Thursday Morning Open Thread

Busy so light posting at best today.

Open Thread.

< Wednesday Afternoon Open Thread | Thursday Afternoon Open Thread >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    F*ckin' Guiliani... (5.00 / 2) (#1)
    by kdog on Thu Dec 01, 2011 at 09:11:42 AM EST
    sorry, just reflex...make that F*ckin' Bloomberg, who is on pace to set another new stop & frisk record.

    How 'bout a stop and forensic accounting program in lower Manhattan?  Oh yeah, some animals are more equal than others.

    Can't ever be too safe! For example: new (none / 0) (#4)
    by oculus on Thu Dec 01, 2011 at 09:24:52 AM EST
    camera installed @ 50th&. 8th    Rental hoist.  Contracted out crew; follow the money?

    Smile Oc... (none / 0) (#7)
    by kdog on Thu Dec 01, 2011 at 09:39:52 AM EST
    you'll be captured on 500 or so candid cameras in your NYC travels today.

    If someone calls the tip line about a nice lady  wearing the same color blouse as you, they'll find ya in 5 minutes..."safety" never felt so fraught with peril.


    kdog, I saw this over at (5.00 / 1) (#130)
    by caseyOR on Thu Dec 01, 2011 at 05:13:42 PM EST
    Susie Madrak's place and thought of you immediately.

    In a speech at MIT, Bloomberg sings the wonders that are the perks of being mayor of NYC. For example, according to Bloomberg, he has his own private army. Officially it is known as the NYPD, but Mike is the CiC, and the NYPD does what he wants, when he wants.

    He also talks about having his own state department, something he says the U.S. State Dept. doesn't like, but apparently cannot do anything about.

    Why do New Yorkers keep electing this guy? I know he's not Rudy, but I don't see how Mike is any better than Rudy.


    How about a long black coat? It was (none / 0) (#9)
    by oculus on Thu Dec 01, 2011 at 09:44:37 AM EST
    frickin cold last  night.  End of opera delayed 10 minutes. Do not know why.

    OK, now you have me wondering (5.00 / 2) (#11)
    by ruffian on Thu Dec 01, 2011 at 09:51:27 AM EST
    how they go about delaying the end of the opera. Do they delay the start? Sing slower? Lock you in for 10 minutes after it is over?

    At the end. Of the big fight (none / 0) (#12)
    by oculus on Thu Dec 01, 2011 at 09:58:38 AM EST
    scene the curtain suddenly came down and a woman came on stage announcing a slightly delay. When curtain came up fighters were in position to resume.

    huh. interesting. I wonder what that was all about (none / 0) (#14)
    by ruffian on Thu Dec 01, 2011 at 10:01:45 AM EST
    The singers (5.00 / 4) (#16)
    by Towanda on Thu Dec 01, 2011 at 10:15:58 AM EST
    were being stopped and frisked behind the scenes, of course.

    They appeared to possibly be armed (5.00 / 3) (#17)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Dec 01, 2011 at 10:24:13 AM EST
    You are defending Newt? (none / 0) (#26)
    by MKS on Thu Dec 01, 2011 at 11:01:00 AM EST
    Lost me there. (5.00 / 1) (#135)
    by oculus on Thu Dec 01, 2011 at 05:27:08 PM EST
    The 1 for saying (none / 0) (#162)
    by MKS on Thu Dec 01, 2011 at 08:18:56 PM EST
    Newt was a despicable human being......

    Not offended just curious (none / 0) (#164)
    by MKS on Thu Dec 01, 2011 at 08:38:41 PM EST
    sj's stuff I get.....

    I really can't tell what you are saying.....if you intend a direct insult, that is fine....just seems a little out of place....


    I think you've mistaken whose comment (none / 0) (#171)
    by oculus on Thu Dec 01, 2011 at 09:43:24 PM EST
    is the "parent."

    Mistake? (none / 0) (#173)
    by MKS on Thu Dec 01, 2011 at 10:15:23 PM EST
    But (none / 0) (#174)
    by sj on Fri Dec 02, 2011 at 12:14:37 AM EST
    this is what you replied to.  See why you confuse us?

    Nope (none / 0) (#179)
    by MKS on Fri Dec 02, 2011 at 01:10:06 AM EST
    You are clearly invested in tracking me.....

    Thank you for your concern.....


    Silly (none / 0) (#184)
    by sj on Fri Dec 02, 2011 at 09:57:42 AM EST
    I was following the opera thread which you threw into disarray.

    Moreover (none / 0) (#185)
    by sj on Fri Dec 02, 2011 at 10:03:08 AM EST
    YOU brought my name into this.

    True (none / 0) (#93)
    by TJ Walker on Thu Dec 01, 2011 at 03:41:52 PM EST
    Legislators and NYPD haven't been respecting citizens' liberties lately. First OWS, now this... And Orwell inevitably does come to mind as the venerable truth-Sayer about the system.

    Score one for the 99%... (5.00 / 3) (#3)
    by kdog on Thu Dec 01, 2011 at 09:21:36 AM EST
    the movers and the deputies ain't gonna work on  Deustche Bank's farm (serviced by Chase) no more...at least when it involves evicting 103 year olds from their home of over 50 years.

    Did you see the part (5.00 / 2) (#6)
    by jeffinalabama on Thu Dec 01, 2011 at 09:27:31 AM EST
    where they were "having difficulties getting Chase to take a payment."

    So, let me see... I'll pay you, so don't evict me!


    What a sick system where people buy debt then hire mercs to 'service' it, then get the sheriff to do their dirty work.

    Glad the deputies said no. And the movers, also.

    Kudos to both groups for standing up for humanity, not banks.


    Now why would Chase want a payment... (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by kdog on Thu Dec 01, 2011 at 09:41:16 AM EST
    when they can have a house?  Kicking an old lady to the curb is like a bonus.

    Curious as To Where They... (none / 0) (#28)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Dec 01, 2011 at 11:03:40 AM EST
    ...were going to move them.

    It would be nice if the sheriff and/or reporters dug a bit deeper.  How does someone live in a house for 50 years, assuming she is on a fixed income, and some how not able to make payments now, when interest rates are ultra-low.

    Did some flimflam artist come in and refinance the home with some ridiculous terms, is Chase pulling a fast one with the paperwork ?

    It's too bad the cops are only in the 'person removal' aspect of mortgages, we have to go through civil court, they have the police who apparently aren't smart enough to investigate the matter, just strong enough to toss us out on our A's.


    I think another member of her family (none / 0) (#32)
    by tigercourse on Thu Dec 01, 2011 at 11:06:46 AM EST
    took out a second mortgage on the place recently in her name.

    Kdog (none / 0) (#36)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Dec 01, 2011 at 11:19:04 AM EST
    I think another member of her family
    took out a second mortgage on the place recently in her name.

    That's your chance! Go get the guy who caused the problem!

    BTW - You gonna come down for the January WPT??


