Wednesday Morning Open Thread

Busy today.

Open Thread.

< Judge Recommends Colorado Prison for Rod Blagojevich | Rod Blagojevich Asks For RDAP Program in Prison >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    ICE (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Dec 14, 2011 at 09:26:01 AM EST
    Exact numbers of Americans erroneously held by immigration authorities are hard to come by, since they are not systematically recorded. In one study, 82 people who were held for deportation from 2006 to 2008 at two immigration detention centers in Arizona, for periods as long as a year, were freed after immigration judges determined that they were American citizens.


    I wonder why they record picking up American Citizens, seems like a pretty import number to track.

    If ya haven't seen... (5.00 / 2) (#4)
    by kdog on Wed Dec 14, 2011 at 09:30:53 AM EST
    the recent Frontline on our immigration detention and deportation practices, check it out...the nasty is systematic.

    I assume you meant (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by sj on Wed Dec 14, 2011 at 10:47:31 AM EST
    I wonder why they [don't] record picking up American Citizens, seems like a pretty import number to track.
    so I'll respond that way.

    My guess is that it's the same reason they didn't track civilian casualties in Iraq.  If the true number were known, the cattle (us) might become alarmed.


    Right, Right, Right (none / 0) (#25)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Dec 14, 2011 at 10:57:45 AM EST
    Sarcasm doesn't work in type without sound dickish.  I know exactly why our government fails to tracks stats that will make it look bad... because they make them look bad.

    Off topic, but I have noticed this a lot, one of the biggest typos I made when typing fast is not typing n't when I mean to.  And now apparently I am forgetting the whole damn words.

    Not a big deal here, but at work with emails it's can totally charge what I am going to do, or don't do.


    Another "It's NOT Happening!" moment (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by Edger on Wed Dec 14, 2011 at 09:27:17 AM EST
    US troops surround Syria on the eve of invasion?

    A former official from within the ranks of the Federal Bureau of Investigation is reporting that US and NATO forces have landed outside of Syria and are training militants to overthrow the regime of President Bashar al-Assad.

    Whistleblower Sibel Edmonds, formerly a translator with the FBI, wrote over the weekend that American soldiers are among the NATO troops that have mysteriously and suddenly landed on the Jordanian and Syrian border. According to her, several sources internationally have confirmed the news, although the US media has been instructed to temporarily censor itself from reporting the news.
    Edmonds writes that an Iraqi journalist based out of London has confirmed that US forces that vacated the Ain al-Assad Air Base in Iraq last week did in fact leave the country as part of President Obama's drawdown of troops, but rather than return home, the soldiers were transferred into Jordan during the late hours of Thursday evening. Another source, writes Edmonds, informs her that "soldiers who speak languages other than Arabic" have been moving through Jordan mere miles from the country's border with Syria.
    Nizar Nayouf, a correspondent for Edmond's Boiling Frog Post whistleblower site, says an employee of the London-based offices of Royal Jordanian Airlines has further confirmed that at least one US aircraft transporting military personnel has brought American troops into Jordan in recent days.

    BFP Exclusive- Developing Story: Hundreds of US-NATO Soldiers Arrive & Begin Operations on the Jordan-Syria Border

    Everybody knows there's nothing doing
    Everything is closed it's like a ruin
    Everyone you see is half asleep
    And you're on your own, you're in the street
    Good morning, good morning

    Video of Street Sweeper... (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Dec 14, 2011 at 09:40:44 AM EST
    ...who ducks behind planter and comes out with a RPG in Syria.  LINK

    Nothing to do with comment, just a soldiers tale of why he defected to the rebel side.


    Yep... (5.00 / 2) (#10)
    by Edger on Wed Dec 14, 2011 at 09:44:41 AM EST
    The Shadow War In Syria

    Target Syria - the strategic prize that outstrips Libya. The stage is set. The stakes couldn't be higher. Libya 2.0 equals Syria? It's more like Libya 2.0 remix. With the same R2P ("responsibility to protect") rationale - starring civilians bombed into "democracy". But with no UN Security Council resolution (Russia and China will veto it). Instead, Turkey shines, fanning the flames of civil war.

    US Secretary of State Hillary "we came, we saw, he died" Clinton set the scene on Indonesian TV a few weeks ago, when she prophesied there would be "a civil war" in Syria, with a well financed and "well-armed opposition" crammed with army deserters.

    Now it's up to NATOGCC to make it happen. NATOGCC is of course the now fully accomplished symbiosis between selected North Atlantic Treaty Organization members such as Britain and France and selected petromonarchies of the Gulf Cooperation Council, aka the Gulf Counter-revolution Club, such as Qatar and the United Arab Emirates (UAE).

    So feel free to bask in the glow of yet another mercenary paradise.

    The NATOGCC war

    The Libyans formerly known as rebels, with explicit consent from Transitional National Council (TNC) chairman Mustafa Abdul NATO, aka Jalil, have already shipped to Syria - via Turkey - 600 highly motivated troops fresh from toppling the Gaddafi regime, to fight alongside the Free Syria Army (FSA). This followed a secret meeting in Istanbul between the TNC and the Syrian "rebels", rebranded as Syrian National Council.

    I just can't see how anyone thinks a good (5.00 / 2) (#13)
    by ruffian on Wed Dec 14, 2011 at 09:56:22 AM EST
    outcome will result from basically throwing every ingredient from mercenaries to criminals to real idealists into a bag of the Saudis making and shaking it all up.

    I guess the desired outcome of these instigators is US(ok, NATO if you want to pretend) -Saudi-Turkish control of the region.

    But noooo, we are not an empire.


    Not at all... (none / 0) (#14)
    by Edger on Wed Dec 14, 2011 at 10:02:42 AM EST
    It's simply delivering Freedom & Democracy(tm)

    As the recent upsurge of violence dramatically illustrates, the militias that were decisive in ousting Qadhafi's regime are becoming a significant problem now that it is gone. Their number is a mystery: 100 according to some; three times that others say. Over 125,000 Libyans are said to be armed. The groups do not see themselves as serving a central authority; they have separate procedures to register members and weapons, arrest and detain suspects; they repeatedly have clashed. Rebuilding Libya requires addressing their fate, yet haste would be as perilous as apathy. The uprising was highly decentralised; although they recognise it, the local military and civilian councils are sceptical of the National Transitional Council (NTC), the largely self-appointed body leading the transition. They feel they need weapons to defend their interests and address their security fears.

