home

Tuesday Morning Open Thread

Bloomberg flattens OWS Zucotti Park site. Reports available all over.

Discussions of Penn State all over.

Other stuff. Reports all over.

Open Thread.

< "So The Mandate Falls? Big Deal." | Court Rules OWS Has No Right to Remain in Park >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Court order for OWS Zucotti Park site (5.00 / 4) (#2)
    by MO Blue on Tue Nov 15, 2011 at 08:17:21 AM EST
    NEW YORK (AP) -- The National Lawyers Guild says it has obtained a court that allows Occupy Wall St. protesters to return with tents to a New York City park.

    The guild says the injunction prevents the city from enforcing park rules on Occupy Wall Street protesters. link

    Interesting development. Would be great IMO if this court order was upheld and the protesters were allowed to stay. Rulings against the Masters of the Universe would be a nice change.  

    Hopefully this time (2.00 / 6) (#4)
    by Wile ECoyote on Tue Nov 15, 2011 at 08:47:27 AM EST
    the residents of the tents won't crap in the streets, sidewalks, steps, etc.  

    Parent
    That's a good reason enough reason for me (5.00 / 2) (#6)
    by catchy on Tue Nov 15, 2011 at 08:56:25 AM EST
    to suspend freedom of the press and the rest of the 1st amend. in order to "clean".

    Parent
    Edger, I could be (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by sj on Tue Nov 15, 2011 at 10:07:35 AM EST
    wrong, but I think this was snark.

    Parent
    Thanks (none / 0) (#18)
    by Edger on Tue Nov 15, 2011 at 10:20:02 AM EST
    It's very early out this morning... ;-)

    Parent
    Poetic Justice (5.00 / 2) (#17)
    by Robot Porter on Tue Nov 15, 2011 at 10:15:32 AM EST
    Wall Street has been "crapping" on this country for 30+ years.

    (Of course, reports of actual public defecation by OWS protesters is mainly a media meme.  The several confirmed incidents may not even have been by OWS protesters.  And, generally, it's just part of the usual attempt to dehumanize any divisive political action. Old, old story.)

    Parent

    My thoughts exactly... (5.00 / 2) (#22)
    by kdog on Tue Nov 15, 2011 at 11:16:25 AM EST
    who is really sh*tting on who here?

    Also fun to compare the police/law enforcement response to OWS over a little non-violent constitutionally protected protest speech to the police/law enforcement response to the largest financial crime the world has ever seen.  

    More cops pulling down tents this morning than cops policing our entire financial system.

    Parent

    And... (5.00 / 3) (#26)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Nov 15, 2011 at 11:41:19 AM EST
     ...they aren't on city property.

    Parent
    But, Mayor Bloomberg (none / 0) (#30)
    by KeysDan on Tue Nov 15, 2011 at 12:00:00 PM EST
    is nervous.  Perhaps the first time he can't control matters with his billions.  

    Parent
    yeah (none / 0) (#75)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Nov 15, 2011 at 01:14:36 PM EST
    how exactly does someone "own" a city park.

    and why?

    Parent

    Background (5.00 / 1) (#79)
    by MO Blue on Tue Nov 15, 2011 at 01:26:48 PM EST
    The park, formerly called Liberty Plaza Park, was created in 1968 by United States Steel in return for a height bonus for its adjacent headquarters at the time of its construction. That building is now known as One Liberty Plaza.[2][3]
    ...
    Because Zuccotti Park is not a publicly owned space, it is not subject to ordinary public park curfew. New York City Police Commissioner Raymond Kelly said on September 28, 2011, that the NYPD could not bar protesters from Zuccotti Park since it is a public plaza that is required to stay open 24 hours a day. "In building this plaza, there was an agreement it be open 24 hours a day," Kelly said. link


    Parent
    The private owners of the park allow (none / 0) (#80)
    by tigercourse on Tue Nov 15, 2011 at 01:27:16 PM EST
    it to be used by the public in return for incentives.

    Parent
    hey robot (none / 0) (#34)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Nov 15, 2011 at 12:25:39 PM EST
    nice to see you.  how fitting that the first thing that comes to mind of those who criticize OWS is scatological

    might it have to do with the one percenters and their apologists feeling they are in deep doo doo?


    Parent

    Hey, Cap ... (none / 0) (#35)
    by Robot Porter on Tue Nov 15, 2011 at 12:27:08 PM EST
    haven't seen your phosphors in quite a while.

    Parent
    havent been around (none / 0) (#42)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Nov 15, 2011 at 12:29:21 PM EST
    if you are curious see sundays open

    Parent
    Ah, that looks ... (none / 0) (#50)
    by Robot Porter on Tue Nov 15, 2011 at 12:37:35 PM EST
    like fun!  Time well spent.

    Parent
    big fun (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Nov 15, 2011 at 12:41:23 PM EST
    this morning I finished getting the wood burning stove set up.  and just got the first fire going.

    ITS SO COOL.

    I have central heat and air of course but I love a wood fire.  the house is small so I had to build a sort of hearth thing so the stove didnt have to sit out in the center of the room.

    Parent

    Nothing like .... (none / 0) (#54)
    by Robot Porter on Tue Nov 15, 2011 at 12:46:40 PM EST
    a wood fire.  I grew up in a house with a giant fireplace.  Miss that.

    Parent
    I have been really lucky (none / 0) (#56)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Nov 15, 2011 at 12:51:28 PM EST
    that pretty much every place I have lived for decades either had a stove or a fireplace.  it was at the top of the to do list here.

    I was so happy when I discovered a very well built chimney that had not been used for decades.  after that is was plug and play.

    Parent

    More pictures please :) (none / 0) (#63)
    by sj on Tue Nov 15, 2011 at 01:00:14 PM EST
    its not completely done yet. (none / 0) (#68)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Nov 15, 2011 at 01:06:32 PM EST
    just done enough to use.  when it is.  its not much really.  fairly small stove.  old fashioned cast iron variety.  I had one of the new fangled ones when I lived in LA.  I think I like this one more.
    its walking and talking right now.  I have it going with all the windows open because it has to "season"
    which means toxic fumes come off it for a while when it get really hot.


    Parent
    Actually... (none / 0) (#58)
    by kdog on Tue Nov 15, 2011 at 12:55:51 PM EST
    it would make great protest theater to line up in front of the exchange in mass, drop trou, and p&ss and/or sh&t on it..."here's your trickle down economics back at ya motherf8ckers!"

    And it would give the public urination/defecation concern trolls something real to be concerned about...everybody wins!

    Parent

    Ha. kdog as protest organizer. This (none / 0) (#65)
    by oculus on Tue Nov 15, 2011 at 01:03:59 PM EST
    could go "viral."

    Parent
    genuis (none / 0) (#69)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Nov 15, 2011 at 01:07:08 PM EST
    "Wanna sling... (none / 0) (#74)
    by kdog on Tue Nov 15, 2011 at 01:13:35 PM EST
    a sh*tty deal? Here's more cr*p to make a 'financial product' out of. I'm sure AIG will insure you against potential losses with another bail-out, and as long as there are enough zeroes on the check to Moody's, this sh*t will be rated AAA."

    Parent
    Will you require participants to clean up (none / 0) (#71)
    by oculus on Tue Nov 15, 2011 at 01:12:08 PM EST
    after themselves, thus avoiding some criticism?

    Parent
    Let Wall St.... (none / 0) (#76)
    by kdog on Tue Nov 15, 2011 at 01:15:14 PM EST
    and their government protection racket curb the cattle.  That's all we are to them...cattle.

    Parent
    suggest trickle down approach (none / 0) (#77)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Nov 15, 2011 at 01:15:51 PM EST
    to avoid the question.

    and for other reasons.

    Parent

    "public health and safety?" (5.00 / 1) (#105)
    by MO Blue on Tue Nov 15, 2011 at 03:56:03 PM EST
    The offered reasoning for the eviction? The same canard as the last time Bloomberg wanted to sweep away protesters: "public health and safety." Never mind that Occupy Wall Street has continually cleaned the park itself, or that health experts who have visited the park have pronounced it sanitary, or that even Bloomberg could cite only one incident that threatened public safety in his statement about the eviction. No, such "facts" were turned away, just as the police sought to turn the media's cameras elsewhere. All this while, as Matt Taibbi put it last week, "in the skyscrapers above the protests, anything goes." Nobody arrested the bankers for pushing fraudulent loans and subprime mortgage investments, or the ratings agencies and government regulators that neglected their duties and helped Wall Street crash the global economy. But putting tents in a public park? Time to bring out the batons and pepper spray. WaPo

    Parent
    While walking, please be (none / 0) (#7)
    by KeysDan on Tue Nov 15, 2011 at 09:06:29 AM EST
    mindful of the "etc."

    Parent
    So many lies (none / 0) (#14)
    by sj on Tue Nov 15, 2011 at 10:06:51 AM EST
    perpetrated by so many ignorant people.