    The problem causers... (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by kdog on Thu Dec 01, 2011 at 11:28:33 AM EST
    have a personal security force called the NYPD...and they don't f8ck around.

    Don't think any WPT is gonna happen old friend...barring an armored car swinging open in my vicinity.  Pay the bills, get through Christmas, and then get my gringo arse back to Mexico stat....my heart is yearning and burning.


    Well I am shocked to hear (none / 0) (#51)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Dec 01, 2011 at 12:21:14 PM EST
    you had rather be with your honey than hang out in a casino's card room.

    Yes, shocked.




    Expalin (none / 0) (#54)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Dec 01, 2011 at 12:41:30 PM EST
    I don't get it, a family member took the mortgage out, and then what ?  They stopped paying ?

    Exactamundo. (none / 0) (#64)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Dec 01, 2011 at 02:01:33 PM EST
    Grandson is apparently the legal owner and took out a loan on the property and has been missing payments.

    Update... (5.00 / 1) (#67)
    by kdog on Thu Dec 01, 2011 at 02:28:05 PM EST
    Chase calls off the eviction...guess they're willing to accept payments now...lol.

    in her home. Very nice!

    Pretty Hard to Call the Banks... (none / 0) (#119)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Dec 01, 2011 at 04:53:59 PM EST
     ...the bad guys when the grand kid loaned against the house and then missed payments.

    Pretty big fact to miss in the story, unless of course the mem was decided before those pesky facts got in.

    I'm not friend of the banks, but in this case the bad guy is the grandson.


    Waaaaayy too fact based. (none / 0) (#124)
    by oculus on Thu Dec 01, 2011 at 05:03:02 PM EST
    the house, but grandson got a loan on the house through deceit and w/o her approval...

    But then who benefits from the houses sitting (none / 0) (#42)
    by Farmboy on Thu Dec 01, 2011 at 11:42:44 AM EST

    I'm basing this question on anecdotal evidence; my SiL is a realtor and she has mentioned a few times that many buyers don't want to go anywhere near foreclosed houses now that more people are aware of the potentially problematic foreclosure paper trail.


    What is happening with title insurance? (none / 0) (#47)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Dec 01, 2011 at 12:11:31 PM EST
    That used to be the item that brought confidence to buyers as well as lenders.  With what MERS has attempted to pull though, there is no courthouse to go investigate all the recorded instruments and recorded title transfers at.  What are title insurers doing at this point?  There is no way to prove clear title.  Do they even have jobs anymore?  What a mess!

    If there is a mortgage (none / 0) (#50)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Dec 01, 2011 at 12:19:38 PM EST
    involved the Title Insurance protects the mortgage holder. If there were two mortgages I don't know what would happen.

    If you really want to be protected, hire an attorney to do a lien search and have the attorney issue a statement of no liens or claims.

    I did that in 1980 on one that I purchased that was about 80% complete before the builder ran out of money. I sold the house in '83. About 18 months later there was a claim for $25K from someone who claimed that had loaned the builder money. I turned it over to the attorney and the problem disappeared.

    Well worth the attorney's fee.


    I used to do title research on mineral rights (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Dec 01, 2011 at 12:24:39 PM EST
    These aren't the 1980's Jim.  You can't do a title search at the courthouse anymore because of MERS.....doh!  I wish sometimes you would catch up just a little.

    MT, if you want to be your (none / 0) (#121)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Dec 01, 2011 at 04:58:30 PM EST
    attorney, be my guest.

    I'll lag behind with the people trained and licensed.


    Jim....I was the person that your lawyer (5.00 / 2) (#183)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Dec 02, 2011 at 07:37:09 AM EST
    paid to go to the courthouse and find and copy every single instrument that had been recorded on your property.  Lawyers don't sit at the courthouse among old decaying giant dusty tomes sneezing all day.

    I believe unless they too (none / 0) (#177)
    by Amiss on Fri Dec 02, 2011 at 12:44:55 AM EST
    had insurance, the second mortgage holder is scre*wed. "If there were two mortgages I don't know what would happen."

    When I was young my father was transferred, my parents had to sell their home in a hurry, so in order to sell the house they let the buyers take out a "second loan" with my parents. Not long after we had moved, there was a flood, my father was very relieved that the buyers had just paid off the second mortgage. I remember it like it was yesterday, must be getting alzheimer's. So, perhaps a person carrying a second mortgage would be unable to get insurance, which is what I have the feeling of, because my father was in the insurance business and it saved us when he died at 43 and my Mother had always been a homemaker.


    Titile Insurers will take the risk (none / 0) (#53)
    by MKS on Thu Dec 01, 2011 at 12:41:23 PM EST
    They have started issuing policies for property "owned" by U.S. nationals in Mexico....

    I thought that (5.00 / 1) (#84)
    by Zorba on Thu Dec 01, 2011 at 03:27:15 PM EST
    a lot of the property in Hawaii was not available for sale, but only for long-term (sometimes very long-term) lease.  Is that still the case, Donald?

    It's just too bad (5.00 / 1) (#165)
    by Zorba on Thu Dec 01, 2011 at 08:50:23 PM EST
    that nobody in Hawaii was truly looking out for the interests of the natives.  But then, unfortunately, I suppose that's to be expected.  There was nobody on the mainland truly looking out for the interests of the natives here, either.

    That is the case (none / 0) (#126)
    by MKS on Thu Dec 01, 2011 at 05:05:06 PM EST
    in Mexico, or was the case.

    There used to be an extensive industry of supplying Mexican strawmen to hold title for U.S. Nationals....

    Then, First American started issuing title policies on 99 year leases....This started as a venture with a U.S. Developer who was building condos in Cabo.  Mexican officials were onboard as it brought a lot of cash to Mexico and facilitated a building boom.

    Now, who knows?  How well do you know your local narcotraficante?.....Well, maybe it is not that bad, but who is willing to take that risk...

    Re:  Hawaii, there are a lot of long term leases, which always struck me as odd, but it may be a carryover from the policy you describe.  But, yes, you can buy property outright now....Those properties are advertised as "Fee Simple."  


    I suppose as long the market can afford (none / 0) (#61)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Dec 01, 2011 at 01:57:32 PM EST
    them and they pay up when things go South, times sure have changed though.

    The Title Insurance Cos (none / 0) (#127)
    by MKS on Thu Dec 01, 2011 at 05:05:49 PM EST
    are too big to fail.......

    Ha. (none / 0) (#125)
    by oculus on Thu Dec 01, 2011 at 05:04:48 PM EST
    That's a lovely (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by sj on Thu Dec 01, 2011 at 10:58:18 AM EST
    Thank you, kdog.  I needed some heartening news.

    The sense of shame and humanity (none / 0) (#5)
    by Edger on Thu Dec 01, 2011 at 09:27:26 AM EST
    overrides the authoritarian excuse that "just following orders" is a good enough excuse?

