Tuesday Morning Open Thread

Busy for a while. A little inspiration for your discussions:

Open Thread.

< Slate: Protests Are "Anti-Democracy" | TV Night For America, Prison Nation >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Count me sick to death (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Oct 18, 2011 at 09:36:29 AM EST
    about hearing once every week that the European debt crisis is going to blow up the world.  Then someone reports that the Eurozone all agrees to massive bailouts and the stock market goes through the roof, then someone in the Eurozone argues with someone else and agreement is lost and the U.S. stock market dives.  Then someone prints a big write up about how the world is about to blow up and the whole thing starts all over again yet so far nothing tangible has blown up while economic terror alert after terror alert after terror alert has been issued. Wash, rinse, repeat...wash, rinse, repeat but as long as the stock market isn't completely eating dirt it is okay to starve Americans and watch them suffer.

    Someone's making money off this ride. (5.00 / 5) (#3)
    by Anne on Tue Oct 18, 2011 at 09:50:00 AM EST
    Of that I am completely certain.

    I have no idea, though, why we haven't declared these people to be be economic terrorists.

    Oh, wait - because someone's making money off the ride.

    Got it.


    Exactly (none / 0) (#4)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Oct 18, 2011 at 09:54:19 AM EST
    WS loves huge predictable fluctuations.

    Terrorists, that term has been so overplayed it's lost all meaning.


    Theme (none / 0) (#2)
    by Edger on Tue Oct 18, 2011 at 09:43:04 AM EST
    Song, by Francis Scott, Keyed

    Naomi Wolf and Cornel West (5.00 / 1) (#141)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Oct 19, 2011 at 12:53:42 PM EST
    arrested on youtube for being vocal in public that human beings need to come first.  FINALLY!  Finally this grand experiment that is going through a $hithole phase begins to resemble the country I was promised at birth. Come get us all you worthless scumbags!!!

    An honest republican (none / 0) (#5)
    by Edger on Tue Oct 18, 2011 at 10:07:10 AM EST
    Rep. Peter King (R-NY) is upset at the growing movement and the media's coverage of it, hoping that a modern day version of protests from five decades ago isn't being recaptured now.

    "It's really important for us not to give any legitimacy to these people in the streets," said King on Laura Ingraham's radio show Friday evening. "I remember what happened in the 1960s when the left-wing took to the streets and somehow the media glorified them and it ended up shaping policy. We can't allow that to happen."

    A true man of the people.... (5.00 / 2) (#6)
    by kdog on Tue Oct 18, 2011 at 10:12:17 AM EST

    Poor Peter King, his hateful head must be spinning now, deciding who is worse, OWS or muslims.


    It must be awful (5.00 / 0) (#7)
    by Edger on Tue Oct 18, 2011 at 10:15:02 AM EST
    to live in that kind of terror, eh?

    Oh well, they started it. Chickens. Roosts. Etc.


    Maybe if... (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by kdog on Tue Oct 18, 2011 at 10:24:34 AM EST
    we occupy a mosque, Pete can wake up on dry bedsheets.

    I'll see your Peter King, and raise you (5.00 / 2) (#8)
    by Anne on Tue Oct 18, 2011 at 10:21:10 AM EST
    Michael Bloomberg:

    Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg, speaking Monday as Occupy Wall Street protesters celebrated the passage of a month encamped in Zuccotti Park, said he was trying to strike a balance between protecting protesters' right to free speech and the needs of Lower Manhattan residents.

    "The Constitution doesn't protect tents," he said at a news conference in Queens. "It protects speech and assembly."

    The mayor expressed concern that those exercising a "right to be silent" might be getting drowned out amid the din of the protests.

    "We can't have a place where only one point of view is allowed," he said. "There are places where I think it's appropriate to express yourself, and there are other places that are appropriate to set up Tent City. They don't necessarily have to be one and the same."

    I guess it's escaped Bloomberg's notice that OWS has gone to the site of where the other side has been "expressing itself" at will so that another point of view can be put out there for consideration.

    On the one hand, I am appalled by the stupidity, closed-mindedness and ignorance being expressed by these politicians, but on the other hand, the more stupid they put out there, the more people wake up to what's going on.


    Yeah Mikey... (none / 0) (#10)
    by kdog on Tue Oct 18, 2011 at 10:30:29 AM EST
    America is (supposedly) such a place where it is appropriate to express yourself, with or without a tent.  In fact, it is (supposedly) guaranteed by a little thing we like to call the Bill of Rights, Amendment I.

    Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

    I don't see anything about a curfew in there Bloombucks.


    Well there is an exception to the speech/assembly (none / 0) (#22)
    by brodie on Tue Oct 18, 2011 at 11:36:45 AM EST
    freedoms where the govt authorities are allowed reasonable "time, place and manner" restrictions.  Of course the purpose of such restrictions can't be speech-content motivated and given what the mayor has said on the record about OWS and his skepticism about the movement, any order to shut them down would be on shaky constitutional ground, in my non- expert opinion.

    The constitutionality of (none / 0) (#27)
    by KeysDan on Tue Oct 18, 2011 at 12:06:58 PM EST
    speaking out and camping out, in the case of Zuccotti Park, is the stuff of which Courts are made for.  The privately owned or titled property with dedicated public access may not offer freedom of speech or assembly, sort of like the differences between a public square and private mall.  Moreover, the appropriateness of NYPD in eviction from private property, rather than using established Court procedures for unlawful tenant occupancy or private security to enforce rules raises other questions.   However, the Mayor surely realizes, no doubt to his chagrin, that he has a tiger by the tail.   A no win/win situation, in fact, just a no win.

    The play: Bloomberg is playing his role (none / 0) (#29)
    by christinep on Tue Oct 18, 2011 at 12:21:20 PM EST
    ...and showing himself to be exactly what one would have thought. Along with Peter King. The only one of that Repub-type ilk that has seen a bit of the "aha" of what is happening here...that craven Cantor, who voiced the other day that people might be upset about something.

    More & more, the never-gone "Culture Wars" surface. I hope that Occupy can continue to move in a way that holds it together long enough to change the terms of the heretofore stagnant debttalk-dominated economic debate. Occupy is starting to have an effect; it just needs to hold it together for awhile longer, and resist the splintering temptations that visit every moevement.


    Can't Have Those Pesky Citizens Shaping Policy (5.00 / 4) (#23)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Oct 18, 2011 at 11:52:20 AM EST
    What are lobbyists gonna do for a living, work ?

    Who's gonna speak for the 'silent majority' of corporations, the free market ?


    Check it out... (none / 0) (#11)
    by kdog on Tue Oct 18, 2011 at 10:43:44 AM EST
    the TSA did something right!

    Unfortunately, the FBI disagrees...they must hate job creators or something.

    Money Quote (none / 0) (#31)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Oct 18, 2011 at 12:26:07 PM EST
    "I think it was purchased for about $38,000 and was gonna be resold for some amount greater than that"

    You mean there's money to be made in smuggling drugs, who knew.

    Couple of issues, first, bribing a TSA agent.  Sure it's weed, if their purpose is too keep the skies safe, even weed should be inspected.

    Secondly, that guy is singing like a canary.  He got busted, take your lumps, quite telling them how many times you bribed TSA officials and who they are.  I can't remember the last time I read a story like this with so many fricken details.

    And lastly, for the love of gawd, if you are going to smuggle 10-15 lbs of weed, take measures to ensure humans can't smell it.  Unlike dogs, masking weed from the human nose is fairly simple. Inter tubes, axle grease, drier sheets, charcoal, whateva.  You don't need to get busted because the order was so strong baggage handlers couldn't ignore it.


