Tuesday Open Thread

The Washington Post has a new article on Occupy Wall Street and the protesters' goals. There were 50 arrests today at Occupy Boston.

TPM reports anti-War protesters stormed the Senate’s Hart Office Building. Many arrests.

Politico says Obama's jobs bill may not get 51 votes in the Senate.

This is an open thread, all topics welcome.

< Jury Selection Underway in Viktor Bout Terrorism Trial | Iranians Charged With Plot to Kill Saudi Ambassador in U.S. >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    I'm sorry (5.00 / 7) (#3)
    by CST on Tue Oct 11, 2011 at 12:47:18 PM EST
    but if you can't vote for a pretty straight forward infrastructure improvement bill in the middle of this kind of a recession you have no right to call yourself a Democrat.  Just make it official and spare us the posturing.  Pathetic.

    Why do you classify this... (4.20 / 5) (#27)
    by Romberry on Tue Oct 11, 2011 at 02:18:47 PM EST
    ...as "a pretty straight forward infrastructure improvement bill"? I don't think that Obama's proposal can accurately be described that way. Heck, I won't even describe it as a jobs bill...'cause far as I can tell, it ain't. In fact, as far as I can tell, on the big picture economic/jobs front, it's effectively not even worth fighting over.

    I can't imagine why anyone would see this bill as anything other than what it is, and that is political window dressing. (I call it window dressing because even if passed as proposed, the big economic/jobs picture does not change. At all. This bill does not quite less than nothing to address the fundamental issues. Hence window dressing.)


    the only problem (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by CST on Tue Oct 11, 2011 at 02:26:15 PM EST
    with it is that it's too small.  State aid?  Infrastructure improvements?  Even extended unemployment benefits put money back into the economy.  And yes, tax cuts, but so what?

    If the problem is that it's not big enough - you know what a bigger problem is?  Doing nothing.  If the problem is you are worried that another bill will come along proposing cuts to medicare and veterans - you know what to do?   Oppose THAT bill.

    Yes, I call this very straightforward.  The fact that it's small just makes the Dem defection over spending all the more pathetic.


    All the modern dem has to do... (none / 0) (#6)
    by kdog on Tue Oct 11, 2011 at 01:05:26 PM EST
    to be a dem in good standing is take money hand over fist from Wall St., have a neocon foreign policy, and kick hippies on the regular.

    speaking of hippies (none / 0) (#10)
    by Dadler on Tue Oct 11, 2011 at 01:29:43 PM EST
    I like her already... (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by kdog on Tue Oct 11, 2011 at 02:02:00 PM EST
    Joe Strummer on smoking...

    "If you took cigarettes away from the 20th century, we wouldn't have any of the writers you go on about, or anybody worshipped would not exist, and I want this acknowledged. In fact I think non-smokers should be barred from buying any product that a smoker created"

    I wouldn't go that far, but I love the sentiment.


    Ya, and We'd have Like... (none / 0) (#51)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Oct 11, 2011 at 04:03:38 PM EST
    ...100 million more people in the country, making pretty much all of this mess even worse.

    And that is not snark.  
    Add in add the aborted fetuses, people killed in wars, and our country would be as dense as England with India like numbers.

    It's good people die early, I smoked plenty, and still do on the weekends when I drink, which as of late is on the heavy side.  The country should be thanking me for all the SS I am putting in, but will not get back when my liver decides it's time.

    I do workout frequently and eat pretty healthy, but this country should appreciate people who die around 65, they are like little tiny tax cuts that add up to a lot of benefits never paid.

    And as much as it sounds like snark it isn't.

    But Kdog, cigs didn't create jack, well except for making a bout of old white crusty southerners filthy rich.  But since they want to take credit for all the good stuff, how many murders and rapist they got in the cig category.

    I only mention this because I went to the H Davidson museum with a friend who rides one.  Seriously, like 1000 bikes, 100 little exhibits, millions of pics, so much stuff that going through quickly took an hour.

    Yet not one picture of a gang.  Talk about not presenting the truth about their product.  Ditto for the clown with the quote, lots of good/bad people smoke, so what.


    I'd hardly call... (none / 0) (#92)
    by kdog on Wed Oct 12, 2011 at 04:47:48 AM EST
    Joe Strummer a clown, or a pitchman....just an artist who called them like he saw them.  And oh how do we miss him!

    Of course smoking is not the exclusive domain of great artists or great minds, but there is a strong argument for a correlation between the two.  Same for drink, reefer, and drugs.  A smoke never wrote a brilliant novel, but Kurt Vonnegut has, and he like so many other greats were drawn to it.  In the context of societies with puritan streaks, damn right this should be acknowledged.

    Speaking of Kurt...

    "Here's the news: I am going to sue the Brown & Williamson Tobacco Company, manufacturers of Pall Mall cigarettes, for a billion bucks! Starting when I was only twelve years old, I have never chain-smoked anything but unfiltered Pall Malls. And for many years now, right on the package, Brown & Williamson have promised to kill me.
    But I am eighty-two. Thanks a lot, you dirty rats. The last thing I ever wanted was to be alive when the three most powerful people on the whole planet would be named Bush, Dick and Colon."

    My Point Was (none / 0) (#117)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Oct 12, 2011 at 02:07:56 PM EST
    ...smokers do as much harm as good in regard to the people who smoke.  Pure coincidence, especially the further you go back.

    Don't get correlation and causation confused.  If there was causation you should be able to predict who was prone to more artisticness by knowing if they smoked, which is ridiculous. Every bum on the planet would have some sort of unknown talent.

    If I were to guess, I would say the biggest predictor of smoking would be either a parent or a friend with a parent that smoked. IOW, chance. And where do the quitters fall in, or does their genius stop when they kick the habit.

    I could care less about smoking, as a matter of fact I despise the anti-smoking brigade.  

    It's one thing to connect certain drugs to artisticness, but nicotine ?  And again, that would make ball players and most of our Texas good ole boys more artistically inclined, more so considering chewing tobacco has like 4 times the nicotine.


    Good blog on nationwide Occupation (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by Towanda on Tue Oct 11, 2011 at 01:28:15 PM EST
    is at the Nation.  I recommend the videos -- from the past, with the people's movement of the 1930s and Upton Sinclair, as well as from the present, especially running Geraldo and Fox News out of the park.

    That Tom Tomorrow cartoon is perfect (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by shoephone on Tue Oct 11, 2011 at 01:47:46 PM EST
    That D.C. group was not "storming" (5.00 / 3) (#14)
    by Towanda on Tue Oct 11, 2011 at 01:54:09 PM EST
    the building.

    TPM is showing itself to be prone to hyperbole, but we need not be.  TPM needs to do some war coverage to see what "storming" looks like.

