Saturday Morning Open Thread

Open Thread.

Bill Simmons interviews Lost honcho Carlton Cuse.

Chuck has been renewed for a 4th season.

Fringe is getting freaky, or freakier.

Unlike some music snobs (Jon Pareles with the back story), I liked this:

< Why Don't Marijuana Bills Progress Past Initial Committee Referrals? | Arizona Hotel Boycott Making an Impact >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Palin Logic (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by squeaky on Sat May 15, 2010 at 12:57:38 PM EST
    Former Alaska governor Sarah Palin told a group of women who oppose abortion rights that they are responsible for an "emerging, conservative, feminist identity" and have the power to shape politics and elections around the issue.

    Speaking to a breakfast gathering of the Susan B. Anthony List in downtown Washington on Friday, Palin urged more than 500 audience members to back only those candidates for public office who are uncompromisingly opposed to abortion.

    The new Feminists believe that women cannot be trusted, and need laws to criminalize any meddling they may do to mess with the plan the Gods have  for them.

    and this:

    "The mama grizzlies, they rise up," she said, to laughter. "You thought pit bulls are tough. You don't want to mess with the mama grizzlies. And I think there are a whole lot of those in this room."

    In the context of her gun love, seems that the grizzlies don't stand a chance.

    "feminist" now means a woman, (5.00 / 2) (#14)
    by jondee on Sat May 15, 2010 at 01:44:55 PM EST
    any woman..?

    Because formally, the privilege of promoting policies whose aim is the returning of women to Old Testament chattel status; breeding and tending the flocks (mending the occasional confederate flag), was strictly the domain of men..


    The three Fs (5.00 / 2) (#22)
    by jondee on Sat May 15, 2010 at 03:28:33 PM EST
    folksy, frontier and fascist..

    Next she'll be talking about the Alaskan frontier women who would pause just long enough to drop their twelfth in the snow, while checking their trapline..


    the Palin narrative (none / 0) (#25)
    by ZtoA on Sat May 15, 2010 at 05:29:11 PM EST
    is so very much stranger than fiction. Just when "feminist" became a bad word a right wing woman revises it - and redefines it. I don't think she is stupid, but she certainly does play the anti-intellectual (I suppose in order to not appear elitist) so I'm not at all sure what she thinks "feminist" means. I suspect it is just some sort of "woman power" stuff.

    Women's rights are vulnerable. I suspect there will be a backlash by young women when they decide to start paying attention. But the left is not offering any cool, inspiring female leaders!! The left instead completely shot down the last one (Hillary) and I can't think of any rising stars on the left. Am I missing some? All the left can do it seems is beef about Palin and Bachman. OK good start, but where's the charismatic exuberant powered intense female leaders on the left?

    Women want in the game and if that means restricting women's rights I guess some women are willing to do that - lots of men will vote for that. Ironic. And annoying.


    I think you have a point there (none / 0) (#32)
    by brodie on Sat May 15, 2010 at 07:15:30 PM EST
    about the lack of rising younger women stars on the left.  The older guard -- HRC, Pelosi, DiFi, Boxer, Mukulski -- well some have reached their pinnacle, some are too cautiously centrist and the rest are probably no longer in their prime.  The younger batch has been something of a disappointment as they appear too willing to go along to get along, too vanilla in their politics and personality to generate excitement.

    Maybe someone with charisma and courage will emerge from the House or governors' offices, but I have no candidates at the moment.  


    Won't Happen (none / 0) (#33)
    by squeaky on Sat May 15, 2010 at 07:23:58 PM EST
    Until there is a large enough pool of voters on the left for a female Politician to pander to.

    Not sure why this is even a question, given the direction of voters in the last 20 or 30 years.


    Oh, I think there was (none / 0) (#34)
    by brodie on Sat May 15, 2010 at 07:30:37 PM EST
    an opening last time, if only (well, I don't want to refight that one ...).  I.e, Obama got in probably more for his personality than any one substantive thing.  My candidate just didn't handle it right ... grrr ...

    So, imo, still an opportunity there for a younger woman pol who knows when to step outside of orthodox politics and who can display some pizzazz and energy.


