Tuesday Night Open Thread

President Obama and Air Force One just landed in Denver. He'll attend two fundraisers and then speak tomorrow at the Auraria campus. He's just in time for the start of our first major snow storm. 6 to 12 inches will fall between tonight and tomorrow afternoon. It was 80 degrees yesterday.

Steven Tyler fell in the shower in Paraguay and lost two (false) teeth and had to postpone Aerosmith's concert until tomorrow night:

Tyler had been dehydrated and was suffering gastrointestinal problems. A man who identified himself as Gustavo Perez, a bellboy at the Bourbon hotel near Asuncion, told local radio that Tyler slipped when he was taking a shower and "had a nasty fall."

He was hospitalized, had emergency dental surgery and is now back at his hotel. I wonder if he slipped on one of those rubber mats.

Here's yesterday's and today's news updates on the Viktor Bout trial. The informant pretending to be FARC was followed by Bout's co-defendant, who took a deal early on for a lesser sentence in exchange for his testimony against Bout.

Tonight on TV: The first live X-Factor competition and elimination night on DWTS. (Added: L.A. Reid made the right choice. So did Paula and Nicole. Waiting on Simon now. I hope he sends Simone home. I hope it's not Rachel and Tia. They should have kept 4 of Simon's girls and sent host Steve Jones home. He adds nothing. In case the West Coast hasn't seen it yet, I won't do spoilers. )

Update: Simon sent Tia and Simone home. Tia wasn't great tonight, but I don't get the allure of Drew. She reminds me of Taylor Swift, who also doesn't impress me. I'm glad Rachel stayed but she'll probably go next.

Chaz Bono went home on DWTS. Good exit and not surprising. He did well and should be proud. Hopefully Ms. Piano Legs will be next. As for Maks and Hope, I was suprised to see them air a conversation between them in which Hope says, "I don't give a sh!t" -- they didn't bleep it. I don't think I've ever heard someone on network TV use that work without getting bleeped.

What else happened today? This is an open thread, all topics welcome.

< The DEA and Mexican Drug Cartels: The "Snitch and Carry On" Tactic | Goldman Ex -Dir. Rajat Gupta To Be Charged for Rajaratnam Tips >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Just a passing thought... (5.00 / 2) (#1)
    by Edger on Tue Oct 25, 2011 at 08:01:32 PM EST
    After the National Transitional Council takes power and drags Obama and Geithner and all of their wall street CEO friends out of sewer pipes to enjoy their constitutionally protected right to fair trials instead of summary execution, maybe pensions for cops in Oakland and other places who have been beating on Occupy protesters could be clawed back and divvied up among the real Peace Officers who during the revolution refused illegal orders to contravene constitutionally protected freedom of assembly.

    Call it "humanitarian intervention".

    Perhaps this council will also investigate (5.00 / 2) (#3)
    by oculus on Tue Oct 25, 2011 at 08:11:57 PM EST
    the mass murder and burial of Gaddafi supporters recently.  

    They'll all be... (none / 0) (#30)
    by kdog on Wed Oct 26, 2011 at 10:56:08 AM EST
    sippin' cognac smoking cubans at the Bush compound in Paraguay long before they consider a sewer pipe.

    And that works for me:)


    I don't know.... (none / 0) (#31)
    by Edger on Wed Oct 26, 2011 at 10:58:12 AM EST
    Paraguayans might not be as nonviolently inclined as Americans are.

    I mean..... uhhh.... well....


    Am about to watch Satyajit Ray's "The (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by oculus on Tue Oct 25, 2011 at 08:07:20 PM EST
    World of Apu," with score by Ravi Shankar.  Winner of Best Foreign Film award in 1960.  Have seen the film b/4 but didn't realize who wrote the score.  One article re Shankar sd. if he'd never done anything except write this score, he would still be revered.  

    No baseball tonight.

    Well, that is officially Geezer Rock (5.00 / 2) (#8)
    by ruffian on Tue Oct 25, 2011 at 09:38:39 PM EST
    when the lead singer slips in the shower. Dental work is no fun - I wish him well.  

    Maybe he had to shower... (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by desertswine on Wed Oct 26, 2011 at 12:12:25 AM EST
    in the bathtub. That could be slippery dangerous.  Me and Andy Rooney both hate showering in bathtubs.

    Anybody can slip and fall in a shower (5.00 / 1) (#74)
    by cymro on Wed Oct 26, 2011 at 01:56:50 PM EST
    You don't have to be old, so don't get the idea that you're immune to this kind of accident: Bathroom Shower Safety .

    He isn't old enough to be slipping in the (none / 0) (#16)
    by oculus on Tue Oct 25, 2011 at 11:09:53 PM EST
    shower.  Time for yoga.

    age ain't nothing but a number (none / 0) (#78)
    by CST on Wed Oct 26, 2011 at 02:06:33 PM EST
    his body is a lot older than his years would say.

    Like he has (none / 0) (#135)
    by Amiss on Wed Oct 26, 2011 at 11:58:33 PM EST
    been rode hard and put away wet. Isnt that the saying?

    I was listening (5.00 / 2) (#10)
    by CoralGables on Tue Oct 25, 2011 at 09:51:41 PM EST
    to Jimmy Buffett when everyone else was going disco and polyester. Still not sure if I was ahead, behind, or out in left field.

    I do so love Portland, and this is why. (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by caseyOR on Tue Oct 25, 2011 at 10:49:00 PM EST
    This Friday there will be an outdoor concert at downtown's Pioneer Courthouse Square. Performing will be Pink Martini, Storm Large and others.

    The concert, entitled the This Land is Your Land concert, is being held, according to Pink Martini,

    "with the purpose of providing a thinking person's guide to the Occupy Wall Street/Occupy Portland movements."

    Concert starts at noon and goes until 1:30 PM.

    And next month (none / 0) (#14)
    by CoralGables on Tue Oct 25, 2011 at 11:01:33 PM EST
    you get the Holiday Ale Festival in Courthouse Square. Portland is one of my favorite downtown areas to walk, and follow it up with an early morning walk along the Willamette as the sun rises.

    The walk along the river is pretty (none / 0) (#15)
    by caseyOR on Tue Oct 25, 2011 at 11:08:30 PM EST
    great. If you run, or even if you don't, the round trip along Tom McCall Waterfront Park on the west side of the river, across the Steel Bridge and along the Eastbank Esplanade with a return west over the Hawthorne Bridge is one of Portland's shining stars.

    Polyester totally (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed Oct 26, 2011 at 12:52:47 AM EST
    s*cks, but I gotta say disco had its virtues.  Among other things, it brought back really nifty dancing for a while-- for those who could do it.  I wouldn't have been happy if it had lasted much longer (I'm a Wagner and R&B fan personally), but I thought the anti rage was a bit overdone. (OK, I've never depended on AM radio for my music, so maybe that made it a lot worse than it seemed to me.)

