home

Crybabies

Booman:

[Progressive dissatisfaction with Democrats] is mainly a problem not of style but of an infantile need to be hugged and patted on the head on the part of a bunch of cry babies. But the cry babies are also an important constituency[. . .]

Yep. That's it. It's the crybaby thing. Sheesh. And coming from the all time Clinton hating crybaby, it is just rich.

Speaking for me only

< Pew Poll: Americans Oppose Tax Cuts For The Wealthy By Nearly 2-1 | Living The Dream >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Yep, (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by lilburro on Tue Jul 27, 2010 at 01:32:10 PM EST
    after all, the stimulus was a trillion dollars, we didn't get prosecutions but we did get a Truth Commission, and we did get a level playing field public option.  We should be pretty happy.

    Oh wait...

    "it's ridiculous (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by lilburro on Tue Jul 27, 2010 at 01:39:54 PM EST
    how much you got":

    Calvin, you are wearing on my patience.  What do you get?
    Day one, you got repeal of the Mexico City Policy.  

    Day two, you got fair pay for women.

    Day three, you got funding for embryonic stem-cell research.

    Day four, you got the Children's Health Insurance Reauthorization Act.

    Day five, you got American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, with massive investment in green energy and every goodie under the Sun.

    Day six, you got the Omnibus Public Lands Management Act.

    Day seven, you got the Edward M. Kennedy Serve America Act.

    Day eight, you got the Serve America Act.

    I wonder if this itemized list would cut the mustard if Hillary Clinton was Prez.

    Parent

    He really liked the Serve America Act (5.00 / 4) (#14)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jul 27, 2010 at 01:43:32 PM EST
    that may be a great piece of legislation for all I know. I have no idea what it is.

    The stimulus was inadequate period.

    To be honest, it is my biggest beef with Obama.

    If he repeal the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy, and it looks like he is going to, I'll feel a lot better about these two years than I do now.

    That's a big one for me.

    Parent

    I just don't get (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by lilburro on Tue Jul 27, 2010 at 01:53:02 PM EST
    what certain Obama defenders are trying to prove with these kinds of comebacks.  Progressives are pissed about the stimulus and healthcare (and soon, climate change).  The big stuff which was done with a very personal and also ideological distaste for our side.  Don't tell me about the Mexico City Policy, that's why we vote Democrat.

    Parent
    Well (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jul 27, 2010 at 01:57:41 PM EST
    I can't explain it. It is an argument for voting Dem in elections. I am not sure that the disgruntled need the explanation.

    It's just weird to me for 2 reasons -- one, the blogs were built on disputing that Dems were taking the wise tack politically and policy wise. Booman was part of that, especially the disdain for "triangulation" and Clinton. Two, the blogs, I thought, would be an effective Left flank. To wit, they never should be satisfied. They should always want more. That's how you get what little you do get.

    Being part of the Dem cheerleading operation was not what I thought it was about. But this has been a theme of mine for 3 years.

    Parent

    The first point (none / 0) (#38)
    by lilburro on Tue Jul 27, 2010 at 02:18:45 PM EST
    is almost no longer possible.  Half of the blogosphere seems to be arguing about what's going on right in front of their nose.  Booman has a comment in the same thread going on and on about how Obama does not triangulate.  What?  That's nice, but there were failures that do warrant some explanation.

    As Krugman writes today:

    Coulda Woulda Shoulda

    Sigh.

    Ezra Klein today.

    Me, March 2009.

    Chronicle of a disaster foretold.

    We couldn't even get a decent jobs bill passed later, for heaven's sake.

    Parent

    That's what puzzles me too (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by ruffian on Tue Jul 27, 2010 at 02:04:51 PM EST
    Why are they adding insult to injury? They almost seem to be trying to depress turnout in November.

    I guess they don't want to own up to being the centrists they used to deride.

