Sunday Afternoon Open Thread

Open thread.

< The Candidates Matter | Cain "Jokes" About Electrified Border Fence >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    The whole world is watching (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by Edger on Sun Oct 16, 2011 at 02:46:27 PM EST
    There appears to be a concerted effort now by the 1% and the governments of various cities to have the Occupy movement expand and grow as much as they can.

    CHICAGO -- Chicago police arrested about 175 protesters early Sunday in an operation to clear the city's Grant Park of demonstrators camping out in protest against corporate greed, police said.

    A police department spokesman said the "Occupy Chicago" protesters were given several warnings to leave the park before officers moved in and began hauling them away.
    The Chicago Tribune said protesters, who had formed a human chain and were seated on the ground when the police moved in, were cheering as they were hauled away in police paddy wagons and city buses.
    At one point, protesters began chanting "the whole world is watching," evoking a now famous cry that went up during a violent confrontation between protesters and police at Grant Park during the 1968 Democratic Convention.

    Maybe the 1%'ers and the government are determined to show the world that they really are as dumb as they had to be to get the world into the mess it's in now...

    And the lessons of history (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by Towanda on Sun Oct 16, 2011 at 02:54:26 PM EST
    of that chant on that very site in 1968 that again were heard there last night just might suggest that the Dems may benefit from this about as much as they did in the 1968 election.  Mayor Rahmbo's behavior and ties to Obama will be as helpful as were Daddy Daley's ties to the Dems then, too.

    (Btw, all 175 were released this morning, and the GA is back on today and back at the original site, more apropos than the Grant Park site for the purposes of this protest and message, I think.)


    Honestly, what kind of protest would it be (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by tigercourse on Sun Oct 16, 2011 at 03:28:47 PM EST
    if no one got arrested? A pretty darn boring one, that's what.

    And we always need at least one (3.00 / 2) (#4)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Oct 16, 2011 at 03:47:07 PM EST
    Trust Fund Baby.

    Really folks. Tell me how these people represent the working folks of this country.


    Well off/rich people can object to (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by tigercourse on Sun Oct 16, 2011 at 03:59:24 PM EST
    corruption and financial mis management. Though I think that protesting Wall Street is somewhat misguided (I was really happy to see it expand to Washington).

    You don't know? (5.00 / 0) (#9)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Oct 16, 2011 at 04:15:52 PM EST
    Lots of working class people bought into Bush's act and he was the ultimate trust fund baby never having really worked his entire life. Maybe this guy is hoping to pull of the same act.

    Ya think??? (2.00 / 0) (#18)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Oct 16, 2011 at 05:05:25 PM EST
    Somehow I don't see him elected to anything... or for that matter hired... for anything other than baggage carousel diving.

    BTW - Whatever else he did, Bush volunteered to be a TANG pilot, went through training, became a pilot and served. I won't mention getting elected Guv twice...

    You see, some rich people's kids give back. Think JFK and FDR if you don't like Bush.


    Bush (5.00 / 2) (#38)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Oct 16, 2011 at 07:05:49 PM EST
    got in the TANG unit because he had connections. That fact has never been disputed. And he went in that unit because he knew he could avoid serving in Vietnam. He's not the only one who did that.

    And as far as I know, JFK nor FDR ever pretended they were working class stiffs like Bush did.


    What a perfect straight person. (none / 0) (#41)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Oct 16, 2011 at 07:17:59 PM EST
    The problem in this is simply this. There were no ground pounder slots available. But there were plenty of pilot training slots. So all you had to do was pass the tests and you were in.... as a pilot trainee.

    There was no need for any special treatment.


    Not true when Bush went in, Jim. (5.00 / 4) (#42)
    by caseyOR on Sun Oct 16, 2011 at 07:33:43 PM EST
    National Guard slots were like gold in those days. Nobody wanted to go to Viet Nam, but with so many exemptions having been eliminated, it was hard to avoid being drafted. The Guard was one's best chance of avoiding Nam. Lots of influential fathers pilled strings to get their sons into the National Guard. Bush, Sr. was one of them. Dan Quayle's father was another.

    Now, Cheney, he's a bit older. So, he avoided Nam by sucking up as many exemptions as he could get his hands on.


    True for ground pounders (none / 0) (#47)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Oct 16, 2011 at 09:16:42 PM EST
    Not true for pilots.

    We're not talking Texas National Guard. We're talking Texas Air National Guard. Big difference.

    And even there, there no slots for ground pounders. But they needed pilots.

    UPDATE: An emailer sends this link to a 1999 interview with Bush that appeared in the Washington Post. The information about Bush volunteering to go to Vietnam is clearly stated there. If it was untrue, I feel quite sure someone would have skewered him about it by now. The interview is also interesting for its clear statement of Bush's intent to become a pilot:

    Why did you do the Guard instead of active duty?

    I was guaranteed a pilot slot. I found out - as I'm sure you've researched all this out - they were looking for pilots. I think there were five or six pilot slots available. I was the third slot in the Texas Guard. Had that not worked out no telling where I would have been. I would have ended up in the military somewhere.

    You meant to join the Guard when you took the pilot's qualifying test?

    Or the regular Air Force. I was just looking for options. I didn't have a strategy. I knew I was going in the military. I wasn't sure what branch I was going into. I took the test with an eye obviously on the Guard slot, but had that not worked out I wouldn't have gotten into pilot training.



    Heh - the "evidence" ... (5.00 / 2) (#51)
    by Yman on Sun Oct 16, 2011 at 09:47:18 PM EST
    ... for the claim that there were "plenty of pilot training slots" is Bush's self-serving claim that he thinks there were 5 or 6 slots open.

    Just ask Bush.



    Oh for goodness sake, Jim, (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by caseyOR on Sun Oct 16, 2011 at 11:58:36 PM EST
    you are linking to Althouse and expect to be taken seriously?  Every frikken' National Guard slot, regardless of branch of service, was a very precious commodity by the late '60s.

    Bush did what thousands of other guys wanted to do. He got a sweet spot in the National Guard because of his family connections. I don't hold that against him. Just about everyone I knew would have loved to get one of those slots. By the time Bush went in to the guard, we all knew Viet Nam was a slaughterhouse and nothing more. Grabbing that Guard slot may well have been the smartest move George W. Bush ever made.