    I'm bushed...


    I keep forgetting (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by ruffian on Wed Dec 14, 2011 at 10:06:58 AM EST
    Yes, freedom and democracy is so obviously going to result. How could I miss that?

    Maybe it was the destruction and refugees distracting me.


    Well... (none / 0) (#17)
    by Edger on Wed Dec 14, 2011 at 10:25:15 AM EST
    the destruction and refugees are kind of like OWS - just people to be ignored or beaten and sprayed till they're invisible again.

    Besides, there must be something better on another channel, right?


    I haven't heard anything (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Dec 14, 2011 at 11:11:19 AM EST
    But I was on vacation.  Troubling, troubling, troubling....I guess at this very early hour in the new Libyan dawn we think Libya was a huge success.  Or perhaps long term destabilizing of the entire Middle East, disrupting the focus that some might have upon us and their ability to inspire and organize terrorism, is how we will move forward.  NATO is with us, how can this be when the citizens of NATO countries are notorious for not allowing their troops to carry out most crazy American ideas?

    Things sure are changing though and not for the better IMO.  We have worked to bring about the overriding of many European citizens by lobbying for their leaders to be replaced by those that meet with what Tyler Durden calls Fed approval.  Shoving our wants down the throats of our fellow Europeans and getting away with it seems like it will have a "cost" on many fronts.  I always thought that Europe would save us from ourselves.  It is a bad thing when we convince them that they must be just like us and we get their leaders to agree to that!

    Unless Syria has a nuke that could kill all of us, why are we doing this?


    Why are we doing this? (5.00 / 0) (#28)
    by Edger on Wed Dec 14, 2011 at 11:29:17 AM EST
    The trillion-dollar question in the "Arab Winter" is who will blink first in the West's screenplay of slouching towards Tehran via Damascus.

    As they examine the regional chessboard and the formidable array of forces aligned against them, Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and the military dictatorship of the mullahtariat in Tehran must face, simultaneously, superpower Washington, bomb-happy North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) members, nuclear power Israel, all Sunni Arab absolute monarchies, and even Sunni-majority, secular Turkey.

    Meanwhile, on their side, the Islamic Republic can only count on Moscow. Not as bad a hand as it may seem.

    Syria is Iran's undisputed key ally in the Arab world - while Russia, alongside China, are the key geopolitical allies. China, for the moment, is making it clear that any solution for Syria must be negotiated.

    Russia's one and only naval base in the Mediterranean is at the Syrian port of Tartus. Not by accident, Russia has installed its S-300 air defense system - one of the best all-altitude surface-to-air missile systems in the world, comparable to the American Patriot - in Tartus. The update to the even more sophisticated S-400 system is imminent.

    From Moscow's - as well as Tehran's - perspective, regime change in Damascus is a no-no. It will mean virtual expulsion of the Russian and Iranian navies from the Mediterranean.

    Yet key lateral moves by the West are already on. Diplomats in Brussels confirmed to Asia Times Online that the former Libyan "rebels" - now trying to come up with a credible government - have already given the go-ahead for NATO to build a sprawling military base in Cyrenaica.

    more at...

    That rocky road to Damascus

    and Dmitry Medvedev, November 23, 2011

    Thank you for the link Edger (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Dec 14, 2011 at 11:38:04 AM EST
    I'll have to read it later tonight.

    Medvedev's speech is good, too... (none / 0) (#31)
    by Edger on Wed Dec 14, 2011 at 11:39:03 AM EST
    I question your "sources" (none / 0) (#58)
    by MKS on Wed Dec 14, 2011 at 02:14:03 PM EST
    You site to your own blog, and an author who writes on your own blog.

    And you link to an article by a former FBI official who says she has heard from anonymous sources something about troop movements.....

    What would a former FBI agent know about military operations?  And even she is relying on hearsay reports from others.  Good grief.  This is very thin gruel indeed.

    And then an article about Russia and missile defense?

    Pretty sketchy.  

    I was going to say you were the inverse of Fox News, but the inverse World Net Daily is more like it. On the day when the foreign policy news is about Obama formally announcing the withdrawal of all U.S. troops from Iraq, and when conservatives are lambasting Obama for not conducting an air strike on Iran to destroy the drone, you come up with this unsourced stuff from you own blog.

    If one were to read only your posts on this blog, one would have no idea of the other events.  What a distorted picture you present.  Just like World Net Daily.


    Also (none / 0) (#29)
    by Edger on Wed Dec 14, 2011 at 11:35:14 AM EST
    so that after "regime change" the Fed and the international banking cartels can deliver full employment to Syrians, of course, just like it has in Iraq, Egypt, Libya, Bahrain, Greece and the United States, to complement the freedom and democracy the Pentagon delivers.

    It's hard work delivering freedom and democracy to multinational disaster capitalists, you know.

    Everybody has to have some skin in the game.


    Tracy (none / 0) (#61)
    by MKS on Wed Dec 14, 2011 at 02:16:09 PM EST
    I suspect the reason you haven't heard anything is because there is most likely nothing going on, at least to the magnitude being suggested here....

    Who could say at this time? (5.00 / 1) (#138)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Dec 14, 2011 at 07:59:29 PM EST
    Sibel Edmonds is not known for being full of it.  And if you were going to do something quick and dirty right out of Iraq this is EXACTLY what you would do.  Everyone focuses overly on the Baghdad once upon a time International Airport without realizing that the exact same military transportation potential exists coming right out of Al Asad and it is much closer to Jordan and Syria.  That is the thing that troubles me.  If you were going to do this and try to sneak it, you'd do it right out of Al Asad.

    Well once Syria goes down... (5.00 / 1) (#148)
    by desertswine on Wed Dec 14, 2011 at 09:31:18 PM EST
    we will have toppled every government that was on the original neocon hit list, except for Iran, which is next (and NK, which I don't think anyone cares about anymore).