    Well I don't really think (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by sj on Wed Oct 26, 2011 at 01:28:56 AM EST
    disco is meant to be listened to as much as danced to.  And dance I did.  Some of those disco standards still make me smile.

    WOW (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by MO Blue on Wed Oct 26, 2011 at 08:32:32 AM EST
    It looks like Obama will get another portion of his "jobs" bill passed.

    President Obama supports passage of House GOP legislation that would eliminate a tax compliance rule affecting big government contractors and pay for it by limiting Medicaid eligibility, the White House announced Tuesday. link

    First the 3 three Chamber of Commerce approved trade deals (aka send jobs to N. Korea, support tax loopholes and union killing governments) and now letting contractors avoid paying taxes to be paid for by kicking more people off of Medicaid. Boy, Obama is on a roll getting his real agenda through Congress.

    BTW, keep those campaign contributions coming.

    I guess we're both horrified; I posted my (5.00 / 2) (#24)
    by Anne on Wed Oct 26, 2011 at 09:00:09 AM EST
    comment before seeing yours.

    You know what I'm thinking about?  My aunt in the nursing home, who has about a year's worth of money left before all she has is her Social Security.  The nursing home is costing about $10,500 a month, and assuming she outlives what she has left, my plan, as her conservator, was to file for Medicaid on her behalf so that she could continue to live where she has been since 2008.

    Hell is too good a fate for people who think it makes sense to pay for their special tax breaks on the backs of the defenseless.


    but, but, but.... (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by Edger on Wed Oct 26, 2011 at 10:53:11 AM EST

    Those "buts" may be the only thing that (5.00 / 3) (#33)
    by Anne on Wed Oct 26, 2011 at 11:10:33 AM EST
    saves Obama's butt - but who's going to save ours?

    Oh, right...no one cares about our butts, only our votes.


    Saving our butts (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by Edger on Wed Oct 26, 2011 at 11:22:10 AM EST
    is the new 21st century Occupation, I think...

    GOP analyst re Obama WH slogans: (none / 0) (#40)
    by oculus on Wed Oct 26, 2011 at 12:10:56 PM EST
    Very bipartisan (none / 0) (#44)
    by Edger on Wed Oct 26, 2011 at 12:23:06 PM EST
    At least Frank Luntz likes it, eh?

    I'd be more partial to (none / 0) (#46)
    by Edger on Wed Oct 26, 2011 at 12:24:10 PM EST
    hearing him say something "Officer - arrest those men"

    "something like" (none / 0) (#47)
    by Edger on Wed Oct 26, 2011 at 12:24:33 PM EST
    Yesterday, I read that the GOP, in a move (5.00 / 2) (#23)
    by Anne on Wed Oct 26, 2011 at 08:53:27 AM EST
    that should not have been a surprise, cherry-picked two Obama-supported ideas out of the AJA - probably the two worst - and packaged them together into one bill.  I mean, once the jobs bill failed to pass, and the Obama administration announced it was going to break it up into pieces and force the GOP to go on the record on a multitude of ideas, didn't we all know that the GOP would do this themselves - and force the Dems to accept or reject things that Obama endorsed?

    What are these two things?  Well, the first would eliminate the requirement that the government withhold 3% of the cost of privately-contracted projects - permanently, not as a tax holiday.  But it has to be paid for, so how does the GOP propose to do that?  With another Obama-endorsed plan to limit Medicaid eligibility for seniors who also receive Social Security benefits.

    This is crazy, right?  Give a tax break to contractors, and pay for it by making seniors include all of their SS benefits, not just the taxable portion, to determine their eligibility for Medicaid - the more income one reports, the fewer who will be eligible.

    Here's what's crazier: Obama has endorsed this bill:

    The repeal of the withholding requirement in H.R. 674 would reduce a burden on government contractors who otherwise comply with their tax obligations, particularly small businesses. As evidenced in the President's proposed American Jobs Act, released September 12, 2011, the Administration has supported alleviating this burden, which was originally enacted into law on May 17, 2006.


    The Administration supports passage of H.R. 2576, which would change the calculation of modified adjusted gross income, as defined in section 1401 of the Affordable Care Act, to include both taxable and non-taxable Social Security benefits. Beginning in 2014, this income definition will be used to determine financial eligibility for Medicaid and the State Children's Health Insurance Program, and for premium tax credits and cost-sharing reductions available through Affordable Insurance Exchanges. The Administration looks forward to working with the House to ensure the bill achieves the intended result.

    Or...maybe not so crazy, since these were part of the Obama bill, he supported them, so, why should be not support them now?

    The repeal of the withholding requirement also has bipartisan support - the question is, will Democrats go along with paying for it by throwing more poor, old people off the Medicaid rolls?  

    I'm almost afraid to contemplate the answer to that question.

    And people wonder (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by sj on Wed Oct 26, 2011 at 09:51:10 AM EST
    why my choice is "none of the above".  I'm so sick of the "this is horrible but I'm going to vote for him anyway" attitude.  It guarantees we will continue to get substandard candidates.

    While I'm thinking about it (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by sj on Wed Oct 26, 2011 at 01:15:02 PM EST
    You know what?  Putting those provisions on the docket first shows what a sham the so-called "jobs bill" really is. Anything good in it was destined to be watered down to begin with . At least with this priorities are right out there in the light of day instead of undercover as a "jobs bill".

    This is the GOP's bill, not the Dems' (none / 0) (#63)
    by Anne on Wed Oct 26, 2011 at 01:35:41 PM EST
    This is the GOP daring the Dems NOT to vote for it, and reminding them that "even" Barack Obama supported these things - after all they were in "his" bill.

    Of course the GOP (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by sj on Wed Oct 26, 2011 at 01:40:10 PM EST
    extracted that piece.  But if they hadn't, and the "jobs bill" had passed those provisions would have still been there, right?  (Unless I'm reading this wrong, which I may be).  

    But basically the GOP has once again, successfully made him look like the amateur that he is.


    This is the inevitable result of (5.00 / 2) (#81)
    by Anne on Wed Oct 26, 2011 at 02:13:23 PM EST
    trying to salt bills with little tidbits that are designed to appeal to the other side - even though, as we know, that other side always refuses to play along.

    But, here's a question: can something that one supports really be deemed to be a concession?


    Except...that the provisions which (none / 0) (#62)
    by christinep on Wed Oct 26, 2011 at 01:34:18 PM EST
    are "cherry-picked" will get about 10 seconds notice.

    I read the story relaying what you also relayed, and thought "yea, the Repupbs think they are on to something," then I realized their maneuvering in this particular instance doesn't amount to chump change when it is all said & done and resolved.

    Right now, what seems to be getting attention is the President's proposal for to help students with student-loan relief. Very good coverage, enthusiastic audience in Denver.


    Sure (5.00 / 1) (#67)
    by jbindc on Wed Oct 26, 2011 at 01:41:13 PM EST
    And it's good - if you're a young person (hint: whose vote this time around is desperately needed, even though interest in The One has faded). A good start, but it will, however, have little or no effect for most people with crippling student loan debt.

