Tuesday Afternoon Open Thread

At the airport.

BTW Bronco fans, how about Tebow Time?

Open Thread.

< Blame The "Counterculture" First | Frontline Documentary on David Coleman Headley >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    And where would he be (none / 0) (#55)
    by Edger on Tue Nov 22, 2011 at 03:41:43 PM EST
    the "speedy" clause and the Whistleblower Protection Act?

    erm... "without"...etc (none / 0) (#60)
    by Edger on Tue Nov 22, 2011 at 03:53:15 PM EST
    It Could Have Been Worse (5.00 / 1) (#103)
    by john horse on Tue Nov 22, 2011 at 06:24:25 PM EST
    He could have been tortured by a government that doesn't believe in human rights.

    Or under a republican president. (none / 0) (#109)
    by Edger on Tue Nov 22, 2011 at 07:01:45 PM EST
    Oh wait....

    All you have to do is (5.00 / 2) (#69)
    by MKS on Tue Nov 22, 2011 at 04:10:49 PM EST
    pepper spray abortion protesters who are praying the rosary....

    Fox would change their tune.....

    See Digby's pepper chart: (none / 0) (#72)
    by oculus on Tue Nov 22, 2011 at 04:18:16 PM EST
    Breaking - Obama says (none / 0) (#1)
    by Edger on Tue Nov 22, 2011 at 01:50:43 PM EST

    While he lifts your wallet.

    And the crowd goes wild.

    Look ABG was right? (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Nov 22, 2011 at 02:31:10 PM EST
    The President took the time to embrace the country and have a massive instruction and learning moment.  He explained to all of us what is going down in the Super Committee and exactly how he is going to work to heal our economy and he needs us to help pressure them to do it.  It's all right in there, in between the "Listen up you Mother F-ers, you are going to cut biotches...not me" lines :)

    You couldn't even make all this up.


    David Brooks ... (5.00 / 3) (#19)
    by Robot Porter on Tue Nov 22, 2011 at 02:41:13 PM EST
    on Charlie Rose last night uncrated the old "the real problem is the people's inability to accept hard choices" meme.  'Cause, you know, we like have it so good.

    yea (5.00 / 4) (#28)
    by CST on Tue Nov 22, 2011 at 02:51:51 PM EST
    he must make really hard choices all the time.

    Does he go with the Fois Gras or the Escargot?

    Such a difficult decision.


    C'mon, such a hard choice ... (5.00 / 2) (#32)
    by Robot Porter on Tue Nov 22, 2011 at 02:56:38 PM EST
    and he still hasn't got past starters.  By the time he gets to selecting the desert wine he will have proved his ability at making hard choices in a way that a minimum wage worker never could.  He's THAT brilliant!

    Scolding (none / 0) (#46)
    by Stellaaa on Tue Nov 22, 2011 at 03:27:37 PM EST
    Serious people all over the world are good at scolding.  

    MilitaryTracy (none / 0) (#27)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Tue Nov 22, 2011 at 02:51:10 PM EST
    Are we all in agreement on who the pressure falls on with Obama's firm line there.

    It is the GOP sacred cow that is in danger (defense) not the Dem priority (SS/Medicare).

    By saying he won't relent, he is placing massive pressure on the GOP to agree to raise taxes on the wealthy.

    Repeat:  Using a threat to GOP priorities to get the GOP to raise taxes on the rich is what people were saying he should be doing.

    He's doing it.  It looks like it could work.

    What else do you want exactly?


    Speaking for me (5.00 / 3) (#37)
    by ruffian on Tue Nov 22, 2011 at 03:06:16 PM EST
    I want him to do exactly nothing. Just like I wanted a year ago.

    The super committee and the automatic cuts were a horrible idea. Why is he threatening to veto going back to square one and pretending they never happened?

    Let the Bush tax cuts expire next year and the deficit is largely solved. Nothing has to be cut.


    Problem in that is (none / 0) (#44)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Nov 22, 2011 at 03:22:09 PM EST
    that the Bush tax cuts helped the middle class.

    Going from 28% to 25% and 31% to 28%.

    They also helped the next tier down.

    The Repubs will never agree to let them expire. And if Obama vetoes making them permanent he is toast. And he knows that.  


    so pass middle class (none / 0) (#50)
    by CST on Tue Nov 22, 2011 at 03:34:28 PM EST
    tax cuts.

    Problem solved.


    I would go for that (none / 0) (#53)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Nov 22, 2011 at 03:40:11 PM EST
    but I don't think Democrats would.

    HAHAHAHAHA (none / 0) (#56)
    by CST on Tue Nov 22, 2011 at 03:42:05 PM EST
    You're funny.


    "With Republicans unified in opposition, Democrats, as expected, fell short of the votes needed to overcome a filibuster and extend the tax cuts for all but the very wealthy.

    An extension of the tax cuts to families earning less than $250,000 a year was defeated, 53-36, short of the 60 needed to limit debate. An extension of the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts to those earning less than $1 million annually was rejected, 53-37"

    I guess you slept through 2010.


    heh (none / 0) (#110)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Nov 22, 2011 at 07:03:49 PM EST
    It is expected that a new compromise will be reached next week that will extend all Bush era tax cuts, including the upper level cut now being dubbed "the billionaire bailout."  Once the Republicans are given the handout for the rich, they will then agree to allow the middle class to continue to receive their tax relief, as well as stop holding the unemployment benefits extension hostage, too.

    Lol! the Deal, redux (none / 0) (#120)
    by ruffian on Tue Nov 22, 2011 at 08:08:42 PM EST
    I would not be at all surprised.

    Republicans blocked that very proposal (none / 0) (#65)
    by MKS on Tue Nov 22, 2011 at 03:59:01 PM EST
    Wow, you look really hard for (5.00 / 1) (#71)
    by sj on Tue Nov 22, 2011 at 04:12:47 PM EST
    to take offense.  How did you make it to adulthood with such thin skin?  I gave you credit for spurring self-education and you actually troll rate that!  That was literal credit, not ironic.  I wasn't mocking one bit.  

