace are now facing the necessity of consolidation.

    In another article in this same journal, Kieke Okma states, "... the trend of market concentration in Dutch health insurance and health care will likely continue. This might result in both higher prices and more-restricted access to health care services, both of which will not be too popular with Dutch patients and insured."

    Try also reading Commonwealth on the Swiss and Dutch Systems

    and this

    which get into the weeds a bit on integrated, hybrid systems, and also contain links to other articles on the subject.

    Uwe Reinhardt's How the World Balances Haalth Care Risk is another good read.

    The health systems of Switzerland, the Netherlands and Germany are frequently cited as potential models for a reformed American health system. All three countries offer their citizens a wide choice of health insurers -- none of which is a government-run health plan. Yet in all three countries full community rating is de rigueur.

    Swiss citizens, for example, are required to purchase insurance coverage for a comprehensive health-benefit package from a large menu of private health insurance companies that compete for customers on the basis of the premium they charge for that coverage.

    Profits cannot be earned on insurance for the basic package. Premiums do vary among competing insurers, but for a given insurer they can vary only by the deductible and coinsurance rates of the different policies. Neither the individual's health status nor age affects the premium charged the individual by a given insurer. Health insurers ending up with an older or sicker enrolled risk pool then receive compensation from a risk-equalization fund.

    Similarly, Dutch citizens are mandated to purchase insurance coverage for a comprehensive benefit package from a menu of private for-profit or not-for-profit insurers.

    Roughly half of the cost of this coverage is financed by a payroll tax -- that is, it is based roughly on ability to pay. The other half comes from competitively set premiums collected directly from those enrolled.

    The payroll taxes are paid into a national risk-equalization fund that then pays a risk-adjusted amount to the insurance carrier chosen by a particular individual. Among health services researchers, this risk-adjustment mechanism has long been viewed as one of the most sophisticated in the world.

    More of the article at the link.

    Parent

    That is an interesting point (none / 0) (#10)
    by andgarden on Tue Mar 09, 2010 at 12:04:05 PM EST
    Of course, people would have to forget why Medicare was necessary in the first place. But considering that they don't seem to know right now, that's not such an obstacle.

    Parent
    Vouchers (5.00 / 2) (#103)
    by waldenpond on Tue Mar 09, 2010 at 03:17:48 PM EST
    Hoyer was just on debating Kucinich ('s recorded comments) and was explaining the joyous effect of a 'transparent' 'private' system and how (ta!da!) the voucher system is going to be expanded.

    The new Democratic refrains... Tax Cuts!!! Vouchers!!!     ha.

    Parent

    Here is a possible scenario (none / 0) (#12)
    by MO Blue on Tue Mar 09, 2010 at 12:11:44 PM EST
    For the sake of argument let us say that the cuts to Medicare actually make health care less accessible (more doctors and hospitals opt out of treating Medicare patients) to seniors. Vouchers might be more appealing if it is the only means to getting care.

    Parent
    That is very insightful (none / 0) (#16)
    by lilburro on Tue Mar 09, 2010 at 12:42:22 PM EST
    at this point for progressives to get what they want, this health care plan has to not work - thereby triggering another round of more severe reforms.  Although I guess you could also argue that the plan has to be improved to cover the millions it leaves behind - and do so by extending Medicaid or Medicare or some form of public option.

    Parent
    If nothing (none / 0) (#27)
    by Socraticsilence on Tue Mar 09, 2010 at 01:16:40 PM EST
    else the massive medicaid expansion is huge- I mean we can debate the insurance provisions: whether the mandate is so onerous it overcomes removal of recision and pre-existing condition bans as well as healthy subsidies, whether the excise tax provides cost control or is merely a tax on the middle class, etc. what we can't debate is that this is a massive expansion of Medicaid- which currently has virtually no FPL floor (instead allowing states wide discretion with regards to eligibility criteria)- just getting it to 100% of FPL would have been huge, getting it to 133% is (with regards to the current status quo) amazing.

    Parent
    W's SCHIP veto was almost overridden (none / 0) (#30)
    by andgarden on Tue Mar 09, 2010 at 01:19:49 PM EST
    whereas this thing can barely pass. Do you think that's because of the Medicaid?

    Just what are we getting for all of this difficulty?

    Parent

    This expansion (none / 0) (#38)
    by Socraticsilence on Tue Mar 09, 2010 at 01:28:28 PM EST
    is so much larger than SCHIP its really not even funny- a lot of states currently restrict medicaid eligibility to those at 75% of FPL if that (sometimes eligibility is only to adults with dependents, or single mothers, or the disabled, etc.)- in the wake of state budget shortfalls eligibility will almost certainly fall- unless this bill of something similar passes.

    Parent
    Here's (none / 0) (#78)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Mar 09, 2010 at 02:24:02 PM EST
    the problem with the medicaid expansion: it really does nothing to help the middle class whereas SCHIP does and that is the difference between something saying around like Medicare and SCHIP vs. medicaid which is largely unpopular with the middle class because they see no benefit.

    Parent
    Debatable (none / 0) (#90)
    by Socraticsilence on Tue Mar 09, 2010 at 02:52:56 PM EST
    some would argue that SCHIP doesn't do anything for most of the middle class- look at the elgibility requirements, besides which, Medicaid is right, I mean the Civil Rights Act didn't do too much for white people but it was still the right thing to do, heck, giving women the vote actually decreased political power for men and yet they voted for it, sometimes its okay to do the morally correct but politically wrong thing.  

    Parent
    I guess (5.00 / 1) (#117)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Mar 09, 2010 at 03:56:36 PM EST
    this is the new talking point: If you're against the HCR bill you must be against civil rights or you're a racist? Puhleeze that is tiresome.

    Well, here in GA you can qualify for SCHIP if you make $45,000 a year or less which is solidly middle class. On SCHIP you aren't required to give up any assets. You can keep your house with SCHIP. You can't keep your house with Medicaid. You can't get Medicaid unless you have $2000 in assets or less so you tell me how they are the same again?

    Parent

    I imagine (none / 0) (#124)
    by CST on Tue Mar 09, 2010 at 04:07:06 PM EST
    that the increase in medicaid means that more people can get medicaid, means that the restrictions on medicaid will not be so stringent.

    So if it's only $2000 now, it will be higher in the future.  Since that's the whole point of a medicaid expansion.  People with more money will qualify.

    Parent

    So (5.00 / 1) (#126)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Mar 09, 2010 at 04:11:55 PM EST
    maybe they can have $5000 in assets? I mean that would be double but they would still have to basically have little to no assets nor would they still be able to keep their assets.

    Medicaid is a poverty based program. I haven't seen anybody proposing changing that but maybe you know something I dont.

    I can see more people getting on it but not much more.

    Parent

    South Carolina medicaid (none / 0) (#181)
    by Molly Pitcher on Tue Mar 09, 2010 at 07:06:19 PM EST
    The following are excluded from applicant's income and resources:

    ·      the value of the home;
    ·      the value of one automobile;
    ·      the value of life estate interest in real property;
    ·      the value of household goods and personal effects;
    ·      the value of undivided interest in heirs' property;
    ·      up to $1500 set aside for the individual's burial (an additional $1500 for a spouse, if living); and
    ·      the cash value of life insurance policies owned by the individual when the total face value of all policies is $5000 or less.

    Parent

    Are you (none / 0) (#184)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Mar 09, 2010 at 08:46:59 PM EST
    sure that's medicaid and not medicare? Anyway in Ga you can't have assets of more than $2000 and your income has to be poverty level. You can get it for children pretty easily where houses and all, of course, don't count against them.

    Parent
    Jeepers! (none / 0) (#189)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue Mar 09, 2010 at 11:16:30 PM EST
    There are no income or asset qualifications for Meciare.  That's the whole point!

    Parent
    I know (none / 0) (#193)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Mar 10, 2010 at 06:17:57 AM EST
    that's why I'm arguing FOR that type of thing and making the point that it's hard to get voters behind Medicaid.

    Parent
    I'm assuming (none / 0) (#91)
    by Socraticsilence on Tue Mar 09, 2010 at 02:53:53 PM EST
    you're pretty much squarely against Immigration Reform- objectively it will hurt the middle class and help the lower and upper classes.

    Parent
    Well (none / 0) (#122)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Mar 09, 2010 at 04:04:07 PM EST
    you can tell me how it hurts the middle class since you seem to know. If it hurts anyone I would imagine it's the working poor.

    Since no immigration reform has been proposed how can I be either for it or against it?

    Parent

    I'm not sure there is going (none / 0) (#113)
    by ruffian on Tue Mar 09, 2010 at 03:39:35 PM EST
    to be a middle class to worry about much longer. I think that is the plan.

    Parent
    Where has Jerome been on Obama's mishmash? (none / 0) (#152)
    by jawbone on Tue Mar 09, 2010 at 05:20:12 PM EST
    I don't know if Obama has now lost MyDD or whether he never had him.

    Thnx for link to good post.

    Parent

    Interesting AP article on Stupak/Pitts and (5.00 / 4) (#18)
    by oculus on Tue Mar 09, 2010 at 12:52:20 PM EST
    Nelson. Including this quote:

    Abortion opponent Rev. Derrick Harkins, pastor of the Nineteenth St. Baptist Church in Washington, said he believes it ultimately could hurt the anti-abortion cause if the health care bill collapses because of the divisive issue.

