Thursday Night Open Thread

The season finale of Project Runway begins (it's a two-parter). I hope Anna wins. And the Jersey Shore folks say goodbye to Italy. There's also Gray's Anatomy and Private Practice, neither of which have been impressive this season.

Who shot Qaddafi? Was it his bodyguards? CBS has graphic photos showing him alive after being shot -- really awful. (again, warning, very graphic.)

Here's an open thread, all topics welcome.

< Mexico's President Says Chapo Guzman Likely in U.S. | Obama Announces End of Iraq War >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Cash outlawed in Louisiana (5.00 / 2) (#2)
    by MO Blue on Thu Oct 20, 2011 at 09:42:32 PM EST
    Cold hard cash. It's good everywhere you go, right? You can use it to pay for anything.

    But that's not the case here in Louisiana now. It's a law that was passed during this year's busy legislative session.

    House bill 195 basically says those who buy and sell second hand goods cannot use cash to make those transactions, and it flew so far under the radar most businesses don't even know about it.
    The law states those who buy or sell second hand goods are prohibited from using cash. State representative Rickey Hardy co-authored the bill.

    Hardy says, "they give a check or a cashiers money order, or electronic one of those three mechanisms is used." link

    Good think kdog doesn't live in LA.

    Oh, yes? (5.00 / 3) (#6)
    by Zorba on Thu Oct 20, 2011 at 09:50:19 PM EST
    I just looked at a US bill from my wallet, and it specifically says "THIS NOTE IS LEGAL TENDER FOR ALL DEBTS, PUBLIC AND PRIVATE."  If someone challenges this in court, I can't see how this law would stand.

    I agree, this will not stand up to (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by caseyOR on Thu Oct 20, 2011 at 10:34:28 PM EST
    judicial scrutiny, not even in Louisiana.

    My two cents- this guy is doing the bidding of his banker overlords who will stop at nothing to claw any all fees out of working people. So, think you can avoid our debit card fees by using cash? HA! We'll make cash illegal.  


    The end of yard sales in Louisiana. (5.00 / 2) (#22)
    by caseyOR on Thu Oct 20, 2011 at 10:37:39 PM EST
    Who in their right mind is going to accept checks or spring for a credit card machine so that they can sell the old patio furniture and assorted paperbacks and the kids' outgrown clothes at the neighborhood yard sale?

    Apparently, there is no limit to the craven audacity of the financial ruling class and its lackeys.


    This law, as you said, (5.00 / 2) (#24)
    by Zorba on Thu Oct 20, 2011 at 11:11:04 PM EST
    isn't going to stand, casey.  And in the meantime, before its judicial demise, I suspect that many, if not most, of the good people of Louisiana are going to completely ignore this law.  

    may not be the banks (none / 0) (#26)
    by NYShooter on Fri Oct 21, 2011 at 01:27:26 AM EST
    Could be the politicians trying to foil the "underground" economy, and snare the uncollected sales tax bucks.

    It's an oligarch's exacta... (5.00 / 2) (#31)
    by kdog on Fri Oct 21, 2011 at 08:04:10 AM EST
    collect more taxes and welfare for the banksters.

    Luckily, it will be as difficult to enforce as a prohibition on eating.  I have faith in the fine people of LA civilly disobeying.

    Flea market vendors and yard sale holders will just have to take a page out of the drug game playbook...check your customers for a wire, use spotters, etc.


    The Bill (5.00 / 2) (#45)
    by ScottW714 on Fri Oct 21, 2011 at 11:13:56 AM EST

    It's pretty ridiculous, but the penalty seems to be $25-$100, but the real issue is that they have to file some sort report with the state listing all the transactions.

    Garage sales, pawn brokers, and many odds things are exempt, but the real sin is minors are not allowed sell 'junk'.

    It's a bill aimed at curbing people stealing stuff and selling it, but to accomplish that all second hand junk dealers get caught in the net because I assume that is who they are using as fences.

    I work in tax and I can say for a fact, Louisiana routinely passes laws that are unconstitutional.  They used have a law on the books that assessed use tax on materials traveling through the state.  They love double taxation, and even after it was tossed out in court, they did an incremental retraction, 20% a year I believe.  So for years I would have to take the normal tax rate, look at a chart, and say 2005 only 40% of the tax was due.

    The problem with these laws, not just Louisiana, is someone has to take them to court and that is extremely costly.  This law is directed at junk dealers and resale shops, people who don't have the money it takes to get this law voided.  This will all be done in Louisiana courts, so there is a huge risk with little reward.

    IMO the only way this is going away is through pressure on the legislators, and judging by the vote count, 96-0 that is doesn't seem likely.


    For soooo many reasons. (none / 0) (#3)
    by oculus on Thu Oct 20, 2011 at 09:43:36 PM EST
    Find your peace and yourself now Libya (5.00 / 3) (#16)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Oct 20, 2011 at 10:24:56 PM EST
    Take care of you and yours, know your worth.  If I ever pray, it is for those things.  While I pray for my own nations respect and care for her own humanity to be restored.

    Namaste, MT (5.00 / 2) (#19)
    by Zorba on Thu Oct 20, 2011 at 10:34:09 PM EST
    Namaste.  That's always my main prayer.

    Man it is hard to watch all the yammering (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Oct 20, 2011 at 10:41:07 PM EST
    heads on MSNBC make something grand out of a dead Gaddafi, and even though this mission was humanitarian now some lefties are out there on limbs saying that it was unspoken understood we would take Gaddafi out?  What a pant load

    First of all, we didn't take Gaddafi out.  That took place on the ground among Libyans. Second, none of us knew if we would ever get Gaddafi and now that he is gone we still don't know with certainty that this thing is over.  We suspect for the most part it is.  We hope it is and that forces that were loyal to Gaddafi don't continue to fight using weapons that first world countries gave to Gaddafi as they coveted the oil that belonged to all Libyans.

    I don't see any heroes tonight.  We did the right thing at the start, then things got really murky and now we find ourselves lucky, lucky for today.  Where will Libya be in 20 years?  It is a long road ahead of her and I'm sure the global corporate vultures are already crowding around her people, hoping to get a carcass of some kind to pick clean, something to use, something to abuse.