    I have $100K in student loans. I sure would like a little help.


    I hear you on that one (5.00 / 2) (#83)
    by CST on Wed Oct 26, 2011 at 02:15:22 PM EST
    Income based repayment is long overdue.

    Glad they're doing it now for current students.  Really wish they had already done it when I graduated.

    Does anyone know if this applies to graduate school loans?  Or just undergrad?

    And yes, I have no doubt this is politically motivated, but I don't see that as a bad thing.  He is responding to the angry college students at the protests.  They are the ones making noise right now and being listened to.  That's why we protest.


    As near as I can tell, these two programs (5.00 / 1) (#92)
    by Anne on Wed Oct 26, 2011 at 02:42:23 PM EST
    are ones that were part of the reconciliation part of the ACA, and are being tweaked by regulatory means as opposed to statutory ones.

    David Dayen (bold is mine):

    As I said, there are two programs here. The first is income-based repayment. Under current law, graduates with student loans can opt to pay 15% of their income for 25 years instead of a monthly student loan repayment based on the cost of the loan. In the reconciliation sidecar to the Affordable Care Act, actually, this was reduced to 10% of income, starting in 2014. The plan announced under executive authority moves that date up to 2012, and changes the debt forgiveness end date to 20 years from 25. This would only benefit those who graduate college between 2012 and 2014; people who have already graduated or who are in repayment won't benefit from this change. The Administration claims that 1.6 million graduates would be eligible for the new program.


    The second program is an artifact of other changes in the Affordable Care Act's reconciliation sidecar. In that bill, most student loans that people can access were converted from private loans to loans directly administered by the government. This has left many borrowers with two types of federal government loans - the Direct Loan (DL) and the Federal Family Education Loan (FFEL). These require separate payments but are both managed by the government. 5.8 million borrowers have the two types of direct loans. So the new program would allow those borrowers to consolidate the loan, and in the process receive a reduction in the interest rate of 0.5%. That translates into a slightly lower monthly payment. The savings from the consolidation of the loan (presumably in administrative costs) will pay for the move-up in the date for the new income-based repayment plan, so that the set of programs do not cost any additional taxpayer money. Borrowers with the two loans will be contacted by the government about the opportunity, and they will have from January and June of next year to make the consolidation.


    The consolidation just seems like common sense, with a small 0.5% interest rate sweetener in it. The move-up of the date on income-based repayment is a belated acknowledgement that people need help immediately, and back-dating all of these programs to save money is a dumb idea.

    But it's a fairly narrow plan. If you just have one type of federal loan, you don't get the interest rate reduction. If you've already graduated, you can't get the new income-based repayment. This, of course, is what you get when you use regulatory authority instead of statutory changes in the law.

    The changes are good ones, well worth doing, but it's a shame it takes an impending election to do something that, if it was worth doing in 2010, should not have been delayed to 2014 in the first place..


    Actually (none / 0) (#90)
    by jbindc on Wed Oct 26, 2011 at 02:38:16 PM EST
    There IS income based repayment.

    If you make over something like $65,000, however, you don't qualify. (You also can't deduct the interest you pay on your loans if you make over something like $70,000.  While that is a good income compared to many people, if you've racked up tons of debt in pursuit of a graduate or professional degree, that isn't a hard threshhold to pass and thus, eliminate you from benefitting from the deduction).


    Agree that it is only a step/a start (none / 0) (#76)
    by christinep on Wed Oct 26, 2011 at 02:03:03 PM EST
    on the relief so needed as to student loans. But, as an Executive act, there are limitations...unlike what could be accomplished by broader legislation, to which the Repubs show their backsides.

    And, as I'm sure you know, those young people have family who will be affected by this Executive action, and friends who will hear of it. In the case of the venue here--Univ. of Colorado @Denver--lots of middle-class, diverse students & family.


    It would be helpful (5.00 / 1) (#80)
    by Edger on Wed Oct 26, 2011 at 02:10:33 PM EST
    if the dems controlled the house and the senate, like they did back in the glory days before the 2010 midterms until Obama and the party were unable to convince enough people that their batsh*t crazy drive for bipartisanship with batsh*t crazy republicans was the only way to go.

    THEN something could get done!

    Keep On Rockin' In The Free World: Give Obama and the Dems Some Credit For A Change


    Weren't those cherries picked (5.00 / 1) (#70)
    by sj on Wed Oct 26, 2011 at 01:47:26 PM EST
    from the orchard of O's jobs bill?  You know what's funny?  Those picked cherries are in real bill.  Is the President's proposal for student loan relief on it's way to being similarly extracted or is it still all just good sounding talk?  That's getting very good coverage.

    Looking for walk to go with that talk.  Until there's some "walk" to go with it, I have my own opinions on who the real chump is in all that change.


    Points taken...but, as for all orchards, (none / 0) (#77)
    by christinep on Wed Oct 26, 2011 at 02:05:32 PM EST
    not all the cherries are nourishing, tasty, good.  I've always been partial to cherries; yet, never have savored a perfect batch. (Blueberries too.)

    On student action... (none / 0) (#79)
    by christinep on Wed Oct 26, 2011 at 02:10:32 PM EST
    how could I forget to clarify that the proposal is an Executive action.  The rates & structure of the loans (& restructure) do not require legislative action, and cannot therefore be so impeded as Repubs have demonstrated they are wont to do.  As a friend said this morning: Now that Repubs have been shown to keep resisting anything Obama puts forward, the timing of some key Executive acts & orders may well be more readily accepted by a public that will see him as being the only one to do something.  The quirks of timing...as in, "timing is everything."

    Well, that's actually (none / 0) (#84)
    by sj on Wed Oct 26, 2011 at 02:16:28 PM EST
    good news.  I am standing by waiting for some Executive action.  And the timing for some relief -- any relief -- should be on a "now is good" basis.

    And just for the record, when did any President of the last 12 years start caring about public acceptance of Executive actions?  


    DOA in the Senate? (none / 0) (#82)
    by MKS on Wed Oct 26, 2011 at 02:13:33 PM EST
    Before My Time, But Rod Wasn't the Only One (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Oct 26, 2011 at 12:23:36 PM EST
    'Some Girls' is a '4 on the Floor' album that I know got plenty of disco airtime.  Which I might add is one of the Stones best selling albums.

    Stone do DISCO with the best of them.

    BO spent the morning here in LA. (none / 0) (#4)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Oct 25, 2011 at 09:02:14 PM EST
    Many street closures, huge traffic jams, thousands late for work, etc. How much did that cost the economy?

    1.2 mil for an hour in SF (5.00 / 3) (#12)
    by nycstray on Tue Oct 25, 2011 at 10:04:52 PM EST
    Sorry, but this is the same dude that hasn't addressed the 2nd highest UE in the country, and is busting down on the MMJ biz here. Wonder how many jobs could be created with his 1.2mil from "job creators"? Oh, and this was his 3rd vi$it to the state since he became "Campaign Obama". $$$$$

    So where was he pressing the flesh and mingling with real folks today? Ya know, the ones that keep him real from his DC bubble . . .