    "You can't be blanket pro-life and not address those things that encourage women to make the choice of having an abortion," said Harkins, a board member of World Relief, the humanitarian arm of the National Association of Evangelicals. "If you are really looking to reduce the number of abortions in America, one of the things that will make that happen is to have comprehensive health care coverage."

    Health overhaul/abortion Q & A

    This has been a huge problem with the anti-choice (5.00 / 2) (#119)
    by CST on Tue Mar 09, 2010 at 04:00:01 PM EST
    movement from day 1.

    "If you are really looking to reduce the number of abortions in America..."

    you:

    • increase access to birth control
    • increase access to "emergency" birth control
    • provide real education about ways to not get pregnant (including condom use and birth control)
    • increase education in general for lower income women (biggest difference in 3rd world countries)

    Unfortunately, none of these are on the anti-choice agenda.  In fact, they usually try to restrict at least 3 of the 4 on that list.  And shockingly, all of these are about empowering women to make their own decisions.  Which usually results in fewer unwanted pregnancies.  Shockingly (not), empowering women is not on their agenda.

    Hypocrits.

    Parent

    Just 3 and 4? (5.00 / 2) (#192)
    by cawaltz on Wed Mar 10, 2010 at 01:50:43 AM EST
    With all due respect there has been a HUGE assault on 1 as well. We can start back to when the SCOTUS decided that formularies of insurance companies weren't required to carry Birth control. Then there was the 2005 Medicaid "fix" that quadrupled the price of birth control on campuses that recently kicked in. Followed by the labelling of birth control as an abortifactent and therefore subject to the "conscience clause." Oh and let's not forget the failure to fund access to them for low income women in the stimulus bill for a total of zero votes.

    The only thing that can be touted is that Plan B is now available over the counter as long as the pharmacist behind the counter doesn't feel that you are hurting his or her poor little belief set by actually obtaining it.

    Parent

    kids being killed by cars in America, do you teach the kids to wear helmets and pads when they play in the street? Or do you teach them not to play in the street?

    "Emergency" birth control IS abortion in the opinions of many.

    Parent

    shoot (5.00 / 6) (#148)
    by CST on Tue Mar 09, 2010 at 05:15:35 PM EST
    regular birth control IS abortion in the opinions of many.  That's the problem.  Just as an FYI - emergency birth control is basically the same stuff as birth control, only twice the dose.  It's the same principal though.  Needless to say, I do not agree with that train of thought.  I would go so far as to say I vehemently disagree.

    And I'd say one huge difference is, women aren't kids.  So no, we shouldn't be slapping them on the wrist and telling them to get out of the street.  Which should say "here's what happens when you go in the street", "here's how to best protect yourself when you're there", "here's how to take care of yourself if you get hit".

    Because frankly, it's no one's business if we want to play in the street.  The best we can do is educate people as effectively as possible.  And yes, that includes letting people know what happens in the street.  But it also involves letting them make their own decisions with all the education and tools possible at their disposal.

    Parent

    If you are talking about (2.00 / 1) (#153)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Mar 09, 2010 at 05:25:43 PM EST
    taking "emergency" birth control pills after impregnation, many people consider that abortion.

    And, yes, many of the people being taught to abstain are kids and are not equipped to "make their own decisions with all the education and tools possible at their disposal."

    Parent

    taking emergency birth control (5.00 / 5) (#174)
    by CST on Tue Mar 09, 2010 at 06:06:31 PM EST
    can be preventative as well, it just depends on where the sperm/egg is in the process.  And also, regular birth control can also work after impregnation at times.  Which is why I brought it up.  It's a very fuzzy line.  The time that you actually become impregnated and what effect the medicine has at that time varies.  But if you try to measure pregnancy by the minute, this is a problem you will always have.  Which is why I don't think it's productive to measure a pregnancy by the minute.

    One huge problem with the anti-choice movement is the fact that women are often equated with children.  The vast majority of us are not children.  And frankly, as far as teaching kids to abstain, I'd rather also have them educated than not, so by the time they are adults they can make those decisions responsibly.  And yes, even young adults/teens should be equipped to make those decisions.

    We teach our children to look both ways before crossing the street.  We don't teach them to never cross the street.

    Parent

    Because it bears repeating... (5.00 / 2) (#177)
    by Coral on Tue Mar 09, 2010 at 06:13:57 PM EST
    We teach our children to look both ways before crossing the street.  We don't teach them to never cross the street.

    Yeah, teach those kids to use condoms. They can avoid not only pregnancy but all kinds of STDS, including AIDS.

    I don't buy the right-wing logic on this issue. They are really anti-sex, anti-woman, and pro-death (ie, they want to see people die for having sex).

    Parent

    Thanks, CST, for your reply. (2.00 / 1) (#198)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Mar 10, 2010 at 11:19:42 AM EST
    My kids are 10 & 8, it has been a while since I had reason to be fluent with the intricacies of conception.

    When I spoke of "emergency" birth control I was presuming conception had occurred, and that the pregnancy was then ended by the EBC.

    Clearly there are those who believe life begins at conception, thus, for them, purposely ending a pregnancy is an abortion. Thus, using an EBC after conception which ends the pregnancy is abortion, to some (many?).

    And I very much understand, as you said, the quagmire that results from defining conception to the minute.

    And I also understand your frustrations with my analogy. As a parent and the leader of two youth organizations, my world really is immersed in kid stuff. You are in your (I think) mid-late 20's, and your world is probably much more peer-centric, as was mine when I was that age. There are plenty of analogies I could have (should have)used that are adult-centric.

    The point, though, would still be the same. In order to reduce auto deaths don't drive like an idiot. And not: in order to reduce auto deaths go ahead and drive like an idiot if you want, but make sure you wear a seatbelt when you do it.  Where is the hypocrisy in that?

    Lastly, as flawed as my analogy(ies) was(are), both are generally based on actions that are much more actions of choice than, say, having to cross the street.

    Parent

    No kidding it's fuzzy (none / 0) (#186)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Mar 09, 2010 at 08:57:28 PM EST
    It was a fuzzy line with me, it's a fuzzy line with my dogs (and dogs can absorb their puppies if their body says not right now), it was one hell of a fuzzy line on the ranch when everything we did every day was about everything needing to get pregnant.  Conception or what could happen after a conception, where a viable entity enters our midst, is never ever ever a "given" under any circumstance.  I'm sick and tired of the Bible thumpers and wingers trying to pretend otherwise though, as if everytime I sneeze I just killed the next amazingly strong Teebow athlete simply for the joy of sneezing and killing.

    Parent
    No Fair (none / 0) (#156)
    by squeaky on Tue Mar 09, 2010 at 05:28:34 PM EST
    And I'd say one huge difference is, women aren't kids.  So no, we shouldn't be slapping them on the wrist and telling them to get out of the street.

    But what about the constant reference to women and children in our culture...

    sarc et al. seem to think that they belong in the same category. Isn't that the main reason men exist, to protect women and children?

    Parent

    Yep. You got it. Per usual. (none / 0) (#159)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Mar 09, 2010 at 05:30:25 PM EST
    Billie Sings It (none / 0) (#162)
    by squeaky on Tue Mar 09, 2010 at 05:36:51 PM EST
    The Man I Love

    I'm dreaming of the man I love...

    Maybe I'll meet him someday...  Sunday, , maybe monday...



    Parent
    False equivalence. (none / 0) (#151)
    by Thanin on Tue Mar 09, 2010 at 05:17:35 PM EST
    Irrelevant. (none / 0) (#155)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Mar 09, 2010 at 05:27:08 PM EST
    Unsurprised you'd embrace... (none / 0) (#158)
    by Thanin on Tue Mar 09, 2010 at 05:29:05 PM EST
    fallacies of logic.

    Parent
    for the trees.

    Parent
    If you're going to throw out meaningless garbage.. (none / 0) (#176)
    by Thanin on Tue Mar 09, 2010 at 06:11:25 PM EST
    at least make sure its not a cliche.

    Parent
    If the kids don't learn (none / 0) (#154)
    by lilburro on Tue Mar 09, 2010 at 05:26:50 PM EST
    how to "play in the street" I'm afraid we're not going to have many more kids in America.

    Parent
    Ha! Well said. (none / 0) (#157)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Mar 09, 2010 at 05:29:01 PM EST
    You include ALL kids being killed by cars ... (none / 0) (#182)
    by Ellie on Tue Mar 09, 2010 at 07:15:43 PM EST
    ... like the ones killed inside cars for not wearing seatbelts or being properly protected by seatbelts w/kiddy seats.

    Similarly, you include all abortions in your health figures, like the spontaneous abortions the female reproductive system does on its own for a myriad of reasons: anything from rapid and drastic weight loss from illness or eg, sports training, changes in nutrition or climate, unviable pregnancies and so on.

     

    Parent

    And I said nothing of spontaneous abortions, etc. My wife and I have two kids, from 6 pregnancies...