    Parent

    well (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by lilburro on Tue Jul 27, 2010 at 02:24:39 PM EST
    I would think rallying the base would be done more effectively by forcing Dems to ask for my vote by proposing Dem policies again.  I am well aware that 95% of Republicans running for office have sociopathic tendencies.  But I will organize for someone who is going to promise to work on a jobs bill harder than I will for someone who is going to point to no-brainer Dem accomplishments.  Just because it's midterms and we have the House now doesn't mean you have to run on the past alone, I would like to know what you are going to do in the future.

    Parent
    I think (none / 0) (#16)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Jul 27, 2010 at 01:46:19 PM EST
    they may have gotten the message on that one.

    Parent
    I actually think (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jul 27, 2010 at 01:59:01 PM EST
    the "deficit concern" strategy was all meant to lead to this point.

    A sort of "lockbox" argument.

    I think it was well executed actually. I did not spend much time railing about it because I thought this was the endgame, repeal the Bush tax cuts.

    Parent

    I guess I hoped it was (none / 0) (#26)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Jul 27, 2010 at 02:02:53 PM EST
    but have been shy lately of the 11 dimensional chess stuff.

    it would be great to think it was.


    Parent

    No one makes more fun of that than me (none / 0) (#33)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jul 27, 2010 at 02:15:19 PM EST
    But I thought so at the time and think so now.

    Parent
    also (none / 0) (#27)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Jul 27, 2010 at 02:03:50 PM EST
    its very surprising to me that the republicans seem so eager to take the bait on this one.


    Parent
    From Paradox at The Left Coaster... (5.00 / 5) (#54)
    by Romberry on Tue Jul 27, 2010 at 02:49:20 PM EST
    A post about the "paradox" of liberal dissatisfaction with the Obama administration even in the face of so many legislative "accomplishments" sums it all up pretty well. From "11 Percent is a Result, Not a Paradox":

    ...(S)ince President Obama has one of the greatest Congressional achievement records of any modern Executive, how can it be so many are so very unhappy?

    [snip]

    The base confusion for the "Obama paradox" resides in the bombastic, surprisingly arrogant claim of record "legislative accomplishment." If one counts a long list of empty legislation that has been tortuously shot apart by an army of lobbyists and their general committee chairs, yielding nothing but more riches for the interests that control Congress anyway, then confusion one shall have. The Almighty Badass Legislation of DC Change, Health Care, was described as a "small start" by Kevin Drum while nyceve is still livid about it, but the little people see no change, or just tiny winks of it in the suffocating darkness. For the hundredth time, the stimulus bill worked for corporations and the Street but not the little people, no one is hiring and wages are falling.

    Same post goes on to talk about the war funding vote which pays for more war spending with a credit card but strips funding for education (which may see the loss of more than 100,000 teaching jobs this fall as a result) even though the education spending was actually paid for and did not increase the deficit.

    Bottom line? The "accomplishment listers" are playing Rahm ball. They point to a list of legislation passed with great sounding titles and want us to not look past the titles to what is actually in the legislation. Every time I see "health care reform" on such a list, I want to just 'effin scream.

    Parent

    You should read Booman's (5.00 / 3) (#58)
    by shoephone on Tue Jul 27, 2010 at 03:02:46 PM EST
    12 Days of Obama, or whatever the frack analogy he is using. For example, on the 7th day, Obama passed the Edward M Kennedy America Serves Act. And on the 8th day, Obama passed America Serves. Again. I guess. In any case, it is an unintentionally funny campanion piece to your
    "paradox" post. Are the accomplishment list people using the same list? And does anyone in America remember or even count the America Serves Act as one of the greatest accomplishments?

    Silly me. I'm still hung up on the health care I'm not going to get, the job that isn't there, the near zero interest I'm making on what investments I still have, and the home I will never be able to buy, regardless that I have a credit rating that would make most people jealous.

    I can see the ads now:

    Obama/Biden. Acomplishing for America!


    Parent

    How many tantrum meltdowns (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Jul 27, 2010 at 01:32:20 PM EST
    besides this one between now and the midterms?  Based on the circumstances of our real lives I'm certain the morale will not be improving and the beatings will continue.

