Thursday Night Open Thread: Odds and Ends

By Jeralyn, Section Media
Posted on Thu Aug 26, 2010 at 08:27:49 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

We had server difficulties this afternoon which hopefully are now resolved.

There's a double eviction tonight on Big Brother. I think Matt will be the first one sent home. (No spoilers in comments please until 10 pm ET.) For those of you who still don't know who Snooki and Mike "The Situation" are, there's also a new episode of Jersey Shore. And a new Project Runway. What a dismal summer this has been for TV.

The Judge in the Rod Blagojevich case said today he's only inclined to allow two lawyers at taxpayer expense for the now-broke former Governor. He did say he'd allow more lawyers if Rod found a benefactor. Will Donald Trump step up? Don't count on it.

The judge hopes to start the re-trial in early January, but didn't set a firm new date. So far, Sam Adams, Jr. and Sr. are still on board.

I'll bet Tony Rezko and others who pleaded to felonies and cooperated, but haven't been sentenced yet, aren't thrilled about waiting another five months. According to a motion Team Blago filed in April, 2010, here's the list of them: Ali Ata, Joseph A. Cari, Jr., John Harris, Jacob Kieferbaum, Stuart Levine, Steven Loren, Alonzo Monk, Antoin Rezko, and Dr. Robert Wienstein. Blago tried to preclude them from testifying. The grounds: [More...]

The defendant believes that many of these convicted persons/government witnesses have not been sentenced, and, in fact, the sentences of these persons have been deliberately postponed by the government in order that the government may exercise a modern “sword of Damocles” over the witnesses.

The promise and/or hope of freedom as an inducement by the government to obtain testimony by these witnesses is nothing short of bribery by the government as recognized by many respected federal judges.

Unfortunately for Blago, the case law is against him on that argument. Over at Huffpo, a lawyer writes to suggest Team Fitz should skip the retrial and focus on getting Rod sentenced on the false statement charge. Why that won't happen: The Government could lose the appeal of the false statement charge, which would leave them with nothing. Fitz will keep going, although I think he will follow the sound advice many have given him to reduce the number of charges and make the case simpler. At a minimum, he ought to dump the RICO charges. Here's a question: Prior to charging RICO, the U.S. Attorney needs to get approval from Washington. Does the approval requirement extend to a retrial after a failure to convict? If so, maybe the request will be rejected.

In Canada, a former American Idol contestant (Canadian version) is now charged with terrorism.

This is an open thread, all topics welcome.

< Government Drops Case Against Robert Blagojevich | Friday Morning Open Thread >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Thursday Night Open Thread: Odds and Ends | 96 comments (96 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

Court for me today, (5.00 / 4) (#2)
by jeffinalabama on Thu Aug 26, 2010 at 09:45:07 PM EST

And I am not a lawyer! I had to appear to defend my convict dog, who escaped from the fence and got 'arrested.'

So, he's a hardened criminal now, I suppose. And yes, I had representation. Good thing, because someone had accused him of biting them. Not guilty.

Oh the things we do for our pets!

It is tough out there for dogs (5.00 / 2) (#16)
by Militarytracy on Thu Aug 26, 2010 at 11:57:33 PM EST

It is a flat hostile to dogs world right now.


And yours is the second case (5.00 / 3) (#17)
by Militarytracy on Fri Aug 27, 2010 at 12:06:00 AM EST

in the past two months that I know of now of someone falsely accusing a dog of biting them. A very prominent breeder up North who has really gorgeous dogs was out walking one that wasn't even a year old yet. She stopped to talk to a neighbor, and the mostly puppy did jump on the neighbor trying to get a pet....and then two days later police arrive at her house and the dog is slapped with a bite charge.

She managed to find a witness though to what took place on the street that day, and there was no physical evidence to determine a bite had taken place so her dog was found not guilty too. I fear in the current economic climate though, people are hurting and we will see many more such attempts to sue for doggy things that did not happen. I don't let mine out of sight now and whenever we have guests they are all crated. It is just too scary right now.


A friend just told me all the Toyota Prius (5.00 / 1) (#20)
by oculus on Fri Aug 27, 2010 at 12:26:54 AM EST

cases in which the driver sd. the accel. stuck have been determined to be caused by the driver failing to apply the brake. Not sure if this is accurate, but, if it is, another symptom. On the other hand, law firms aren't hiring.


Also (none / 0) (#21)
by squeaky on Fri Aug 27, 2010 at 12:31:43 AM EST

I witnessed two overt racist acts in a period of one hour. One guy was walking down the street repeating I hate n.....s...

The other a truck driver blasting his horn at a black guy with dreadlocks crossing the street..


Huh? (5.00 / 2) (#23)
by nycstray on Fri Aug 27, 2010 at 03:00:46 AM EST

where the F*ck are you getting that relationship to the convo??


I don't even know how it started (5.00 / 1) (#25)
by Militarytracy on Fri Aug 27, 2010 at 07:08:23 AM EST

before for squeaky. oculus says that a headline about Obama and death panels could possibly be considered a mean, stupid headline and squeaky loses mind. I still don't get that one.


Yes (none / 0) (#61)
by squeaky on Fri Aug 27, 2010 at 10:26:10 AM EST

Any gratuitous slam of Obama, random and off topic, is normal, and goes unnoticed, because?

The answer is obvious.


You do realize that oculus (5.00 / 1) (#74)
by Militarytracy on Fri Aug 27, 2010 at 10:58:55 AM EST

was questioning whether the headline was an unfair slam to Obama? You get that right?


