Wednesday Open Thread

BTD is on the road, and I'm busy at work. Here's an open thread, all topics welcome.

< Traveling the Globe With Probationer Paris Hilton | Woodward's Book on Obama and Afghanistan >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Female lawyer can't see client because (5.00 / 2) (#2)
    by republicratitarian on Wed Sep 22, 2010 at 12:22:59 PM EST
    of underwire bra. Takes bra off and can't see client because she has no bra.

    Yes, well, (5.00 / 2) (#23)
    by Zorba on Wed Sep 22, 2010 at 01:36:54 PM EST
    try going through airport screening these days with an under-wire bra.  You don't just get wanded, you get felt up.  And then there are those whole body scanners.......

    Lol (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by squeaky on Wed Sep 22, 2010 at 01:46:03 PM EST
    I always try to tip the masseuses when they provide free services at the end of a long wait in the security line..  a flying perk, imo.

    Lots of ooohs and ahhs, and a little harder in that spot... don't stop... from me.


    Hahahaha! (none / 0) (#31)
    by Zorba on Wed Sep 22, 2010 at 01:53:31 PM EST
    I'd love to see the expression on their faces when you do that!

    When I got felt up... (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by kdog on Wed Sep 22, 2010 at 01:49:29 PM EST
    at the Mutts game Sunday I walked towards a female groper at first...she said I had to go to a male security agent...she wasn't allowed to grope me.

    I'm surprised the christian right hasn't objected to this same sex groping security practice as part of the gay agenda:)


    Yeah (none / 0) (#30)
    by squeaky on Wed Sep 22, 2010 at 01:52:47 PM EST
    I usually play up the gay pleasure bit during the massages, may as well keep it entertaining, at least on my end... lol

    Not a bad comic protest... (none / 0) (#34)
    by kdog on Wed Sep 22, 2010 at 02:06:00 PM EST
    of security obsessed culture...I like it.

    Might save you from a very thorough pat-down too...not that I would ever dream of sneaking a flask or such into a ballgame...never! :)


    Someone ought to (none / 0) (#32)
    by Zorba on Wed Sep 22, 2010 at 01:55:44 PM EST
    bring that up with Christine O'Donnell.  Not to mention the opportunities for "impure thoughts" (and who knows what else?) presented by those new body scanners at the airports.    ;-)

    If ya can't... (none / 0) (#35)
    by kdog on Wed Sep 22, 2010 at 02:07:31 PM EST
    self-pleasure without lust, surely you can't grab somebody elses bits without lust...and lust is the devil!

    Classic... (none / 0) (#6)
    by kdog on Wed Sep 22, 2010 at 12:54:18 PM EST
    love it when the system embarasses itself like this.

    We're suffocating on rules.


    The rules and the idiots that (none / 0) (#7)
    by republicratitarian on Wed Sep 22, 2010 at 01:00:12 PM EST
    are "enforcing" the rules.

    Taking a cue from the Hilton thread... (none / 0) (#13)
    by kdog on Wed Sep 22, 2010 at 01:10:01 PM EST
    she knew there were metal detectors!  she knew ladies can't go commando up top!  her client deserves what they get!  Double plus good!

    nope (none / 0) (#16)
    by nycstray on Wed Sep 22, 2010 at 01:14:28 PM EST
    apparently they missed the "memo". she should have been allowed in wearing the bra.

    Well that's a relief... (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by kdog on Wed Sep 22, 2010 at 01:19:22 PM EST
    err, semi-relief:)

    They should've been more "supportive" :) (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by republicratitarian on Wed Sep 22, 2010 at 01:29:23 PM EST
    And no I didn't post the link just for the one-liner lol.

    Gotta be on guard (none / 0) (#18)
    by hookfan on Wed Sep 22, 2010 at 01:17:17 PM EST
    against that dreaded nipple flu. . . apparently even jackets won't prevent its spread!

    Does this sound like a gaffe to you? (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by ruffian on Wed Sep 22, 2010 at 12:30:17 PM EST
    At a fundraiser for Gov. Ted Strickland in Ohio, Biden linked the GOP to the Tea Party, suggesting Democrats will run against the conservative activists. "Don't compare me to the Almighty, compare me to the alternative," he said, according the pool report. "The Republican Tea Party is the alternative."

    Centrist Dems like Ben Nelson and Bob Casey are taking issue with such extreme language. I give up.

    I watched "A Single Man" (5.00 / 2) (#39)
    by vml68 on Wed Sep 22, 2010 at 02:28:36 PM EST
    over the weekend...Colin Firth was incredible.

    I was checking this out (none / 0) (#43)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Sep 22, 2010 at 03:07:21 PM EST
    Haven't gone there yet though.

    I watched McGruber this weekend (none / 0) (#46)
    by republicratitarian on Wed Sep 22, 2010 at 03:19:23 PM EST
    Not sure why, my IQ dropped 3 points, lol.

    It looked like that could happen (none / 0) (#127)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Sep 23, 2010 at 03:12:37 AM EST
    to you if I insisted on going there.  I'm probably doomed to surviving reenactments of MacGruber scenes though.  Too many ten year old boys in my life.  Everytime the Wayans put out a new spoof I have to brace myself for an onslaught.  Strange that BTD recently did some writeups on the dozens because the fifth grade is at it now.  I was treated to the best Yo Mama that Joshua has come up with so far yesterday.

    What was it? (none / 0) (#136)
    by republicratitarian on Fri Sep 24, 2010 at 08:19:31 AM EST
    He really was great in it (none / 0) (#48)
    by shoephone on Wed Sep 22, 2010 at 03:48:19 PM EST
    His subtleties contain so many levels of emotion.

    Julianne Moore's performance, on the other hand, annoyed the heck out of me. She's one of those actors who never seems natural in a role. I can see the work going on in her head. And instead of trying on three different English accents, she should have settled on just one. Very few American actors can pull off a believable English accent.


    the English just tend to be (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by jondee on Wed Sep 22, 2010 at 04:09:24 PM EST
    better actors period. And you're right about the accent problems. Just hire a frickin' English actress; it's not like there's a shortage of them. Worst example of accent trashing by a cosseted American actress: Julia Roberts fading in and out of her Irish accent in Michael Collins..