    Economy recovering from reality now.... (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by Edger on Thu Dec 01, 2011 at 09:51:25 AM EST
    In Positive Economic Sign, Walmart Customers Killing Each Other to Buy Sh*t

    MINNEAPOLIS (The Borowitz Report) - In what economists are hailing as a clear sign of economic recovery, Walmart customers across the USA jammed into stores on Black Friday, sometimes killing each other to buy useless sh*t.

    "We have been looking for evidence that the economy is on the mend," said Davis Logsdon, chairman of the economics department at the University of Minnesota.  "When people resort to homicide to buy a Blu-ray player, that is very, very good news indeed."

    Mr. Logsdon said he was "impressed" by the lengths to which some Walmart customers were going to grab coveted sale items: "They're using tactics we usually associate with the UC-Davis police."


    Fricken Hilarious (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Dec 01, 2011 at 11:06:03 AM EST
    Some people have small brains (5.00 / 3) (#13)
    by Edger on Thu Dec 01, 2011 at 10:01:14 AM EST
    ergo they aren't so smart.

    Michele Bachmann says that if she were president, the U.S. would not have an embassy in Iran.

    Problem: There is no U.S. embassy in Iran.

    But people still have to be civil and debate these people as if their "opinions" are opinions just as valid as any other opinions only different. It's the essence of the inclusive bipartisan two-party system, without which essence the world would explode. Oh, wait...

    Please God (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Dec 01, 2011 at 10:27:19 AM EST
    Please let Edger be lying his a$$ off about this.  I'm not sure as an active duty family member I can take hearing anything more from the Republican lineup without having a nervous breakdown if it's true.

    Would I lie to you, MT? ;-) (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by Edger on Thu Dec 01, 2011 at 10:33:57 AM EST


    Of course, other people, with bigger brains, use lots and lots and lots and lots and lots and lots and and LOTS of words, even 3 dollar words, to try to convince other people that their side of the inclusive bipartisan two-party system is better that he side the has small brains, which makes them smarter.

    Ummmm... never mind.


    Avoid that nervous breakdown by ... (5.00 / 1) (#117)
    by cymro on Thu Dec 01, 2011 at 04:27:55 PM EST
    ... treating all reporting of statements by Republican hopefuls, especially the debates, as episodes of a long-running comedy show. And treat the weekly SNL skits satirizing the debates as reviews of the show.

    I can assure you that not taking any of it seriously really helps. You'll soon come to the realization that no script-writer could do a better job than this continually amusing reality show, which keeps your attention with a perfect mix of predicable personalities and unlikely surprises that would match any successful soap opera!


    Just be happy that she did not say ... (none / 0) (#20)
    by Erehwon on Thu Dec 01, 2011 at 10:42:12 AM EST
    that she would not have an embassy in New York* any more. :-(

    * or LA or SF or ...


    Somebody (none / 0) (#22)
    by Edger on Thu Dec 01, 2011 at 10:45:41 AM EST
    had better debate this person. ;-)

    What gets me, is if that had been HRC (5.00 / 1) (#178)
    by Amiss on Fri Dec 02, 2011 at 12:53:30 AM EST
    we would still be hearing of that faux pas election day and this is the first time I have heard it, tho. Thank you.

    Isn't the US embassy right next to (none / 0) (#38)
    by coast on Thu Dec 01, 2011 at 11:27:02 AM EST
    the English embassy...small brains indeed.

    In Australia... (none / 0) (#43)
    by Edger on Thu Dec 01, 2011 at 11:44:37 AM EST
    Give us the source. (none / 0) (#123)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Dec 01, 2011 at 05:00:26 PM EST
    Just a little context.

    it's up there (none / 0) (#150)
    by Edger on Thu Dec 01, 2011 at 06:52:14 PM EST
    read the comments

    As I suspected (none / 0) (#152)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Dec 01, 2011 at 07:29:01 PM EST
    "Congresswoman Bachmann is a member of the House Select Committee on Intelligence and is fully aware that we do not have an embassy in Iran and have not had one since 1980," they said in a prepared statement. "She was agreeing with the actions taken by the British to secure their embassy personnel and was speaking in the hypothetical, that if she was President of the United States and if we had an embassy in Iran, she would have taken the same actions as
    the British.

    But nice try, Edger.


    Not a very nice try there sparky (5.00 / 0) (#153)
    by Edger on Thu Dec 01, 2011 at 07:37:16 PM EST
    you need to read all the words.

    When I read things like Bachmann (5.00 / 2) (#157)
    by Anne on Thu Dec 01, 2011 at 07:56:09 PM EST
    being a member of the House Select Committee on Intelligence, I can't help thinking that it certainly hasn't improved hers much.

    Your comment reminded me of an old joke (5.00 / 2) (#170)
    by cymro on Thu Dec 01, 2011 at 09:36:20 PM EST
    I found a version here.

    The true cause of the Soviet invasion of the Soviet invasion of Czechoslovakia in 1968 was revealed in the transcripts of a taped conversation between Soviet Premier Brezhnev and Czech President Alexander Dubček:

    B: "Dubček, I am very worried by what I hear. Unless I am about to send a team of translators to Siberia, it says here that you are establishing a Ministry of the Navy."

    D: "The translation is correct, Mister Premier."

    B: "That's insane! Czechslovalkia's got no coastline!"

    D: "Well that's true, but the USSR has a Ministry of Justice, and Bulgaria has a Ministry of Culture, and we really need somewhere to park the more useless Party members..."

    B: click


    Does that perhaps cast some light on why Bachmann was placed on an Intelligence committee ;-)


    Heh. It doesn't say much (none / 0) (#161)
    by Edger on Thu Dec 01, 2011 at 08:02:58 PM EST
    for the select committee either, does it?

    Well, clearly, the intelligence of the (none / 0) (#181)
    by Anne on Fri Dec 02, 2011 at 06:47:27 AM EST
    members isn't one of the criteria for selection...honestly, when you really think about who is making decisions on our behalf - or allegedly on our behalf - it's truly horrifying.

    [T]hey said in a prepared statement ... (5.00 / 1) (#160)
    by Erehwon on Thu Dec 01, 2011 at 07:58:23 PM EST
    So we now use the pronoun "they" to refer to our favorite Congresswoman!

    Or afterthoughts,  prepared by her staff later, are always more accurate that what the congresswoman actually said, eh JimakaPPJ?

    Good to know!


    Check out this picture (5.00 / 3) (#30)
    by NYShooter on Thu Dec 01, 2011 at 11:06:04 AM EST
    of Hillary; doesn't she look fabulous there?


    That is a great picture, but the reason for the (5.00 / 2) (#41)
    by Farmboy on Thu Dec 01, 2011 at 11:38:02 AM EST
    photo-op is even more exciting. The first visit by a US SoS in over fifty years is a huge step in normalizing relations.