    Parent
    As the mother of two young women, (none / 0) (#183)
    by Anne on Tue Mar 09, 2010 at 07:59:26 PM EST
    both now in their 20's, what you do is have lots of conversations about the difference between love and sex, the difficulty of someone in their early-to-mid teens having a firm enough grip on her emotions to be able to handle the ones that accompany sex and can knock you flat, the importance of understanding that for many women, it is impossible to separate sex from love, and you can't appreciate that until it is too late to unring the bell, that boys think about sex 24/7 and will say and do anything to get it, that sex is power but it's also a quick way to feel like nothing so much as a piece of meat.  

    You talk about this stuff, you pay attention to what your daughters are doing, and what they're feeling, and you make it as easy as possible for them to talk to you.

    You tell them that when they are making the decision about having sex, the real decision they need to make is if they are ready to be someone's mother - because that's what sex can make you: someone's mother.

    You tell them that if they decide they are mature enough to have sex, they are mature enough to practice safe sex, and mature enough to do what they need to do to prevent pregnancy.

    And that you will help them: with the decision-making process, with obtaining birth control, not because you approve of them having sex, but because they are your children, you love them, and helping them make the best decisions is a skill they will need to navigate through the rest of their lives.

    At least, that's the way we got through it - but we were lucky: I didn't have boy-crazy kids, and each one took her time choosing Mr. Right.  

    Everyone's different, everyone has to do what works for them - there is no one-size-fits-all.

    If I knew that one day, my kid was going to try to play in the street, I would have taught him or her whatever I could to help keep them safe when they finally made the break.  How could you not?

    Parent

    Anne, thanks for this. (none / 0) (#200)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Mar 10, 2010 at 11:27:43 AM EST
    Sounds like you've done very well with your daughters.

    Parent
    As if every person being responsible (none / 0) (#185)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Mar 09, 2010 at 08:47:27 PM EST
    and using "emergency contraception" when it is called for prevented a fertilized egg from implanting in a uterus.  You have zero proof that the dude had any good swimmers, or that the female ovulated a viable ovum, or that even if both of those events occurred that the two things met up in that universe.  And if a woman ovulates, the egg needs to be fertilized while it is in the fallopian tube.  If it is fertilized after it already reaches the uterus, most of our bodies abort that anyhow, sorry, it was too little too late.  Mother nature is cruel! Didn't happen when it "should" have.  Emergency contraception is abortion indeed, I wish I were so stupid...life would be simpler.  Wingers bible thumping freaks could tell me what to think and I wouldn't be puzzling about what is really happening so damned much.

    Parent
    If a pregnancy is ended via EBC, (none / 0) (#201)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Mar 10, 2010 at 11:35:59 AM EST
    or any other means, that is the very definition of abortion.

    Prophylactics and contraception have nothing to do with this conversation.

    Parent

    Leave that church (none / 0) (#37)
    by waldenpond on Tue Mar 09, 2010 at 01:28:10 PM EST
    Glenn Beck would disagree with his position and demand good Christians leave that church.

    [Glenn Beck said last week on his eponymous show that Christians should leave churches that preach "social justice." Mr. Beck equated the desire for a just society with--wait for it--Nazism and Communism.]

    Beck

    [I beg you, look for the words 'social justice' or 'economic justice' on your church Web site. If you find it, run as fast as you can. Social justice and economic justice, they are code words. Now, am I advising people to leave their church? Yes.]

    Parent

    What does Glenn Beck have against (5.00 / 1) (#88)
    by Zorba on Tue Mar 09, 2010 at 02:51:47 PM EST
    Jesus?  He either considers Jesus a communist, or he's never read the New Testament.

    Parent
    Any reason.... (5.00 / 0) (#173)
    by kdog on Tue Mar 09, 2010 at 06:05:13 PM EST
    to post this, I'll take.

    Why must the wicked be so strong...

    Parent

    He's Mormon. (none / 0) (#142)
    by Radix on Tue Mar 09, 2010 at 05:03:56 PM EST
    And to the right of most Mormons (5.00 / 1) (#167)
    by MKS on Tue Mar 09, 2010 at 05:50:31 PM EST
    Beck is a devotee of Mormon writer Cleon Skousen--much of Beck's ideas come straight from Skousen.  Skousen was considered a kook by even most Mormons....So, that is what you are getting...

    Parent
    Aaaaah! (none / 0) (#171)
    by Zorba on Tue Mar 09, 2010 at 06:00:23 PM EST
    The John Birch Society speakers' bureau and fair-haired-boy Skousen?  That explains a whole lot about Glenn Beck.  Thanks for the "heads up," MKS.  

    Parent
    Oy, my nose has run five miles (5.00 / 0) (#36)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Mar 09, 2010 at 01:27:48 PM EST
    already today.  Asthma is off the charts.  I went to the drugstore and signed for the decongestant that is the evil compound that the backyard drug makers want.  Then I wonder how long I'll be in this shape and how often I can buy this before they break down my frontdoor and shake down the whole house.  It is the only thing that dries me up enough to get on top of the asthma when this happens.

    Yeah yeah yeah... (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by kdog on Tue Mar 09, 2010 at 01:34:37 PM EST
    tell it to the judge Mrs. Methlab Operator:)

    Parent
    The trick is to keep the scales and notebook (none / 0) (#59)
    by oculus on Tue Mar 09, 2010 at 01:54:54 PM EST
    at a secret location, not at home.  And avoid any appearnce of a "cooker."

    Parent
    Nah (none / 0) (#62)
    by jbindc on Tue Mar 09, 2010 at 01:59:51 PM EST
    I go to Weight Watchers - I have a scale to weigh food and we are supposed to track in a notebook - tell them you're a WW. :)

    Parent
    Don't say I didn't warn you. And watch out (none / 0) (#65)
    by oculus on Tue Mar 09, 2010 at 02:06:48 PM EST
    for "residue" and many callers at your front door at unusual hours.

    Parent
    Funny thing (none / 0) (#67)
    by jbindc on Tue Mar 09, 2010 at 02:10:40 PM EST
    One apartment I lived in was previously home to a dealer at the local high school (also a student).  I was sitting on my couch one evening when I heard a knock on my doorwall - scared the beejeezus out of me, but luckily it was light out, so he was as surprised to see me as I was to see some kid who couldn't even shave yet!  He politely excused himself and I never had another problem - I guess word got around that some "old lady" lived there now!  :)

    Parent
    Athletic shoes tied together by the laces and (none / 0) (#68)
    by Inspector Gadget on Tue Mar 09, 2010 at 02:13:15 PM EST
    flung over the telephone/electrical wires is the signal in places around here for a source. I've often wondered how they get those shoes down when the source moves away.

    Parent
    Really? (none / 0) (#72)
    by kdog on Tue Mar 09, 2010 at 02:16:19 PM EST
    We used to throw our old kicks over the wires as kids in my neighborhood...why I really don't know, just for fun I guess.

    Parent
    Really (none / 0) (#74)
    by Inspector Gadget on Tue Mar 09, 2010 at 02:19:34 PM EST
    and they are nice shoes...adult size.

    Parent
    Learn something everyday... (none / 0) (#79)
    by kdog on Tue Mar 09, 2010 at 02:29:22 PM EST
    I'll keep my eyes up when I'm in a strange town and need to score...or is it only an indicator of a cop spot for the bad stuff?

    Parent
    I always thought (none / 0) (#112)
    by CST on Tue Mar 09, 2010 at 03:38:38 PM EST
    they represented gang lines.  As in when you walk under the shoes you are in another gang's territory.

    Then again, for those of us who are "unaffiliated" - just keep walking and try to avoid conflict with either side.

    Parent

    The two-bit... (none / 0) (#175)
    by kdog on Tue Mar 09, 2010 at 06:08:18 PM EST
    "gangs" who used to look for fights back in the day would ask you "who you down with?"...an old dear friend had the best answer..."I'm down with everybody."  I swiped that one:)

    Parent
    An old bush doctor I used to see... (none / 0) (#70)
    by kdog on Tue Mar 09, 2010 at 02:15:00 PM EST
    kept his scale & stash behind a false wall behind his basement bar...007 sh*t:)

    No blackmarket distributor worth their salt keeps a notebook...all in the head.  Written records are police state suicide.

    Parent

    That fake wall is no guarantee once (none / 0) (#81)
    by oculus on Tue Mar 09, 2010 at 02:35:27 PM EST
    the drug sniffing dog arrives!

    Parent
    I hate that whole (none / 0) (#97)
    by Zorba on Tue Mar 09, 2010 at 03:03:11 PM EST
    "sign in and show ID" to get a legal, over-the-counter drug!  Just because some people use pseudoephedrine to make meth, they have to treat all of us like potential criminals? (Of course, they do that when we fly, too.)  This is becoming more and more like a police state.  That may be a slight exaggeration, but, really, I expect any minute now that we'll hear "Your papers, please?" every time we walk down a street.  (Sorry for the mini-rant, but this really bugs me.)  

    Parent
    I don't particularly mind (none / 0) (#123)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue Mar 09, 2010 at 04:05:25 PM EST
    signing in.  What I DO mind is the fact that it means you can't get actual decongestant anywhere else but at a pharmacy anymore.  Where I live now, that's a 20-mile drive, not something that's a lot of fun when you're down with a nasty head-clogging cold.  The substitute supposed decogestant has absolutely zero effect on me.