    Qaddafi as Jim "Grape Koolaid" Jones (5.00 / 2) (#27)
    by Mr Natural on Fri Oct 21, 2011 at 02:11:42 AM EST
    This monumentally stupid last stand turned Sirte into Beirut circa the 1980s, as gleaming edifices deteriorated into Swiss cheese and then ultimately blackened rubble. Qaddafi had favored Sirte with magnificent conference centers and wood-paneled conference rooms even as he starved some Eastern cities of funds, and in his death throes he took all his gifts back away from the city of his birth, making it drink the tainted Kool-Aid of his maniacal defiance of reality.

    - Juan Cole

    I don't consider (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by lentinel on Fri Oct 21, 2011 at 05:56:37 AM EST
    myself as a "leftie", but I too have been under the impression that Quaddafi was going to be killed. I did not think that all that bombing of his compounds was meant to clear the path for apprehending him for the purposes of bringing him to trial.

    I believe we wanted him dead.
    Very dead.
    Sincerely dead.

    I think that just about anyone can agree with this pithy pronouncement by our commander-in-chief upon hearing of this killing:

    "Today, we can definitively say that the Qaddafi regime has come to an end."

    I think we can definitively say that.


    What replaces it? (5.00 / 2) (#32)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Oct 21, 2011 at 08:06:54 AM EST
    I don't mean to hail on your parade but I have a husband who has gone to fight in two countries against tyrants and tyranny now.  I understand power vacuums all too well now, and I understand the life skills that long term terrorized people have easiest access to.  I have been humbled by death and failures and struggle to overcome years of scarred hearts and minds that were scarred long before we showed up.  I don't give up, but only fools throw a party over something like this.  The real work has only just begun.

    And the current leader of the free world is a corporate man.  He serves corporations over the little people, he thinks suffering among the little people in order to secure corporations is okay and desirable.  How terrific is our help at this point for Libya?  How can we help the entire nation of Libya to stop being used and abused by rich oil companies and their company men?  If we do become a good influence and do all the right things by Libyans it literally means that our leader would be caring for and representing Libyans better than he does his own people.

    Count me not impressed by the current state and situation at all.  Nothing wildly terrific happened yesterday for me, perhaps it did for Libyans but not for me.  We are in danger of the last right thing we did in any of this be the choice to stop a genocide, then we surpassed that and that's all folks.


    Let me think (5.00 / 1) (#82)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Oct 21, 2011 at 06:32:47 PM EST
    How can we help the entire nation of Libya to stop being used and abused by rich oil companies and their company men?

    Okay. Let's just pull out all the support and let the locals run the oil fields.

    Seems fair to me.


    the locals? (5.00 / 2) (#84)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Oct 21, 2011 at 06:40:19 PM EST
    Sometimes you are so offensive.  As if "the locals" haven't been who has been working those fields all of their lives and know a whole more about the patch than you could ever dream :)  I'm certain the locals can be nothing more than a pack of stuttering idiots.

    My, my (none / 0) (#86)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Oct 21, 2011 at 07:32:21 PM EST
    you read a lot into a perfectly innocent statement.

    Where did I say the locals couldn't do it??

    Fact is, I didn't.

    I'm all for letting them run it. In fact, I'm all for pulling all support out and letting them run the country.

    It is their country, eh??

    Maybe this time they won't install a dictator or install a Islamic theocracy.

    But I'm not making book on it.


    So you are supporting them (none / 0) (#90)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Oct 21, 2011 at 07:45:36 PM EST
    the people who have probably worked those fields all their lives. That is decent and realistic.

    Yes (5.00 / 1) (#92)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Oct 21, 2011 at 08:06:57 PM EST
    I'm all for letting them do what they want....

    ....but that also means no money and no help from any outside group.

    Don't ask me for billions in aid to do what you want...


    Oh, no aid, no way! (none / 0) (#105)
    by NYShooter on Sat Oct 22, 2011 at 02:44:29 PM EST
    we need those billions to give to Wall Street, or, haven't you heard? Goldman Sach's bonus pool is down to 10.1 Billion this year.

    Times are tough for everyone.

    Austerity must be shared.


    well, they're the job creators.. (none / 0) (#106)
    by jondee on Sat Oct 22, 2011 at 02:53:00 PM EST
    and anyone who says different is probably a lazy, leftie, college student; controlled from behind the scenes by vast, shadowy, forces, bent on disrupting our way of life.



    And it's good thing America & NATO saved them (none / 0) (#93)
    by Edger on Fri Oct 21, 2011 at 08:10:05 PM EST
    Let me bomb you to protection
    As for how R2P ("responsibility to protect" civilians), any doubters should cling to the explanation by NATO's secretary general Anders Fogh Rasmussenz; "NATO and our partners have successfully implemented the historic mandate of the United Nations to protect the people of Libya." Anyone who wants to check NATO's protection of civilians just needs to jump on a pick-up truck and go to Sirte - the new Fallujah.


    World, you have been warned; this is how the empire will deal with you from now on.


    So congratulations to the "international community" - which as everyone knows is composed of Washington, a few washed-up NATO members, and the democratic Persian Gulf powerhouses of Qatar and the United Arab Emirates (UAE). This community, at least, loved the outcome. The European Union (EU) hailed "the end of an era of despotism" - when up to virtually Thursday they were caressing the helm of Gaddafi's gowns; now they are falling over themselves in editorials about the 42-year reign of a "buffoon".

    Gaddafi would have been a most inconvenient guest of the International Criminal Court in The Hague, as he would have relished recalling all the hand-kissing, the warm embraces and the juicy deals the West was begging to clinch after he was promoted from "Mad Dog" (Ronald Reagan) to "our bastard". He would also relish detailing all the shady backgrounds of those opportunists now posing as "revolutionaries" and "democrats".

    As for the concept of international law, it lies in a drain as filthy as the one Gaddafi was holed up in.