    Right now you are amusing me.  And I'm too busy to get annoyed.  Maybe I will later.


    Mr Troll (5.00 / 1) (#85)
    by sj on Tue Nov 22, 2011 at 05:18:18 PM EST
    strikes again.  

    This relates to tax cuts? (none / 0) (#84)
    by MKS on Tue Nov 22, 2011 at 05:07:13 PM EST
    I can only guess you bring up something from some other thread....

    I assume you know (5.00 / 2) (#87)
    by sj on Tue Nov 22, 2011 at 05:20:59 PM EST
    rules here, and know that comments are cut off when they reach 200 count or greater.  I would have noted your trollish behavior where it was occurring, but alas, was unable.  

    Why don't you leave the stalking behind (1.00 / 1) (#94)
    by MKS on Tue Nov 22, 2011 at 05:48:26 PM EST
    OK (none / 0) (#95)
    by sj on Tue Nov 22, 2011 at 05:59:19 PM EST
    And then????? And then???? And then??????? (none / 0) (#112)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Nov 22, 2011 at 07:08:09 PM EST
    Along came Repubs......

    By Lori Montgomery, Shailagh Murray and William Branigin
    Washington Post Staff Writers
    Friday, December 17, 2010; 5:05 PM

    President Obama signed into law the most significant tax bill in nearly a decade Friday, a day after overcoming liberal resistance in Congress to continue for two more years tax breaks enacted under president George W. Bush and to provide a fresh federal boost for the tepid economic recovery



    Exactly - pass the Obama tax cuts of 2013 (none / 0) (#58)
    by ruffian on Tue Nov 22, 2011 at 03:48:46 PM EST
    Would have been better politically if he had kept it in his hip pocket for 2012, but maybe campaigning on the plan for them will be good too.

    Because (none / 0) (#81)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Tue Nov 22, 2011 at 04:45:11 PM EST
    that is not going to be the proposal.  The proposal will be to roll back the defense cuts only.

    Also, he would be giving up his leverage.  The GOP loves defense more than they hate entitlements.


    Just so you are better informed (5.00 / 4) (#106)
    by MO Blue on Tue Nov 22, 2011 at 06:36:00 PM EST
    In the previous thread you stated

    ....we were going to get $1.2 trillion in deficit reductions, with 50% of the cuts coming from the military and none of the cuts from Social Security and Medicare.

    The actual $1.2 trillion trigger specifically includes automatic cuts to Medicare as follows:

    "The Super Committee's apparent inability to reach an agreement raises renewed worry for healthcare organizations and the people they serve. Hospitals and other healthcare providers such as nursing homes, rehabilitation facilities and home health care face $500 billion in Medicare cuts over the next nine years under an automatic 2 percent cut that will be triggered if the Super Committee fails to pass recommendations through Congress.

    We surely wouldn't want you to continue to misstate the facts. ;o)


    You are telling me that vetoing (none / 0) (#86)
    by ruffian on Tue Nov 22, 2011 at 05:20:56 PM EST
    a bill that would prevent mass layoffs in the defense industry is a good idea in an election year.  OK, well we'll see how that goes.

    Spending cuts = job cuts. That's all you need to look at.


    You can't have it both ways (5.00 / 1) (#93)
    by flyerhawk on Tue Nov 22, 2011 at 05:47:52 PM EST
    You can't lament about how weak Obama is when dealing with the Republicans and then complain when he actually plays hardball with them.  Well you can but then you are just engaging in a double standard.

    The Republicans have pinned themselves into the corner.  It would be idiotic for Obama let them get up off the floor and get their footing back.  

    Realistically he isn't going to get any bill until Congress can come to terms about what they will do and when they do he will sign it.  Until that time he should be giving Congressional Democrats as much air cover as he can.


    I don't see this as hardball (5.00 / 1) (#97)
    by ruffian on Tue Nov 22, 2011 at 06:07:14 PM EST
    Threatening to veto a job-saving bill in an election year is hardball?  Alrighty then.

    And by the way, how many (none / 0) (#98)
    by ruffian on Tue Nov 22, 2011 at 06:09:19 PM EST
    Congressional Dems want to cut defense spending in an election year?  He better not be threatening a veto he can't sustain.

    Well then (none / 0) (#151)
    by flyerhawk on Wed Nov 23, 2011 at 09:28:43 AM EST
    I don't think there is anything that the President can actually do that you would support.  

    You realize that his veto will (5.00 / 2) (#107)
    by MO Blue on Tue Nov 22, 2011 at 06:38:57 PM EST
    also make sure that there are automatic cuts to Medicare and other domestic programs.

    Funny how that works (none / 0) (#126)
    by ruffian on Tue Nov 22, 2011 at 08:30:06 PM EST
    We  can only hope the Dems in Congress hold out for a bill that basically resets the whole super committee debacle.

    flyerhawk (5.00 / 1) (#108)
    by CoralGables on Tue Nov 22, 2011 at 06:48:42 PM EST
    you've hit on the exact point. People do want it both ways. More spending on things we like and less taxes on those like us. And everyone else wants more spending on things they like and less taxes on those like them.

    That should be an easy fix for anyone.


    I don't want it both ways. I want more taxes on (5.00 / 1) (#124)
    by ruffian on Tue Nov 22, 2011 at 08:20:53 PM EST
    everyone.  Back to 2000  levels for all. I realize Obama would have a hard time doing that in an election year, so if he feels the need to promise a middle class tax cut after the Bush tax cuts expire, I won't be mad, unless he pays for it by cutting more spending, ie. jobs.

    Well ok (none / 0) (#150)
    by flyerhawk on Wed Nov 23, 2011 at 09:24:01 AM EST
    When you figure out a way to get the House of Representatives to agree to a tax hike, make sure you let the President know.  