    Points taken... (none / 0) (#36)
    by kdog on Tue Oct 18, 2011 at 01:09:09 PM EST
    I was just taking heart in the small reprieve from the usually unfriendly skies, for sh*ts and giggles.

    Just Bored Today (none / 0) (#42)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Oct 18, 2011 at 01:37:28 PM EST
    Wish there was a worthwhile topic or some good news.  I am tired of surfing Ebay for the final touches of my Halloween costume.

    They guy above should have used FedEx, they aren't controlled by the Fed and it's a hell of a lot cheaper.


    A most welcome and overdue injection (none / 0) (#12)
    by brodie on Tue Oct 18, 2011 at 10:44:22 AM EST
    of truth and historical accuracy occurred this morning when Axelrod directly confronted Morning Joe about his recent Orwellian rewriting of history when Joe interviewed Bill Clinton and tried to assert that the Repubs and Bill managed to work things out responsibly despite their differences, in stark contrast to today's bitter partisan gridlock.  

    Axe reminded Joe about those two govt shutdowns the GOP leadership arranged and of course that little matter of impeaching Bill.  Joe sheepishly conceded that the GOP-Clinton relationship wasn't always perfect, and he looked like someone whose little lie job had just been exposed.

    I'm sure Clinton himself was taken aback by Scarbro's bizarre historical revisionism, but perhaps didn't want to bring up the obvious points Axe raised for fear of getting mired in the Monica mess again.

    truly amazing (none / 0) (#25)
    by ruffian on Tue Oct 18, 2011 at 11:57:43 AM EST
    Not to mention - the GOP said he had his best friend Vince Foster killed, for crying out loud. How's that for a great working relationship with the opposing party?



    The First President to Have to Deal with... (none / 0) (#48)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Oct 18, 2011 at 01:47:00 PM EST
     ...the internets, and the conspirators.

    I haven't read/heard the phrase 'Clinton Body Count' in some time, ahhh good times.

    Beyond that there were literally thousands of non-nonsensical rumors/conspiracies and just general ugliness in regards to all the Clintons.


    And no need for any of it... (none / 0) (#63)
    by kdog on Tue Oct 18, 2011 at 02:35:17 PM EST
    three words evoke enough very real ugly.  

    Barry F*ckin' McCaffery.  

    Firing Jocelyn Elders for (gasp!) dropping science as Surgeon General was pretty ugly too.

    Oh yeah, that sh*t was beautiful to the right wingers...never mind, carry on:)


    Its all about the children. (none / 0) (#13)
    by KeysDan on Tue Oct 18, 2011 at 10:53:23 AM EST
    Speaking at a news conference at the American Embassy in Kampala, Uganda, Virginia Blaser, charge d'affaires, said armed advising operations would start this month and did not have a deadline; we are prepared to do what we need to do, she continued,  it is only part of a long-term strategy.

    Most of the 100 military advisers being sent to Uganda to hunt down the Lord's Resistance Army (LRA) will stay in Uganda--a country in which the LRA has not attacked in years--since 2005, according to the Uganda military.  The US has tried to help before in central Africa, 2008-2009, but it was deemed a failure since the LRA guerillas  dispersed into small groups and carried out retaliatory attacks killing up to 900 civilians.

    Ms. Blaser did note the risks, but underscored that  it is all about the civilians.  She dismissed questions about whether Americans would be used to secure American interests in Uganda's nascent oil industry or to fight Islamist extremists in the region.  The role is "LRA-specific".

    Ms. Blaser was not asked about the possibility of curbing the influence of China, propping up Uganda's strong man, or pleasing Senator Inhoff (R. OK) who has a special evangelical Christian relationship with the deadly anti-gay Ugandan regime.

    Found out I have an online poker rating (none / 0) (#14)
    by Dadler on Tue Oct 18, 2011 at 10:53:58 AM EST
    Rated A-2 in tournament play (LINK), not too shabby.  When I play live at the WPT Jacksonville Main Event next month, who the phuck knows what that rating will mean.  If these bastards at ClubWPT dot com would verify and process my W-9 already so I can make my travel plans, grrrrr.  I'm starting to get that feeling I had when I was worried FullTilt wasn't going to pay me the thousands I'd won last year.  But...they paid, so these "sweepstakes" SOBs better contact me soon or I'm sicking my hungry lawyer buddy on them.  Tent, you ready?  Just kidding, I got my own counsel. ;-)

    If, err when, you make the final table... (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by kdog on Tue Oct 18, 2011 at 11:30:09 AM EST
    you better let me know, I will have to catch a Greyhound and join the Roy L. Flush cheering section.

    When, baby, when (none / 0) (#24)
    by Dadler on Tue Oct 18, 2011 at 11:57:03 AM EST
    Gotta at least finish in the money to cover the taxes on the whole thing.  So it's tight as a drum, tighter than a nun's ace if I have to.  Whenever I made the money, unless I get the chocolate covered nuts early on (and the requisite crappy opponent/s) and stack up easily a few times, it's always that patience that gets me to the end, it's the outlast factor, grind city.  I got the time.  Unless, my nightmare, I'm just card dead.  Either way, the luck's gotta be with you when you need it or all strategy is out the door.  After all...it's friggin' cards!  Only 52 in that god*amn deck, sh*t happens.  All da time. Then again, I may just pull an Albert Brooks from BROADCAST NEWS and perspire my way right outta there. (LINK)

    Barney Frank is making sense (none / 0) (#15)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Tue Oct 18, 2011 at 11:07:24 AM EST
    "Yes, I hope there will be pressure to do even more, but I, again, want to be honest, simply being in a public place and voicing your opinion in and of itself doesn't do anything politically. It is the prerequisite, I hope, for people getting together and voting and engaging things. And I understand some of the people on occupy Wall Street are kind of critical of that. They think that's conventional politics. Well, you know, the most successful organization in America in getting its views adopted is the national rifle association. They are in many cases a minority. But in addition to everything else they do, they very effectively identify who the members of the congress are, the legislatures and vote for them.

    So as I said, I welcome the Wall Street energy. I don't agree with everything some of the people say. I agree with the general thrust of it. It's not self-executing. It has to be translated into political activity if it's going to have the impact. You know, I would just say, the last thing; we had an election last year in which people who disagree with them, and disagree with me and with you, got elected. I want to be honest again here. I don't know what the voting behavior is of all these people, but I'm a little bit unhappy when people didn't vote last time blame me for the consequences of their not voting."

    Barney left out... (5.00 / 2) (#16)
    by kdog on Tue Oct 18, 2011 at 11:13:59 AM EST
    "make the check out to the Barney Frank Campaign Fund."

    Ya had the senate, the house and the presidency Barney...what did you execute?

    But he's right more of us need to start voting...for somebody without a D or R after their name.  


    We did not (none / 0) (#32)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Tue Oct 18, 2011 at 12:55:27 PM EST
    Blue Dogs are not us.

    Then why does the DNC... (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by kdog on Tue Oct 18, 2011 at 01:17:11 PM EST
    allow Blue Dogs to put the D after their names?

    They Would Put a 'D' on a Dog if Got the... (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Oct 18, 2011 at 01:57:08 PM EST
    ... procedural benefits of holding the majority.

    Last time I checked, the Dems don't give a damn what you stand for so long as you wear what seems more like a scarlet letter than a party affiliation D.

    That being said, I am not agreeing with ABG.  I have no idea who he keeps referring to when he says 'us', but it must be some group that has his same views, they just don't happen to comment here.


    Simple answers to simple questions... (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by kdog on Tue Oct 18, 2011 at 02:15:32 PM EST
    "procedural benefits"...Thank you Scott.