    Welcome to the new Libya. Intolerant Islamist militias will turn the lives of Libyan women into a living hell. Hundreds of thousands of Sub-Saharan Africans - those who could not escape - will be ruthlessly persecuted. Libya's natural wealth will be plundered. That collection of anti-aircraft missiles appropriated by Islamists will be a supremely convincing reason for the "war on terror" in northern Africa to become eternal. There will be blood - civil war blood, because Tripolitania will refuse to be ruled by backward Cyrenaica.

    As for remaining dictators everywhere, get a life insurance policy from NATO Inc; Egypt's Hosni Mubarak, Tunisia's Zine al-Abidine Ben Ali and Yemen's Ali Abdullah Saleh were clever enough to do it. We all know there will never be R2P to liberate the Tibetans and Uyghurs, or the people in that monster gulag Myanmar, or the people in Uzbekistan, or the Kurds in Turkey, or the Pashtuns on both sides of the imperially drawn Durand Line.

    We also know that change the world can believe in will be the day NATO enforces a no-fly one over Saudi Arabia to protect the Shi'ites in the eastern province, with the Pentagon launching a Hellfire carpet over those thousands of medieval, corrupt House of Saud princes.

    It won't happen. Meanwhile, this is the way the West ends; with a NATO bang, and a thousand barbaric, lawless whimpers. Disgusted? Get a Guy Fawkes mask and raise hell.

    -- How The West Won Libya


    Thanks (none / 0) (#35)
    by lentinel on Fri Oct 21, 2011 at 09:40:18 AM EST
    for your reply.

    I send you my best.

    We disagree about some things and yet we are on the same page.


    John Stewart (5.00 / 2) (#36)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Fri Oct 21, 2011 at 09:46:28 AM EST
    addresses his comments to republicans but it is depressingly applicable to some liberals as well:

    "Is there no Republican that can be gracious and statesmen-like in this situation? We removed a dictator in six months, losing no American soldiers, spending, like, a billion dollars rather than a trillion dollars, and engendering what appears to be goodwill with the people who now have a prideful story of their own independence to tell... not to mention oil, they have oil. Anybody wanna give credit?"

    He then played a clip of Florida Sen. Marco Rubio (R) and Sen. John McCain giving credit. To the French and British. Which prompted Stewart inquire the following:

    "What the f*ck is wrong with you?"



    What is certain about war? (5.00 / 3) (#39)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Oct 21, 2011 at 10:16:18 AM EST
    NOTHING, not one thing.  Ever been standing in the kitchen at 3:00 am with a phone in your hand trying to figure out if your husband was shot down in Fallujah or was it some other poor bastard?  And anybody who knows anything at all can't tell you anything.  You will know what happened if the Chaplain comes at dawn or if the Chaplain doesn't come at dawn.

    It can't be much different for those on the other side either.  The Union Army should have lost Gettysburg, Israel should have been decimated in the Six-Day War, Pat Tillman should not have been killed by his own fellow troops.  If a battle is MY battle and I overcome, I rejoice.  I am a human being, I fight to end my own suffering when I can.  I don't rejoice though because I just got lucky and had what me in my position can call a "good day" with bullets and bombs.  And yes, Libya has oil and just nations would embrace that that oil belongs to the people of Libya and they would insure that the profits go to the people of Libya.  I doubt we will discover ourselves to be the full measure of just people and nations.


    MT: The suffering & the worth of experience (none / 0) (#78)
    by christinep on Fri Oct 21, 2011 at 04:53:11 PM EST
    shows in your words. We all watch; your husband & all your family live it.

    That you should mention Gettysburg also strikes me. About a week & half ago, I visited a cousin who now lives in the Shenandoah Valley in Virginia. She & I travelled in time to the coal region of Pennsylvania, our youth place, for sentiment & also for new memories. We then visited Gettysburg on the return to her home...a day of intense learning for me & her even as we are now so removed. We hired a certified guide to stand on ridges, listen to every word, learn in a different way about Pickett's Charge. And, we learned about the twists & turns and surprises of that scene & all the carnage it entailed. (Heck, I'm reading a book on the strategies of the battle daily now.)

    Thank you again.


    Gettysburg is very interesting (5.00 / 2) (#80)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Oct 21, 2011 at 06:02:53 PM EST
    I ran out of books to read once and had to raid my husband's books for awhile and I read Shaara's book on it, was surprised to find it was a page turner.

    I used to mourn the change of reality that took place in my home and life after 9/11, but I don't anymore.  Having Iraq begin to wind down healed a lot of that.

    After my first child was born I knew I was no longer a pacifist.  Before motherhood though I was one of those people who would not harm someone who was breaking into my home.  I would run away if I could, but I wasn't very territorial.  After motherhood, not the same.

    It has been very different though standing on the wall.  I never really knew what that meant, I thought it sounded funny and maybe even half ridiculous when I heard the phrase in a Few Good Men.  Getting older, becoming a little more worldly, I understand it now.

    We need the best leaders we can vote in though because there are as many definitions of what constitutes the wall as there are what constitutes interrogation.  And I don't ever want to hear the $hit Axis of Evil ever again.  The voice and the daily/hourly protests of the people can be the only hope we have to end justifying horrific atrocity when men with good hair are chosen to lead us.  Even our current President may need some reining in.


    Yeah... (none / 0) (#37)
    by lentinel on Fri Oct 21, 2011 at 10:03:06 AM EST
    Those dang republicans and those dang liberals.

    I really have to ask what the fu*k is wrong with you?

    No feeling.

    No emotion.

    No content.

    No meaning.

    You quote, but you do not speak.


    No (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Fri Oct 21, 2011 at 10:10:35 AM EST
    I have feelings: I am thrilled that the people of Libya killed their oppressor.

    I have emotions: It warms my heart to see the man responsible for thousands of deaths of families, including children, has met his fate. Particularly when he was given multiple chances over the past months to allow democracy and responded with death squads.

    I have content: People may dislike me but they never accuse me of having nothing to say.

    I have meaning: I meant absolutely everything above.

    and I speak a lot.