    You Think Hillary Was On the Left? (none / 0) (#36)
    by squeaky on Sat May 15, 2010 at 07:33:33 PM EST

    Good one!


    I think Hillary Clinton would firmly and (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by oculus on Sat May 15, 2010 at 07:36:10 PM EST
    constantly support a woman's right to choose.  Could be wrong--but that's my opinion and I'm sticking to it.

    Well If That is What Determines a Leftist (none / 0) (#43)
    by squeaky on Sat May 15, 2010 at 07:41:55 PM EST
    There are many of them in COngress.

    Delusional, imo. but you are entitled to your extremely conservative definition of left wing.

    Palin and her wingnut pals would agree though, anyone who is pro choice is basically communist as they say..  Obama...



    Remind me. Which of these many (none / 0) (#47)
    by oculus on Sat May 15, 2010 at 07:49:36 PM EST
    leftists in Congress voted against HCR due to Stupak/Pitts and/or the subsequent Executive Order?

    Riiight (none / 0) (#49)
    by squeaky on Sat May 15, 2010 at 08:00:09 PM EST
    Hard to believe, after all the heartthrobs here, you still think that politics is not a game, and that politicians vote only based on their core beliefs.



    What's the deal with the constant (none / 0) (#66)
    by Anne on Sat May 15, 2010 at 09:00:52 PM EST
    laughter as a response to genuine and reasoned opinions?

    Do you suppose that it adds weight to your comments?

    Or do you derive some sort of satisfaction from the constant belittling?

    There's certainly nothing humorous about your comments, so I can only conclude that you think laughing at people is an appropriately mature way to make your points.

    Sorry to tell you that it just makes you look unnecessarily mean and vindictive; pretty sure you didn't have a whole lot of friends on the playground.


    What if the board (none / 0) (#50)
    by jondee on Sat May 15, 2010 at 08:07:28 PM EST
    of AIPAC took a strong stance against abortion; what would she do then?

    Talk about a dilemma..She'd probably continue to be pro-choice and balance it out by calling for immediate air strikes against Iran.


    Bishops and AIPAC Board. on the same (none / 0) (#52)
    by oculus on Sat May 15, 2010 at 08:09:47 PM EST
    side.  May as well give it all up.

    you make my point (none / 0) (#39)
    by ZtoA on Sat May 15, 2010 at 07:36:56 PM EST
    for me.

    Interesting that when talking about females (none / 0) (#70)
    by ZtoA on Sun May 16, 2010 at 12:55:25 AM EST
    on the left (or at least in the democratic party) the discussion gets reduced to Hillary. Maybe it is because Squeaky has a thing about Hillary Clinton, and maybe it is because there is no one else, really, to discuss.

    Squeaky, let me ask you, what female on the political scene do you actually like - who are you excited about - who do you support?  Who are you, as a woman, really rooting for? Do you think that inclusion is important? Who do you think will develop into a great/&-or/powerful leader?

    OK, "great leader" is subjective. "Powerful leader" is less so.


    Don't understand your comment Squeaky (none / 0) (#37)
    by ZtoA on Sat May 15, 2010 at 07:34:39 PM EST
    Does that mean the right has enough voters for female politicians to pander to? No, there are more Democrats. Maybe you are being snarky? I think it is a really odd, but interesting thing that the right seems to be excelling at getting young charismatic powerful females to lead and the left is not. Not at the moment at least.

    Here in Oregon the governor, senators, mayor of Portland, Portland representatives, heads of all of the cultural institutions (pres of art museum, symphony, opera, universities ) are ALL men. The only woman is retiring and what a loss!


    I thought you raised a valid (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by brodie on Sat May 15, 2010 at 07:41:03 PM EST
    point for discussion, but the dissenting poster here has yet to give it a substantive response.

    No one here was trying to claim HRC was lefty, but apart from her Iraq vote, she and her opponent had basically the same positions elsewhere, which was my point.  Personality played a key role with voters.  Younger ones showed up because they were excited by their candidate, while Hillary decided to run a stodgy campaign geared to older folks.

    The issue isn't being lefty enough for popular appeal, it's putting together the right combination of substance and style and, I would add, political courage enough to set a woman pol apart from the crowd.