    Who cares which lobbies you carry water for, join Brand D, so Brand D House Speaker and Senate Majority Leader get the corner office with the window.


    Us = Dems (none / 0) (#64)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Tue Oct 18, 2011 at 02:35:45 PM EST
    I am apparently one of the only folks here proud to call myself one without reservation.

    Dems are just as evil as the GOP to many here. Not me.  I stand by the good guys.


    Not evil... (5.00 / 1) (#88)
    by kdog on Tue Oct 18, 2011 at 03:23:56 PM EST
    just workin' for far too few of "we the people", hence pretty useless.  

    PS...I'd keep that "proud" bit down if I was you...at least say affiliated due to lack of options you find feasible, I may disagree but it is more reasonable.  Brand D is Mudd but your name need not be:)


    I Think You Are the Only Soul That Equates... (5.00 / 2) (#107)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Oct 18, 2011 at 04:02:03 PM EST
    ...good guys with this crop of Democrats.  I suppose that's why you aren't really understanding the OWS.

    I just think it's a bit of a misnomer to use the word 'us' when I can't think of anyone that agrees with you.

    Sucks because you used to really contribute and I liked reading your posts, but now, they are just too much, too disconnected from the reality.


    No he's not the only one (5.00 / 2) (#117)
    by sj on Tue Oct 18, 2011 at 04:22:20 PM EST
    I'm pretty sure christinep still thinks they're good guys.  

    So on the one hand we have the "whipper-snapper" who has a story and he's sticking to it.  But then, he's relatively young and he doesn't know any better, bless his heart.

    And then we have christinep who is a veteran and still sees the party through the lenses she put on long ago.*

    These are two examples and I'm sure they represent more than themselves.  I'm sure they represent a segment of the voting population.  But they surely do not represent me.  While I think they themselves are (as are we all) just points in a larger spectrum, I don't sit anywhere between those two points.  I'm holding out for "demonstrably better than" not just "not as bad as."

    That's the broader note.  
    * these descriptions are shorthand.  I know they don't tell the full picture.


    You are correct...in part (none / 0) (#133)
    by christinep on Tue Oct 18, 2011 at 07:04:19 PM EST
    Yes, sj...and, I'll gladly accept your shorthand description that I regard the Democrats, even today, as the "good guys."  Not the absence of bad, not the least of the bad, not the only acceptable alternative...but, as the good guys.  That does not mean that I don't appreciate your quest & drive for the best of the bestest; in fact, push harder, please.  It is the incrementalist part of me that urges me onward.

    There are so many improvements that I would love to see. Yet, in strong probability, that desire will have to survive me (as a veteran, so to speak.)  One thing that may change more than this national conversation that we have all been stuck in for so long is the convergence of factors that has resulted in the Occupy movement. I want it to succeed.  IMO, it is the best chance for us all to address the outlandish disparity in $$$ between the top and the rest...and, people are aware. One anecdote: I returned recently from spending some eye-opening time in Virginia (visiting a cousin & her Repub husband)...the Repub husband did not turn from OWS as he was interested & supportive & understanding...to the point that a feather would have knocked me over.

    Things do change. They may take longer than we would like. Perspective or not, they do change.  And, you are right that I am still a believer.


    I want the Occupy movement (none / 0) (#136)
    by sj on Wed Oct 19, 2011 at 12:17:06 AM EST
    to succeed also.  It has the first thing that has recharged my batteries in a very, very long time.  And I'm glad that (at least so far) they have managed to stay outside of the party machine.

    This is really funny (5.00 / 1) (#123)
    by MO Blue on Tue Oct 18, 2011 at 04:45:09 PM EST
    Since your hero avoids mentioning that he is a member of the Democratic Party unless he is attending a fund raiser.



    Good guys? Double the Afghan Death Count Obama? (none / 0) (#134)
    by Mr Natural on Tue Oct 18, 2011 at 08:58:21 PM EST
    That's right.  Obama has consigned to their death twice as many Americans in Afghanistan as George Dubya Bushleague.



    Because (none / 0) (#62)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Tue Oct 18, 2011 at 02:34:34 PM EST
    It get them leadership and certain powers in congress and helps in marketing.

    Not really concerned about what it gets (5.00 / 3) (#79)
    by Anne on Tue Oct 18, 2011 at 03:06:39 PM EST
    "them;" maybe it escaped your attention, but many of us are less concerned with the benefits "they" derive than the ones we voted for/gave money in support of/were "promised" (via an actual platform) for our support in pursuit of that all-important majority.

    And, just so we're clear, no, I don't align myself with this new Democratic Party.


    I Dropped the D From My name a While Back (5.00 / 1) (#110)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Oct 18, 2011 at 04:05:43 PM EST
    I will always be a liberal and when the D's decide to get back to liberalism, I put the D back on and wear it like ABG, loud and proud.

    But, but . . . marketing! (none / 0) (#85)
    by Towanda on Tue Oct 18, 2011 at 03:19:26 PM EST
    See what happens when we don't buy his stuff?

    We're hurting the marketing of Brand D!  

    Next thing you know, Brand D will be on markdown and on the clearance shelf.

    Oh, wait. . . .


    Yep (none / 0) (#80)
    by sj on Tue Oct 18, 2011 at 03:08:28 PM EST
    That's what it (courting Blue Dogs) gets them.  But it sure hasn't done anything for us.

    Does this mean that soon you will be leaving (5.00 / 0) (#20)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Oct 18, 2011 at 11:26:45 AM EST
    us alone then?

    but I, again, want to be honest, simply being in a public place and voicing your opinion in and of itself doesn't do anything politically

    Jess sayin


    ha! And I want to be honest Barney, (5.00 / 6) (#26)
    by ruffian on Tue Oct 18, 2011 at 11:59:33 AM EST
    voting for most of you Dems does not do anything politically either.

    As Glenn said in the post BTD linked to (5.00 / 2) (#28)
    by Anne on Tue Oct 18, 2011 at 12:13:36 PM EST
    in the prior thread:

    In other words, it's undemocratic to protest oligarchic rule; if these protesters truly believed in democracy, they would raise a few million dollars, hire lobbying firms filled with ex-political officials, purchase access to and influence over political leaders, and then use their financial clout to extract the outcomes they want. Instead, they're attempting to persuade their fellow citizens that we live under oligarchy, that our democratic institutions are corrupted and broken, and that fundamental change is urgent -- an activity which, according to Applebaum [in Slate], will "simply weaken the [political system] further."


    The existing system is working just fine for Barney Frank and Anne Applebaum and Bill Keller and all the others who have chimed in to tell OWS that they're not doing protest the right way, which is why they are writing op-eds and blog posts and going on the TV and radio to trivialize and mock and demonize, and throw in a little bastardization of the Constitution while they're at it.  

    Politicians like Frank feel threatened; they want the fight on their turf, their way, because after years of the citizenry more or less passively allowing them to do as they pleased, they have come to feel they own the democracy - and OWS is here to tell them otherwise.  The pundits and the op-ed writers?  Well, they're feeling threatened, too, because whatever threatens the powerful they have so dutifully served, also threatens them.

    As for Barney Frank taking umbrage at people he assumes did not vote having the temerity to blame him - how does he answer those who did vote and who haven't gotten what they thought they were voting for?  

    Barney Frank is fighting for Barney Frank, for the life of power and privilege to which he feels entitled, and which has been made possible to a great extent by those sitting in corporate boardrooms and corner offices on Wall Street and in other financial centers, who have donated generously in order to safeguard their own lives of power and privilege.  The people?  They have been merely tools, willing dupes who go to the polls and cast votes based on who is marginally better in the shrinking hope that "this time" will actually be better.