    And when you can't afford your health insurance premium and they just sold your house at auction while you don't have a job and have sent out hundreds of resumes, I am certain that Booman punching crybabies in the face is going to drive hordes of Dem voters to the polls.

    And I'm supposed to be excited that Obama removed a bit more of my right to choose while he passed something protecting our coastlines.....and then proceeded to try to ignore what was happening in the gulf until it could no longer be ignored.  Salazar and the Obama administration dramatically increased offshore drilling and Booman is trying to sell me that I got executive orders to look after coastlines and the environment?

    Worse yet, the truth is that almost nothing that Obama "accomplished" made one bit of difference in the drastically shrinking quality of life for middle class Americans.  Where that is concerned he stayed clearly on the course he chose and shored up an economic hell for us all to survive.  

    Now give us Elizabeth Warren or suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune provided by the crybabies!

    Jon Stewart, on his return last night, (none / 0) (#25)
    by KeysDan on Tue Jul 27, 2010 at 01:59:48 PM EST
    covered news happenings while he was on vacation.  The rush to judgment and inelegant disposition of Mrs. Sherrod by the Obama Administration was contrasted with its cautionary judgment and respectful demeanor in the BP oil spill catastrophe.   The audience laughed, nervously.

    Parent
    Thanks for the heads up (none / 0) (#29)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Jul 27, 2010 at 02:10:46 PM EST
    I had a migraine last night so DVR'd it and haven't watched it yet.  It is an uncomfortable contrast.

    Parent
    You must be reading Booman for the sheer (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by Anne on Tue Jul 27, 2010 at 01:39:42 PM EST
    entertainment value, because it is just impossible to take anything he says seriously.

    I would venture to say that a lot of (god, I hate this word) progressives are ticked off because we are being patted on the head, and there-there'd, and given that little cock of the head that connotes pity, getting that gee-are-you-having-a-bad-day? attitude that points the finger of blame at our emotion, and talked to as if we couldn't possibly understand the grand scheme or the complex details enough to even have an opinion.

    Meanwhile, people like Booman have adopted Obama as their "lovey," their comfort object, and cling to him - and it - with all the ferocity of an overly tired toddler.

    Look in the mirror, Booman; the infant looking back at you IS you.


    It's very familiar (5.00 / 2) (#19)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue Jul 27, 2010 at 01:49:05 PM EST
    This is how women too often get dismissed in the workplace when two of them have a serious disagreement on something.  Happens sometimes when it's male-female, but two women at odds over a policy issue of some kind?  Forget it.  Snickers and head-pats and murmurings of "cat fight" all around.

    Parent
    BTD (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by NYShooter on Tue Jul 27, 2010 at 01:40:46 PM EST
    Not that you need my help in the topics you choose to post on, but this one is growing stale.

    They have "made it," they have kissed enough tushie, they have surrendered their self-respect, they have kissed Broder's ring (and...) and are now card-carrying "Villagers."

    The fact that they are clueless as to what is possible, what is doable, and what is so tragically needed is of no interest to them; all they know is to not rock the boat.

    and what they have in common with the Republicans is that being consistently wrong only strengthens their resolve.

    I'm not done with it (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jul 27, 2010 at 01:44:11 PM EST
    yet.

    Parent
    whew! (none / 0) (#53)
    by NYShooter on Tue Jul 27, 2010 at 02:47:06 PM EST
    At least you didn't punch my face in; we're making progress.

    Parent
    They have become (5.00 / 2) (#17)
    by jbindc on Tue Jul 27, 2010 at 01:47:01 PM EST
    That which they hated and derided during the Bush years.

    Parent
    Can I share? (5.00 / 4) (#18)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Jul 27, 2010 at 01:47:50 PM EST
    Everything you post is true, and what drives me completely nuts is when I've spent years reading their literary lynchings of George Bush in full agreement....but everything is different if Obama does the same damn stuff.  If Obama touches it, it becomes freshly laundered and a thing of beauty.  Obama gets different rules, and nobody has a shred of credibility to cling to.