    Most of them, I think (none / 0) (#167)
    by Edger on Fri Dec 16, 2011 at 03:25:32 AM EST
    I think there are some South American countries on the list as well.... and of course the US....

    the return of debtors' prison (5.00 / 2) (#32)
    by The Addams Family on Wed Dec 14, 2011 at 11:52:48 AM EST
    Robin Sanders [of] Illinois [. . .] was driving home when an officer pulled her over for having a loud muffler. But instead of sending her off with a warning, the officer arrested Sanders, and she was taken right to jail.
    "That's when I found out [that] I had a warrant for failure to appear in Macoupin County. And I didn't know what it was about." Sanders owed $730 on a medical bill. She says she didn't even know a collection agency had filed a lawsuit against her. . . .
    A company will often sell off its debt to a collection agency, generally called a creditor. That creditor files a lawsuit against the debtor requiring a court appearance. A notice to appear in court is supposed to be given to the debtor. If they fail to show up, a warrant is issued for their arrest.

    read the whole thing

    Gives new meaning to (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by Edger on Wed Dec 14, 2011 at 12:03:05 PM EST
    the terms "socialism", "predatory capitalism" and "externalizing costs", doesn't it?

    More than a third of all states now allow borrowers who don't pay their bills to be jailed, even when debtor's prisons have been explicitly banned by state constitutions. A report by the American Civil Liberties Union found that people were imprisoned even when the cost of doing so exceeded the amount of debt they owed.

    And the cost, of course, is passed to the taxpayers.


    I cannot believe I have lived to see this (5.00 / 5) (#37)
    by sj on Wed Dec 14, 2011 at 12:28:35 PM EST
    A USA where debtor's prison has resurged.  

    A USA where getting an education means a lifetime of indentured servitude to a banking institution with no avenue of relief.  

    A USA where a national figure can casually advocate for the repeal child labor laws with no public outcry.  

    A USA where our elders, those who have spent a lifetime contributing to this society, are sacrificied at the altar of the already-haves.

    A USA where citizens can actually be deported simply because their skin is brown and their first language may not be English.

    I cannot believe I have lived to see this.

    Godspeed, Occupiers.  We have needed you so much.


    Gingrich's call to repeal child labor laws (5.00 / 2) (#72)
    by KeysDan on Wed Dec 14, 2011 at 02:45:45 PM EST
    has not received the scolding that it's outrageousness deserves.  Under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) the minimum age for non-agricultural employment for minors is 14 (with limited hours).  If FLSA and state laws overlap, the law that is more protective of a minor applies.

    Therefore, Gingrich is talking about work for children 13 years and younger (note: children of any age can deliver newspapers, work in most family businesses or  work as a stage, radio or TV performer).

    And, as if this alone were not enough to give him the hook, Gingrich's proposal  is specifically aimed at  poor children--so that upon repeal school age children, 6 to 13, and maybe kindergarten, could be employed by the school they attend in  specifically named jobs such as assistant janitor to clean bathrooms (of their fellow rich classmates).

    The repeal of child labor laws brings Newt's sensitive moral compass into play in that he believes that these jobs will instill work ethics and habits in the poor children which they otherwise do not have, unless, he claims, they are doing something illegal.  


    Indefinite detention (5.00 / 2) (#123)
    by shoephone on Wed Dec 14, 2011 at 07:34:52 PM EST
    WORM alert! Obama flip flops and says he won't veto defense authorization bill.

    Surprise, surprise.

    Ain't it just great to have a Democrat in the White House protecting our constitutional rights?

    He's moving forward again, I see... (none / 0) (#139)
    by Edger on Wed Dec 14, 2011 at 08:01:33 PM EST
    "Now look. That was in the past. I signed it in the past. The past is behind us where we leave all other dark chapters. Besides, Republicans in the Democratic Party made me do it. I was powerless at the time.

    Now let's all just cozy up and get along and maybe someday after you re-elect me maybe we can consider thinking about maybe considering working towards thinking about maybe repealing this. Incrementally, I mean."

    "Maybe. After we get the never ending WOT out of the way we can look backwards, of course. Oh never mind. We'll just keep moving forward."

    -- Grin Obama
    "Change is 2012! How do you like me so far?"

    Not so proud of my own sex these days. (5.00 / 1) (#125)
    by Edger on Wed Dec 14, 2011 at 07:42:35 PM EST
    On top of wrecking the world running predatory capitalism scams and US Foreign "Policy"/for profit war, a lot of us are grade A a$$holes too...

    The University of Vermont has temporarily suspended the fraternity Sigma Phi Epsilon after one their members sent out a survey asking his brothers who they would like to rape.
    Sigma Phi Epsilon -- or SigEp -- was already on probation for alcohol abuses, but this latest incident prompted university authorities to contact the national fraternity and the police.
    "If I could rape someone, who would it be?" the survey asked.
    Students have been asked to contact UVM Police Services at 802-656-3473 if they have any information about the survey.

    A study released by the Center for Disease Control Wednesday found that almost one in five women in the U.S. had been victims of sexual assault.


    frat boys (5.00 / 1) (#126)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Dec 14, 2011 at 07:45:58 PM EST
    are still bottom feeders I see.  some things have not changed since my college days.

    There'd have to be (5.00 / 1) (#130)
    by Edger on Wed Dec 14, 2011 at 07:50:29 PM EST
    a lot more frat boys than there are to account for the CDC study results.

    I remember (none / 0) (#132)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Dec 14, 2011 at 07:51:37 PM EST
    a lot of frat boys.

    Most interesting people... (5.00 / 1) (#149)
    by Addison on Wed Dec 14, 2011 at 09:52:53 PM EST
    Unsurprisingly, it turns out I am not interested by the same sorts of people as Barbara Walters. Not even remotely.

    Surprisingly, ABC used the production values of an Entertainment Tonight episode circa 1998 for this annual travesty of American media.

    Class Warfare! (none / 0) (#1)
    by kdog on Wed Dec 14, 2011 at 09:22:41 AM EST
    A young man's lesson in banking teaches him everything he needs to know.  Link

    Banks are not what they used to be? (5.00 / 1) (#84)
    by Towanda on Wed Dec 14, 2011 at 03:32:14 PM EST
    The reporter needed to commit an act of journalism and do research -- as did the parents, of course.

    Exactly this has been going on for years.  I had to do exactly what this mother did to close out accounts for my offspring when they were that age and ignored bank notices until too late.

    A lot of banks have been up to no good for a long time, the reason that we moved accounts long ago -- long before the recent awakening of consumers to the realities of the banking industry for decades.


    Shoulda paid it pennies (none / 0) (#19)
    by republicratitarian on Wed Dec 14, 2011 at 10:32:50 AM EST
    A pound of flesh... (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by kdog on Wed Dec 14, 2011 at 10:40:44 AM EST
    is what they want.

    They really should give the kid his 5 bucks back, plus interest, plus aggravation fee, plus stupidity fee.