    As if.  Which is entirely the point of the Occupy movement; I feel kind of sorry for those who still don't get it.


    I love Barney (5.00 / 2) (#40)
    by CST on Tue Oct 18, 2011 at 01:31:16 PM EST
    this is a bit silly "I don't know what the voting behavior is of all these people, but I'm a little bit unhappy when people didn't vote last time blame me for the consequences of their not voting"

    since he won his re-election.  What people are missing here is that I don't think this is actually all about him keeping power.  He wants the house back because this house is TERRIBLE.  Fair enough, that's a worthy goal.  

    The thing is, that has to be the goal of the Democratic party.  Politicians keep trying to tell OWS what they need to be about.  But they have it backwards.  OWS is telling politicians what they need to be about.  OWS has it's thing, and yes, they should be voting, everyone should be voting.  But it's up to the politicians to get people to vote for them, it's not up to the protesters to push a party.  They are pushing a movement.  It's up to a party to adopt that movement in order to get the votes.


    What happened to the secret ballot (none / 0) (#17)
    by Towanda on Tue Oct 18, 2011 at 11:15:19 AM EST
    in Massachusetts?  Mr. Frank knows whether people voted?  And this is an admission of infiltration of OWS, that he knows who is at OWS events and can match them to their voting records.  

    That's what I call a buried lede.  You've got breaking news there.


    what? (none / 0) (#41)
    by CST on Tue Oct 18, 2011 at 01:32:02 PM EST
    "I don't know what the voting behavior is of all these people"

    So that you do not quote (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by Towanda on Tue Oct 18, 2011 at 01:41:08 PM EST
    the rest of the sentence is, what, just a booboo?

    I'm a little bit unhappy when people didn't vote last time blame me for the consequences of their not voting.

    I Would Add (5.00 / 2) (#55)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Oct 18, 2011 at 02:12:00 PM EST
    Who is Frank to tell me I have to vote when the options are dumb and dumber.  The net results will be relatively the same, they give us two choices, then tell us we can't complain when we decide that neither choice is worthy of support.

    I would add those choices are bought and paid for by big money long before voters have any say, much less a vote.

    Frank could pull 100% of the vote, that doesn't mean the economy would be utopic.  Then what would his shtick be, "I am horses A that is incapable of accepting any sort of blame", or blame it on the R's.

    Either way it will never be a politicians fault that people are hungry, jobless, and homeless.


    I read that (none / 0) (#113)
    by CST on Tue Oct 18, 2011 at 04:13:19 PM EST
    and felt that by cutting out the first half of it you were misrepresenting, I didn't feel the need to rewrite that part since you pretty much had it covered.  Taken as a whole it's a confusing statement, but he clearly said the opposite of what you were describing as well and to ignore it felt disengenuous.

    Although that's probably already too much thought going into a back@sswards statement on my part.


    We need more from Barney (none / 0) (#54)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Oct 18, 2011 at 02:07:48 PM EST
    it seems to me.

    He seems to think he is entitled to votes.

    A terrible statement from him.

    Just awful.


    So the Dems think they will control (none / 0) (#94)
    by loveed on Tue Oct 18, 2011 at 03:36:18 PM EST
    OWS it won't work. Just ask the repubs..They thought they could control the tea party.
     These groups of American are fed up. Most have already lost everything homes,jobs,retirement funds,health care.. There future and there kids look bleak.
     There against the dems, and what they stand for.
    The dems. was given a lot of power and they squander it. In fact the dems. have made it worse.
      There watching the repub. primary race, they don't want Romney either. And the thought of Cain is a joke. They know why Cain is getting so much publicity. The media decide who get exposure and who don't.
     For every one person participating in these protest, there are thousands who feel the same way. They will be a powerful voting block. And if they get their act together, and join the tea party movement (they have a lot in common), they will be unstoppable.

    Looking forward to the release next week (none / 0) (#18)
    by brodie on Tue Oct 18, 2011 at 11:17:37 AM EST
    of the movie Anonymous which depicts the authorship controversy re Shakespeare vs the likely real author Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford.  Roland Emmerich is the director, which I consider a mixed blessing.  There will also be an accompanying doc film that will further flesh out the controversy.

    From what I recall reading about this issue briefly back in the 90s, it wouldn't surprise me at all if "Shakespeare" was really a ruse concocted by a court insider with literary talent like Oxford.

    Except that, apparently,the Earl of Oxford (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by shoephone on Tue Oct 18, 2011 at 12:22:39 PM EST
    was only eleven years old when Shakespeare's plays were starting to be written...

    I've never bought into any of the "Somebody else wrote Shakespeare's works" theories. But the movie looks fun. I'll probably go see it... for it's entertainment value.


    My daughter and I have always (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Oct 18, 2011 at 01:04:56 PM EST
    enjoyed Shakespeare's works, Joshua isn't quite there yet in his reading skills.  I didn't know this movie was out though until he told me about it, and it was cute because he was very excited about it.  We have a few books around here though that I guess it is assumed that everyone will eventually get around to reading.  The expectation has brushed off on him.  I'll be going to see it with him. Shakespeare was such an anomaly of a talent there seems to literally be no end to the ways you can enjoy and be entertained by Shakespeare to include even the idea of who/what was Shakespeare.  My whole family was gaga about Shakespeare in Love for a bit.

    yes (none / 0) (#102)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Oct 18, 2011 at 03:56:53 PM EST
    Sounds like that chronology you allege (none / 0) (#49)
    by brodie on Tue Oct 18, 2011 at 01:47:08 PM EST
    would be the one and only clincher that would dispose neatly of the Oxfordian claims.  But I doubt if the facts are quite as simple and dispositive -- or as accurate -- as you allege.  

    In fact, the official line has the first "Shakespeare" plays written or produced/published in the 1589-1594 period (per wiki), at which time Edward de Vere (b. 1550) would have been in his late 30s/40s.

    So I think you're off a bit in your age timeline.



    Maybe my timeline is off (none / 0) (#51)
    by shoephone on Tue Oct 18, 2011 at 01:51:54 PM EST
    I'll have to double check. But, really, you believe these theories? They've been going around for so many years and nobody has proved a thing. Sounds like a silly parlor game to me.

    Well you say (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by brodie on Tue Oct 18, 2011 at 02:21:15 PM EST
    "you believe these theories?" as if I'm alleging that Obama secretly meets with Pleiadian extraterrestrials in the WH. The controversy has been around since at least the early 19th C, and some notable writers, artists and intellectuals have weighed in expressing grave doubts about Will Shakspere being the actual author (though not all skeptics are Oxfordians).  

    Among the anti-Stratfordian doubters I hereby associate myself with:  Henry James.  Mark Twain. Sig Freud.  Historian David McCulloch.  SupCt Js Harry Blackmun and John Paul Stevens.  Actors:  Sir John Gielgud.  Orson Welles.  Jeremy Irons. Sir Derek Jacoby.  Michael York.  And ex artistic director of the Globe Theater Mark Ryland.

    Silly parlor game for some perhaps, but it's been the subject of numerous serious books, lengthy journal articles (including one in The Atlantic that made a big splash back a decade or so), and at least one major PBS production ("Frontline" from the late 1980s, iirc).  Also there was a mock trial of the issue before some fed judges and legal notables back years ago -- which was the occasion for Justices Blackmun and Stevens


    Aw c'mon shoephone (none / 0) (#67)
    by sj on Tue Oct 18, 2011 at 02:39:48 PM EST
    Why are you trying to take the fun out of watching the movie?  