    Parent
    Well, (1.00 / 1) (#64)
    by NYShooter on Tue Jul 27, 2010 at 03:25:30 PM EST
    A lot of is just two sides of the same coin; you would expect partisans to bend, rationalize, and wiggle a little bit. But, I agree, some it is just downright humiliating.

    But my beef with Obama is....he is a liar. Of course, that's open to interpretation, but who am I going to listen to? I see what I see, I know what I know, and I don't need any pundits, Left or Right, to explain it to me. It's like in the Plame case, Cheney et al committed treason. Yes, yes, I know, that wasn't "proven," I don't understand "The law," " it's very complicated," yadda, yadda. But you know, and I know, and anyone who hasn't had the last vestige of cranial matter sucked out of their skull knows, he's a traitor, and should be in jail.

    I know what Obama promised us, I know what he spent $300,000,000 telling us what he would do, and I knew that HE knew that countless millions of desperate Americans put their lives, hopes, dreams, and futures into his hands because they trusted him, and believed him.

    And it was all a lie.
    Kind of what springs into my mind is that during my sports playing days I never prayed to hit a home run in the 9th inning to win the big game. I prayed to just be in the batter's box in the 9th inning; I would take care of the rest, and hit the home run, or at least go down trying.

    So, what pisses me off so much about Obama is that he had His prayer answered, he got into the batter's box, but instead of swinging for the fences as we all voted him into office to do, he faked us out, and bunted.

    Now, his apologists are saying, "but he bunted very well, why don't you give him credit for that, and btw, stop being such a crybaby."

    So, as sycophants in the WH are soothing him, and scapegoating us, he's left muttering to himself, "What do they want?"

    Liar.

    Parent

    that just (none / 0) (#1)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Jul 27, 2010 at 01:05:22 PM EST
    makes me smile.

    Why Do IQ Scores Vary By Nation? (none / 0) (#2)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Jul 27, 2010 at 01:08:39 PM EST
    Global differences in intelligence is a sensitive topic, long fraught with controversy and still tinged by the disgraceful taint of pseudosciences such as craniometry that strove to prove the white "race" as the most clever of them all. But recent data, perplexingly, has indeed shown cognitive ability to be higher in some countries than in others. What's more, IQ scores have risen as nations develop--a phenomenon known as the "Flynn effect." Many causes have been proposed for both the intelligence gap and the Flynn effect, including education, income, and even nonagricultural labor. Now, a new study from researchers at the University of New Mexico offers another intriguing theory: intelligence may be linked to infectious-disease rates.


    oops (none / 0) (#3)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Jul 27, 2010 at 01:18:51 PM EST
    sorry
    thought this was open

    Parent
    I just thought you were going (5.00 / 2) (#5)
    by ruffian on Tue Jul 27, 2010 at 01:31:27 PM EST
    to tie it back to Booman. Did he have an infectious disease as a baby?

    Parent
    it would (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Jul 27, 2010 at 01:38:34 PM EST
    explain a lot

    Parent
    Make it open (none / 0) (#4)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jul 27, 2010 at 01:21:05 PM EST
    Open Thread everyone.

    Parent
    Interesting, but how does (none / 0) (#9)
    by brodie on Tue Jul 27, 2010 at 01:34:17 PM EST
    it explain high-IQ Italy's constantly voting Berlusconi's party into power or allowing Mr B to own and control so much of their media?

    That said, I've always been partial to a belief that each country has its own distinct national character traits, so why shouldn't there be differences on IQ.  

    Parent

    a cheek to far? (none / 0) (#20)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Jul 27, 2010 at 01:52:51 PM EST
    Southwest Bumps Thin Woman from Flight to Make Room for Plus-Sized Teen: Was It Fair?

    (CBS) A petite Sacramento woman was bumped from a Southwest Airlines flight to make room for an extra-large 14-year-old child who required two seats.

    to be fair

    Southwest can't seem to win for losing. This is the same airline that made headlines recently when it booted chubby blogger Kevin Smith, 39, from his seat because he had to squeeze himself into it.

    After the Smith incident, Southwest said his removal was for the "safety and comfort of all customers," maintaining that a large person could block passengers seated nearby from exiting quickly in the event of an emergency.