    Still, he is a bit of a dissembler, as is often the case with drunks,  and time can soften the focus of memories. So, while  I find it absurd to think that he volunteered to go to Viet Nam, I can believe that over time he convinced himself  that he did.


    I gave you a link that (none / 0) (#62)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Oct 17, 2011 at 08:51:44 AM EST
    goes to an interview. If you want to say that Bush was lying, that's up to you.

    And the issue is not that the slots were precious. The issue is that there were no slots for ground pounders in TANG and/or TNG.

    There were for people who would sign up for pilot training.  BTW - You flunk out you go into the armed services as an enlisted person.


    BTW - Bush's self-serving memory .. (none / 0) (#101)
    by Yman on Mon Oct 17, 2011 at 08:45:21 PM EST
    ... notwithstanding:

    But Tom Hail, a historian for the Texas Air National Guard, said that records do not show a pilot shortage in the Guard squadron at the time. Hail, who reviewed the unit's personnel records for a special Guard museum display on Gov. Bush's service, said Bush's unit had 27 pilots at the time he began applying. While that number was two short of its authorized strength, the unit had two other pilots who were in training and another awaiting a transfer. There was no apparent need to fast-track applicants, he said. ...

    The Texas Air Guard had about 900 slots for pilots, air and ground crew members, supervisors, technicians and support staff. Sgt. Donald Dean Barnhart, who still serves in the Guard, said that he kept a waiting list of about 150 applicants' names. He said it took up to a year and a half for one name to move to the top of the list.  "Quite a few gentlemen were wanting to get in," he recalled.  For Bush, there was no wait. He met with commander Staudt in his Houston office and made his application--all before his graduation in June...

    "Beckwith, Bush's spokesman, painted a different picture. He said that the Guard needed pilots at the time and Bush was available. "A lot of people weren't qualified" or willing to fly, he said, so special commissions were offered to those willing to undergo the extra training required."

    ... But Shoemake, who also served as a chief of personnel in the Texas Guard from 1972 to 1980, remembers no pilot shortage. "We had so many people coming in who were super-qualified," he said...

    Records from his [Bush's] military file show that in January 1968, after inquiring about Guard admission, Mr. Bush went to an Air Force recruiting office near Yale, where he took and passed the test required by the Air Force for pilot trainees. His score on the pilot aptitude section, one of five on the test, was in the 25th percentile, the lowest allowed for would-be fliers."

    Link (to a newspaper, as opposed to Bush's memory or Althouse's blog LA Times - 7/4/99


    JFK also served in the Navy (none / 0) (#66)
    by BackFromOhio on Mon Oct 17, 2011 at 09:12:49 AM EST
    although his father applied extensive pressure for him not to serve. Father wanted to use connections, JFK could have avoided service easily on his own by virtue of documented health issues.  JFK wanted to serve his country.

    On the other hand, I don't know anyone who didn't try to evade going to Vietnam -- but those I knew back then were all opposed to the War -- not just for themselves, but for the nation.  What subjects one to criticism, however, is dissembling about the effort not to serve, or having a political stance in favor of a war, as long as others serve, but not you.  That position, IMO, has been legitimized in a way, by virtue of our volunteer military.  



    I don't see Bush (none / 0) (#77)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Oct 17, 2011 at 11:37:47 AM EST
    dissembling. His father was a pilot. He wanted to be a pilot. TANG gave him that opportunity.

    And it wasn't risk free. The F102 was hard to fly and had an accident rate of 13.62 per 1000 hours vs newer fighters of around 4 per 1000 hours. It had the unofficial nickname of "Widow Maker."

    The F102 and Air National Guard units were deployed to Vietnam where it was used for air defense as well as ground support.

    These close air support missions were also quite dangerous since they required low-level flight over armed ground troops. A total of 15 F-102 fighters were lost in Vietnam. Three were shot down by anti-aircraft or small arms fire, one was lost in air-to-air combat with a MiG-21, four were destroyed on the ground during Viet Cong mortar attacks, and the remainder succumbed to accidents


    When Bush joined TANG he had no way of knowing if his unit would be deployed or not. We also know that he volunteered to go but was turned down because of lack of experience and the pending withdrawal of the F102.

    I have written that Bush's service did not approach the risk taken by Kerry and I have also written that I honor Kerry's service. It was his actions after he returned home that I found disgusting.

    But I also noted time and again that the many claims made against Bush were nonsense and easily understandable by those of us who have served.

    For example we have the infamous claim that he refused to take a flight physical because he was on drugs. That the military was not testing for drugs at that time doesn't seem to stop the claimants.

    A more likely reason is that the Vietnam war was winding down, there was a surplus of pilots and the F102 was being replaced. To become trained in the new aircraft he would have had to extend his service commitment. He chose not to extend so there was no reason to take the flight physical.
    He wouldn't be flying.

    And while I am not aware of all a flight physical entailed in TANG, in my involvement it was called flight qualification. The physical was just a part of it followed by proving that they couldn't drown you in stimulated water crashes, proving you could hit a target with a worn out 38 pistol and other such wonderful things. In my opinion if you weren't going to fly then no sane person would go through it.

    So if you want to jump on Bush for any number of things he did and did not do, I'll join you in some. His failure to use all his political force in 1993 to overcome the Demos' Barney Frank's opposition to his plan increase regulation of Fannie and Freddie is a fine example of not following through.

    But TANG? No.


    uh... 2003 not 1993 (none / 0) (#78)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Oct 17, 2011 at 11:40:43 AM EST
    "Giving back" (5.00 / 2) (#52)
    by Yman on Sun Oct 16, 2011 at 09:50:26 PM EST
    Joining a champagne unit to avoid the risk of being sent to Vietnam is "giving back"?

    Or just protecting your @ss ...


    Why do you slur people who defended you? (none / 0) (#65)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Oct 17, 2011 at 09:07:22 AM EST
    I don't think the Texas Air National Guard is a "champagne unit."

    Finally, the Kerrys, Moores and McAuliffes are casting a terrible slander on those who served in the Guard, then and now. My Guard career parallels Lt. Bush's, except that I stayed on for 33 years. As a guardsman, I even got to serve in two campaigns. In the Cold War, the air defense of the United States was borne primarily by the Air National Guard, by such people as Lt. Bush and me and a lot of others. Six of those with whom I served in those years never made their 30th birthdays because they died in crashes flying air-defense missions.