    I agree (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by jbindc on Tue Oct 11, 2011 at 03:27:20 PM EST
    6 people were arrested

    They were chanting inside the office building, were warned, continued yelling and screaming, and then were arrested - which is what they wanted to happen all along.


    And, right on cue, the Democratic party (5.00 / 2) (#47)
    by Anne on Tue Oct 11, 2011 at 03:48:56 PM EST
    and "progressive" groups are looking to co-opt the OWS movement in service of getting Obama and Dems re-elected.

    A perfect example of not getting it if ever I saw one.

    From the NYT:

    Leading Democratic figures, including party fund-raisers and a top ally of President Obama, are embracing the spread of the anti-Wall Street protests in a clear sign that members of the Democratic establishment see the movement as a way to align disenchanted Americans with their party.

    The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, the party's powerful House fund-raising arm, is circulating a petition seeking 100,000 party supporters to declare that "I stand with the Occupy Wall Street protests."

    The Center for American Progress, a liberal organization run by John D. Podesta, who helped lead Mr. Obama's 2008 transition, credits the protests with tapping into pent-up anger over a political system that it says rewards the rich over the working class -- a populist theme now being emphasized by the White House and the party. The center has encouraged and sought to help coordinate protests in different cities.

    Judd Legum, a spokesman for the center, said that its direct contacts with the protests have been limited, but that "we've definitely been publicizing it and supporting it."

    He said Democrats are already looking for ways to mobilize protesters in get-out-the-vote drives for 2012.

    Glenn asks, "Can that scheme work? Can the Occupy Wall Street protests be transformed into a get-out-the-vote organ of Obama 2012 and the Democratic Party?"

    And then proceeds to document the extensive connections between the power structure and Wall Street, which leads him here:

    Given these facts, does the Center for American Progress really believe that the protest movement named OccupyWallStreet was begun -- and that people are being arrested and pepper-sprayed and ready to endure harsh winters and marching to Jamie Dimon's house -- in order to devote themselves to ensuring that these people remain in power? Does CAP and the DCCC really believe that most of the protesters are motivated -- or can be motivated -- to turn themselves into a get-out-the-vote machine for Obama's re-election and the empowerment of Chuck Schumer and the Democratic Party? Obviously,  when the GOP nominates some crony capitalist like Rick Perry or eager Wall Street servant like Mitt Romney, few if any of the protesters will or should support them, nor can it be denied that the GOP in its current incarnation is steadfastly devoted to a pro-Wall-Street, corporatist agenda. But it also seems to me quite delusional to think that you're going to exploit this protest as a way "to mobilize protesters in get-out-the-vote drives for 2012″ on behalf of the Democratic Party that I just documented.

    As the OWS movement gained traction, it was only a matter of time; what worries the political establishment is not so much the actual people in the street, but the certain knowledge that there are exponentially more people looking on in solidarity.

    Things that make you go "hmm"... (5.00 / 2) (#57)
    by shoephone on Tue Oct 11, 2011 at 05:44:06 PM EST
    Much to the chagrin of Democratic-Insider-and-Cocktail-Weenie-Eating John Podesta, I'm not sure this will work. After all, the OWS protests are not just in NYC. They are all over the country, and that means thousands of folks who have unhappiness with the powers-that-be, which certainly includes the dishonest denizens of the Democratic party such as Podesta himself. I don't know anyone who cares about Center for American Progress or even wastes time reading the Think Progress website anymore.

    I will say this: If this fraudulent petition drive gets even 1/4 of the sought-after signatures from people on the street, I feel pretty certain it will piss off the other 3/4 who know who the enemy is and want to run their own g*dd*m protest, thank you very much. And that will only serve to fracture the Democratic party even further. Can people like Podesta be any more short-sighted?


    Well put. (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by Towanda on Tue Oct 11, 2011 at 05:46:56 PM EST
    I've just been going through photos by the score and announcements and more from Occupy Chicago, and I've read a lot of the postings.  These are not people want to be GOTV'd; they have learned their lessons and are 'way beyond being coopted again.

    Exactly. It's not about party at all. (5.00 / 2) (#62)
    by shoephone on Tue Oct 11, 2011 at 05:55:40 PM EST
    It's about people power. And it's just sad how few Democrats and Republicans and corporate media talking heads understand that salient fact.

    I plan to go down to Occupy Seattle tomorrow. Hope to get some good photos before Mayor McGinn and the SPD try to permanently divert the protest from the center of town over to city hall -- where there is really no foot traffic or shopping district. They want to relegate it to the dead zone where no one can see it.


    I found these comments (5.00 / 1) (#65)
    by Anne on Tue Oct 11, 2011 at 06:30:59 PM EST
    at naked capitalism, which are instructive:

    CaitlinO says:
    October 9, 2011 at 10:14 pm
    Over the past week I have received e-mail solicitations from the following organizations, all citing my support of Occupy Wall Street as the reason to send them money. I have never sent money to these organizations before and don't even know who most of them are, how they got my e-mail or what they support. Well, I guess I know they support getting money off of sympathy for Occupy Wall Street:

    National People's Action
    Roots Action
    American Dream
    Progressive Change
    Rebuild the Dream
    Jobs Not Cuts

    I'm really not appreciating being spammed by these groups. And I really think it's ugly of them to jump on the Occupy Wall Street bandwagon to try to get donations.

    After a couple other comments, here's this from Yves:

    Yves Smith says:
    October 9, 2011 at 11:23 pm
    I hope other readers will add to this list of groups that are pretending to be part of OWS for their own mercenary reasons. If I can get a reasonably complete tally, I want to name and shame them. If you haven't ditched their pitches, please FW them to me at yves@nakedcapitalism.com.

    I would encourage anyone who is getting these e-mails to send them to Yves.


    Excuse me while I puke . . . . n/t (none / 0) (#49)
    by nycstray on Tue Oct 11, 2011 at 03:56:59 PM EST
    Why are you puking (2.00 / 2) (#56)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Tue Oct 11, 2011 at 05:36:41 PM EST
    When the GOP coopted the Tea Party, it made the Tea Party stronger and got conservatives elected.

    We should only hope the OWS produces the same result for us, but with liberals.

    The hatred of the dems is getting in the way of how OWS could become a powerful player in politics.


    No dearie, the GOP created the Tea Party (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by shoephone on Tue Oct 11, 2011 at 05:46:14 PM EST
    in the first place. Ever hear of a guy named Dick Armey???

    You can't really be this clueless.


    Question (5.00 / 2) (#95)
    by vicndabx on Wed Oct 12, 2011 at 07:52:59 AM EST
    Why is "dearie" acceptable whereas "sweetie" is not?

    You'd have to ask someone (none / 0) (#139)
    by shoephone on Wed Oct 12, 2011 at 04:08:06 PM EST
    who got flipped out over the "sweetie" thing. Since I didn't, I don't know the answer to your question. But fair enough, either way.