    The only flesh getting pressed... (none / 0) (#25)
    by kdog on Wed Oct 26, 2011 at 09:06:14 AM EST
    is flesh carrying a campaign donation check.

    Or the secret service pressing broked*ck flesh away from the potus.


    He was on the Tonight Show (5.00 / 2) (#21)
    by jbindc on Wed Oct 26, 2011 at 07:12:33 AM EST
    That sounds important

    Former major donors against Obama (5.00 / 2) (#34)
    by Towanda on Wed Oct 26, 2011 at 11:16:29 AM EST
    and others, totaling more than a thousand, held quite a protest outside his fancy-plate dinner in San Francisco yesterday, I read in the SF Chronicle.  Rumblings of the former major donors desperately seeking a way to oust Obama as nominee and run someone else.  Their list of grievances spanned several issues.  With that and Occupy Oakland protests, cops from 16 municipalities were called in to SF and, soon after Obama left town -- and long before park-closing time -- they went 'way over the line last night in half a dozen tear-gas and rubber-bullet assaults that injured a woman in a wheelchair, an Iraq veteran, children, etc.

    And not a word from President Hoover about the assaults on today's Hoovervilles there and in many cities last night -- all cities with Democratic mayors -- that seemed coordinated.

    I have this Chicago '68 deja vu feeling that the 2012 Democratic convention may be a debacle.


    I think the people are finally through (5.00 / 2) (#37)
    by Anne on Wed Oct 26, 2011 at 11:56:31 AM EST
    being ignored, because what has been happening to ordinary people has been a debacle of its own.  With much more pain to come, I think.

    I would welcome a debacle at the convention; not because I want to see people get their heads cracked or be pepper-sprayed, or arrested, but because I would love to see the establishment shaken to its core, and have the world look on as it tries to shut down and shut up its own citizens, and exposes for the world to see the hypocrisy of their preaching to others about freedom and democracy - one of many hypocrisies that would be exposed.

    I can hardly wait for the draconian security measures that will be imposed, the pre-emptive round-ups of those deemed security threats for wanting to be heard.  Wiretaps and surveillance, anyone?

    A convention debacle might settle once and for all just what - or who - this Democratic Party represents, how far to the right it has gone, and what has been so important to the party elite that they have been willing to throw long-time liberals and Democrats under the bus.  And then have the unmitigated gall to ask for their money and their votes.


    Buckle your seat belts; it's going to be a wild ride.


    No debacle (none / 0) (#43)
    by jbindc on Wed Oct 26, 2011 at 12:15:30 PM EST
    The sheep will fall in line because we MUST vote for Obama and the few vocal protests will barely be covered.

    If I had time to research (none / 0) (#50)
    by Towanda on Wed Oct 26, 2011 at 12:32:07 PM EST
    I'm having all of these thoughts today, after watching veterans among Occupiers attacked in city after city, about -- as I recall -- horrible assaults on the veterans and their families in the Hooverville outside the White House.  (And similar assaults on veterans in Coxey's Army in the 1890s in the first March on Washington.)

    But I'm trying to recall whether there were such widespread attacks by local cops on urban Hoovervilles then.  Attacks on individual hobos and smaller groups of tramps in and along trains, I recall (reading about them, hearing about an uncle who was a Depression-era hobo, etc.)  

    But I have this sense that a lot of cities left alone their Hoovervilles in parks and the like.  Anyone know more about that?


    Per this link (reliability unknown to me), (none / 0) (#60)
    by oculus on Wed Oct 26, 2011 at 01:10:51 PM EST
    local law enforcement acted but were unsuccessful, so U.S. military called in with MacArthur (who thought the protesters were communist--most weren't) in command.  PBS

    If it is not (none / 0) (#51)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Wed Oct 26, 2011 at 12:37:11 PM EST
    and everyone lines up right behind Obama, will you concede that your views are outside of the mainstream of the left in this country?

    While your question was not addressed (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by Anne on Wed Oct 26, 2011 at 01:00:03 PM EST
    to me, and setting aside for the moment the idea that everyone's going to line up behind Obama - although I'm not sure if the "everyone" to whom you refer are the delegates to the convention, or those whom you believe will have had a brief fling with citizen action before coming to their senses and realizing that Barack Obama was truly The One - I'm going to respond to your question as if it was directed to me: why would it be necessary for anyone to concede anything?  Is there some kind of shame or embarrassment people should feel because they don't "line up" with "everyone?"  

    You might as well have asked, "if everyone decides to strip naked and run down the street, will you concede that you are outside the mainstream?"

    I can't speak for anyone but myself, but I don't base my own opinions on what others think, but what I think; willingness to be part of the herd does not lend credibility or value to the herd mentality - but it does make it easier for those doing the herding to move people in the direction that's best for the the "shepherds."

    I would so like to be a fly on the wall when, one day, you have a child who informs you that "everyone else's parents" are letting them do _____, and you are an outside-the-mainstream dad for not "lining up" behind them.

    Good luck with that one.


    In order to disrupt the convention, one would need (none / 0) (#87)
    by MKS on Wed Oct 26, 2011 at 02:25:24 PM EST
    some support.

    I do think there wiil be some protest but doubt there will be the full blown Mayor Richard Daley approach that you appear to feel would be helpful to Democrats.

    And, maybe that is the point.  A violent Democratic Convention would help the Republicans....


    screw the the convention (5.00 / 1) (#93)
    by jondee on Wed Oct 26, 2011 at 02:42:50 PM EST
    lets head right into the belly of the beast: the Hamptons.

    Where all the bodies are REALLY buried.


    I could be wrong (5.00 / 1) (#94)
    by sj on Wed Oct 26, 2011 at 02:52:19 PM EST
    but I don't think being "helpful to Democrats" is Anne's top priority.  It isn't mine.  Unless "helpful to Democrats" is also equal to "helpful to the 99%".  Then I am all in.*

    *  w/r/t "Helpful to the 99%".  I really mean helpful.  Not just less damaging.


    No, you are clear (5.00 / 1) (#112)
    by MKS on Wed Oct 26, 2011 at 04:55:39 PM EST
    The new wrinkle is the thought that wouldn't it be just grand to revisit Chicago 1968?.....

    hoo boy (none / 0) (#115)
    by sj on Wed Oct 26, 2011 at 05:13:16 PM EST
    And off you go.  I am clear with that, how exactly?  Never mind.  It wouldn't make sense to anyone trying to follow a conversation.

    I was referring to other posts (none / 0) (#117)
    by MKS on Wed Oct 26, 2011 at 05:35:27 PM EST
    I assumed that was clear.

    You know, it really isn't (5.00 / 0) (#119)
    by sj on Wed Oct 26, 2011 at 05:54:25 PM EST
    It isn't clear at all.  And you should not assume that.  Ever.  You do that alot and it starts arguments.  You hang your comment willy-nilly and then get irate when the recipient of your apparently random comment pushes back because it's unrelated to what they said.