    That's nice ... (none / 0) (#87)
    by Yman on Mon Oct 17, 2011 at 02:34:57 PM EST
    ... that you don't think so, but in reality, they're the very definition of a "champagne unit":

    The most infamous champagne unit was the Texas Air National Guard 147th Fighter Interceptor Group, at Ellington Field in Houston. During the Vietnam War many well-connected sons landed in this posting, sometimes with the help of politicians such as Ben Barnes.[4]

        Lloyd Bentsen Jr., son of Lloyd Bentsen
        George W. Bush, son of George H. W. Bush
        John Connally III, son of John Connally Jr.
        the son of John Tower
        James R. Bath
        seven members of the Dallas Cowboys

    why slur champagne unit (none / 0) (#93)
    by jondee on Mon Oct 17, 2011 at 04:39:51 PM EST
    members who would've defended you, if you were a member and an exclusive country club in Houston ever came under North Vietnamese attcak?

    Maybe if I was ... (none / 0) (#94)
    by Yman on Mon Oct 17, 2011 at 05:02:46 PM EST
    ... a season ticket holder they would've sent the seven members of the Cowboys who joined the unit?

    Lord knows what they would've done if they knew I was an Eagles fan ... probably would've had to go caddy-less.


    Who besides Bush (none / 0) (#98)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Oct 17, 2011 at 06:24:08 PM EST
    volunteered for and became a fighter pilot?

    BTW - Can we assume that neither you or Jondee have been in the military??


    Don't know - most of the ... (none / 0) (#100)
    by Yman on Mon Oct 17, 2011 at 08:32:25 PM EST
    ... seven Dallas Cowboys were likely too large for a fighter cockpit, but you'd have to research the other if you cared.  I'd also be curious to know - who, besides Bush:

    1.  ... got transferred to Alabama to work on a political campaign?

    2.  ... claimed he quit flying because the F-102 had been replaced, when it was being used by his unit until 1974?

    3. ...  gave 3 different stories/explanations as to why he let his flight physical lapse, thus making him ineligible to fly?  So eager to volunteer, yet too busy to get a physical?

    4.  ... received a direct appointment to 2nd Lt. right after basic with no qualifications?

    5. ... quit flying 22 months after completion of his training with 2 years remaining on his commitment?

    BTW - Can we assume that neither you or Jondee have been in the military??

    You've already made that assumption several times previously - along with many others.

    Why ask now?


    Why ask?? (none / 0) (#102)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Oct 18, 2011 at 09:23:56 AM EST
    Because I find that people who have no military experience find it hard to understand how the military works. So it is important to know why they assume things and misunderstand things.

    Of course the anti-war/anti-military in the country often deliberately do so.

    You seek to reframe the discussion. The issue is not what others did, the issue is what Bush did.

    So try to focus on that.

    Best I can tell, none of them volunteered for pilot training. Bush did. Let's look at some facts.

    In November Bush began flight training .... soloing in March 1970 and graduating in June.....[1] He performed Guard duty as an F-102 pilot through April 1972, logging a total of 336 flight hours[2] and was promoted once during his service, to First Lieutenant.[3]

    In November 1970, Lt. Col. Jerry B. Killian, commander of the 111th Fighter Squadron, recommended that Bush be promoted to First Lieutenant, calling him "a dynamic outstanding young officer" who stood out as "a top notch fighter interceptor pilot." He said that "Lt. Bush's skills far exceed his contemporaries," and that "he is a natural leader whom his contemporaries look to for leadership. Lt. Bush is also a good follower with outstanding disciplinary traits and an impeccable military bearing."[4]


    Let's examine your claims:

    .. received a direct appointment to 2nd Lt. right after basic with no qualifications?

    Direct? Would that be instead of "indirect?" You obviously use the old tired tactic of making up charges and couching the in words that imply evil things without saying so and offering no proof.

    He was "recommended" NOT RIGHT AFTER basic, but at least 5 months after. But don't let that get in your way. I mean, making things up is typical of the attacks on Bush and Palin.

    And, based on what his Commanding Officer said, it appears that he deserved it. And, based on what he accomplished with his life, I would say the CO was right.

    claimed he quit flying because the F-102 had been replaced, when it was being used by his unit until 1974?

    ... quit flying 22 months after completion of his training with 2 years remaining on his commitment?

    You need to understand that a pilot doesn't just walk out on the flight line, hop in an aircraft and takeoff. If a new aircraft is to be phased in the flight and ground crews must be trained.

    Now, that takes time and resources. A rational plan becomes:  Let's train the people who will be around long enough for us to take advantage of the training we have given them.

    To the individual: You want to fly the new plane? Give us two more years of service and we'll train you.

    Don't want to extend? Okay, you will continue to fly the old plane.

    Now, as the new aircraft are phased in and the old ones phased out, those who haven't been trained need to remain qualified in the old. But there is a problem. More pilots than aircraft. What do you do with the surplus.

    You let the ones who want to volunteer to leave do just that. You let them leave rather than have then hanging around unhappy that they can't fly and complaining. In the civilian world it is known as "downsizing."

    Now, do you understand why Bush decided to leave? Now, do you see why they let Bush leave??

    ...  gave 3 different stories/explanations as to why he let his flight physical lapse, thus making him ineligible to fly?  So eager to volunteer, yet too busy to get a physical?

    Since you provide no links I must consider that as a claim in the Mapes/Rather category. I gave a lengthy explanation as to why I think he didn't bother in a previous comment in this thread.

    As to the claim that this was a "champagne unit" I can only say that whatever any member did was more than what you and Jondee both did.


    You haven't the slightest idea ... (none / 0) (#103)
    by Yman on Tue Oct 18, 2011 at 12:49:24 PM EST
    ... what I did, Jim, and I know very well what's involved in transitioning to a new aircraft.  I also noticed something else - you make many claim about Bush's record with zero evidence.  I don't.

    1)  Bush received a direct appointment to 2nd Lt. right after basic with no qualifications.

    You've never heard of a "direct appointment", Jim?  Wow .. hard to believe anyone with a military background wouldn't know about direct appointments, but I'll help you out.  A "direct" appointment is one in which the candidate isn't required to go through OCS, like everyone else.  Usually, they have a background that makes them very desirable for a position in which there is a severe shortage - doctors, etc.