    Oh that's right.  Pointing out that obvious problem is giving Obama an excuse.  He is expected to defy the House Republicans and just get it done regardless of whether Boehner & Co.  ever let a tax hike bill ever hit the floor.  

    It isn't that Obama will face political heat for doing it.  It's that he does not have the ability to do what you want him.  


    The House of Representatives DOES NOT (5.00 / 3) (#152)
    by MO Blue on Wed Nov 23, 2011 at 11:09:38 AM EST
    have to agree to let the Obama/Bush tax cuts expire. They are already scheduled to sunset on December 31, 2012. The tax rates would automatically go back to Clinton era rates. If Obama and the Dems want to let them expire on December 31, 2012, they will expire regardless of what the House of Representative wants or doesn't want.  The cuts will only be maintained if Obama and the Dens agree to maintain them. The House does not have the ability to pass legislation by themselves. Sorry, you just can't use that as an excuse for maintaining the Obama/Bush tax cuts for the rich.



    Flyerhawk, all he has to do (5.00 / 3) (#159)
    by Towanda on Thu Nov 24, 2011 at 12:05:30 PM EST
    is do nothing -- nothing -- for some taxation sanity to occur, letting Bush's cuts expire.

    If you don't know that, then you ought to do the most basic homework to find out the facts before you attack.

    If you do know that, then you are even more out of line in your attacks.


    I agree about the air cover though (none / 0) (#99)
    by ruffian on Tue Nov 22, 2011 at 06:13:01 PM EST
    Threatening vetoes of bills they may very well have to vote for to save their jobs is not providing them air cover.  Unless I guess you think he is so confident of his own position that he can let Dems run away from him in their campaigning?

    One thing is for sure, we will see how it all plays out...very interesting.


    Also, after a successful politcal (none / 0) (#77)
    by ruffian on Tue Nov 22, 2011 at 04:28:52 PM EST
    month or so, based on his rise in the polls, playing on the home field of  'pass jobs bill now' and talking more about income inequality (thanks OWS for the 'now make me do it ' factor ) he is pivoting back to the GOP home turf if deficit reduction, a political loser. No one cares about it but the 42 people in the beltway Charlie Pierce mentioned.

    On thought (none / 0) (#89)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Tue Nov 22, 2011 at 05:30:42 PM EST
    "[I]f Republicans hold the Norquist Line on taxes, will Obama let all the Bush tax cuts expire? And if Republicans deal, will Obama hold out for an adequate amount of new revenue -- say, the $1.5 trillion over ten years outlined in his September plan -- or settle for the measly $800 billion he was headed for in the busted deal with Boehner, or worse? After listening to Obama last night, I'm more sanguine than I've been for a long time.  He sprang a masterful trap on multiple levels. Maybe he really is playing multidimensional chess."



    The best deal is no deal (5.00 / 3) (#92)
    by ruffian on Tue Nov 22, 2011 at 05:41:29 PM EST
    There is no reason for a deal. No reason to attempt a trap, no matter how masterful someone thinks it is.  I do agree with the statement that the only two dates that matter are Nov. 6 and Dec 31 of next year.   What does he hope to gain electorally by doing a deal with the GOP before the election? Any cuts that cut jobs hurt him. Cutting entitlements hurts him, maybe more. The only thing that would help him is raising taxes on the rich and he can do that with no deal at all.

    MT (none / 0) (#64)
    by MKS on Tue Nov 22, 2011 at 03:58:16 PM EST
    Continuing the discussion from the last thread....

    Talking about Mitt and his ties to Mormon leaders is not something I would ever recommend for wooing Independents.....Teddy tried this in his Senate race against Mitt and rued the day.

    And, there is likely no evidence....Salt Lake has worked for 100 years to build its public image in the wake of polygamy, and it will not ruin this chance now....After the blowback from Prop 8, there will be no evidence to find.

    My point is for liberals: No, Romney is not just like Obama.  


    Anyone seen "The Way"? (none / 0) (#2)
    by oculus on Tue Nov 22, 2011 at 02:10:27 PM EST
    Of the things to be thankful for... (none / 0) (#3)
    by kdog on Tue Nov 22, 2011 at 02:11:48 PM EST
    this year don't forget Big Brother...he's got all the bases covered for us, right down to deep fried turkey warnings from the DHS.

    I knew DHS covered many bases, but even I'm suprised they are this thorough...doubleplusgood!

    Hope it doesn't cause any inner party member strife with Little Big Brother Bloomberg, who wants to protect us from fatty foods.

    Wow. I just read a warning on Huff Post, but (none / 0) (#6)
    by oculus on Tue Nov 22, 2011 at 02:26:21 PM EST
    didn't originate with DHS.  Thought about forwarding to my host and hostess but they'd never deep fry.  

    See why budget cuts can't reach DHS?


    Had the pleasure once... (none / 0) (#7)
    by kdog on Tue Nov 22, 2011 at 02:28:26 PM EST
    deep-fried turkey is delicous, if a lot of work...but I tend to think ya could deep fry an old sneaker and it would taste good.

    Deep-fried Oreo cookies are downright obscene.


    Ya, we've done it a couple times. (5.00 / 2) (#17)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Nov 22, 2011 at 02:38:53 PM EST
    Gotta be super careful.

    It's really good, but it's really difficult to do correctly.

    You heat up the oil, then you play with the gas valve to get the temp to stabilize, which is hard to do. Then the thermometer you put in melts. Then you run to the store and by 6 thermometers, just in case. Then you put the turkey in and the temp drops way down, so you turn the gas up. Then the thermometer melts again. Then the temp shoots up way past the temp you want and never comes back down. Etc.

    Does taste good though, despite all that...


    Seymour Hersh (none / 0) (#4)
    by Edger on Tue Nov 22, 2011 at 02:14:50 PM EST
    might blow Obama's re-election chances...