    If you got rid of that one bad habit, then your comments could be engaged on the merits.  But it all gets lost because you just throw your remarks out there whenever, whereever.

    And this is not a hostile comment.  I'm trying to help you out here.


    Tsk, tsk, sj (2.00 / 1) (#120)
    by christinep on Wed Oct 26, 2011 at 06:05:35 PM EST
    Sounds like the "lectures" I'm supposed to give, huh.  A tad overreacting w/r/t MKS. Mayhaps it is good putting-off-the-stride-technique:)

    Lecture? (5.00 / 1) (#122)
    by sj on Wed Oct 26, 2011 at 06:13:38 PM EST
    Oh, you mean like this little scold you just offered up?  Whatever.

    I'm just tired of MKS starting an argument by hanging a non-sequitur on my comments.  It doesn't further the conversation at all.  And, while I often disagree with her position, it doesn't mean she shouldn't be heard.  Just don't address it to me when it shouldn't be.  

    And overreacting?  Seriously?  When it got so bad that comments from both of us were deleted?  And rightly so.  I'd say it was a pre-emptive attempt to prevent a re-occurrence.  Which apparently can happen at the drop of a hat.

    So "tsk, tsk" back to you and your presumption.


    No, I meant your overreaction...your lecture. (5.00 / 0) (#124)
    by christinep on Wed Oct 26, 2011 at 06:16:31 PM EST
    Hey. If we dish it I--any of us (me too)--we should be able to take it.

    Did you read my comment? (5.00 / 1) (#125)
    by sj on Wed Oct 26, 2011 at 06:21:16 PM EST
    I was telling you clearly I was not overreacting based on actual, verifiable experience. Can you now let this die the death it deserves?  All I wanted was for her to stop attaching her points addressed to other posts on my comments.  And thereby avoid another debacle.  

    Jeebus!  Let the d@mn thing die already.  You don't know what you're talking about.  Or stirring up.


    I say let it roll (none / 0) (#134)
    by MKS on Wed Oct 26, 2011 at 10:40:53 PM EST
    but if one wants to avoid big disputes, dont'e engage in one.

    I didn't attribute anything to you above (none / 0) (#133)
    by MKS on Wed Oct 26, 2011 at 10:37:15 PM EST
    And, you are going on here.



    Helping me out? (none / 0) (#132)
    by MKS on Wed Oct 26, 2011 at 10:34:46 PM EST
    Don't worry about it.

    And, for the record, I have referred to my wife here on more than one occasion.  I suppose I could let you go on, but a correction seems more appropriate....


    Thanks (none / 0) (#138)
    by sj on Thu Oct 27, 2011 at 10:07:51 AM EST
    Hadn't read a reference to a wife.  I'll change the pronoun.  But, just for the record, having a wife is not necessarily a indicator of gender. :)

    Don't want to quibble, but.... (none / 0) (#103)
    by christinep on Wed Oct 26, 2011 at 03:55:47 PM EST
    About the condition you mention "I really mean helpful.  Not just less damaging." Hmmm. What if you are down on your luck or what if you could just use a little help or what if you need a little assist in refinancing (mortgages or student loans, say) or what if you get some help by being able to be on your parents health insurance awhile longer (or) don't have to fear a $$ healthcare lifetime cap...what if? That seemingly bit of help could be the help that makes a difference, a very real difference to an individual next door or in the family or anywhere in the country.  Often, what is a bit helpful at the macro level can be the real difference in the prayed for help at the individual level.

    Not to argue with you; simply to consider the meaning of "helpful."


    You're conflating all kinds of things (none / 0) (#104)
    by sj on Wed Oct 26, 2011 at 04:09:39 PM EST
    Pick an example and stick with it, then we have something to discuss.

    Summary of examples used: A little help goes a (none / 0) (#109)
    by christinep on Wed Oct 26, 2011 at 04:39:56 PM EST
    long way. By raising the What Ifs above, it may focus on the areas where that "little help" --seemingly little changes--can make a meaningful & positive difference in a number of individual lives. Macro v. Micro, as it were.  And, in this case, the individuals might experience relief in reality, if not in a more scholarly theory.

    wev (none / 0) (#113)
    by sj on Wed Oct 26, 2011 at 05:06:19 PM EST
    Helpful to Democrats? Where in what (5.00 / 1) (#95)
    by Anne on Wed Oct 26, 2011 at 03:00:42 PM EST
    I wrote did I leave the impression I would be looking for citizen action at the convention to be helpful to Democrats?  Do you mean individual, registered Democratic voters, or do you mean the party itself, which hasn't exactly distinguished itself in its representation of the people?

    It's long past time for people to stop enabling a Democratic party that has done precious little to help them in the last decade - and time to be looking for and being publicly vocal about ways the party can be pushed to do something kind of unusual - actually represent their interests.

    My statement that I wasn't looking for a debacle so that protestors could be treated violently by law enforcment did not contain an assumption that the protestors themselves would resort to violence, so your little comment about violence helping the Republicans falls more than a little flat.

    Along with your attempt to paint me as someone who would cheer dissent and protest at the convention because it would help Republicans.

    Oops - don't look now, but your bitterness is showing.


    No, you have been clear (none / 0) (#111)
    by MKS on Wed Oct 26, 2011 at 04:53:30 PM EST
    that you want the Democratic party to be dismantled, and now that anitpathy apparently extends to the convention itself.

    The references to 1968 in this thread may or may not be apt...but certainly any resemblance to 1968 would be no help to liberal or progressive causes.....What good (for liberal or progressive causes) came out of 1968?  Nothing.

    Any yearning for a 1968 style confrontation at the Democratic Convention is self-destructive and nihilistic from a liberal/progressive point of view.

    That's a pretty obvious point, I would think.


    As a person who participated in (5.00 / 1) (#121)
    by christinep on Wed Oct 26, 2011 at 06:09:47 PM EST
    several direct events leading to the 1968 confrontation (including an official challenge by the Indiana rump delegation recorded by my husband), I do recall quite well the 1968 Dem Convention. While it was catharsis at the time and--for a host of reasons--maybe could not have been avoided, the longstanding (read: Reaganism) result is a nightmare that resulted.  Thanks, MKS.

    That was a pretty potent (none / 0) (#123)
    by sj on Wed Oct 26, 2011 at 06:14:29 PM EST
    demonstration if it resulted in Reaganism all by its lonesome.

    The reaction has been documented (none / 0) (#126)
    by christinep on Wed Oct 26, 2011 at 06:29:40 PM EST
    and discussed in many places as the so-called Culture Divide. Yep, Reaganism got a lift & more from that. 1968 was important; key; thrilling even...but, lots of lessons about fall-out as well. One thing: The country didn't all take to the streets for a new way of ruling & all that--even with the mounting & ultimately 50,000 dead US soldiers in Vietnam. Nope, other than the Watergate-driven 1974 period (with short stint by Carter in 1976 plus), we dealt with the Reagan-wrought conservatism pillars until interrupted by President Clinton and his ability to communicate from the relative middle & center-left. Then, back to the extension of the conservatism with Bush II.