    They just (none / 0) (#23)
    by Edger on Wed Dec 14, 2011 at 10:48:15 AM EST
    don't make banks like they used to, do they?

    It All Looks the Same on an Income Statement (none / 0) (#22)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Dec 14, 2011 at 10:47:55 AM EST
    Pennies would only make some teller's day even worse.

    I can't believe they didn't back down after the media got involved, they just do give a F anymore.  But then again, it's not like they are going to make their reputations any worse.


    You're right, not the tellers fault (none / 0) (#24)
    by republicratitarian on Wed Dec 14, 2011 at 10:51:20 AM EST
    Two wrongs don't make a right.

    Article states... (none / 0) (#27)
    by kdog on Wed Dec 14, 2011 at 11:23:46 AM EST
    the bank is sending a check for the 229.10, which will surely be subject to a check-cashing fee now that the account is closed...mo money mo money mo money.

    And they're keeping the 5 bucks...err, 4 dollars 85 cents.  No friendly rounding with these motherf8ckers!


    The Boy Wonder (none / 0) (#5)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Wed Dec 14, 2011 at 09:31:24 AM EST
    Included in a 35-question automated phone poll by Public Policy Polling to track the Republican Presidential campaign among likely Republican caucus voters in Iowa was the following query:

    "Do you have a favorable or unfavorable opinion of Tim Tebow?"

    The question went to 171 of 555 respondents to the poll over the past three days, with 48 percent voting for "favorable." Only 13 percent voted for "unfavorable." Another 40 percent said they were "not sure,"


    Maybe he will win the caucus (5.00 / 3) (#11)
    by ruffian on Wed Dec 14, 2011 at 09:47:02 AM EST
    Touchdown ;-) (none / 0) (#12)
    by Edger on Wed Dec 14, 2011 at 09:54:03 AM EST
    Can't happen... (none / 0) (#15)
    by kdog on Wed Dec 14, 2011 at 10:04:06 AM EST
    Ron Paul is gonna pull the upset.

    Polls are polls but I hope this one is onto something...Paul neck and neck with Newt.


    Given the lackluster.... (none / 0) (#46)
    by kdog on Wed Dec 14, 2011 at 01:46:40 PM EST
    options, I hope they vote Paul...the only one selling at least a microscopic ray of sunshine...end the drug war/end the empire.

    And the Actual Wars (none / 0) (#57)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Dec 14, 2011 at 02:13:54 PM EST
    Seems like he would make OK President, all the nincompoop ideas he has would never get through Congress, and the brilliant ones fall under executive jurisdiction.

    Prohibition repeal... (none / 0) (#62)
    by kdog on Wed Dec 14, 2011 at 02:18:52 PM EST
    ain't getting through Congress, but there are things he could do to ease the pain as pres...like the promise Obama reneged on, respecting state medical mj laws and calling off the DEA dogs.  Maybe a sh*tload of pardons for federal drug crimes.

    Probably hashpipe dreaming, but he's the best bet of the sorry bunch in that regard, Obama included.


    No, But the President... (none / 0) (#79)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Dec 14, 2011 at 03:27:40 PM EST
    Can certainly call off the dogs and pull back the troops.  He can also appoint the clowns who determine what goes into what schedule over at the DEA, in other words weed could be removed from schedule I.  That is entirely the DEA's discretion.

    And the DEA, right now I have no idea who is running the show, but he is definitely the JE Hoover type, replace him with a Micheal Brownie type and that might not make drugs legal, but it would cut down on their success rates.

    He could also pull in all this special ops non-sense in Mexico and S America.

    Two ways to skin that cat, probably many more. Clear out schedule I's or move them to III and right there you would eliminate this massive jail sentences.


    Of those four Ron Paul (none / 0) (#50)
    by brodie on Wed Dec 14, 2011 at 01:58:32 PM EST
    is easily the least media-vetted candidate especially as to that ugly evidence of racism you cite .  Maybe some language forensic experts out there could tell us more about whether those articles appear to be squarely in the Paul style.

    But any vetting probably won't start until after he wins Iowa as the MSM don't seem to want to deal with this guy unless and until he becomes an official threat to win the nom or seriously affect the nom process.


    And (none / 0) (#55)
    by CoralGables on Wed Dec 14, 2011 at 02:10:08 PM EST
    neither of those two are possible. As someone said, Ron Paul is just the crazy uncle. Everyone plays along and humors him until they get bored and ignore him.

    I Would Say Newt is More Like.. (none / 0) (#68)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Dec 14, 2011 at 02:34:57 PM EST
    ...the sweaty dude in a wife beater who comes out to escort a 'lady' out of the house because his wife is due home at any moment, while, of course, yelling at the kids to get lost.

    I never got the leering at girls vibe.

    And Romney, he looks more uncomfortable in blue collar clothing then Dukakis did in a tank.  I think he would be doing a lot better if he quit trying to be something he is so clearly not.  Every speech is coming down on someone is real awkward way that looks scripted, but it's not.

    And that bet, when did it become OK to wager at a GOP debate, thought gambling was a no/no in bible, but judging by the reaction, there is basically nothing the GOP won't ignore, well except of course anything that even sounds liberal like vaccinations or amnesty.

    And last but not least, the Donald.  He cancelled the Mad Dog/Newt debate because.... (drum roll)... he hasn't ruled out running.  "Hey Donald I remember you saying your financials would be available when Obama produced his Birth Certificate."


    I dunno. I think Lot was a gambler and (none / 0) (#71)
    by oculus on Wed Dec 14, 2011 at 02:40:00 PM EST
    maybe even Abraham.  

    As I've said before, I'd lay money that if (none / 0) (#98)
    by Farmboy on Wed Dec 14, 2011 at 06:01:32 PM EST
    "none of the above" was an option it would win the Iowa caucus this season.

    That being said, my prediction this week isn't much different than last spring: Gingrich/Paul in a near tie for first, Mittens, then Perry.

    Somebody find me a Tardis, and let's go get Ike from circa '56. He'd kick all their asses.


    Yeah... (none / 0) (#117)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Wed Dec 14, 2011 at 06:53:35 PM EST
    I could probably come back home and get 10% of the vote!  

    Ike?  Why not homeboy Herbert Hoover?  Or better yet, John Wayne--the actor, not the serial killer.


    Ike from 1956 just so I could vote for a (5.00 / 1) (#162)
    by Farmboy on Thu Dec 15, 2011 at 08:49:17 AM EST
    candidate who supports this.