    "'They [JSOC] found nothing. Nothing. No evidence of any weaponization,' Hersh says. 'In other words, no evidence of a facility to build the bomb. They have facilities to enrich, but not separate facilities to build the bomb. This is simply a fact.'"

    Old news, but (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by NYShooter on Tue Nov 22, 2011 at 02:37:50 PM EST
    Like those militarized campus cops, when you've got the biggest military, 1000 times over, the world has ever seen, Dammit! They wanna, they gonna use it.

    Wait for the meme: "The only way to be sure they don't have nukes is to return them to the 15th. Century."



    Plus, think of all those ripe and juicy (none / 0) (#45)
    by Edger on Tue Nov 22, 2011 at 03:26:46 PM EST
    votes from the goobers for being a "strong war prez!"

    Do you really think Obama (5.00 / 1) (#67)
    by MKS on Tue Nov 22, 2011 at 04:08:22 PM EST
    will bomb Iran?

    Seting aside the sarcasm, you really believe that will happen?


    Let me put it this way (5.00 / 1) (#73)
    by Edger on Tue Nov 22, 2011 at 04:21:50 PM EST
    It won't surprise me if he does. He'll do whatever he's ordered to do.

    Although he may take the humanitarian route, follow Clinton's example of dealing with Iraq, and try to starve a few million Iranians to death.


    No. Bomb just in case, always better (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by KeysDan on Tue Nov 22, 2011 at 03:53:48 PM EST
    to error on the side of safety.  However, we have been educated in another thread, with an example, to a progressive goal to be achieved with re-election of the president:  avoiding an over-reaching attack on Iran that would probably occur under a GOP president.  Obama may bomb Iran, but the GOP version of that attack would be to bomb the entire country and set off a mid east war in earnest.

    I would have thought that bombing just a portion of Iran rather than the whole of it would be the centrist position, but, no, it is the new progressive stance.  Of course, we do need to save some bombs for our new Asian adventures.  As Mark Lander reports in the NYT, the recent maneuvering over China has a military component.  The Pentagon is using an expanded American presence in Asia to help forestall deep cuts in the defense budget.  Facing off against the Peoples Liberation Army will require a reinforced Navy and other military hardware.


    Well, someone has to (none / 0) (#68)
    by Edger on Tue Nov 22, 2011 at 04:10:20 PM EST
    raise the price of oil, right? There are oil company and speculating investment banks CEO's out their wasting away - mere shadows of their former substantial glory. And besides, Reagan promised it would all trickle down to the peasants and Obama is doing his damndest to make the pockets of the 1% split wide open from the weight of progress so that the 99% get the golden shower he feels in his heart they deserve. Right?

    Besides, it will be good for Boeing and other bomb makers, too.


    No thanks. (none / 0) (#5)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Tue Nov 22, 2011 at 02:20:46 PM EST

    For all the hip-hop fans (none / 0) (#8)
    by CST on Tue Nov 22, 2011 at 02:28:39 PM EST
    at TL (I know, I know)

    Watch the throne was an amazing concert.  Those two have so much energy, I've never heard the garden get that loud before and it's notoriously loud during big games.

    I took my sister to the show for her birthday.  I was pleased that they only played about half the set list from the new album and it was mostly old stuff, since frankly, I think the new album is not either of their best work, but it has some good hits.

    Usually if I go to a show it's a lesser known artist at a smaller venue, but I really couldn't pass this up since I've wanted to see Kanye for years and Jay Z is... Jay Z.

    Thank goodness this is a short work week since I'm definitely hurting today.

    In other not relevant pop culture news, I had to google Ward Cleaver from the other thread since I had no idea who he was.

    Harder to do those weekday shows... (none / 0) (#11)
    by kdog on Tue Nov 22, 2011 at 02:34:31 PM EST
    when ya get a little older ain't it?  But worth dragging arse the next day.  

    I heard the Jay-Z/Kanye was a monster...p*ssed I let 'em pass through but ya can't do 'em all (err pay for 'em all:), and I'm just not that into Kanye.


    Will you shell out for Springsteen? (none / 0) (#13)
    by oculus on Tue Nov 22, 2011 at 02:37:29 PM EST
    Or is it not worth it w/o Clarence?  

    Still worth it... (none / 0) (#21)
    by kdog on Tue Nov 22, 2011 at 02:41:34 PM EST
    Speak of the devil, today is Stevie Van Zandt's birthday.

    And yes, that one is worth whatever amount of self-imposed hermitude it takes to save for...we gotta get you to one of those pal!


    I'd like to hear it. (none / 0) (#22)
    by oculus on Tue Nov 22, 2011 at 02:42:30 PM EST
    Yep, happy b-day to Little Stevie. (none / 0) (#23)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Nov 22, 2011 at 02:43:32 PM EST
    concur with all (none / 0) (#62)
    by ruffian on Tue Nov 22, 2011 at 03:54:29 PM EST
    that would be great to go with you and oculus. Maybe next time he plays NY or Jersey?

    Happy B-day to Little Steven!

    Vintage solo for the TL set - I Am A Patriot


    That would be great fun. Two knowledgeable (none / 0) (#70)
    by oculus on Tue Nov 22, 2011 at 04:12:26 PM EST

    OK, we have our mission!!! (5.00 / 1) (#100)
    by ruffian on Tue Nov 22, 2011 at 06:15:06 PM EST
    Eff a weekday (none / 0) (#14)
    by vicndabx on Tue Nov 22, 2011 at 02:37:44 PM EST
    I drink too much on a Friday, I'm done till like Sunday afternoon at the earliest now.  

    wha' happened?


    Alcohol = Poison (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by kdog on Tue Nov 22, 2011 at 03:10:25 PM EST
    And rapid recovery is a young man's game.

    Same as bumps and bruises...I used to jump outta bed on a Monday morning after Sunday rec-league football, now my arse is gimpy till Wednesday.


    yea (none / 0) (#26)
    by CST on Tue Nov 22, 2011 at 02:49:31 PM EST
    when I first left college I used to go to this awesome little bar that has a funk band (no cover) every monday night.