    The last time I really enjoyed Julianne Moore was as Maude Lebowski: with that just out of the Women's Studies program at an exclusive finishing school schtick she had going on. She was apparently made for that role.    


    Also excellent... (none / 0) (#135)
    by kdog on Thu Sep 23, 2010 at 10:58:01 AM EST
    as Amber Waves in "Boogie Nights".

    That Maude was a piece of work though, good call....

    Maude Lebowski: My father and I don't get along, he doesn't approve of my lifestyle and, needless to say, I don't approve of his. Still, I hardly wish to make my father's embezzlement a police matter, so I'm proposing that you try to recover the money from the people you delivered it to.

    The Dude: Well, I could do that...

    Maude Lebowski: If you successfully do so, I will compensate you to the tune of 10 percent of the recovered sum.

    The Dude: [stunned] A hundred...

    Maude Lebowski: Thousand, yes bones or clams or whatever you call them.

    Thanks for the tip! (none / 0) (#75)
    by vml68 on Wed Sep 22, 2010 at 04:54:48 PM EST
    I put it on hold at my local library.

    I second that one (none / 0) (#134)
    by ruffian on Thu Sep 23, 2010 at 10:32:19 AM EST
    Wonderful film. First time since I was 6 that I actually curled up in a movie seat.

    Aaaaarrrrrgggghhhh! Help! (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by Zorba on Wed Sep 22, 2010 at 03:52:48 PM EST
    We are being overrun by stink bugs this year (worse than last year- I'm in Maryland).  Anybody have any effective suggestions that won't also cause us to totally poison ourselves?  I have small jars of rubbing alcohol placed around the house, and when there are just a few stink bugs, I pick them up with a tissue and throw them in the alcohol.  But right now, we have way too many to even do this.  Help!

    Google (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed Sep 22, 2010 at 04:11:10 PM EST
    "stink bugs in the house" and you'll get 97,000-some hits.

    It doesn't sound like there's a simple solution, though, from quick reading.  Mainly, you need to get really serious about sealing up the cracks they're getting in through.  I read that shrubs on the south sides of houses make it easier for them, and that they're attracted to light at night, so pulling shades and curtains helps somewhat.

    There are various pesticides that can be applied outside the house, but they have to be reapplied every 7 to 10 days during the big stink bug season for houses, which is late summer, early fall.

    The best thing is to figure out where they're coming in and seal up those gaps with silicone caulk or something similar.

    Yech.  My sympathies.  I have a similar problem in spring with Asian ladybugs, so I'm scurrying around this fall to seal up the places along the walls where they're getting inside and sure hope it helps.

    Also, you might think of getting a small hand vacuum to dedicate solely to bugs.  You don't want to use your regular vacuum for either ladybugs or stink bugs because of the smell.  Hammacher Schlemmer also has a "bug vacuum" that supposedly electrocutes the bugs once it sucks them up so you don't end up wiht a vacuum full of live ones.  I'm probably going to get one of those before next spring myself.  But an ordinary hand vac that can be stored outside the house would also help.


    I think I'll order (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by Zorba on Wed Sep 22, 2010 at 04:16:21 PM EST
    the hand vacuum.  In the meantime, I'll go get a cheap hand vac to use just for the bugs- I don't want to stink up my regular hand vac.  Thanks!

    I meant (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by Zorba on Wed Sep 22, 2010 at 04:16:56 PM EST
    the bug vacuum.  ;-)

    Update (5.00 / 1) (#65)
    by Zorba on Wed Sep 22, 2010 at 04:26:39 PM EST
    Thanks for all the suggestions.  I just half- filled a disposable container with soap and water, took a disposable plastic spoon, and just knocked about 20 of the bugs into the soapy water- instant death.  I'll try the mint infusion, and order the bug vacuum, too.  I like the duct tape idea on one of the websites, as well.  Well, back to the stink bug wars!

    Don't rule out the caulking gun (none / 0) (#126)
    by sj on Thu Sep 23, 2010 at 01:24:37 AM EST
    That will keep out all kinds of critters.

    Inside the house? (none / 0) (#53)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed Sep 22, 2010 at 04:00:11 PM EST
    You've got them inside?

    All over! (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by Zorba on Wed Sep 22, 2010 at 04:11:17 PM EST
    This is a 70-year-old wooden farmhouse, and there's just no way to seal all the cracks (and they can get through very, very tiny cracks).

    Mine is a nearly 200-yo (5.00 / 1) (#113)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed Sep 22, 2010 at 07:16:57 PM EST
    farmhouse, so I certainly know what you mean.  But there's still a lot one can do to tighten it up from the inside.  Maybe here in the Frozen North, I'm more aware of it because those little gaps and cracks also let heat out and cold in, so they're a high priority for me anyway.

    Sealing up rooms from the inside is what I'm suggesting, not trying to do it from outside, under shingles and clapboards, etc., which you're right is totally impossible.

    The ladybugs, which are smaller than stinkbugs, crawl in and spend the winter inside the walls, then come out into the rooms when it warms up in the spring because they're too stooopid to find their way back out the way they came.

    If the stinkbugs wander around inside your walls, you don't care, you just want them not to get into your house.  The same stuff one uses for weatherizing can be used to keep the buggies out-- various kinds of caulk and etc.  If you concentrate on the worst rooms, presumably the south and east-facing ones, I promise you it is possible to do fairly cheaply yourself and it will make a big difference.

    Alternatively, hire a weatherization pro to find the leaks and tighten things up, and that'll keep the bugs out, as well.


    Thanks, gyrfalcon (none / 0) (#116)
    by Zorba on Wed Sep 22, 2010 at 07:28:45 PM EST
    Will try.

    They infiltrate easily (none / 0) (#58)
    by hookfan on Wed Sep 22, 2010 at 04:11:11 PM EST
    needs protection around doors and windows. New seeds throughout the south and east draw them. And now there is an explosion. . .