    Well (none / 0) (#46)
    by squeaky on Sat May 15, 2010 at 07:47:33 PM EST
    Sorry if you do not find my comment as substantial.  It seems extremely obvious to me that the country has shifted rightward, and is continuing the trend.

    No leftist could possibly run for higher office, imo. Male or female, despite what the right calls centrist dems, they ain't even close to being leftists.

    Now if there were more than two parties, parliament style, we could have plenty of lefties involved in government, but with a two party system no way.


    Brodie I completely agree (none / 0) (#48)
    by ZtoA on Sat May 15, 2010 at 07:54:54 PM EST
    that Hillary ran a stodgy campaign - perfect word for it. and I strongly agree with your last paragraph. (#42)

    Not sure why Squeaky is talking about degrees of "leftism".  We should maybe be able to apply the "Squeak-o-meter-of-leftishness" to different pols? Hillary ran as a democrat. Bachman is a republican. Palin is a republican but a sort of dangerous one to the conventional party, she's trying to steal the TeaParty for herself, and getting away with it. Too bad for traditional republicans. Wonder what Jim thinks of Palin.


    There also had been a smear (none / 0) (#57)
    by jondee on Sat May 15, 2010 at 08:40:09 PM EST
    campaign raging against Clinton since the early nineties, which had, to some extent, generated    a rote anti-Clinton reflex even in some circles that might be expected to be supportive of her candidacy. This is one of the ways the conservative noise machine bullies pols rightward.

    The mind still boggles when I think about how the major media actually gave coverage to those moronic stories about Ron Brown being bumped off etc..pure John Birch Society conspiracy theorizing.."None Dare
    Call it Conspiracy"..lol

    I really thought her "leftist" goose was cooked way before the campaign of 08 even started.


    America's Rightward Shift (none / 0) (#41)
    by squeaky on Sat May 15, 2010 at 07:39:14 PM EST
    Does that mean the right has enough voters for female politicians to pander to?

    Absolutely. The BushCO regime was radical right. Palin could not exist without wingnuts, Delay???  

    The GOP has successfully moved the country to the right. Democrats are waaaaaay more conservative than they have ever been in my lifetime.


    #41, Squeaky (none / 0) (#51)
    by ZtoA on Sat May 15, 2010 at 08:08:43 PM EST
    I tried to comment on the issue of there being females participating across the entire spectrum of political activity at this point in time. I would tie that to a lack of females in leadership positions, CEOs, heads of cultural and educational institutions. I would never insist that females are somehow better as leaders, but they are acutely lacking at this point in time.

    Another interesting thing about Palin is that she is distinctly anti women's rights, and often anti female politicians. This is supported by lots of women. People who study cultural trends (hopefully, evolution) would have something to say about this. Actually, Squeaky, you as a woman are a very vocal attacker of a woman politician who you consider equal in political outlook to a male that you strongly support. We women have not gained as much equality as we think.

    Palin annoys me most when saying stuff about "God". As if she knows. And it is always very unconstitutional. I think the whole thing of her rise to power is linked to religious conservatism and the power it has.


    Sexism (none / 0) (#68)
    by squeaky on Sun May 16, 2010 at 12:41:27 AM EST
    I tried to comment on the issue of there being females participating across the entire spectrum of political activity at this point in time. I would tie that to a lack of females in leadership positions,

    Sexism is a fact, along with racism and other kinds of bigotry.

    Palin is super smart, imo. Palin is a tool of the GOP. She has decided that the best avenue to power is GOP rule. Her tradeoff for short term power, is selling off women's rights, hard won over the last 50 years.

    It is more sexist to support her because she is a woman powerhouse, imo,  than to criticize her for her regressive GOP values.


    Of course sexism is a fact! (none / 0) (#72)
    by ZtoA on Sun May 16, 2010 at 01:08:15 AM EST
    Geez, --whatever! Racism is a fact too, along with sexism. Are we going to have a contest about which "ism" is deeper, wider, longer lasting and more entrenched? Because if that is the discussion I'm yawning already.

    The rest of your comment (last paragraph) makes no sense in that whoever actually does support Palin could not care less about the degree of sexism their support indicates to you -- or even on some hypothetical "objective" scale of PC anti-sexist coolness.

