home

Sunday Night Open Thread

By Jeralyn, Section Blog Related
Posted on Sun Nov 06, 2011 at 06:36:45 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Carlos the Jackal goes on trial tomorrow in France on decades-old terror charges.

Once among the world's most feared masterminds of terror, the man known as Carlos the Jackal is now a graying convict who has been behind bars for 17 years. On Monday, he goes on trial for four deadly attacks that occurred nearly three decades ago, and the verdict could determine his chances of ever being freed.

Lots of TV on tonight: Homeland, The Good Wife, Pan Am and The Next Iron Chef are what I'll be watching. Is anyone going to check out AMC's new Hell on Wheels?

This is an open thread, all topics welcome.

< Poll Shows Cain Slipping After Sexual Harassment Allegations | Who's Watching the DEA? >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Sunday Night Open Thread | 60 comments (60 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    Jack Abramoff on 60 Minutes tonight (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by andgarden on Sun Nov 06, 2011 at 07:09:33 PM EST
    explained how his single most effective tool as a lobbyist was to promise capitol staffers well-paid jobs after they left Congress.

    Nobody is going to like my solution: pay the staffers much more. Working for a Congressman should (a) be a job to aspire to (in a sense in already is), and (b) pay enough to keep the staffers from peering over the fence at every opportunity.

    Yes these jobs have OK salaries and decent benefits by many standards. But for interests with lots of money who want something, it's easy to set the comparison bar much higher.

    I might also pay members of Congress more (along with generous public financing of elections) in order to actually make it possible to be a citizen/legislator today.

    I have a better idea. (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Nov 06, 2011 at 08:44:54 PM EST

    Limit their career as an aid to 4 years and forbid them from taking any post aid job that is connected in any way with the government or a company who does business with the government.

    Parent
    As a "social liberal," (none / 0) (#12)
    by NYShooter on Mon Nov 07, 2011 at 01:34:28 AM EST
    You sure sound like a reactionary right winger to me.

    Why do you hate freedom, anyway? Shouldn't people be free to decide who they want to represent them?


    Parent

    Given that the approval rating of Congress (none / 0) (#20)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Nov 07, 2011 at 08:26:11 AM EST
    is around 13% you would think that we'd be changing Senators and Representatives more often than the oil in our cars,

    But we don't.

    So something is obviously wrong. Term limits is needed.

    But my comment wasn't about the elected officials, it was about their assistants who, according to the post's info, are big part of the problem caused by lobbyists.

     

    Parent

    ...are needed... (none / 0) (#22)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Nov 07, 2011 at 08:32:11 AM EST


    Parent
    It's not obvious that term limits (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by observed on Mon Nov 07, 2011 at 10:01:06 AM EST
    are needed. IQ tests, civics tests, history tests, plus tests on basic economics for all Presidential candidates, would improve the crop.
    Hell, if 90% of our Congressmen could add fractions in their head (and I guarantee many cannot), that would be an improvement.

    Parent
    Oh, heck (none / 0) (#44)
    by Zorba on Mon Nov 07, 2011 at 10:14:14 AM EST
    I bet a lot of them couldn't even pass the civics test required of immigrants before they become citizens.

    Parent
    Term limits in CA has turned into a (none / 0) (#48)
    by oculus on Mon Nov 07, 2011 at 10:42:40 AM EST
    recycling center.  But, I agree re your first two paragraphs.  

    Parent
    Punished?? No. (none / 0) (#21)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Nov 07, 2011 at 08:31:08 AM EST
    Just opening the door to their future.

    Parent
    With Corporations (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by NYShooter on Mon Nov 07, 2011 at 01:27:52 AM EST
    starting the bidding at 7 figures its hard to see where Congressional salaries, even with substantial raises,  stand a chance.

    I'd prefer to "clarify" the laws on what constitutes "donations," and what are Bribes. We did it with pornography, "we know it when we see it," and we can do it with Blackmail, "we know it when we smell it."


    Parent

    Seems to me half the staffers (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by ruffian on Mon Nov 07, 2011 at 06:24:53 AM EST
    are there just to deal with lobbyists. How about limiting the size of the staff, and pay them more, as andgarden suggests?  I realize that will make the fight for access even more cutthroat, but maybe it's time the congresspeople learned to say no to some of these 'constituents'. They sure know how to say no to  most of us.

    Parent
    I know many staffers (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by jbindc on Mon Nov 07, 2011 at 03:57:24 PM EST
    Many of them are making salaries at $60K and up.  they are not yet 30, so they don't bring with them a vast amount of experience.  They have titles such as "Director of ___."  Nowhere else in the real world would someone with limited experience have that much responsibilty and make that salary.