    Try catnip (none / 0) (#54)
    by hookfan on Wed Sep 22, 2010 at 04:01:48 PM EST
    See here for this and othernatural remedies. Or use chemical sprays. . .

    Thanks for the link (5.00 / 1) (#60)
    by Zorba on Wed Sep 22, 2010 at 04:13:00 PM EST
    I'll try the mint infusion- I have lots of mint.

    For outside (none / 0) (#55)
    by hookfan on Wed Sep 22, 2010 at 04:07:35 PM EST
    there are several natural enemies of stinkbugs including parasitizing wasps that are non-aggressive to humans:link

    Florida's Third District Court of Appeals (5.00 / 0) (#83)
    by KeysDan on Wed Sep 22, 2010 at 05:12:52 PM EST
    in Miami struck down, unanimously, Florida's long standing ban on gay adoption as unconstitutional. Gov. Charlie Crist will let the decision stand.

    The appellate case was based on the trial judge Cindy Lederman's earlier decision that included Florida Attorney General Bill McCullom's (who lost the Republican primary for governor to a savvy business who was fired as CEO of HCA for Medicare fraud and paid $l.7 Billion in fines) generously paid for expert testimony to uphold the ban by two professors: one an ordained Baptist minister, the other, one who used the bible to guide his thinking.

    One of these experts (the other his friend) was the Rev. Dr. George Rekers who you may recall as using rentboy.com to find a travel assistant  to help carry his luggage.  Judge Lederman, without knowledge at the time of Dr. Rekers familiarity with the general subject, found that the experts failed to offer reasonable credible evidence to justify their belief or the legislation.  

    people can vote (5.00 / 2) (#90)
    by CST on Wed Sep 22, 2010 at 05:35:13 PM EST
    Or not vote how they please.  But don't sit here and tell me kicking dems out is gonna make everyone sit up and say "gee, we should have been more liberal". I've seen this show.  That's not how it ends.

    Of course not (5.00 / 3) (#93)
    by hookfan on Wed Sep 22, 2010 at 05:48:45 PM EST
    as long as you and others with like mind keep voting for Dems no matter what they do-- as long as they are not "as bad as. . .". There will not and cannot be any correction.
       Where's the bottom line for you? Can the democrats be just as "crazy" as the repubs and you will still vote for them? Why? For old times sake?
       If GW and his gang of merry repubs had done the exact same as Obama, with the same stated motivation, would you be defending him and them?
       I sure as heck wouldn't. Nor would I vote for them.

    right (5.00 / 2) (#117)
    by CST on Wed Sep 22, 2010 at 07:35:07 PM EST
    I'm young, politically engaged, and show up to vote in every election including midterms and primaries - and try to convince my family and friends to do the same.  If you think that makes me "the problem" I don't know what to tell you.

    Enjoy your new speaker of the house.  I'm sure you'll get the "change" you've been waiting for.


    And (none / 0) (#118)
    by hookfan on Wed Sep 22, 2010 at 07:45:03 PM EST
    you continue to vote for the same. What has it gotten you? It's gotten you to defending republican ideas and frameworks. It's gotten you continued corporate control and corruption. It's gotten you to continued excuses for Democratic capitulation to big money interests. Congratulations! Your strategy has successfully moved us--- where exactly? Just not as far right as the Republicans? Wow!

    If GW had done the exact same things as Obama, (none / 0) (#97)
    by steviez314 on Wed Sep 22, 2010 at 06:15:47 PM EST
    and my election choices were GW or Jim DeMint, then yes--I would vote for GW.

    And the third party challenge only exists in a mythical world.


    It only exists in (none / 0) (#98)
    by hookfan on Wed Sep 22, 2010 at 06:24:08 PM EST
    a mythical world, until people start voting for it--unlike the democratic mythical world, where you continue to get it after having voted for it.

    It'll continue to exist (5.00 / 2) (#102)
    by jondee on Wed Sep 22, 2010 at 06:36:53 PM EST
    in a mythical world until we have publicly financed elections and limits in the media on phenomena like privately funded Swift Boat campaigns.

    Hook, as things stand now, that ideal candidate you have in mind would be rendered all but inoperational by Swift Boating and other forms of carefully crafted and funded gutter tactics in a matter of weeks or months.  


    My ideal candidate (none / 0) (#104)
    by hookfan on Wed Sep 22, 2010 at 06:43:49 PM EST
    would never be nominated in this environment, because of the corporate control and corruption of both parties. since voting or not voting won't make the least difference in the framework that matters (corporate hegemony), I choose to at least preserve some integrity and not vote for either party. I refuse to be distracted by side issues and continue to be a corporate whore. ymmv.
      You're right, imo, about the need for election reform. But one doesn't get that by voting for corporate controlled parties.

    and apparently (none / 0) (#101)
    by hookfan on Wed Sep 22, 2010 at 06:30:52 PM EST
    you have no bottom line. drift. . .drift. . .drift

    You've seen nothing. (4.00 / 3) (#91)
    by dk on Wed Sep 22, 2010 at 05:42:27 PM EST
    You have an opinion as to how it will end based on what, in my opinion, are facile comparisons to one previous election.

    More distraction. (5.00 / 1) (#122)
    by hookfan on Wed Sep 22, 2010 at 10:25:39 PM EST
     Just like the darkening of photos, and groping cardboard. difference? Pffft.
      Tell me the difference when Obama nominates a candidate for OMB who doesn't think deregulation has been a problem, and wants to replace Summers position with a pro corporate CEO. When Chris Dodd openly advocates for the bankers. When Lincoln votes against the Dream act. Where's the difference when it comes to big money and corporate corruption. The rest pales in importance in comparison. Wont matter how nonracist you are when you starve. Won't matter how nonsexist you are when you lose your home. The grim reaper is equal opportunity for both racist and non racist alike.

    One Election? (3.00 / 2) (#94)
    by squeaky on Wed Sep 22, 2010 at 06:06:57 PM EST
    Nothing new, been the same for years. Where have you been?

    It is funny to see a group of liberals/progressives all of a sudden taking the position that leftists and socialists have held for generations.