    The bad news for Timmah... (5.00 / 0) (#119)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Wed Dec 14, 2011 at 06:59:43 PM EST
    is that he's going to be on the cover of SI.  Will his anointment as the chosen one save him from the jinx?  Stay tuned haters and fawners!  

    I believe he's popped up (none / 0) (#120)
    by CoralGables on Wed Dec 14, 2011 at 07:16:10 PM EST
    on the weekly or a special edition of SI eleven times now. Enough times to squash any jinx. The nearly 50 covers with Michael Jordan is a long way off though.

    So that's a yes. (none / 0) (#122)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Wed Dec 14, 2011 at 07:28:42 PM EST
    Makes sense since God makes personal visits to talk to him and all.  

    Before a game against the Jets last month, Tebow approached Woodyard and cornerback Champ Bailey​, among others, to share his faith.

    "He said God just came and told him to just make sure that he spreads the word and tell everybody, don't worry about a thing and at the end of the day give credit to God," Woodyard recounted.

    Sorry kdog, but the big guy just isn't that into the J-E-T-S.  


    As I mentioned yesterday (5.00 / 2) (#124)
    by CoralGables on Wed Dec 14, 2011 at 07:39:10 PM EST
    David Silverman, the president of the American Atheists (who resides in Patriots land) is perturbed too.  He said god isn't a Bronco fan. Guess he speaks to the big guy too.

    I guess that makes them both... (none / 0) (#140)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Wed Dec 14, 2011 at 08:05:24 PM EST
    qualified to run as a GOP candidate for President.  After all, if it is good enough for Cain, Bachmann and Santorum...

    In the real world, if you say God talks to you at Denver Health, you're likely to get pumped full of Haldol and held on a psych eval.    


    Which just goes to show (none / 0) (#142)
    by CoralGables on Wed Dec 14, 2011 at 08:25:22 PM EST
    you can't trust god. Funny person he or she is, always telling people to do things like run for president or senator or governor or whatever and then they lose. God once told Christine O'Donnell she'd be the 41st GOP Senator making her the filibuster queen. (I'm paraphrasing as those weren't the big guy's exact words)

    Yep. (none / 0) (#143)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Wed Dec 14, 2011 at 08:38:01 PM EST
    I've made two trips to the other side and she/he couldn't even manage a simple appearance to say "welcome" or "good to see you", but yet she/he can take the time to pass out career advise.  That doesn't seem quite right.  

    Well the I Take Little Credence with a Person... (none / 0) (#18)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Dec 14, 2011 at 10:30:32 AM EST
    ... that sits through "...a 35-question automated phone poll..."

    No opinion on Tebow except that the publicity is getting beyond ridiculous, even asking about him in a political poll seems more then a little whack.

    But what the hell, it's certainly taking a lot of heat off the Packers and the Texans.  The Pack is flying totally under the radar, it's mentioned, but I remember the Pats and it was a feeding frenzy, now they can't get past Tebow.

    Speaking of Texans, Wade Phillips took an emergency leave of absence for an operation.  He is suppose to be back before the playoffs.  

    Why does the cynic in me think this leave may be in Miami of KC ?


    I'm kind of not looking forward to this game (none / 0) (#52)
    by CST on Wed Dec 14, 2011 at 02:06:12 PM EST
    between the Tebow mania, the Pats D looking suspect at best, and the Broncos having won 3 of the last 4, I do not have high expectations for this weekend.  Of all the teams in the AFC, they are pretty much the only one that has consistently beaten the Pats in the Brady years.  Tom Brady is 1-6 against the Broncos.

    The one upside is I guess all the Tebow haters will be rooting for New England.  Which pretty much no one ever does unless you're from there.

    That being said, it would be awesome if the Pats wins.  But I would not bet on this game as a Pats fan.  I think there are a lot of people expecting (hoping?) Tebow to be put in his place this weekend.  Unfortunately the history between these teams suggests otherwise.


    This "hater"... (none / 0) (#56)
    by kdog on Wed Dec 14, 2011 at 02:12:42 PM EST
    is hoping on the Tebow bandwagon this week.  Praise sweet baby jesus and beat them Pats! :)

    FYI: almost 14 yr.-old tutoree (none / 0) (#64)
    by oculus on Wed Dec 14, 2011 at 02:24:10 PM EST
    ias doing "background" for English class re famous Latinos.  One of his subjects is Mark Sanchez.  

    Sanchise... (none / 0) (#81)
    by kdog on Wed Dec 14, 2011 at 03:30:36 PM EST
    is playing better of late, hopefully it is a sign of another strong finish and not just playing crappy teams.

    can't win em all... (none / 0) (#66)
    by CST on Wed Dec 14, 2011 at 02:27:24 PM EST
    don't worry, I would never expect you to root for the Pats.

    Sports rivalries are funny.  I remember shortly after 9/11, when all the NY love was going around, even in these parts, we got a new saying:

    If Osama Bin Laden had a baseball team and they were playing the yankees, I'd root for Osama Bin Laden.  It's a little outdated now, but you get it.

    Honestly though, I feel like a lot of Tebow haters are getting their hopes up here.  When the fact of it is the Broncos are pretty much the last team anyone from New England wants to face, especially in the playoffs.  And that was true even before Tebow.


    Why? (none / 0) (#78)
    by kdog on Wed Dec 14, 2011 at 03:21:43 PM EST
    Why fear the Broncos?  Yeah, Pats D is pretty sleazy, but its not like the Broncos light up the score board.  And the Pats can score on anybody.

    It likely won't happen due to seeding, and we're still far from a lock for a Wild Card...but there is no team I'd rather face in Round 1 than Denver...except maybe Houston.


    1 and 6 (none / 0) (#83)
    by CST on Wed Dec 14, 2011 at 03:31:44 PM EST
    it's not that I think the Broncos are good, per say, it's just that I believe in things like bad luck and juju and karma and not changing your socks or shaving and all that jazz when it comes to sports.

    So despite the fact that the teams are completely different every year and the only thing that remains is the name and our qb, that record still makes me nervous.  What if it means that Brady can't breathe at high altitudes?

    I never said it was a rational fear.

    It's like how back in the day, even when they were terrible, the Rays somehow always managed to beat the red sox.  There are some things you just don't bet on.


    kdog (none / 0) (#92)
    by CoralGables on Wed Dec 14, 2011 at 04:50:57 PM EST
    you do remember you're 2-4 on the road and haven't beat a team with a winning record since Day 1 right? The J-E-T-S Jets Jets Jets should fear everyone.