I just realized you can read my comment (none / 0) (#76)
by Militarytracy on Fri Aug 27, 2010 at 11:02:15 AM EST

to mean the opposite of what I meant. oculus seemed to consider the headline over the top.


Yes (none / 0) (#80)
by squeaky on Fri Aug 27, 2010 at 11:11:54 AM EST

And I did follow up with oculus later in the thread.

oculus tends to have the driest humor and sarcasm at TL, imo, and often I do not understand what she is getting at in her opaque way.

This comment, apart from being really OT, was followed by But, really....

I thought this was a mean, stupid headline. But, really . . . .

considering that oculus rarely if ever has come to the defense of Obama, nor has rarely if ever, said a positive word about him, the But, really... portion appears to emphasize that he should be doing more and not playing so much golf, iow a gratuitous slam, ot and WTF...


: I don't judge people by their (none / 0) (#110)
by Militarytracy on Sat Aug 28, 2010 at 11:39:26 AM EST

past defending of Obama. I judge them by the content of their character. oculus often comments in ways that give me pause, playing devil's advocate. The history of discussions and decision making that contained a lack of playing devil's advocate has led to more than a few disasters.

Hard Economic Times (none / 0) (#43)
by squeaky on Fri Aug 27, 2010 at 09:46:32 AM EST

Brings out the intolerance:

I fear in the current economic climate though, people are hurting and we will see many more such attempts to sue for doggy things that did not happen.

...

Not sure if this is accurate, but, if it is, another symptom. On the other hand, law firms aren't hiring. [emphasis mine]

Blowing your horn at (5.00 / 1) (#24)
by Wile ECoyote on Fri Aug 27, 2010 at 06:08:23 AM EST

someone not of your race is racist? Now if the colors had been reversed, would it still be racist? Would you even type about it?

Can you define racism for me so we are on the same page?


I Was There (none / 0) (#45)
by squeaky on Fri Aug 27, 2010 at 09:48:05 AM EST

And the truck horn is not just a horn.


What was the horn? (5.00 / 2) (#48)
by Yman on Fri Aug 27, 2010 at 09:55:42 AM EST

One of those musical horns that plays the KKK anthem?


They have an anthem??? (none / 0) (#67)
by jbindc on Fri Aug 27, 2010 at 10:48:55 AM EST

: I don't know, ... (5.00 / 1) (#78)
by Yman on Fri Aug 27, 2010 at 11:08:13 AM EST

Maybe.
Either way, ...
... a lot more believable than a racist horn-honking.
Wait a second!!! Horn-"honk"ing?!?! OMG!!!
Tell me that's not a coincidence ...

: Isn't it Beck's (none / 0) (#75)
by jeffinalabama on Fri Aug 27, 2010 at 11:01:41 AM EST

"Loser?"

I realize you were there. (none / 0) (#85)
by Wile ECoyote on Fri Aug 27, 2010 at 11:24:27 AM EST

How was blowing the horn racist? If the colors of the people involved had been reversed, would that have been racist?

Can you define racism?


Yeah (none / 0) (#88)
by squeaky on Fri Aug 27, 2010 at 11:49:27 AM EST

The truck driver was just expressing his first amendment right to free speech. And good thing it wasn't a mandated "ticket day" because the truck driver would have gotten a $300. ticket for exercising his right to free speech.

Sometimes free speech is expensive.


I figured you (none / 0) (#105)
by Wile ECoyote on Fri Aug 27, 2010 at 07:34:08 PM EST

didn't know the definition of racism. Had the colors been reversed, would it be racist?


: Well (none / 0) (#107)
by squeaky on Fri Aug 27, 2010 at 07:51:24 PM EST

Obviously you have a clear understanding of racism, so please feel free to educate me.

I'm putting up "beware of dog" signs (5.00 / 2) (#30)
by jeffinalabama on Fri Aug 27, 2010 at 08:48:15 AM EST

and double-locking a gate now. Probably a meter reader came in and left the gate open. But I have no proof, and even if I did, the mutt was still loose, so I have no qualm about that ticket and fine for that one.

As to the economic climate, the person is unemployed at the moment... I'm not saying anything about lying here, because I wasn't there. But... mis-remembering?


Had a case a while back ... (5.00 / 2) (#33)
by Yman on Fri Aug 27, 2010 at 08:56:52 AM EST

... where my clients' dog actually did bite someone on the hand. The dog had no history of biting, but the plaintiff (a friend and neighbor) bent down to pet him while he was dozing in a dark room - chomp. In my state, the dog owner is liable if his/her dog bites someone, so the whole case came down to damages. The plaintiff wanted several hundred thousand dollars, despite some very dubious (to be kind) allegations of long-term pain/suffering, economic loss, consortium, etc. The home-owner's insurance company was on the hook for most of the damages, although the plaintiff claimed that one of my clients made a vague comment that he "should have known this would happen again", so the plaintiff wanted punitive damages (not covered by insurance) - hence the need to have two lawyers.

In the end, because of the he said/he said nature of the punitive damage claims, the judge wouldn't kick the punitive counts on a pre-trial motion. I got them dismissed at the close of the trial, but not until my clients had spent several thousand dollars on legal fees. The jury awarded the plaintiff only a couple thousand in medical expenses, a small fraction of what the insurance company had offered as a settlement.

Moral of the story is it's good to be careful. People (even friends and neighbors) can make dubious allegations when they start seeing dollar signs. Make sure you're covered by homeowner's/business/umbrella policy in case one of your dogs does bite someone. Personally, I don't crate or segregate my dog while people are at the house, but she's a big mush.