    All because she lost.  


    oh dear (5.00 / 2) (#95)
    by nycstray on Wed Sep 22, 2010 at 06:09:27 PM EST
    so let me get this straight, since I supported her, my position on this is what?

    I Don't Know (5.00 / 1) (#100)
    by squeaky on Wed Sep 22, 2010 at 06:28:51 PM EST
    What your position is.

    I supported her too, but never thought she was any different from the rest of the lot, certainly no different from any of the other bunch of mainstream democrats.

    But for those who ardently supported a centrist Democrat, namely Hillary Clinton, and now act as if the rest of the Democrats are somehow all right wingers, so much so that they are not going to vote for any democrats until Karl Marx rises from the grave, I can only roll my eyes and laugh.

    NeoRadicals?   lol


    The problem (5.00 / 3) (#103)
    by hookfan on Wed Sep 22, 2010 at 06:37:12 PM EST
    is we don't know what Hillary would have done. Neither do you.
       But if Hillary had done exactly what Obama and his merry Dems have done, I wouldn't vote for them or her either. Lol!!!

    No Problem (5.00 / 1) (#106)
    by squeaky on Wed Sep 22, 2010 at 06:56:29 PM EST
    I do know what Hillary would have done. Same as she has ever done. There could be no surprises, in this day and age. Hillary was never a radical, she has always worked in the center, like Bill and like Obama. Like most of the rest of the electable Democrats.

    Had Hillary won, she would be POTUS and the GOP would have redoubled their efforts in their seek and destroy mission. Instead of the rash of racism we have been seeing for the last couple of years, it the hate would take the form of sexism. Of course if Obama were the veep, both the racist and sexists would be on a roll.


    You mean (none / 0) (#108)
    by hookfan on Wed Sep 22, 2010 at 07:02:44 PM EST
    in similar vein to the racism and sexism displayed in the democratic party,only more overt? It's only part of the kabuki-- for distraction. Both parties want the same thing-- corporate power and money. the sexism and racism are tools to keep us divided and prevent us from focusing on ridding ourselves from the real current oppressors.
      You can be as nonracist as can be and still die of starvation.

    No (5.00 / 1) (#112)
    by squeaky on Wed Sep 22, 2010 at 07:16:22 PM EST
    I mean the overt racism that the tea baggers aka GOP have been dishing out.

    The Democrats were quite mild in comparison. And were Hillary POTUS, we would be seeing miniskirted caricatures and effigies of Hillary getting gang raped, and that would just be the warmup.


    Democrats are always (5.00 / 1) (#115)
    by hookfan on Wed Sep 22, 2010 at 07:25:10 PM EST
    quite mild in comparison. Doesn't matter-- the style doesn't change whom they serve.

    Even if she were marxist. LOL!! (none / 0) (#107)
    by hookfan on Wed Sep 22, 2010 at 06:56:30 PM EST
    I was actually referring to (none / 0) (#99)
    by dk on Wed Sep 22, 2010 at 06:26:08 PM EST
    the 2000 election in my comment.  Sorry for the confusion.

    In this political/media atmosphere (none / 0) (#132)
    by CST on Thu Sep 23, 2010 at 09:51:54 AM EST
    what makes you think the narrative will be anything but "the tea party won"?

    Honestly, I think Tracy's point that this might make things so bad people finally get what they had coming - politically - is a more likely outcome.  And maybe that will force people to change, I don't know, maybe things have to get worse to force people to get better.  I'm not confident enough to take that chance, but I can see where it's a possibility.  That kind of happened in '06 and '08.

    I just don't see where anyone is gonna look at the results from these elections and get that congress wasn't liberal enough.  Especially if the more liberal senators and congress-people lose.


    Christine O'Donnell and me (5.00 / 2) (#120)
    by KeysDan on Wed Sep 22, 2010 at 08:24:38 PM EST
    are pulling (lust-free, of course) for Steve Schwarzman, Wall street titan and CEO of Blackstone Investment Group, to replace Larry Summers on the Obama economic team.  We have concluded that the country needs Steve's reasoned and proportional response to issues, as he demonstrated in his statement that taxing the richest Americans is like "when
    Hitler invaded Poland."

    A great reach-out to the disenchanted banksters, to boot.  Steve has all the attributes that Obama looks for: graduate of Harvard Business School, and as a bonus, attended Yale during the time that George Bush was there; he, as a capstone, is a member of Skull and Bones and is a friend of everyone's friend Vernon Jordan.  Just what the doctor ordered (Josef Mengele's to tap into Steve's book of analogies.).

    HArd to deny the brilliance, (none / 0) (#133)
    by jeffinalabama on Thu Sep 23, 2010 at 10:13:53 AM EST
    or the need to reach out to those marginalized bankers HBS grads, and the suffering Skulls.

    My goodness, they have been ignored for so long! Their importance and impact needs to be central!


    We're asked to choose the Dems as (4.20 / 5) (#4)
    by scribe on Wed Sep 22, 2010 at 12:38:14 PM EST
    the lesser of two evils.

    Of course, the Dem Establishment wants us to overlook logic compelling the conclusion that if one chooses the lesser of two evils, one is still choosing evil.

    And "they suck worse" is perhaps the least compelling argument I have ever heard.

    The fact is, there are only three logical conclusions which can be drawn from the Administration's conduct.  The first is that they want the Republicans to either win one or both houses of Congress.  The second is that they will be satisfied with narrow Democratic majorities in one or both houses.  Either one maximizes the power of the Blue Dog factions in the House and Senate, much like Lieberman had maximal power in the Senate when the Dems had 60 votes.  As the 60th vote, he controlled whether a bill would move forward or not, by extorting something for someone he wanted to benefit.  

    The third logical conclusion is that the Administration does not want a large Democratic majority because that would mean they would actually have to effect the "change" they sold themselves as bringing and, if there's one thing sure to infuriate their corporate masters, it's change.  Corporate America likes things just the way they are, thank you very much.

    So, don't get bent out of shape over that which you cannot change.  Just stay home.