    And you are saying just what I am - that Palin (and other right wing women) are using denying women's rights as a way to attract voters and supporters. Both male and female voters.

    So where is the counter movement to that??


    The counter-movement is there (none / 0) (#75)
    by jondee on Sun May 16, 2010 at 01:04:06 PM EST
    and has always been there. The problem is, it involves a wider ranging critique, which, in the eyes of most of the major media, makes the excesses of the teabaggers Palin pimps herself to about as threatening to the status quo as a rowdy PTA meeting.

    We all already know how the Greens, Libertarians and "Paleo Conservatives" are generally kept marginalized and out of the national debates..Or when included at all, always carefully framed as being craaazy -- with Kucinich being pointedly asked about UFO sightings and Paul asked about his "Truther" followers..

    The other perennial problem is that the left in this country has always splintered into factions much more easily, due, in part, to an excess of (gasp) independent thought and an inherent fear of the kind of Nuremburg-like-mass-mind that manifests at events like Teaparties..The trouble is that mass rallies are the squeaky wheel that gets the grease when it comes to "national attention"..


    Sorry Jondee, I'm not seeing it (5.00 / 1) (#77)
    by ZtoA on Sun May 16, 2010 at 02:30:19 PM EST
    Not seeing the dem party including women like it used to. I don't see who is being groomed for future leadership. I don't see any young energized women who strongly support women's rights up and coming. Dems have a decent old guard representation (Clinton, Pelosi, Boxer etc) but it is not the political party that is promoting young women as participants. What young women do you (and Squeaky) follow - who are you excited about - who do you see as a future leader?

    Screw the Democratic party (none / 0) (#78)
    by jondee on Sun May 16, 2010 at 02:46:39 PM EST
    (not to put too fine a point on it), they're bought and paid for, or as Greg Palast says, rented out for the forseeable future. They all convene at the same gentleman's and gentlewomen's club at the end of the day. With maybe a handful of exceptions.

    We need to drop the petty factionalism, the post-primary petty bourgeois not-speaking-to-each-other and get organized: the way people in this country USED to know how to do..  


    Don't understand your reponse (none / 0) (#79)
    by ZtoA on Sun May 16, 2010 at 05:00:38 PM EST
    "screw the dem party" - OK. "They're bought and paid for" - OK. Then the stuff about "petty factionalism" ?? ('WE' need to drop it?)Perhaps you were on a different tangent in this thread. I was talking about female participation within the structure of the two major political parties. Is that what you mean by "petty factionalism"? If so then your comment is one reason women are not being groomed for the choicest power positions in the dem party. Yes, the primary is over, which for some reason seems to be completely current here, and moving forward there is a lack of exciting upcoming females in the dem party. Do you know of any?

    As Gil Scott Heron said, (none / 0) (#76)
    by jondee on Sun May 16, 2010 at 01:31:04 PM EST
    The revolution will not be televised..

    ..it wont make you spring time fresh , whiten your teeth in seconds, put you in hands of the good hands people, or turn you into a p.c..  


    Two party system broken (5.00 / 3) (#11)
    by MO Blue on Sat May 15, 2010 at 01:19:53 PM EST
    Americans across all political ideologies agree on one thing: Our current two-party political system is broken. According to the new NBC/WSJ poll (PDF), only a tiny minority-15 percent-think our two-party system works fairly well. Fifty-two percent say it has real problems but can work with some improvement, and 31 percent think it is seriously broken and that we need a third party.

    A full 83 percent of Americans say our political system needs significant improvements. The question is, what are the sources of the problem and how do we fix it? There are three core causes corroding our democracy: money, lack of accountability and zero-sum politics. link

    Needless to say, I am among the 83% who thinks our political system needs significant improvements.

    As if to rub it in about (none / 0) (#31)
    by brodie on Sat May 15, 2010 at 07:02:50 PM EST
    how they can get things done to reform their political system while we just bellyache from election to election, the Brits appear to be serious about electoral reform in this new coalition thingy.  And of course they have no written Constitution blocking the path of change.

    Meanwhile, over on this side of the pond, things just continue to get worse, what with the Citizens United decision to go with an increasingly bought and paid for roadblock senate, and an electoral college dubious gift handed down to us by some 18th C dudes who were eager to get the job finished in that un-air conditioned room in Philly, and get out of town.