    Parent
    Yes, the substitute (5.00 / 1) (#129)
    by Zorba on Tue Mar 09, 2010 at 04:19:19 PM EST
    is phenylephrine, and I may as well be taking a sugar pill for all the good it does me.  I live in the boonies on top of a mountain, so I have to drive to get to any kind of store- that part doesn't bother me.  The "your papers please" sign-in does tick me off, however.  Why is it their business when I buy something that is legal?  But then, I'm a long-time member of the ACLU, and maybe I'm overly sensitive about this (admittedly small, compared to other things) invasion of privacy.

    Parent
    Well, a 3-mile drive (none / 0) (#191)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue Mar 09, 2010 at 11:41:26 PM EST
    on my country road to the general store I can handle unless I'm at death's door.  20 miles up to "town" over highways (OK, VT highways, not real highways) and traffic lights and traffic is another thing entirely.

    I'm not crazy about having to sign for it, either, but I've never been asked for ID, and I'd far, far rather have to sign in than to have the stuff banned altogether, which I think they were close to doing until they came up with this compromise.

    Parent

    Pharmacies (none / 0) (#195)
    by Zorba on Wed Mar 10, 2010 at 09:26:24 AM EST
    around here ask to see your driver's license or other government ID when buying pseudoephedrine.  I don't know if that's a Maryland thing, or a local thing with the pharmacies I use.

    Parent
    The sub decongestant doesn't (none / 0) (#144)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Mar 09, 2010 at 05:05:16 PM EST
    touch me either.

    Parent
    Massa on Beck (5.00 / 1) (#75)
    by waldenpond on Tue Mar 09, 2010 at 02:20:51 PM EST
    Would I be wrong to predict Beck doesn't have Massa on tonight?  Maybe Beck will just ask about the new rumors and chase him off.  Can't watch.. train wreck no matter how it goes.

    On the Dailykos front page people (5.00 / 1) (#84)
    by tigercourse on Tue Mar 09, 2010 at 02:44:05 PM EST
    are laughing about the fact that Hoffman is running for NY-23 again. The very idea, Ha Ha!

    Well... he's most likely going to win though. He lost by a relativley small amount in a race where another Republican was still on the ballot. What kind of la la land are people living in that they continue to ignore the coming tsunami?

    digby shoots and scores (5.00 / 1) (#100)
    by kmblue on Tue Mar 09, 2010 at 03:16:09 PM EST
    regarding Obama administration:

     From what I gather, the base is assumed to be trained seals who will clap and do tricks on command but placidly accept the blame when things go wrong. And it upsets the serious people greatly when it fails to do that. In other words, the base is the party's doormat.

    Hilarious (5.00 / 1) (#107)
    by squeaky on Tue Mar 09, 2010 at 03:21:13 PM EST
    Lots of trained seals here too, except their "red meat" are posts bashing Obama.

    Addiction is difficult to beat, I guess.  

    Parent

    So true (5.00 / 1) (#111)
    by DancingOpossum on Tue Mar 09, 2010 at 03:34:12 PM EST
    And Kool-Aid addiction, I hear, is one of the toughest.


    Yeah (5.00 / 1) (#114)
    by squeaky on Tue Mar 09, 2010 at 03:44:04 PM EST
    And the kool aid causes selective blindness and or reading comprehension, as clearly demonstrated by kmblue. But I hope that leaving out the link was just an oversight, because if it was intentional, late stages of the disease are already setting in.

    Parent
    Question: is the Obama administration (none / 0) (#1)
    by observed on Tue Mar 09, 2010 at 11:37:40 AM EST
    having more success against Al Qaeda than the Bush administration? Are they doing better in Afghanistan?


    So hard to gauge... (none / 0) (#9)
    by kdog on Tue Mar 09, 2010 at 12:03:33 PM EST
    Chasing AQ is like chasing a ghost...before they backtracked on trials in criminal court for the gusy we do catch I thought we were doing better...now I'd call it a draw.  Same sh*t different letter after the name.

    We escalated in Afghanistan so I'd call that doing worse.  

    Parent

    Two things (none / 0) (#22)
    by Socraticsilence on Tue Mar 09, 2010 at 01:11:12 PM EST
    1. While there is clearly a desire to backtrack on Criminal Courts I don't know if we can say its happeneded yet- I mean you'd think they'd say something if they actually wanted to backtrack.

    2. Saying we're doing worse in Afghanistan because we escalated is a matter of opinion- personally, I'd argue we're doing better because we're actually trying to win instead of simply treading water with human lives- but then again I always supported the war in Afghanistan (it was one of the reasons, though not the primary one for my opposition to the invasion of Iraq).  I'm just not sure how say withdrawing from Afghanistan would've helped fight AQ- I mean what would that have done (not in the Freidman-"send a message" sense but in the actual sense) other than cedeing the field to religious extremists who gave were in a direct alliance with AQ.


    Parent
    Definitely just my opinion... (none / 0) (#26)
    by kdog on Tue Mar 09, 2010 at 01:14:33 PM EST
    I think we're wasting lives, time, and money occupying the joint....with far too little "safety" in return.  Chasing ghosts.

     

    Parent

    What would you have done post 9-11 (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by Socraticsilence on Tue Mar 09, 2010 at 01:31:01 PM EST
    I mean personally I would have done much of what Bush did prior to the invasion of Iraq, the finished the job- if we'd done that I think there's a decent chance we're down to a Kosovo sized force by now.

    Parent
    What I would have done... (none / 0) (#64)
    by kdog on Tue Mar 09, 2010 at 02:06:34 PM EST
    something like try to chase down the money-men behind the 9/11 operation through traditional international law enforcement channels and bring them to justice while killing as few people as humanly possible...iow treat it like the crime of a mass murder conspiracy it was instead of treating it like an act of war.

    And a 100 million dollar cash reward for Osama...dead or alive.

    And totally revamping our foreign policy...closing installations in the M.E. and elsewhere, ceasing to support Arab tyrants, becoming a true broker of peace instead of one in name only, a Manhattan Project-style investment in an alternative to oil.

    Just a couple ideas that don't involve prolonged foreign occupations which fuel the hate.

    Parent

    Leaving the ME is impossible (none / 0) (#69)
    by observed on Tue Mar 09, 2010 at 02:13:38 PM EST
    Our very survival depends on access to oil. Every major power is going to maneuver for advantage in the area.

    Parent
    What % of our oil comes from the ME? (none / 0) (#71)
    by Inspector Gadget on Tue Mar 09, 2010 at 02:15:27 PM EST
    I've heard it is smaller than one would think.

    And, what % of their buying market do we represent? You think they will give up the business from us? They like the money...a LOT.


    Parent

    The reserves in the region are still huge. (none / 0) (#77)
    by observed on Tue Mar 09, 2010 at 02:23:51 PM EST
    Everyone can see the writing on the wall, re Peak Oil. In 20 years or so there will be wars fought directly over access to oil. The US wants to be ready.


    Parent
    'Access to oil', also needs to read: (none / 0) (#82)
    by KeysDan on Tue Mar 09, 2010 at 02:37:34 PM EST
    "Access to cheap oil".

    Parent
    NYTimes article on Mexico mentions existing oil (5.00 / 1) (#147)
    by jawbone on Tue Mar 09, 2010 at 05:12:05 PM EST
    fields are producing less and less.

    From the NYTimes today:

    .... Oil production in its [Pemex's] aging fields is sagging so rapidly that Mexico, long one of the world's top oil-exporting countries, could begin importing oil within the decade.

    Mexico is among the three leading foreign suppliers of oil to the United States, along with Canada and Saudi Arabia. Mexican barrels can be replaced, but at a cost. It means greater American dependence on unfriendly countries like Venezuela, unstable countries like Nigeria and Iraq, and on the oil sands of Canada, an environmentally destructive form of oil production.

    "As you lose Mexican oil, you lose a critical supply," said Jeremy M. Martin, director of the energy program at the Institute of the Americas at the University of California, San Diego. "It's not just about energy security but national security, because our neighbor's economic and political well-being is largely linked to its capacity to produce and export oil."

    The article says the problem is Pemex's lack of know how and investment money, so apparently bringing in foreign partners would make Gulf of Mexico off-shore oil accessible. Apparently.

    Cheap oil long term may simply not be available. And if the banksters keep gaming that market, who knows what will happen to the price near term. It's not demand which is driving oil prices up.

    Parent

    Makes me wonder if this article (none / 0) (#160)
    by KeysDan on Tue Mar 09, 2010 at 05:30:32 PM EST
    is part of a campaign to get around Mexico's act of 1938 that, essentially, gave foreign oil companies the boot.  The Exxon's of the world have surely never warmed to Mexico's nationalization of its oil and this 'crisis' may be just what the oil doctor's ordered--permission to get in on recovery of Gulf reserves.

    Parent
    H/T to Aimlow Joe for his posting this article at (none / 0) (#180)
    by jawbone on Tue Mar 09, 2010 at 06:58:00 PM EST
    No... (none / 0) (#89)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Tue Mar 09, 2010 at 02:52:32 PM EST
    ...our very survival depends on access to clean, potable water.  

    We can survive without oil--it won't be pretty but it is possible.  