    Parent
    "public health and safety?" (none / 0) (#106)
    by MO Blue on Tue Nov 15, 2011 at 03:56:06 PM EST
    The offered reasoning for the eviction? The same canard as the last time Bloomberg wanted to sweep away protesters: "public health and safety." Never mind that Occupy Wall Street has continually cleaned the park itself, or that health experts who have visited the park have pronounced it sanitary, or that even Bloomberg could cite only one incident that threatened public safety in his statement about the eviction. No, such "facts" were turned away, just as the police sought to turn the media's cameras elsewhere. All this while, as Matt Taibbi put it last week, "in the skyscrapers above the protests, anything goes." Nobody arrested the bankers for pushing fraudulent loans and subprime mortgage investments, or the ratings agencies and government regulators that neglected their duties and helped Wall Street crash the global economy. But putting tents in a public park? Time to bring out the batons and pepper spray. WaPo

    Parent
    Also in Oakland on Monday (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by Edger on Tue Nov 15, 2011 at 09:09:18 AM EST
    General Assembly reconvenes in plaza with 2000 marchers - Occupy Oakland

    ...

    Occupy Oakland Live Blog:

    Interim Oakland Police Chief Howard Jordan told a 1 p.m. news conference that the city will reopen Frank Ogawa Plaza for the planned rally at 4 p.m. at the library, in an effort to "reduce tensions." He said barriers would be removed and protesters would be allowed to enter the camp.

    When asked what would happen if people started setting up tents again, as they did in the past, Jordan said, "We will deal with the issue of lodging as it occurs.

    "We really don't have any reason to keep people out of the plaza," Jordan said. "It's a public space."




    Heckuva job. (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by KeysDan on Tue Nov 15, 2011 at 09:17:03 AM EST
    Reports are that the Super Committee will come up with its own version of dancing with the one percent stars--the two-step.  Step one, big cuts now (social safety nets beware) and step two, maybe little cuts later (a  small "down payment" on revenue increases  now, and promises, promises  of more via  referral for tax code changes).  

    Corporations and the mega rich (5.00 / 5) (#13)
    by MO Blue on Tue Nov 15, 2011 at 09:44:23 AM EST
    will be penalized by reducing their marginal rate by 10 - 12%. Can't you just picture the sacrifices the top 1% will have to make to be able to find time to invest or spend their additional millions or billions.

    Time to contact my congresscritters and relay my position as stated so well by Charlie Pierce:

       The Big Sellout

    If the Democrats sign on to a "Grand Bargain" like this one, there simply is no argument any more for their continued existence as a political party.

    My message is now and has been that I will hold the entire Democratic Party responsible for any cuts to the safety net programs since no cuts could be made without their consent and I will work to defeat them now and in the future.  

    Parent

    Charlie Pierce on your rights (5.00 / 1) (#89)
    by MO Blue on Tue Nov 15, 2011 at 02:49:30 PM EST
    Your right to peaceably assemble for the redress of grievances, and how you may do it, and what you may say, will be defined by the police power of the state, backed by its political establishment and the business elite. They will define "acceptable" forms of public protest, even (and especially) public protest against them. This is the way it is now. This is the way it has been for some time. It's just that people didn't notice. And that was the problem with the Occupy protests. They resisted the marginalization -- both literal physical marginalization, and the kind of intellectual marginalization that keeps real solutions to real problems out of our kabuki political debates. They could not be ignored.
    ...
    Late last night, the New York Police Department, apparently decked out for a confrontation with the Decepticons, cleared Zuccotti Park of the campers who had occupied it for nearly three months. It was, as all of these things have been, a fully militarized operation, launched with a maximum of surprise by armored tactical police who even brought a helicopter, in case they needed air support. They also uncrated all their exotic toys for the occasion. The operation netted the police about 100 arrests, and it is being said that it went off peacefully, although accounts on that do vary. (Keeping the press out while the action is being taken is a particular tell.) The action followed several days of similar operations in Oakland, and Denver, and St. Louis, and a particularly nasty bit of business in Chapel Hill, North Carolina, where authorities appeared to require a tactical unit with automatic weapons to protect an abandoned building. All of them took the place by surprise, and in the middle of the night. These are basic military tactics.

    Read more:



    Thank you (none / 0) (#94)
    by sj on Tue Nov 15, 2011 at 03:02:54 PM EST
    A really great essay.  And I completely agree with this:
    That was the real problem with the Occupy people. They were being heard.
    TPTB are in full "then they fight you" mode.

    Parent
    Charted (none / 0) (#1)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Tue Nov 15, 2011 at 08:08:09 AM EST
    I'm glad (5.00 / 3) (#5)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Nov 15, 2011 at 08:49:39 AM EST
    to see even conservatives are now admitting that supply side economics is a huge failure. Tax cuts do not create jobs. Conservatism is a massive failure.

    Parent
    Neoliberalism is a massive failure (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by Edger on Tue Nov 15, 2011 at 09:24:52 AM EST
    Ilargi: I'm convinced it's not so much that it's hard to understand; instead, it's hard to accept. Still, for most people that's enough reason to not understand.

    It might therefore be a good moment to reiterate what we've said often before at The Automatic Earth: the financial system as we know it can not be saved. It doesn't matter whether "official institutions" nominate 30 banks as being too big to fail, or 300. It is inevitable that the enormous amounts of debt accumulated in a relatively and amazingly short period of time must be serviced. Pay offs, write downs, defaults, bankruptcies. They're cast in stone. It's too late, too big to fail or not.

    Just as it is too late for the Eurozone. Tons of "experts" clamor for Europe to move closer together, and form for instance a full fiscal, if not political union. But it's way too late for that. The interests at this point in time have simply become too divergent.

    There now seem to be talks underway to form a strong Euro core group. Ironically, these talks are led by France. Ironic, because France is the only country that really stands to benefit from such a core group. That is, if it's allowed to be a member. Which is highly questionable.

    French President Nicolas Sarkozy is witnessing the fall of Italian PM Berlusconi with sweaty palms. He has ample reason, says also Henry Samuel in the Telegraph:

        'France will be the next to crumble', warns Gordon Brown

    France risks becoming the next victim of the sovereign-debt crisis "in the coming weeks", Gordon Brown, the former prime minister, has warned.

    -- November 12 2011: Bail Out or Revitalize?

    Total net government liabilities on and off balance sheet, both as % of GDP:

    France: 549%
    United States: 541%


    Parent
    No tax rates were cut under Obama (none / 0) (#9)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Tue Nov 15, 2011 at 09:13:44 AM EST

    And a number of tax rates were raised.

    Parent
    That's false (5.00 / 3) (#12)
    by catchy on Tue Nov 15, 2011 at 09:34:05 AM EST
    You should clean your slate of your favored media sources.

    You aren't getting accurate information on basic facts.

    Please don't repeat anything you've heard until you've completely reorganized.

    Parent

    Rate increases (none / 0) (#16)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Tue Nov 15, 2011 at 10:14:26 AM EST
    A tax increase in 2013 (5.00 / 3) (#20)
    by catchy on Tue Nov 15, 2011 at 10:24:28 AM EST
    and a tariff increase on the currency-manipulating Chinese.

    This doesn't look like an honest discussion to me, Abdul.

    The point of course is that tax rates, including marginal rates, are at their lowest levels in decades and the public sector has nearly -.75 million fewer employees than before the recession.

    So we've already implemented the conservative economic solution, and how's the economy performing?

    You can look these stats up for yourself if you wish. I'm not going to chase down sites for another misinformed and dishonest conservative this a.m.

    Parent

    Thanks (none / 0) (#41)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Tue Nov 15, 2011 at 12:29:10 PM EST

    So you admit there were rate increases and no rate reductions.  

    Parent
    I've admitted no such thing, Abdul (none / 0) (#101)
    by catchy on Tue Nov 15, 2011 at 03:46:07 PM EST
    But you apparently enjoy dishonesty in all aspects of your discussions.

    I'm not a conservative, so I don't feel the need to lie about the economy.

    I also tire of pretending people like you are arguing in good faith.

    Honestly, why anyone makes a hobby of being dishonest on the internet is beyond me. So long, Abdul.  

    Parent

    BTW (none / 0) (#46)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Tue Nov 15, 2011 at 12:32:22 PM EST

    The tariff was not on "the currency-manipulating Chinese."  It was on lower income Americans that purchased low cost tires.

    Parent
    Lets not be nave (5.00 / 1) (#82)
    by NYShooter on Tue Nov 15, 2011 at 01:42:50 PM EST
    "...lower income Americans that purchased low cost tires."

    Those "low cost" (Chinese) tires, made by virtual slaves in unregulated sweat shops under conditions America outlawed 100 years ago......which had the added benefit of putting tens of thousands of American workers, making "low cost" American tires, out of jobs.

    There's no Ying without a Yang. See Walmart for a fine example.

    Paying $1.49 more for an American made tire, and keeping a breadwinner gainfully employed I believe is a trade off most decent people would agree with.

    Parent

    good or bad (none / 0) (#84)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Tue Nov 15, 2011 at 02:14:10 PM EST
    .

    Well you may feel that tax increase was a good thing or a bad thing.  I make no assertion one way or the other.  It is only noted as a case of one of Obama's tax increases.