Disclaimer - Not legal advice - just common sense.


I made sure to 'lawyer up' (5.00 / 1) (#35)
by jeffinalabama on Fri Aug 27, 2010 at 09:06:37 AM EST

for the case. I've been reading this site for a few years now. Had I not, I might have committed Jeralyn's number one sin to the police, tried to explain it (I didn't see the incident), or something. As it was, with good representation, I was asked mostly yes/no questions, even by the prosecution.

It was odd to me to see, in a court document, the name "Snuffles" or "Spot" listed as a defendant. Had a friend whose dog was named "Dammit" once, and another whose dog was named "Pi$$ant." those would have seemed even stranger. Or for instance, a dog named "Mephistopholes..." I know one of those.


: Good idea (5.00 / 3) (#37)
by Yman on Fri Aug 27, 2010 at 09:24:20 AM EST

In my civil case, the dog's name was in some of the pleadings, but the named defendants were the owners. But it reminds me of Steve Martin's dog from "The Jerk" ...
"Good morning, your honor. John Q. Lawyer from Argew and Bicker on behalf of the defendant, $hithead ..."

Contrast with... (5.00 / 2) (#44)
by kdog on Fri Aug 27, 2010 at 09:46:38 AM EST

what just happened to a friend of mine...his son got a 'lil chunk of his cheek taken by a dog at this campsite they were staying at.

His course of action? Telling his son not to mess with dogs he doesn't know. End of Story.

Of course there are legit civil suits and just civil rewards, and access to the courts is vital...but this lottery via civil suit sh*t is getting ridiculous. Another way greed is killin' us.


I think the winner of any (5.00 / 1) (#58)
by jeffinalabama on Fri Aug 27, 2010 at 10:21:02 AM EST

civil suit lottery with me will get fresh baked cookies... to quote Bob Dylan, "When you ain't got nothin' you've got nothin' to lose."

But I'm from the same school. You mess with a dog and get bit, you might just share some of the blame. Many city ordinances have a one-bite tolerance issue, if it's simply one bite. There are some real and serious dog bite cases, though, maulings that occur, serious trauma. This one wasn't one of them, though.


I was sued for a cool million... (5.00 / 2) (#63)
by kdog on Fri Aug 27, 2010 at 10:33:11 AM EST

for the heinous crime of a fender bender with the plaintiff, when she swerved into my lane like a crazy lady. Traveling all of maybe 5-10 mph.

My ins. co offered her ten grand to go away, she declined and a year later I gave a depo, another year later we go to trial.

The verdict? My peers found the defendant, yours truly, 100% not at fault. She got bubkiss...it was awesome vindication. I was confident the jury would do right, but sweating half a paycheck for the rest of my life was a little nerve racking, the ins. co only covered a couple hundred k of liability.

I've been injured a few times in my life where I coulda scammed 10k outta some ins. co...but my conscience can't handle that sh*t, looking the mirror is more important than some cash.


Wow (none / 0) (#64)
by squeaky on Fri Aug 27, 2010 at 10:39:24 AM EST

Glad that worked out for you... the odds were in your favor, but it takes courage to risk losing... good for you!

not that I am surprised...


: Wasn't really my choice... (5.00 / 1) (#72)
by kdog on Fri Aug 27, 2010 at 10:56:23 AM EST

my lawyer was the ins. co assigned lawyer...but she was so confident the gold-digger's case was all b.s., they wouldn't offer more than a 10k settlement.
My ins. co. lawyer definitely outclassed the ambulance chaser...made mince-meat outta the gold-digger on the stand, and I had the jury laughing at the ambulance-chaser when she cross examined me...trying to mix me up but I wasn't havin' it:)

Dangerous dogs should be dealt with (none / 0) (#65)
by Militarytracy on Fri Aug 27, 2010 at 10:42:06 AM EST

In fact I think they need to be dealt with. I'm not against that. I do also teach our kids and grandchildren though to leave adult strange dogs alone because I can't replace them and fix some damages that could occur, and strange dogs can be completely unpredictable when you are kid. I'm pretty good at judging dogs, but I work with them all the time. I've met about four dogs in the past five years that were a danger, out of so many other dogs. One of them did bite me too, he bit the hell out of me and if I backed off he was coming after me so I had to stand my ground. I know this though about dogs too, so I stood my ground and received only one bite. That dog is no longer on the planet now :) I did not sue either because I volunteered to help with the dog. They did pay my medical expenses though, and I had to go to the emergency room and receive I.V. antibiotic because the $hit did manage to bite into the muscle of my arm. I literally had my hackles up in dog style, and it didn't hurt until the next day...then it really hurt :) The worst of it though was on the backside of my arm and I couldn't see it, and I only have a tiny scar there now.

I think there are going to be more and more attempts at frivolous lawsuits though coming the way of dog owners.


How do you know (none / 0) (#11)
by gyrfalcon on Thu Aug 26, 2010 at 11:03:25 PM EST

he's not guilty? Just askin'.

I'm of two minds about this kind of thing. Part of me has no sympathy at all for people who are basically anti-animal.

But the other part of me has very good reason to consider loose dogs a threat to my wellbeing. I can't tell you how many times I've been rushed at by a loose dog when I'm trying to have a peaceful, bird-watching walk in the woods, trailed by some doofus calling out "He won't hurt you!" as the dog in question is crowding me close and literally snarling at me.

And loose dogs are an absolute threat to my outdoor cats here in the country. I don't see them that often, but the sound of them barking hysterically in wild pursuit of something in the fields next to my property scares the wits out of me for the sake of my buddies, the cats.