    Parent

    No, that's a fantasy (5.00 / 1) (#130)
    by observed on Tue Mar 09, 2010 at 04:22:33 PM EST
    The current population of the earth depends on oil for agriculture and transportation.
    Without oil, literally billions would die.


    Parent
    And we all live... (none / 0) (#132)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Tue Mar 09, 2010 at 04:34:18 PM EST
    ...happily ever after without water.

    Parent
    I'm not sure in terms of Afghanistan (none / 0) (#85)
    by Socraticsilence on Tue Mar 09, 2010 at 02:48:11 PM EST
    how that really solves the problem- I mean post-9/11 the Taliban offered to turn over Bin Laden but essentially were trying to preserve a military ally in exchange for a figurehead.

    Parent
    I am on your team, kdog, (none / 0) (#76)
    by KeysDan on Tue Mar 09, 2010 at 02:23:10 PM EST
    but the ghosts are al Qaeda of which we are told about 100 remain in all of Afghanistan, and like good ghosts easily move around and pop up in places like Yemen and Somalia. The Taliban are, of course, Afghans and we are dealing, once again, with a civil war. Our surge has, for example, resulted in taking Marja--an offensive that required a superpower weeks to seize control of this single village among thousands and in a large country of difficult terrain. And, General Petraeus says this is just an initial operation in an eighteen month campaign to wrest power from the Taliban. We have been trying to do this for about eight years, but I know, this time it will be different. For places like Marja to mean anything, it will require replacement with effective Afghan government. And, that brings us to Karzai, a president of little credibility and much corruption to prevent a returning Taliban tide and the futility of sacrifice of American and Afghan lives and resources. The exit strategy is curious, as well, since the timelines appear to be such that troops start leaving before all of the surge troops arrive. The health care issue has given the administration a breather, but not for long.

    Parent
    Obviously Not (none / 0) (#92)
    by squeaky on Tue Mar 09, 2010 at 02:56:41 PM EST
    No contest, BushCo wins hands down. But you have to admit that BushCo had a distinct advantage. During that administration Al-Qaida were ubiquitous (they were even in Iraq!), now they are just a few of them relegated to the area known as FATA which lies between Afghanistan and Pakistan.

    FOr instance, BushCo killed the number two Al-Qaida at least 250 or 300 times, Obama has only killed the number two once or twice..

    Thanks to BushCo there are only a handful of them left. Obama has it easy.

    Parent

    The Massa saga continues (none / 0) (#3)
    by jbindc on Tue Mar 09, 2010 at 11:49:06 AM EST
    Now, we find out that his timeline may not add up.

    This story gets weirder and weirder, but I will not be tuning into Glenn Beck tonight to see Massa convulte himself for an hour.

    He is starting to sound like Charles Haley (none / 0) (#5)
    by MKS on Tue Mar 09, 2010 at 11:57:48 AM EST
    A little off balance? (none / 0) (#7)
    by jbindc on Tue Mar 09, 2010 at 12:01:08 PM EST
    yep (none / 0) (#14)
    by MKS on Tue Mar 09, 2010 at 12:32:10 PM EST
    At this point would (none / 0) (#28)
    by Socraticsilence on Tue Mar 09, 2010 at 01:17:53 PM EST
    it really shock anyone if he goes on Beck and claims that Obama is the head of a socialist cabal funded by George Soros and enforced via blackmail and sexual intrigue?

    Parent
    What Massa says makes no sense (none / 0) (#86)
    by MKS on Tue Mar 09, 2010 at 02:49:11 PM EST
      Rahm could theoretically twist arms to get Massa to:

        A.  Vote for health care; or

        B.  Resign from Congress.

    Massa says Rahm forced him to do B so the health care bill would pass.  But if Rahm could strong-arm Massa into B, why couldn't he get Massa to do A, which presumably would be easier to do.

    And why would Mass succumb to B but not A?  

    I am sure some weird, convulated theory will come out of GlennBeckistan....but the current explanation sure sounds nuts....

    Parent

    WaPo is apparently (none / 0) (#83)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue Mar 09, 2010 at 02:43:07 PM EST
    now reporting that the Ethics Committee is investigating not just "salty language" but allegations he's physically groped a number of staffers.

    My guess, the guy's bipolar, nearing the top of a manic swing.  He's making no sense.  He claimed in that radio interview that "they" had been out to get him from "the very, very beginning!"

    Parent

    Charles Haley was just considered (none / 0) (#87)
    by MKS on Tue Mar 09, 2010 at 02:51:27 PM EST
    immature or moody or not a team player----after he retired they figured out he was bipolar.

    That Jerry Jones with all his resources, including Calvin Hill as a consultant, could not have gotten Charles treatment is shameful.

    Parent

    I don't know who (none / 0) (#121)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue Mar 09, 2010 at 04:01:45 PM EST
    Charles Haley is, but I assume from the Calvin Hill mention he must be a pro football player, yes?

    I don't know this story, as I say, but I'm inclined to cut the team a little bit of slack for not realizing he was seriously ill since pro sports teams are so jam-packed with prima donnas and ordinary neurotics of one kind or another.  It's not necessarily all that easy to sort out.

    There are almost as many variations of bipolar as there are people who suffer with it, so it can be pretty hard to recognize, especially for lay people.

    Parent

    Charles Haley (5.00 / 0) (#135)
    by jbindc on Tue Mar 09, 2010 at 04:42:50 PM EST
    So you found that article (none / 0) (#165)
    by MKS on Tue Mar 09, 2010 at 05:47:07 PM EST
    Just checked the dates (none / 0) (#169)
    by MKS on Tue Mar 09, 2010 at 05:59:43 PM EST
    You are right.  The Dallas Cowboys hired former player Calvin Hill as a player consultant to deal with player issues the season after Charles Haley left.  It was a reaction to drug and legal problems....and represented an effort to help (or possibly corral) problem players by providing support in their personal lives....

    Parent
    Hmmmm (none / 0) (#134)
    by jbindc on Tue Mar 09, 2010 at 04:39:33 PM EST
    Looking more and more like Politico did a decent job in their reporting....

    Politico is now saying it was male staffers and interns.

    The House ethics committee has received allegations that former Rep. Eric Massa groped at least three male staffers and conducted himself improperly with interns as well as full-time aides, a source familiar with the matter tells POLITICO.

    One incident allegedly occurred when Massa traveled to San Francisco with an aide for a fundraising trip, a second source said.

    Massa put himself outside the reach of the ethics committee by resigning his seat in a March 5 letter to Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) that was submitted on the House floor Tuesday.

    The ethics committee announced last week that it had launched an investigation into allegations against Massa.

    Here's the WaPo story.

    Parent

    And it's been a while (none / 0) (#11)
    by jbindc on Tue Mar 09, 2010 at 12:06:32 PM EST
    But more Lindsay Lohan news!

    Apparently, she is suing e-Trade for the Super Bowl commerical where the boyfriend-stealing "milkaholic" baby girl was named Lindsay.  Lohan says the baby was modeled after her.

    She is suing for $100 million.

    Her agent is probably driving (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by MKS on Tue Mar 09, 2010 at 12:31:43 PM EST
    the lawsuit.  

    She looks like she has aged ten years in the last year or so.....  

    Parent

    Like she's the only Lindsay in the world. When I (none / 0) (#172)
    by Angel on Tue Mar 09, 2010 at 06:01:05 PM EST
    hear that name I don't think of her, I think of Lindsay Davenport, but then I'm a tennis fan and not a fan of lousy actresses who are crazy alcoholics.  This lawsuit will not move forward, promise.  She isn't Cher or Oprah - both members of the "known by their first name" clique.  

    Parent
    Lil' Wayne... (none / 0) (#15)
    by kdog on Tue Mar 09, 2010 at 12:41:56 PM EST
    started serving his sentence yesterday at Rikers, and requested gen pop over protective custody...ya don't see that everyday.

    Probably better company in gen pop anyway...and easier to score some smoke.  Good luck Wayne!

    Usually more choices in general (none / 0) (#17)
    by oculus on Tue Mar 09, 2010 at 12:46:28 PM EST
    propulation.  

    Parent
    I'd imagine... (none / 0) (#19)
    by kdog on Tue Mar 09, 2010 at 12:53:37 PM EST
    protective custody is all dirty cops and child molesters...I'd probably say no thanks too.

    Parent
    I'd also imagine (none / 0) (#20)
    by CST on Tue Mar 09, 2010 at 01:07:48 PM EST
    Lil Wayne has nothing to worry about being in the general population.  In fact, it might work out better for him due to personal "charm" with the masses.

    Parent
    Sure (none / 0) (#21)
    by jbindc on Tue Mar 09, 2010 at 01:09:49 PM EST
    This is good for him - gives him "cred" and will help him sell albums when he gets out.

    Parent
    I don't know that I would ever call prison (none / 0) (#25)
    by CST on Tue Mar 09, 2010 at 01:14:09 PM EST
    "good".  Although in the case of T.I. it did seem to turn his life around a bit, so good for him.

    Lil Wayne needs no help selling records.  The man has everywhere the last few years.

    Parent

    He'll be a lot better off (none / 0) (#34)
    by jbindc on Tue Mar 09, 2010 at 01:24:10 PM EST
    than most people.