    Link - LA Times

    For Bush, there was no wait. He met with commander Staudt in his Houston office and made his application--all before his graduation in June.

    His records list no ROTC stint or engineering or aviation skills, which were considered desirable. In his application, he cited work experience as summer jobs and part-time employment as a messenger, a ranch hand, an oil field "roustabout," a sporting goods salesman and a bookkeeper.


    Nevertheless, Staudt classified young Bush as prime officer material.


    He recommended Bush for a direct appointment--a special process that would allow the young recruit to become a second lieutenant right out of basic training without having to go through the rigors of officer candidate school. The process also cleared the way for a slot in pilot training school.


    Staudt declined to estimate how many men received such special appointments.

    But Charles C. Shoemake, an Air Force veteran who later joined the Texas Air National Guard, eventually retiring as a full colonel, said that direct appointments were rare and hard to get, and required extensive credentials. "I went from master sergeant to first lieutenant based on my three years in college and 15 years as a noncommissioned officer. Then I got considered for a direct appointment." Even then, he said, "I didn't know whether I was going to get into pilot training.""  ...

    As for a direct commission for someone of Bush's limited qualifications, Hail said, "I've never heard of that. Generally they did that for doctors only, mostly because we needed extra flight surgeons."

    On the other hand, you could be right.  Maybe Bush's summer jobs or his skills as a messenger or "roustabout" made him exceptionally desirable as officer material.



    Bush claimed he quit flying because the F-102 had been replaced, when it was being used by his unit until 1974?

    Bush quit flying 22 months after completion of his training with 2 years remaining on his commitment?

    Yep -

    His unit continued to fly the F-102 until 1974 "If he had come back to Houston, I would have kept him flying the 102 until he got out" said retired Major General Bobby W. Hodges, "But I don't remember him coming back at all"'.  

    ... "Lieutenant Bush, to be sure, had gone off flying status when he went to Alabama. But had he returned to his unit in November 1972, there would have been no barrier to him flying again, except passing a flight physical. Although the F-102 was being phased out, his unit's records show that Guard pilots logged thousands of hours in the F-102 in 1973." Boston Globe 5/23/00 - (you'll need a membership for their site)

    I notice you believe Bush was prevented from flying due to the transition from the F-102, yet you cite no evidence.

    Guess we can file that in your "Mapes/Rather category", huh?



    Bush gave 3 different stories/explanations as to why he let his flight physical lapse, thus making him ineligible to fly.  So eager to volunteer, yet too busy to get a physical?

    Also true:

    Explanation 1 - Bush's campaign aides have said he did not take the physical because he was in Alabama and his personal physician was in Houston.


    Strange, considering flight physicals are only administered by certified flight surgeons, like the ones on the base where Bush was living at the time.

    Explanation 2 - Campaign officials told the London Times Bush did not technically need to take his flight physical. "As he was not flying, there was no reason for him to take the flight physical exam," according to campaign spokesman Don Bartlett.  Boston Globe 5/23/00

    Any suggestion that he had simply decided to "give up flying" prior to his suspension, with two years remaining on his commitment and nearly one million dollars (in real terms) invested in his training is not plausible.  It is not up to an Air National Guard pilot to decide whether or not he "intends" to fly.

    If he had come back to Houston, I would have kept him flying the 102 until he got out" said retired Major General Bobby W. Hodges

    As you may be aware Jim, the AFSC requires physicals to be taken regardless of flight status, and it's not up to the pilot.

    Explanation 3 - From the same article - Bush campaign spokesman Dan Bartlett told the newspaper that Bush was aware back then that he would be suspended for missing his medical exam, but had no choice because he had applied for a transfer from Houston to Alabama and his paperwork hadn't caught up with him. "It was just a question of following the bureaucratic procedure of the time," Bartlett said. "He knew the suspension would have to take place."

    The exam was required to be completed in the three months preceding his birthday, July 6, 1972. He had 3 months to get the physical, and yet he chose not to.

    His personal doctor was busy, he didn't need to take the physical or it was just a bureaucratic snafu he couldn't control.  Three different excuses - three piles of BS.  All as believable as Bartlett's claim that Bush had reported to a Massachusetts Guard unit in order to fulfill his duty while attending Harvard Business School in 1974 - a claim he was later forced to retract.



    can I assume that (none / 0) (#104)
    by jondee on Tue Oct 18, 2011 at 03:40:16 PM EST
    you had your last independent thought sometime in the early-mid fifties?

    As you like to say about that pinko Kerry, I honor (sort of) your service, but find your current mentality (or lack thereof) despicable.


    From your very label, "Trust Fund" (none / 0) (#5)
    by Towanda on Sun Oct 16, 2011 at 03:51:41 PM EST
    says that they don't represent the 99 percent.

    But you knew that.

    Now, what do you have to say about the topic of this thread?


    About "Sunday Afternoon Open Thread?" (none / 0) (#16)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Oct 16, 2011 at 05:00:21 PM EST
    Well, let me see. It's a beautiful day here. Took my daughter to the airport for her flight home. Helped my wife fix brunch.. Worked on my riding lawnmower...

    BTW - The unemployment rate for college grads is reputed to be 4.1%. Do I assume that none of these demonstrators, outside of Trust Fund Baby, have a degree???


    About (none / 0) (#24)
    by Towanda on Sun Oct 16, 2011 at 05:52:02 PM EST
    Occupy Chicago.

    But you knew that, too.

    And your last paragraph makes absolutely no sense.  Even for you, it's nuts.


    Gee, I hate to have to explain the obvious (none / 0) (#25)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Oct 16, 2011 at 05:57:57 PM EST
    but here goes.

    Supposedly theses Occupy types are out of work college grads suffering under a heavy load of student loans.

    But when you factor in the 4.1% unemployment rate for college grads, that is questionable.

    Some say many of these people are paid.

    But either way, how are they feeding themselves?

    Are they all on welfare? Trust Fund Babies?? Unemployment??


    The attempt to denigrate (5.00 / 2) (#43)
    by MKS on Sun Oct 16, 2011 at 08:01:19 PM EST
    based on just one guy.....It really does not make any sense....

    But economic populism is  very, very popular according to polling.