    Increasing the cost of the least costly tires will almost certainly cause some economically pinched drivers to keep driving on the old worn tires past the point of safety.  After all, a few more traffic fatalities and disabling injuries is a small price to pay for that trade off you endorse.

    .

    Parent

    I didn't think of that (5.00 / 1) (#86)
    by NYShooter on Tue Nov 15, 2011 at 02:46:49 PM EST
    "After all, a few more traffic fatalities and disabling injuries is a small price to pay for that trade off you endorse."

    So, why not eliminate all taxes, which, according to you, would also eliminate all traffic fatalities and disabling injuries?

    Pure Genius.


    Parent

    As someone who must buy new tires this year (5.00 / 2) (#88)
    by sj on Tue Nov 15, 2011 at 02:49:07 PM EST
    I assure you that a few dollars difference per tire does not affect timing of the purchase.  There is a whole spectrum of price/quality to choose from.  The choice is whether I can afford to buy tires at all.  Once that decision is made, I look to see what deals I can get within my chosen parameters.  When I was at my poorest (and believe me, a young single parent can be very, very poor) I didn't even look at prices until I knew I could afford to even consider the purchase.

    If three dollars per tire is problem, you probably don't have a car at all.  If you're in that situation, I assure you it is far more likely that your car is already broken down in the driveway or street, or, most likely of all, non-existent.

    Parent

    So your point is (none / 0) (#113)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Tue Nov 15, 2011 at 04:45:05 PM EST

    that Obama's tax had no impact on the sale of tires, and merely took money out of the pockets of the poorest Americans who were the primary buyers of those cheap tires.  Thanks for clarifying.

    Parent
    Your crocodile tears ... (none / 0) (#114)
    by Yman on Tue Nov 15, 2011 at 05:05:34 PM EST
    ... are duly noted, and I'm sure greatly appreciated by the "poorest Americans".

    Parent
    What a dishonest bunch of hooey (none / 0) (#119)
    by sj on Tue Nov 15, 2011 at 05:15:33 PM EST
    That's a point YOU are stretching very, very hard to make.  Agree with catchy.  No point in wasting more time with such dishonesty.

    Parent
    Actually the linked article (none / 0) (#115)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Nov 15, 2011 at 05:06:16 PM EST
    doesn't say "three dollars per tire."

    The tire tariff will amount to 35 percent the first year, 30 percent the second and 25 percent the third.

    With tires in the $100 each range that would be $35, $30 and $25. Or around $140, $120 and $100 on a set of 4.

    Parent

    You try to limit the discussion ... (5.00 / 2) (#90)
    by Yman on Tue Nov 15, 2011 at 02:51:52 PM EST
    ... to tax rate increases, yet you include a tax increase that hasn't even occurred and one that is a tariff rather than an increase in a tax rate.

    Interesting apples to pineapples comparison.

    Parent

    The article is from 2009 (none / 0) (#116)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Nov 15, 2011 at 05:08:34 PM EST
    By Peter Whoriskey and Anne Kornblut
    Washington Post Staff Writers
    Saturday, September 12, 2009

    In one of his first major decisions on trade policy, President Obama opted Friday to impose a tariff on tires from China, a move that fulfills his campaign promise to "crack down" on imports that unfairly undermine American workers but risks angering the nation's second-largest trading partner.

    Are you saying it was never implemented??

    Parent

    No - try reading sloooooooowly (none / 0) (#135)
    by Yman on Tue Nov 15, 2011 at 07:27:54 PM EST

    No tax rates were cut under Obama

    And a number of tax rates were raised.

    (emphasis added)

    For some, strange reason, Abdul is trying to limit the discussion of tax decreases under Obama to tax rate decreases, while throwing several types of tax increases (not tax rate increases) into the mix.  Not that he would be trying to distort the issue ... I'm sure it's just an innocent error.  I just think it's strange that, while lamenting the fact that Obama has not reduced tax rates, the best examples of tax increases he can come up with are: 1) a small, tobacco tax, 2) a small, tariff on Chinese tires (not a tax rate increase), and a Medicare tax increase that hasn't even happened yet.

    BTW - What I said was:

    you include a tax increase that hasn't even occurred and one that is a tariff rather than an increase in a tax rate

    The use of the conjunction "and" indicates I was referencing two, separate tax increases.  The tobacco tax has already taken effect (and it's not a tariff), so I wasn't referencing that tax.  The fee on Chinese tires is a tariff (as noted in your own quote), so that might be your first clue.  The Medicare tax increase for wealthier recipients hasn't occurred yet, so that would be clue number two.

    "No charge for the education".

    :-)

    Parent

    Uh.... (none / 0) (#154)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Nov 15, 2011 at 09:13:18 PM EST
    I didn't say anything about the taxes.... my question was in regards to the tariff.

    Are you saying it was never implemented??

    Seems to be a simple question.

    Too bad you couldn't answer it.

    Parent

    You asked me about my ... (none / 0) (#161)
    by Yman on Tue Nov 15, 2011 at 10:14:59 PM EST
    ... statement:

    ... you include a tax increase that hasn't even occurred and one that is a tariff rather than an increase in a tax rate.


    Are you saying it was never implemented??

    The Chinese tire tariff was implemented, the Medicare tax has not been implemented.

    Clearly, I was not saying it (the tire tariff) was never implemented.

    Seriously ... slow down.  It might help.

    It sure couldn't hurt.

    Parent

    So now you say it was (none / 0) (#175)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Nov 16, 2011 at 07:21:37 AM EST
    Whew.

    It takes quite a bit to get you to answer a very simple question.

    I'd hate to be around when someone asked you how you liked your steak cooked.

    ;-)

    Parent

    Sometimes you need to break things ... (none / 0) (#177)
    by Yman on Wed Nov 16, 2011 at 07:42:46 AM EST
    ... down into little bites for those with comprehension issues

    ... like explaining simple math to a pre-schooler.  But that's okay, Jim ...

    ... I'm happy to help you out.

    ;-)

    Parent

    The way you would explain (none / 0) (#179)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Nov 16, 2011 at 07:56:39 AM EST
    2 + 2 is......

    A, B, C,......

    ;-)

    Parent

    Wrong again, Jim (none / 0) (#183)
    by Yman on Wed Nov 16, 2011 at 08:25:38 AM EST
    But it brings up a good point.  Some kids require some extra attention before they can grasp the basics.  Nothing wrong with that ...

    ... don't feel bad about yourself.

    ;-)

    Parent

    Interesting way to phrase it (5.00 / 1) (#85)
    by Yman on Tue Nov 15, 2011 at 02:46:22 PM EST
    "No tax rates were cut under Obama".

    Taxes can be (and were) cut without reducing tax rates.

    Parent

    "Interesting" (none / 0) (#100)
    by catchy on Tue Nov 15, 2011 at 03:43:01 PM EST
    We may as well just call it lying.

    He's a conservative on the internet. On matters economic, 90+% of them are intentionally lying or repeating intentional lies they've fallen for.

    Parent

    Let me see (none / 0) (#136)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Nov 15, 2011 at 07:33:52 PM EST
    I think FICA taxes were cut a small amount. That would be a tax cut for everyone paying FICA.

    And we had several tax credit programs... Cash for clunkers.... various credits for purchasing energy efficient appliances, windmills for home electric generation..

    So some people got their taxes lowered by these programs. Most did not.

    But Obama has not lowered the method by which personal income taxes are figured. Income tax rates.

    So I would say that claiming Obama has lowered taxes is partially true in that some paid less.

    Of course if you want to use paying less taxes as a yardstick of excellence, then we can all agree that Obama's economic policies and actions has extended the Great Recession resulting in more people being out of work....

    .....and paying less in taxes!

    Way to go Obama!

    Parent

    Way to go, Jim! (none / 0) (#140)
    by Yman on Tue Nov 15, 2011 at 07:56:01 PM EST
    Thank you for following in Abdul's footsteps and proving my point.

    The issue that the discussion was about tax rates not personal income tax rates.  So you're taking Abdul's method one step further by trying to narrow the focus to personal income tax rates, rather than just taxes in general or even tax rates in general.  It's almost like you wingers only want to focus on one piece of the pie for a reason .... hmmmmmmmmmm ... wonder why that is.

    Oh, wait ... never mind.  The reason is obvious.  It's because Obama actually cut taxes more than GWB did in his first term.  Now what has the wingers upset is that they feel they didn't get their fair share.  Pretty typical, though ... they're always looking for a handout.

    LOL!

    Of course if you want to use paying less taxes as a yardstick of excellence, then we can all agree that Bush's economic policies and actions has (sic) created the Great Recession resulting in more people being out of work....

    .....and paying less in taxes!

    Way to go GW!

    Parent

    Please quit making things up (none / 0) (#155)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Nov 15, 2011 at 09:25:19 PM EST
    I covered tax rates when I mentioned FICA.

    I think FICA taxes were cut a small amount. That would be a tax cut for everyone paying FICA.

    I covered "taxes" when I wrote about tax credits.