    I was fully into the what-I-considered-the-legitimate upheaval of 1968. But, the backward steps that followed make me sick at heart and more than skeptical about some fantasies I read today. The fantasies of which I speak? When some imagine that showing hurt & harm to the brave ones on the frontline of Occupy will bring about a change of heart by the general public...that same public which has historically been moderate in response. IMO, bringing down the center in order to bring about the complete goals of the most ideological is no more than a windmill tilt with a sad, harsh outcome. If we walk too far ahead of the public, that public will follow others.


    Great line (none / 0) (#136)
    by vicndabx on Thu Oct 27, 2011 at 12:19:45 AM EST
    If we walk too far ahead of the public, that public will follow others.

    What I most recall (none / 0) (#131)
    by MKS on Wed Oct 26, 2011 at 10:31:09 PM EST
    from the 1968 convention was that friends who had color t.v. (we didn't ) noted that you could see the blood from the riots and Daley's goon squad.

    I suppose Democratic Party politics changed--in terms of Delegate selection.....But we also got Law and Order and a Secret Plan for Peace.  Not so great.

    I do think 1968 was the turning point that led to Reagan.....Carter barely beat Ford.  


    I've been a Democrat almost as long as (none / 0) (#139)
    by Anne on Thu Oct 27, 2011 at 10:48:14 AM EST
    I've been registered to vote; I originally registered as an independent, but when I realized I would essentially have no voice in the primary election process in Maryland, I changed my affiliation and have been a Democrat ever since.  As recently as the 2008 election, I worked the polls, first as an election judge, and then as an assistant chief judge; prior to the 2010 primary, my precinct was split into two, and I was asked to be the chief judge of one of them.  I declined to serve in any capacity at that point, so disgusted and disillusioned with how the party had abandoned Democrats like me that I couldn't bring myself to do it.

    That feeling of being abandoned is one that is shared by a lot of other Democrats, some right here on TL; I - and they - have expressed on numerous occasions why we feel that way.  

    Do I want to dismantle the Democratic Party?  I'm not sure that I do.  And in any event, it isn't going to happen.  But citizen protest and action can expose what it has become, and with exposure often comes change.  And if nothing else, it forces the party power structure to decide what it wants to be and who and what interests it wants to serve.  And then people can decide what to do.  A lot of people have already left the Democratic Party behind.  Others, like me, have kept the affiliation, still vote for good Democrats in local elections, or write in candidates as necessary.  Some have cast protest votes, but I am not one of them.  My feeling is that a vote is a vote is a vote, and you don't vote for someone if you don't want to see him or her hold the office for which he or she is running.  It's why I didn't cast a vote for president in 2008 - I didn't think either McCain or Obama were worthy of something that I hold dear and have taken seriously all my voting life - my vote.

    In my heart of hearts, I would not want to see violence at the convention, but I don't think peaceful confrontation would be inappropriate.  Unfortunately, as we've seen in the OccupyOakland protest, sometimes peaceful, but vocal, protest by unarmed citizens can be met with violent action by the authorities.  But speaking out has to be worth the risk, doesn't it, if it informs the power structure that we will not be herded into submission, that we are watching and taking notes?

    I think so.  I think if we lose interest in pushing back and seeking accountability, we've just plain lost.  And given that government is, for the most part, working harder to avoid getting accountability from those who most need to be held accountable for where we are right now, than it is in keeping their boots on the necks of the people most affected by events of the last decade, I'm not hopeful that, come convention time, the anger level in this country will have subsided.  

    We'll see where the Occupy movement goes over the next year, and how government responds - if it responds in any way other than constant efforts to shut people up.  I can't speak for anyone else, but I don't think going along to get along is particularly good for liberal/progressive causes, either.


    I dunno (none / 0) (#114)
    by sj on Wed Oct 26, 2011 at 05:10:28 PM EST
    I think she's deciding what you "meant" and then charging into battle.  It's too bad, really.  She makes some good points sometimes but then goes too far and starts battling her own creations.

    Interesting (none / 0) (#118)
    by MKS on Wed Oct 26, 2011 at 05:38:16 PM EST
    But, I think my point still stands.....

    Can't speak for Towanda (5.00 / 2) (#59)
    by sj on Wed Oct 26, 2011 at 01:05:30 PM EST
    I tell you what.  Why don't you concede that while your views are deep inside the mainstream of the Dem Party, they are outside the mainstream of country.

    Because lining up behind Obama is far, far, far from enthusiastic support.  It can even be considered despair for those who have decided to vote for what they perceived to be the lesser of two evils.


    the "left" isn't the Left (5.00 / 0) (#91)
    by jondee on Wed Oct 26, 2011 at 02:40:34 PM EST
    it's what the noise machine started selling as "the Left" around the time that they began describing Clinton as a marxist hippie who was intiated into the communist party by Sen Fulbright..

    And if that deregulatory jihadist Summers has anything to do with "the Left", then I'm living in a Fellini movie.


    Okay, jondee, (none / 0) (#106)
    by Zorba on Wed Oct 26, 2011 at 04:22:02 PM EST
    that was a great line.
    And if that deregulatory jihadist Summers has anything to do with "the Left", then I'm living in a Fellini movie.
     I about snorted Diet Pepsi out my nose.  I am so stealing that line (with your permission, of course)!

    Hopefully it'll make up (none / 0) (#107)
    by jondee on Wed Oct 26, 2011 at 04:27:06 PM EST
    in some small way, for me forgetting your birthday :)

    LOL! (none / 0) (#110)
    by Zorba on Wed Oct 26, 2011 at 04:42:55 PM EST

    Of course it is also possible (5.00 / 0) (#97)
    by MO Blue on Wed Oct 26, 2011 at 03:12:58 PM EST
    that you are the one who is moving more and more outside of the mainstream when it comes to approving of Obama's performance.

    The biggest drop-off has come among his broad base--79 percent of Democrats now say they approve of the President's job performance, the lowest in our tracking.  The biggest decline has come from young people and minorities.  Among minority voters, 63 percent now say they approve of the president's job performance, the lowest in our tracking.  More significant is the drop-off among young people, who voted for the president by huge margins in 2008.  Less than 40 percent of young people (under age 30) now say they approve of the President's performance, 54 percent disapprove.  This is a significant drop since August when a majority of young voters (52 percent) approved of the way the president was handling his job, 42 percent disapproved.  That is a net 26-point decline in two months. link


    He isn't (none / 0) (#99)
    by jbindc on Wed Oct 26, 2011 at 03:38:11 PM EST
    new and exciting anymore.