    And, just for the record - he's in jail, not prison. :)

    Parent

    I'm not a lawyer (none / 0) (#35)
    by CST on Tue Mar 09, 2010 at 01:27:36 PM EST
    or a judge.

    Tomato / Tomahto.

    I realize that may be blasphemous here, but that's the view from where I sit.

    I wouldn't say he'll be better off than "most people" for the next year - "most prisoners" sure.  Maybe once he gets out.

    Parent

    Bars are bars... (none / 0) (#46)
    by kdog on Tue Mar 09, 2010 at 01:35:41 PM EST
    kid...bars are bars.

    Parent
    What's yur problem? (none / 0) (#93)
    by MKS on Tue Mar 09, 2010 at 02:57:53 PM EST
    You got something against Rikers Island?

    Parent
    Not at all... (none / 0) (#194)
    by kdog on Wed Mar 10, 2010 at 07:59:21 AM EST
    that's where my old man did his time.  Just tellin' jb a cage is a cage...calling it jail doesn't open the lock.

    If we ever shared a drink or a smoke, the stories I could pass on about my old man's time in Rikers my brother.

    Parent

    I'm sure (none / 0) (#196)
    by MKS on Wed Mar 10, 2010 at 10:52:52 AM EST
    and I hope you know I was being facetious....

    Parent
    No doubt... (none / 0) (#197)
    by kdog on Wed Mar 10, 2010 at 11:04:10 AM EST
    we're soul-diers in the same army MKS, brothers in arms:)

    Parent
    lose one, gain one (none / 0) (#24)
    by CST on Tue Mar 09, 2010 at 01:12:20 PM EST
    T.I. is out.  In terms of "rap skillz" I think I'll take him over Weezy.  But it's a close one.

    Parent
    Neither is my cup 'o tea... (none / 0) (#29)
    by kdog on Tue Mar 09, 2010 at 01:18:16 PM EST
    personally, but when it comes to skillz I gotta give it to Wayne...T.I. seemed more into acting and stuff before he got locked up....Wayne is all about music with a massive body of work compiled over the last few years.

    Good article on him in Rolling Stone an issue or 2 back...the guy never stops.

    Parent

    did TI act? (none / 0) (#32)
    by CST on Tue Mar 09, 2010 at 01:22:53 PM EST
    I don't remember.  He did have 3 albums though, and the last one, papertrail was pretty solid.  But yea, Wayne has been everywhere - good at self marketing.

    Neither one of them is my favorite.  But before he went to jail TI started doing slightly more "real" songs lyrics-wise, so he gets my bid.  Although even Weezy has his moments.  I think rap in general is changing slowly in that direction.  Thanks Kanye :)

    Parent

    Good point... (none / 0) (#47)
    by kdog on Tue Mar 09, 2010 at 01:40:42 PM EST
    Wayne and the rest of the Cash Money Millionaires were a big part of the game becoming all about bling and backin' that arse up....I much prefer the socially aware/political stuff...with the occasional ode to partying, philandering, and gettin' f*cked up:)  

    Parent
    yea (none / 0) (#60)
    by CST on Tue Mar 09, 2010 at 01:55:31 PM EST
    Weezy is pretty catchy though.  type of thing that gets stuck in your head all day.

    Parent
    This is so freaking dumb (none / 0) (#31)
    by Socraticsilence on Tue Mar 09, 2010 at 01:21:45 PM EST
    this isn't a "Plaxico" situation where the guy was irresponsible and dumb- this is a case where a guy is being prosecuted for handling a gun registered to his manager who was also there at the time (unless he actually threatened people and this is the only thing they could get him on)- I guess its better than LA though- where the Justice system is so corrupted by celebrity that the law is a literal joke- I mean you've had stars doing freaking hours- for multiple day sentences (show up at 11pm leave at 12:01- that's a "day")  that were handed down for crimes that would get a normal person months if not years (see: the Lohan traffic/drugs/endagerment bit).

    Parent
    I understand the law... (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by kdog on Tue Mar 09, 2010 at 01:44:25 PM EST
    I just don't give a sh*t if Wayne or anybody carries a gun, and who it is registered too.  I'll care if and when they use it to shoot or rob somebody.

    Certainly too little a reason to throw a human being in a cage for a year...NY State Law is the real crime.

    Parent

    If you're talking Paris Hilton (5.00 / 1) (#95)
    by MKS on Tue Mar 09, 2010 at 03:00:08 PM EST
    the reverse is true....

    As to the cameo appearances at County Jail--that appears very common for misdemeanor sentences....over-crowding, budget cuts, etc.

    Parent

    Did "we" have a representative (none / 0) (#23)
    by oculus on Tue Mar 09, 2010 at 01:11:53 PM EST
    at the 20-blogger meet up with Geithner et al. yesterday?

    Makes me nauseated just thinking about it (5.00 / 0) (#41)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Mar 09, 2010 at 01:33:16 PM EST
    Stiglitz with his new book out, more foreclosures in 2010 than there were in 2009, and a commercial real estate crash heading directly for us while we are already at 1 out of 6 people either unemployed or underemployed.  So Geithner calls a strokeathon because when the caca really hits the fan he is really going to have to get these bloggers under control or else pitchforks could show up.  The blogosphere must be his sheeple too so he can try to control the public that won't read one sided lying rag newspapers anymore.  Though I doubt that that is going to actually work for him in the end.

    Parent
    Now why.. (none / 0) (#42)
    by kdog on Tue Mar 09, 2010 at 01:33:39 PM EST
    would you wish that mess on our fine hostess and her contributors:)


    Parent
    She wants to know if BTD was (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Mar 09, 2010 at 01:35:34 PM EST
    part of that mess :)  I do too

    Parent
    You guys are mean... (5.00 / 0) (#50)
    by kdog on Tue Mar 09, 2010 at 01:45:58 PM EST
    all I wanna hear from that gangster is "I resign".

    Parent
    Ha. Not that he would necessarily (none / 0) (#54)
    by oculus on Tue Mar 09, 2010 at 01:50:40 PM EST
    let his loyal fans know!

    Parent
    Hmmmm, I wonder (none / 0) (#109)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Mar 09, 2010 at 03:31:32 PM EST
    He likes to be credible though.  He's pretty fond of that.  I wouldn't be shocked if Geithner tried to butter BTDs toast though because BTD writes those HOLC diaries everytime the mortgage situation get even worse.  If we went to HOLC all of Timmeh's friends would be left standing their holding empty sacks and lots of empty shopping malls instead of plain old Golden sacks.

    Parent
    Because, as Hillary Clinton acknowledged, (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by oculus on Tue Mar 09, 2010 at 01:53:13 PM EST
    BTD asks good questions/gives good speeches at these things.

    Parent
    Yeah, but (none / 0) (#58)
    by jbindc on Tue Mar 09, 2010 at 01:53:54 PM EST
    What does she know?  

    :)

    Parent

    atrios (none / 0) (#51)
    by lilburro on Tue Mar 09, 2010 at 01:48:37 PM EST
    wrote about it...in case other people didn't see it:

    Anyway, first thoughts are that a big frustration with the discourse of members of this administration is that they tend to present their policies as if they were optimal given the constraints they face, constraints such as Congressional legislation. But they rarely express what would be optimal if they..didn't face such constraints. They rarely say "we want Congress to pass X, but they won't, so the best we can hope for is Y." They say, "maybe it could have been better, but Y was the best we could get done" suggesting that there is some better policy without actually clearly stating what it would be.

    There doesn't seem to be much interest in finding ways to expand what the range of possibilities, by, for example, getting allies to fight for X.

    And I doubt Geithner and BTD would get along very well...

    Parent

    ah damn (none / 0) (#53)
    by lilburro on Tue Mar 09, 2010 at 01:49:48 PM EST
    I accidentally linked to the comments, here's the article.

    Parent
    The "retooling" of Geithner's image (none / 0) (#52)
    by mentaldebris on Tue Mar 09, 2010 at 01:49:46 PM EST
    and that of the Treasury.  Some rather interesting failout from that meet-up. Oops, I meant "fallout". Freudian keystroke slip.

    To sum up: Go forth and spread the word that Timmy and the Treasury are no where near as bad as their actions of the last year make them out to be. They are just so misunderstood.

    Forget what they actually did. It's all about image retooling now. It's getting to the point they should do a reality series - Midterm Makeovers of Obama Administration Hacks.

    Blech.  

    Parent

    Stanley Fish is a moron (none / 0) (#40)
    by Socraticsilence on Tue Mar 09, 2010 at 01:32:35 PM EST
    that is all.

    Oh yeah (none / 0) (#48)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Mar 09, 2010 at 01:41:27 PM EST
    And this isn't my town or my state, so how does one go about finding a good attorney for the dog that killed the cat and that dog's owner?  My husband doesn't want to lose, he is really pissed about the fence, he will pay simply to have a chance of winning :)  If this was Colorado Springs I'd know who to ask if I didn't know who I wanted.  Lawyers get reputations.  But this place is so convoluted I can't read the tea baggers or the leaves in any way that makes sense to me.

    Call your local humane soc (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by nycstray on Tue Mar 09, 2010 at 01:51:18 PM EST
    and see if they know a good lawyer that deals with animal "issues". Check with your breeder friends also.