    Armey.. (none / 0) (#140)
    by jondee on Wed Oct 12, 2011 at 04:19:51 PM EST
    the community organizers of AM talk radio..Fox News..

    Whether Obama is anything like the left wing, "Big Government" threat they say he is, no Obama, no Tea Party.

    If another Bush type had won the election, the Armeys, Becks, and Palins would've been out front everyday telling the folks that in this time of economic instability this was no time for disunity, or civil unrest of any kind..

    And they would've gone along, like the sheep-in-need-of-a-shepherd that they are.


    OWS doesn't need the current crop (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by nycstray on Tue Oct 11, 2011 at 05:53:33 PM EST
    of Obama led Dems currently residing in DC to become a powerful player in politics, in case you haven't noticed.

    What's this "us" (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by sj on Tue Oct 11, 2011 at 06:15:10 PM EST
    Do you have a mouse in your pocket?

    perhaps he would like some (5.00 / 1) (#66)
    by nycstray on Tue Oct 11, 2011 at 06:34:56 PM EST
    cheese to go with 'their' whine?

    How about if the pols start doing the right thing (5.00 / 3) (#69)
    by ruffian on Tue Oct 11, 2011 at 08:14:47 PM EST
    regarding the banks first, and then start asking for the approval and backing of OWS.

    Us? They are not there for you (5.00 / 2) (#78)
    by Towanda on Tue Oct 11, 2011 at 10:24:24 PM EST
    unless you and your Wall Streeters come around to being there for the OWS'ers first.

    This is not about you.  This is against you.


    We shouldn't be surprised (none / 0) (#91)
    by cal1942 on Wed Oct 12, 2011 at 02:08:17 AM EST
    Campaigning is the sole skill of the Obama team.  Policy, not so much.

    The ad I wish Liz Warren would run. (5.00 / 1) (#67)
    by caseyOR on Tue Oct 11, 2011 at 06:41:21 PM EST
    I caught this video over at Susie Madrak's place. It is the Elizabeth Warren ad I wish she had really run. Imagine how much better it would be if she could campaign this frankly.

    Yes, this is parody. So, of course, not everything is true. Some stuff is there for comic effect and emphasis. Still, how great would it be if this was the tone of the campaign?

    It was great to see her drinking (none / 0) (#71)
    by me only on Tue Oct 11, 2011 at 08:47:44 PM EST
    a Coors product flipping a bird.

    That is if you know how long Coors was on the union boycott list.  Makes the parody all that more real.


    Crackhead Quotables.... (5.00 / 0) (#98)
    by kdog on Wed Oct 12, 2011 at 11:13:45 AM EST
    "Jamie Dimon is one of the great bankers," said Bloomberg. "He's brought more business to this city than any banker in (the) modern day. To go and picket him, I don't know what that achieves. Jamie Dimon is an honorable person, working very hard, paying his taxes."

    Somebody got some rather odd definitions of "great", "honorable", and "working very hard"...same somebody must also not want a 4th term.

    It is so interesting how the Occupy movement has (none / 0) (#101)
    by sj on Wed Oct 12, 2011 at 01:01:42 PM EST
    changed things.  Public figures now have to say out loud what they think.  Previously they've been able to act on their attitudes with no accountability whatsoever.  When they have to say it out loud, the corruption of spirit and lack of human compassion is limned much more easily.

    Good point... (5.00 / 1) (#107)
    by kdog on Wed Oct 12, 2011 at 01:15:07 PM EST
    Herm Cain comes to mind too..."blame yourself!"

    We do Herm, that's why were protesting now, we let it all slide for long enough.


    Is he a cousin of Clarence Thomas? (none / 0) (#108)
    by oculus on Wed Oct 12, 2011 at 01:18:57 PM EST
    Exactly right (5.00 / 1) (#152)
    by ruffian on Wed Oct 12, 2011 at 09:58:03 PM EST
    My reaction when I hear these people is 'dinosaurs'.

    Keep talking pols. Show yourselves.


    No, it is not a good bill. (5.00 / 1) (#126)
    by caseyOR on Wed Oct 12, 2011 at 02:13:53 PM EST
    Like so many of Obama's "jobs" proposals, this one contains too many tax cuts and not enough money for actual jobs. Obama once again offers up Social Security, in the form of cuts to the payroll tax, as a sacrificial lamb.

    The infrastructure bank sounds like a good idea until you look at it closely. Then you realize it is a financial scheme that rewards corporations and harms the taxpayer. Public-private partnerships rarely work to the advantage of the "public" these days.  If we are going to build infrastructure then appropriate federal dollars like we always have. And for gawd's sake don't set up a program that transfer public assets to private hands.

    If that's what you see, it might be time (5.00 / 3) (#143)
    by Anne on Wed Oct 12, 2011 at 06:07:22 PM EST
    for an eye exam...

    For all the reasons casey pointed out, above, there is very little in the president's bill that's going to create any jobs, or increase demand.  There's far too much in it that represents policies that haven't worked in the past, and aren't going to work now.  Couple that bill with the trade bill - which is estimated to send jobs out of the country, and what's the net gain?

    There's a big picture here that you're not seeing (eye exam?).

    If only the aim-low/negotiate-lower metric was shopworn, but it's still how Dems are legislating, to predictable effect and consequence.

    The current jobs bill won't work? (none / 0) (#147)
    by MKS on Wed Oct 12, 2011 at 07:55:39 PM EST
    No, it won't solve the entire problem but incrementally it will help......

    And, no, your critique makes no sense.....


    "incrementally"? (5.00 / 1) (#148)
    by nycstray on Wed Oct 12, 2011 at 08:55:48 PM EST

    For Pete sake (none / 0) (#151)
    by MKS on Wed Oct 12, 2011 at 09:16:45 PM EST
    Here is Krugman on the Obama jobs bill:

    First things first: I was favorably surprised by the new Obama jobs plan, which is significantly bolder and better than I expected. It's not nearly as bold as the plan I'd want in an ideal world. But if it actually became law, it would probably make a significant dent in unemployment.

    Still, the plan would be a lot better than nothing, and some of its measures, which are specifically aimed at providing incentives for hiring, might produce relatively a large employment bang for the buck. As I said, it's much bolder and better than I expected. President Obama's hair may not be on fire, but it's definitely smoking; clearly and gratifyingly, he does grasp how desperate the jobs situation is.

    Some talk on local news (none / 0) (#149)
    by nycstray on Wed Oct 12, 2011 at 09:00:08 PM EST
    about how the SK trade deal could be a boon for the the vineyards around here. Apparently, they like their wine, lol!~ I missed the actual story as I'm scripting a site/half listening, but I'll try and find a link in a bit.