    Anyway, I am more than happy to let this Libyan speak for me:


    I assume that we can agree that his opinion matters more than yours or mine.


    The trouble (5.00 / 4) (#40)
    by lentinel on Fri Oct 21, 2011 at 10:29:11 AM EST
    with what you express is that you have a perpetually lurking hidden agenda.

    And that agenda is to reelect Obama.

    And although I can identify with what Faisel Tubbal is quoted as saying in the article by Michelle Hoctor, no. I do not think his opinion matters more than mine or yours.


    Key question (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Fri Oct 21, 2011 at 11:04:23 AM EST
    Do you think opposing Obama's re-election is behind the comments of Anne or some of his other more vocal detractors here?

    Answer: yes

    The difference for me is that I am transparent.  Every positive thing Obama does I will tend to trumpet and the negative stuff he does I will mention and discuss but maybe not with the same zeal.

    Thus I am open and transparent and you ate least can place my thoughts into perspective.

    What is the most telling to me is that no one is accused of having an agenda or bias one way or another except those who tend to support O.

    Which says a lot about the agenda of some of the others here, no?


    Since you seem, ABG, to be overly fond (5.00 / 7) (#60)
    by Anne on Fri Oct 21, 2011 at 01:05:08 PM EST
    of invoking my name as some kind of symbol, let me once again attempt to educate you on where I actually stand on these things.

    I think I have made it abundantly clear what my agenda is: issues.  What comes with that is judging the politicians - of any and all varieties - by the choices they make on those issues, and how well or how poorly they represent the things that matter to me, things which I believe matter to lots and lots of other people just like me.  I am a greater good kind of person, an FDR liberal and I believe those are good things to be.

    I have also repeatedly made it clear that I believe the system itslef is broken, that we are engaged more than ever in a kabuki show democracy where the people vote to elect candidates who, once elected, go about serving the corporate and special interests who bought them.  That as long as we have a system where big money is allowed to buy influence, and the people are willing to settle for an ever-lowering metric of least bad, we are doomed to be screwed.

    Obama is the face of the Democratic Party, a party he has moved farther to the right than I ever in my wildest dreams believed Democrats would allow themselves to go along with, a party that has thrown under the bus issues that used to set Democrats apart as the party of the people.

    I am not working to bring Obama down, but if he goes down, he has only himself to blame.  He is the one who chose insurance reform as his biggest priority, not jobs.  He is the one who chose to shoot low on the stimulus - and don't even bother me with the standard but-but-Congress-wouldn't-vote-for-anything-bigger excuse, because he never even once tried - he is the one who has sided, over and over again, with Wall Street and the banks, he is the one pushing like crazy to get the biggest and most utterly criminal of the lending banks immunity from their actions, he is the one who talks endlessly about the safety net, he is the one who convened the Deficit Commission, who worked his fanny off trying for a grand Austerity bargain.

    Those are his policies and his actions - and that's what I object to - that these are the choices he's made.  I object to your belief that we should act in ways that don't piss off Wall Street too much - a statement that still just floors me, and one I know you made because you see it as Obama's best choice.  I object to your emphasis on Obama's political fortunes at the expense of the people his "leadership" has harmed, and they are many, and growing in number.

    You're right about one thing: you are transparent.  We know that all that matters to you is getting Obama another four years, and in that, you have proven yourself to be as much a say-anything Obama cheerleader as Obama has proven himself to be a say-anything president.

    Which says nothing good about either of you.


    So this is your argument? (4.80 / 5) (#74)
    by Dadler on Fri Oct 21, 2011 at 03:37:26 PM EST
    That everyone ele's sh*t stinks but not yours?  I'm transparent, other people aren't.  I'll criticize Obama the right way, others won't.  

    Good lord.

    Tell me the last time, politically, that you were wrong in a genuinely profound way?

    Your answer will be very enlightening.


    Jon Stewart got huge laughs from (none / 0) (#41)
    by KeysDan on Fri Oct 21, 2011 at 10:31:48 AM EST
    "not to mention oil. they have oil."  The Obama administration worked hard to "lead from behind", including from behind the skirts of UN Ambassador Rice, Secretary Clinton, and Advisor Samantha Powers. The purpose of Operation Odyssey Dawn we were told was to prevent a blood bath in Benghazi. We would hand this off to NATO and we would be in the background for support. It was France and UK's baby.

    The military command was not US, although the NATO Commander reported to the US Command.  UN Resolution did prove to be elastic, however, this was still not a war, it did not rise to the level of "hostilities" according to the legal opinion submitted to Congress. .nor was the War Powers Act relevant    Yes, an end to Muammar el-Qaddafi's regime would be desirable, but that was not the reason for our military adventure.  Qaddafi is dead and we can be joyous--we did it, and, with some supportive revisions , from in front, to boot.  I would ask:  what the 'heck' is wrong--with us.


    "Behind the skirts"?? (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by gyrfalcon on Fri Oct 21, 2011 at 12:10:35 PM EST
    Excuse me??

    Yes, it is an old-fashioned (none / 0) (#64)
    by KeysDan on Fri Oct 21, 2011 at 01:42:13 PM EST
    and sexists expression that was intended to illustrate and connote the imagery suggested, not by me, but by the Administration to support the humanitarian, protect the civilians, prevent the bloodbath, reasons for our attack on Libya. The women had the emotion, it was the realistic men who were reluctantly dragged in--so the story went to sell the cover for war (or non-hostilities).  

    I would worry that "behind the skirts" (none / 0) (#77)
    by Towanda on Fri Oct 21, 2011 at 04:52:36 PM EST
    was yet another hit at our Secretary of State, but we all know by now that she wears pantsuits.  So it just couldn't be so, now, could it?

    I offered an explanation for the expression used (5.00 / 2) (#91)
    by KeysDan on Fri Oct 21, 2011 at 07:45:37 PM EST
    in response to the cryptic "excuse me?", but I regret any continued misunderstandings.  My intentions certainly were not  a "hit" on the Secretary of State, but rather concern for what I believe to have been a misrepresentation of the public reasons for UN Resolution 1973.  Indeed, from the get-go, I nicknamed Operation Odyssey Dawn, operation hoodwink, a characterization confirmed in my mind with the troubling elasticity of that UN Resolution.