    I am curious that they kept the name change, however. I thought I heard last spring that as it was the military gov't that changed it from Burma to Myanmar that it would be changed back. Maybe the new gov't also considers the name Burma to be a colonial holdover.


    yea that's amazing (none / 0) (#44)
    by CST on Thu Dec 01, 2011 at 11:48:31 AM EST
    I remeber reading about this woman a decade ago and everything she had been through and fought for.  The fact that relations are finally starting to thaw (and she was finally released in 2010) is huge news.

    And a great photo too.


    Fabulous and (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by Towanda on Thu Dec 01, 2011 at 02:00:02 PM EST
    very French, with the minimalist 'do -- and with some weight loss, I think, so her "good bones" from her heritage on her mother's side come through more than I've seen before.

    But the photo doesn't tell us enough.  Was that local fashion, the jacket, part of a . . . pantsuit?

    (I miss those marvelous, jewel-toned pantsuits.:-)


    Yes, it is part of a pantsuit. (5.00 / 1) (#72)
    by Angel on Thu Dec 01, 2011 at 02:42:05 PM EST
    Check out the Washington Post, they have a photo album of her trip.  She's wearing pantsuits in all the photos, one is a fabulous turquoise and another is a hot pink jacket with black pants.  She looks lovely in all of the photos.  

    yes, she does, (none / 0) (#33)
    by jeffinalabama on Thu Dec 01, 2011 at 11:07:08 AM EST

    more from the bbc (none / 0) (#48)
    by CST on Thu Dec 01, 2011 at 12:17:50 PM EST

    "It is the first time the pair have met in person. Mrs Clinton has often referred to Aung Sang Suu Kyi as a personal inspiration. "

    I bet they were both super excited to meet each other.  It sure looks like it.

    "Observers have portrayed the new US focus on Asia as an attempt to counter China's attempts to become the pre-eminent power in the area."


    Third party talk all over (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by brodie on Thu Dec 01, 2011 at 12:11:25 PM EST
    the place.  

    Looks lime exSLC mayor Rocky Anderson is in, running under the new Justice Pty banner.  On paper (haven't yet head him speak) he seems even more liberal than his 3d party namesake from 1980, who is also apparently a founding member of this same party.  And obviously unless another third party candidate emerges from the right and one as appealing to that segment as RA might be to liberals, this will end up diluting O's vote just as in 1980.

    Fortunately I have another 11 months to decide how I'll vote.  But I'm far closer to RA on the issues I've read about than to the too moderate Obama.  In fact Anderson seems almost too good on the issues to be true -- maybe I've missed something.

    I saw him last night on Maddow (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Dec 01, 2011 at 12:18:19 PM EST
    while I was painting.  He was running against the illegal wire tapping of Americans.  Talked about how Barack Obama shafted all Americans on FISA.  Brought up an insane jail sentence that someone was serving for a pot conviction too, said that sort of thing needed to stop.  Said that renditioning was horrific and must be stopped now.  I told him I didn't know how Jeralyn was going to square who she supported if Rocky runs.  I told my husband that that crazy pol has the ability to tear the DailyKos website in half too, right down the middle.  My husband said that it was sad that they named their "party" something that sounded silly to him though....not sure how silly the Justice party sounds though if Rocky keeps talking like that.

    He's also going to be a credible (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by brodie on Thu Dec 01, 2011 at 12:44:32 PM EST
    witness against Romney should he be the Repub nominee -- he recently called him "a closet moderate." And Anderson knows him well from his time as mayor and even endorsed the Mittster for MA gov back during Romney's pro choice, overtly moderate period.

    Interesting too is Anderson's take on Mrs Romney -- she would be a Dem if not for her husband.

    If Anderson can get any media attention and keeps speaking out about Willard, he could be helpful in keeping the conservative Repubs at home on election day.


    Well (5.00 / 2) (#65)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Dec 01, 2011 at 02:05:43 PM EST
    thank heavens it's not another joke of a run by Nader. At least Anderson is someone new on the scene and could actually create a little excitement and has actually held elective office.

    You missed one, Donald (5.00 / 2) (#88)
    by Zorba on Thu Dec 01, 2011 at 03:32:13 PM EST
    people on the right want to hear Republicans talk about how they're going to deport Mexicans, confront the Chinese peril, outlaw the practice of Islam and chase the GLBT community back into the closet

    They want Roe vs. Wade repealed and abortion made illegal again, too.

    Happy to help out, (5.00 / 1) (#112)
    by Zorba on Thu Dec 01, 2011 at 04:13:55 PM EST
    Donald.  Maybe, because I'm a woman (albeit past my reproductive years), I may be more sensitive to this issue.  Also, I'm old enough to remember the pre-Roe vs. Wade days, and they were ugly.  

    He can't win (none / 0) (#63)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Dec 01, 2011 at 02:00:23 PM EST
    But he sure can phuck things up....erm...I mean cause elements of the race to have a need to take a left trajectory.

    Right. It's not really a close (none / 0) (#68)
    by brodie on Thu Dec 01, 2011 at 02:33:02 PM EST
    question of whether he is a very remote longshot to win, but instead how he might affect the campaign and the chances of the two major candidates, and if he gets sufficient traction among libs, whether he could even influence O's policy making in a more liberal direction.

    Frankly I'd be surprised if RA could pull as much as John Anderson's 6.7%, but if somehow he's able to shame the two parties into allowing a third party candidate on the debate stage -- unlike 1980 when Carter nixed the idea -- it could get interesting.


    It is my considered opinion (5.00 / 2) (#69)
    by sj on Thu Dec 01, 2011 at 02:39:39 PM EST
    that this is not possible:
    if he gets sufficient traction among libs, whether he could even influence O's policy making in a more liberal direction.
    I do, however, believe that it's possible to influence O's rhetoric in a more liberal direction.  

    But I would trust his future rhetoric to be as consistent with his future actions as his past rhetoric has been with his past actions.


    I understand the skepticism (none / 0) (#82)
    by brodie on Thu Dec 01, 2011 at 03:25:52 PM EST
    but you can usually rely on pols doing what they have to do when their political fortunes are starkly at stake.  So while it's been the pattern for O to take the safe rhetorical approach up to now, if his reelect chances look like they could use a boost from a solid exec order or two I'd predict he would act rather than just talk.

    You know what (5.00 / 1) (#108)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Dec 01, 2011 at 04:08:56 PM EST
    though? Obama's political fortunes have been at stake for quite a while because of high unemployment and that hasn't motivated him to do anything much so why would Anderson be any different?

    Nothing quite concentrates (none / 0) (#122)
    by brodie on Thu Dec 01, 2011 at 05:00:21 PM EST
    the mind as the prospect of an imminent political hanging.  Hard to believe someone as politically ambitious as O wouldn't pull out all the stops if he could.  But then, who knows -- he surprised many of us with his tepid approach to governing so far and may finish off tepid.

    Okay (none / 0) (#91)
    by sj on Thu Dec 01, 2011 at 03:35:04 PM EST
    Appreciate your position.  But I'm still skeptical.  He'll have to prove it to me.  And he'll have to have other consistent actions (for example, focus/efforts of Justice Department) for me to take it seriously.  One or two Executive Orders isn't going to cut it.