    This is a misrepresentation (none / 0) (#52)
    by vicndabx on Wed Oct 26, 2011 at 12:39:19 PM EST
    the article says nothing about

    major donors desperately seeking a way to oust Obama as nominee and run someone else

    It can be read here.

    The "major donors" had, according to the article, a beef w/the president about a pipeline.  That is not to say that they don't have other beefs, just not to the extent you're claiming.

    "If he says yes (to Keystone), I won't give him money," said Michael Kieschnick, president and co-founder of CREDO Mobile and Working Assets, which has donated $60 million to progressive causes, as he stood outside the W Hotel. Added Kieschnick, whose CREDO Action, the activist arm of his cellular service company, rallied a large band of protesters Tuesday: "But I'll work to defeat his opponent - who will be worse."

    and then there's this . . . (none / 0) (#68)
    by nycstray on Wed Oct 26, 2011 at 01:43:24 PM EST
    While the causes varied, many of the protesters at Third and Howard streets appeared to share a deep disappointment with Obama. While many said they were unprepared to support a Republican presidential candidate next year, some promised to withhold money, volunteer time and manpower from Obama's campaign. Others considered sitting out the election altogether.

    and . . .

    With Obama's approval ratings at an all-time low, the choice of such wealthy Democratic donors to reject the opportunity to dine with their president while protesting his policies underscores his increasingly tenuous relations with his political base.

    and of course it starts with this . . .

    In a powerful display of profound disappointment with President Obama, some of the Democratic Party's biggest donors gathered Tuesday - not inside his tony San Francisco fundraiser at the W Hotel, but outside on the sidewalks carrying signs in protest of his policies.

    "I don't even know what he stands for," said Susie Tompkins Buell, a co-founder of the Esprit clothing company and one of the most generous Democratic Party donors in the nation - instrumental in backing such powerhouse progressive organizations as the Democracy Alliance and Media Matters.

    and that's pretty much how it ran on the local news.


    Indeed (none / 0) (#75)
    by vicndabx on Wed Oct 26, 2011 at 01:57:19 PM EST
    but what does this have to do w/my post?  

    What has the Governor there said? The SF mayor? (none / 0) (#66)
    by christinep on Wed Oct 26, 2011 at 01:40:51 PM EST
    1968 led to.... (none / 0) (#86)
    by MKS on Wed Oct 26, 2011 at 02:20:16 PM EST
    Not something that really helped Progressive causes.....

    Don't know (none / 0) (#5)
    by Yman on Tue Oct 25, 2011 at 09:14:16 PM EST
    The price you pay when a POTUS visits a city.

    The costs are never fully reimbursed (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by Towanda on Tue Oct 25, 2011 at 09:31:27 PM EST
    by the way, at least in the experience of a city near me.  The White House promised full reimbursement for police and other costs for an Obama visit.  When billed, the White House refused to pay a lot of the costs.

    As for impact on other businesses, hard to say.  Brought some business in to restaurants, but a lot of other businesses lost for the day, had to close owing to closing of streets, etc.


    Yeah, I get what you're saying (none / 0) (#28)
    by Yman on Wed Oct 26, 2011 at 10:39:33 AM EST
    I used to live in D.C. and the disruptions happened fairly frequently.  It's particularly frustrating when the travel is just for a photo-op or fundraiser, but I just don't see any way around it.  Not sure what the policy re: reimbursement to cities for extra expenses, although I guess a lot of it depends on what the city spent above-and-beyond what they would have spent if the POTUS wasn't visiting (i.e. overtime for extra police officers vs. regular salary for officers who who have been on duty but doing something else).

    I just find it funny when conservatives get all upset over these expense when it's a Dem POTUS, but don't say a word when it's a Repub (not talking about you).


    Objection your honor, (none / 0) (#72)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Oct 26, 2011 at 01:48:45 PM EST
    assumes facts not in evidence.

    You're not a Repub? (none / 0) (#116)
    by Yman on Wed Oct 26, 2011 at 05:31:57 PM EST
     ... or you were just as vocal in your objections when GWB was POTUS?

    Nope. (none / 0) (#129)
    by jondee on Wed Oct 26, 2011 at 09:24:51 PM EST
    You admired him. He hated America..etc

    Comments are now closed. lol

    I just read that. Now you know why I never posted over there.


    Yep - you have the right idea (none / 0) (#130)
    by Yman on Wed Oct 26, 2011 at 09:47:41 PM EST
    Hard to resist sometimes, though.

    Cool. As long as your fine with it (none / 0) (#65)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Oct 26, 2011 at 01:40:44 PM EST
    causing some delay as you while away the hours on your vacation, I suppose all the other thousands of businesses, employees, employers, etc., should be fine with it as well.

    Donald isn't on vacation anymore (none / 0) (#71)
    by sj on Wed Oct 26, 2011 at 01:48:35 PM EST
    I think you might need to spend some time catching up.

    Thanks, noted. (none / 0) (#73)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Oct 26, 2011 at 01:53:20 PM EST
    Not that that makes his selfish comment any more palatable.

    55 to the 5 to Anaheim (none / 0) (#85)
    by MKS on Wed Oct 26, 2011 at 02:17:10 PM EST
    can be very nasty almost any time of the day....Very, very bad after 3:00 p.m.

    Fixed the spelling (none / 0) (#11)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Oct 25, 2011 at 10:03:48 PM EST
    And I've been listening to them since they started with "Dream On" in 1973. I've always liked Steven. But thanks for the correction, sloppy on my part.

    "Dream On" (none / 0) (#19)
    by sj on Wed Oct 26, 2011 at 01:26:32 AM EST
    They have some great music, but I still think that's one of their best.  I'm trying to remember why, but for some reason that song was getting a lot of air play in the 90's and I couldn't believe then that the song was 20 years old.

    Air play in the 90s (none / 0) (#32)
    by CST on Wed Oct 26, 2011 at 10:58:39 AM EST
    thank goodness for that!   I love that song and might not know it otherwise.

    In one of my "brushes with fame", I ran into Steven Tyler at a Dunkin Donuts down the street from me.  He was getting an honorary degree from UMass Boston or something (he's local) and decided to get some coffee or a donut.  Not going to lie, he looked like $hit.  "Too many years of hard drugs" was written all over him.


    US on the job, once again, (none / 0) (#27)
    by KeysDan on Wed Oct 26, 2011 at 10:23:40 AM EST
    in the interest of human rights, albeit selective on occasion.  Testifying before the House Foreign Affairs Committee, officers from the State and Defense Departments said that our deployment of 100  armed advisors to Uganda to stem violence and human rights violations of the LRA "runs into months, and is not open-ended".

    Our objective is to "raise the capacity of our partners" and we will know success if Kony is captured (display in an Uganda meat market is apparently not required) as well as that US forces can encourage defections from the LRA, reduce attacks and professionalize  local forces. It is estimated that there are 150 to 200 core LRA fighters.