    In my interpretation, the pejorative connotation to the expression does not attach to the one wearing the skirt.  Indeed, I think of its usage in the same sense that Jodie Evans, peace, environmental, and social activist, as well as a founder of Codepink,  used in her concern for the Afghanistan war, where she takes on the argument for the invasion as "saving Afghan women". "The US must quit hiding behind the skirts of Afghan women and come forward in support of real and sustained peace."  "For eight years, many Americans have justified the war as a moral battle to protect women, but Afghan women tell another story."

    Moreover,  you are right, I think: updating to "behind pants suits" literally and otherwise does not have the same flair.


    KeysDan, my apologies (5.00 / 1) (#94)
    by Towanda on Fri Oct 21, 2011 at 08:50:41 PM EST
    as in this thread that has at least two if not more conversations going on, I had missed your response.  I am reminded now, yes, of Clinton talking about Afghan women. . . .

    And yes, let us not have flared pantsuits ala bell bottoms of days of yore, not attractive on women of my age and that of the Secy. of State since those days of yore.  If even then.  What were we thinking?


    No apologies necessary, I was (none / 0) (#95)
    by KeysDan on Fri Oct 21, 2011 at 09:02:20 PM EST
    just worried that I may have unintentionally offended.

    I rather liked the hip hugger bell (none / 0) (#96)
    by oculus on Fri Oct 21, 2011 at 09:23:33 PM EST
    bottom look when I was young and thin.  

    You never told us (5.00 / 1) (#103)
    by CoralGables on Sat Oct 22, 2011 at 02:42:50 PM EST
    you were Peggy Lipton

    But I never saw Mod Squad. It was a look. (none / 0) (#107)
    by oculus on Sat Oct 22, 2011 at 03:13:01 PM EST
    Response (none / 0) (#44)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Fri Oct 21, 2011 at 11:06:55 AM EST
    Yes.  That's the whole thing Dan.  The paradigm of the cowboy was to take over every situation and to stomp over the feelings and concerns of other countries.  

    Here we let others lead, not because he had to but because it was smart.

    The brilliance of the strategy was to lead from behind. To let others take responsibility. That's what we yelled at Bush for failing to do.

    Now, when Obama does it, it's no big deal.  He was letting others do the hard work. Etc.

    I think you completely miss the point of why his Obama's tactics are now being applauded.


    Fair points ABG, but arguable. (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by KeysDan on Fri Oct 21, 2011 at 11:20:41 AM EST
    I think you chose to miss my points in the service of the outcomes.

    Fair enough on outcomes (none / 0) (#52)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Fri Oct 21, 2011 at 12:02:46 PM EST
    Look, if there was no oil in Libya we wouldn't have lifted a finger.  Given. I grew up with my parents yelling at Reagan on the TV about failing to intervene in the South African apartheid. We intervene when it is in our self interest for the most part.  And when we do, we can't be certain that things will end for the best in the long term.

    But that's not relevant to those who were being slaughtered for asking for freedom.  They cared about their situation and receiving help.  From that perspective (and I do think you have to judge every situation individually to some degree) I am fairly proud of what we did and how we did it.

    Could it wind up in disaster? Yes.
    Will we end up exploiting Libya and the lack of stability to exploit the oil? Probably.

    But I think you can separate those facts from the simple question:

    Knowing now what you didn't know then, would you have us do the same thing if you could turn back time.

    My answer, and I think the answer of most people given the current state of things, is yes.

    And if it is yes, I think Clinton, Rice, O, the whole team, deserve a small pat on the back.

    Not big.  Just itty bitty.


    Gimme a Break... (5.00 / 5) (#53)
    by ScottW714 on Fri Oct 21, 2011 at 12:07:41 PM EST
    Every positive thing Obama does I will tend to trumpet and the negative stuff he does I will mention and discuss but maybe not with the same zeal.

    And what is that negative stuff you discuss ?

    To be clear, when you say discuss, do you mean actually calling Obama out, or do you mean explaining to us dummies how it isn't Obama's fault.

    The other note I would like to make is I don't think you understand some real basics, and I am going to use Anne as an example since you brought her up in another post.  Her mission, to me, has nothing to do with Obama specifically, it's about objectively discussing the topic at hand.

    But you, are the opposite, in a post today you expressed this jubilation of getting MQ, I believe you used the word 'thrilled'.  My point, is your reaction would have been  different if Bush was the man in the White House even if every action was identical, Anne's would have been the same, regardless.

    You are a direct reflection of Fox News, when you man does good, you practically wet your pants, when he does bad, you blame, blame, blame.

    So please, stop using others to justify your agenda.  And to be clear, my agenda is getting some good leadership, not getting my brand name candidate re-elected., there is a difference.

    And I apologize Anne if I misrepresented your views, I am simply calling it as I see it.


    We go through this (none / 0) (#58)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Fri Oct 21, 2011 at 12:48:21 PM EST
    about every 3 days where I have to somehow prove that I disagree with Obama on something. Here is the list of just the things I have mention in forums here and elsewhere in the last 24 hours:

    1. Afghanistan
    2. Iraq
    3. Stance on Israel (he should be even harder on them)
    4. Marijuana laws
    5. Advocate for repeal of DOMA
    6. Larger defense cuts
    7. Pressure for a broad based loan modification program for everyone underwater
    8. Carbon Emissions issues

    Etc.  People just ignore it because it is easier to paint his supporters as unthinking robots.

    You have an occasional (5.00 / 3) (#63)
    by sj on Fri Oct 21, 2011 at 01:33:19 PM EST
    throw away sentence on each of those topics.  You do not advocate on those issues.  OTOH you have a history of piles of passionate defenses of Obama.  That's fine, you know?  That's your priority.

    But here is the deal.  You are not issue driven or motivated.  You are not policy driven or motivated.  You are driven and motivated to re-elect Obama.  That is the long and short of it.  You are Obama centric.  Period.