I've never been bitten, thank goodness, but I've had enough close calls that I suspect that's just luck.


: Not guilty of biting because (5.00 / 1) (#28)
by jeffinalabama on Fri Aug 27, 2010 at 08:44:38 AM EST

three police officers and the animal control officers said so, and said it in court. Verdict. This dog lives with four other dogs, two cats, and children as young as two. Never been aggressive to other animals or people. After people examine someone and say they weren't bitten, after a person says s/he wasn't bitten 2-3 times, then changes a statement to force a quarantine by talking to other, higher authorities who didn't question the first responders, and after adjudication, there you have it.

Carter Does Good (5.00 / 1) (#9)
by squeaky on Thu Aug 26, 2010 at 10:32:50 PM EST

Former US President Jimmy Carter has secured the release of an American citizen detained in North Korea.
Aijalon Mahli Gomes, 31, was sentenced to eight years' hard labour in April, after being found guilty of illegally entering the country from China.
Mr Carter met senior North Korean officials after arriving in Pyongyang on Wednesday.
He has now left to fly back to the US with Mr Gomes, a devout Christian who had entered North Korea in January....
....In visiting North Korea, Mr Carter is following in the footsteps of another former US President, Bill Clinton, who last year secured the release of two US journalists detained in North Korea for crossing the border.

: The North Koreans like Carter (none / 0) (#22)
by jtaylorr on Fri Aug 27, 2010 at 01:34:40 AM EST

He proposed withdrawing all US troops from the DMZ during his presidency (obviously never. panned out). But it certainly endeared him to the N Koreans. It's one of the reasons Carter was able to successfully negotiate the N. Koreans out of enriching uranium during the Clinton years. A deal Bush completely undid. Today N. Korea has nuclear weapons.

I'm sitting in the livingroom (5.00 / 2) (#14)
by Militarytracy on Thu Aug 26, 2010 at 11:48:20 PM EST

waiting for a load of socks to finish drying so I can go to bed and here comes the cat....out of my bedroom. And he is grumpy and flops himself down in the livingroom on a dog bed. That can only mean one thing :) Someone ate something for lunch they shouldn't have and now the cat can't even stand him. Marriage is such a constant state of bliss. What if I accidentally fall asleep on the couch?

: hilarious (none / 0) (#39)
by Capt Howdy on Fri Aug 27, 2010 at 09:34:02 AM EST

sometimes living alone has its rewards.
no need to avoid or be avoided.

Experience DOES matter now (5.00 / 2) (#27)
by jbindc on Fri Aug 27, 2010 at 08:21:23 AM EST

At least, if you're Elizabeth Warren:

In questioning Elizabeth Warren's candidacy to lead a new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, Senate Banking Committee Chairman Christopher Dodd has repeatedly asked whether Warren possesses the appropriate management experience to lead a large federal bureaucracy.
But it's the first time Chairman Dodd has publicly raised such an issue when it came to evaluating presidential nominees to agency positions under the banking committee's purview.
A review of transcripts from past confirmation hearings shows that Dodd has never questioned the management experience of nominees to head federal agencies his committee oversees. The heads of the Securities and Exchange Commission, Department of Housing and Urban Development, Federal Housing Administration, the Export-Import Bank and the National Credit Union Administration all survived hearings under Dodd's chairmanship without him once asking a question about the experience needed to guide their respective agencies.
Nor did Dodd raise any management questions when prospective bank regulators came before his committee -- even when the regulators did not have significant management experience. In the two years prior to his assuming the chairmanship in 2007, the heads of the Federal Reserve, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, Office of Thrift Supervision, Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, and a prior chief of the SEC all came before his committee. Each time, Dodd declined to ask about their experience running bureaucracies, a review of transcripts shows.

h/t Huff Po

: Hey Dodd... (5.00 / 1) (#53)
by kdog on Fri Aug 27, 2010 at 10:03:01 AM EST

thats exactly the kind of experience we don't want her to have!
We like her just the way she is.

this is funny (5.00 / 1) (#41)
by Capt Howdy on Fri Aug 27, 2010 at 09:36:30 AM EST

How Ken Mehlman's `open secret' stayed hidden

(answer, it didnt of course)

Ken Mehlman says he only recently concluded that he's gay. The media seems to have reached that conclusion years ago.

newsflash experts, Ken is hardly first to be the last to know.

Pick a word (5.00 / 4) (#52)
by Yman on Fri Aug 27, 2010 at 10:01:39 AM EST

Any word.

... at random.

the dollar redesign project (5.00 / 1) (#55)
by Capt Howdy on Fri Aug 27, 2010 at 10:14:07 AM EST

the Obama one dollar bill?
the Marilyn 50?
the Maya Angelou 100?

how about the Ken Mehlman three dollar bill?

for shame! (none / 0) (#59)
by jeffinalabama on Fri Aug 27, 2010 at 10:22:04 AM EST

You just cracked me up! And you owe me a keyboard!


$3 bill, ouch (none / 0) (#60)
by republicratitarian on Fri Aug 27, 2010 at 10:24:14 AM EST

All in favor of (none / 0) (#69)
by brodie on Fri Aug 27, 2010 at 10:51:12 AM EST

adding more color to our notoriously drab currency. But not in favor of putting current pols or any money-grubbing businessmen of any time on our bills.

I'd like to see the $2 bill with Jefferson re-issued, but always felt that we could be getting a better history lesson by changing that to a $3 bill, since he was our 3d president.