    Re Hart bldg. protest: (none / 0) (#1)
    by oculus on Tue Oct 11, 2011 at 12:22:16 PM EST
    "several signs that violated the building's protocol"

    Oh boy (none / 0) (#2)
    by ruffian on Tue Oct 11, 2011 at 12:38:48 PM EST
    Yes, we must not violate the dignity of the Senate!

    The Senators want us to be afraid of them (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by shoephone on Tue Oct 11, 2011 at 12:58:52 PM EST
    But now they are being instructed to lock themselves in their offices and cower under their desks... Ah well, they were never anything but a bunch of sorry cowards anyway.

    Maybe they are getting the message that the American people want them to do the jobs we hired them to do?

    I'm hearing the strains of Stephen Stills' "For What It's Worth" in my head this morning.


    Oxymoron alert! (5.00 / 2) (#5)
    by Dadler on Tue Oct 11, 2011 at 12:59:57 PM EST
    Senate Dignity.  Does not compute.  Please try again.

    just as a clarification (none / 0) (#7)
    by CST on Tue Oct 11, 2011 at 01:09:03 PM EST
    The Boston Globe (and the police department) is reporting a lot more than 50 people arrested.  Link

    "A police spokeswoman said 129 people were arrested. Earlier today, a National Lawyers Guild official said she had been told that 65 men and 35 women were arrested and then were booked at stations in the South End, Mattapan and Brighton."

    Emphasis mine

    So (none / 0) (#8)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Tue Oct 11, 2011 at 01:27:41 PM EST
    Now that Obama has proposed a jobs bill and his own senators won't line up against it, what magic should he be performing to make opponents change their mind?

    What a cluster**.  How can we get the country behind it if our own team isn't behind it?

    Oh, and to completely make your head explode, Nader wants Bloomberg to run and protect us from the filthy rich.


    Nader's (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Oct 11, 2011 at 01:31:09 PM EST
    shelf life has long expired. Frankly, why do you even care what he says? I sure don't.

    I don't like Nader (none / 0) (#15)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Tue Oct 11, 2011 at 01:54:56 PM EST
    I blame him for Bush and all that came with him.  If he had set his ego aside, Gore would have won FL outright and we might not even be in this recession.

    But I do believe that he has had a certain ideological purity over the years that cannot be denied.  I admired that.

    Now that he's supporting a Bloomberg presidency, I am pretty much done with him for good.  His idea is that a third party presidency is the only way towards progress, but it matters who that third party is.


    Gore did win Florida outright (5.00 / 2) (#24)
    by Romberry on Tue Oct 11, 2011 at 02:08:30 PM EST
    Just so's you know. (Put some oil on your Naderbash. It's whining again.)

    Oh please (none / 0) (#70)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Oct 11, 2011 at 08:44:13 PM EST
    What's next? Got a bridge you want to sell?

    He would have won (none / 0) (#102)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Wed Oct 12, 2011 at 01:08:13 PM EST
    by enough votes that it couldn't be stolen.\

    I don't think I am alone in stating that Nader is now ridiculous.


    Say it ain't so Ralph? (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by kdog on Tue Oct 11, 2011 at 02:45:37 PM EST
    Mike "The Banks Are Our Blameless Friends" Bloomberg?

    I love Ralph, voted for him in '00 and '08, totally agree the two party duopoly must be broken before our democracy can be redeemed.  But I ain't that desperate to suggest Bloomberg, for f*cks sake Ralph.


    Keep pushing. (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by lilburro on Tue Oct 11, 2011 at 03:20:17 PM EST
    If Obama can't get Dems in the Senate to line up behind his initiative (and it is more his than even the ACA), then that doesn't mean it was impossible, it just means he failed.

    This is yet another example of the (4.33 / 6) (#28)
    by Anne on Tue Oct 11, 2011 at 02:20:57 PM EST
    country generally being in favor of a bill they hope will improve the jobs situation, and by extension the economy, while the members of Congress are viewing the legislation as just one more political cudgel they can beat each other up with.  

    The bill has no chance of passing.  Period.  It never did.  It was DOA - probably D before it ever A'd.

    This is about looking like they care.  About thinking that the optics will be enough to get votes.  Which, if we are being honest, has worked in the past, so...why not now?  

    And while Obama has been storming the country, trying to whip support for the bill, I am more convinced than ever that that's just optics, too, part of the kabuki.  Reading the Suskind book was an eye-opener - and a stomach-turner and a dread-inducer.  Obama may be an extraordinarily intelligent person, but that's not enough.  The level and extent of this WH's incompetence, mismanagement, manipulation, and self-interest, the lost opportunities, the inability to manage the Congress, the failure to follow through, the non-stop "litigating" of issue after issue because Obama couldn't make a f**king decision, the ideas of good, smart people going to waste - these things were/are so exponentially bigger than even I had imagined, that all I am left with is the certainty that we are so, so screwed.


    Catch 22 (none / 0) (#81)
    by MKS on Tue Oct 11, 2011 at 10:50:52 PM EST
    Try something and fail, Obama loses in your eyes.....It was never even possible in the first place.

    Try something that might pass and that means Obama is a sell-out when he should have tried harder.....

    On this bill, liberals should have supported it.

    And, Anne, haven't you written this same post some umpteen times??....


    It was Obama's decision, over the (5.00 / 2) (#94)
    by Anne on Wed Oct 12, 2011 at 07:02:02 AM EST
    objections of his entire economic team, to make health care his number one priority after taking office, even though it could not have been clearer that it was the economy that needed the focus, the energy and - most important - the political capital Obama brought into the job.

    Did that seem like the right decision to you?  Do you not ever wonder where we might be if he had decided to go full-bore on the economy right from the get-go?  Do you think it's more important to just try "something," than it is to formulate good policy and make every effort to lead that policy to legislative fruition?  

    Well, maybe you don't think about such things; maybe you're a checklist kind of person, you know, who gives people points for trying, no matter whether the policy or legislation is actually good.

    So, where are we now?  In a place where ineffective leadership, a well right-of-center comfort zone, a need to always find consensus, difficulty making decisions and doing the follow through has become the new normal.  And we're expected to rally around it.  To cheer for it. And so the bar goes lower, and we keep getting what we've shown we will accept.

    I'm not sorry that I refuse to fit into that model; I will write these kinds of comments umpteen more times to counter those who think we owe it to a corrupt and broken political system to settle for craptastic policy.


    GO GIRL!!!!!!!!!!!!!! And again I say Amen. (5.00 / 1) (#99)
    by mogal on Wed Oct 12, 2011 at 12:44:39 PM EST
    I'm pretty sure (5.00 / 1) (#100)
    by sj on Wed Oct 12, 2011 at 12:53:47 PM EST
    that, in turn, you've written this post umpteen times.  I'm sure you'll write it again.  What's your point?