    Southwest generally requires large passengers to buy two tickets. But in this case, the child's parents had purchased only one.



    If the 14 yr old was traveling with (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by ruffian on Tue Jul 27, 2010 at 01:59:25 PM EST
    her parents, it seems fair to bump someone else fist. And if they had bumped the 14 yr old they would have had an issue with having to bump the parents too.

    Ordinarily I would say it should strictly be according to who bought tickets first, but considering the case of the family traveling together, I think it was a fair decision.

    Parent

    Give me a round trip ticket and bump me (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Jul 27, 2010 at 02:11:51 PM EST
    I'll survive :)

    Parent
    perhaps (5.00 / 3) (#31)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Jul 27, 2010 at 02:14:04 PM EST
    but when 14 year olds start taking up two seats I think we have to admit that Michelle may be on to something with the childhood obesity stuff.


    Parent
    Oh, she is definitely on to something (5.00 / 2) (#36)
    by ruffian on Tue Jul 27, 2010 at 02:16:09 PM EST
    On trip to Disneyworld will convince you of that.

    Parent
    or Walmart (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Jul 27, 2010 at 02:23:39 PM EST
    or any buffet in Champaign

    Parent
    Yeah, that is usually my attitude (none / 0) (#34)
    by ruffian on Tue Jul 27, 2010 at 02:15:19 PM EST
    Depending on circumstances of course.

    Parent
    In theory... (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by kdog on Tue Jul 27, 2010 at 02:16:01 PM EST
    the person who paid for one seat and could fit in one seat should get priority over a person who needs 2 seats and paid for one.  But in light of the person in question here being a minor, an exception seems proper...little consolation to the skinny lady, but sh*t happens.

    Bottom line...airlines need redesigned seats that reflect the more portly nature of today's flying public...this problem ain't gonna just go away.  

    Parent

    I'm assuming they made (none / 0) (#39)
    by ruffian on Tue Jul 27, 2010 at 02:19:57 PM EST
    the parents pay for the extra seat.

    They will not redesign the seats - heck, they just reconfigured the planes to put in more seats, not fewer. Fewer flights, with full cabins, is the only way for them to make a profit these days. In their view, fares are already cut to the bone, and making the overweight buy two seats is better in the long run than having fewer seats on each flight.

    Parent

    I fear you're right... (none / 0) (#48)
    by kdog on Tue Jul 27, 2010 at 02:35:31 PM EST
    so much for my pipe-dream of stretching my boney arse out in a seat meant to accomodate somebody clockin' in at two-fifty:)

    I'm trying Mexicana on my next Guadalajara jaunt in Sept....I'm hoping the sardine cans are a little bigger, and a little cleaner, than the sh*t American Airlines is selling.  Maybe even get some free chips or something!

    Parent

    Yep (none / 0) (#45)
    by jbindc on Tue Jul 27, 2010 at 02:26:01 PM EST
    Airline seat widths have not changed since 1958, when they were set at between 17-18 1/2 inches.  But waistlines have grown 7 inches for women and 4 inches for men.  And butt sizes have grown too.  How many adults do you think actually have a 17 spread when they sit down?

    Parent
    its one thing to (none / 0) (#46)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Jul 27, 2010 at 02:28:15 PM EST
    not have a 17 inch spread when you sit its another to not be able to FIT into the seat.

    the fact is the seat WILL accommodate a pretty ample bum.  

    Parent

    Seems to me since the parents (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by nycstray on Tue Jul 27, 2010 at 02:16:26 PM EST
    are the responsible party, yes, if they were flying with their kid, they should get bumped also. It's their responsibility to purchase 2 seats if their kid can't fit in one. You wouldn't expect a person to get bumped if a family of 4 showed up and only bought 3 tickets would you?

    Parent
    Good point. (none / 0) (#41)
    by ruffian on Tue Jul 27, 2010 at 02:21:21 PM EST
    I'm not sure how you impress it upon people ahead of time that they will need two seats if they don't fit. Maybe zero-tolerance enforcement, bumping the whole party, really is the only way.