Mixed feelings about putting entertainers on our bills, but if so, make it only temporary, change them every decade or so and, preferably, only honor the ones I like. Marilyn--acceptable on the 50 or C-note. Comedy legend Carole Lombard on the $20, replacing the humorless Jackson.

We should honor some of our First Ladies, too. Free-spending Jackie Kennedy's face I'd like to look at on, say, the $10, replacing the fiscally too-conservative Hamilton and as a subliminal reminder to people to go out and spend.


canadas money is great (none / 0) (#73)
by Capt Howdy on Fri Aug 27, 2010 at 10:56:29 AM EST

we should totally do it. one and two dollar coins.
and beautiful bills.


Lets not get too crazy... (none / 0) (#87)
by kdog on Fri Aug 27, 2010 at 11:43:05 AM EST

with the redesigns...I've still got old school 50's and 100's in my apocolypse fund:)

Once in awhile I'll do a currency rotation with the new ones and spend the old ones...some clerks not familar with old bills think they're counterfeit...if I'm stuck with them after several redesigns I don't want a hassle.


I'll give ya 10 cents. (none / 0) (#94)
by jeffinalabama on Fri Aug 27, 2010 at 01:42:02 PM EST

on the dollar for the old ones-- clean up that money good! And I'll make it in cash, colombian money, or euros, if you want to diversify. Got my own apocalypse fund, but I call it my "F--- you money." enough to get me down south and start some small business or english school.


10 cents on the dollar? (none / 0) (#95)
by kdog on Fri Aug 27, 2010 at 02:32:43 PM EST

Who do you think you are...Citibank laundering for the cartel? I earned that sh*t honestly and legally buddy, I just plan on spendin' some of it illegally:)


just kidding, my brother. (none / 0) (#96)
by jeffinalabama on Fri Aug 27, 2010 at 02:44:44 PM EST

Take the old bills with you when you go to Mexico next time. No problem spending them there, because they are still US dollars, and still plenty in circulation.


I know... (none / 0) (#97)
by kdog on Fri Aug 27, 2010 at 03:12:03 PM EST

just bustin' horns...good idea about Mexico...9/30 and I'm there dude!


color me green (none / 0) (#98)
by jeffinalabama on Fri Aug 27, 2010 at 03:12:51 PM EST

with envy... enjoy!


We can alternate... (5.00 / 1) (#99)
by kdog on Fri Aug 27, 2010 at 03:31:06 PM EST

you're in paradise, I'm green. I'm in paradise, you're green.

Till you make the permanent move and I show up on your doorstep like Felix Unger:)


Works for me! (none / 0) (#101)
by jeffinalabama on Fri Aug 27, 2010 at 03:46:47 PM EST

Enjoy Levon tonight, and take a load off!
If you see Carmen, tell her I'm available now, especially if she's a morena!


Well played... (none / 0) (#102)
by kdog on Fri Aug 27, 2010 at 03:51:22 PM EST

she had to go but her friend is sticking around...always sticking around:)


: Dog, I hope to (none / 0) (#103)
by jeffinalabama on Fri Aug 27, 2010 at 04:02:12 PM EST

the Flying Spaghetti Monster, Cthulhu, Alla and Buddha that Dick Cheney isn't there!
I eagerly await a report/review!

Regarding the Deficit Commission. (none / 0) (#1)
by BTAL on Thu Aug 26, 2010 at 08:35:42 PM EST

I fully appreciate the concern over SS. However, two questions, one picking up on the other thread.

The commission has no legal/legislative authority and per Pelosi's actions the House will only respond to any legislation introduced by the Senate. So, why the hair on fire certainty that SS is truly under attack?
Where is the concern and/or outrage about the commission offering up a VAT revenue solution? Having lived in Europe, IMHO, VAT sucks for everyone including the lowest wage earner and the small business owner. A quick google will show that a VAT is one of the possible outcomes from the commission.

No chance in h*ll (5.00 / 1) (#10)
by gyrfalcon on Thu Aug 26, 2010 at 10:57:19 PM EST

of a VAT being approved in this country. None. Not even with a Republican-controlled Congress. In fact, it's the GOPers who are constantly raising it to scare people about the Dems. Not gah happen.

I also doubt anybody's going to be doing anything really ugly to SS anytime soon because the "fix" is so easy, but that's a much more likely threat than a VAT.


I hope you are right (none / 0) (#15)
by Militarytracy on Thu Aug 26, 2010 at 11:56:43 PM EST

but because of the history of this President and this Congress I won't be letting up on the heat. I trust them NOT AT ALL! And if the Cat Food Commission was going to be capable of nothing why have it? And why is it packed with Soc Sec haters?


: We've lost track of (none / 0) (#77)
by gyrfalcon on Fri Aug 27, 2010 at 11:04:44 AM EST

the fact that the commission isn't a SS commission, it's an overall deficit commission. There's even some argument about whether SS per se is even legally within their purview since it's an entirely separate issue.
I just honestly can't see anything drastically bad being done to SS in the current economic climate, no matter how hard I squinch my eyes up.