    It makes his legacy a crappy one too (none / 0) (#182)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Dec 02, 2011 at 07:31:32 AM EST
    To promise us DFH things when the whole country is hurting like it is and then make it all lies.  I have no submissible evidence, but I think Obama cares about his legacy a bit too.

    What is Gary Johnson runs? (none / 0) (#71)
    by christinep on Thu Dec 01, 2011 at 02:40:59 PM EST
    He is "left the door open & more" by actually indicating he might do so because he has not been allowed on Repub debate stage?  Could be interesting because he appears to represent Libertarian views in the area of civil liberties, drugs, etc.--but has the traditional) Repub economic policy. Johnson, as more personal & without the completely offensive policy of a R. Paul, could draw from Repubs as a nicer R. Paul?

    In any event...the horizon hasn't yet produced the spoiler level of a Ross Perot.


    I'd pull the lever... (none / 0) (#78)
    by kdog on Thu Dec 01, 2011 at 03:08:09 PM EST
    for Gary Johnson in an Obama/GOP Clown/Johnson 3 horse race.

    The drug policy and civil liberties policy stances alone are enough bones for me.  He is a less ideologically rigid version of Paul, who could draw support from the saner end of the GOP base and from Dems who expected a lot more from Obama on the civil liberties front.

    Money, obviously, is his problem.  And a media that refuses to acknowledge his existence.


    Be still, my heart? (none / 0) (#74)
    by christinep on Thu Dec 01, 2011 at 02:49:00 PM EST
    Actually, what you describe in the second para. seems plausible...if Newt doesn't revert to his characteristic shooting-self-in-foot-with-gun-held-in-mouth. Either that or the big intra-party negative ads are going to increase in size & negativity to take him down.

    But, as a Democrat, running against Newt really does seem too good to be true.


    A full month from now until (none / 0) (#89)
    by brodie on Thu Dec 01, 2011 at 03:32:59 PM EST
    the IA caucases -- that's way too much time for Newton to avoid one or two major gaffes.  Also plenty of time still left for many GOP voters to come to their senses about his unelectability.  Hard to imagine he will maintain his current momentum, and the Mittster's team will likely begin going after him real hard.

    Actually (none / 0) (#111)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Dec 01, 2011 at 04:13:15 PM EST
    he would seem more palatable to the GOP base than Newt and I'm kind of surprised that he hasn't experienced a surge. But he may be NEXT!!!

    Newt has so many negatives, (none / 0) (#90)
    by Zorba on Thu Dec 01, 2011 at 03:34:38 PM EST
    the ads against him almost seem to write themselves, it's true.  I have some very dear, but very conservative Republican friends, who cannot stomach Newt.  

    A campaign (none / 0) (#113)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Dec 01, 2011 at 04:15:10 PM EST
    against Newt has to be Obama's dream. The ads just write themselves and there are literally years of footage for the Obama campaign to use--oh, make that DECADES of footage of crazy Newt for the Obama team to use

    Which is why (none / 0) (#118)
    by coast on Thu Dec 01, 2011 at 04:32:08 PM EST
    if Newt were to somehow become the Republican nominee, I would have to change parties.  Republicans will soon see that he is the Democrats Hillary Clinton.  And that is not a cut against the SOS.  Its just a fact that her candidacy struck a nerve with the Republican base that the Presdient Obama's did not.  But at least even I could see that HC was electible.  Newt will bring more people and money into the Democratic party than they were hoping for this election and he is not the least bit electible.  

    Mass AG (5.00 / 3) (#66)
    by CST on Thu Dec 01, 2011 at 02:08:21 PM EST
    sues 5 major banks over illegal forclosure practices.

    Martha doing what she does best.  AKA not running for office, but sticking up for the state in court.

    "Coakley's 59-page complaint alleges that the five banks violated Massachusetts law by using fraudulent documentation, including "robo-signing," foreclosing without holding the actual mortgage and failing to uphold loan modification promises to homeowners in the state."

    This is the first official bypess of the 50-state negotiation settlement.  Other state AGs (like California) have also withdrawn from settlement talks but haven't filed suit yet.

    As I recall CA AG has pending lawsuits. (none / 0) (#129)
    by oculus on Thu Dec 01, 2011 at 05:13:35 PM EST
    Sign of the times (none / 0) (#2)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Thu Dec 01, 2011 at 09:19:50 AM EST
    Score another one... (none / 0) (#15)
    by kdog on Thu Dec 01, 2011 at 10:06:54 AM EST
    for the 99%, but this time the mercs sided with the 1%.

    "This is not a free-for-all situation,"

    True that Lt....it's a free-for-the 1% situation.

    "Obviously, this money is...bank property."

    I hardly would call that "obvious" Lt...have you even investigated how the bank got the cashish?

    Money Quote, Literally (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Dec 01, 2011 at 11:14:16 AM EST
    Lt. Englert said police intend to give people a reasonable amount of time to "come to their senses" and return any money they might have taken. After that, he said, they could charge people with theft.

    Lieutenant, Wall Street has had more than a reasonable amount of time to come to their senses and return the money, when can we expect those theft charges ?


    I hope anybody... (5.00 / 2) (#37)
    by kdog on Thu Dec 01, 2011 at 11:21:24 AM EST
    contemplating returning the cash takes a reasonable amount of time to come to their senses.

    Pleazzze (none / 0) (#57)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Dec 01, 2011 at 01:15:23 PM EST
    Our brains have been so mismanaged and the banks have twisted legislation so disproportionately in their favor, they can actually create criminals of us when they F-UP.

    They can toss money into the air, and if you take $1, you are committing a crime.  They don't need to chase it down or even absorb the cost.  They just sit back and wait for the cash, and on the off-handed chance they don't get every nickel, it's insured, possibly by the Fed.

    Never mind the actual fact that was deposited money, as in their customer's money, not the banks.  But thanks to that brain mismanagement, no one bats an eye when they banks states it's theirs.

    What's worse is if that was the actual dollars deposited by one of the finders, they could be charged with stealing their own money.


    You said it Scott... (none / 0) (#58)
    by kdog on Thu Dec 01, 2011 at 01:43:53 PM EST
    in one word...twisted.

    Does it have the bank's name on it? (none / 0) (#21)
    by jeffinalabama on Thu Dec 01, 2011 at 10:45:32 AM EST
    No? then it's MY money.

    Screw the idea of it being property of someone. Does it come when it's called?

    I get so tired of the bs from the side of 'the man.'


    The bank (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by Edger on Thu Dec 01, 2011 at 10:47:14 AM EST
    keeps its money in an account in its own bank with its own name on it?