    You therefore assume that everyone is Obama centric.  In that assumption you are so off the mark that we don't even have a common vocabulary.  

    I, like many here, am issue oriented.  I chose the Democratic party in the long ago because their priorities were in alignment with mine.  Now that they no longer are, I have "unchosen" them.  I haven't changed -- the party did.  At the present time I am completely unrepresented politically.  I have an exceedingly strong aversion to the Republican party.  I can never, ever support them.  I have an increasingly strong aversion to today's Democratic party.  And I cannot support the current leadership.  

    I won't lift a finger to help either party.  Whichever party succeeds at the polls does so without my help.

    Until I have representation, my only option is to raise my voice in objection.  I can bear witness to, for example, the fact that we, as a nation of individuals, were not always so supine and accepting of the invasions into our personal life.  I can be the voice of one crying out in the wilderness.

    That wilderness is getting smaller, though.  Many voices are becoming enjoined.  I am finding a new home.

    So call me an Obama hater if you wish.  But you battle a straw man.  Obama is just one of many who sold us down the river.  Unfortunately Obama the Weak is still (so far) the most powerful man in the world.  That makes him pretty darn effective when it comes to selling us out.

    You say "it is easier to paint his supporters as unthinking robots."  You think that because you are Obama centric period.  You think pushback of your constant advancement of the man means that we object to the man.

    The man is just a symptom to us and a symbol.  A great big glaring, neon flashing, symbol of how the oligarchs have taken the reins of this country.

    And based on your past history I'm willing to bet that, should you desire to respond to this comment, your response will have no less than two straw men and/or will be completely non-responsive to the point(s) I'm trying to make.  

    Or, in order to avoid actually thinking about it, you'll just call it "horsesh*t" and walk away in a huff.


    Oh (none / 0) (#59)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Fri Oct 21, 2011 at 12:50:33 PM EST
    and all of the rest of that stuff you wrote was horsesh*t too, but what's the use in countering it.

    I am the Obama Foxnews apparently.

    And I was thrilled when we caught Saddam and thrilled when we killed his sons.

    You are, again, making massive assumptions based on your own notions and biases.


    ABG (none / 0) (#68)
    by ScottW714 on Fri Oct 21, 2011 at 02:35:50 PM EST
    You missed my point entirely.
    And I was thrilled when we caught Saddam and thrilled when we killed his sons.

    But I bet you can't produce a post about it or even one post giving props to Bush for all the bad guys he helped murder.


    "behind the skirts" is a give away maybe (none / 0) (#79)
    by christinep on Fri Oct 21, 2011 at 05:01:38 PM EST
    If we had no skin in the game (none / 0) (#81)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Oct 21, 2011 at 06:29:06 PM EST
    how did we do anything???

    The answer is.... we played a minor role.

    Good for us. Great for the French and Brits!

    Tell Stewart to catch a clue.


    Even though it was our Commander (5.00 / 1) (#83)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Oct 21, 2011 at 06:37:57 PM EST
    who ran the whole phucking thing....and even though it was us who took out the anti-aircraft missile system that allowed the rest of NATO to even think about having a no-fly to enforce, provided refueling in air, special forces on the ground lasering in strikes....sigh....Jim strikes again.

    How many tomahawks must (5.00 / 1) (#85)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Oct 21, 2011 at 06:50:01 PM EST
    a wood chuck chuck before the Republicans admit that chuck brought the wood?  It's Friday night, might as well have some fun.

    I said a minor role (none / 0) (#89)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Oct 21, 2011 at 07:39:17 PM EST
    Isn't that good enough??

    That was minor? (none / 0) (#98)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Oct 22, 2011 at 07:22:08 AM EST
    As compared (none / 0) (#99)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Oct 22, 2011 at 10:19:36 AM EST

    It would have never happened (5.00 / 1) (#100)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Oct 22, 2011 at 10:33:22 AM EST
    without us leading the way.

    Oh, I have no doubt about that (none / 0) (#101)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Oct 22, 2011 at 12:56:06 PM EST
    Practically (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by lentinel on Fri Oct 21, 2011 at 05:48:08 AM EST
    no one will mourn Quaddafi.

    Maybe some of his remaining family members...

    But what I recall is that during the Bush administration, this man was elevated from his status as a pariah to someone with whom we could do business.

    Then, for reasons that appear to be rather complicated, he became someone with whom we could not do business - or enough business.

    This is being heralded, in some quarters, as a triumph for our "foreign policy". That was not my understanding of the meaning of that term - but if that's what it has evolved into - so be it.

    I also wonder... who's next?

    The Libyan people (none / 0) (#55)
    by gyrfalcon on Fri Oct 21, 2011 at 12:11:42 PM EST
    are "for reasons that appear to be rather complicated"

    Not so complicated at all, IMO.


    Kicking myself again... (5.00 / 3) (#33)
    by kdog on Fri Oct 21, 2011 at 08:32:53 AM EST
    why oh why haven't I been going to see Joe Walsh for the past 15 years...stupid stupid stupid!

    Just pure kick-arse rock-n-roll...ya can't beat it.  Loved his guitar sound, crisp yet gritty, clean and dirty.

    And little did I know the opener was Kenny Wayne Shepherd...talk about a bonus.  Carrying the blues torch for all us sinners.

    Onto John Hiatt tonight...I'm on top of the world ma!

    Occupy Is NOT An Obama Reelection Campaign (5.00 / 4) (#43)
    by Edger on Fri Oct 21, 2011 at 11:06:35 AM EST
    "Speaking to a 'We Are Change' activist at 'Occupy Wall Street' this week, political hip-hop artist Immortal Technique threw down the gauntlet to those in the media who characterize the anti-corruption movement as a partisan affair, suggesting that the 99 Percent are willing to 'sacrifice' President Barack Obama's second term if it would send a message powerful enough to spark change."