    And what's wrong with a little speculation on this matter?  :)  True, these kinds of debates are more fun in person for all that additional nuance, but still...


    IN a post-filming interview, Derek Jacobi (none / 0) (#95)
    by oculus on Tue Oct 18, 2011 at 03:40:24 PM EST
    says he isn't neutral on the question of whether "Shakespeare" wrote the plays attributed to him.  Jacobi thinks "Shakespeare" is a pseudonym and Stratford will consider this heresy. Surprising.

    I'd like to read that interview (none / 0) (#118)
    by sj on Tue Oct 18, 2011 at 04:24:14 PM EST
    If I remember, I'll try to hunt it down.

    Here: (none / 0) (#119)
    by oculus on Tue Oct 18, 2011 at 04:34:14 PM EST
    Thanks! (none / 0) (#126)
    by sj on Tue Oct 18, 2011 at 04:56:43 PM EST
    I love this site.

    Me take the fun out of it? (none / 0) (#98)
    by shoephone on Tue Oct 18, 2011 at 03:49:18 PM EST
    Hardly. I'm looking forward to seeing it, because I think it is going to be very fun entertainment. Apparently, others don't think it's fun, they think it's deadly serious. And that's fine. To each their own. Ain't nothin' been proved by anyone yet, that's all I'm sayin'. Sure seems to have risen a few hackles!

    Oh, heck (5.00 / 3) (#111)
    by Zorba on Tue Oct 18, 2011 at 04:05:49 PM EST
    as far as I'm concerned, I don't really care who actually wrote the plays, as long as they were written.  Somebody was brilliant.  I enjoy the plays for their own worth.

    Hey no hackles in the raised (none / 0) (#120)
    by brodie on Tue Oct 18, 2011 at 04:35:19 PM EST
    position here.  I thought I was having some fun batting away the usual objections on the authorship matter while noting for my edification how few -- if any -- of my fellow TLers are with me on the firm anti-Stratfordian position.

    No this isn't the sort of serious issue that amounts to some grave matter that must be resolved for the sake of justice and democracy but it is a little weightier than the usual parlor games involving historical figures.  I mean we are talking about who wrote the most acclaimed works in the English language.  So a little more important and fruitful a topic for discussion than, say, whether William Blake was always the sole author of his poetry or whether he got some helpful input from those "angel" voices he claimed he heard inside his head (yes Blake actually said that).

    Enjoyed the exchange here and look forward to not only figurethe Emmerich entertainment movie but also to the documentary that's going to be released.  And, yes, I do enjoy watching as yet another major myth is exposed for the fairy tale it is.


    Apparently the film director has provided (none / 0) (#121)
    by oculus on Tue Oct 18, 2011 at 04:35:36 PM EST
    info packets for schools, lesson plans, etc.  That's a bit much, IMO.  

    Not sure why there would (none / 0) (#129)
    by brodie on Tue Oct 18, 2011 at 05:20:42 PM EST
    be objection to helping teachers and students learn more.  It also seems like a good way to stimulate interest in "Shakespeare", someone whose works many students find remote or difficult.

    To me, it seems a better educational (none / 0) (#131)
    by oculus on Tue Oct 18, 2011 at 05:45:09 PM EST
    goal to have the students read the plays and discuss them.  

    I saw a t-shirt that settles this debate (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by Towanda on Tue Oct 18, 2011 at 01:06:35 PM EST
    once and for all.

    The t-shirt has the familar face of Willy Shakespeare with this quote:

    "This s!it writes itself."


    Looking forward to it too (none / 0) (#53)
    by ruffian on Tue Oct 18, 2011 at 01:59:44 PM EST
    and have my expectations for truth set by its classification as a "thriller".

    I've read a fair amount of the stuff about the de Vere theories - some of it is convincing, some of it not so much. I always remain convinced it is not true, and Shakespeare was the bard from Stratford-on-Avon.

    There are several good books on the subject - a lighter overview is Bull Bryson's, but I cannot think of the title. another James Shapiro's A Year int he Life of William Shakespeare -1599 about the world events that shaped he play written in that period. Shows you did not have to be an earl to have the needed information to write the plays.


    We all grew up hearing (none / 0) (#60)
    by brodie on Tue Oct 18, 2011 at 02:27:23 PM EST
    Will Shakspere as the author -- that notion gets implanted early and often, and is hard to shake loose of as it becomes a settled matter or established paradigm.

    Yet the actual evidence for his authorship is quite weak,and relies in part on its being repeated as fact over the past 400 yrs.  Not much there really, just a bunch of "might haves' and "could haves" and "almost certainly must haves", as opposed to solid evidence.

    And the class-based argument about a commoner vs a nobleman always gets thrown out defensively by Stratfordians, much as Repubs like to use the "class warfare" argument today against anyone putting up objections to their economic policies favoring the rich.  Sorry, not buying it.  You needed specialized and inside knowledge at times to write what was published -- not somethign WS would have had access to ...  


    I revisit it again every few years (none / 0) (#78)
    by ruffian on Tue Oct 18, 2011 at 03:02:33 PM EST
    Will do so again since the movie will surely spark up a few more articles and remind me of the evidence.

    Wait, what? (none / 0) (#59)
    by Zorba on Tue Oct 18, 2011 at 02:26:50 PM EST
    I thought that Shakespeare was really Joseph Fiennes.......   ;-)

    Well, he is in my fantasies! (5.00 / 1) (#76)
    by ruffian on Tue Oct 18, 2011 at 03:00:50 PM EST
    Well, he's certainly (none / 0) (#81)
    by Zorba on Tue Oct 18, 2011 at 03:14:21 PM EST
    in one of mine!  Even though he's young enough to be my son- maybe I should say "ick," but heck, if men can go around with women young enough to be their daughters and receive no opprobrium, I claim equal rights for women!    ;-)

    I do wonder (5.00 / 1) (#109)
    by Zorba on Tue Oct 18, 2011 at 04:02:07 PM EST
    if the groom was 38 and the bride was 22, whether mom would have had the same reaction.  Maybe she would have, but I bet not as much!  As far as I'm concerned, I don't give a royal rat's patootie what the ages of the couple are, as long as they're happy.

    Donald, (none / 0) (#125)
    by Zorba on Tue Oct 18, 2011 at 04:52:35 PM EST
    you've got it exactly right!  Adults should be able to make up their own minds.

    When my brother was just out of college (5.00 / 1) (#124)
    by ruffian on Tue Oct 18, 2011 at 04:51:41 PM EST
    he started dating his old jr high school teacher. He was 23, she was 42. I know that dagger throwing mother's face well from my own mom. Wow. He was the youngest of us, and the only one to have a spotless record with Mom up to that point. The golden child. The relationship lasted about 2 years, long enough to outlast poor mom. I do feel sorry for her going to the grave with that anger.

    Well, my mom (5.00 / 1) (#130)
    by Zorba on Tue Oct 18, 2011 at 05:41:02 PM EST
    went to her grave, not angry really, but extremely sad, because one of my brothers was gay.  I'm sorry about your mom, ruffian.  My feeling is, once the kids are adults, you can approve or not approve of whatever the heck they are doing, but it's up to them.

    But think of poor Demi. On her birthday! (none / 0) (#86)
    by oculus on Tue Oct 18, 2011 at 03:21:59 PM EST
    LOL! (none / 0) (#89)
    by Zorba on Tue Oct 18, 2011 at 03:27:01 PM EST

    Ha! And I see that Reggie Middleton (none / 0) (#19)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Oct 18, 2011 at 11:24:42 AM EST
    has named Goldman Sachs the world's first FDIC insured hedge fund.