    If the Administration wanted their base of Real Democrats to be motiviated, get out and vote (and GOTV for them, i.e., "get in gear", to quote VP Biden), they would have supported their Real Democratic base.  The Administration didn't - they continually mocked, belittled, abused and ignored their Real Democratic base.  Instead, the Adminstration listened to and coddled and cosseted Corpoate America and the banksters and warmongers.

    Let those few who benefitted from the Administration vote Democratic;  I'm sitting this one out.  I don't choose evil, lesser or greater.

    I'm through... (5.00 / 4) (#5)
    by kdog on Wed Sep 22, 2010 at 12:49:40 PM EST
    with lesser evil myself...but I would suggest pulling a lever for an also-ran as an alternative to not voting.

    There is a chance, perhaps slim, that when the also-rans with a letter other than D or R after their name start getting 20-30-40% percent of the vote that we could scare the bastards into delivering more bones for us dogs.


    while in general I agree (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by nycstray on Wed Sep 22, 2010 at 01:04:13 PM EST
    but with some of the whackos running for office these days, it's important to look at the possible consequences. I'll take status quo over absolutely f*cked at this point. I will however, not just vote straight D down the ticket. (remember, I'm reg Green) Having Meg as Gov is not something I think this poor state can handle. And adding Carly to the Sen, not an option.

    If the choice (5.00 / 4) (#15)
    by hookfan on Wed Sep 22, 2010 at 01:13:46 PM EST
    is between a bullet and poison, I choose none of the above. Sure, a bullet will kill you quicker, but the poison will get you to the same place. I've been voting poison for many years. I've decided to stop killing myself.
       And the Democratic party reps and officials need to own the responsibility for what they brought about.

    I see your point... (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by kdog on Wed Sep 22, 2010 at 01:15:37 PM EST
    but from my view, the status quo is totally f*cked.

    But I do get to say that from a perpetual blue state where David Berkowitz could win with a D after his name in many races.


    I'm in a blue state also . . . (none / 0) (#20)
    by nycstray on Wed Sep 22, 2010 at 01:24:28 PM EST
    and I'm pretty sure it's not just Californians that would be banging their heads on a desk in a year or 2 with Fiorina (and friends) in the Sen . . .

    I'll be banging my head... (none / 0) (#25)
    by kdog on Wed Sep 22, 2010 at 01:47:07 PM EST
    just the same if Boxer wins.  

    The big bad republican threat just doesn't scare me like it used too...sh*t I've got half a mind to root for the joint to fail at this point...it's got no love for me and mine, ya know?  The America I love no longer exists...if it ever existed.


    It never existed (5.00 / 2) (#33)
    by Manuel on Wed Sep 22, 2010 at 01:57:28 PM EST
    Meanwhile, in the real world a lot of people are going to get hurt if the Republicans and Tea Partiers have their way.

    People have been hurt... (5.00 / 2) (#38)
    by kdog on Wed Sep 22, 2010 at 02:23:48 PM EST
    by two years of Brand D control of the legislative and executive branches...the republican threat ceases to be very scary when ya can barely tell it apart from the democratic threat.  

    No matter how this November plays out, the people will be hurt...it's a guarantee in a two-party system.


    Very true (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Sep 22, 2010 at 03:06:25 PM EST
    Sometimes I feel like I should not save the other half of this crazy country from the consequences of their crazy actions by voting for the least smelly bowl of "bleep".

    At the end of the day... (none / 0) (#45)
    by kdog on Wed Sep 22, 2010 at 03:14:18 PM EST
    we get the government we deserve...do sh*t, get sh*t...guilty as charged here.  I'm not down on Wall St. making citizens arrests & getting locked up...I'm not planning a massive prison break to free my political prisoner brothers and sisters & getting locked up...I'm not on Penn Ave. everyday demanding a meeting with the pres. & getting locked up.  

    I surrendered, y'all ain't worth getting locked up over, Eugene Victor Debs I'm not...sorry:) The most you'll get outta me is a protest vote, you're welcome to join me or not.


    I'm starting (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by hookfan on Wed Sep 22, 2010 at 01:05:28 PM EST
    to agree with you. If I want to vote against The Agenda I'll stay home or vote nota, and go maybe down ticket. But if I want to vote for my values, green is not a bad color. . .

    Not the time to sit on the sidelines (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by Manuel on Wed Sep 22, 2010 at 01:50:31 PM EST
    The battle of ideas goes on.  Sitting out because of your disagreements with Democrats and their policies isn't a good option.  The guys on the other side aren't stopping their drive for influence and are licking their chops.  If they get their way, things will get worse and a lot of people will get hurt.

    I agree (5.00 / 2) (#37)
    by ruffian on Wed Sep 22, 2010 at 02:15:00 PM EST
    The lesser of the two evils is still, indeed, significantly lesser IMO.

    Battle of ideas? (5.00 / 3) (#71)
    by lentinel on Wed Sep 22, 2010 at 04:42:50 PM EST
    What ideas?

    What battles?


    The only ideas (4.00 / 3) (#44)
    by hookfan on Wed Sep 22, 2010 at 03:10:36 PM EST
    the Democrats have put in place are republican ideas. I refuse to vote for republican ideas. . .

    I know how you feel (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed Sep 22, 2010 at 03:56:32 PM EST
    but Manuel is right.  There are an awful lot of people who will quite literally suffer a lot more under GOP control, even if it makes only a marginal difference in your life.

    For instance, all those Nader voters who helped get George Bush into the White House ought to stop and think for a little bit about the number of Iraqis who've died as a result of that vote.


    So you think (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by dk on Wed Sep 22, 2010 at 03:59:57 PM EST
    that Obama's going to start a third war if Republicans take control of congress?