    And I think your argument that Obama cut taxes more than Bush is dependent upon the various tax credits and FICA.

    The problem with that is a tax credit is a "one shot" type of thing. Buy a car. Fine. Works for some, not for others. The economy is not stimulated.

    And personal FIT rates in a consumer economy is the real driver.

    As for the bad old Bush days.... I wish we were back to $1.80 gas,  4.5% unemployment, steady growth... Yes indeed. I could sure stand some of that nasty stuff.


    Parent

    Lol (none / 0) (#160)
    by NYShooter on Tue Nov 15, 2011 at 10:00:09 PM EST
    There isn't a sentient human being who doesn't understand the reason for our 3.50 gas prices, and the 9-20% unemployment figure, is the direct result of the shrub's unprecedented incompetence.

    But, then again, when did facts, or reality, ever stop you from spewing your revisionist, Winger fantasies?


    Parent

    Well, let me understand (none / 0) (#173)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Nov 16, 2011 at 07:06:20 AM EST
    It was the Repubs who ran on lowering gas prices in 2006 and when the gained control of both Houses did nothing.

    Wait. Why, that was the Demos!

    It was the Repubs in May of 2008 who would not pass legislation to increase drilling for oil and drop prices.

    Wait. Why, that was the Demos!

    It was the Repubs Prez, Bush, who (belatedly) issued an EO in 8/08 that sent the signal to the traders that there would not be a shortage and sent the price of gasoline down to a low of $1.81 on the day Obama was sworn in.

    Why, yes. Yes it was.

    (Guess what has happened to gasoline prices since then???? Can all say, "Gone up and up and up?")

    Parent

    You'll have to excuse Jim (none / 0) (#178)
    by Yman on Wed Nov 16, 2011 at 07:46:21 AM EST
    Causation is a bit of a difficult concept for him.  He hears the rooster crow and sees the sun rise every morning, and lives in eternal fear of the darkness that will surely envelope us if the rooster dies.

    Parent
    Yeah (none / 0) (#180)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Nov 16, 2011 at 07:58:52 AM EST
    Opposing drilling for new oil in the US and thinking that doesn't increase prices and dependence on foreign sources does not cause higher prices...

    That does confuse me.

    Parent

    It shouldn't, ... (none / 0) (#182)
    by Yman on Wed Nov 16, 2011 at 08:22:25 AM EST
    ... but some people are just easily confused.

    Particularly since the tiny, drop-in-the-bucket amount of oil that would be added by increased domestic production

    would have little to no effect on the price of gas
    .

    I've provided you with many links to the studies demonstrating this basic principle of economics in the past, so no need to bother again.

    Parent

    Link (none / 0) (#185)
    by Yman on Wed Nov 16, 2011 at 08:30:54 AM EST
    Funny thing happened (none / 0) (#190)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Nov 17, 2011 at 08:32:22 AM EST
    In summer of 2008 with oil prices around $145 and gasoline near $4.50 Bush finally decided to do something.

    He sent a message to the speculators who had been bidding up oil that there would be no shortage. He signed an Executive Order that removed the Fed's restrictions on off shore drilling.

    While the situation also needed states to act, the EO popped the bubble and the price of gasoline dropped to $1.81 by the time Obama took charge.

    So what did the new hope and change President do??

    Facing gas prices near $4 a gallon and a pivotal national election, congressional Democrats allowed a ban on offshore drilling to lapse in September

    But times change, and on Tuesday, the Obama administration - with gas prices roughly half what they were and many Democrats' having been swept into office - blocked offshore drilling plans put in place at the last minute by the Bush administration, including plans to open the national outer continental shelf for drilling.

    Interior Department Secretary Ken Salazar also announced last week that his agency would block drilling on public lands in Utah, criticizing the Bush administration for releasing its offshore drilling plan just days before leaving office.

    "It was a headlong rush of the worst kind," he said. "It was a process rigged to force hurried decisions based on bad information. It was a process tilted toward the usual energy players while renewable energy companies and the interests of American consumers and taxpayers were overlooked."

    Link

    And what happened then????? Why the price has went up, up, up and the economy has become worse, worse, worse.

    Know what?? I think it is you that haven't the vaguest concept about cause and effect.

    Parent

    Really, Jim? (none / 0) (#191)
    by Yman on Thu Nov 17, 2011 at 10:30:52 AM EST
    And what happened then????? Why the price has went up, up, up and the economy has become worse, worse, worse.

    Because one event happens before another event does not establish causation, Jim.  Post hoc ergo propter hoc, (or in terms you might understand).  The rooster crowing doesn't cause the sun to rise.

    Know what?? I think it is you that haven't the vaguest concept about cause and effect.

    It's not me, Jim ... it's every oil analyst in the country that thinks your claims are BS.

    Energy Analyst Joseph M. Dukert, senior associate at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, independent energy analyst, and former president of the U.S. Association for Energy Economics:

       

    Nonsense! Panic drove oil to that peak in 2008, but it was primarily the recession that drove it back down so far. Furthermore, U.S. domestic supply and demand are factors in world price, but usually not as significant as a variety of others.

        Most energy economists applauded President Bush's action in regard to offshore drilling, but suggesting that this "caused" the precipitous drop in global oil prices is akin to the rooster's boast that his crowing brought the sun up.

    Michael Canes, Senior Research Fellow at the Logistics Management Institute and former Chief Economist of the American Petroleum Institute:

    I would support a lifting of the Congressional moratorium ... However, it's important to get the arguments right, and attributing much of if not the entire fall in the price of oil to President Bush's lifting of the offshore drilling moratorium is not correct in my view."  Canes further wrote:

        Coincidence is not causation, and in this instance I'd say that the two events - the lifting of the moratoria and the ensuing reduction in oil prices - are much more in the coincidence realm than one of causation.  I say that for several reasons.

        1. There was a Congressional moratorium on offshore drilling in place at the time, and this moratorium was not lifted with the President's action.

        2. Even had that not been the case, the time from lifting of a moratorium to offshore leasing to drilling to discovery to production is measured in years, not weeks or months.   At best, the possibility of future production from the lifting of a moratorium might have had some very slight impact on the present price of oil, but even that is questionable because of the uncertainties and timing involved.

        3. Any such impact would be slight at best because worldwide production and consumption of oil at the time was about 85 million barrels per day, whereas new offshore U.S. discoveries from lifting of the moratorium likely would have yielded production of several hundred thousand barrels per day to maybe a million barrels per day, not many millions.  While every bit helps, such incremental amounts could not have reduced world prices by over one hundred dollars per barrel.

        4. Most oil market experts believe that the rapid and sustained reduction in oil prices that began in 2008 and extended beyond occurred because the world economy began to slow down and ultimately to experience a deep recession.   This is one way to reduce oil prices, but not a very attractive one.

        5. Finally, it is useful to put the President's lifting of the moratorium into context.  It occurred during the election campaign of 2008, at a time when gasoline prices had skyrocketed in the U.S., and it was accompanied by a request to Congress to remove the Congressional moratorium, putting pressure on Democrats to respond.  Just a normal part of politics, both sides push for such advantage during election season, the point only is that it's useful to understand the context of an action to better understand its rationale.

    The overwhelming cause of the collapse in oil prices has been the faltering world economy, which has fueled the drop in consumption.

    Link


    The decline in oil prices came after a government report showed domestic crude oil stockpiles rose more than expected as Americans use less oil, in part because they are driving less. In the last month, domestic oil demand has fallen to its lowest level since June 1999, at 18.6 million barrels a day, according to the Energy Department.

    Link

    Oil markets, analysts said, have been spun around by lower consumption in a U.S. economy weakened by financial instability and by a change in sentiment among financial players, many of whom are scurrying to stem losses or protect much-needed capital.

    "The downward pressure on oil is just extraordinary right now," said Daniel P. Ahn, an energy economist at Lehman Brothers

    Link

    In short, Jim, anyone with at least half-a-clue realizes that the drop in oil prices was caused by the 2008 recession, not Bush lifting the moratorium.  Even the API analysts who upport the lifting of the moratorium wouldn't try to sell that fairy tale.

    Probably because they want to be taken seriously and don't enjoy others laughing at ridiculous, unsupported arguments.

    Parent

    When all the experts tell you the same (none / 0) (#192)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Nov 17, 2011 at 07:00:23 PM EST
    thing you can rest assured that that they all first told each other.

    Their arguments are all the same. But they, and you, forget the same thing. THERE NEVER WAS A SHORTAGE OF OIL. The price run up was based on speculators speculating that there could be because the government would help keep the supply depressed by limiting drilling.

    When Bush removed that "reason" the price collapsed.

    Tell your experts to give a call.  I will be happy to educate them. They desperately need it. As you do.

    Parent

    BTW - Canes didn't even know this: (none / 0) (#193)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Nov 17, 2011 at 07:04:01 PM EST
    Facing gas prices near $4 a gallon and a pivotal national election, congressional Democrats allowed a ban on offshore drilling to lapse in September

    You can guess what else he got wrong.