    Wall Street Reax (none / 0) (#33)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Tue Oct 18, 2011 at 12:58:28 PM EST
    So this would be the time to support the dems for standing up, right:

    "After the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee sent a recent email urging supporters to sign a petition backing the wave of Occupy Wall Street protests, phones at the party committee started ringing.

    Banking executives personally called the offices of DCCC Chairman Steve Israel (D-N.Y.) and DCCC Finance Chairman Joe Crowley (D-N.Y.) last week demanding answers, three financial services lobbyists told POLITICO."


    This is the part where we stop griping about the Dems being secret conservatives and back them up.  Those who want Dems to separate from Wall Street need to step up with their pocketbooks open and work to make up the difference, IMHO.

    How is getting a phone call (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by Towanda on Tue Oct 18, 2011 at 01:10:10 PM EST
    standing up?

    That's not Dems taking action.  That's bankers taking actions.

    I need to know a bit more, such as . . . hmm, what the answers were from Dems?

    I'll know that, of course, when I see what Dems actually DO.

    I vote on actions, not just words.  Or just phones ringing.  

    (One hopes, of course, that those bankers did not have those Dems' phone numbers already on speed-dial.)


    They--right or left or in-between--notice (none / 0) (#46)
    by christinep on Tue Oct 18, 2011 at 01:41:31 PM EST
    the phone calls. Just like we notice the number of demonstrators/protestors/participants in causes that we support.  So...if the big money starts to put the pressure on through selected phone calls, a noticeable & real way to counter is with the numbers that the 99% have & that the 1%, by definition, do not.

    While the "phone call" seems minor, thousands of calls to a Congressional office takes on a major tone. (In local offices here, I can assure you that they do keep tabs about incoming calls...and tally them.) It isn't everything--as you incicate, Towanda--but it is something. And, at the very least, it is a counter to the more sideways calls from the $$$ guys. Just like the Occupiers are starting to affect the political language in more positive tones, the calls in the big numbers can & do have an effect on votes.


    So if you know the answer (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by Towanda on Tue Oct 18, 2011 at 01:45:14 PM EST
    to my question, as to what the DEMS DID, what they answered, do tell.

    Yeh, yeh, phone calls matter . . . that's why my Congresspersons count phone calls.  But they never seem to attend to the CONTENT, not the count, nor do they act on it.

    I'm done with phone calls.  I have yet to see my phone calls, the content of my phone calls, actually have an effect on votes.

    I'm done with donations for the same reason.

    I'm marching.


    Dems have done (none / 0) (#68)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Tue Oct 18, 2011 at 02:42:37 PM EST
    a massive amount.  But there is no sense in trying to provide a logical argument to you on this because you will not be persuaded. The narrative is final and unchangeable for you no matter how many counters I provide.

    My only request: understand that when you say "the dems haven't done anything" understand that I will have a standing and continuing objection to that statement.

    It is not a fact. It is your opinion.  And the fact that I don't agree doesn't mean I am simple or stupid or unread or ignorant or any of the other unique names Anne uses on people who disagree.

    It just means that we have two different opinions about the same set of facts. I am not crapping on anyone's opinion.  I expect the same.


    My request is that you stop making up stuff (5.00 / 1) (#73)
    by Towanda on Tue Oct 18, 2011 at 02:57:17 PM EST
    and putting it in quotes and claiming that I said it.  Really, ABG, that cr*p works in oral debate but is just stupid in this case, when all can see.

    I have quite clearly stated what will persuade me.  

    You again do your deflection cr*p and do not address what I have said.  You again make up stuff.

    And of course, what I stated is my opinion.  Well, duh.  And what you have stated is your opinion, because it certainly is not fact, even when you claim that it's what I said.

    You're really bad at this.  You have a brain; use it to actually reply rather than to just spew.


    Okay...into the breach for me (none / 0) (#83)
    by christinep on Tue Oct 18, 2011 at 03:16:11 PM EST
    ABG made a decent point, IMO. Of course, you & he & myself too are all about opinions. That is what the conversation of a blog really is all about in many ways. What gets me here, Towanda is the jumping-all-over response you wrote in reply. The proportion seems off...unless that is the point: Mash someone so hard when they disagree that only the few will have the temerity to challenge. That is my opinion only.

    I'm not the one who jumped all over (5.00 / 1) (#87)
    by Towanda on Tue Oct 18, 2011 at 03:22:32 PM EST
    -- just show me where he replied to what I said.

    What I said.  Not what he said I said.


    And anyone who misquotes me (5.00 / 1) (#92)
    by Towanda on Tue Oct 18, 2011 at 03:30:33 PM EST
    gets mashed.

    You don't do that, so I'm not mashing you on that.

    But misquoting someone, putting words in their mouth, crosses a significant line with me.

    It is the ultimate in dishonesty in debating.  For that, he can literally go to h*ll, of course; his problem.  But it is an utter waste of cyberspace and others' time, so others here have called him on it -- because it lowers the level of discussion on this blog, fills it with deflection as well as dishonesty.  

    That dishonesty is disrespect of so many others here, wasting the time and deflecting the discussion by very good commenters here whom others of us keep returning to read.

    ABG does it a lot.  I've called him on it before, as have many others, minus the mashing.

    Not that this is me at my mashing best.

    He keeps it up, he'll see that.


    While I do not see what you see here (none / 0) (#135)
    by christinep on Tue Oct 18, 2011 at 09:51:17 PM EST
    your clarification is appreciated. And, I must admit: I'll try not to get in the way of your "mashing best."

    Newsflash: They're politicians! (5.00 / 2) (#38)
    by shoephone on Tue Oct 18, 2011 at 01:12:16 PM EST
    And they're doing what politicians do -- glomming on to something they think will get them re-elected! Apparently, Barney Frank didn't get the memo, so I guess "The Dems" still isn't one with the OWS protestors. But that DCCC ploy ain't gonna work.

    It's just sad how you refuse to get the message of what's going on around you. Hint: It's not about supporting political parties that have consistently screwed us over in the recent past...


    The Dems (5.00 / 1) (#66)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Tue Oct 18, 2011 at 02:39:26 PM EST
    Haven't screwed me over. I think the majority of what the dems have accomplished in the last 30 years has been incredibly positive and that anyone abandoning the democrats based on unhappiness in the last 3 years is very shortsighted.

    Shorter: I disagree with your fundamental assumption and this has nothing to do with my "inferior" ability to understand anything.

    It has to do with the very different historical perspectives we have on politics.

    My scope is not the last 36 months and is particularly not 100% focused solely on the defined list of tasks you demand that they take.


    Yeah, we sure do have (5.00 / 4) (#106)
    by shoephone on Tue Oct 18, 2011 at 04:00:16 PM EST
    different historical perspectives. Considering that I'm a woman and that I'm quite a bit older than you and have been politically active since before you were born.

    But you're a creature of a generation that has never really known anything but a craven Democratic party in a corrupt government that has been completely owned by Wall Street.

    These Dems have screwed me and mine seven ways from Sunday and, frankly, all your elitist, out of touch cr*p means as little to me as your entire bank of comments.


    No mention, apparently, of what I would (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by Anne on Tue Oct 18, 2011 at 01:37:54 PM EST
    guess to be thousands and thousands of calls that have been made and e-mails, faxes and letters that have been sent to Democrats from sea to shining sea for years - and which continue to be made/sent, demanding answers on jobs, health care, war, cuts to the safety net... ::crickets, anyone?::

    The DCCC sees the campaign cash and vote value in "supporting" the Occupy movement - what a surprise!  Wouldn't shock me if the DCCC's e-mail wasn't the end result of some very worrisome internal polling that shows Dems bleeding support - and cash.