    I see all (5.00 / 1) (#66)
    by hookfan on Wed Sep 22, 2010 at 04:26:56 PM EST
    the people who've died in Iraq and Afghanistan on Obama's watch, and I'm not convinced. . .Obama is no dove.
       And I see the many Bush programs continued or expanded by Obama and the Democratically controlled congress, and I'm even less convinced.
       And I see who is running the show in the Gulf of Mexico, and who is hurt, and I'm very unconvinced.
       And I see double digit insurance increases on the Dems watch-- a consequence which they knowingly brought about, and the peeps hurt by that and I'm totally unconvinced.
       And I see the lack of priority for actual job creation, coupled with the HAMP fiasco, and the complete prioritizing of the Financiers and I'm unreconcilably unconvinced.

    do you see all the GM (5.00 / 2) (#69)
    by CST on Wed Sep 22, 2010 at 04:38:36 PM EST
    workers who would otherwise be unemployed?

    Do you see all the teachers and firefighters who would otherwise be unemployed?

    Do you see people who are broke and struggling to get by collecting unemployment who would have none if it were up to the GOP?

    Do you see any of them?


    I see (5.00 / 1) (#74)
    by hookfan on Wed Sep 22, 2010 at 04:53:54 PM EST
    many teachers in my state unemployed, and firefighters, and policeman, due to the state financial crunch which Obama's lack of investment for job creation has helped to bring about. And I see alot of homeowners who turned to Obama get screwed by HAMP, set up to serve guess who? (Answer: not the homeowners). I see the poor with no jobs,just more of them. And even with new crappy insurance, they can't afford medical treatment.
       Get real. Obama has shown as much interest for the plight of the poor and working class as the republicans.

    what you disregard (5.00 / 3) (#76)
    by CST on Wed Sep 22, 2010 at 04:55:50 PM EST
    is that republicans actually opposed all of those things, and they passed anyway.

    I never said Obama solved the economic crisis.

    But you have your head in the sand if you think things couldn't be worse than they are.


    Sure they can be worse (none / 0) (#79)
    by hookfan on Wed Sep 22, 2010 at 05:03:07 PM EST
    Continue to vote for Democrats that enact republican ideas and you'll see. the only way to turn this around is to hold them accountable--now. Not in some future never, never lala land. Maybe you like the rightward drift this country continues to take. because what you are recommending does nothing to stop it. Your strategy, historically,is a proven fail.

    im pretty sure (5.00 / 1) (#82)
    by CST on Wed Sep 22, 2010 at 05:11:45 PM EST
    Your strategy is the one that failed us pretty horribly in 2000.

    Not convinced (none / 0) (#86)
    by hookfan on Wed Sep 22, 2010 at 05:24:02 PM EST
    Nader didn't cause the loss. And the Democrats in congress, both in minority and in majority (post 2006) cemented the Bush (and now Obama) "legacy". Or do you not remember the "capitulation congress"?

    to put it another way (5.00 / 1) (#78)
    by CST on Wed Sep 22, 2010 at 05:01:02 PM EST
    Nothing you mentioned would be different or better under republican rule.  Everything I mentioned would be gone.

    Not true (none / 0) (#81)
    by hookfan on Wed Sep 22, 2010 at 05:10:01 PM EST
    as the Democrats, for once, will have gotten what they've earned; and only by doing so is there any hope for a future that is not far right. Keep allowing yourself to be blackmailed by the Republican bogeyman, and you're helping to send the country right down the krapper.

    because (5.00 / 1) (#84)
    by CST on Wed Sep 22, 2010 at 05:13:45 PM EST
    Electing republicans is a sure fire way to stop a rightward drift.

    but . . . but . . . . but (5.00 / 1) (#85)
    by nycstray on Wed Sep 22, 2010 at 05:18:56 PM EST
    Sarah Palin and the Tea Party have such good ideas!

    All of Palins ideas can fit inside a 140 character (5.00 / 1) (#96)
    by steviez314 on Wed Sep 22, 2010 at 06:12:25 PM EST

    In fact, I expect that to be her 2012 platform---all gov't regulations must be no greater than 140 characters.


    But, but,but. . . (none / 0) (#87)
    by hookfan on Wed Sep 22, 2010 at 05:25:56 PM EST
    the Democrats have proven effective at enacting anything except Republican ideas. . .

    The Democrats record (none / 0) (#88)
    by hookfan on Wed Sep 22, 2010 at 05:27:04 PM EST
    sure isn't.

    Pre-poll guilt-mongering OR fearmongering ... ? (none / 0) (#119)
    by Ellie on Wed Sep 22, 2010 at 08:05:23 PM EST
    Choosing between the only apparent modes the brain trust apparently works in during the final lap is no real choice at all.

    Our besties should have shown a bigger interest in our interests -- including and perhaps especially labor -- where and when it mattered.

    I know one sagging economy that could have done with the union shop I was scheduled to open this year but simply couldn't risk because of health care/insurance uncertainty for myself and future hires.

    In simple terms: Besides the financial risk of expanding a biz right now, I just couldn't afford to be promoted myself and lose what I've got, what I've saved and what others around me are relying on for THEIR future.

    It's like being told to join the end of the line for the SS Titanic life-raft I won't get seated on, but which will feature a free a mini-bar.

    And ... once more with feeling ... NO ONE HAS TO JUSTIFY HIS OR HER VOTE TO ANYONE, EVER, ALWAYS!.

    I know you're not party bot but point would resonate through the numbskulls with more with more amplitude.

    (And wasn't that that whole vote/franchise thingey rhetorical wind to fuel the casus belli for invading and occupying Afghanistan and Iraq?)


    im not asking for justification (5.00 / 1) (#121)
    by CST on Wed Sep 22, 2010 at 09:47:29 PM EST
    Im just saying my piece on a blog like everyone else.

    It wasn't Nader (5.00 / 1) (#73)
    by lentinel on Wed Sep 22, 2010 at 04:51:56 PM EST
    voters who got Bush elected.

    It was Gore.
    He selected one of the dumbest candidates to be his v.p.
    It was a horror watching any of the debates.
    Gore embarrassed himself.
    Lieberman embarrassed himself.

    And please let us not forget Katherine Harris.
    Let us not forget the crooked Supreme Court of the United States - handing the election to Bush.

    But even with that, Gore lost it on his own.

    I will never condemn people for voting for someone with integrity instead of voting out of fear for the least worst that corporate America offers us.