    Houston, Round One ? (none / 0) (#93)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Dec 14, 2011 at 04:56:08 PM EST
    I'll be surprised if Houston doesn't get home field throughout the playoffs and almost certainly they will skip round 1.  We beat Pittsburgh and lost to Baltimore.

    They are 10-3 with Carolina, Indy, and Tennessee on deck.

    We beat Pittsburgh and lost to Baltimore.


    Correction, Broncos Have Won... (none / 0) (#74)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Dec 14, 2011 at 02:57:14 PM EST
    ...the last 7 of 8.

    Short of a Patriot blowout, it's a win for Denver, even if they lose.  Almost beating the Pats, will be a feather in their caps, it certainly won't slow their momentum IMO.

    I really don't like either team, but I am starting to really love the Tebow mania just because it's taking the heat off the Pack, and somewhat off the Texans first division win.

    My prediction, those 3 quarters Tebow doesn't play well, will leave them in hole they can't possibly dig out of.

    Pats 42 - Broncos 30, but it will be a blowout, those last couple of TD's will skew how bad Denver loses.  Luck only takes you so far in the NFL.


    This will be the very rare time (none / 0) (#53)
    by brodie on Wed Dec 14, 2011 at 02:06:32 PM EST
    I will root for the already too successful Pats and Brady..

    But I notice that once again Tebow and the Broncs catch a big break getting to play them at Mile High.  Denver will need whatever advantage they can find just to keep the margin of their inevitable defeat respectable.


    Pats' D is not good. (none / 0) (#60)
    by coast on Wed Dec 14, 2011 at 02:15:20 PM EST
    The Broncos can make a game of it, but I to believe this will be a loss.  Still, there are plenty of teams who wished they were 7-2 under their current quarterback in the last 9 games.

    Agreed on all points. n/t (none / 0) (#89)
    by coast on Wed Dec 14, 2011 at 04:33:56 PM EST
    RENTING ANNIE - new short fiction by Dadler (none / 0) (#6)
    by Dadler on Wed Dec 14, 2011 at 09:34:32 AM EST
    When tyrants force you out of business... (none / 0) (#7)
    by kdog on Wed Dec 14, 2011 at 09:38:14 AM EST
    may as well go out in style.

    A Gram ? (none / 0) (#9)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Dec 14, 2011 at 09:43:45 AM EST
    It's funny to see a going out of business blow-out sale on weed...  And stocking up on medication quote cracked me up.

    Slow Day, So Here are a Couple Recent... (none / 0) (#34)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Dec 14, 2011 at 12:14:09 PM EST
    ... annoyances.

    • Viagra Commercials, as if they aren't cheesy enough, now there is one without a woman in the commercial.  Also the dudes seem to be getting younger.  My peeve, a couple of those clowns are easily younger then me.

    • Super Bowl Half Time Show.  It's football and should be a pleasure/reward for the fan who loves the game.  Madonna & Cirque du Soleil, seriously NFL ?

    • Upselling.  Is there a company out there who will be satisfied that I bought something from them without trying to badgering me upgrade or buy something else.

    • Advertizing so obnoxious, including videos that play w/o my help, it's hard to concentrate on anything but the advertizing.

    • Pharmaceutical Ads in which the side effects list takes longer to play then the actual ad.  Half the mentioned side effects seem like they need their own medications.

    • Doctors, who when I sign in, have a pharmaceutical brand pen and clip pad.  And low and behold, the doc thinks I need that medication.  If any place should be free of the influence of big business, it's the doctor's office.  Yet last month, I thought I stepped into the Internets with all the advertizing.  What happen to professionalism, at least the appearance of it ?

    • Famous People selling ridiculous stuff, Jimmy Johnson are you so 'hard' up for cash, you need to sell a fake product, ExtenZe ?  Danica Patrick Go Daddy, really ?

    Looking back, looks like advertizing is really starting to get at me and of course the insistence of inclusion of everyone one by the NFL, which is essentially because of advertising.

    Leave no dollar behind...  

    I don't mind so much pharma pushing drugs (5.00 / 2) (#40)
    by Farmboy on Wed Dec 14, 2011 at 12:34:46 PM EST
    to doctors, as doctors are the only people even remotely qualified to make an informed decision about them. I get frustrated by big pharma pushing pills to us, and I wouldn't care if those ads were banned. Almost all the ads are for controlled substances that lay people cannot legally purchase on their own, so why do we need to see them?

    And you're right about the side effects. They may as well be pushing rat poison - and probably are.

    "Are you feeling tired after a long day? To busy for sleep? Then head over to the parking lot behind the truck stop and buy some meth! Meth will increase alertness, concentration, energy, and in high doses, may induce euphoria, enhance self-esteem, and increase your libido!

    (Meth sales forbidden by law. Meth causes psychosis and induces cardiovascular degeneration, leading to madness and death.)"


    thanks for the link (none / 0) (#63)
    by The Addams Family on Wed Dec 14, 2011 at 02:20:52 PM EST
    Stephanie Miller is hilarious

    But Doctors Shouldn't... (none / 0) (#76)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Dec 14, 2011 at 03:10:02 PM EST
    ... be getting their 'facts' from a pharmacy rep, and they certainly shouldn't be taking 'free' stuff from them.  They are the political equivalent of lobbyists, paid guns to change minds.

    These aren't office supplies, I expect my doctor read and figure out for himself if the latest and greatest wonder pill is legit and worthy of endorsing.  I don't think anyone with an agenda, namely Big Pharma, should be sending people in to help doctors decide what is the best treatment, especially ones with no formal medical training.

    There is a reason Pharmacy Reps are almost all young hot women.


    Oh (5.00 / 1) (#164)
    by jbindc on Thu Dec 15, 2011 at 11:03:03 AM EST
    I recently read an article from the Chicago Tribune (sorry  , no link as I read it in hard copy) -that talked about how much some doctors get paid by drug companies to speak on behalf of their drugs or honoraria for serving on advisory boards.  Some doctors in Illinois for 2009-2010 got paid upward of $100,000 fir this stuff.

    Very controversial, as others in the medical field find this to be a huge conflict of interest.


    Another way to look at it is that the rep can be a valuable and trusted resource of information that the doc would not likely otherwise have/make time to avail him/herself of.

    Of course, this is not limited to pharma reps, the same should be the case of any/all sales reps.