: There is every reason to be (none / 0) (#91)
by KeysDan on Fri Aug 27, 2010 at 12:35:16 PM EST

concerned by the Catfood (aka, Cow) Commission. True its package of recommendations to send to Congress (by Dec l, after the elections) are "non-binding", but it is designed to serve as a political cover to be considered by a lame duck Congress. Even a cursory review of the membership (Bowles, Simpson, Baucus, Coburn, Camp, Crapo, Judd, Hensarling, Ryan (yes, that Ryan), Spratt, and non-congress members, Ann Fudge (on board of GE, former CEO of Young, Rubicarn Brands, who left her positions with millions in severance), Alice Rivlin (a fellow funded by Pete Peterson), Dave Cote (chair, CEO Honeywell) points to trouble in River City. Jan Schkowsky, Xavier Becerra and Dick Durbin are less likely to dismantle social security, as is Andrew Stern (SEIU), but I would not bet the egg farm on them not caving. Yes, it is not a "Social Security" Commission, but with this line-up, the R's will not abide any tax increases, the D's no new taxes under $250,000 per year/couples, so social security is the easiest to address the deficit-just cut benefits and maybe a little increase in payroll taxes. Or better yet, and a consensus in the making: invest the ss. trust fund in the stock market. All will then be A-OK. Next up, Medicare. All else, is off the table... no consensus.

Contradiction? (none / 0) (#4)
by squeaky on Thu Aug 26, 2010 at 09:54:35 PM EST

SS: Why the hair on fire?

VAT: Why not hair on fire?

Perhaps your first paragraph explains it.


Here's one (none / 0) (#3)
by CoralGables on Thu Aug 26, 2010 at 09:49:22 PM EST

for kdog to ponder.

The Third District Court of Appeal issued a ruling Wednesday upholding the controversial law banning overnight parking of pickup trucks in residential areas in Coral Gables, Florida.

The 6-2 decision overturned a 2007 ruling which said the law is unconstitutional.

The case has been in court since 2003 when Lowell Kuvin filed suit against the city after receiving a $50 citation for parking his Ford F-150 in front of his home.

Those interested in perusing the 50 page ruling on a $50 ticket it's here for the reading

Does this rule apply only (5.00 / 1) (#12)
by gyrfalcon on Thu Aug 26, 2010 at 11:06:10 PM EST

to pick-ups and not, say, SUVs? If so, I can't imagine a justification for it and it does certainly seem discriminatory-- even class-based, frankly.

Banning on-street overnight parking altogether, however, is justifiable, though certainly not without argument, and is common in higher-toned suburbs around the country.


SUV's not included (none / 0) (#18)
by CoralGables on Fri Aug 27, 2010 at 12:18:09 AM EST

Here's the code:

No trucks, trailers or commercial vehicles shall be parked in residential zones. This prohibition shall not apply to:
* Vehicles which are entirely enclosed within the confines of an enclosed garage.


SUV's Not Trucks (none / 0) (#19)
by squeaky on Fri Aug 27, 2010 at 12:24:27 AM EST

Because they have back seats... Even though they are trucks as much as pickups.

In NYC pickups are not considered trucks unless they have an extra axle or six wheels. ..


Some trucks have back seats... (none / 0) (#26)
by jimakaPPJ on Fri Aug 27, 2010 at 08:05:19 AM EST

When I lived in a Denver suburb my HOA rules said the same.

The reason is simple. Many people have an old pickup they use to haul this and that from Home Depot, furniture stores, etc. It isn't used often and its appearance leaves something to be desired.
They leave it parked besides the house or in front of the house where it detracts from the appearance of the neighborhood.

So it is an eye issue much like smoking in bars is a nose issue.

If you buy a home with a Home Owners Association have your attorney read the rules and explain them to you.


It wouldn't do any good (5.00 / 1) (#29)
by Molly Bloom on Fri Aug 27, 2010 at 08:46:15 AM EST

HOA's are an abomination before the lord. Its in Leviticus, trust me. In an HOA you are Blanche Dubois "relying on the kindness of strangers".

Here's the deal. The model is structured on the corporation - which means the same people are the legislative branch making up the rules, the executive branch enforcing the rules and often the judiciary deciding on whether or not you broke the rules. If you don't like the result, you have to file suit.

These people want to remake the community in their own image. They frequently make up rules which bear no relationship to covenants, the article of incorporation or the bylaws. They use the assessments the homeowners pay to hire an attorney to enforce the rules. Since most homeowners can't afford to hire an attorney, its a onesided battle. If you lose, you pay fees for both sides (at least here in Florida and I suspect its in the covenants everywhere else). Thus the premeir tactic is law by intimadation.

Its what privatization of government looks like on a smaller scale. Give me a real government with separation of powers, with a real bill of rights. The Consitution does not apply to private governments in most states (forget Marsh v. Alabama, that is sooo yesterday) and certainly not in Florida. Its hard enough to get people to vote in real elections much less your HOA election, so the same people use the corporate code to reappoint themselves directors cause they haven't been able to get a quorum in 5 years. Its a power trip.

In gated communities, you pay for streets, water and sewer as opposed to the larger tax base of the municipality. In Broward and Aalchua counties, the police won't come on your private lands to enforce the law without a licensing agreement with your HOA.

BTW, those streets are almost always substandard. In most Florida municpalities a 50' wide ROW is required for public streets. In those communities with private streets - 40' wide ROW is the norm. Cause the developer needs to maximize homeowners per square inch! (maximize the number of housing units) Smaller streets equates to more buildable units. Even if you wanted to dedicate the streets to the public, even if you could get the neigbors to agree (and they won't, somebody always likes the elitist idea of private community) and even if the local muni would take it (and right now in budget crises, they won't), it can't be done, because its substandard. Its your white elephant now and forever.

Finally, with so many people in foreclosure, the HOA isn't collecting assessment money to pay for those streets and other amenities from homeowners in foreclosure. So expect the assessments to go up or the common area to go to seed.

I could go on (as you can tell) but you get the idea.
Avoid HOA's lack the plague. Move if you can.