       "I keep telling people, everyone that I meet, that I think this is one of the best expressions of democracy that people have seen in America in the past few decades,"

        "Unlike the tea party, this is something that's organic. It's not corporate funded. It's not by the Koch brothers. This isn't a reelection campaign for Obama. We're willing to put his second term on the alter of democracy and sacrifice it if we need to, to send a message to the rest of the world saying, 'If you promise us change, and then you deliver nothing but the same, if you do these little superficial changes to pacify the people, to placate people, then you expose yourself.'

    video here

    Newt Gingrich... (5.00 / 2) (#46)
    by kdog on Fri Oct 21, 2011 at 11:14:32 AM EST
    had his stopped clock twice a day moment when he said "these are the Obama protests".

    Check out this song too, kdog (none / 0) (#47)
    by Edger on Fri Oct 21, 2011 at 11:17:47 AM EST
    I think you'll like it. It's another anthem. Maybe the only rap song I ever really liked. Raw as h*ll.

    Immortal Technique -- Point of No Return


    No sound in the cube... (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by kdog on Fri Oct 21, 2011 at 11:22:07 AM EST
    but I've made a mental note of it sir.

    And I'm not quite ready to chase the Joe Walsh tunes in my head away just yet:)


    It'll be worth it (none / 0) (#50)
    by Edger on Fri Oct 21, 2011 at 11:24:47 AM EST
    No competition for Joe at all. Different but same world altogether.

    Parallel tracks. ;-)


    Cardinals 1, Rangers 0. Bottom (none / 0) (#1)
    by oculus on Thu Oct 20, 2011 at 09:09:52 PM EST
    of the 7th.  Those Cards' fans are on fire!

    St. Louis has always been a (none / 0) (#4)
    by MO Blue on Thu Oct 20, 2011 at 09:46:25 PM EST
    great baseball town. Final score Cardinals 1, Rangers 0.

    Thank gawd, once again the Cards were the underdogs going into the series. They play much better when everyone is telling them that they have no chance to win.


    The game is in the top of the 9th, no (none / 0) (#5)
    by oculus on Thu Oct 20, 2011 at 09:47:29 PM EST
    outs.  Ranger have a runner on second.

    Oh, no (none / 0) (#7)
    by MO Blue on Thu Oct 20, 2011 at 09:51:42 PM EST
    I haven't had the game on. Just got home and looked at the scoreboard on the Internet. It looked like it was over. Spoke too soon. Hope, I didn't jink it.

    Runners on 2nd and 3rd. No outs. (none / 0) (#8)
    by oculus on Thu Oct 20, 2011 at 09:53:28 PM EST
    St. Louis pitcher is mostly being pd. by Rangers!

    Bottom of the ninth (none / 0) (#9)
    by Zorba on Thu Oct 20, 2011 at 10:02:24 PM EST
    Texas ahead, 2-1.  Not looking good for the Cards.  They're at the bottom of their batting line-up.

    It's over (none / 0) (#12)
    by Zorba on Thu Oct 20, 2011 at 10:13:04 PM EST
    Texas won.  LaRussa over-managed this one.

    Who was from St. Louis. (none / 0) (#13)
    by oculus on Thu Oct 20, 2011 at 10:14:11 PM EST
    I'm a Brewers fan (none / 0) (#21)
    by Towanda on Thu Oct 20, 2011 at 10:37:15 PM EST
    so went through this with you last week, MO Blue.

    Up, down. Up, down.  Both teams had us on quite the roller-coaster ride.  It was exhausting.  Frankly, I didn't think that either of our teams was ready, with such inconsistency, for the World Series.  (Or perhaps it was that neither of our managers was ready; there were some strange decisions made -- why, oh why, did we give you Marcum on the mound again and not Wolf who had the Cards in his hand? or decisions not made for too many innings.)

    Glad it's over for me . . . but you've still got a lot of highs and lows to go.  Whew.


    very disparate accounts (none / 0) (#15)
    by Jeralyn on Thu Oct 20, 2011 at 10:19:32 PM EST

    Acting Prime Minister Mahmoud Jibril said he had been shot in the head in an exchange between Gaddafi loyalists and National Transitional Council fighters.

    Mr Jibril told journalists that a "forensic report" had concluded that the colonel had died from bullet wounds after he had been captured and driven away. "When the car was moving it was caught in crossfire between the revolutionaries and Gaddafi forces in which he was hit by a bullet in the head," he said, quoting from the report.

    "The forensic doctor could not tell if it came from the revolutionaries or from Gaddafi's forces."

    No need for speculation... (none / 0) (#28)
    by Mr Natural on Fri Oct 21, 2011 at 02:23:25 AM EST
    Here's the video of Qaddafi's last stand.

    This is an unusual YouTube video in that you are given a second chance to pass on viewing it.  Your first chance is right here, right now.  If you choose to view it, you will hear but not see the actual shooting.  You will see what preceded and followed the shooting and you will see Qaddafi in a few of the final moments of his miserable existence.


    I haven't viewed the video (none / 0) (#65)
    by sj on Fri Oct 21, 2011 at 01:42:25 PM EST
    But I find it's very availability uncomfortable in the extreme.

    The death of Qadaffi is unalloyed good news. (none / 0) (#25)
    by observed on Fri Oct 21, 2011 at 12:07:23 AM EST

    Police State Beat.... (none / 0) (#34)
    by kdog on Fri Oct 21, 2011 at 09:39:18 AM EST
    TSA hittin' the highways in Tenn.

    TSA does stand for Transportation Security Administration, correct?  Then whats up with the drug sniffing dogs? Is a tractor trailer full of weed less safe for the roadway than a tractor trailer full of laundry detergent?  I'm confused.

    And urging drivers to play Orwell Junior Spy on their fellow drivers?  Good luck with that copper, drivers have been alerting each other to your and your radar gun presence for decades. I don't see the tight knit driver community flippin'.  The quoted bootlicker driver is the exception to the rule.

    This won't make anyone feel better about (none / 0) (#51)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Oct 21, 2011 at 11:52:40 AM EST
    anything.  It is what it is.  New drone, kamikaze concept

    I wonder if the guy (none / 0) (#61)
    by Zorba on Fri Oct 21, 2011 at 01:12:06 PM EST
    a few weeks ago who was allegedly trying to buy C4 to stuff into a hobby plane and bomb the Capitol, read an article about these small "kamikaze" drones.