    I think some people are simply wired to be skeptical of sales reps, but others appreciate the support that a good rep can provide.


    But That is the Point (5.00 / 1) (#161)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Dec 15, 2011 at 08:47:06 AM EST
    Seriously, "a valuable and trusted resource of information".  That has to be industry written, it is way to dumb not to be.

    'Salesmen to be trusted'.... good one.

    And you can call them reps all day long, anyone that makes commission is a salesman/woman.


    of working with a good rep/sales rep/salesman/woman/whatever from a good company representing a good product. That is your loss.

    Unbiased Options Come From (none / 0) (#169)
    by ScottW714 on Fri Dec 16, 2011 at 03:52:35 PM EST
    Paid consultants, which I work with daily.  

    Granted I don't hand out pills.


    Wow, William Miller, now (none / 0) (#102)
    by caseyOR on Wed Dec 14, 2011 at 06:14:08 PM EST
    that's a blast from the past. It would be a great Jeopardy clue. No one remembers the name of Goldwater's running mate.

    I would understand too, but (5.00 / 0) (#129)
    by brodie on Wed Dec 14, 2011 at 07:49:22 PM EST
    15-20 years ago Bill Miller did have that Do You Know  Who I Am? commercial for Amex, riffing on his unknown celeb status from that campaign.

    Of course, as soon as the commercials stopped running he quickly went back to being an unknown famous person and so once again became the footnote to an historical footnote that he was for so long and that is rather fitting for a man with a bland, too common name of Bill Miller.


    Regarding... (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by kdog on Wed Dec 14, 2011 at 02:02:33 PM EST
    little blues for younger dudes...some take it as a performance enhancer for all-nighters, even though their organ is functional...maybe Pfizer is targeting that sub-market.

    Regarding pharma sales reps and doctors...I knew a girl who worked in pharma sales, they can and do influence doctors decisions.  Free pens ain't the half...try free trips to the Caribbean for a "conference" if they prescribe Brand X.


    Hadta ask my 20 something (none / 0) (#45)
    by brodie on Wed Dec 14, 2011 at 01:43:40 PM EST
    waitress who Danica Patrick is.  Confused her with that young actress from The Wonder Years Danica McKellar , or thought  she was related or married to sports announcer Dan Patrick.  Obviously I'm getting way behind many of you in keeping up with current celeb names and I apologize for that.

    Agree on all the pharma ads but that's been going on for the past 15 years or so.  And I immediately nix any physician who tries to hard sell me on quick chemical cures, though I kept my big pharma-influenced dermatologist after she heard my talk about natural remedies and seemed fairly impressed by my info or something.


    Danica (none / 0) (#49)
    by CoralGables on Wed Dec 14, 2011 at 01:58:27 PM EST
    doing GoDaddy commercials is perfectly logical. GoDaddy is her major sponsor.

    If She Could Only Choose Her Sponsors... (none / 0) (#95)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Dec 14, 2011 at 05:29:02 PM EST
    Well (none / 0) (#96)
    by CoralGables on Wed Dec 14, 2011 at 05:52:27 PM EST
    I figure both Danica and Mark Martin are happy driving GoDaddy cars. It gives them plenty of side income doing commercials. Do you have something against internet domain companies?

    The Problem is... (none / 0) (#109)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Dec 14, 2011 at 06:42:04 PM EST
     ...the first woman to break into traditional male 'sport' taking on a sponsor that requires near nudity (enough so it can't be aired) in return.

    Is she not sponsor worthy clothed ?

    But my point was things that rub ME wrong, it wasn't really up for debate.  If kazillionaire MJ wants to sell underwear, he's free do to that, and it can still rub me the wrong way.


    I would have thought (none / 0) (#104)
    by brodie on Wed Dec 14, 2011 at 06:28:00 PM EST
    Danica Yogurt would have been a more logical sponsor for Danica Patrick.  Although GoDaddy does sound slighty racy and thus within the logical wheelhouse for a professional racer.

    ACA (none / 0) (#35)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Wed Dec 14, 2011 at 12:21:28 PM EST
    "An increase of 2.5 million people aged 19-25 who have health insurance thanks to the Affordable Care Act."


    this is a good thing (5.00 / 1) (#80)
    by The Addams Family on Wed Dec 14, 2011 at 03:29:38 PM EST
    in terms of the fact that these young people now have insurance & presumably will not be going without health care or using the emergency room as their primary provider

    at the same time, the cost of insurance for these individuals between the ages of 19 & 25 has been shifted from the public at large to their parents

    that's why, although this provision of the ACA has produced a good outcome in the way already mentioned, it doesn't provide a good or fair solution to the problem of uninsured people in this age group

    instead, it places an additional burden on parents, many of whom are already financially stressed - & in that way, it actually increases health insurance costs for a few instead of producing the across-the-board decrease in costs that might be expected with expansion of the pool of insured people

    & it still leaves many young people without coverage if they have no parents, have a poor relationship with their parents or have parents who cannot afford to pay for their adult children's health care insurance


    sorry, i should have said (none / 0) (#85)
    by The Addams Family on Wed Dec 14, 2011 at 03:32:30 PM EST
    that with this provision of the ACA "the cost of health care for these individuals between the ages of 19 & 25 has been shifted from the public at large to their parents"

    Just a reminder (none / 0) (#39)
    by sj on Wed Dec 14, 2011 at 12:30:58 PM EST
    Jeralyn prefers that full URLs are placed in links as they can skew the site.

    OWS (none / 0) (#36)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Wed Dec 14, 2011 at 12:27:25 PM EST
    Possibly racist? (none / 0) (#38)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Wed Dec 14, 2011 at 12:29:06 PM EST
    I don't suppose ... (5.00 / 1) (#73)
    by Yman on Wed Dec 14, 2011 at 02:51:43 PM EST
    ... pointing out the rather obvious difference between voting in government elections vs. the elections of private organizations would make a difference ...

    It was a metaphor. (none / 0) (#75)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Dec 14, 2011 at 03:04:38 PM EST
    Actually, it was an analogy, ... (none / 0) (#77)
    by Yman on Wed Dec 14, 2011 at 03:21:10 PM EST
    ... and not a very good one.