    I haven't been in maybe 2 years?

    I couldn't pass this one up, I've loved Kanye since his breakout album, although it was really 808s and My Beautiful Dark Twisted Fantasy that just flat out floored me since they were both so unexpected and different from anything else that was being made.  He's definitely an original, alhtough I grant you not for everyone.  But I've never seen him live before.  Although I have to say that while I think Kanye is a better all around artist, Jay Z is definitely the better rapper.


    I went to the first show in Atlanta (none / 0) (#29)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Tue Nov 22, 2011 at 02:52:34 PM EST
    It was good. But I don't know. Rap concerts kind of feel like a bunch of guys yelling at me by the end of the night.  The light effects were amazing though.

    they are a mixed bag for me (none / 0) (#34)
    by CST on Tue Nov 22, 2011 at 03:04:48 PM EST
    this one was just so high energy though, we couldn't stop dancing.

    The worst I've ever seen was Snoop a few years ago.  He was good back in the day but he has clearly just checked out.


    Further update on the Griffen Kramer saga, (none / 0) (#9)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Nov 22, 2011 at 02:30:59 PM EST
    he's the son of ex NFL QB Erik Kramer and who OD'd on heroin a couple weekends ago at a neighbor's house that I have posted about here couple times.

    Well, anyway, one of the 5 or so local teenagers arrested in connection with the death is Corey Van Dyke, grandson of Dick Van Dyke.

    Morons, the bunch of them.

    Morons... (none / 0) (#16)
    by kdog on Tue Nov 22, 2011 at 02:38:46 PM EST
    iow kids...I really hope the misery is minimized...but once the law gets involved, misery squared is almost assured.

    Jacking friggin' herion into your friggin' arm. Morons, regardless of age.

    I hear ya... (none / 0) (#25)
    by kdog on Tue Nov 22, 2011 at 02:48:12 PM EST
    that drug, never me...if only because I assume I'd really really like it.

    I meant not calling 911 or driving to the ER...not the using.  I can understand the kids being scared, and I'm not saying a pass, I just hope nobody goes to prison....thats the misery squared I'm talking about.


    I am forever thankful to the kids (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by ruffian on Tue Nov 22, 2011 at 03:11:00 PM EST
    who were thinking about my nephew and not themselves when he fell out of a tree last year during an underage drinking party. If they had not called 911 immediately he would be paralyzed now, or dead, and not one of the two students at U of Memphis chosen to present a bill before the TN state legislature a couple of weeks ago.

    I wish whatever sense those kids had were present in everyone.


    An education campaign... (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by kdog on Tue Nov 22, 2011 at 03:19:31 PM EST
    similar to the one with teen drunk driving would be good....the one where kids promise wherever you are, at any hour of night, call for a ride, and in turn parents promise not to freak out.

    Sad to say but 911 and police involvement opens a can of worms sometimes, it would be nice if everybody felt safe calling 911 in an emergency.  That being said when the situation warrants you do what is right and come what may...help those in need.


    Well, I would expect several, at least, (none / 0) (#33)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Nov 22, 2011 at 03:02:04 PM EST
    will get time. Two, at least, are up for involuntary manslaughter.

    And I got some names mixed up, the Van Dyke's name is Carey, not Corey. He was arrested for child endangerment as police found "deplorable conditions" when they searched his home, and 5 kids (his, presumably) taken into protective custody.


    Another report says 6 kids and (none / 0) (#36)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Nov 22, 2011 at 03:05:01 PM EST
    felony child neglect.

    Oh yeah, I think many/most of the (none / 0) (#78)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Nov 22, 2011 at 04:31:27 PM EST
    indicted were found in possession...

    That seems young for a grandson (none / 0) (#42)
    by sj on Tue Nov 22, 2011 at 03:20:57 PM EST
    Would that be a great-grandson?  Regardless of parentage, it's just all so tragic, all the more so because it was avoidable and they didn't even see that.

    In light of today's post (none / 0) (#12)
    by vicndabx on Tue Nov 22, 2011 at 02:35:33 PM EST
    The percentage of non-Hispanic whites voting for Republican House candidates in 2010, 62 percent, set a record for off-year contests, beating even the 1994 Republican rout when Republicans got 58 percent of the white vote. In presidential elections, you have to go back to the landslide Republican victories of 1972 (Richard Nixon versus George McGovern) and 1984 (Ronald Reagan versus Walter Mondale) to get white Republican margins similar to those of 2010. McGovern and Mondale carried just one state each, Massachusetts and Minnesota respectively.


    Seems we need all the help we can get.

    Yep (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Nov 22, 2011 at 03:04:51 PM EST
    I've been making this point for quite a while despite the fact that no one wants to listen.

    We have gone back 30 years or more with Obama at the helm.


    Probably (none / 0) (#59)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Nov 22, 2011 at 03:49:21 PM EST
    But there's no doubt we've gone backwards with Obama. I guess how far is debatable. Maybe 20 is better. Back to the Dukakis coalition.

    Obviously you'd be happier (none / 0) (#63)
    by CoralGables on Tue Nov 22, 2011 at 03:54:30 PM EST
    with George W if Obama has taken us backwards.

    Talking (none / 0) (#79)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Nov 22, 2011 at 04:36:49 PM EST
    strictly demographics here. You can't win with just a political base of African Americans and liberals. Obama Hispanic approval is below 50% in the last poll I saw. If you think all that's good news then have at it.

    No we have not (none / 0) (#75)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Tue Nov 22, 2011 at 04:25:03 PM EST
    That's what (5.00 / 1) (#80)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Nov 22, 2011 at 04:37:22 PM EST
    the numbers say.

    New Mexico gov. mentioned as possible (none / 0) (#18)
    by oculus on Tue Nov 22, 2011 at 02:39:35 PM EST
    VP of Romney.  Think this might get some Latino votes?  