    Thus, conservatives seem in a panic to discredit the 99%.


    One guy?? (none / 0) (#46)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Oct 16, 2011 at 08:55:36 PM EST
    Perhaps you don't watch TV.

    You actually think that these people are "99%?"

    You tend to forget that I'm a Social Liberal.

    But it ain't liberal to take over other people's property. Waste public funds that could be expended protecting people from violent crime.

    Do you pay attention to history??

    Today in 1795 Marie Antoinette, wife of Louis XVI, is guillotined at the height of the French Revolution.

    How'd that experiment in economic populism turn out?


    typo....1793 (none / 0) (#49)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Oct 16, 2011 at 09:21:23 PM EST
    Not so good for Marie Antoinette (none / 0) (#73)
    by MKS on Mon Oct 17, 2011 at 11:09:30 AM EST
    or King Louis.

    Lesson:  Don't mess with the "little" people.


    "Some say" ... heh (5.00 / 2) (#48)
    by Yman on Sun Oct 16, 2011 at 09:17:46 PM EST
    "Some say" the earth is flat.

    Guess it's easy for some people to just "say" stuff.


    And some say it was done (none / 0) (#50)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Oct 16, 2011 at 09:23:18 PM EST
    via Craigs List...

    I dunno. I just assume you'll show up and make some off the wall comment no matter what the subject is.

    Thanks, Shadow.


    Jim, stop the (none / 0) (#53)
    by Jeralyn on Sun Oct 16, 2011 at 11:28:47 PM EST
    condescending "shadow" type quips please. There's no need to get personal and you know personal spats have no place here.

    "Shadow" (none / 0) (#86)
    by jondee on Mon Oct 17, 2011 at 01:56:28 PM EST
    ie, "Mommy, tell them to stop picking on me."

    "Supposedly" (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by ruffian on Mon Oct 17, 2011 at 07:00:04 AM EST
    Only 'supposed' in your own head. No one said they are all unemployed. That is one of the points. Not even employment keeps you economically secure anymore.

    Some say (none / 0) (#85)
    by jondee on Mon Oct 17, 2011 at 01:55:04 PM EST
    you're dutifully parroting the EXACT interpretive script making the rounds on wingnut talk radio..

    Some say that supposedly you have no way of knowing the exact grievances, make-up and circumstances of the protestors because that would require you detaching yourself for awhile from that teletype machine of bumpersticker-dispatches from Planet Wingnut, and exerting some actual intellectual effort.  


    btw (none / 0) (#71)
    by CST on Mon Oct 17, 2011 at 10:25:20 AM EST
    the unemployment rate for college grads includes a lot of older college grads.

    For a more accurate picture of what it's like for young people in general - both college educated and not (I don't assume everyone at occupy wall street has a degree, not sure why you would) I give you this:

    "The youth labor force--16- to 24-year-olds working or actively looking for work--grows
    sharply between April and July each year."

    "The labor force participation rate for all youth--the proportion of the population 16
    to 24 years old working or looking for work--was 59.5 percent in July, the lowest July
    rate on record

    Emphasis mine.  Among people in that age group, "College graduates experienced the lowest unemployment rate at 8%" - which is still twice the national average for college grads.


    Not too shabby (5.00 / 2) (#30)
    by MO Blue on Sun Oct 16, 2011 at 06:23:11 PM EST
    Occupy Wall Street shows muscle, raises $300K

    NEW YORK (AP) -- The Occupy Wall Street movement has close to $300,000, as well as storage space loaded with donated supplies in lower Manhattan. It stared down city officials to hang on to its makeshift headquarters, showed its muscle Saturday with a big Times Square demonstration and found legions of activists demonstrating in solidarity across the country and around the world.
    Wall Street protesters are intent on hanging on to the momentum they gained from Saturday's worldwide demonstrations, which drew hundreds of thousands of people, mostly in the U.S. and Europe. They're filling a cavernous space a block from Wall Street with donated goods to help sustain their nearly month-long occupation of a private park nearby.

    They've amassed mounds of blankets, pillows, sleeping bags, cans of food, medical and hygienic supplies -- even oddities like a box of knitting wool and 20 pairs of swimming goggles (to shield protesters from pepper-spray attacks). Supporters are shipping about 300 boxes a day, Strekal said.

    The space was donated by the United Federation of Teachers, which has offices in the building.

    Close to $300,000 in cash also has been donated, through the movement's website and by people who give money in person at the park, said Bill Dobbs, a press liaison for the movement. The movement has an account at Amalgamated Bank, which bills itself as "the only 100 percent union-owned bank in the United States." link

    Fox & Propaganda Friends... (none / 0) (#69)
    by kdog on Mon Oct 17, 2011 at 09:24:41 AM EST
    this morning accused the movement of putting their bankroll in a, and I quote, "big bank".

    We lie, you decide based on mis-information.


    An extremely large ex-marine (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by MO Blue on Mon Oct 17, 2011 at 09:06:51 AM EST
    tells the NYPD that there is no honor in what they are doing and that beating up on unarmed civilians does not make them tough. (link to DK diary w/video)

    The NYPD has reacted fairly well during this. (none / 0) (#70)
    by tigercourse on Mon Oct 17, 2011 at 09:29:46 AM EST
    Aside from a couple weeks ago where they pepper sprayed and billy clubbed a couple protestors, they've been very calm (and the workers here seem much better then the desk riding management has been). I can think of quite a few problems I have with the NYPD (drug planting, a bunch of them are RAPISTS, the top cop has been around too long, etc.) but I'll just point out that NYC is far safer then Chicago, L.A. or many other big cities in this country.

    It's taken me (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by Jeralyn on Sun Oct 16, 2011 at 04:00:25 PM EST
    24 hours to sync my iphone with itunes after downloading iTunes 10.5. I now have 10 libraries on my computer and it's still missing about 100 songs but I'm afraid to tweak it anymore. (I was up until 3 am trying to sync and couldn't get more than 40 songs onto the iphone. So I just started creating more libaries and moving music and video files from other libraries into them. I have no idea why an hour ago finally I got the playlists and 430 songs to sync.) The update also wiped out the photos on my camera which I just now got back after restoring an old library.

    No way will I plug in my iPad and iPod to my computer and upgrade them. They have the music and videos just the way I like them, why tinker? Apple has always been the most non-intuitive operating system to me and it's just getting worse.