    Nader was the ONLY candidate (5.00 / 2) (#89)
    by jondee on Wed Sep 22, 2010 at 05:34:00 PM EST
    in 2000 who went into, in any depth, the sort of issues that most of the posters here are frequently preoccupied with, yet he was, and still is, the bad guy. The great spoiler. There's something more than a tad screwy about that picture.

    50 + mil people in this country willing to take someone like GWB seriously as Presidential material for two terms; now, that's a serious, somewhat intractable problem.  


    I always contrast the ferocity (5.00 / 1) (#92)
    by jondee on Wed Sep 22, 2010 at 05:47:30 PM EST
    with which the pro-NAFTA Gore went after Perot with the soft balls he lobbed at the sitting duck Dubya in those debates..

    I never could figure that one out. Never will.


    Still in denial, I see (5.00 / 1) (#125)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed Sep 22, 2010 at 11:37:28 PM EST
    Nader most certainly did throw the election to Bush.  There's simply no question about it.  Gore could have been an even worse candidate than he was, and he still would have beaten Bush if it weren't for the Nader votes.

    And there never would have been an issue in Florida if Nader hadn't been on the ballot.

    Not to mention Nader is a very, very, very long way from any sane person's idea of a superior Democratic or left-ish president.  Good God.


    Yes, but the Republicans (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by Manuel on Wed Sep 22, 2010 at 04:18:18 PM EST
    want to put in place reactionary ideas (tax cuts, dismantled regulations, retrograde energy policy, ...).  Their policies will accelerate the wealth gap in our society.  This may help in bringing on the revolution but it could as well just bring on more misery.

    Oh? (none / 0) (#67)
    by hookfan on Wed Sep 22, 2010 at 04:33:07 PM EST
    I thought it was the "Obama tax cuts" (started under Bush) they've recently been arguing for? And tell me more about the severe derivitive regs the democrats have put in place. . . And the oh so severe restrictions placed on the Insurance Industry that is stopping their rate hike plunder? Where's that?

    Sorry I forgot (none / 0) (#68)
    by hookfan on Wed Sep 22, 2010 at 04:37:18 PM EST
    about the severe restrictions on the pharmaceutical industry that keeps down the price of medications, or the severe restrictions on the medical providers that so restricts the rise in price in medical services. . . Yeah right! they both are using republican ideas-- one called r-republican, the other D-republican. The Democratic ideas were taken off the table.

    time for the tri-annual (none / 0) (#8)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Sep 22, 2010 at 01:03:49 PM EST
    colonoscopy.  hope everyone here of a certain age is doing this regularly.

    this time tomorrow I will be getting a coaxial cable inserted into my nether regions for photo recon.

    woo hoo.

    The date with a snake n/t (none / 0) (#12)
    by BTAL on Wed Sep 22, 2010 at 01:09:12 PM EST
    at least the "prep" (none / 0) (#14)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Sep 22, 2010 at 01:10:13 PM EST
    has gotten a bit less horrible.  no gallon of nasty stuff anymore like the last time I did it.

    A pill instead? (none / 0) (#26)
    by MKS on Wed Sep 22, 2010 at 01:47:30 PM EST
    Just did the gallon of nasty a month ago....

    my instructions say (none / 0) (#36)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Sep 22, 2010 at 02:10:44 PM EST
    two (2) bottles of magnesium citrate.  about 8 oz? each

    one now and one at 7 along with two pills each time.

    way easier.


    Yes, but (5.00 / 3) (#40)
    by Zorba on Wed Sep 22, 2010 at 02:38:20 PM EST
    the "end result" is still rather unpleasant.  ;-)

    Doesn't sound like the sort (none / 0) (#128)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Sep 23, 2010 at 03:19:37 AM EST
    of fun I want to sign up for.  One of these days though in my near future.

    Woodward's latest book being released (none / 0) (#11)
    by BTAL on Wed Sep 22, 2010 at 01:08:31 PM EST
    "Obama's wars" - an inside report of the WH and Afganistan.  The NYTimes is reporting on a copy they've received.  Politico has many reports on the content.

    Two eye opening snippets:

    Mr. Obama's struggle with the decision comes through in a conversation with Senator Lindsey Graham  of South Carolina, who asked if his deadline to begin withdrawal in July 2011 was firm. "I have to say that," Mr. Obama replied. "I can't let this be a war without end, and I can't lose the whole Democratic Party."


    "Pushing to get the right strategy": "The President repeated that he wanted the graph moved to the left. Get the forces in faster and out faster, `You tell me that the biggest problem we have now is that the momentum is with the Taliban and the reason for this resource request is that the momentum is with the Taliban. But you're not getting these troops into Afghanistan' for more than a year. `I'm not going to make a commitment that leaves my successor with more troops than I inherited in Afghanistan.'"

    The second is an example from the book that the WH quoted as proof the portrayal is fair and accurate.  Politico

    That last paragraph (none / 0) (#129)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Sep 23, 2010 at 03:22:53 AM EST
    explains the train ups that were going down right before he gave his speech announcing a troop increase.  People were pouring into Benning and Bragg and into train ups.  He wanted to be quick about it and I think it was a good move and well executed.

    finally something I could probably win (none / 0) (#21)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Sep 22, 2010 at 01:27:28 PM EST
    Buried is an upcoming horror film about a man who wakes up to find himself buried alive in a coffin. Alamo Drafthouse is holding a contest in which four winners will be kidnapped and buried in coffins underground where they will be able to watch the film on small screens inside their coffins:

       Four lucky (or not so lucky, depending on how you look at it) people were picked to be blindfolded, have a burlap sack put over their head, then silently driven 30 miles outside of the city. There, they were put in coffins and only then were they allowed to remove the blindfolds, where they'd see an LCD screen that would show Buried.

    wowee (none / 0) (#29)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Sep 22, 2010 at 01:50:38 PM EST
    The only film more secretive than J.J. Abrams' Super 8 may be the so-called Cobalt Neural 9, which we've been more expansively calling the `Wachowski Siblings Gay Iraq War  Romance.' We've known only the barest details about the film, but a big new report has come to light, claiming to offer a lot more details. Given what we're being told about the movie now, it is a lot more extreme than I previously suspected. Extreme enough that I'll be surprised to see it get made.