    Susanna Martinez. (none / 0) (#24)
    by oculus on Tue Nov 22, 2011 at 02:44:39 PM EST
    Will he (none / 0) (#30)
    by CoralGables on Tue Nov 22, 2011 at 02:53:38 PM EST
    ever have the need for a running mate?

    Does seem a tad premature. (none / 0) (#43)
    by oculus on Tue Nov 22, 2011 at 03:21:28 PM EST
    If Wiki is to be believed (none / 0) (#31)
    by vicndabx on Tue Nov 22, 2011 at 02:54:36 PM EST
    New Mexico Governor Susana Martinez is the great grandaughter of Toribio Ortega Ramirez.

    Who you ask is Toribio Ortega Ramirez?

    General Toribio Ortega or Toribio Ortega Ramirez born 1861 and died 1916 was a Mexican militarist who participated in the Mexican Revolution

    I think this means he was a "company man" on the side of the ruling class during their revolution.


    Nope (none / 0) (#51)
    by sj on Tue Nov 22, 2011 at 03:36:51 PM EST
    He was a revolutionary.  I haven't followed New Mexico politics since I lost my parents so I don't know anything about this Governor (sidebar: Bill Richardson wouldn't help much).  

    But I just learned that Martinez is a Tejana.  As a descendent of the Land Grant troubles of Northern New Mexico, I was shocked to learn at the approximate age of 17 that the pejorative "Tejano" simply translated as "Texan".  


    Thanks (none / 0) (#123)
    by vicndabx on Tue Nov 22, 2011 at 08:19:53 PM EST
    my spanish vocab is real rusty.  

    So is mine (none / 0) (#134)
    by sj on Tue Nov 22, 2011 at 09:19:06 PM EST
    often times.  Especially now that I don't have anyone speaking Spanish to me as a matter of course.  I miss that.

    Happy to help :)


    Kyle Orton (none / 0) (#40)
    by CoralGables on Tue Nov 22, 2011 at 03:13:59 PM EST
    waived by the Broncos today.

    Didn't hear about that one, interesting (none / 0) (#47)
    by republicratitarian on Tue Nov 22, 2011 at 03:29:52 PM EST
    From USA Today (none / 0) (#57)
    by CoralGables on Tue Nov 22, 2011 at 03:45:44 PM EST
    "Denver has waived Orton, who gave way to Tim Tebow during a Week 5 loss to the Chargers. Broncos executive vice president of football operations John Elway confirmed the move in his podcast Tuesday".

    CBO Reminder of the first 100 days (none / 0) (#82)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Tue Nov 22, 2011 at 04:47:17 PM EST
    out today.  The stimulus created more jobs than we thought.

    "The CBO figures released Tuesday estimate that the stimulus package raised the gross domestic product this past quarter by 0.3 percent-1.9 percent.

    The CBO report provided a broad range of the estimated number of full-time jobs created because of the stimulus -- from a low of 500,000 to a high of 3.3 million jobs.

    Previous estimates indicated that the stimulus funded more than 400,000 full-time jobs in the third quarter, but the CBO said in its report that the figure was not a "comprehensive" look at the law's impact.

    Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1111/68965.html#ixzz1eTdImBud

    Too bad (5.00 / 2) (#83)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Nov 22, 2011 at 04:52:29 PM EST
    he didn't listen to Krugman and do the right amount. He wouldn't be in as bad shape as he is in now. This had such a middling result that it opened it up to criticism. You can talk about policy all day but this isn't sellable. "saving jobs" is something that only a few care about. All the voters are going to do is look at the unemployment number and vote based on that. They vote based on results and the results just might not be good enough.

    He could not (none / 0) (#88)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Tue Nov 22, 2011 at 05:26:44 PM EST
    have obtained a stimulus much bigger than the one passed IMHO.  I assume we disagree on that point.  The fact that Krugman wanted it didn't mean it was going to happen even if Obama tried for it.

    Okay (5.00 / 4) (#101)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Nov 22, 2011 at 06:15:59 PM EST
    We're back to Obama can't do anything. So why bother to vote for somebody who can't seem to do what is needed? You make the best case for kicking Obama out of office than anybody here.

    You complain about the GOP but you're actually helping them with these kind of statements. Fact of the matter is Obama DIDN'T even try. He just gives up the moment there's any opposition. I guess it's too hard or something.


    gives up the moment there's any opposition? (5.00 / 1) (#105)
    by Edger on Tue Nov 22, 2011 at 06:27:42 PM EST
    I've been watching him do that since 2007, and the only conclusion I can come to that makes sense is that... when someone continually and repeatedly goes along on everything with someone else whom they 'claim' to be opposing, it's not 'caving'.

    It's his plan. His intentional plan...


    Sorry - bad link (none / 0) (#116)
    by Edger on Tue Nov 22, 2011 at 07:43:02 PM EST
    "Even if Obama tried for it," (5.00 / 2) (#119)
    by Anne on Tue Nov 22, 2011 at 08:06:57 PM EST
    is the operative phrase, because he didn't.  You obviously know that, or you wouldn't have made the "even if" qualifier.

    They acknowledged what they believed the right number was, and then announced they were aiming lower.

    In what universe is that the way to negotiate your way to the best possible outcome?

    What a demonstration of courage in the face of opposition, huh?

    We'll never know what might have been possible; we do know what Obama was willing to settle for.

    Sad to say, that's a recurring theme of this administration.


    from a low of 500,000 to a high of 3.3 million job (5.00 / 2) (#91)
    by NYShooter on Tue Nov 22, 2011 at 05:41:07 PM EST
    margin of error, only 630%

    And count in the number of jobs "not lost," another 2 mil. Then take the number of full time jobs lost, bring in the number of part time jobs added...

    Hey, we're on a rocketship to the moon and didn't even know it.

    Now, THAT's Chess, baby!