    Stand up for "say anything" Dems?  I have to see some standing up done on my behalf first.

    And don't give me this we-never-had-a-majority crap; maybe you don't remember the drive to elect Democrats from red states, and the sales pitch that expressly promoted that majority we needed so badly - but I sure do.    


    Exactly. Our calls, our donations (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by Towanda on Tue Oct 18, 2011 at 01:48:09 PM EST
    elected alleged Dems who do not support the party platform and principles.

    Some can call 'em by the names of a nice, soft color, if they want.  What I call those so-called Dems is not allowed here.

    The DNCC push for Casey got me started.  And nothing it has done since has stopped me from stopping my donations.  

    They're part of the 1 percent.  They can support themselves.  I'm supporting my jobless family.


    Well, on the plus side, Anne (none / 0) (#61)
    by Zorba on Tue Oct 18, 2011 at 02:32:53 PM EST
    It looks like both of us may well lose Roscoe Bartlett as our US Congressman- you because you'll be in another district altogether, and me because Western Maryland's long-time vote for Roscoe is going to be swamped by the votes from Montgomery County.  (Hey, I'm willing to take any little bitty smidgin of a ray of sunshine I can get at this point.)  The redistricting isn't a done deal ye, but it's looking hopeful.

    Israel is my rep... (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by kdog on Tue Oct 18, 2011 at 01:40:32 PM EST
    I hope we're paying him to do more for us than urge us to sign a petition of support for OWS, we already support OWS, we don't need no stinkin' state the obvious petition.  

    Open our pocketbooks? The main point of the whole shebang is our pocketbooks have been bleed dry.  Open our pocketbooks...that's a knee-slapper ABG.  They should seperate from Wall St. as part of their f*ckin' jobs representing their districts...not because we can match Wall St. dollar for dollar, not that we ever could.  


    No Offense (none / 0) (#58)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Oct 18, 2011 at 02:26:45 PM EST
    Without WS, no one gets elected, unless you think the people can fund Obama's billion dollar re-election campaign, which I assume will be fairly evenly matched by Romney.

    If I were to guess, that would be like every working person tossing in around $150 to either campaign.  That's not including the endless mailings, commercials, and all the other cash it takes to get someone elected.

    Then add in the near 500 members of Congress and your proposal is truly mind numbing.  Which of course is the heart of all of this:

    The 99% can't afford to buy representation the 1% can.

    Wake up ABG.


    Scott (none / 0) (#69)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Tue Oct 18, 2011 at 02:44:03 PM EST
    Let's say you are right and that no one could be elected without WS money.

    Are you suggesting that Obama and other politicians refuse the money and lose out of principle?


    It would be nice (5.00 / 3) (#71)
    by sj on Tue Oct 18, 2011 at 02:49:19 PM EST
    if they did something out of principle.

    Beaut of a line. (5.00 / 0) (#74)
    by Towanda on Tue Oct 18, 2011 at 02:59:01 PM EST
    Worthy of a sign at an OWS event.

    Let's put it in quotes and claim that ABG said it!


    I don't care about (none / 0) (#75)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Tue Oct 18, 2011 at 02:59:16 PM EST
    doing things solely out of principle.  

    You look at big picture goals and the best way to achieve them. Then you chart a path of aggressive positions, compromises, won wars, lost battles, etc. to get there.

    Pushing for democrats to lose every election but feel good about themselves for taking no corporate money is silly and does nothing to further any goal.


    That has been clear for months (5.00 / 1) (#84)
    by sj on Tue Oct 18, 2011 at 03:16:30 PM EST
    I don't care about ... doing things solely out of principle.

    That has been clear for months.  Your justification for lack of principle doesn't impress me.

    Amazing, isn't it, that he's proud of it. (5.00 / 1) (#93)
    by Towanda on Tue Oct 18, 2011 at 03:32:47 PM EST
    Psst:  Should we tell him that's very bad "marketing" for Brand D?

    It sure shows bad marketing in terms of misreading the level of discussion on this blog, a gathering of so many commenters committed to principles.

    But we already knew that he's just not that into us.


    Wordplay (none / 0) (#90)
    by christinep on Tue Oct 18, 2011 at 03:27:43 PM EST
    Good as wordplay, sj. But, would you really advocate harming even more those already hurting by citing principle. A rhetorical & real question. A number of people have adopted a "moralistic" tone about politics of late. Like others, I pull out the ole holier-than-thou stuff from time to time. (We all do, in my observation.)Bottom line, tho: I'll get my hands dirty if that is what is required to prevent the situation from deteriorating for those whose living reality is day-to-day.

    That is YOU talking (none / 0) (#104)
    by sj on Tue Oct 18, 2011 at 03:58:02 PM EST
    not me.
    would you really advocate harming even more those already hurting by citing principle.

    Desiring leaders who have principles is advocating harming even more?  Do you not see what is wrong with that statement?  That is a real, not a rhetorical question.

    And if you can't see why I take exception to that statement, or more accurately, that twisting of my statement, there really is no point in talking at all.

    Changing the subject:  This brought me up short:

    Bottom line, tho: I'll get my hands dirty if that is what is required to prevent the situation from deteriorating for those whose living reality is day-to-day.

    Aren't you the one who has been advocating "wait and see" at all the attempts to erode Medicare and SS?  How is that getting your hands dirty to prevent anything?

    Justification: (none / 0) (#99)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Tue Oct 18, 2011 at 03:52:06 PM EST
    Principle doesn't feed, clothe, heal or otherwise protect in need of help.

    Legislation does.  

    I am focused on the path to the best legislation possible under the circumstances.



    Well, given the numbers of people (5.00 / 2) (#105)
    by Anne on Tue Oct 18, 2011 at 03:58:35 PM EST
    in this country who lack sufficient food, a roof over their heads, still lack actual health care, and there is a move afoot - in which Dems have been actively participating - to take even more from those with so little, I would submit to you that lack of principle hasn't been much of a success for that demographic.

    It has, on the other hand, been a godsend to the monied interests.

    I would further submit that the Occupy movement is about no longer serving to facilitate the "easy" path of least resistance, which has not produced the best legislation for the majority of the people.


    Legislation not based upon principles (5.00 / 1) (#132)
    by Towanda on Tue Oct 18, 2011 at 06:55:07 PM EST
    is not worth feces.

    How you can possibly equate the two is stunning.

    Legislation, laws, are only means of implementation to attempt to achieve principles.

    Reread the Constitution as a statement of principles.

    What we have been doing since is trying to figure out how to write the legislation to achieve the incredible goals -- using that term in MBO terms, since that's your world -- that the Constitution gives us.


    So far Obama is much better at pushing (none / 0) (#127)
    by MO Blue on Tue Oct 18, 2011 at 04:57:37 PM EST
    legislation that will deprive people of the basic necessities like foods, shelter and income.

    Well (none / 0) (#128)
    by jbindc on Tue Oct 18, 2011 at 05:13:56 PM EST
    We DO have an obesity problem in this country.

    So, let me see if I have this right. (5.00 / 1) (#91)
    by Anne on Tue Oct 18, 2011 at 03:30:10 PM EST
    the support you think the Dems might gain from turning away WS cash would be so much less than what you are urging us to give those same Dems for sending a piddly little e-mail?

    You want us to reward what amounts to a token action, that we all know isn't going to cost Dems a dime of what WS intends to contribute, because for Dems to take a real and principled stand on financial sector money might put our big picture goals in jeopardy?

    I don't know what's in that Kool-Aid you're drinking, but it has seriously messed with your mind.