    With the SCOTUS decisions, I'm not (none / 0) (#65)
    by MO Blue on Sat May 15, 2010 at 09:00:05 PM EST
    sure what a voter can do other than bellyache about the system. Choosing to vote only for candidates who  actually accept public financing in this environment will often leave you with no viable candidate at all. Voting only for candidates who "promise" election reform leaves you with nothing but empty promises after the votes are counted.



    Al Franken and Elton: (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by jondee on Sat May 15, 2010 at 06:38:42 PM EST
    separated at birth?

    Hmm, dunno. (none / 0) (#30)
    by brodie on Sat May 15, 2010 at 06:53:35 PM EST
    Elton is very jowly these days, while Al just has that ear to ear smile that takes up all the lower half of his face.

    I do have Lady Gaga down for 75% Liza Minnelli and 25% Barbra Streisand, in this video.

    Springsteen is mostly Bobby DeNiro, with a chewing tobacco look under his lower lip suggesting some old timer ballplayer from Field of Dreams.  


    Michael Douglas refuses to sign (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by oculus on Sat May 15, 2010 at 07:38:01 PM EST
    Cannes filmmakers petition urging "Free Roman."  Douglas points out Polanski "did commit a crime."link

    A gashes teeth statistic (none / 0) (#1)
    by MO Blue on Sat May 15, 2010 at 12:08:58 PM EST
    * Percentage of all U.S. stimulus funds for renewable energy since last September that have gone to foreign companies: 79 Meteor Blades-DKos

    I wonder if there will be... (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by EL seattle on Sat May 15, 2010 at 12:50:21 PM EST
    ... an accurate list of what sorts of "renewable energy" products and services all those funds bought the US.  (And what, exactly, the whole 100% bought, while we're at it.)

    At the very least, this should provide a great catalog of which renewable energy products/services work and which are currently worthless.  If the US paid 79% for some great stuff, it should be an excellent wake-up call for the US and US companies to make do those things stateside.  Transparency is good!

    However, if it turns out that the US paid any of that 79% for vaporware, scams, and gold-plated wrenches, I think that there should be a harvest of public scorn and humiliation for the crooks or suckers who wasted that money.    


    Can't find the link (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by MO Blue on Sat May 15, 2010 at 01:07:15 PM EST
    but a read a post several months ago where a large amount of U.S. stimulus money went to a U.S./Chinese joint venture to purchase wind tunnels from China to be used in Texas. The information said that this would create 2,000 full time jobs in China, 30 temporary jobs and 3 full time jobs in U.S. Also, the media source said that energy production would be reduced because the wind tunnels experienced lengthly down time due to the need for repairs.

    I read that, too. (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by Joan in VA on Sat May 15, 2010 at 01:52:25 PM EST
    It boggles the mind that there isn't someone, somewhere in the US who wants to make turbines with gov't money? Is our manufacturing capability just completely gone or does everything we use just have to come from China no matter what? Is there something so special about turbines that only the Chinese have the technology? If they need repairs, it doesn't seem like the Chinese have it down to a science-Americans can make stuff that needs repairs, too!

    We're making turbines right here (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by Cream City on Sat May 15, 2010 at 02:57:40 PM EST
    in my state and others, thanks to foreign companies that are coming here -- with proven technology -- and creating not three but hundreds of jobs here in my city alone.  Some foreign companies are going about this the right way, and we're happy to have them.

    The others such as one noted here that is not creating U.S. jobs?  They never ought to have gotten funding from the Obama administration -- from our taxes -- pure and simple.  There are plenty of foreign companies (and more and more U.S. ones) that could be more U.S.-worker-friendly suppliers.


    What's stopping you... (none / 0) (#13)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Sat May 15, 2010 at 01:31:26 PM EST
    ...from doing your own research?  The records are all out there.  Here's a start.

    Thanks for the link! (none / 0) (#24)
    by EL seattle on Sat May 15, 2010 at 04:51:00 PM EST
    They seem to have a lot of specific individual information, but I think it will take someone who's more of an expert than I am to sort through the specific individual information and separate the domestic- from the foreign- and the multinational- project payouts.  