    Parent

    I don't need to "guess" (none / 0) (#196)
    by Yman on Thu Nov 17, 2011 at 08:21:13 PM EST
    ... because I can read his words and see he didn't get anything "wrong".  Here's what he wrote:

    There was a Congressional moratorium on offshore drilling in place at the time, and this moratorium was not lifted with the President's action.

    He's stating that Bush's lifting of the moratorium was a moot point, since the Congressional moratorium remained in effect for several months afterward.  By the time the Congressional moratorium lapsed months later, oil prices were already falling rapidly due to a sharp decrease in demand as the world economy slowed sharply.

    Seriously, try reading more slowly, ...

    ... or maybe a remedial, reading comprehension class.

    Parent

    The point is simply this (none / 0) (#197)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Nov 17, 2011 at 10:44:45 PM EST
    There never was a shortage.

    So the "demand reduction" argument is meaningless.

    Check some dates.

    The housing market was somewhat stabilized in April. The oil price run up was also somewhat stable but it took off in May running up to a high in mid July. It started dropping only after Bush, and later Congress, acted to signal that there would be no shortage because off shore drilling would be allowed.

    Oil pricing is not ONLY demand sensitive. It is MORE politically sensitive.

    No charge for the education.

    Parent

    Shorter version (none / 0) (#199)
    by Yman on Fri Nov 18, 2011 at 07:19:57 AM EST
    The rooster crowed, then the sun came up.  Ergo, the rooster made the sunrise.

    Cause-and-effect in Winger World.

    Parent

    You can't debate (none / 0) (#201)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Nov 18, 2011 at 08:33:27 AM EST
    All you can do is snark.

    You reveal yourself.

    Parent

    BTW - Canes didn't even know this: (none / 0) (#194)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Nov 17, 2011 at 07:04:01 PM EST
    Facing gas prices near $4 a gallon and a pivotal national election, congressional Democrats allowed a ban on offshore drilling to lapse in September

    You can guess what else he got wrong.

    Parent

    Tell ya what, Jim ... (none / 0) (#195)
    by Yman on Thu Nov 17, 2011 at 08:07:46 PM EST
    Why don't you cite a single study showing that Bush's lifting of the moratorium caused the drop in gas prices?  Oh, that's right, ...

    ... because you can't.  There isn't a single person in the industry who's stupid enough to make that claim.

    BTW - I'm trying to think of a single area in which you could educate anyone with an IQ over 40, let alone guys who have degrees you'd have trouble spelling, but ...

    ... that's a negative, too ...

    Parent

    Your insults (none / 0) (#198)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Nov 17, 2011 at 10:52:08 PM EST
    merely demonstrate that your lack of intellectual curiosity severely limits your ability to have a comprehensive understanding of events and the effects of various actions by politicians on the marketplace.  

    Sad. To think that a poor boy from the south can so easily prove that "the Emperor has no clothes."

    Parent

    Look at Jim ... (none / 0) (#200)
    by Yman on Fri Nov 18, 2011 at 07:23:49 AM EST
    ... dragging out the thesaurus to try to make his argument sound substantive.  Good for you.

    Except, of course, still not a single link to anyone making the ridiculous claim that Bush's lifting of the moratorium caused the price of oil to drop.

    Looks more like it's the hillbilly that has no clothes ...

    Parent

    Your inability to (none / 0) (#202)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Nov 18, 2011 at 09:00:38 AM EST
    understand that it was the political effect of Bush's actions followed by Congress demonstrates is almost risible. If it wasn't so sad.

    Follow me again.

    There never was a shortage. So the price rise was based on speculation that there would be one because of the expected continuation of the oil drilling ban. When that was removed, prices fell.

    Now, if a weak economy was the cause of the fall, the question would be:

    1. Why did the prices rise as the economy fall?

    Link See End 2007 - 2008 Jan -July

    2. If a weak economy results in low prices why did the price start to rise after Obama rescinded, Jan 2009, the ban removals of Bush and Congress had enacted? I mean the economy remained in a state of near collapse and remains so. The rise continued until it hit the maximum point that the oil producers thought the current political situation would support, and then it fell back.

    (See link for gasoline prices)

    It amazes me that Obama is willing to bet his election on the economy when the economy is being killed by his own energy policy.

    But if he actually wanted to do something about energy costs he wouldn't be loaning money to his crony capitalist friends to pour down the rat hole of "green energy" while making millions off salaries and stocks.

    I mean, where are the Occupiers when we need them?


    Parent

    "I THINK ..." (none / 0) (#162)
    by Yman on Tue Nov 15, 2011 at 10:33:56 PM EST
    ... "I think" .... "I think" ...

    Did you ever notice that, when someone feels the need to repeat the same thing again and again, ...

    ... there's a reason for it?

    Heh.

    BTW - Choosing the highlights of GWB's term makes you feel better?  Of course, in reality:

    5 trillion in additional debt
    Median income dropped 4.2%
    39.8 million in poverty (most since 1960)
    21% more children in poverty
    8 million more w/o health ins. (>20% increase)
    7.8% unemployment and rising rapidly when he drove the economy off the cliff.

    But, yeah ... at least for a couple of months when the world economy was headed into the toilet, Jim would have been happy because he could buy gas for $1.80.

    Heh.

    Parent

    Yours is a worthless argument (none / 0) (#174)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Nov 16, 2011 at 07:10:00 AM EST
    I posted facts and millions agree.

    But even beyond your whining, Obama was elected to fix the problem. And he had Congressional majorities.... Yet he has failed.

    Think maybe that should tell you he doesn't have a clue??

    It would to any rational pereson.

    Parent

    Obama's done a horrible job (none / 0) (#176)
    by Yman on Wed Nov 16, 2011 at 07:39:49 AM EST
    ... on the economy.  Feel better, now?

    Doesn't change any of the facts I posted.  Most importantly, that it was GWB and his supporters that drove the economy off the cliff and are now whining the most about how Obama hasn't fixed it.

    Oh, wait ... never mind.  I don't need to tell you that ...

    Parent

    We've been up and down this road (none / 0) (#181)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Nov 16, 2011 at 08:04:24 AM EST
    First it was the CRA under Carter. Then Freddie/Fannie was expanded under Clinton. Then the Demos blocked Bush's attempt to reform the process..... and the real estate bubble burst...

    Of course if you want to posit that Carter, Dodd and Barney Frank are Repubs......

    But as the man said.... What have you done for me lately??

    ;-)

    BTW - Just what would you do to get the economy going???

    Parent

    "Down this road before" (none / 0) (#184)
    by Yman on Wed Nov 16, 2011 at 08:29:29 AM EST
    The one made with yellow bricks and accompanied by the Tin Man, the Lion, and the Wicked Witch of the West?

    Heh.

    Sadly, the classics are more believable than your winger, fairy tales.

    Parent

    Mommy, Johnny's looking at me! (none / 0) (#189)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Nov 17, 2011 at 08:22:28 AM EST
    lol

    Parent
    Obamaville (none / 0) (#3)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Tue Nov 15, 2011 at 08:39:31 AM EST

    Obamaville is embarrassing the One.  I hope it is televised 24/7.

    I'm not an OWS supporter but I really think they (none / 0) (#19)
    by tigercourse on Tue Nov 15, 2011 at 10:23:10 AM EST
    should have been allowed to continue protesting, at least until the cold made it more dangerous for them. It's a legal grey area (I think) but the park owners did seem to have a valid excuse to throw them out.

    No legal grey area... (none / 0) (#25)
    by kdog on Tue Nov 15, 2011 at 11:33:54 AM EST
    in my layman's opionion...the city's deal with the property owner is 24/7 public access.

    I think the hardcores feel it is more dangerous to pack it in than it is to face the bitter winter cold...and I'm damn sure they're all tired of being told what is best for them.  They've got food and shelter and basic needs covered if the authorities would simply stop stealing their gear.

    Parent

    "Legal grey area" ... (none / 0) (#44)
    by Robot Porter on Tue Nov 15, 2011 at 12:29:33 PM EST
    is one of the favorite Orwellian terms in current political discourse.  As it almost always refers to something where there's no grey area at all!

    Parent
    Grey (none / 0) (#59)
    by KeysDan on Tue Nov 15, 2011 at 12:57:06 PM EST
    is to be found on a Benjamin Moore color chart, but not at Zucotti Park, which is owned by Brookfield Properties.   Public access, 24/7, was a part of the original deal, and the area is not subject to city park rules.   I am waiting for city landlords to ask the NYPD to serve as enforcers of the terms and conditions of their ownership, leases and tenants, including evictions.

    Parent
    Interesting: (none / 0) (#21)
    by oculus on Tue Nov 15, 2011 at 10:30:58 AM EST
    comment on the housing market? (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Nov 15, 2011 at 12:28:41 PM EST
    that is so cool (none / 0) (#37)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Nov 15, 2011 at 12:28:24 PM EST


    New thing learned today: (none / 0) (#24)
    by oculus on Tue Nov 15, 2011 at 11:28:36 AM EST
    "run the table."  

    Parent
    I take it you didn't pay for (5.00 / 2) (#27)
    by me only on Tue Nov 15, 2011 at 11:51:18 AM EST
    law school hustling pool, right?