    Actually (none / 0) (#148)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Wed Nov 23, 2011 at 09:10:41 AM EST
    That's (1) much higher (based on the lower estimate) than any of his critics gave him credit for and (2) the report by the CBO, which is completely independent of Obama or anyone else.

    The spread was their best projection and odds are that the reality is in the middle (1.5 million job) which is huge.

    Any argument which analyzes whether Obama's policies in the first 100 days helped the 99% while ignoring 1.5 million jobs created is a bad argument.

    The "well he could have done more" argument as a way of completely ignoring the 1.5 million jobs created is the only argument that's worse.


    Doesn't (5.00 / 3) (#113)
    by lentinel on Tue Nov 22, 2011 at 07:21:26 PM EST
    it occur to any of the Obama salespeople that if things were rosy we might know about it without having to consult charts, graphs and pundits?

    The stimulus (5.00 / 1) (#143)
    by lilburro on Tue Nov 22, 2011 at 11:30:44 PM EST
    was good, not good enough.  

    I have no problem defending the stimulus in terms of being helpful.  I don't think it was helpful enough but it certainly wasn't a waste of money.  I think you would find few here who think of it as waste of money, unless the discussion is about how much of it was tax cuts.  Which were comparatively wasteful.  Still, you're not going to find a Dem who says "you shouldn't have passed the stimulus."

    As I indicated earlier, I am hoping the Obama political team is thinking of quick and easy ways to defend their actions, such as the ACA and the stimulus, which are perceived to be unpopular, but are probably not unpopular.  Just as when people say they hate government spending, but at the same time vote to protect their Medicare.

    The Obama record in 4 years is:

    Ending torture.
    Repealing DADT.
    Passing the stimulus.
    Passing ACA.
    Passing financial reform.
    Ending the Iraq War, kind of mostly.
    Yammering about the deficit for a year.

    I'm not happy with the details in all of them, but Obama is saddled with not only the details but the facts of those.  I hope the campaign emboldens him to defend the principles (ostensibly liberal) behind his actions in those matters, because whether he stridently defended those actions or not, his opponents have made him into someone who did (aka a socialist).  The Obama team, you'll notice, rarely trumpets the success of the stimulus, however limited.  The only time I hear him defend the ACA is when he is arguing with progressives about how much he could do.

    We've spent way too long arguing about stuff that doesn't matter (the deficit).  When people think Obama's a loser, they think that because it feels like government quit a year or more ago.  In terms of getting stuff done, that is true, but Obama's super-defense strategy hasn't gained him any fans in that time either.

    When he pulls a candidate into opposition, maybe that perception will change.  Why it couldn't have changed beforehand will still be in question, though.


    Obama (none / 0) (#144)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Nov 23, 2011 at 07:25:25 AM EST
    doesn't defend any of these because first of all you can't defend "jobs saved". That's pretty much saying I stopped you midway from falling down the stairs instead of falling all the way down yet, you still have some bumps and bruises and will never know how many you would have had if you'd been allowed to fall all the way down.

    The ACA is really hard to defend outside of the few things in it that are popular. If it's not good legislation then you can't defend it. It's as simple as that.


    Is it possible to obtain kif in the U.S.? (none / 0) (#90)
    by oculus on Tue Nov 22, 2011 at 05:31:25 PM EST

    Wuf's (5.00 / 1) (#114)
    by lentinel on Tue Nov 22, 2011 at 07:23:50 PM EST

    Kif (5.00 / 1) (#121)
    by oculus on Tue Nov 22, 2011 at 08:10:16 PM EST

    I am reading Paul Bowles' "travel."  He says Muslims in Morocco in the 50s didn't drink alcohol but they used kif all the time.  

    He also says THC is perfect for a protest movement, as it makes people "interior" as opposed to alcohol.  


    Esoteric. (none / 0) (#122)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Nov 22, 2011 at 08:16:08 PM EST
    Inconclusive research: (none / 0) (#142)
    by oculus on Tue Nov 22, 2011 at 10:30:35 PM EST
    I've never heard that it is (none / 0) (#135)
    by sj on Tue Nov 22, 2011 at 09:25:42 PM EST
    But it seems fairly straightforward to produce your own.

    But I'm probably the wrong person to respond since I am decades away from personal use. :)


    Very straight-forward... (none / 0) (#145)
    by kdog on Wed Nov 23, 2011 at 08:17:22 AM EST
    any self-respecting partaker of quality ganja has a grinder with a keef compartment.

    Just say the word oculus! :)


    I knew you'd be able to answer my question. (none / 0) (#153)
    by oculus on Wed Nov 23, 2011 at 11:41:47 AM EST
    It's the one topic... (5.00 / 1) (#154)
    by kdog on Wed Nov 23, 2011 at 11:44:56 AM EST
    I got most of the TL crew beat in knowledge.

    Related factoid...unscrupulous distributors will keef their product before selling it.  Bad form.  Buyer beware...inspect for crystals.


    Why would the hypothetical buyer (none / 0) (#155)
    by oculus on Wed Nov 23, 2011 at 11:48:21 AM EST
    not want to purchase if kif is present?  The Moroccan men apparently prefer kif, according to Bowles.  

    Sorry... (none / 0) (#156)
    by kdog on Wed Nov 23, 2011 at 11:54:15 AM EST
    wasn't clear..."keefing" their product is removing the keef from the buds prior to sale of the buds, keeping the keef themselves...buyer just got beat out of most of the THC.

    Only a sc*mbag would do that, but like in any business sc*mbags exist...though at a far lesser percentage than the financial sector:)


    Ah. Got it. Now check this out: (none / 0) (#157)
    by oculus on Wed Nov 23, 2011 at 11:57:45 AM EST
    Also: they're [FBI] worried because many of Pimental's recorded statements were made as he smoked marijuana with the NYPD's informer as he guided Pimental to attack and instructed him how to do it.
     [Greenwald re the guy NYPD recently arrested.]