    Why does anyone want to use the cloud where all your data is out there for someone to hack?

    Well, beats the (none / 0) (#29)
    by Zorba on Sun Oct 16, 2011 at 06:16:00 PM EST
    heck out of me, Jeralyn.   ;-)

    You are so funny (none / 0) (#61)
    by MO Blue on Mon Oct 17, 2011 at 08:39:45 AM EST
    I have it on good authority that you and I are among the "endangered species" of people left on this planet who still use stupid phones. But just think of all the time we save and aggravation we avoid by not needing to do upgrades. ;o)



    Yes, I still have (5.00 / 1) (#68)
    by Zorba on Mon Oct 17, 2011 at 09:21:56 AM EST
    a stupid phone.  And (gasp!) I leave it off most of the time.  (Although they keep trying to sell me a new phone, or "give" me one if I sign a two-year contract.  Not gonna do it.)  

    GO CARDS!  Indeed.  I have my St. Louis Cardinals t-shirt on even as I type.  GO CARDS!  Happy, happy, joy, joy!


    I don't have a phone at all (5.00 / 2) (#75)
    by ruffian on Mon Oct 17, 2011 at 11:18:08 AM EST
    I have a handheld computer with a phone app! ;-)

    Well, did you hear that Gertrude! (5.00 / 0) (#76)
    by MO Blue on Mon Oct 17, 2011 at 11:23:17 AM EST
    What will they think of next? {She says as she rubs two sticks together} ;o)

    Sticks! (5.00 / 2) (#79)
    by Zorba on Mon Oct 17, 2011 at 11:40:45 AM EST
    You have sticks?  Luxury!  Why, we have to wait for lightning to start a forest fire and then cook our food and run away before the fire spreads!   ;-)  

    I had to say something about the phone... (5.00 / 1) (#80)
    by ruffian on Mon Oct 17, 2011 at 12:02:41 PM EST
    since the presence of the Texas Rangers in the WS compels me to root for the Cards, against every fiber of my Cubs fan being.

    I think I speak (5.00 / 1) (#81)
    by Zorba on Mon Oct 17, 2011 at 12:20:39 PM EST
    for MO Blue as well as myself in welcoming you to Cardinals Land!  However temporary your stay may be.  Where shall we send your official Cards t-shirt?   ;-)

    The fibers of your being should (5.00 / 0) (#83)
    by MO Blue on Mon Oct 17, 2011 at 01:03:40 PM EST
    take comfort in the fact that I would root for the Cubs if they were playing against the Texas Rangers in the WS. NL vs AL rivalry takes precedence over inter-division rivalry in my book.

    BTW, does that mean you will let the dogs root for them this time. ;o)


    Me, too! (none / 0) (#84)
    by Zorba on Mon Oct 17, 2011 at 01:20:16 PM EST

    Why the hold up on announcing game 1 (none / 0) (#88)
    by oculus on Mon Oct 17, 2011 at 03:08:38 PM EST
    start time?

    I can't find the start time (none / 0) (#89)
    by Zorba on Mon Oct 17, 2011 at 03:43:33 PM EST
    on the MLB or other sports sites.  There is a mention on the CBS St. Louis/KMOX site that Michelle Obama and Jill Biden will be attending Game One, and that the game will start at 6:30 PM (Central).  Who knows how accurate this is?  It's the only starting time I could find.  Maybe we should call and ask the Secret Service?  Bet they know.   ;-)

    I don't know (none / 0) (#90)
    by MO Blue on Mon Oct 17, 2011 at 03:46:44 PM EST
    They didn't consult me. Haven't read an explanation and I don't have a TV.

    I have a TV but no cable. MLB Gameday (none / 0) (#91)
    by oculus on Mon Oct 17, 2011 at 03:48:53 PM EST
    plus ESPN radio.  

    I just called one of my (none / 0) (#92)
    by Zorba on Mon Oct 17, 2011 at 03:54:05 PM EST
    sisters-in-law, who lives in the St. Louis area, and she says they haven't heard a thing there yet about the start time.  She said that 99% of the night games in St. Louis start at 7:05 Central, so who knows?

    j8:05 p.m. EDT. (none / 0) (#95)
    by oculus on Mon Oct 17, 2011 at 05:25:35 PM EST
    Yep (none / 0) (#96)
    by Zorba on Mon Oct 17, 2011 at 05:36:00 PM EST
    Seems to be the official start time.  My S-I-L called it.   ;-)

    Here is the schedule of all World Series (none / 0) (#97)
    by caseyOR on Mon Oct 17, 2011 at 05:40:54 PM EST



    -8:05 PM (ET)-Tickets


    -8:05 PM (ET)-Tickets


    -8:05 PM (ET)-Tickets


    -8:05 PM (ET)-Tickets


    -8:05 PM (ET)-Tickets


    -8:05 PM (ET)-Tickets


    -8:05 PM (ET)-Tickets

    Note to Series watchers re "start times" (none / 0) (#99)
    by Towanda on Mon Oct 17, 2011 at 06:38:42 PM EST
    First, the Cards suck.

    But the Brewers, my old hometown team, really sucked.

    Basically, both teams showed that they are not really ready for the World Series, so enjoy that roller-coaster ride we have been on in both St. Louis and Milwaukee; I am so glad to get off it!

    Anyway, what we did learn about start times was to not trust them to the minute, or you might miss opening minutes, if it's the second game.  If the first ended earlier than expected, ours started several minutes (as many as 10 in one case) earlier than scheduled.

    Now, this being the Series, that will be less likely to happen than in playoffs, as we had to wait for Texas-Detroit games to end sometimes -- or didn't have to wait as long as expected.

    However, some of the Series games may be on the same days as NFL games, I read.  And if that happens, and a Series game in the evening is following an afternoon NFL game, well, just be ready for that 7:05 to actually be 6:58. . . .


    calendars, emails, apps (none / 0) (#40)
    by Jeralyn on Sun Oct 16, 2011 at 07:16:54 PM EST
    notes, photos and lots more are on these devices. I wasn't even thinking of credit cards or bank stuff. I don't think I'd ever use a phone or iPad to log into my bank.