    (That being said, overall federal workers make less than their private sector counterparts, but paying them MORE doesn't seem like an answer.  How much more would you have to pay them for a lobby shop's offer to not be appealing?)

    Parent

    Unfair (none / 0) (#65)
    by NYShooter on Mon Nov 07, 2011 at 05:31:43 PM EST
    You're generalizing, and stereotyping Government staffers unfairly.

    They may not "....bring with them a vast amount of experience," but, they may bring a PhD with them. How much is a PhD in energy, tax policy, international trade, the environment worth?

    And, as to a title, "Director of....," I once went to my boss and complained that my counterpart at another company held the title of, "Vice President," while mine was merely, "General Manager." My old, wise & wily, Jewish Boss said to me, "take a $10,000 cut in pay and you can have any title you want."

    lol

    Parent

    I'm talking Hill staffers (none / 0) (#66)
    by jbindc on Mon Nov 07, 2011 at 05:47:01 PM EST
    Average age is mid 20's to low 30's.  And I know a lot of them - from both parties.

    Here is where you can view their salaries.  Now those that require special degrees or licenses - of course those should be paid more. But to have a blanket statement saying that Hill staffers should be paid more to immunize them against the lure of lobbyist work is misguided.  Lobbyists can pay TONS of money.  Paying the staffers more wouldn't solve the problem - it would just be more tax dollars spent.

    Parent

    And now I agree (none / 0) (#67)
    by NYShooter on Mon Nov 07, 2011 at 10:06:57 PM EST
    with your revised post.

    Parent
    Also, I noted Leslie Stahl's shocked looks (5.00 / 4) (#26)
    by ruffian on Mon Nov 07, 2011 at 08:49:13 AM EST
    when Abramoff said how the influence peddling is still going on in full force.

    Well yes, Leslie, and you and your so-called news division need Jack fricking Abramoff to tell you about it. sheesh.

    Parent

    Leslie Stahl can not be taken seriously (none / 0) (#64)
    by shoephone on Mon Nov 07, 2011 at 04:34:21 PM EST
    as a journalist. Her interview with Jeffrey Immelt a couple of weeks ago should have proved that beyond any doubt.

    Parent
    Is there no longer a revolving door (none / 0) (#7)
    by oculus on Sun Nov 06, 2011 at 10:14:37 PM EST
    bar for a certain no. of years?

    Parent
    We have been also watching (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Nov 06, 2011 at 09:35:22 PM EST
    Once Upon a Time.  I record so many shows tonight but most are not child friendly.  At least the Once Upon a Time series is something I can share with the whole family.

    "The Mentalist" (none / 0) (#15)
    by lentinel on Mon Nov 07, 2011 at 03:23:01 AM EST
    is also not child friendly.

    Too bad. Only one or two brief gruesome scenes per episode - but it is enough to cancel it as a family activity.

    But that aside, I think it is a very enjoyable and relatively original  ensemble cast. And the story lines are reasonably absorbing imo.

    Parent

    This year there are not one (none / 0) (#49)
    by sj on Mon Nov 07, 2011 at 10:44:56 AM EST
    but two fairy tale shows.  There's also "Grimm" which is nothing like "Once Upon a Time".  Which is probably not really a family show.  When I was a kid, one of the fairy tale books that we had told the stories the unsanitized way.  You know, where the Sistie Uglers cut off their toes and heels to try to fit into the glass slippers.

    It didn't have all the creatures that they talk about on the show, though.

    Parent

    Have you seen "Into the Woods," (none / 0) (#51)
    by oculus on Mon Nov 07, 2011 at 10:48:50 AM EST
    (Sondheim/James Lapine)?  The "try-out" was staged here.  Sanitized by the time it hit Broadway.  But very subtle and funny here.  Apparently some of the advance feedback was that people didn't like seeing their fairytale heroes and heroine's tarnished on stage.  

    Parent
    No (none / 0) (#59)
    by sj on Mon Nov 07, 2011 at 01:01:31 PM EST
    But having now googled it, I sure would like to.  I'd like to see both versions.

    Parent
    Would have liked to hear the original (none / 0) (#63)
    by ruffian on Mon Nov 07, 2011 at 04:16:11 PM EST
    I've only heard the b-way version soundtrack, never seen it staged. Actually, there is a DVD of one of the B-way productions that I have rented. Worth a look!

    Parent
    TSA inspects privately-owned funicular (