    Parent
    I know Sandusky is presumed innocent.... (none / 0) (#28)
    by magster on Tue Nov 15, 2011 at 11:53:32 AM EST
    ... but boy did Sandusky max out the creepometer in his interview with Costas. He stammered and qualified a response to a question of whether he was sexually attracted to underaged boys.

    What was his lawyer thinking letting him be interviewed? Holy Moly

    There's no limit to the weirdness in this case (none / 0) (#29)
    by rdandrea on Tue Nov 15, 2011 at 11:57:53 AM EST
    I heard about that this morning, and (none / 0) (#32)
    by Anne on Tue Nov 15, 2011 at 12:09:03 PM EST
    all I could think was, this is the lawyer Sandusky thought could best represent his interests?  

    This little bit of information coming on top of last night's interview in which Sandusky took the long and creepy route to answering the question about whether he was sexually attracted to underage boys, well, let's just say that I wouldn't be at all surprised if Sandusky has new legal representation any moment now - but I'm not sure it will be able to undo the damage that interview did.

    Yeesh.  The whole thing is just making me queasy.

    Parent

    Not Good For the Client... (none / 0) (#70)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Nov 15, 2011 at 01:08:12 PM EST
     ...when the attorney's ex-wife puts this up on her Facebook page:

    OMG did Joe just say that he would allow my kids to be alone with Jerry Sandusky?


    Parent
    I'm surprised he wasn't disbarred (none / 0) (#87)
    by shoephone on Tue Nov 15, 2011 at 02:46:50 PM EST
    Not only did he have a sexual relationship with a client, but an underage one. Sheesh, talk about an imbalance in the power relationship between attorney and client.

    Parent
    The age of consent in PA is 16, so (none / 0) (#91)
    by Anne on Tue Nov 15, 2011 at 02:56:57 PM EST
    it wasn't illegal for him to have a sexual relationship with her - but - it certainly must have been a violation of professional ethics.

    Not to mention just totally creepy.

    Are there many people who, now that they know the lawyer's history, aren't asking themselves, "who better to defend someone accused of sex-related crimes against underage boys, than someone who has is own history of sex with a minor?"

    And, as the days go by, I fear that what we do know is only the tip of the iceberg, and there isn't going to be much below the surface that's going to make us all feel better.

    Parent

    Age of consent aside, (none / 0) (#96)
    by shoephone on Tue Nov 15, 2011 at 03:04:48 PM EST
    there have been instances of lawyers in Washington State getting suspended for having sex with their clients. So maybe not disbarred, but at least suspension of license.

    Parent
    I Suspect that a Criminal Case... (none / 0) (#102)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Nov 15, 2011 at 03:50:11 PM EST
     ... and an emancipation case are viewed quit differently in term of ethics.  

    Once she was emancipated, she was legally an adult, depending on the state, and he married her and had another kid.  

    Alone, not a big deal... until you decided to pick up a client accused of molesting boys and that case is page one for a week.

    Parent

    I was thinking the same thing (none / 0) (#103)
    by rdandrea on Tue Nov 15, 2011 at 03:55:29 PM EST
    She was emancipated at the time.  If anyone complained it would have to have been her.

    But still, it serves as an excellent example of something Dr. Hunter S. Thompson once wrote:

    "When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro."

    Parent

    The lawyer represented her re the (5.00 / 1) (#109)
    by oculus on Tue Nov 15, 2011 at 04:13:26 PM EST
    emancipation petition:

    According to documents filed with Centre County Courthouse, Amendola served as the attorney for Mary Iavasile's emancipation petition on Sept. 3, 1996, just weeks before her 17th birthday.


    Parent
    RIght, but like I said,age of consent aside. (none / 0) (#110)
    by shoephone on Tue Nov 15, 2011 at 04:15:27 PM EST
    The cases in Washington were between two adults. But when it's attorney and client, the power relationship is totally imbalanced. And anyway, one of the most egregious cases I was referencing was not a criminal case, but a divorce case. The attorney was having sex with his divorce clients.

    Parent
    I think it was creeped out (none / 0) (#49)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Nov 15, 2011 at 12:37:31 PM EST
    long ago in the nbc interview in 89 was it?

    Parent
    Shorter Krugman: All We Need is Healthcare Mandate (none / 0) (#31)
    by Dan the Man on Tue Nov 15, 2011 at 12:06:31 PM EST
    Krugman: "the individual mandate. Since that's the core of health reform".

    Heck I always thought that the core of health reform was maybe the medicaid expansion.  Or maybe the subsidies that we're supposed to get.  Or maybe even the anti-discrimination rules.  But for Krugman the core of health care reform is simply requiring everyone to buy insurance.  With that explained, that explains a lot of Krugman's writings on health care.

    And I thought the key to health CARE (5.00 / 2) (#33)
    by Anne on Tue Nov 15, 2011 at 12:14:45 PM EST
    reform was, you know, actually making CARE more accessible and affordable, not making sure we all had bright, shiny insurance policies that, after we pay the premiums, consider the co-pays and deductibles and whether there is a provider who will accept the insurance, don't get us closer to actual care.

    But, then again, I'm sure Paul Krugman has never been faced with the problem of not being able to afford care after he's paid the insurance premiums.

    Parent

    Well, I always thought that (5.00 / 3) (#40)
    by Zorba on Tue Nov 15, 2011 at 12:28:51 PM EST
    the key to healthcare reform was Medicare For All.  Single payer, universal health care.

    Parent
    Hey Zorba: You said it in a nutshell. (none / 0) (#93)
    by christinep on Tue Nov 15, 2011 at 03:02:39 PM EST
    While I very much support ACA in that it was as far as the country as a whole was willing to go at this particular time (& look at the right's frenzied attack on even that & think back also to Hillary Clinton's recognition of same by 2008), I have always believed that we will eventually get to a universal, single payer system. When I saw during the debate leading to kthe ACA that expanded Medicare had been put on the table, it was a momentary happy be-still-my-heart time...until that Liebermann knifed it.)

    To me, progress in the interim is essential. That is what--IMHO--the ACA gives us as society inevitably moves forward...even if it is two steps forward, one step back, & repeat.  There was too much need for there not to be interim progress.

    Parent

    Chris, I never really (5.00 / 2) (#99)
    by Zorba on Tue Nov 15, 2011 at 03:40:59 PM EST
    thought that we would get single payer, universal health care right off the bat.  I did hope, however, that there would be an affordable, easily available public option.  That's the only thing that, to me, makes the mandate acceptable.  My son, who cannot get health insurance right now because of a previously existing condition, will be able to get something when the law kicks in, but from what I'm seeing, good coverage won't be affordable (not on his salary), and what he will be able to afford, will wind up leaving him with a huge deductible and co-pays.  And if he doesn't purchase that, he will be hit with a fine.  He's far from the only one who will be placed n this position.

    Parent
    Any possibility that he would be eligible for (none / 0) (#122)
    by christinep on Tue Nov 15, 2011 at 05:32:16 PM EST
    some form of subsidization on insurance? Or does he fall in one of those "no man's land" gotcha patches?

    Parent
    He's looked into it (5.00 / 1) (#123)
    by Zorba on Tue Nov 15, 2011 at 05:56:41 PM EST
    He makes too much money for Medicaid and other subsidies, but not enough to buy health insurance currently (which, as I said, with his previously existing condition, is almost impossible to get; those few available to him are astronomical in price and have so many caveats and what they won't cover and deductibles, they're virtually useless).  My only hope is that when the law fully kicks in, he can get something not way too expensive through the exchanges.  We can help him out to a certain extent, but we're not millionaires.

    Parent
    I have watched the Herman Cain (none / 0) (#36)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Nov 15, 2011 at 12:27:19 PM EST
    Libya video 50 times.  I cant stop and it cracks me up every time.

    does that make me a bad person?

    You don't see it as your job here to (none / 0) (#38)
    by oculus on Tue Nov 15, 2011 at 12:28:33 PM EST
    dig up and link to "unusual" news?

    Parent
    well (none / 0) (#47)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Nov 15, 2011 at 12:32:59 PM EST
    it USED to be.  you know why that was?  because as I sat trapped in front of a computer for 8 to 15 hours a day it kept my ADHD from making me go completely bananas to dig that stuff up.  I voluntarily spend far less time glued to a screen.  but I suspect there will be the occasional weirdness from time to time.

    Parent
    as for the other (none / 0) (#48)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Nov 15, 2011 at 12:34:52 PM EST
    most famous video of the week, the one of of Jerry Sandusky talking about how is is a "frustrated playground director", I have not been able to watch it all the way thru.

    Stephen King could not come up with anything more creepy or disturbing.

    Parent

    Oy. Haven't heard that one yet (none / 0) (#57)
    by nycstray on Tue Nov 15, 2011 at 12:52:49 PM EST
    I'm still trying to get past what he considers 'okay' behavior with young boys . . . .