    Also, the individual descriptions (that I read) that are listed for the specific  projects seem to maybe come from the project propsals, complete with some proposal 'sales spin'.  Hopefully there will be followup comments that will chronicle the actual efficiency of each project.

    It's a good start, though!  

    In an ideal world, there'd be a searchable database of local newspaper coverage of the various projects.  But I'm afraid that might be a dream from another time.



    Not surprised (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by Cream City on Sat May 15, 2010 at 01:04:29 PM EST
    as family member who immigrated here from a great career in the field elsewhere still isn't finding a fulltime job here -- just a parttime job and a consulting possibility, because employers in the field here still are awaiting promised funding from the White House for renewable energy.  So with answers yet to come to all employers re health care changes, too, these employers also are leery of adding fulltime positions.

    There is more work, they say, but they're just overloading themselves and any employees they do have now, plus considering taking on some consultants aka self-employed sans benefits, etc., until the White House gets moving on meeting its promises made more than a year ago.

    So there will just be more jobless recovery for now -- and more massive oil spills for years ahead than there need to be.  


    Link confused comment (none / 0) (#5)
    by MO Blue on Sat May 15, 2010 at 12:50:14 PM EST
    79% of all U.S. stimulus funds for renewable energy since last September that have gone to foreign companies.

    I should be... (none / 0) (#16)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Sat May 15, 2010 at 02:00:48 PM EST
    ...gnashing my teeth over bringing sorely needed manufacturing, technology and research jobs to my state?  I don't imagine the people with those jobs care all that much who is signing their checks.  

    For a long-term investment in a new/emerging economic sector where, quite frankly, our domestic technology is appallingly lacking?  We need to get ahead of the curve and buying existing technology is one way to do so.  

    No, the only thing I'm gnashing my teeth over in the new energy economy and our investment in it, is if we can ensure that we have the educated workers that it is going to need and if we can make innovations to existing technology that would really make the investment pay off.


    The link that you referenced (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by MO Blue on Sat May 15, 2010 at 02:24:35 PM EST
    indicates that the foreign companies are opening plants and creating jobs here in the states. For example:

    Denmark-based Vestas Blades opened its first North American manufacturing plant in Windsor in March 2008 and plans to open three additional production facilities in Colorado (two in Brighton and one in Pueblo). Vestas' total commitment to Colorado represents a $700 million capital investment and 2,500 new jobs.

    My objection is when U.S. stimulus money is used as in the example I cited that creates 2,000 jobs in China and only 3 full time jobs here at home. Seems from your link, the U.S. could have used that money to purchase the equipment for wind energy from CO.


    I've yet to see any proof... (none / 0) (#21)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Sat May 15, 2010 at 03:11:36 PM EST
    ...of this spending.  Was this project really funded?  Or is it a little more complex (PDF Warning) that it's being made out to be?

    The larger fact, however, is that no single nation is likely to dominate the clean-energy economy. Goldwind, Coda, and the Thermal Power Research Institute are hybrids of Western design and Chinese production, and no nation has yet mastered both the invention and the low-cost manufacturing of clean technology. It appears increasingly clear that winners in the new-energy economy will exploit the strengths of each side. President Obama seems inclined toward this view. When he visited Beijing in November, he and Hu Jintao cut several deals to share energy technology and know-how which will accelerate progress in both countries. This was hardly a matter of handing technology to China; under one of the deals, for instance, the Missouri-based company Peabody Energy purchased a stake in GreenGen, so that it can obtain data from, and lend expertise to, a cutting-edge Chinese power plant.

    Hybrids of Western design (none / 0) (#23)
    by MO Blue on Sat May 15, 2010 at 04:00:17 PM EST
    and Chinese production. IOW the products are made in China with Chinese workers. No need for those plants in CO if the Chinese can use American designs to produce cheaper products. Somehow, I don't think you will agree with that.

    Yes, you should be if (none / 0) (#18)
    by Cream City on Sat May 15, 2010 at 02:53:50 PM EST
    your state could have gotten more jobs, as would seem logical, with 50 states splitting up only 21 percent of the stimulus funds -- from your  taxpayers as well as the rest of us are paying.

    It's just not doing what we were told it would do -- create all those jobs here -- period.