    Meanwhile, Uganda's parliament voted to re-open and debate the kill the gays bill, outlawing homosexuals and expanding penalties to include the death penalty.  A legislative committee has recommended an amendment to the bill that will make it a crime to perform same-sex marriages.  The penalty for so officiating is to be determined, perhaps this side of the death penalty.   The training of local forces to counter the LRA  may become useful to our "partner" in enforcing its domestic laws.

    Identity theft charges... (none / 0) (#35)
    by kdog on Wed Oct 26, 2011 at 11:18:53 AM EST
    for a woman who set up a Facebook page under her ex-bf's name.  Identity theft? lol
    I wonder if the fact the ex-bf is a cop has anything to do with it.

    Not cool...yes.  A crime?  Get the f*ck outta here NJ.

    She doesn't need jail time (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by CoralGables on Wed Oct 26, 2011 at 11:58:20 AM EST
    but she could sure use therapy.

    I'm quickly reminded of us wanting jail time for someone that pretended they were someone else which contributed to a child's suicide.


    Not I.... (none / 0) (#39)
    by kdog on Wed Oct 26, 2011 at 12:01:08 PM EST
    I remember that case, that sick lady needed societal shunning, not criminal charges.

    I should have said (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by CoralGables on Wed Oct 26, 2011 at 12:11:28 PM EST
    many of us. I know better than to use the exaggerated term "us" making it sound like "all". I stand corrected.

    No worries pal... (none / 0) (#49)
    by kdog on Wed Oct 26, 2011 at 12:29:25 PM EST
    you should know me better by now...chains and cages as a last resort, always and forever:)

    I told 13 1/2 yr. old male tutoree (none / 0) (#42)
    by oculus on Wed Oct 26, 2011 at 12:13:02 PM EST
    my facebook page showed his picture and name as a possible "friend."  So I opened "his" FB page.  Sd. he is married w/3 kids.  Was tutoree disturbed by this information?  No.  Sd. it was probably his friends' doing.

    What can tutoree's buddy... (none / 0) (#48)
    by kdog on Wed Oct 26, 2011 at 12:28:06 PM EST
    get charged with, Identity Manipulation? Hacking?  

    Jesus H. Christ its all so silly, it's only Facebook...a toy.  If and when it ceases to be fun just turn off the computer...problem(s) solved without a police report.


    I don't think he'll press charges! (none / 0) (#53)
    by oculus on Wed Oct 26, 2011 at 12:43:50 PM EST
    I knew I liked that boy... (none / 0) (#55)
    by kdog on Wed Oct 26, 2011 at 12:47:40 PM EST
    few are the problems a policeman won't worsen.

    You would like him. Very interesting kid. (none / 0) (#57)
    by oculus on Wed Oct 26, 2011 at 12:59:48 PM EST
    Trial run on parachute drop is tomorrow.

    From word-a-day e-mail: (none / 0) (#54)
    by oculus on Wed Oct 26, 2011 at 12:45:30 PM EST
    Whenever a man has cast a longing eye on offices, a rottenness begins in his conduct. -Thomas Jefferson, third US president, architect and author (1743-1826)

    You said it Tommy... (5.00 / 3) (#56)
    by kdog on Wed Oct 26, 2011 at 12:53:51 PM EST
    I've been re-re-reading Thoreau's "Civil Disobedience".

    "How does it become a man to behave toward this American government today? I answer, that he cannot without disgrace be associated with it."

    Sh*t that coulda been penned this morning.


    I'm reading my 7th grader's world history book. The history of the world laid out in broad strokes. Really fascinating.

    I loved world history (none / 0) (#98)
    by sj on Wed Oct 26, 2011 at 03:26:03 PM EST
    when I was in school.  Can you find his text book on the Web anywhere?  I'd also like to see how it's presented.

    Thanks! (none / 0) (#127)
    by sj on Wed Oct 26, 2011 at 07:05:52 PM EST
    It's called (none / 0) (#128)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Oct 26, 2011 at 08:10:58 PM EST
    "World History, Medieval and Early Modern Times" McDougal Littell, California Edition, Copyright 2006

    A quick search (none / 0) (#140)
    by sj on Fri Oct 28, 2011 at 12:27:22 AM EST
    shows I can get it for one cent if I want the Spanish version, or $145 if I want the teachers version.

    I'm a little bit tempted to get the Spanish version.  I think maybe my Spanish reading skills could hold up to a 7th grade text.  Maybe.  Or maybe it would if someone read it to me , LOL


    Or at any time. (none / 0) (#69)
    by christinep on Wed Oct 26, 2011 at 01:46:24 PM EST
    Touche Chris:)... (none / 0) (#89)
    by kdog on Wed Oct 26, 2011 at 02:29:10 PM EST
    What would dear Henry think of taxes being pre-emptively taken instead of paid?  Sh*t what would he think of a federal income tax?  And how long would he be sentenced to prison?

    "Henry, what are you doing in there?"

    "Waldo, the question is what are you doing out there?"

    You might be surprised... (none / 0) (#105)
    by christinep on Wed Oct 26, 2011 at 04:13:11 PM EST
    immediately above this desk on a small shelf is a compilation "Essays & Poems" by R.W. Emerson." On the inside leaf, I quoted in an inscription to my sister in 1966 from "Self-Reliance."
           To believe your own thought, to
           believe that what is true for you
           in your private heart is true for
           all men--that is genius

    Emerson & Thoreau carried their beliefs, lived them. Like others that followed (M. Gandhi comes to mind) they knew what would happen by living their beliefs...they lived them without recriminations in any event...and, that is always admirable in any generation.

    (Tho, I must say: Walden Pond looks more like a commercial lake than a contemplative pond...but, we can dream nonetheless.)


    You know what? (none / 0) (#88)
    by sj on Wed Oct 26, 2011 at 02:28:18 PM EST
    I'm ashamed to say that I'm not sure I've ever read the entire thing.  Thank you for yet another tip in how to be a good citizen.  Time to download.  

    Maybe along with this.  Is anyone using the TalkLeft Kindle blog?


    I still remember when they (none / 0) (#100)
    by jondee on Wed Oct 26, 2011 at 03:41:51 PM EST
    were the warm-up band for Deep Purple (back when Ian Gillian and Blackmore had to be watched to make sure they didn't attack each other on stage)..

    Still remember everyone saying "Deep Purple was alright, but Aerosmith was great!"

    Disco (none / 0) (#102)
    by jondee on Wed Oct 26, 2011 at 03:45:24 PM EST
    proof that cocaine doesn't make anyone any smarter..

    And please, spare me the "Arthur Conan Doyle and Freud used cocaine"..

    Cocaine (none / 0) (#108)
    by sj on Wed Oct 26, 2011 at 04:33:02 PM EST
    ... so wasn't in my budget.  But poppers now...

    I'm pretty sure poppers make you smarter.


    Pretty Sure Wall Street Trumps... (none / 0) (#137)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Oct 27, 2011 at 08:59:44 AM EST
     ... any cocaine argument.  Smarter, who knows, but it sure makes a lot of people act without any sense of shame.