    I don't know (5.00 / 1) (#66)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Oct 21, 2011 at 02:08:03 PM EST
    Maybe news got out before someone sent it to me.  That guy had no chance of success though.  The plane he was trying to use was a turbo prop.  My husband has several of those radio controlled planes and two helicopters.  He doesn't have a turbo prop, but the whole fuselage of that plane must be open to the air for the engine to function properly.  It wouldn't have flown if he had stuffed it with C4.  And you can't add much weight to any of those planes and get them to fly.

    The news reports on it were very misleading.  For a few hundred dollars you can buy the body of the plane but the engine and the radio and the servos all cost extra and add up to several thousand dollars all together.  According to my husband though he couldn't have got enough C4 in it and had it fly to do much of anything.  And he was going to hit the Pentagon :)  That place has some serious structural defenses.  Look how well it stood up to a plane being flown into it, and because of that they beefed up the building construction more.

    Our son asked us how the guy got caught and my husband said that was when he went to buy his C4 from the C4 salesman out of Soldier of Fortune Magazine.  The C4 salesman is always a Fed.


    Well, the guy (none / 0) (#67)
    by Zorba on Fri Oct 21, 2011 at 02:30:52 PM EST
    was a complete doofus, no question.  And I suppose we're lucky that so many of them are doofusses (doofii?).  We've had enough problems with the few who turned out not to be idiots.

    Doofi? (none / 0) (#69)
    by sj on Fri Oct 21, 2011 at 02:43:27 PM EST
    Love it :)

    "the C4 salesman is always a FED" (none / 0) (#70)
    by Mr Natural on Fri Oct 21, 2011 at 03:20:12 PM EST
    Every year or so some local loser tries to hire a "hitman" to kill their husband or wife.  For some reason they always try to hire someone in a bar.  The "hitman" at the bar is always a Sheriff's Deputy.

    Well, but of course, (5.00 / 1) (#73)
    by Zorba on Fri Oct 21, 2011 at 03:24:01 PM EST
    we never find out about the ones who successfully hire a real, competent hit man.  Their spouse dies in an "accident" or is killed by a "stranger during a robbery" who is never caught, etc.   It must happen, at least once in awhile.

    Iraq (none / 0) (#56)
    by vicndabx on Fri Oct 21, 2011 at 12:32:23 PM EST
    Nobody has anything to say about no troops by EOY 2012?

    I'll believe it when I see it.... (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by kdog on Fri Oct 21, 2011 at 12:45:02 PM EST
    until then, I'll remain convinced our military presence is permanent.

    The Status Of Forces Agreement expires (none / 0) (#62)
    by Anne on Fri Oct 21, 2011 at 01:16:10 PM EST
    at the end of the year.  

    According to a White House official, "this deal was cut by the Bush administration, the agreement was always that at end of the year we would leave, but the Iraqis wanted additional troops to stay. We said here are the conditions, including immunities. But the Iraqis because of a variety of reasons wanted the troops and didn't want to give immunity.

    "So that's it. Now our troops go to zero," the official added

    If we had been given immunity, we'd be staying; I don't think that can be overlooked.

    Instead, we will be staffing a huge embassy complex with some 16,000 people, and they will have private security contractor-provided protection.  And no, I am not suggesting that the embassy staff shouldn't be protected.

    Is it a good thing that our troops will be leaving?  Of course - they should never have been there in the first place.

    But the quesion I have is, how bad will things have to get - and there is a belief that things will get bad when we leave - before Iraq grants us immunity and the decision is made to go back?

    I hope this is the end of it, but history suggests otherwise.


    The takeaway? Thank Blackwater's thugs... (5.00 / 1) (#71)
    by Mr Natural on Fri Oct 21, 2011 at 03:23:02 PM EST
    It turns out that the day on which the US military lost Iraq once and for all was September 16, 2007, when Blackwater private security guards, all decorated ex-military, opened fire in Nisoor Square under the mistaken impression that they were under attack by the ordinary civilian motorists there. 17 were killed, dozens wounded, and the incident became a cause celebre for Iraqis eager to see an end to a foreign military presence in their country. That the US courts declined to punish the perpetrators of the massacre was a nail in the coffin for extraterritoriality. The Iraqis wouldn't grant it after all that.
    - Juan Cole

    Three Trillion Dollars Worth of Failure (none / 0) (#72)
    by Mr Natural on Fri Oct 21, 2011 at 03:23:49 PM EST
    And we don't even get the oil.

    As we shouldn't (5.00 / 1) (#75)
    by sj on Fri Oct 21, 2011 at 03:54:43 PM EST
    It's not our natural resource.  You would support the theft of another country's resources?

    wadda mean, (none / 0) (#76)
    by NYShooter on Fri Oct 21, 2011 at 04:48:02 PM EST
    "It's not our natural resource?"

    God told George Bush it's ours,

    (as did 30,000 nuclear warheads)


    Well, we were the hit men that (none / 0) (#88)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Oct 21, 2011 at 07:35:51 PM EST
    got rid of Hussein.

    Why shouldn't we be paid??


    Because nobody hired us (none / 0) (#97)
    by sj on Fri Oct 21, 2011 at 11:27:10 PM EST
    And anyway, what does that have to do with Libya?

    We have never lost a war (none / 0) (#87)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Oct 21, 2011 at 07:34:52 PM EST
    or won a peace.

    Pete Seeger and Arlo Guthrie: OWS (none / 0) (#102)
    by oculus on Sat Oct 22, 2011 at 01:52:21 PM EST

    Commenters reminded (none / 0) (#108)
    by Jeralyn on Sun Oct 23, 2011 at 01:21:26 AM EST
    to stop name-calling and insults. Jim and Jondee, I've deleted your personal spats and insults. Stop now. I'm about to go clean tonight's open thread. Get a room if you want to bicker and insult each other, but don't do it here. You can disagree without resorting to personal insults.