    Parent
    enjoy (none / 0) (#62)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Nov 15, 2011 at 12:59:21 PM EST
    Re "flattening" of OWS: what possible (none / 0) (#43)
    by oculus on Tue Nov 15, 2011 at 12:29:28 PM EST
    legal justification for barring press, blocking Brooklyn Bridge, and subways?  

    None ... (none / 0) (#45)
    by Robot Porter on Tue Nov 15, 2011 at 12:31:13 PM EST
    just another of Prince Tuesday's whims.

    Parent
    There is none, of course (none / 0) (#61)
    by sj on Tue Nov 15, 2011 at 12:59:04 PM EST
    They're just trying to minimize available video.

    Parent
    Always a good idea to move the press back (none / 0) (#81)
    by Rojas on Tue Nov 15, 2011 at 01:41:44 PM EST
    for their own protection.

    Parent
    Taken quite a bit further than that (5.00 / 1) (#108)
    by MO Blue on Tue Nov 15, 2011 at 04:00:19 PM EST
    according to reports.

    Most disturbingly, the NYPD sought to block any and all press from covering this eviction. On the ground, reporters were stopped at the barricades and refused entrance. Numerous journalists reported that cops refused to let them in, even pushing reporters away; reporters even Tweeted about getting arrested. In the air, NYPD helicopters refused to allow CBS News helicopters to film the eviction from above. As for the camera already in the park-OWS's livestream-the police simply blocked it with a pile of torn-up tents. WaPo


    Parent
    Stage one consolidate media (5.00 / 1) (#124)
    by Rojas on Tue Nov 15, 2011 at 06:06:34 PM EST
    Stage two get your story straight. If you make a fair attempt at stage one what's left of the media will help with stage two.


    Parent
    But Every Fool With a Phone... (none / 0) (#104)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Nov 15, 2011 at 03:55:36 PM EST
    ...is capable of video.

    Parent
    Sure they are (5.00 / 1) (#125)
    by Rojas on Tue Nov 15, 2011 at 06:09:01 PM EST
    and most of the country tunes in to youtube for their nightly news.

    Parent
    That's true (none / 0) (#117)
    by sj on Tue Nov 15, 2011 at 05:13:42 PM EST
    I didn't say it made sense.  I only said that it was an attempt.

    Parent
    Lots of photos in LA Times and NYT. (none / 0) (#128)
    by oculus on Tue Nov 15, 2011 at 06:52:07 PM EST
    Some of the LAT photos were taken by Carolyn Cole, Pulitzer Prize winning photographer; some through Getty Images.  

    Parent
    Have any of you read anything written (none / 0) (#51)
    by oculus on Tue Nov 15, 2011 at 12:38:08 PM EST
    by Thomas Steinbeck?  He is "reading" at indie bookstore here tonight.  link

    Didn't know about him! (none / 0) (#92)
    by shoephone on Tue Nov 15, 2011 at 03:00:07 PM EST
    and, of course, as a native Californian, I've read practically everything by J. Steinbeck. Now I'm interested in Thomas. Are you going to the reading? When he spoke about his Vietnam experience in that interview it really brought to mind The Things They Carried, undoubtedly the best book I ever read about the Vietnam War.

    Parent
    I am going to the reading. I resonate (none / 0) (#95)
    by oculus on Tue Nov 15, 2011 at 03:04:32 PM EST
    with his thoughts as expressed in the interview.  

    Parent
    Be sure to report back and (none / 0) (#97)
    by shoephone on Tue Nov 15, 2011 at 03:07:07 PM EST
    give your review!

    Amazing how much he looks like his Dad at that same age.

    Parent

    No comments here so far re Gov. Perry's (none / 0) (#53)
    by oculus on Tue Nov 15, 2011 at 12:46:37 PM EST
    advocating cutting Congress back to half time and cutting their pay.  Health plan?  Retirement?  

    Gov. Perry as "outside" Washington--from Obama's campaign playbook.  Funny.  

    better idea (5.00 / 3) (#55)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Nov 15, 2011 at 12:49:34 PM EST
    make them work 40 hours a week and give them the same health care and benefits everyone else gets.

    Parent
    What's your proposal re "recesses" (none / 0) (#60)
    by oculus on Tue Nov 15, 2011 at 12:58:39 PM EST
    20 minutes (5.00 / 4) (#64)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Nov 15, 2011 at 01:01:51 PM EST
    on the monkey bars

    Parent
    hahaha (none / 0) (#66)
    by CST on Tue Nov 15, 2011 at 01:04:11 PM EST
    mostly just trolling today, but I wanted to stop by and say - I missed these, welcome back.

    Parent
    hey (none / 0) (#73)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Nov 15, 2011 at 01:12:36 PM EST
    And, he wants to place an 18 yr limit (none / 0) (#150)
    by christinep on Tue Nov 15, 2011 at 08:34:00 PM EST
    on Supreme Court Justices, I understand. And, in line with those characters on the right, he wants to abolish some federal district court judge.

    It would make the likes of Joe McCarthy seem reasonable. Never in my life....

    Parent

    Poor headline but lots of info re Obama (none / 0) (#67)
    by oculus on Tue Nov 15, 2011 at 01:06:29 PM EST
    admins.' insiders re whether to push for ACA mandate.  NYT

    random thoughts (none / 0) (#72)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Nov 15, 2011 at 01:12:16 PM EST
    I hope Sandusky doesnt get the chance to off himself before he goes to the slam and gets introduced to the joys of forced bottomhood.


    um (none / 0) (#98)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Tue Nov 15, 2011 at 03:09:35 PM EST
    In his mind, that would be called "horsing around".

    Parent
    Ouch! (none / 0) (#107)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Nov 15, 2011 at 03:56:57 PM EST
    and I would not be (none / 0) (#111)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Nov 15, 2011 at 04:19:24 PM EST
    unhappy if every pathetic adult male involved in this sickening coverup got a chance to have the same experience.  including the and perhaps most especially the one who walked away from the horror in the shower

    Parent
    if you have not read about the testimony (none / 0) (#112)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Nov 15, 2011 at 04:21:42 PM EST
    of hearing the rhythmic slapping sound you should.

    like I said Stephen King could not do better.

    Parent

    Yep, what I thought (none / 0) (#126)
    by Towanda on Tue Nov 15, 2011 at 06:10:38 PM EST
    per our exchange yesterday and what I think signs of excised portions in the indictment, not complete testimony there, to not tip off a defense lawyer too much to what will be testimony in court.  The presumption that McQueary did not act comes from lack of careful reading of the document, as careful reading suggests that his testimony was suddenly edited, cut, at that point.

    As for not reporting to the cops, also nonsense, as he talked with the head of campus security, and campus cops at a state university are sworn police.  They then are to call in local police (and file all crimes on reports with the feds) for certain crimes, and that's why the charges were filed on Curley and Schultz.

    I am familiar with that sort of bureaucracy and hierarchy of reporting to police, and employees are told to not duplicate by reporting to local police, too, as they are so busy, and that's why campus security screen and report those crimes that ought to go to local authorities.  But again, those campus cops are sworn officers of the law.

    Parent

    And sadly (none / 0) (#129)
    by CoralGables on Tue Nov 15, 2011 at 06:52:57 PM EST
    the hue and cry from many here is to fire the witness.

    The pro Paterno crowd in Happy Valley made threats against McQueary, and the fire Paterno crowd wanted McQueary fired also. If the onslaught against McQueary teaches us anything, it may be to ignore and walk away rather than get involved and have your reputation trashed by the second-guessers.

    Parent

    that supposed email (none / 0) (#137)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Nov 15, 2011 at 07:50:37 PM EST
    contradicts what he said under oath.  sorry.  screw him.  he saw this happen and told his dad.  give me a break.

    Parent
    also (none / 0) (#138)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Nov 15, 2011 at 07:52:37 PM EST
    he continued to see this guy on the sidelines of football games with small boys for years.  again. give me a break.


    Parent
    Bummer (none / 0) (#143)
    by rdandrea on Tue Nov 15, 2011 at 08:00:57 PM EST
    The pro Paterno crowd in Happy Valley made threats against McQueary, and the fire Paterno crowd wanted McQueary fired also.

    I wonder where that leaves me? I posted relevant portions of the PSU Administrative Procedures Manual that showed why McQueary shouldn't have been fired.

    I have not made threats against McQueary.  I also think that what Paterno knew and when he knew it is a subject for sworn testimony in future criminal cases, and that any condemnation of Paterno without sworn testimony is premature.

    Generalize much?

    Parent

    Donald (none / 0) (#131)
    by CoralGables on Tue Nov 15, 2011 at 06:57:56 PM EST
    you are right and that holds true at many Universities. Outside agencies are only permitted to investigate or handle a crime on campus with an invitation from campus police (state law on certain crimes overriding this of course). It's a jurisdictional issue.

    Parent
    excuse me (none / 0) (#139)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Nov 15, 2011 at 07:55:06 PM EST
    I am familiar with that sort of bureaucracy and hierarchy of reporting to police, and employees are told to not duplicate by reporting to local police, too, as they are so busy, and that's why campus security screen and report those crimes that ought to go to local authorities.  But again, those campus cops are sworn officers of the law.