    Actually, no, 2/3 of the post (none / 0) (#109)
    by MKS on Wed Oct 12, 2011 at 01:56:06 PM EST
    was in direct reference to the current jobs bill.

    And, in response we get the standard, woe-is-me Anne diatribe.


    Who would protect us (none / 0) (#13)
    by MO Blue on Tue Oct 11, 2011 at 01:53:49 PM EST
    from Bloomberg? We would get the same policies that benefit the 1% at the expense of the 99% from Bloomberg as we get from Obama.

    Obama has already said that he is willing to break the bill up into pieces. The legislation that will pass is the Wall St approved legislation that was always going to pass. The 3 trade deals that will cost the country jobs and the changes to unemployment benefits that provide companies with free labor. Added to that will be:

    -- automatic work permits or provisional visas to all foreign students after they earn science, technology, engineering or math degrees from U.S. colleges or universities

    --Reduce regulations and providing incentives for private firms and start-ups to go public. The council said tightened regulations in the aftermath of the speculative bubble in Internet firms in the late 1990s have created unintended consequences, causing a drop in the number of initial public offerings.

    --Eliminate capital gains taxes on investments of $25 million or less in a privately held company so long as that investment is held for at least five years. link


    Read the Article (none / 0) (#16)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Tue Oct 11, 2011 at 01:59:02 PM EST
    I don't think it says that those proposals are all that would pass, but I understand that you feel that way.  My sense is that the Dems would not put up that stuff first.  They'd put up the infrastructure measures that would really help and dare the GOP to vote against it.

    We can't make miracles. If the votes aren't there, they aren't there.  But we can/must make someone pay a political price.


    The article did not say that the (5.00 / 2) (#30)
    by MO Blue on Tue Oct 11, 2011 at 02:24:52 PM EST
    items I mentioned were all that were included in the proposal but those are the things that will most likely pass. The trade deals and giving companies free labor are supported by Obama and have the blessing of Wall St., the Chamber of Commerce and Cantor is on record as giving them his blessing. The other items I mentioned are all things that benefit the 1% and have always had support from Wall St and the Republicans. More H1 b visas have always been popular (why give Americans the good paying jobs), eliminating the capital gains tax on $25 million investments and getting rid of pesky regulations is exactly what the Republicans are selling as job creation right now.

    Creating jobs through infrastructure is what is being stripped from the current bill because the Republicans will not support that part. They have flat out said that they won't support anything that even resembles real job creation.  Obama can't even get all the Dems to support it. So once you strip out the pieces that might actually benefit real people what is remaining are the elements that I mentioned.

    BTW, it is insulting to tell me to read an article when I am the person who provided the link. If I provide a link to an article you can d@mn well know that I not only read the entire article but have analyzed what parts may or may not IMO pass based on who is supporting them and whether or not similar provisions have made it through Congress in the recent past. You might try using some critical thinking skills instead of making things up as you go along.    


    [Cracking Knuckles] (none / 0) (#32)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Tue Oct 11, 2011 at 02:43:09 PM EST
    1. What is your point then?  If we have 10 proposals and the only ones that will pass are the ones that the GOP likes, should we pass nothing? What exactly are you proposing we should do?

    2.  I was not suggesting that you did not read the article.  I was suggesting that your assertion (that the only things that pass will be the things you highlighted) was not supported by the text of the article. That was your opinion but your original statement made it appear that the article asserted that those were the only things that would pass.

    3. In any event, Anne accuses me of not reading articles I send around or not having basic reading skills regularly. It is an insult and that was not my intent. My apologies.

    Some legislation hurts people (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by MO Blue on Tue Oct 11, 2011 at 03:00:00 PM EST
    rather than helping them.

    If it is a decision to pass nothing or to pass legislation that will actually deprive people here in the U.S. of jobs (trade deals, free labor, H1 b visas), then I would definitely rather nothing pass.

    If it is a decision to pass nothing or reduce tax revenue on the mega rich (eliminate capital gains tax), that will be offset by further reductions to domestic and safety net programs, then I would definitely rather nothing pass.

    If it If it is a decision to pass nothing or to pass legislation to reduce or eliminate market regulations, then I would probably rather nothing pass.

    BTW, I am not Anne. I am MO Blue. Anne and I often, but not always, agree on issues but we are not interchangeable.      


    MO Blue (none / 0) (#103)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Wed Oct 12, 2011 at 01:09:03 PM EST
    I understand that you and Anne are not the same person.

    Cite, please. (5.00 / 1) (#104)
    by oculus on Wed Oct 12, 2011 at 01:09:40 PM EST
    Have you learned nothing, ABG? (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by Anne on Tue Oct 11, 2011 at 03:18:40 PM EST
    Have you not seen, over and over and over again, that the GOP's modus operandi is to oppose everything the Dems propose, which causes the Dems to sweeten the deal for them, fashion legislation that is somewhat satisfactory to them, and in the end, get the Dems to pass it, largely without their votes?

    How could you not have picked up on that pattern?

    If the pieces of the legislation that Republicans would vote for are not ones that will add jobs, or create the conditions where more jobs can be created, it would definitely be better to pass nothing.  

    And from where I sit, if you don't intend to suggest that someone didn't read an article, it might be a better move to title your comment something other than, "Read the article."

    Just sayin'.


    Yes, and I wonder how (none / 0) (#29)
    by KeysDan on Tue Oct 11, 2011 at 02:23:53 PM EST
    that super-duper congressional committee (Cat Food II) is doing these days.   The OWS is shielding them from the scrutiny they deserves and their inevitable turkey is to  be out of their oven by Thanksgiving, just as the colder weather sets in and the OWS protesters (they fervently hope) give up.   The tin-eared congress is likely, in my view, to give "balance" by cutting social programs by raising eligibility age for social security and medicare, reducing medicaid funding, and cutting educational support.

    The Pentagon has not been distracted by OWS and is, with their form of protest, letting it be known that the military can't sustain the cuts bandied about, or dire consequences will occur.  Of course, balancing the equation is unlikely to involve any tax increases.  Our best hope is for Cat Food II to fail, or if not, that its product fails to pass. Sequestration looks much better--most of its damage can be easily changed, later if sanity sets in.


    It's not magic (none / 0) (#17)
    by ruffian on Tue Oct 11, 2011 at 01:59:03 PM EST
    For starters, what executive controlled federal money goes to Nebraska? Threaten Ben Nelson with turning off the spigot.

    Well (2.00 / 1) (#22)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Tue Oct 11, 2011 at 02:07:04 PM EST
    There are actual people dependent upon that money. The voters in Nebraska may not like that approach much and Nelson would be in perfect position to blame it all on Obama.