Another way to solve (5.00 / 1) (#66)
by Zorba on Fri Aug 27, 2010 at 10:45:06 AM EST

HOA's, restrictive covenants, and nit-picky zoning regulations is to live way, way out in the country, as I do. On a farm. We live about 3/4 mile up from a junk yard, and it sure doesn't bother us- it was here before we were. Everyone gets along pretty well, and nobody bothers about what kind of or how many vehicles you have parked in front of your house. Not much traffic, either. Quiet, peaceful. We do love it up here. The downside is that when you must call 911, it takes awhile for first responders to get here. This is mainly a concern because of fires and medical emergencies. We don't get much crime and don't worry about home invasions, etc (if a potential home invader has the brains God gave an earthworm, he would figure out fairly rapidly that most people up here are armed, and wouldn't hesitate to shoot.)


Same here, Zorba (none / 0) (#84)
by gyrfalcon on Fri Aug 27, 2010 at 11:16:56 AM EST

though no junkyard anywhere near, thank goodness. No police, either! No home invasions, but once every few years, a small outbreak of burglaries by local youths gone bad, which gets quickly tracked down by state police and stopped.

We have superb volunteer fire and EMT crews, but there's no question it takes them longer to get somewhere. Having to rely on farm ponds for water is concerning, too.

But you get to do what you want with your own property, aside from reasonable building permit rules for construction, and nobody would dream of it being any of their business.


: Actually, the junkyard (none / 0) (#86)
by Zorba on Fri Aug 27, 2010 at 11:30:59 AM EST

cannot be seen from our place. Almost all of his cars are down in the valley behind his house, hidden by lots of trees. It doesn't "look" like a junkyard from the road, just like a typical small farm around here, with a few chickens and a couple of horses, and maybe a few more vehicles in front than most places have (but not that many more). The guy who owns it is really nice, too (he also rents our fields to make hay). When Mr. Zorba has needed a used car part in the past, he has to practically force the guy to take our money to pay for it. (The people of Coral Gables would no doubt have the vapors if they were living around here, but then, they wouldn't be living around here in the first place.)

My sister had a border collie puppy (none / 0) (#32)
by jeffinalabama on Fri Aug 27, 2010 at 08:52:39 AM EST

that barked one day outsdide. It was childrens' pet, and was an inside/outside dog. After a game of frisbee, the dog barked. HOA came within a few days, and the dog became mine, because of the compact's 'no barking at any time zero tolerance' policy.

The sis and family even had to get special permission to have dead trees removed because of the association rules. GLad I live more in the country!


Wow (5.00 / 1) (#34)
by Yman on Fri Aug 27, 2010 at 09:05:57 AM EST

Zero tolerance for barking .... ever?!? I understand the attraction to an easy, "bright-line" test, but it seems like a "no dogs" rule would be easier. If someone has a dog for years and it barks once, does it get the boot?

Pretty harsh.

One more reason to read those HOA rules carefully and get involved in the board if you live in a development with an HOA. Personally, I'd avoid it.


Reading the rules doesn't help much (5.00 / 2) (#38)
by Molly Bloom on Fri Aug 27, 2010 at 09:34:00 AM EST

You will find the rules are fluid and open to interpretation. While your reading may absolutely correct and the board's reading is wrong, you may find yourself having to sue to prove your point. Most people will not take that step.

A portion of my practice involves representing homeowners v. their association. Most people come in for the consult and leave deciding to give in to the HOA. I explain to them what's involved, what it will cost and the fact that lawsuits are not always predictable and they leave. I don't get rich doing it. I do it because someone has to and I don't like bullies.


: Maybe not, ... (none / 0) (#46)
by Yman on Fri Aug 27, 2010 at 09:52:55 AM EST

... but apart from interpretation/ambiguity issues or the fact that the rules can be changed after they buy their house, you'd be surprised (or not) at the number of times clients have told me they never bothered to read the HOA rules and were surprised by even common restrictions or requirements.
But I hear what you're saying.
Personally, I live in a town (no HOA) and would avoid HOAs like the plague.

This was in Anne Arundel County Maryland, (none / 0) (#36)
by jeffinalabama on Fri Aug 27, 2010 at 09:09:47 AM EST

and it was either a zero tolerance, or on the second time the animal barked. I can't remember, since I didn't live there, but it was a severely restrictive part of the covenant (or contract, think covenant is the proper term).


I hear that our neighborhood (none / 0) (#40)
by Militarytracy on Fri Aug 27, 2010 at 09:34:13 AM EST

had an impossible homeowner's association at one time. It had expired or become insolvent or something when we bought the house. Some of the town folk though hate the very name of the subdivision. It did a crazy thing once of closing its roads after a certain time of night. The city and the police department tried to fight them because this is not a gated community but the subdivision somehow won, and the police cannot enter unless called so they don't patrol the subdivision either. This has had a mixed outcome though, people speed through the subdivision during the day now at breakneck speeds sometimes. And this is a wealthier subdivision and the houses are constantly broken into. Ours isn't, but I think anyone casing the houses has noticed that ours has a few more challenges living in it than most :) I'm told though that most alarm systems get turned off this time of year because the humidity makes doors and windows all swell and falsely sets the alarms off......and apparently local thieves know this too.


LOL (none / 0) (#109)
by jimakaPPJ on Fri Aug 27, 2010 at 07:58:16 PM EST

I can't disagree. When we retired we bought a place with 8 acres and are almost in the middle...


Smoking in bars (none / 0) (#31)
by gyrfalcon on Fri Aug 27, 2010 at 08:51:09 AM EST

is a health issue, not just a nose issue. Pickups on the curb is a class issue.