    I thought everybody... (none / 0) (#158)
    by kdog on Wed Nov 23, 2011 at 12:13:22 PM EST
    plotted revolution when they got stoned...ya know, for sh*ts and giggles.

    Getting stoned with entrapping undercovers is uncharted territory for me...I hope:)


    ABA "unqualified" ratings of Obama (none / 0) (#96)
    by oculus on Tue Nov 22, 2011 at 06:02:44 PM EST
    judicial nominees:  NYT

    Rather misleading (none / 0) (#102)
    by CoralGables on Tue Nov 22, 2011 at 06:23:05 PM EST
    more rejected than Bush, but Bush wouldn't give them a list because he felt they were an anti-conservative group.

    But it could cause a stir for the ABA (none / 0) (#104)
    by CoralGables on Tue Nov 22, 2011 at 06:25:02 PM EST
    when you consider that 13 of the 14 rejected weren't white anglo males.

    I thought the interesting point in the article (5.00 / 1) (#111)
    by shoephone on Tue Nov 22, 2011 at 07:06:49 PM EST
    was that the Obama administration is pi$$ed that the ABA doesn't consider government lawyers and law professors as well qualified to be judges as they do litigators. All I can say is, when presidents think that law professors -- who have never tried one case in their entire lives -- are as qualified to be trial judges as lawyers who have actually tried cases... well, Houston, we have a problem.

    It's hard to be an efective judge (5.00 / 1) (#118)
    by scribe on Tue Nov 22, 2011 at 07:56:48 PM EST
    if you've never been in a courtroom, never tried a case and are proud of the fact.  As many law professors are - they are prouder of being theoreticians than of having practical experience.  For that matter, pratical lawyering experience is considered a disqualifier for those who might aspire to law professorship.

    At my law school, one of the adjunct professors who taught commercial law was a litigator who actually knew, understood, and demystified things like the UCC, Article 9 and concepts like what was security and how that made a secured transaction secured.  He wanted to be a law professor, but the very experience and skill that made him effective was the reason he was rejected.  He's now one of the best bankruptcy judges in the District, if not country.


    Wait - experience matters? (5.00 / 1) (#147)
    by jbindc on Wed Nov 23, 2011 at 08:37:14 AM EST
    Do community organizers make good judges?

    Sad news for jazz fans (none / 0) (#115)
    by shoephone on Tue Nov 22, 2011 at 07:37:28 PM EST
    The incomparable drummer, Paul Motion, has died of MDS - the same disease that killed tenor sax player Mike Brecker almost 5 years ago. This is another huge loss.

    Occupy Mile High Stadium brutality (none / 0) (#117)
    by magster on Tue Nov 22, 2011 at 07:45:12 PM EST
    Pike strikes again (none / 0) (#125)
    by CoralGables on Tue Nov 22, 2011 at 08:29:03 PM EST
    at UC-Davis you'd think he'd be a 49er fan, but maybe he's a Chargers fan this week.

    I'd be lost without the funny (none / 0) (#137)
    by ruffian on Tue Nov 22, 2011 at 09:38:31 PM EST
    that is classic

    Bachmann's Iowa Campaign Chair warns ... (none / 0) (#127)
    by Yman on Tue Nov 22, 2011 at 08:32:21 PM EST
    Yes, I have been doodling (5.00 / 5) (#128)
    by ruffian on Tue Nov 22, 2011 at 08:35:58 PM EST
    Mrs. Eiffel Tower in my notebooks for years!

    think big (none / 0) (#131)
    by oculus on Tue Nov 22, 2011 at 08:58:53 PM EST
    Never Mrs. Space Needle (5.00 / 4) (#136)
    by ruffian on Tue Nov 22, 2011 at 09:36:13 PM EST
    Yes, many gay many would like to (5.00 / 1) (#133)
    by observed on Tue Nov 22, 2011 at 09:06:26 PM EST
    marry an Eiffel tower.

    Heh - I'm trying to figure out ... (none / 0) (#138)
    by Yman on Tue Nov 22, 2011 at 09:46:43 PM EST
    ... why the homophobes always go the phalic route - all the objects in the world and she chooses the Eiffel Tower.

    Could've at least kept it a little patriotic and gone the Washington Monument route ...


    The Freedom Phallus? (5.00 / 2) (#140)
    by ruffian on Tue Nov 22, 2011 at 09:58:12 PM EST
    Seriously though, (5.00 / 2) (#141)
    by ruffian on Tue Nov 22, 2011 at 09:59:53 PM EST
    I think the question 'If you could marry an object, what would it be?' should be on the eHarmony questionnaire.

    Duh - an ATM (5.00 / 5) (#146)
    by jbindc on Wed Nov 23, 2011 at 08:35:05 AM EST
    Gold-digger! :) n/t (5.00 / 3) (#149)
    by kdog on Wed Nov 23, 2011 at 09:16:11 AM EST
    Interesting Russian translation (none / 0) (#129)
    by observed on Tue Nov 22, 2011 at 08:49:59 PM EST
    I was curious if the phrase "woman of a certain age" has a Russian translation. Apparently, there IS a phrase having exactly the same meaning, and it literally means "A woman of the Balzac age", obviously from some literary reference.

    This link discusses "Sex and the City," (none / 0) (#130)
    by oculus on Tue Nov 22, 2011 at 08:58:36 PM EST
    a Russian TV series taking off on "Sex," and the fact these women are over 30!  kinokutura

    Good catch! (none / 0) (#132)
    by observed on Tue Nov 22, 2011 at 09:05:39 PM EST
    Just finished browsing Met. Museum (none / 0) (#139)
    by oculus on Tue Nov 22, 2011 at 09:47:02 PM EST
    of Art travel offerings:  $18,000, "The Silk Road $ Southern Caucasus, 2 weeks, Golden Eagle trian from KZ to Armenia.  Such a deal.