    That wouldn't work and I am not even sure it would be completely legal even if it did.


    This whole comment (5.00 / 0) (#35)
    by sj on Tue Oct 11, 2011 at 02:47:57 PM EST
    is problematic.  I was going to actually point out all the issues and cognitive dissonance but my comment was longer than yours so I'll just use shorthand.

    Actual people are dependent on all sorts of federal money.  That's not stopping layoffs, so should be a total non-issue, right? Can't be helped.

    Just assert it wouldn't work and cast aspersion on legality with no validation whatsoever.

    As if you were a credible person.  Which you are not.

    Even shorthand is longer than your comment.


    I'm not worried about the legality (5.00 / 2) (#39)
    by ruffian on Tue Oct 11, 2011 at 03:18:18 PM EST
    The executive branch could find a way to make it legal to drone strike a citizen in Nebraska...I'm sure they find a way to cut off some funding.

    I'm sorry for the people, but maybe they ought to elect some senators that believe if using the federal budget to provide for the common good and promote the general welfare.


    Also, you get the country behind it first (none / 0) (#19)
    by ruffian on Tue Oct 11, 2011 at 02:03:45 PM EST
    and the country makes their reps get behind it. How many trips has Obama made to Nebraska?

    In short, you can't have competing goals (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by ruffian on Tue Oct 11, 2011 at 02:05:20 PM EST
    of passing a bill while at the same time not embarrassing Dems who want to vote against it. They are not on your team.

    If they are not on our team (dems) (none / 0) (#23)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Tue Oct 11, 2011 at 02:07:49 PM EST
    then we are in even more trouble because we need them to have a majority.

    That is exactly why we are in trouble (5.00 / 2) (#25)
    by ruffian on Tue Oct 11, 2011 at 02:13:20 PM EST
    If a Dem majority depends on Ben Nelson and the good graces of Joe Lieberman, it is not a majority. Time to stop pretending the Dems control the Senate.

    ruffian (none / 0) (#33)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Tue Oct 11, 2011 at 02:45:27 PM EST
    Thanks.  I have been trying to make that point here for almost a year now.  

    Whenever someone says "Dems had a majority in both houses" my head starts to hurt.  They did not.  They had a good chunk of dems and then a bunch of conservatives from red states who happen to have a "D" after their name. Lieberman, Nelson, all of them.  They don't count as Dems and never should have.


    Oh you say there's a majority (none / 0) (#36)
    by sj on Tue Oct 11, 2011 at 02:51:32 PM EST
    When it suits what passes for your narrative.

    No I don't (none / 0) (#105)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Wed Oct 12, 2011 at 01:10:27 PM EST
    I have been consistent in this concept from the first day I posted here.

    It is the primary reason that the "push the public option", "don't make the Deal" etc. cries were wrong IMHO.



    Actually, you're right (none / 0) (#113)
    by sj on Wed Oct 12, 2011 at 02:03:50 PM EST
    if you make the distinction of the so-called supermajority.  So, point taken.

    In that we agree (none / 0) (#41)
    by ruffian on Tue Oct 11, 2011 at 03:20:03 PM EST
    I know technically they count, but they really don't. They only count when the press or the GOP want to embarrass the Dems.

    And yet the (none / 0) (#44)
    by lilburro on Tue Oct 11, 2011 at 03:23:47 PM EST
    Conservadems have lined up before (ACA, financial reform).

    There must be some trick to it.


    Well, they lined up for (5.00 / 2) (#46)
    by dk on Tue Oct 11, 2011 at 03:45:27 PM EST
    those examples because those were essentially Republican bills (ACA certainly was as it was Bob Dole's bill from the 90's redux; Financial Reform was more Wall Street's bill, I suppose).

    lilburro (none / 0) (#106)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Wed Oct 12, 2011 at 01:11:34 PM EST
    Those that hate ACA (many here) argue that the conserva-dems didn't line up.  The argument is that the real dems lined up for them.

    I disagree with that but that, I think, is the view of most TL commenters IMHO.


    I'd leave Ben Nelson alone (none / 0) (#83)
    by MKS on Tue Oct 11, 2011 at 10:53:35 PM EST
    No, he is not really a Democrat, and, yes, the alternative would be horrid.....

    There is no way you are going to get a Bernie Sanders or an Elizabeth Warren from Nebraska.


    You know (none / 0) (#90)
    by sj on Wed Oct 12, 2011 at 01:53:32 AM EST
    there IS middle ground between Ben Nelson and Bernie Sanders.

    Not much in Nebraska (none / 0) (#110)
    by MKS on Wed Oct 12, 2011 at 01:56:55 PM EST
    Are you from there and (none / 0) (#114)
    by sj on Wed Oct 12, 2011 at 02:05:13 PM EST
    can speak from experience?  If so, are my cousins an exception?

    Is that the criteria that you impose-- (none / 0) (#119)
    by MKS on Wed Oct 12, 2011 at 02:10:16 PM EST
    that one must be from there to make a political judgment on the prospects of electing someone more liberal than Ben Nelson?

    Going by history, I find scant evidence that defeating Ben Neslon would do anything other than lead to a more conservative Senator.

    And, if your cousins have been elected to statewide office in Nebraska and are more liberal than Ben Nelson, do tell.


    Fair question (none / 0) (#123)
    by sj on Wed Oct 12, 2011 at 02:13:08 PM EST
    Is that the criteria that you impose-- (none / 0) (#119)
    by MKS on Wed Oct 12, 2011 at 02:10:16 PM EST

    that one must be from there to make a political judgment on the prospects of electing someone more liberal than Ben Nelson?

    No, that's not the criteria.  But when one passes judgement on an entire population, as you did, one should be prepared to defend that positin.


    What states like Nebraska need (none / 0) (#120)
    by jondee on Wed Oct 12, 2011 at 02:11:31 PM EST
    is a rebirth of the William Jennings Bryan born-again christian, progressive.

    so what if he didn't believe (none / 0) (#125)
    by jondee on Wed Oct 12, 2011 at 02:13:27 PM EST
    in evolution. :)

    Yeah, (none / 0) (#142)
    by sj on Wed Oct 12, 2011 at 05:16:26 PM EST
    On balance, I can live with his disbelief.  In that, he was a product of his times.

    This may help at least educate people (none / 0) (#26)
    by ruffian on Tue Oct 11, 2011 at 02:15:48 PM EST
    Two Senators lost. (none / 0) (#72)
    by lilburro on Tue Oct 11, 2011 at 08:59:06 PM EST
    Nelson and Tester.  That's not that bad IMO (politically anyway).

    Scott Brown voted against it.  I can't wait for Warren to attack him for it.

    Of course let's not forget this is all just a wild hoedown while Rome burns...