    I've had the similar problems (none / 0) (#44)
    by Natal on Sun Oct 16, 2011 at 08:06:08 PM EST
    in the past with iTunes upgrades.  I don't upgrade every time now.  Most of the time the upgrades are minor and don't apply to me. But one thing about Apple which is top notch is their support and you can talk to a real person about problems such as yours.

    Iraq may save us from ourselves yet (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by MO Blue on Sun Oct 16, 2011 at 04:54:25 PM EST
    The Associated Press reports that the Obama Administration has abandoned plans to keep military troops in Iraq beyond the December 2011 deadline. The Administration could not secure immunity from prosecution for its troops operating in the country, so they've decided to bug out instead. A substantial amount of personnel will remain at the US Embassy and some satellite diplomatic outposts in Iraq (in Basra, Irbil and Kirkuk), perhaps up to 11,000 foreign service officials, with another 5,000 private military contractors guarding them. There will be around 150 military personnel attached to the Embassy for protection and facilitating sales of armaments, but that's standard practice around the world.

    This is the right move for the wrong reason. The troops are coming home only because Iraq's government would not give legal immunity to the remaining forces in the field. link

    Those private military (5.00 / 1) (#67)
    by BackFromOhio on Mon Oct 17, 2011 at 09:18:55 AM EST
    contractors cost 5 times the salary of one of our soldiers.  Another way the government is handing over taxpayer dollars to feed the private sector, while our soldiers are underpaid and lack all needed medical care.  Of course, the volunteer nature of our army has meant that we don't have enough enlistees to fight all the wars and 'actions' in which we're now engaged.

    Obama has been overruled by the MIC though... (none / 0) (#17)
    by Edger on Sun Oct 16, 2011 at 05:04:20 PM EST
    WASHINGTON -- The Pentagon denied reports Saturday that the US military has given up on plans to keep several thousand troops in Iraq after a year-end deadline, saying talks with Baghdad were still underway.

    US and Iraq officials have been negotiating a possible American military training mission of about 4,000 troops after 2011, but a dispute over legal protections for the US forces has jeopardized the security agreement.

    The Associated Press, citing unnamed officials, reported that Washington had abandoned the plan for a contingent of several thousand troops and instead would have only a small team of 160 attached to the embassy in Baghdad.

    In a statement to reporters, Pentagon press secretary George Little denied the negotiations had collapsed, saying the Obama administration had not made any decisions on a future mission.

    "Suggestions that a final decision has been reached about our training relationship with the Iraqi government are wrong. Those discussions are ongoing," Little said.

    Grumble, grumble (5.00 / 2) (#28)
    by MO Blue on Sun Oct 16, 2011 at 06:11:36 PM EST
    b!tch, groan.

    Site rules prohibit me from responding appropriately to that information.  


    Actually (5.00 / 2) (#33)
    by Edger on Sun Oct 16, 2011 at 06:32:32 PM EST
    I was being unfair to Obama there.

    It wasn't Obama who was overrulled at all - it was only the "unnamed officials" that the AP was citing, not Obama, who were overrulled.

    The Associated Press, citing unnamed officials, reported that Washington had abandoned the plan for a contingent of several thousand troops and instead would have only a small team of 160 attached to the embassy in Baghdad.

    Obama serves his MIC masters well. And truly.


    Armando interviews his daughter re OWS: (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by oculus on Mon Oct 17, 2011 at 12:11:07 AM EST

    Just read Armando's interview with (5.00 / 4) (#56)
    by caseyOR on Mon Oct 17, 2011 at 01:22:46 AM EST
    his daughter. Thanks for the link.

    While there I saw a comment from Cream City. I miss Cream City's comments here. I really missed what I know would have been her astute comments on the happenings in Wisconsin.

    If you still read here, CC, Hi! (big wave)


    Rumor has it that CC (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by MO Blue on Mon Oct 17, 2011 at 08:23:54 AM EST
    has been born again much like Armando (now BTD)  here at TL.

    Now for a different topic.

    Would it be possible for you and ruffian to start cheering for the Rangers in the World Series? I'm not sure that Cubs fans cheering for the Brewers was a deciding factor but I want to cover all the bases now that the Cardinals have made it into the World Series. ;o0  


    Bah! Baseball is dead to me! (none / 0) (#72)
    by caseyOR on Mon Oct 17, 2011 at 11:02:42 AM EST

    Oh, heck (none / 0) (#74)
    by MO Blue on Mon Oct 17, 2011 at 11:12:56 AM EST
    I was counting on you and ruffian cheering for the Rangers. I guess we will have to hope that they don't catch the Rally Squirrel. Not that I'm superstitious or anything.  

    BTW, unless I missed it, she (none / 0) (#82)
    by oculus on Mon Oct 17, 2011 at 01:00:41 PM EST
    did NOT say:  fire Geithner.  

    Obama Approval Rating Jumps to 93% (none / 0) (#8)
    by Edger on Sun Oct 16, 2011 at 04:09:03 PM EST
    After Punching Wall Street Banker In Face


    It's enough to bring a tear to your eye

    Not impressed (5.00 / 3) (#11)
    by MO Blue on Sun Oct 16, 2011 at 04:21:13 PM EST
    If Obama wanted to inflict pain on a Wall St. Investment Banker, he would have eliminated his 15% tax rate and not given him a love tap. Everyone knows that the only way to hurt banksters is to hit them in their wallets. All else is foreplay. ;o) {multiple smiley faces and giggles}

    giggles? (none / 0) (#12)
    by Edger on Sun Oct 16, 2011 at 04:23:04 PM EST
    You mean diddles, don't you? ;-)

    Oh sure. (none / 0) (#21)
    by jpe on Sun Oct 16, 2011 at 05:37:31 PM EST
    Obama can use his super magic ability to increase taxes all by himself.  

    Obama can use his super magic ability (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by MO Blue on Sun Oct 16, 2011 at 06:05:44 PM EST
    to increase taxes all by himself in this instance in the same way his ratings jumped to 93% after punching an investment banker in the face.

    I heard there were clues for sale in aisle 6. ;o)



    I'm actually annoyed that at this point no one (none / 0) (#10)
    by tigercourse on Sun Oct 16, 2011 at 04:19:11 PM EST
    is paying attention to Republican obstruction of Obama and the Democrats quite reasonable proposals for economic stimulus as all the attention has been drawn to protestors.