    Geezus (none / 0) (#100)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Tue Oct 18, 2011 at 03:55:29 PM EST
    Ignore the fact that it was an email for a second.  The point is that if the Dems throw their full weight behind OWS they will be at severe risk because of the loss of funds.

    If the choice is to support OWS 100% and then have people like Anne telling the world not to support them, then I say screw it, keep the Wall Street money and try to find a moderate path that helps but doesn't piss of Wall Street too much.

    But if people like you stepped up and reward the dems for siding with OWS strongly, then I think supporting the movement makes sense.

    It's stupid to ask a politician to commit political suicide for little or no benefit.  Which is what is being asked if a dem gives up corporate money and gets no equivalent assistance from other sources.


    I'll see your "Geezus," and raise you an (5.00 / 1) (#140)
    by Anne on Wed Oct 19, 2011 at 09:11:20 AM EST
    "Oh, for the love of God..."

    Ignore the fact that it was an email for a second.  The point is that if the Dems throw their full weight behind OWS they will be at severe risk because of the loss of funds.

    So, you want me to ignore the e-mail and just look at the principle behind it?  I don't understand - I thought you didn't care about principles, that they don't actually provide anything tangible that matters.

    If the choice is to support OWS 100% and then have people like Anne telling the world not to support them, then I say screw it, keep the Wall Street money and try to find a moderate path that helps but doesn't piss of Wall Street too much.

    Let's get honest here, if we can: the Occupy movement is irritating the crap out of you - it has from the beginning.  You're afraid of it, mostly because you can't figure out how the Dems can co-opt it without killing the WS cash cow, which means essentially one thing: you don't get it.  You don't.  Your one and only and single concern is about political fortune, not about the people who live with the consequences of it.  If you could put it on a poster, the title would be "Craven."

    And every time I read, "a moderate path that helps but doesn't piss off Wall Street too much," I want to throw up.  This is you in a nutshell, ABG.  In spite of your claim to "support" OWS, it's clear to me, at least, that in many ways, you represent - in your position of not wanting to piss off WS too much - what the Occupy movement is pushing back against.

    But if people like you stepped up and reward the dems for siding with OWS strongly, then I think supporting the movement makes sense.

    The things that are driving the movement are issues that have been front and center for some time, are they not?  Should the Democratic Party really need a "movement" to remind them of their own platform?  Should it really need a "movement" to bring to their attention that the financial industry whose policies and tactics and actions crippled the economy has been rewarded, instead of being held accountable, and that failure to once again draw some lines in the sand is almost certainly setting the stage for this whole thing to be repeated in the not-too-distant future?  Do they really need a movement to make them realize that taking more and more from people who have less and less, so that those at the top of the economic ladder do not suffer, is economic injustice?

    I'm not interested in Dems supporting a movement - I am interested in them supporting the people, and when they can demonstrate, by their actions and policies and legislation, and not e-mails that pay lip service to real problems for the sole purpose of getting people to write checks, I will reward them.

    It's stupid to ask a politician to commit political suicide for little or no benefit.  Which is what is being asked if a dem gives up corporate money and gets no equivalent assistance from other sources.

    What's really stupid is asking people to vote for and send money to politicians who take their money and their votes and run straight into the arms of their corporate masters.

    What you're really saying is that you don't have any confidence that Dems can win with good policy, that people won't reward them for serving the greater good.  You improve the conditions that improve people's lives, and they reward you with votes.

    Dems should try making a commitment to that for a change.


    I Am Suggesting (none / 0) (#116)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Oct 18, 2011 at 04:20:05 PM EST
     ...that your idea was idiotic, we can't compete with Wall Street, so stop acting like we can and that there is a politician in DC with principles.  There isn't.

    And to answer a different post, principles do feed the hungry, and give shelter to the homeless, and find the unemployed jobs.  Principle let me sleep at night, power doesn't, especially when it requires your lack of principles to get it.

    If you don't have principles, it doesn't matter if there is a 100 trillion dollar surplus, those without principles, those running the country right now, will make sure not one nickle ends up helping real people.

    No wonder you love the Democratic party of 2011, they have no principles and insist their thirst for power is serving some higher purpose.  It's not, and neither is your endless and tired BS of 'higher purpose'.


    I'd much rather see Congress (none / 0) (#72)
    by lilburro on Tue Oct 18, 2011 at 02:51:38 PM EST
    propose a bill addressing some of the issues of concern than have them email a petition.

    OWS is in part a reaction to the complacency of the political system.  Whether or not it was "politically possible" little was even tried on the jobs front, for example.  They're supposed to be in DC writing bills, well, write bills.


    There is such a bill (none / 0) (#103)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Tue Oct 18, 2011 at 03:56:57 PM EST
    It can't get through the Senate.

    Now what?


    Uh, what bill would that be? (5.00 / 1) (#108)
    by Anne on Tue Oct 18, 2011 at 04:02:03 PM EST
    Oh, wait - I bet you mean the Jobs Act.

    Yeah, that addresses all of the issues of the Occupy movement.


    Tell us another one.


    Now what? (5.00 / 2) (#138)
    by MO Blue on Wed Oct 19, 2011 at 08:29:06 AM EST
    Well Obama passes the "jobs" bill that he has been promoting behind the scenes all along. The 3 trade deals. You know the one where we off shore between 100,000 - 200,000 American jobs and give them to N. Korean sweat shops. Where the deal changes the laws to support the tax havens in Panama and with Colombia where union members are routinely murdered with impunity.  George W. Bush couldn't get these deals through Congress but this is another case where Obama has succeeded where Dubya failed.

    Next signed into law? Will it be free labor to companies, eliminating any restrictions on granting more H1-b visas, eliminating environmental reviews or have them written and reviewed by the companies wanting more drilling or pipeline rights.

    Infrastructure is what Obama talks about but
    job killing legislation like the trade deals is what Obama pushes through Congress.


    The Dem Senators (none / 0) (#112)
    by lilburro on Tue Oct 18, 2011 at 04:08:16 PM EST
    should be campaigning for the bill.  That's what they have the power to do.  Or write other, better bills.

    I know that the jobs act failed in the Senate, I know that other jobs bills are going to be tried.  Their involvement in THE STUFF THEY ARE ACTUALLY SUPPOSED TO DO is more indicative of whether or not they support what OWS is expressing than an online petition.

    I don't care whether or not Dems hypothetically support OWS, I care whether they respond to it with legislation and proposals that better our country.


    And (none / 0) (#114)
    by lilburro on Tue Oct 18, 2011 at 04:13:47 PM EST
    I don't think an online petition from a fundraising group constitutes the kind of "standing up" that we should be applauding.  If they were going to say they will only throw money at candidates who are going to support OWS, that would at least be something.

    This is just toe in the water marketing, IMO.


    Protestors at Newport Beach golf club (none / 0) (#65)
    by oculus on Tue Oct 18, 2011 at 02:38:50 PM EST
    where Boehner to play in Reagan game:  LAT

    Occupy the Golf Course! (5.00 / 1) (#77)
    by Towanda on Tue Oct 18, 2011 at 03:01:11 PM EST
    is what the 1 percent do.  

    We get to occupy the road on the way to it.  Good work by the 99 percenters.  I hope they're at every golf course patronized by every pol . . . including Dems.


    funny (none / 0) (#82)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Tue Oct 18, 2011 at 03:15:57 PM EST

    Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals (en banc) (none / 0) (#97)
    by oculus on Tue Oct 18, 2011 at 03:43:41 PM EST
    re whether taser use in two cases constituted federal civil rights violations. LAT

    SITE VIOLATION - SPAM (none / 0) (#139)
    by MO Blue on Wed Oct 19, 2011 at 08:30:05 AM EST