    A bailout of Scott Brown (none / 0) (#20)
    by KeysDan on Tue Oct 11, 2011 at 02:03:58 PM EST
    in the service of media balance, by Frank Bruni (NYT, Oct 13). ..."And, during the first Democratic debate..she (Professor Elizabeth Warren) answered a question about how she put herself through college by saying,' I kept my clothes on'."    "This was in reference to Brown's long-ago career as a model, during which he posed naked, with  a strategically placed hand acting as a fig leaf, for Cosmopolitan. "

    More accurately with context, Prof. Warren's remark was in response to a U Mass-Lowell panel, when a student, after mentioning that Scott Brown was able to fund his education through posing nude for Cosmopolitan, asked how Professor Warren paid her way through college.

    Although Bruni found Warren's response to be funny, he also found it to be "unfortunate", because Brown modeled in part to earn school money, which he had to drum up on his own." Professor Warren, despite her own un-priviledged background is now tagged elitist, an unfair characterization according to Bruni.

    But, Mr. Bruni opines that Brown inadvertently saved her, when asked about her quip on a radio show, Brown responded "Thank God." (Brown does not indicate if his assessment of Ms. Warren's looks was now, at age 62, or of her as a college-aged woman).  In any event, no sexism and no elitism to be observed,  just the casualty of a lost sense of humor all the way around.  

    Yes (5.00 / 0) (#37)
    by sj on Tue Oct 11, 2011 at 02:53:35 PM EST
    He certainly Brown certainly saved her.  

    I knew there was a reason why I was more interested in trying to find out how I can subscribe to Occupy Wall Street Journal than reading the NYT.



    Yes, particularly disappointing (none / 0) (#43)
    by KeysDan on Tue Oct 11, 2011 at 03:22:32 PM EST
    from Frank Bruni, who has offered some interesting commentary as a new op-ed columnist.  

    Wow (none / 0) (#63)
    by sj on Tue Oct 11, 2011 at 06:13:58 PM EST
    Thank you to anyone who understood my first sentence.  It should have been corrected to:
    Brown certainly saved her.

    And now I will add that I meant to say "misogynist A$$hat".

    this whole story (none / 0) (#48)
    by CST on Tue Oct 11, 2011 at 03:56:27 PM EST
    is such a non-story it's obsurd.

    Heaven forbid the news media focus on something real.  They might have to actually work for their paycheck.


    has anyone noticed (none / 0) (#50)
    by CST on Tue Oct 11, 2011 at 04:00:20 PM EST
    that since Occupy Wall Street started, the deficit commision is strangely silent.

    I think killing what comes out of that might be the first real goal I have for an actual result of this movement.

    Anyone who comes out attacking social security or medicare right now is going to look like a completely out of touch fool.

    Yup - that is a great effect (none / 0) (#52)
    by ruffian on Tue Oct 11, 2011 at 04:04:43 PM EST
    Anyone who comes out attacking social security or medicare right now is going to look like a completely out of touch fool.

    I could be imagining things but I sensed a real sea change on Sunday watching This Week with the interview with Jesse LaGreca (dkos Ministry of Truth), who has been participating in OWS. I could almost see the conventional wisdom bubble that panel of talking heads lives in deflating.


    Thanks for mentioning that (none / 0) (#53)
    by sj on Tue Oct 11, 2011 at 05:16:51 PM EST
    I knew there was something mentioned earlier in the week that I wanted to look up but I couldn't recall what it was.

    This was it.


    From ... (none / 0) (#54)
    by sj on Tue Oct 11, 2011 at 05:17:49 PM EST
    ... your [hands] to God's ears.

    The Supreme Court today refused to interfere (none / 0) (#55)
    by Peter G on Tue Oct 11, 2011 at 05:26:22 PM EST
    with the order of the U.S. appeals court in Philadelphia (the "Third Circuit") overturning Mumia abu Jamal's death sentence.  He will serve life without parole unless the Philadelphia D.A. elects to retry the penalty phase of his case.  Looks like the murdered policeman's widow may have had enough, which would be a big factor in the D.A.'s decision.

    read what she said (none / 0) (#68)
    by diogenes on Tue Oct 11, 2011 at 08:07:30 PM EST
    She thinks that he should be housed in the general population if he doesn't have a death sentence anymore; no more special privileges.
    Maybe even double bunking.
    I think that Mumia would have wanted endless appeals so that he could stay on death row and be a famous and pertinent person rather than one of a thousand lifers in a maximum security prison.

    If you are implying by your sneering topic line (5.00 / 2) (#73)
    by Peter G on Tue Oct 11, 2011 at 09:29:55 PM EST
    that I didn't read the articles to which I linked, you are quite wrong.

    I didn't read any sneering. (none / 0) (#93)
    by Wile ECoyote on Wed Oct 12, 2011 at 06:31:08 AM EST
    "Solidarity Forever" as sung by (none / 0) (#60)
    by Towanda on Tue Oct 11, 2011 at 05:52:04 PM EST
    Russ Feingold and the Solidarity Singers, who continue to occupy the state capitol in Wisconsin for more than eight months now.  From a friend on FB.  Enjoy.

    Thank you (5.00 / 2) (#82)
    by nycstray on Tue Oct 11, 2011 at 10:52:48 PM EST
    I did enjoy :)

    Have any of you seen "Ides of March," (none / 0) (#74)
    by oculus on Tue Oct 11, 2011 at 09:48:03 PM EST
    George Clooney's latest?

    Yes, last Saturday (5.00 / 1) (#75)
    by Peter G on Tue Oct 11, 2011 at 10:10:42 PM EST
    We enjoyed it a lot.  Lots of excellent acting.  The musical score was overdone, overly dramatic and overtly manipulative.  Otherwise, excellent work all around.

    I totally agree about the music score (none / 0) (#77)
    by shoephone on Tue Oct 11, 2011 at 10:21:10 PM EST
    I saw it last night (5.00 / 1) (#76)
    by shoephone on Tue Oct 11, 2011 at 10:17:42 PM EST
    Mediocre, IMO. The first hour is quite boring, too much "set-up" intended to educate viewers who I must assume, Clooney thinks are too naive/inexperienced/ignorant about the way political campaigns work. Ryan Gosling's performance saves it from being a total bust. Clooney's acting just doesn't ever convince me he's really the character he's playing (the problem I often have with his movies), and sadly, Paul Giamatti's superb talent is wasted in this flick.

    Sorry if that's not the review you wanted to hear! But I found myself periodically pondering how to do the guitar arrangement for a certain jazz tune while sitting through the first half of the movie.


    I worked at DC when Clooney was Batman (none / 0) (#80)
    by nycstray on Tue Oct 11, 2011 at 10:47:16 PM EST
    Gawd, that was painful. While I respect him for who he is, I've never really been able to get past that, lol!~ I think you hit it with "Clooney's acting just doesn't ever convince me he's really the character he's playing". I felt the same with the promo clip I saw for this movie.