    Well when the banks call Geithner... (none / 0) (#24)
    by kdog on Thu Dec 01, 2011 at 10:53:30 AM EST
    it comes in droves:)

    I'm looking at it as a Christman miracle for those in that right place, right time.  Case closed Lt:)


    Ha (none / 0) (#27)
    by republicratitarian on Thu Dec 01, 2011 at 11:02:56 AM EST
    Police are asking anyone who collected money to contact them. Yeah, to ask when that truck is going out again.

    Yah. I'll call from Rio. (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by jeffinalabama on Thu Dec 01, 2011 at 11:06:25 AM EST
    Good thing extradition laws don't exist in some places!

    Okay (none / 0) (#39)
    by sj on Thu Dec 01, 2011 at 11:28:21 AM EST
    Am I influenced too much by TV plot lines or is there really an issue if the bills are new and there is a record of the serial numbers involved?

    Heh, go to the nearest (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by jeffinalabama on Thu Dec 01, 2011 at 11:49:39 AM EST
    casino or poker room, buy chips, play for 1 or 2 hours, then cash out...

    I haven't thought about what I'd do if I found a bag of money, but that's one possibility...


    Another link (none / 0) (#34)
    by jeffinalabama on Thu Dec 01, 2011 at 11:11:08 AM EST
    to Moose A. Moose... holiday wishes!

    Heh... Merry Crimpus (none / 0) (#172)
    by desertswine on Thu Dec 01, 2011 at 09:56:13 PM EST
    "Ergo, he can't win" (none / 0) (#60)
    by sj on Thu Dec 01, 2011 at 01:53:38 PM EST
    He can if people vote for him :)

    Sully v. Coates (none / 0) (#77)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Thu Dec 01, 2011 at 03:04:19 PM EST
    As I suspected, the question the discussion leads to has nothing to do with the Bell Curve and everything to do with the genetics/moral question I was trying to make.

    Sully quotes both Dreher at the American Conservative and links back to Coates in his latest and the focus of all three is entirely on the really interesting issue (which is what I was trying to talk about). Here is Dreher making the surprisingly non-conservative point:

    "But I keep coming back to a point that seems to be the one TNC is making: of what use is this field of study, anyway? Where do we propose to go with it? Andrew's view is that it's worth knowing for the reason all truth is worth knowing, and pursuing. In an abstract world, that makes sense. But we don't live in a world of pure disinterestedness. If I were a geneticist, I doubt I would want to work in this field, only because the experience of the 20th century, especially the Holocaust, makes me deeply mistrustful of what human beings will do with the scientific knowledge that this race is intellectually inferior to that race, and we can prove it genetically. The only possible good I can see coming out of it is to knock down affirmative action programs as unjust -- but you don't need genetics to do that. The possible evils coming out of it? Legion. . . . I believe there is a such thing as forbidden knowledge -- that is, knowledge that ought to be suppressed, for the greater good of all."


    And there, in a nutshell, was the real point of my comments on the Bell Curve discussion.  Not whether the authors were racist (likely) or the book full of holes (likely), but whether we should know the answer in any event.  This is crucial because, as I said many times, we WILL know the answer.  We really need to prepare ourselves for it.

    will we ever know the answer about (5.00 / 2) (#79)
    by observed on Thu Dec 01, 2011 at 03:13:18 PM EST
    whether pixies have 5 wings or 6?
    Think about it.

    Here's another: will we ever know (5.00 / 1) (#80)
    by observed on Thu Dec 01, 2011 at 03:17:43 PM EST
    the truth about whether witchcraft uses demonic powers or turns natural powers to evil ends.

    Its obviously natural powers to evil ends... (none / 0) (#81)
    by coast on Thu Dec 01, 2011 at 03:24:06 PM EST
    you know, the "dark side" of the force.

    Good additions to the discussion (none / 0) (#83)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Thu Dec 01, 2011 at 03:27:11 PM EST

    Ha! (5.00 / 3) (#85)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Dec 01, 2011 at 03:27:55 PM EST
    Funny as all get out.

    As I suspected, you are an idiot.


    And I promptly suspend (5.00 / 3) (#87)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Dec 01, 2011 at 03:31:39 PM EST
    my commenting privileges for incivility.

    All I get to do for the next day is post Open Threads.


    Don't forget to measure your head. (5.00 / 2) (#100)
    by Dr Molly on Thu Dec 01, 2011 at 03:57:45 PM EST
    It's scientific.

    If you can force (none / 0) (#92)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Thu Dec 01, 2011 at 03:36:20 PM EST
    your guy Tebow to score 25 or so points for my fantasy team, I will forgive you.

    I hope that you are saying that because (5.00 / 1) (#94)
    by coast on Thu Dec 01, 2011 at 03:46:26 PM EST
    your opponent has the Vikings defense and not because you have Tebow as your starting QB!

    Let me put it this way (none / 0) (#96)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Thu Dec 01, 2011 at 03:54:52 PM EST
    I started the season 0-5.  I started getting Tebow into my line up (My hometown guy Matt Ryan was letting me down) and now I am 6-6 and a win away from the playoffs.

    I am a believer.  I am going to roll the dice and start him over Ryan this week I think.  Houston's defense is not to be trifled with.


    I guess you do it the Vegas way (none / 0) (#106)
    by coast on Thu Dec 01, 2011 at 04:06:47 PM EST
    and go with what got you there, but Ryan seems to have finally found Roddy White and if Jones doesn't pull up lame Ryan could have a pretty good day.  I know where you're coming from though.

    I unfortunately have to start that guy Rodgers or whatever his name is.


    I have to play that scrub Rogers (none / 0) (#109)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Thu Dec 01, 2011 at 04:09:57 PM EST
    which is why I am hoping Tebow really does have a connection to a higher power.

    I need all of the help I can get.


    Methinks somebody was lying in wait. (none / 0) (#132)
    by oculus on Thu Dec 01, 2011 at 05:22:00 PM EST
    Intelligences. (5.00 / 2) (#95)
    by Addison on Thu Dec 01, 2011 at 03:50:51 PM EST
    Someday Inuit civilization will become incredibly powerful, devise a "universal" intelligence test, come to your home, and tell you your children are genetically less intelligent because they can't figure out how to navigate without landmarks on an ice sheet (innate positioning intelligence), or train a sled dog properly (trans-species knowledge transfer intelligence), or even answer basic questions about natural systems (situational awareness intelligence).

    What (genetically-doomed) idiots your kids will be! And they won't be alone, all sorts of "civilized" kids with their useless ability to deploy linguistic analogies, and solve logic puzzles and little geometric brainteasers, and apply worthless abstractions to other abstractions will all drag down their race's bell curve scores, proving how much less intelligent they are. Finally the Inuit will be able to quantify what they knew all along -- their kids are the smartest of all!

    The genetic intellectual superiority of Inuit (and Aborigines, Bushmen, Bedouins, and Gobi Desert tribesmen kids) will then be heralded by the famed Inuit blogger A'indruqoo Sul'liquivaan...