    So, as we've heard in the past, the film begins roughly 100 years into the future, and then flashes back to the now (or a few years back) to tell the story, assembled from various shaky and low-key bits of footage, of a US soldier who falls for an Iraqi soldier turned militant. The US solider is reportedly named Butch and "just wants to fu*k and kill everything" until meeting his Iraqi paramour.

    There's the possibility of semi-graphic sex between the two, with them dressed in burqas in one scene, and there's quite a bit of drama as their lives start to intertwine. But then "disaster strikes" the Iraqi's family's ancestral home, and the two men decide they have to rid the world of militant evil. To do this, they decide they have to assassinate George W. Bush.

    Interesting plot... (none / 0) (#41)
    by kdog on Wed Sep 22, 2010 at 03:01:24 PM EST
    I wonder how many fatwas and Phelps protests that one is gonna lead to, if it ever sees the light of day.

    Hey, kdog (none / 0) (#77)
    by Zorba on Wed Sep 22, 2010 at 04:57:23 PM EST
    Did you see this news item?  T-Mobile is being sued:
    T-Mobile is being sued for blocking text messages dealing with medical marijuana from a company that sends out group messages for all kinds of businesses, including the marijuana website.

    New York-based EZ Texting recently filed suit in U.S. District Court against T-Mobile, alleging on Sept. 10 the carrier started blocking all messages by the company's clients because T-Mobile "did not approve" of text messages sent by one of those clients, LegalMarijuanaDispensary.com, using EZ Texting's services.

    Real nice of T-Mobile to block this, isn't it?  What jerks.

    What a coincidence... (none / 0) (#130)
    by kdog on Thu Sep 23, 2010 at 07:42:04 AM EST
    I "do not approve" of T-Mobiles message either Z:)

    Jerks and hypocrites...do they realize how much money they make off the illegal reefer trade? And they're gonna bust chops over the use of their product in the legal reefer trade?

    Drug dealers had cellies before doctors I think...long time cellular customer base.  I hope every bush doctor switches carriers.


    October surprise (none / 0) (#47)
    by hookfan on Wed Sep 22, 2010 at 03:39:43 PM EST
    Rahm bites the dust-link

    What? (none / 0) (#51)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed Sep 22, 2010 at 03:59:14 PM EST
    This is not a surprise, first of all, and since when is running for mayor of Chicago biting the dust?

    Rimshot (5.00 / 1) (#111)
    by MO Blue on Wed Sep 22, 2010 at 07:15:45 PM EST
    {Claps and cheers loudly}

    Uh (none / 0) (#72)
    by hookfan on Wed Sep 22, 2010 at 04:45:59 PM EST
    mayor of Chicago is not inside the Whitehouse, no?
       And, I thought it was just rumored before, but perhaps I missed the announcement. . .

    Are you kidding? (5.00 / 1) (#109)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed Sep 22, 2010 at 07:08:21 PM EST
    If you're a megalomaniac, which would you rather be, boss of a very large city or somebody else's chief of staff?

    Hmmmm..... (5.00 / 1) (#131)
    by jbindc on Thu Sep 23, 2010 at 08:58:59 AM EST
    2nd most powerful person in Washington, accountable to only one person, or a job where your days consist of dealing with things like streetlights and snow removal andcity contracts, and where you are publicly accountable every day on TV and in the papers....

    Give me CoS every time.


    Chief of staff (none / 0) (#114)
    by hookfan on Wed Sep 22, 2010 at 07:18:56 PM EST
    'cause in Rahm's mind he both gets to tell the Prez what to do, and kick 'retarded liberals'. Besides, I always thought he wanted to be speaker of the house. . . How does being mayor get him toward that?

    Before he wanted to be Speaker (none / 0) (#123)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed Sep 22, 2010 at 11:28:15 PM EST
    he wanted to be mayor of Chicago.  And once you're out of Congress, you'd have to laboriously work your way back up again and hope you'd get a shot at the speakership before you're too old to enjoy it.  And really, the prospects for a Dem. speaker aren't looking all that good right now.

    Look at it from his point of view.  He can call DFHs "retarded" as much as he wants if he's running for mayor or becomes mayor, and he can do it right out in the open on TV.  :-)

    Rahm is a guy who chafes at having to be out of the spotlight and watch what he says and support positions he doesn't agree with because his boss says so.  He was like that when he was in the Dem. leadership in Congress, but at least there he was climbing up a ladder.  There is no ladder step for him in the West Wing higher than chief of staff.

    Really, there's not the slightest indication Obama is unhappy with him, quite the contrary, unfortunately.  I think this is just what it looks like.  His dream job suddenly opened up, and he wants to go for it.  Good for him.  I don't live in Chicago, so I won't have to suffer the consequences or see him on my TV every night.

    I also suspect he's got at least a thought that he might beat out Eric Cantor as possibly the first Jewish presidential nominee, if not president.  Can't do that if your best job was chief of staff.  Sounds absurd, I know, but I think that's his self-image.


    From your drumset to (none / 0) (#124)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed Sep 22, 2010 at 11:31:01 PM EST
    God's ears.

    Unfortunately for them, the good people of Chicago seem to be more favorably disposed to him than they ought to be, according to some poll that was just done.  And when did Rahm ever think he was going to lose something he wanted, eh?

    And actually, he might be a fairly decent mayor.  I can't stand the guy, but he might make a success of it.  (See my response to Hookfan above.)


    It's a lateral move, I guess. (none / 0) (#80)
    by EL seattle on Wed Sep 22, 2010 at 05:03:40 PM EST
    But it could probably be worse, or better, or something.  I don't know if being mayor of a major city will be anything except a thankless job of a few years, though.

    Then again...

    Last weekend I went to se "The Town".  It was a decent thriller with a few great set pieces.  But during several scenes I admit that I was distracted by one weird thought:

    Since when did Don Draper and Rahm Emanuel become cops?