: Heh (none / 0) (#108)
by jimakaPPJ on Fri Aug 27, 2010 at 07:56:33 PM EST

If you compared the number of people who have died from second hand smoke to the number killed in alcohol related deaths I will bet you the number is 100,000 to 1.
And I am a none smoker and hate the smell.
But if you want to make it a health issue, shut down the bar along with the cigs....

Same in NYC (none / 0) (#5)
by squeaky on Thu Aug 26, 2010 at 09:56:25 PM EST

No commercial trucks allowed to park overnight.


Not (none / 0) (#6)
by CoralGables on Thu Aug 26, 2010 at 10:02:44 PM EST

a commercial truck. Just his own personal pickup truck.


: Interesting read. I only made (none / 0) (#7)
by jeffinalabama on Thu Aug 26, 2010 at 10:10:06 PM EST

it through 36 pages, though... strange ordinance to have in this day and age. I just wonder if a commerce clause argument could have been more effective. Of course, I'm not a lawyer, so it might be a silly question.

: Oh (none / 0) (#8)
by squeaky on Thu Aug 26, 2010 at 10:28:48 PM EST

Well in NYC there are many places where you cannot park your car, pickup truck, or truck, on the street at night either, even if it is outside your house.
The rules and signs are often confusing, which always helps NYC coffers about $600 million/year.

Unreal... (none / 0) (#51)
by kdog on Fri Aug 27, 2010 at 10:00:59 AM EST

but nothing suprises me anymore.

Lowell Kuvin, I apologize on behalf of a nation suffering from a bad case of tyranny-lite.


Will Forte leaving SNL (none / 0) (#13)
by magster on Thu Aug 26, 2010 at 11:11:32 PM EST

His impersonation of Zell Miller after the 2004 Republican convention is one of my all time favorite SNL skits.

Bristols partner for DWTS? (none / 0) (#42)
by Capt Howdy on Fri Aug 27, 2010 at 09:42:16 AM EST

the friday Thspike.

this stinque post (none / 0) (#47)
by Capt Howdy on Fri Aug 27, 2010 at 09:55:11 AM EST

has two things worth clicking on.
one, a very interesting legal story:

A city man was arrested after police said he coached his 8-year-old neighbor to swear and make racial slurs for a YouTube video.
Josh Eastman, 24, of Pearl Harbor Street, was charged Tuesday afternoon with impairing the morals of a child. He was released after posting $2,500 bond...
Police said Eastman admitted making and posting the video, but claimed his lawyer told him it was all right to do so.
Reached at his home Wednesday, Eastman denied that the things he had the boy say were disgusting. "It was fun things, funny," he said.

and a great funny kitty video.

Educate Yourself (none / 0) (#56)
by squeaky on Fri Aug 27, 2010 at 10:15:31 AM EST

History has shown that bad economic times, scarcity, increases incidences of intolerance and racism.

But I am sure you can develop your own theory to debunk the consensus.

google

Huh? (none / 0) (#62)
by squeaky on Fri Aug 27, 2010 at 10:28:40 AM EST

Anecdotes about the bad economy and aberrant behavior are OK for you as long as racist behavior is not one of the anecdotes?

WOW.... is all I can say.

Wonder why that is?

You're wondering why all you can (none / 0) (#89)
by Anne on Fri Aug 27, 2010 at 11:57:22 AM EST

say is "WOW?" Perhaps to avoid the truth that you wandered into an ongoing conversation and said something completely irrelevant to it, and it isn't in your nature to say "oops! I meant this to be a separate comment?"

Twice now in two days, you have chosen to first drag Hillary into a conversation where she was - as usual - irrelevant, and then accuse more than one person of propagating a "lazy negro" meme that was not present in anyone's comments.

Once again, you have completely distorted both the content and the meaning of my comment for what appears to be the sole purpose of avoiding any responsibility for what you say.

Your schtick is just old and tiresome.


Irrelevant? (none / 0) (#90)
by squeaky on Fri Aug 27, 2010 at 12:20:42 PM EST

Not irrelevant at all.

The discussion was anecdotes people acting out, and speculating that it was because of economic hard times. I just saw two examples of people acting out racism, it and believe it has to do with the economy.

More interesting is that you feel that racism is out of bounds in a discussion about people acting badly during economic bad times.

Why is that?

The discussion was about people (none / 0) (#92)
by Anne on Fri Aug 27, 2010 at 12:46:13 PM EST

using the courts to get something for nothing - suing for dog-bites that weren't bites, etc. - and an opinion was offered that this might be a sign of hard economic times.

It was not about people acting out.

No one understood the relevance of the comment you initially made. No one. Just as no one understood last night's Hillary and lazy-negro comments.

If you had led your comment with, "Yeah, economic times are really making people act out in general - I really think I'm seeing more racist behavior and speech than I can remember in a long time..." then people would have understood and responded with comprehension.

I don't think it is at all out of bounds to discuss race in the context of the economy, but that wasn't what the discussion was about. As I clearly explained, throwing race into the discussion the way you did looked like it was intended to start something. I did not comment AT ALL on the anecdotes you offered, as I felt it was off-topic to the sub-thread conversation.

You are once again trying to paint me - as you have others - as someone and something I am not - which often appears to be the purpose of many of your comments.

It's dishonest and disruptive. But you know that.


: There you go again, ... (none / 0) (#100)
by Yman on Fri Aug 27, 2010 at 03:35:44 PM EST

... trying to use facts, reason and logic with him.
Square peg, round hole.