    That's helpful Addison (none / 0) (#97)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Thu Dec 01, 2011 at 03:55:22 PM EST

    If you took all the "points" you (5.00 / 1) (#102)
    by Anne on Thu Dec 01, 2011 at 03:59:50 PM EST
    made - or thought you made - the other day, I'm pretty sure they wouldn't fit in a nutshell, unless the nut was the size of an exercise ball.  

    Even if you thought that what you quoted above was your point (although I'm not even sure you understand the point of Dreher's quoted comment, actually) - and even that is debatable, as I don't imagine anyone wants to, or has the time and energy to, go back and decipher your all-over-the-place comments to see if they can even identify the point(s) you thought you were making - what you really did was completely hijack the thread and miss entirely BTD's point, and the points of those who understood what BTD's point was - all so you could have your own argument.  

    And even having taken the bull by the horns to create your own argument, the result was, overall, borderline incoherent.

    The real and blindingly obvious point you have ended up making is that you still don't understand what the Bell Curve is, why Sullivan is so attached to it (and I can assure you his attachment has NOTHING to do with the pursuit of knowledge for knowledge's sake), and why that matters.

    Please, I beg of you: Give.  It.  Up.  


    Anne (none / 0) (#107)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Thu Dec 01, 2011 at 04:08:34 PM EST
    I understand what I have read.

    But no need to reopen this.  Just wanted to make the point that the discussion inevitably leads to a central issue in a rational discussion of the point.


    Actually what these threads prove is (5.00 / 2) (#110)
    by observed on Thu Dec 01, 2011 at 04:10:34 PM EST
    that innumerate, scientifically illiterate poseurs have no business offering their opinions on statistical research.

    hear, hear. (none / 0) (#133)
    by jeffinalabama on Thu Dec 01, 2011 at 05:22:00 PM EST
    Thank you, observed.

    The Problem (none / 0) (#104)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Thu Dec 01, 2011 at 04:04:37 PM EST
    The interwebs keep discussing it and the discussion between the pro-Sully and anti-Sully sides have all settled into debating the interesting point I tried to raise when this first started.

    The interwebs get it.  


    And Don (none / 0) (#114)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Thu Dec 01, 2011 at 04:18:05 PM EST
    it is hard to stop talking about.  Sully, the evil, evil man that he is, ends the discussion in a typically mean way today, playing into all of ways he has been portrayed here:

    "And so I ask TNC for forgiveness; not as a writer, where good faith and honesty alone matter; but as a friend and human being, where empathy counts."

    Coates, being the idiot that he is and apparently an ignorant man himself according to many posters here,  just put up is second "final" post on the topic a minute ago:

    "I wanted to make sure everyone saw, what I take to be, Andrew's final thoughts. I'm very appreciative. We are not in complete accord, but I can't really demand that of anyone. My sense of Andrew, on a topic like this, is not one of bigotry, so much as a deep-seated annoyance with a kind of identity politics which took root on certain campuses, and certain institutions in the 90s.  . . . At any rate, as I said, I'm appreciative of Andrew's last note. Going into this debate, there's always going to be some degree of hurt for me. Black privilege isn't immunity. And Andrew's note  probably isn't totally what a lot of us would like to hear. We also obviously still disagree. But I'll take it. In this world of debate, so many people follow the "Never apologize, never retreat, never revisit" line, that I'm just happy he's thinking about it."

    And so ends the tale of two  idiots, the ignorant and frequently posting anonymous commenter on TL obsessed with the topic and those who loved to loathe all three.




    "it is hard to stop talking about" (5.00 / 1) (#115)
    by sj on Thu Dec 01, 2011 at 04:23:10 PM EST
    ABG, it hasn't been hard for the rest of us to stop talking about it.  Here, it truly was a dead horse.  If other sites are still talking about it, those might be appropriate places for you to continue your discussion.

    SJ (none / 0) (#120)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Thu Dec 01, 2011 at 04:57:01 PM EST
    Hmmmm.  Maybe you are right.  "Open Thread" could have a lot of different meanings I guess.

    Anyway, I am done.  Back to more Obama defending . . .


    Coates is entitled to interact with (5.00 / 1) (#140)
    by Anne on Thu Dec 01, 2011 at 05:39:50 PM EST
    Andrew Sullivan in whatever way he sees fit, but Coates' acceptance of where Sullivan is on this - or anything - is not the metric by which I decide what I think of Sullivan.

    This is kind of a recurring thing with you, where you haul in people in some sort of name-dropping show-and-tell, and all manner of polls you've picked over, in an effort show us what it is we're supposed to be thinking, or feeling.  And when you get pushback from people who prefer to form their own opinions, rather than be herded like sheep, you inform us that we're fringe leftists who are out of touch with what you believe is the mainstream position.

    That just doesn't work with me, and from the reaction you routinely get from others, it's not working for them, either.


    Anne (none / 0) (#143)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Thu Dec 01, 2011 at 06:00:10 PM EST
    Everything is a recurring theme, or secret plot or twisted dastardly plan with you.  I pulled in Coates because I like Coates and BTD referenced Coates in the first post on the subject.  I also tend to pull in outside references because people out of the mainstream are not generally allowed to have different ideas here at times. The only defense is that of reference (if ABG says it, it is "stupid" or "ignorant" or whatever fun insult you are going to hurl at me that day). If I reference someone saying the same thing who is generally accepted as legitimate within the progressive community (which Coates is, for example) it would take the discussion from my motivations or deficiencies (which is where every discussion with you, for example, leads) back to the actual topic.

    I come here to discuss issues, not defend myself or my motivations everytime I speak.  If you disagree with a point, disagree with the point.  

    The funny thing is that you almost constantly tell those who disagree with you to read X source, or listen to Y economist or study Z source, and if we do, all will become clear.  Which is basically doing the exact same thing I am doing.  It's called providing support for your points.

    When you do it, it is just you letting all of us ignorant idiots in on the truth.  When someone else does it, it's a "recurring thing" or what have you.

    I simply don't believe that you are capable of having a serious discussion on any topic without resorting to insults, claiming that your knowledge is superior or otherwise using tactics that you wouldn't stand being used against you.

    Kind of sucks.  You occasionally have interesting things to say, but I am not going to let you just roll on as if you have the last word.

    If no one else is going to call your BS, I will.

    And that post, like every other post which focuses on character attacks instead of issues, is BS.


    So let's do this Anne (none / 0) (#144)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Thu Dec 01, 2011 at 06:03:43 PM EST
    I won't reference anyone else as a source if you don't either.  Also, I won't question your intelligence when debating a point if you don't question mine.

    Just focus on the arguments, assume the person making them has a basic understanding of what he's talking about and use a counter argument without attacking character, experience or knowledge.

    Fair trade?  Yep.

    But I am fairly certain you can't even do that.


    Get a room, you two! (5.00 / 1) (#146)
    by jeffinalabama on Thu Dec 01, 2011 at 06:22:02 PM EST
    For crying out loud...