    I dont give a rats ass what the campus rent a cops "wanted"
    this was not an isolated incident.  he had a history by then.

    Parent

    campus rent a cops who had (1.00 / 1) (#141)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Nov 15, 2011 at 07:56:54 PM EST
    already proven in past incidents with this man that they were owned by the juggernaut of penn state football.


    Parent
    The Univerisity Park police force (5.00 / 1) (#144)
    by rdandrea on Tue Nov 15, 2011 at 08:08:38 PM EST
    is not "rent-a-cops."  It is my understanding that they are real police with real arresting power who employ detectives and carry guns.  Their jurisdiction is limited to campus, as the jurisdiction of the State College police force is limited to off-campus.  The two forces have a mutual-aid agreement with each other.

    Please inform us as to where your "rent-a-cop" characterization comes from, as it's different from my understanding.

    Parent

    it comes from the fact that (none / 0) (#145)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Nov 15, 2011 at 08:11:16 PM EST
    the investigated this man in 1998 and did nothing.

    also there is the part of the story that has been largely ignored about the previous DA(I think) who was investigating this and disappeared.  car found.  computer found in the river minus the hard drive.  he as not been found to this day.

    go ahead.  reserve judgement.

    Parent

    You don't like the results of their investigation? (5.00 / 1) (#148)
    by rdandrea on Tue Nov 15, 2011 at 08:23:59 PM EST
    That's one thing.  Calling them "rent-a-cops" is another.

    Parent
    they apparently listened (none / 0) (#149)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Nov 15, 2011 at 08:31:35 PM EST
    on the phone as a mother pleaded with this man to not do this any more and he admitted unbelievable things.  ending with the statement that he wished he was dead.

    after which he continued to have access to both the showers and the boys.

    that is the nicest thing I would call them.


    Parent

    Actually, Howdy (5.00 / 1) (#151)
    by rdandrea on Tue Nov 15, 2011 at 08:44:02 PM EST
    Go back and read the Grand Jury report.

    The University Park police enlisted the aid of the State College police to eavesdrop on the conversation between the mother and Sandusky.

    Your ignorance is showing.

    Parent

    so what! (none / 0) (#152)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Nov 15, 2011 at 08:49:41 PM EST
    what exactly is your point.  what does it matter which organization exactly heard this

    it was heard and everyone knew it. sheesh.

    Parent

    My point? (5.00 / 1) (#153)
    by rdandrea on Tue Nov 15, 2011 at 08:57:46 PM EST
    You're the one who brought "rent-a-cops" into this discussion.

    What was YOUR point again?

    Parent

    my point is they (none / 0) (#167)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Nov 16, 2011 at 06:05:20 AM EST
    were bought and paid for.  1998, in 2000 in 2002 and god only knows how many other times.

    Parent
    Careful, howdy (none / 0) (#146)
    by NYShooter on Tue Nov 15, 2011 at 08:14:00 PM EST
    In your absence you may not have heard that the author of this blog doesn't tolerate blurting out emotionally charged personal opinion as fact.

    In my opinion, you might preface unsubstantiated venting with, "in my opinion,"  in the future.


    Parent

    actually no part of that was my opinion (none / 0) (#147)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Nov 15, 2011 at 08:17:03 PM EST
    just what I read.  except what I think would be just desert.  fine, IMO they should all have an opportunity to get acquainted with homosexual rape from a new prospective.


    Parent
    You are not excused for misquoting (none / 0) (#159)
    by Towanda on Tue Nov 15, 2011 at 09:53:14 PM EST
    me, already.  Here we go, again.

    Sworn officers of the law, state patrol, are not rent-a-cops.

    You apparently do not understand this, do not wish to understand how it is state universities, or have some other issues unrelated to what I wrote or what you can read in the indictment.  Your problem.  I am addressing that McQueary did make contact with officers of the law, on campus, who are just as much officers of the law as the cops down the street in the police station off campus.

    Reading the indictment really can help, as well as reading up, as I did, on other organizational points answered on the PSU website.  Try it.

    Parent

    thats actually funny (none / 0) (#171)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Nov 16, 2011 at 06:28:04 AM EST
    you apparently think that "Sworn officers of the law" cant be rented.  or bought outright.

    Parent
    That's a different point. You're deflecting (none / 0) (#187)
    by Towanda on Wed Nov 16, 2011 at 01:13:12 PM EST
    again.

    If we follow your logic, that cops are corrupt, then that entirely contradicts your statements that the thing to do is report to the cops.

    You can't have it both ways.

    But you can read carefully the grand jury report, particularly as to who was stating lies ("not materially credible") and was charged vs. who was telling the truth ("credible") and not charged.  That may help you to avoid giving all information the same level of credibility and repeating it as if it as credible as other information in the report.

    Parent

    really (none / 0) (#142)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Nov 15, 2011 at 07:58:51 PM EST
    As such, the University Police have full authority to investigate any alleged crimes occuring on PSU property

    like they investigated the incident years earlier?

    Parent

    Donald (none / 0) (#158)
    by rdandrea on Tue Nov 15, 2011 at 09:47:40 PM EST
    Just between you and me, I'm not 100 percent sure that Paterno is totally off the payroll.  Please email me at c o m m e n t (@) j u n c t i o n d a i l y b l o g . c o m

    Parent
    so why is red head (none / 0) (#168)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Nov 16, 2011 at 06:09:01 AM EST
    excused for reporting to them?  assuming he did again from the report:

    "the graduate assistant was never questioned by  university police and no other entity conducted an investigation until he testified in Grand Jury in December 2010"

    and why is he excused for "stopping" it you believe that and leaving a naked 10 year old child alone in the shower with a naked and presumably still erect Sandusky?

    Parent

    so? (none / 0) (#169)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Nov 16, 2011 at 06:10:44 AM EST
    Didn't Ray Gricar vanish without a trace off the face of the earth in 2005, and wasn't he declared legally dead this past summer?

    when I said investigating this I meant the whole sorry mess not the 2002 incident.

    Parent

    got me (none / 0) (#170)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Nov 16, 2011 at 06:11:45 AM EST
    the PSU Board of Trustees fires Coach Paterno, while Schultz is allowed to go on administrative leave. Go figure.

    perhaps he is also a "witness"

    Parent

    Fyi, exactly. (none / 0) (#157)
    by Towanda on Tue Nov 15, 2011 at 09:45:02 PM EST
    I thought that's what I had said.

    Parent
    dont forget the 2000 incident (none / 0) (#172)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Nov 16, 2011 at 06:31:55 AM EST
    when a janitor reported seeing him having oral sex with a child.

    probably not required to discuss that one either.

    Parent

    Donald, there is federal law, though (none / 0) (#186)
    by Towanda on Wed Nov 16, 2011 at 11:49:01 AM EST
    and PSU is in trouble for not complying with the Clery Act.  The legislature cannot exempt the state from federal law, the campus cops are not exempt nor "automonous" from federal law.  So your info must be about refusing to provide info to anyone but the feds?

    And I have to tell you that, in many states at least, including mine, you are incorrect about jurisdiction at state universities.  When campus police are state patrol, they have jurisdiction on campus, and local municipal police cannot come on campus without permission.

    It may be different in Hawaii, of course.  But according to a survey of higher ed that I saw, the situation I describe is standard in most states for their public universities.

    Parent

    You too huh? (none / 0) (#118)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Nov 15, 2011 at 05:14:41 PM EST
    We watched him speak.  The denial is so thick that when it peels back just a little I don't see how he survives his own self. I predicted to my husband that he would not take it.  I think he will suicide.

    Parent
    any bets (none / 0) (#78)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Nov 15, 2011 at 01:20:07 PM EST
    on the Walker recall.

    I say he is history.

    Ana Kournikova not returning (none / 0) (#83)
    by jeffinalabama on Tue Nov 15, 2011 at 02:10:32 PM EST
    to "Biggest Loser." She was too mean.

    Sigh... please be mean to meeeeeeeeee Ana!

    ll I want for Christmas is a no. 15 (none / 0) (#130)
    by oculus on Tue Nov 15, 2011 at 06:53:03 PM EST
    Broncos' jersey w/"JESUS" on the back.  

    Will you take a photo (5.00 / 1) (#132)
    by CoralGables on Tue Nov 15, 2011 at 06:59:15 PM EST
    Tebowing?

    Parent
    Don't think I can top your link! (none / 0) (#133)
    by oculus on Tue Nov 15, 2011 at 07:01:22 PM EST
    July 2011, Paterno transfers title (none / 0) (#163)
    by oculus on Wed Nov 16, 2011 at 12:29:21 AM EST
    of home to his spouse for $1.  Curious.  

    Probably less here than meets the eye (5.00 / 1) (#188)
    by rdandrea on Wed Nov 16, 2011 at 02:07:40 PM EST
    It was sold to Sue as "trustee."

    Probably a trust for the kids or grandkids.  My wife and I are fixing to do the same thing, and as far as I know I'm not being investigated by anybody (looking for wood to knock on).

    Parent