    Parent
    And be sceptical. Local attorney who (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by oculus on Tue Mar 09, 2010 at 01:56:12 PM EST
    "Specializes in animal rights cases" is beyond avid.  Costs her clients way too much money for zip results.

    Parent
    Yes. Animal Rights can be a prob (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by nycstray on Tue Mar 09, 2010 at 02:01:02 PM EST
    to put it mildly. Basically, it's nice to have someone who is familiar with the local animal laws (they don't go to court often) and understands what is and isn't a "dangerous" dog etc. Good to have a behaviorist in your corner also.

    Parent
    This is going to be a huge mess (none / 0) (#108)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Mar 09, 2010 at 03:24:11 PM EST
    But husband says if we don't fight this on the illegal fence and property line, we will have a problem with these neighbors forever.  We live nextdoor to bullies, you must stand up or be prepared to be forever mowed over as long as we live here.  

    Parent
    $$$$$ How long do you plan (none / 0) (#115)
    by oculus on Tue Mar 09, 2010 at 03:53:12 PM EST
    to live there?

    Parent
    I really don't know (5.00 / 0) (#133)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Mar 09, 2010 at 04:37:25 PM EST
    We were supposed to retire here BUT, my asthma is so bad at times we are rethinking that.  So I don't know for certain, but if they ever get my asthma under control we did buy the house we planned on getting old in.  When my spouse is pissed though it is best to allow him to work it out.  He will make more money in the end if he doesn't have to eat someone else's garbage and learn to like it.  He's just built that way. When he feels bullied and like he has to just put up with people to avoid confrontation it saps his energy and strength real fast and his happiness too.  It isn't worth it.  When he feels respected the same as everyone else, he is extremely productive and happy.  I had to live with him when he was a junior officer when anyone could tell him he was a stupid idiot just because they could take up space in the military for more than 10 years and were a "senior officer".  It was miserable.  The best thing that ever happened was when he made W3 and suddenly it wasn't a good idea to call him stupid or flex on him just because you could.  He became a brand new person.  He doesn't back down though when he has been wronged, he just won't.  If he fights and loses he still goes home essentially happy enough, if he doesn't stand up for himself at all he's miserable.  And I understand this sort of person :) I wouldn't fight this out though, this just annoys me at best but I respect that he has had it. And then there's something about men, and property lines, and making mortgage payments or being finished paying for something after 30 long years.

    Parent
    Sounds like the perfect project for (5.00 / 1) (#136)
    by oculus on Tue Mar 09, 2010 at 04:43:18 PM EST
    a just-home-from Afghanistan officer.

    Parent
    I'll probably catch him peeing (5.00 / 1) (#141)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Mar 09, 2010 at 05:00:56 PM EST
    on all the property lines, his scent has obviously worn off :)

    Parent
    Since I'm so small town (none / 0) (#101)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Mar 09, 2010 at 03:16:17 PM EST
    I'm the only breeder I know so far that has something big enough to get into trouble.  One of the kennel club members has sight hounds.  And they kill cats something fierce, but he isn't inside the city limits therefore not under the same ordinances that I am :(  An Atlanta GSD breeder has pointed me to a very large firm in Montgomery that I'm thinking about trying on for size.

    Parent
    Cat Cassoulet (none / 0) (#170)
    by squeaky on Tue Mar 09, 2010 at 06:00:05 PM EST
    "I've eaten it myself and it's a lot better than many other animals," he told viewers. "Better than chicken, rabbit or pigeon." He said that for optimum flavour the meat should be "soaked in spring water for three days" before being stewed.

    catnipped


    Parent

    No idea on the attorney part, but (none / 0) (#66)
    by Inspector Gadget on Tue Mar 09, 2010 at 02:09:56 PM EST
    we had a client who had a claim against her homeowner's insurance because her dog attacked a biker. You might start there....the owner's insurance.


    Parent
    It's me with the bad dog :) (none / 0) (#102)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Mar 09, 2010 at 03:17:15 PM EST
    And it is us in trouble :)  Long story

    Parent
    Ooops - well, you know (5.00 / 1) (#110)
    by Inspector Gadget on Tue Mar 09, 2010 at 03:31:40 PM EST
    if you need character witnesses, you've got a plethora of us here :)


    Parent
    Just saw an AP headline re Great (none / 0) (#168)
    by oculus on Tue Mar 09, 2010 at 05:53:11 PM EST
    Briatin proposed legislation to require dogs be both microchipped and insured for liability.

    Parent
    I think it is fine to microchip (none / 0) (#187)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Mar 09, 2010 at 09:10:36 PM EST
    dogs.  The dang things tend to fail though after a few years.  It's pretty stupid to force people to insure a Yorkie.  Somebody is always proposing such legislation though, and most of it gets no place because it is pretty stupid.  We have groups now that do nothing except fight bad legislation.  I belong to one.  If you live on post though or a base now your dogs are required to be microchipped, and you can get into big trouble not doing it and the on post Vet will do it for like $10.  Most of my dogs except for the pups are microchipped because they are older than a year and a half.  They have to be tattooed or chipped to be Xrayed for their OFA to be done.  The dog has to have some sort of permanent individual marking to I.D. it in order for it to even have its Xrays be considered by the Orthopedic Foundation of America.  I have mentors though who are in their sixties who will not permit anyone other than them to touch their dogs.  They are very clear about it if you are on their property or approach their van at a dogshow, don't approach their dogs and touch them.  It is because of things that have happened in the past and liability.

    Parent
    Sounds like the fence may be a (none / 0) (#80)
    by oculus on Tue Mar 09, 2010 at 02:34:10 PM EST
    red herring, given you haven't filed a small claim action re damage to it.  Is there a law/ordinance requiring either party to fence yard?

    Parent
    No, and though I cannot (none / 0) (#105)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Mar 09, 2010 at 03:20:48 PM EST
    prove that they damaged our fence putting theirs up, there fence violates city and subdivision specs.  I think we may have a property line issue too but I'm no good at large scale geometry.  Husband will hire for a survey and supervise that.  They set their fence posts into cement too.  This is going to be real fun, I can already tell.

    Parent
    Definitely, get a surveyor (5.00 / 1) (#118)
    by Zorba on Tue Mar 09, 2010 at 03:57:33 PM EST
    to come out and locate the exact property lines- your husband is right about that.  I have a friend who had to do this, and forced the neighbors to relocate their misplaced fence.  I'm not a lawyer (although, goodness knows, there are plenty on this site, and they should feel free to speak up and let us know the exact law), but if you allow your neighbors to encroach on your property like this without doing anything about it, they may wind up "owning" that property (I think it depends on state and local laws).  In any case, you have to stand up to a bully, or they'll keep on bullying.  Good luck with your dog and your property, MT, and with these "neighbors from hades."  With all you're having to deal with, you need this like an extra hole in the head.  Sending good thoughts and positive energy your way, and {{hugs}}.

    Parent
    Agreed. Get a survey, research laws (5.00 / 1) (#125)
    by Cream City on Tue Mar 09, 2010 at 04:10:49 PM EST
    as well -- I was able to get my alderman out on a Friday night to stop construction next door too close to my lot line, construction for which a developer had a permit approved by the city.  So the alderman got a guy from that city office to come, too, when he saw what I had in hand:  the municipal ordinance on legal setback from the property line.  The city oaf was unaware of it.

    Some damage already had been done to my fence and garden, owing to monsoon rains that day -- but the developer had to redo the construction (a garage) and repair my fence (poorly) and etcetera.  But the main point is that the developer, who had been dismissing the crazy lady next door, had learned a lesson.  From then on -- and it went on and on -- the developer knew to get MY approval as well as municipal approvals, because I looked up every darn law online.

    But that also all relied on us already having had a survey done before, repeat before, we purchased the property, an old house with unclear lot lines.  Sure enough, a neighbor on the other side already had encroached by half a foot -- which we let go for a tidy few thousand dollars. :-)

    Btw, you will make back the cost of the plat survey in more peace of mind now -- and in resale later, letting potential buyers know that the survey will be theirs as part of the sale.  A lot of us have learned (as I did in homebuying years before) to never proceed without a recent survey (and a lot of mortgage companies want it, anyway).

    Parent

    We bought (5.00 / 1) (#131)
    by Zorba on Tue Mar 09, 2010 at 04:29:38 PM EST
    50+ acres in the country many years ago, and believe me, we didn't buy it without having a survey done.  For that matter, we had the house inspected by a qualified home inspector, too.  And we got a real estate lawyer to vet the contract.  I guess we're naturally cautious sorts.  Or maybe paranoid.  Whatever.  ;-)

    Parent
    I always have done all of those steps (5.00 / 1) (#138)
    by Cream City on Tue Mar 09, 2010 at 04:51:09 PM EST
    and more -- initially required by the mortgage bank but later because I learned how useful it can be.

    Nothing like having a lawyer at hand when a bank screws up paperwork and/or a buyer tries to pull last-minute nonsense.  One or both have happened to me several times. (Although, interestingly, only when I was buying or selling as a single woman, so I probably looked like a mark.  Ha.  And especially fun when the others in the room didn't ask who my "friend" was and went ahead with such nonsense, for me to then introduce my friend as also my lawyer.)