    Is that right? (none / 0) (#20)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Sat May 15, 2010 at 03:05:21 PM EST
    We're making turbines right here (none / 0) (#19)
    by Cream City on Sat May 15, 2010 at 12:57:40 PM MST
    in my state and others, thanks to foreign companies that are coming here -- with proven technology -- and creating not three but hundreds of jobs here in my city alone.  Some foreign companies are going about this the right way, and we're happy to have them.

    Yes, that's right. Is the math (none / 0) (#69)
    by Cream City on Sun May 16, 2010 at 12:52:27 AM EST
    really that hard for you?

    Yes, hundreds of jobs are being created where I am -- soon -- and even thousands of jobs are being created in this country . . . but still adding up to far less than are being created in other countries by almost 80 percent of the stimulus funding, our tax dollars that were supposed to stimulate our economy.

    Try this:  Take five bucks.  Put four bucks in an envelope and send it to any ol' address overseas.  Now, take the buck you've got left and divide it by 50.  Out of five bucks, that leaves two cents for your state.

    Oh, and by the way, where did that five bucks come from?  From the 50 states, right?  So, if your state sent its fair share, you sent ten cents to Washington, it sent eight cents of that overseas, and you got two cents back to rebuild your state economy.  



    CA eliminating welfare? (none / 0) (#2)
    by jbindc on Sat May 15, 2010 at 12:31:46 PM EST
    Gove. Schwarzenegger has asked the CA legislature to eliminate welfare and reduce spending for in-home care for the elderly and disabled starting in October.

    Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger asked lawmakers Friday to eliminate the state's welfare program starting in October and dramatically scale back in-home care for the elderly and disabled as part of his May budget revision to close a $19.1 billion deficit.

    The Republican governor also proposed cuts to state worker compensation. Besides asking for a 5 percent pay cut, 5 percent payroll cap and 5 percent increased pension contribution, Schwarzenegger has proposed cutting one day per month of pay in exchange for leave credit.

    The proposal would affect all state workers under the governor's authority, regardless of whether they are general fund or special fund employees. Employees would not be able to cash out any of this unused leave credit when they leave state service. The plan would replace the three-day-a-month furloughs, which are due to end June 30.

    Schwarzenegger said the sour economy, the failure of the Legislature to make cuts he proposed in January and the federal government's failure to come up with about $7 billion leaves policymakers with no choice but to make deep cuts.

    Schwarzenegger also proposed eliminating state-subsidized child care for all but preschoolers as a way to reduce the state's education funding guarantee.

    I saw this on the news (none / 0) (#4)
    by nycstray on Sat May 15, 2010 at 12:39:06 PM EST
    but didn't catch the whole thing. Thanks for the link . . .

    Healthy Families program is about to get (none / 0) (#27)
    by oculus on Sat May 15, 2010 at 06:33:02 PM EST
    the axe also.

    More Roman Polanski fun! (none / 0) (#3)
    by jbindc on Sat May 15, 2010 at 12:34:40 PM EST
    that was mentioned in last night's open thread (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by Jeralyn on Sat May 15, 2010 at 01:06:44 PM EST
    with my opinion it's not worthy of discussion, just promotional material for Gloria Allred.

    Celebrity Gossip (none / 0) (#12)
    by squeaky on Sat May 15, 2010 at 01:25:22 PM EST
    I agree.

    Can the prosecution use vague and unsubstantiated claims, against Polanski 25 years after the fact?


    I suppose so. In statement in aggravation (none / 0) (#28)
    by oculus on Sat May 15, 2010 at 06:34:22 PM EST
    re sentencin, if prosecution seeks prison term as opposed to probation and credit for time served and/or local custody time.

    Lady GaGa may be odd in some ways (none / 0) (#26)
    by Militarytracy on Sat May 15, 2010 at 06:22:18 PM EST
    but I like her.  She displays a certain genius.  God knows she is an original too, you can't pull that off without talent.

    She (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by CoralGables on Sat May 15, 2010 at 08:18:34 PM EST
    sure isn't a Rainbow girl. Check out those wheels.