    Factcheck.org says Darrell Issa's (none / 0) (#79)
    by oculus on Tue Oct 11, 2011 at 10:26:46 PM EST
    claims are false that he only wanted a "yes" or "no" answer re energy project.  This is the man who is going crazy over the bankrupt solar company that received a guaranteed federal loan.  San Diego UT

    Theo Epstein heading to the Cubs (none / 0) (#84)
    by caseyOR on Tue Oct 11, 2011 at 11:54:25 PM EST
    So, the word is that Boston red Sox GM Theo Epstein is levying Beantown for the Windy City and the GM slot with the Cubs.

    Can Theo, who broke the Red Sox curse, work the same magic with the hapless Cubs? The Lovable Losers' World Series drought is even longer than Boston's was.  

    I wonder if there is any chance the newly unemployed Terry Francona will join Theo at Wrigley Field?

    Leaving Beantown, not (none / 0) (#85)
    by caseyOR on Tue Oct 11, 2011 at 11:55:35 PM EST
    levying Boston. In my excited state my fingers and my brain stumbled a bit.

    I doubt Francona (none / 0) (#96)
    by CST on Wed Oct 12, 2011 at 10:10:03 AM EST
    will go too.  From my understanding, those two don't necessarily see eye to eye, and the sports writers in the globe seem to think that Theo could've helped save Francona in Boston and didn't.

    Personally, I would have let Theo go and not Francona.  Sure, this season was a total bust.  But at the end of the day, Francona also was key in two world series wins, breaking the curse, etc...  And some of Theo's decisions have been more than questionable lately.  Plus, Francona just seems like a really nice guy.  I dunno.  It all just came off wrong.  The celtics didn't can Doc Rivers after he got the worst record in basketball.  And I don't see Belicheck ever getting the sack even if he loses every game on e season.  Why was Francona deemed so expendable?

    Good luck to Theo and the Cubs.  You'll need it :)


    Topeka loses its way (none / 0) (#86)
    by CoralGables on Wed Oct 12, 2011 at 12:39:32 AM EST
    Topeka, Kansas has been releasing those charged with misdemeanor domestic violence because neither the city nor the county want to pay to prosecute them due to budget cuts. To solve the problem...

    By a vote of 7 to 3, the City Council repealed the local law that makes domestic violence a crime.

    Terrible news (5.00 / 1) (#87)
    by shoephone on Wed Oct 12, 2011 at 01:04:50 AM EST
    Budgets really are a matter of social policy.

    I can't see how this move by Topeka (none / 0) (#88)
    by caseyOR on Wed Oct 12, 2011 at 01:26:38 AM EST
    stands. At some point this will blow up and either the state or the feds will get involved. And I am curious to know, is domestic violence the only violent crime that Topeka cannot be bothered to prosecute?

    What really jumped out at me (5.00 / 1) (#89)
    by shoephone on Wed Oct 12, 2011 at 01:34:31 AM EST
    in this NYT article was the following paragraph:

    Under the current arrangement, the district attorney is still responsible for prosecuting misdemeanors in the rest of the county as well as all felony domestic violence cases. Almost half of the misdemeanors that were prosecuted last year -- 423 cases -- are domestic battery cases, and most of the rest are shoplifting, drugs and assault.

    First off, what's the difference between felony and misdemeanor domestic assault? I would think that any assault would be considered a felony, but apparently not. Secondly, the fact that almost half the misdemeanor cases are domestic battery cases says there is, indeed, something the matter with Kansas!


    I heard about that this morning (none / 0) (#154)
    by sj on Thu Oct 13, 2011 at 02:52:48 AM EST
    I don't even know what to say.  

    In the story I heard they didn't mention that there was a felony domestic assault.  It sounded like it was a misdemeanor, period.  Appalling no matter what.


    Detroit terrorist suspect pleads (none / 0) (#97)
    by oculus on Wed Oct 12, 2011 at 11:10:57 AM EST
    guilty:  LAT

    Well (none / 0) (#130)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Oct 12, 2011 at 02:44:59 PM EST
    I just talked to the hospital and they want $800 up front before I can have a test done. Health care in America is just rotten to the core. Alan Grayson was right when he said "die quick" is the preferred solution in this country.

    Bad enough to worry about your health (5.00 / 2) (#146)
    by MO Blue on Wed Oct 12, 2011 at 07:41:12 PM EST
    without having the added burden of worrying about how to pay for the care you need.I agree

    Alan Grayson was right when he said "die quick" is the preferred solution in this country

    The only solution the Masters of the Universe (Ds & Rs) have to control costs is to make getting actual health care too expense for the average person to be able to afford care.

    Hope you get the care you need and that your medical problems are not serious.


    Oh dear (none / 0) (#144)
    by sj on Wed Oct 12, 2011 at 06:21:09 PM EST
    I hadn't "heard" that you had an issue.  I hope it works out for you.

    You didn't (none / 0) (#145)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Oct 12, 2011 at 06:54:03 PM EST
    miss anything because I haven't talked about it here. Just trying to rule out some things right now.

    ABG and MKS (none / 0) (#133)
    by jondee on Wed Oct 12, 2011 at 03:38:50 PM EST
    the bete noirs of the new, post-08 Talkleft regime. Reprobates.

    I don't think they particularly assert things here any more than any number of other posters.

    There has to be some other reason why those two get singled out.

    No, that's pretty much it (1.00 / 0) (#134)
    by sj on Wed Oct 12, 2011 at 03:40:43 PM EST
    But really nice use of the term (none / 0) (#135)
    by sj on Wed Oct 12, 2011 at 03:54:03 PM EST
    bete noire.  Although, I hope it's not that bad.  

    I've been waiting to whip (5.00 / 1) (#136)
    by jondee on Wed Oct 12, 2011 at 03:55:49 PM EST
    it out. The term, that is.

    Not at all (1.00 / 1) (#138)
    by MKS on Wed Oct 12, 2011 at 04:02:41 PM EST
    I post here because this was the hotbed of the anti-Obamabots.....

    So, I understand I challenge the CW here.....

    Your response to my comments is rather new and about two years late....


    Oh, here you are (5.00 / 3) (#141)
    by sj on Wed Oct 12, 2011 at 05:13:46 PM EST
    Insinuating yourself in a conversation.  LOL

    Heh, moron, (1.00 / 2) (#150)
    by MKS on Wed Oct 12, 2011 at 09:05:49 PM EST
    when I am the topic of discussion, I am not insinuating myself into the conversation.....

    You sound like my (1.00 / 0) (#153)
    by sj on Thu Oct 13, 2011 at 02:46:59 AM EST
    neighbor when she's off her meds.