    Parent

    LOL! (5.00 / 1) (#145)
    by Zorba on Tue Mar 09, 2010 at 05:11:30 PM EST
    Cream City, you're my kind of gal!  When it came time to tell the real estate agent that we wanted to buy the property, she of course started to talk about the contract.  When we told her to send the contract to "Attorney X," our lawyer (we had some friends here, who had recommended the best real estate lawyer in the area), she visibly blanched.  X wrote the contract, and the closing was at his office.  He saved us more money than his fee, bless him.

    Parent
    You know what is stupid sad about the (5.00 / 0) (#140)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Mar 09, 2010 at 04:56:52 PM EST
    whole mess?  I had a truckload of local unemployed guys knock on my door the other day and ask me if I need trees trimmed.  I have over a 100 hardwoods on this lot and a husband newly diagnosed with RA, I bet I do.  The guy running the show has lived in the South his whole life, was probably born and raised right here too but I didn't ask.  He walked me around the whole spread, told me what was killing off my dogwoods, told me how to finally kill off the roots of the junk trees that keep coming back whenever we cut them down.  Three of them worked for about eight hours, I had them take out all the old dogwoods too...they really couldn't be saved and I knew this...they were just waiting for a good storm to fall down on something or someone.  I paid them $1,000 and a case of beer I threw in as a tip and they earned every penny.  He pointed out a tree to me though that is huge and dangerous, said I really needed to do something about that one but it is an enormous tree.  It will be an all day job and it is halfway hollow inside from disease.  I looked closer and then I saw it clearly was, but I would have never spotted that off hand.  It isn't on our property though, it is on theirs.  He told me that I'd better have a sit down with them on that tree because when it comes down it will take out any car in our driveway and probably even damage the corner of our house.  I'm certain they will be extremely receptive.

    Parent
    Tell Them (5.00 / 2) (#143)
    by squeaky on Tue Mar 09, 2010 at 05:05:09 PM EST
    By certified mail, or something. That way when it falls and destroys your car and or dogs, they may be liable for reckless endangerment since they were forewarned.

    At least they may take down the tree..

     

    Parent

    Brilliant idea! (none / 0) (#146)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Mar 09, 2010 at 05:12:02 PM EST
    That is exactly what I will do.

    Parent
    Sound advice (5.00 / 2) (#164)
    by Inspector Gadget on Tue Mar 09, 2010 at 05:43:06 PM EST
    Your homeowners insurance will cover damage to your home no matter who owns the tree that falls on it. BUT, if the tree was previously determined to be diseased and at risk of falling, and the owner was notified, their insurance will be held responsible for paying the claim.

    It's a big problem here where there are so many giant evergreens and windstorms often take out trees by the hundreds...yet, I'm amazed by how many homeowners don't know the terms of their insurance policies.

    Parent

    Registered mail (none / 0) (#150)
    by Zorba on Tue Mar 09, 2010 at 05:15:46 PM EST
    Return receipt requested.  You can never be too careful.  ;-)

    Parent
    And once again, check the laws (5.00 / 0) (#149)
    by Cream City on Tue Mar 09, 2010 at 05:15:36 PM EST
    as I did, so I was able to get a neighbor to take down dead limbs of a tree on their property, but the limbs were over our house, fence, cars, etc.

    So were awful grapevines growing on the dead limbs and starting to leap to our roof and gutters.  That neighbor was so not nice and impossible to deal with that the treetrimmer working for us offered to go knock on the door and tell her -- and then, yes, followed up with something in writing for us to hand to her.  She still did nothing . . . but the law allowed us to alert the city, which came and took care of it and put it on the property tax bill.

    A friend who is a roofer told us we were looking at only a few months until the grapevine could have started to work under shingles and rip them off.  We got that in writing for the city, too.

    We're fortunate where we live to have all state statutes and municipal laws and regulations online, so it wasn't that much work to be able to cite the chapter and verse to get the city to do its job on this and much more.

    Parent

    Young voters are ready to rock in 2010 (none / 0) (#57)
    by jbindc on Tue Mar 09, 2010 at 01:53:25 PM EST
    Unfortunately, more of them are Young Republicans.

    More young John McCain supporters than Obama supporters are preparing to go to the polls in November, according to the survey. While 44 percent of Obama supporters said they'd "definitely" be voting, 53 percent of Sen. McCain's (R-Ariz.) supporters said they planned to go to the polls. The poll found 35 percent of Democrats and 41 percent of Republicans intended to vote.


    Not hugely suprising in an mid-term election (none / 0) (#98)
    by Socraticsilence on Tue Mar 09, 2010 at 03:03:12 PM EST
    the party in power usually has lower turnout- also I would note that if 53% of McCains Young Voters turnout out and only 44% of Obama's do- that's still a massive, massive edge to Obama in Young Voter turnout since Obama drew around 2 to 1 support from Young Voters- it'd lower the ratio to something like 60% of all young voters who vote in 2010 vote Dem, from the 66% it was in 2008.

    Parent
    Maybe (none / 0) (#116)
    by jbindc on Tue Mar 09, 2010 at 03:54:43 PM EST
    But the rest of the story

    The results indicate "young Republicans are showing more enthusiasm than young Democrats for participating in these elections," Purcell said on a conference call with reporters Tuesday.

    At this time in 2008, both sets of young voters were expressing the same level of enthusiasm, said John Della Volpe, the institute's polling director. "This is kind of a new trend."



    Parent
    again (none / 0) (#127)
    by Socraticsilence on Tue Mar 09, 2010 at 04:13:13 PM EST
    the party in power almost always has lower enthusiasm in mid-terms.

    Parent
    But this is a completely different trend (none / 0) (#128)
    by jbindc on Tue Mar 09, 2010 at 04:18:51 PM EST
    Young people also tend not to vote in mid-terms.  If the young McCain voters can be enthused and actually rallied to come out - THAT would be quite significant.  It appears, from this survey at least, that that could happen.

    Parent
    Is there a whip count at all for the (none / 0) (#73)
    by observed on Tue Mar 09, 2010 at 02:19:22 PM EST
    House in terms of passing the Senate bill?
    Several weeks ago, there was supposed to be a hopeless deficit in votes to pass it.
    Am I supposed to believe so many votes have changed, without any change in the  bill (I don't believe reconciliation will occur---it will only be promised)?

    Cutting Edge Walmart (none / 0) (#99)
    by squeaky on Tue Mar 09, 2010 at 03:14:55 PM EST
    The eugenics of simulacrum
    Walmart is raising eyebrows after cutting the price of a black Barbie doll to nearly half of that of the doll's white counterpart at one store and possibly others.

    Glen Beck predicted it: Obama's health care plan demonstrates his hate Black people. Black Barbies are the canary in the coal mine.

    Oh wow (none / 0) (#104)
    by Socraticsilence on Tue Mar 09, 2010 at 03:20:16 PM EST
    that's so flipping loony- its almost as bad as his praise of Henry Ford for taking a brave stand against the menance of FDR (and the "Jooz" though that part is either unknown to Beck or simply unsaid).

    Parent
    Oh wow (none / 0) (#106)
    by Socraticsilence on Tue Mar 09, 2010 at 03:20:51 PM EST
    that's so flipping loony- its almost as bad as his praise of Henry Ford for taking a brave stand against the menance of FDR (and the "Jooz" though that part is either unknown to Beck or simply unsaid).

    Parent
    Kudos to trucking company which (none / 0) (#137)
    by oculus on Tue Mar 09, 2010 at 04:49:09 PM EST
    positioned table just where I wanted it post delivery.  Original deal:  trucking company will deliver to outside front door, uncrate it, and leave.  

    Digby (none / 0) (#163)
    by lilburro on Tue Mar 09, 2010 at 05:37:16 PM EST
    and SusanG take on the village with usual aplomb.  I had to laugh at this particular section from the New York Liz Cheney profile they quote:

    Liz's friends say she sets the bar for all-American normality: She watches Mad Men and 24 on TV, drives an SUV, attends Girl Scout meetings, and is frequently spotted on the sidelines of soccer fields, trading gossip with people like Terry McAuliffe, Washington Post reporter Glenn Kessler, and other power players whose kids go to the Country Day School or the Potomac School.

    That is scary.


    Oh, well, sure (5.00 / 2) (#188)
    by Zorba on Tue Mar 09, 2010 at 09:23:53 PM EST
    Liz is really "all-American," all right.  Just what is the tuition at the Country Day School and the Potomac School?  The Villagers truly live in a bubble.  (Why am I hearing strains of The Marseillaise and the "snick" of the guillotine?)

    Parent
    don't sweat it (5.00 / 0) (#190)
    by Socraticsilence on Tue Mar 09, 2010 at 11:26:22 PM EST
    I'm pretty sure in this case "All-american" means White and possibly Blonde.

    Parent
    Roy Ashburn Out of Closet (none / 0) (#166)
    by squeaky on Tue Mar 09, 2010 at 05:48:46 PM EST
    Great Op-ed in the New York Times today (none / 0) (#179)
    by tigercourse on Tue Mar 09, 2010 at 06:43:33 PM EST
    detailing the Democrats' failure to take on unemployment to any meaningful degree.