    I'd say the white tights are a fail. (none / 0) (#54)
    by oculus on Sat May 15, 2010 at 08:39:11 PM EST
    Does her talent including her singing? (none / 0) (#55)
    by oculus on Sat May 15, 2010 at 08:39:42 PM EST
    It did for me :) (none / 0) (#74)
    by Militarytracy on Sun May 16, 2010 at 03:50:32 AM EST
    but if she uses one of those tune up gizmos......

    I never like these pop creations (none / 0) (#61)
    by ruffian on Sat May 15, 2010 at 08:43:01 PM EST
    Madonna always left me cold too.

    Obviously I'm in the minority since they sure sell music and magazines.


    Sorry. I still can't forgive Elton John for (none / 0) (#35)
    by oculus on Sat May 15, 2010 at 07:32:27 PM EST
    intruding into the sublime music of Princess Di's funeral at Westminster Abbey.  what the f#uck was he doing there?

    As to Lady Gaga, was the mike on when she was singing?

    Best moment of the day (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by brodie on Sat May 15, 2010 at 07:45:01 PM EST
    was when EJ performed.  Very moving and quite a tribute to his friend, someone who of course loved the popular music of her time.

    My mileage definitely differs! (none / 0) (#45)
    by oculus on Sat May 15, 2010 at 07:46:56 PM EST
    Elton was asked (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by caseyOR on Sat May 15, 2010 at 08:41:23 PM EST
    by the Royal Family ( or maybe it was Diana's brother Charles Spencer) to perform that song at Princess Diana's funeral. He couldn't have done it if the family didn't want him to sing.

     I plan to have a number of Beatles' songs performed at my funeral, whenever that may be. Popular music at a funeral is clearly not the problem for me that it seems to be for you. To each her own.


    Let's just say I didn't think the meld was (none / 0) (#60)
    by oculus on Sat May 15, 2010 at 08:42:43 PM EST
    optimal.  Didn't brother turn out to be something of a fraud?  

    A fraud? What kind of fraud? (none / 0) (#63)
    by caseyOR on Sat May 15, 2010 at 08:49:15 PM EST
    My knowledge of Charles Spencer began and ended with Diana's  death and funeral.  He is definitely her brother. And, as the only son, he inherited the title. What kind of fraud did he turn out to be?

    Okay, that is the sum total of what I know about the guy.


    I can't substantiate my allegations v. (none / 0) (#67)
    by oculus on Sat May 15, 2010 at 10:13:00 PM EST
    Mr. Spencer.  I remembered some allegations of misuse/mismanagement re Diana's memorial fund.  But not in Wiki.  Nevermind.

    Reminds me of the great (none / 0) (#71)
    by Cream City on Sun May 16, 2010 at 12:56:39 AM EST
    funeral scene in The Big Chill, as the mourners catch on to the tune that the organist is playing so sonorously -- a Stones tune, as I recall.  Then we see the smiles spread from face to face to face.

    Good for you for planning to put smiles on the faces of those left behind.  Now you have me considering just which of the Fab Four's hits that I will have at my rites!


    Can't Always Get What You Want (5.00 / 1) (#73)
    by caseyOR on Sun May 16, 2010 at 01:13:23 AM EST
    That was the funeral song in The Big Chill. It was a great scene in that movie. Actually, all the music in The Big Chill was great.

    Judging from that video (none / 0) (#56)
    by ruffian on Sat May 15, 2010 at 08:39:58 PM EST
    That looks like the worst concert ever.

    Really, if you are not either Steve Perry the cast of Glee, just stop believing you should sing that song. And I say that with love to 3 pf my favorites, Sting, Elton, and the Boss.


    Springsteen seemed to be the only (none / 0) (#59)
    by oculus on Sat May 15, 2010 at 08:41:40 PM EST
    one really interested in that song, or at least at giving it some life.

    He can't help but give any song some life (none / 0) (#62)
    by ruffian on Sat May 15, 2010 at 08:46:53 PM EST
    Reading the article I guess the concert was an 80s theme and pretty campy, so I guess they had their fun with it. Not the crime of the century I guess.

    I take it back (none / 0) (#64)
    by ruffian on Sat May 15, 2010 at 08:52:09 PM EST
    That rendition is still ringing in my ears 15 minutes later. Must  go put on some other music.

    Maybe it IS the crime of the century.