    The Donld says it's over. (none / 0) (#147)
    by oculus on Thu Dec 01, 2011 at 06:34:26 PM EST
    Now, if you could just do something about (5.00 / 2) (#159)
    by Anne on Thu Dec 01, 2011 at 07:58:20 PM EST
    the daily Yman/jim time-suck...

    Sorry, ... (none / 0) (#168)
    by Yman on Thu Dec 01, 2011 at 09:23:13 PM EST
    ... but I'm not getting a room with Jim.

    Your comment refers to scientific proof (none / 0) (#131)
    by oculus on Thu Dec 01, 2011 at 05:19:11 PM EST
    of "race(s)" intellectually  inferior to others. How so?

    Oculus, it is kind of funny... (5.00 / 2) (#134)
    by jeffinalabama on Thu Dec 01, 2011 at 05:25:53 PM EST
    in the social science of race study, one of my areas, we came to the conclusion that there is no innate quality one can call race.

    It's a social construction. There is more within-group variability than between-group variability.

    In other words, there's more error than difference.

    But try to tell people... no, too many folks insist race is innate.

    Why not use whether someone listens to country music, has blue eyes, or is left-handed? these are equally valid according to science. In other words, race only has significance because we say it does.

    It doesn't predict anything.


    Well, I knew what you'd say! (none / 0) (#136)
    by oculus on Thu Dec 01, 2011 at 05:29:36 PM EST
    oculus (none / 0) (#137)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Thu Dec 01, 2011 at 05:29:37 PM EST
    Don thinks I should stop now and I agree. This is boring and even I get tired of fighting 7 fronts simultaneously.

    The line you question came from an article that provides a blow by blow summary of the entire Coates v. Sully discussion which is very, very interesting.  

    You should read it.  The discussion follows the same general path as my posts here except there is no one calling anyone ignorant, evil, idiots over there and they acknowledge that you can discuss the issue without being a racist.


    Whatever. Don says goes. (none / 0) (#138)
    by oculus on Thu Dec 01, 2011 at 05:32:25 PM EST
    Don and I don't always see eye to eye (none / 0) (#139)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Thu Dec 01, 2011 at 05:36:04 PM EST
    but he's been pretty fair to me.  If he says it's getting old, I'll listen.

    That's a card I should keep (none / 0) (#175)
    by sj on Fri Dec 02, 2011 at 12:20:56 AM EST
    in my back pocket, Donald, old buddy, old friend... :)

    Powerful friends.  Need more of those, I'm thinking.


    I had to post this (none / 0) (#86)
    by CST on Thu Dec 01, 2011 at 03:31:38 PM EST
    this would be hilarious, if it were a joke.

    "These government-sponsored ads suggest that it is impossible for Jews to remain Jewish in America."

    "The Ministry is also featuring on its website a series of short videos that, in an almost comically heavy-handed way, caution Israelis against raising their children in America -- one scare-ad shows a pair of Israeli grandparents seated before a menorah and Skypeing with their granddaughter, who lives in America. When they ask the child to name the holiday they're celebrating, she says "Christmas.""

    I guess they missed the part about the war on Christmas :)  Someone should let them know that now we are brainwashing kids to say "holiday".

    The Ministry (none / 0) (#98)
    by coast on Thu Dec 01, 2011 at 03:56:04 PM EST
    certainly has an interesting take on the issue. I will have to remember that its American society's responsibility to teach our kids religion and not the parents.

    Newt makes revolting comments ... (none / 0) (#128)
    by Yman on Thu Dec 01, 2011 at 05:12:42 PM EST
    ... about poor people/children.

        "Really poor children, in really poor neighborhoods have no habits of working and have nobody around them who works so they have no habit of showing up on Monday," Gingrich claimed.

        "They have no habit of staying all day, they have no habit of I do this and you give me cash unless it is illegal," he added.

    Then he praised his granddaughter for saving up money to buy an Ipad.


    Newt (none / 0) (#141)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Dec 01, 2011 at 05:54:27 PM EST
    has quite a vivid imagination. I'm sure this is what Newt imagines what is happening as he has made tons of stupid stereotypical statements that put words that to what he thinks is going on and not based on reality.

    And just think (none / 0) (#145)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Thu Dec 01, 2011 at 06:04:50 PM EST
    There is no difference between Newt and Obama so it really doesn't matter if Obama loses.

    and who said that? (5.00 / 2) (#148)
    by nycstray on Thu Dec 01, 2011 at 06:37:54 PM EST
    besides you that is . . .

    There (5.00 / 1) (#149)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Dec 01, 2011 at 06:38:52 PM EST
    is a difference but it's a difference between benign neglect and outright hatred. So while you are obviously okay with being left on the flood to bleed to death though the person didn't beat you up that's certainly your right. However, there are plenty of other people who are not willing to accept benign neglect.

    It's hard to get excited about ... (none / 0) (#163)
    by cymro on Thu Dec 01, 2011 at 08:22:40 PM EST
    ... the lesser of two evils, isn't it. It's even harder to be persuaded to send money to support the lesser of two evils. I know I will not be doing so in 2012.

    I think (none / 0) (#166)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Dec 01, 2011 at 08:56:19 PM EST
    there's a lot of people who are going to not be opening their check books nor walking the streets for Obama. Obama might get their vote but that's the extent of it and a lot of it depends on who the GOP nominates as to whether they even get out of bed that day I would imagine.

    Maybe once people see ... (5.00 / 1) (#167)
    by Yman on Thu Dec 01, 2011 at 09:15:05 PM EST
    ... the new campaign slogan?

    "Change is"

    I kid you not.


    L.O.L. (none / 0) (#169)
    by Edger on Thu Dec 01, 2011 at 09:28:02 PM EST
    I guess it finally comes down to what the meaning of is is, is what it is? Is it?

    It is that I have to go whack my head against the doorjamb again for awhile. Please excuse me. ;-)

    Is You Or Is You Ain't My Baby?
    The way you're actin' lately makes me doubt
    Youse is still my baby, baby
    Seems my flame in your heart's done gone out


    Is you is or is you ain't my baby?
    Maybe baby's found somebody new?
    Or is my baby still my baby true?

    Oh dear.... (none / 0) (#176)
    by sj on Fri Dec 02, 2011 at 12:22:35 AM EST
    Oh boy (none / 0) (#180)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Dec 02, 2011 at 06:16:44 AM EST
    more campaign junk. That is just pitiful.

    Though that's probably not (none / 0) (#142)
    by brodie on Thu Dec 01, 2011 at 05:57:10 PM EST
    a gaffe in the GOP primaries context.  But problematic in the general election setting.

    I doubt if Gingrich can discipline himself enough to avoid imploding in the next month.  The guy just thrives on making edgy, controversial, over the top remarks.


    It would be perfectly appropriate to stop (none / 0) (#155)
    by sj on Thu Dec 01, 2011 at 07:51:13 PM EST
    right after
    Newt makes revolting comments...