    Parent
    Zero-Tolerance... (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by kdog on Tue Jul 27, 2010 at 02:29:54 PM EST
    aka zero common sense, is never the answer...on a half-full plane it's not even an issue.

    I mean do we really want an airline employee with a tape measure at the gate doing measurements like a tailor?  "Sorry Sir, you're a 1/4" over on the waist, buy a second ticket or get lost."  

    Parent

    little extreme . . . (none / 0) (#49)
    by nycstray on Tue Jul 27, 2010 at 02:36:35 PM EST
    how about when a person can't reasonably fit into a seat and/or fit the safety belt around their girth . . .

    Parent
    Who's definition of reasonable? (none / 0) (#52)
    by kdog on Tue Jul 27, 2010 at 02:46:30 PM EST
    I hope not the airlines...we see their definition of a reasonable sized seat and it ain't reasonable at all...they'd look to make those on the borderline buy two everytime.

    Parent
    question (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Jul 27, 2010 at 02:54:34 PM EST
    have you ever actually had to sit next to one of the marginal ones who actually "fit" into the seat.

    that is by taking half of yours?

    Parent

    It's a problem... (none / 0) (#57)
    by kdog on Tue Jul 27, 2010 at 03:02:04 PM EST
    I've run into more on packed trains...and I just end up standing up for comfort and space.

    On planes, a little thick as to make it a little more uncomfortable than normal uncomfortable, but nothing too extreme.

    Parent

    then you (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Jul 27, 2010 at 03:09:28 PM EST
    are lucky.  I think we have had this conversation before actually.
    in a perfect world every plane seat would be a BarkaLounger and drinks would be free.  but we dont live in that world.
    in the world of 17 inch seats if you bum takes up two you should IMO damn well buy two.  or take the train.


    Parent
    I guess... (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by kdog on Tue Jul 27, 2010 at 03:15:10 PM EST
    I just reserve more scorn for the airlines than you do...if my skin and bones arse finds the things uncomfortably tight, the problem is with the damn seats, or airline economics...not the people.

    I know the airlines would like the debate to boil down to a war of the waistlines, fat america vs. skinny america...but I ain't lettin' 'em off the hook that easy:)

    Parent

    Hence that new plane to come in Europe (none / 0) (#71)
    by ruffian on Tue Jul 27, 2010 at 04:21:40 PM EST
    with the standing room, where you are strapped to a wall with a little ledge to rest on. For short flights, that might be fine.

    Parent
    There are no half-full planes anymore (none / 0) (#72)
    by ruffian on Tue Jul 27, 2010 at 04:28:20 PM EST
    for a while if they were less than what seemed like around 80% full, they just got cancelled. There are now about a third fewer flights than there were a few years ago. They have now figured out the schedules such that all the planes are full or nearly full.  

    With internet booking and check-in, many times the first time the passenger has to encounter a live airline employee is when he gets on the plane, leaving the decision for bumping someone up to the flight attendant observing how the person fits in the seat, who they are traveling with, how likely they are to raise enough hell that the flight is delayed, etc.

    I don't envy them. that's for sure. Air travel is such these days that there is no way to make people happy.

    Parent

    Here's a wild and crazy idea (none / 0) (#32)
    by jbindc on Tue Jul 27, 2010 at 02:14:35 PM EST
    Make the seats a tad bigger.  Yes, yes we are getting larger as a country, but someone can't lose weight if they have to get on a plane in a week.

    Parent
    a tad bigger (none / 0) (#40)
    by nycstray on Tue Jul 27, 2010 at 02:20:12 PM EST
    won't solve the problem.

    Parent
    no (none / 0) (#42)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Jul 27, 2010 at 02:22:36 PM EST
    Stand by (none / 0) (#74)
    by sj on Tue Jul 27, 2010 at 05:14:35 PM EST
    The woman was flying stand by.  It's a chance she took.