    Obama got his trade bills passed (5.00 / 2) (#13)
    by MO Blue on Sun Oct 16, 2011 at 04:24:12 PM EST
    No Republican obstruction there. The rest of his agenda will follow shortly.

    I'm actually annoyed that at this point (5.00 / 3) (#14)
    by Edger on Sun Oct 16, 2011 at 04:26:03 PM EST
    that there are still people who think that anyone would buy the lesser of two evils snake oil pitch, or buy the idea that the Democrats have any proposals for anything at all except conning the country again, much less quite reasonable proposals for economic stimulus.

    The thing is... (5.00 / 2) (#26)
    by lentinel on Sun Oct 16, 2011 at 06:02:00 PM EST
    I don't consider what we are witnessing to be a "political process".

    That's why I won't participate in it.


    I'm (5.00 / 2) (#45)
    by lentinel on Sun Oct 16, 2011 at 08:24:10 PM EST
    not defining it for anybody.

    I'm saying that I do not consider what is going on to be a "political process". I consider it to be a sideshow. An entertainment put on by the elite for the masses.

    But it is you who is attempting to define this corporate dance as a "political process" for everyone. That is how you could express that by my unwillingness to participate in what I consider to be a charade, I am refusing to participate in a "political process". That is because you are defining this as a political process that everyone must accept as such.

    Summing up: I choose not to participate in this - whatever it is - because I do not consider it to be a political process. I consider it to be some kind of process... but whatever it is, I don't identify with it and I do not choose to participate in it.

    On the other hand, you do consider this to be a political process.

    So you wish to participate.
    That is your right.


    That's wacky. (none / 0) (#57)
    by jpe on Mon Oct 17, 2011 at 06:07:55 AM EST
    We have a system wherein the person that garners the most votes wins, and you don't think that's a political process?  Wacky.

    I know (5.00 / 2) (#60)
    by lentinel on Mon Oct 17, 2011 at 08:33:37 AM EST
    that whoever gets the most votes, wins.


    The process that I am talking about is the one by which the powers that be determine who we get to choose between.

    For example.. Cain's out. Perry's out. They're in. Trump's in. Then he's out. Nobody voted on these freaks to be in or out.
    The media puts them up, then it tears them down. Charming.

    Obama is unopposed. Nobody voted for him either to have as a repeat candidate, as yet. He is unopposed.

    What sickens me is the manner in which the "candidates" are chosen from which we are made to choose. Millions and millions of bucks are spent - and not by Mom and Pop - to decide the meager pickings from which we are exhorted to choose.

    Have you noticed that they're all millionaires as well?


    God Bless America.

    Go to the Polls.

    Pull the lever for the candidate of your choice.

    Be Happy.

    I just want no part of this.


    There is several galaxies worth of (5.00 / 6) (#39)
    by MO Blue on Sun Oct 16, 2011 at 07:16:00 PM EST
    space between Jesus of Nazareth and Barack Obama.

    I think we could shoot for a flawed human being who might actually fight in support of ordinary people rather than tenaciously pursuing a Grand Bargain to cut domestic and safety net programs to offset never ending wars and additional tax cuts for corporations and the top brackets. We could shoot for someone who choses to support labor rather than Wall St. and the Chamber of Commerce. Offshoring jobs to sweat shops in N. Korea is not my idea of job creation. I could go on about the abuses to civil liberties etc.

    Jesus of Nazareth and Prince Siddhartha Gautama are straw men of gigantic stature but IMO straw men none the less.


    Donald, we all know that you are a process (5.00 / 2) (#63)
    by Anne on Mon Oct 17, 2011 at 09:01:24 AM EST
    guy, someone who believes that working within the system is pretty much the only way to go ("it's all we have"), and who, when all is said and done, loyally and dutifully sticks with the party's choice because I guess you have completely bought into the metric that you have to, because "the other guy is worse."

    That's your choice.  That's what you live with.  But you don't get any brownie points for being a system guy - that doesn't' make you better than or somehow superior to those who are rejecting it.  And you don't get points for not being able to see how far to the right the Democratic Party has moved, and how Republican policies, presented by "adults" who want to "get something done" are killing this country.

    What I see as the failure of the current system is in your demand that anyone not happy with, and determined not to continue to enable, the poor quality of the candidates, their poor performance as legislators and executives, and the corruption and co-optation of the process by the monied interests, must immediately, right now, without delay, I-say-jump-you-ask-how-high, offer a living, breathing alternative/plan - and if they can't, they really should just shut up.  Or they should become part of the status quo by running for office within a system where money talks, and if you don't have it, you are deemed to have nothing to say, about anything.

    That tactic - "tell me right now who the alternative is!" - is designed to shut people up.  And for what?  Because the status quo is working so well?  Because you can't envision any other way to do it?  Because it would be too hard?  Because you are so deeply rooted and invested in the process we have that you feel threatened by change?

    Why do you want to shut people up who want real change, and not the plugged nickel variety we keep getting?  Why do you insist that the only way is your way, the way it's "always" been done?  How many times do we have to see promising candidates be absorbed into and neutralized by the New Democratic Party - or even the old one - before we ask ourselves if maybe, just perhaps, quite possibly, that's not working for us?  That it continues to work just fine for the power elites, but not for the people?

    Maybe, Donald, it's time to stop shilling the status quo handbook, and just get out of the way.


    Shorter: "Nader 2012!" (none / 0) (#22)
    by jpe on Sun Oct 16, 2011 at 05:38:02 PM EST
    NPA (none / 0) (#31)
    by Edger on Sun Oct 16, 2011 at 06:27:06 PM EST
    New Progressive Alliance

    The NPA opposes both of America's sold-out, anti-Progressive major parties. We not only support a primary election challenge to Barack Obama in 2012, but will endorse an Independent or third-party candidate to oppose both corporatist marionettes in the general election, provided they publicly pledge to run on the Unified Progressive Platform and to govern based upon it when elected.

    Thank you (5.00 / 2) (#36)
    by Edger on Sun Oct 16, 2011 at 06:47:34 PM EST
    Notwithstanding your not so veiled insult.

    It will take a lot of work to overcome the fact that the majority of people still think they have no choice but to support America's sold-out, anti-Progressive major parties.

    But there are less and less of them doing so everyday, so at least things are moving in the right direction.