    Parent
    I dont think (none / 0) (#75)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Jul 27, 2010 at 05:20:08 PM EST
    when most people fly standby they expect to be booted because someone a$$ takes up two seats.

    that was the issue.


    Parent

    Yes, but I'd like to know more 'bout that (none / 0) (#77)
    by Cream City on Tue Jul 27, 2010 at 05:37:50 PM EST
    as in many recent flights, all overbooked, we know some people who were called "standbys" who were not so.  They had booked the flights.  There were not enough volunteers.  They got bumped off, apparently by some random (or worse) decision of flight crew.  

    And we also met -- we had loooooong waits to make lots of new bf's -- people who had been "standby," who had been bumped from flights for days.

    It is a mess out there.

    (And I note that the flight stewards did not even ask for volunteers in this case, lest they embarrass the kid . . . but then the stewards felt fine about "berating" the woman they kicked off the flight?  

    (From what we witnessed, this could happen to any of us these days. . . .)

    Parent

    Booman's a pathetic excuse for a lefty (none / 0) (#50)
    by shoephone on Tue Jul 27, 2010 at 02:42:53 PM EST
    His explanation to his readers on what constitutes triangulation is funny and sad and clueless:

    Now, I know the narrative about Geithner and Summers and Goldman Sachs, but even there the policy is about stabilizing the markets.  Regulate without causing panic.  Stand the banks back up so they can lend, and get jobs created.  He's not relaxing the rules, he's strengthening them.  But he's not willing to rock the boat too much and risk a backlash that undermines the recovery. He can be blamed for caution or praised for prudence, but he can't be fairly blamed for taking a pro-business stance for its own sake.

    Contrast this with Clintin's NAFTA, GATT, Telecommunications Refom Act, and  Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act.  Compare it with school uniforms and welfare reform.  That's triangulation.  

    What Obama is doing is pushing to the left and making compromises with the middle.  Clinton was pushing to the right and ditching the left (especially after the rise of Newt).  



    If only... (5.00 / 5) (#51)
    by shoephone on Tue Jul 27, 2010 at 02:45:11 PM EST
    banks were actually lending, and jobs were really being created.

    Poor Booman. He never learned the meaning of the phrase "Question Authority."

    Parent

    how is it that evil Summers (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by lilburro on Tue Jul 27, 2010 at 02:54:53 PM EST
    is now good Summers?  He loved the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act.

    Parent
    Obama has laid hands on him (5.00 / 3) (#59)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Jul 27, 2010 at 03:03:35 PM EST
    He has been saved and is now born again.

    Parent
    Well (none / 0) (#65)
    by lilburro on Tue Jul 27, 2010 at 03:31:24 PM EST
    instead of just rationalizing everything, I would like to see Booman make affirmative arguments about what Obama is doing.  9 1/2 % unemployment is okay!  Structural unemployment blah blah!  That's what's going on, after all.  

    Parent
    Booman doesn't touch any topic (none / 0) (#66)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Jul 27, 2010 at 03:39:56 PM EST
    that is hot to Obama's touch.  His God is a jealous God.  If the blogosphere is a buffet of meaningful discussion and opportunities for activism that reaps results, he is gruel.....or maybe just grueling.

    Parent
    Don't tell Booman... (none / 0) (#60)
    by shoephone on Tue Jul 27, 2010 at 03:04:45 PM EST
    wow (none / 0) (#61)
    by The Addams Family on Tue Jul 27, 2010 at 03:05:54 PM EST
    Booman is delusional

    but we knew that

    Parent

    Booman lives in Backward World or (none / 0) (#67)
    by Anne on Tue Jul 27, 2010 at 03:44:22 PM EST
    the Twilight Zone or some alternate reality; that's the only explanation for his thinking that Obama is pushing anything to the left.

    I truly do not understand how someone can be so utterly in denial about what Obama has done and is doing - or what advantage there is in reflexively waving the pom-poms no matter what Obama and the party leadership do.

    I'd say he's a joke, but that would mean he'd actually have to be funny.

    Parent

    Charlie Rangel (none / 0) (#68)
    by jbindc on Tue Jul 27, 2010 at 03:53:11 PM EST
    May have hit a little bump in getting a settlement for his ethics charges.

    From Politico:

    Rep. Charlie Rangel's chances of cutting an ethics deal are in jeopardy over allegations that he met privately with Ethics Committee Chairwoman Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.) Monday night without any Republican members of the bipartisan panel present.

    Sources close to Rangel deny that there was an attempt to cut a backroom deal with Lofgren, but Rangel's attorneys met with Democratic ethics committee staff Monday, according to people close to the investigation.

    It's unclear whether Lofgren and Rangel themselves attended this meeting, but even if Democratic aides and lawyers met without their GOP counterparts present, that could cause problems with Republicans.

    What is clear is that Alabama Rep. Jo Bonner, the top Republican on the committee, was not in on the Monday night meeting.

    The behind the scenes maneuvering threatens to upend Democratic leaders' hopes of reaching a swift settlement before the opening session of Rangel's ethics "trial" on Thursday.



    this is funny (none / 0) (#69)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Jul 27, 2010 at 04:06:38 PM EST
    omg (none / 0) (#70)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Jul 27, 2010 at 04:08:49 PM EST
    first Harry now this:

    Boxer expands lead

    but what about the meme?

    Dems are hated (none / 0) (#73)
    by waldenpond on Tue Jul 27, 2010 at 05:06:39 PM EST
    but Repubs are still hated more.  Writers ignore that part of polls.  :)

    Parent
    Also people hate everyone else's (none / 0) (#78)
    by ruffian on Tue Jul 27, 2010 at 08:10:24 PM EST
    incumbent. Their own they are usually OK with.

    I really don't think it is going to be a huge bloodbath in November.

    Parent

    I hope you're right (none / 0) (#79)
    by lilburro on Wed Jul 28, 2010 at 08:30:03 AM EST
    so many of the Republicans that are running are such clowns, you would think people would want more.

    Parent
    From what I've been reading (none / 0) (#80)
    by jbindc on Wed Jul 28, 2010 at 08:48:05 AM EST
    There are only about 70 seats in the House out of 435 that are in play.  However, the R's need 39 to take over, so while it may not be a "bloodbath", it could give us Speaker Boehner.

    Parent
    going tag saleing (none / 0) (#76)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Jul 27, 2010 at 05:20:47 PM EST
    this weekend.

    Rick Norsigian's hobby of bargain-hunting at rummage sales has paid off big time.

        Two small boxes he bought 10 years ago for $45 -- negotiated down from $70 -- are now estimated to be worth at least $200 million, according to a Beverly Hills art appraiser.

        Those boxes contained 65 glass negatives created by famed nature photographer Ansel Adams in the early period of his career. Experts believed the negatives were destroyed in a 1937 darkroom fire that destroyed 5,000 plates.

        "It truly is a missing link of Ansel Adams and history and his career," said David W. Streets, the appraiser and art dealer who is hosting an unveiling of the photographs at his Beverly Hills, California, gallery Tuesday.

        The photographs apparently were taken between 1919 and the early 1930s, well before Adams -- who is known as the father of American photography -- became nationally recognized in the 1940s, Streets said.



    How bad is it? (none / 0) (#81)
    by NYShooter on Wed Jul 28, 2010 at 01:04:06 PM EST
    Even Chuck Todd can't take it any more.

    Caught him this morning recalling the unstoppable wave of support and enthusiasm he came in on. He said he just can't understand how the first, tiny little resistance from the R's stopped him cold in his tracks. Todd couldn't help doing a little fantasy roll playing:

    From memory, Todd, as Obama, talking to the first malcontent (an "R," or uncooperative "D")
    "You really want to do this? (obstruct) You think you've got a future if you get into my way? There's a new sheriff in Town, and his name is Barack Obama. I'm gonna do what I want to do, with you or without you. Think it over, be a good boy, get behind me and start pushing. I got the American Express behind me, who you got? What's that? I see, I knew you were a smart kid."

    Yup, Todd said he was "unstoppable" and could've got anything he wanted.

    I agree.