    But wait, sarc (none / 0) (#90)
    by Zorba on Wed Dec 14, 2011 at 04:36:55 PM EST
    I thought it was "a foolish consistency is the hobgoblin....." etc.    ;-)

    Ha! (none / 0) (#91)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Dec 14, 2011 at 04:41:58 PM EST
    Obvious difference (none / 0) (#146)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Wed Dec 14, 2011 at 08:55:12 PM EST

    The obvious similarity is that in either case taking a simple precaution to ensure that only those entitled to vote are allowed to vote makes complete sense.



    Except, ... (none / 0) (#156)
    by Yman on Thu Dec 15, 2011 at 06:13:36 AM EST
    ... in one of those cases, the government is placing barriers in the way of voting that disproportionately impacts the poor, elderly and minorities, as poll taxes and literacy tests did previously.

    But I'm sure that's just coincidental.


    Picking up free photo ID (none / 0) (#157)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Thu Dec 15, 2011 at 07:30:22 AM EST

    Is nothing compared to paying a tax.  

    And yet, it's still ... (none / 0) (#158)
    by Yman on Thu Dec 15, 2011 at 08:00:48 AM EST
    ... a significant barrier to the 11% of the US population who have no photo IDs - 18% of young voters and 25% of African Americans.

    But that's just the way conservatives like it ...


    As an hourly paid union employee, I (none / 0) (#44)
    by Wile ECoyote on Wed Dec 14, 2011 at 01:40:48 PM EST
    am outraged. And shocked, shocked I tell ya.  

    I'm surprised Canada's withdrawl (none / 0) (#41)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Dec 14, 2011 at 12:40:39 PM EST
    from the Kyoto Protocol has not been a thread topic here.

    Did not realize Canadians drawled. (5.00 / 2) (#150)
    by oculus on Wed Dec 14, 2011 at 10:06:19 PM EST
    That would be (5.00 / 2) (#151)
    by CoralGables on Wed Dec 14, 2011 at 10:43:47 PM EST
    the Southern Canadians

    Ah. Windsor. (5.00 / 2) (#152)
    by oculus on Wed Dec 14, 2011 at 10:47:51 PM EST
    The deep south (none / 0) (#153)
    by Edger on Wed Dec 14, 2011 at 10:49:17 PM EST
    No soup for you! (none / 0) (#154)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Dec 14, 2011 at 10:59:28 PM EST
    more about the gap . . . (none / 0) (#42)
    by The Addams Family on Wed Dec 14, 2011 at 12:56:45 PM EST
    . . . between Occupy Oakland/the Occupy movement in general & local workers/communities of color

    Occupy Oakland's Costs to Residents Spell Disaster

    Occupy protesters claim that port workers support them, even if their union leaders don't. And for the everyday people trying to live their lives, there is a price to be paid, one protester explained.
    "The 99 percent have made sacrifices for this movement," said a member of the Occupy Oakland group who calls herself Veruca. "Everyone has to make sacrifices. We're into this together."
    In this case, she must be referring to the $8.5 million in wages, taxes and business activity generated daily at the Port of Oakland--and sacrificed to the cause by the truckers, port workers, business owners and Central Valley farmers who count on perishable goods reaching overseas markets.
    Occupy Oakland Damages Itself More Than Ports
    A statement on the Occupy Oakland website, www.occupyoakland.org, suggests that targeting ports serves another purpose besides hitting the wealthiest 1 percent of Americans in their pocketbooks. The action at West Coast ports is warranted by "nationally coordinated attacks on Occupy movements," according to the statement.
    In other words, the port actions were called in part as retribution when cities decided to clear camps around the Bay Area and many other cities in the country.
    Growing public sentiment against local Occupy protesters should serve as a wake-up call to the faceless, nameless group. And the group's misguided decisions to target public operations instead of the corporate marauders who benefited from the federal government's failure to hold the people's interest in trust are still confounding to many Americans.
    If there is a second phase of operations, when Occupy protesters actually decide to occupy the offices of the corporate and financial institutions that benefited from our misery, maybe their message will wake America's masses. Unfortunately, all Monday's action did was take bread off the table of working people, and that's nothing to be proud of.
    Occupy Movement Fails to Connect with Blacks
    "Why don't people come out here and Occupy about the violence in our neighborhood?" said [Charlene] Adams, a 44-year-old project manager at a substance-abuse clinic. Every Saturday, she and other members of her church stand on street corners and hold signs asking people to "Stop the Violence."
    The Occupy Movement, Gentrification and Black America's Ancient Struggle
    Black activists and the general African American public are keenly aware that OWS's essential whiteness was key to its success in establishing encampments of borderline legality, and to the relatively favorable press coverage the movement has garnered. It is axiomatic that immediate and massive police repression would have been deployed to crush any such initiative by Blacks and browns. . . .
    The battle against Wall Street is most vicious, and for the highest stakes, in the Harlems of the nation, where finance capital attempts to disperse whole populations to artificially inflate the value of corporate assets in housing and land. If there is any piece of ground where an anti-Wall Street movement should stand and fight, it's Harlem. . . .
    At three months of age, it is essential that the Occupy movement demonstrate that it is a permanent feature on the political landscape, not a flash in the pan. African Americans are acutely aware that they can never "retire" from the struggle, as relatively privileged social justice activists might have the option of doing.

    The ironies abound (none / 0) (#47)
    by Dadler on Wed Dec 14, 2011 at 01:51:03 PM EST
    One cannot deny it.  Ain't always the enemy that divides and conquers.  Perhaps a winter chill can lead to a more diverse regrowth.  Let's hope.

    yes (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by The Addams Family on Wed Dec 14, 2011 at 02:08:56 PM EST
    many of the Occupy Oakland participants supported an erstwhile community organizer for president in 2008

    so one can hope they know that community organizing is what's needed here, & that the essence of community organizing is (1) obtaining permission to enter a community, (2) humbly listening to and learning from that community's members about what the community needs, & (3) using the organizers' resources in service of empowering the community to address its needs

    i support Occupy Oakland & the other Occupy movements - that's why i want them to be smarter


    If not for the fact that I have (5.00 / 1) (#87)
    by Anne on Wed Dec 14, 2011 at 03:57:48 PM EST
    this crappy cold, I'd link to the Occupy Oakland post I read earlier today, in which there is reference to doing exactly what you referenced - asking community members for their input on what their issues are, how they think Oakland can help, etc.

    I think there is definitely an awareness of the greater community, especially since some of the Occupy encampments have been seeing first hand the level of homelessness and hunger that many in the communities are suffering from.

    With respect to Baltimore's Occupy, I would have to say that, while I am disappointed that the city finally closed it down, they did actually make arrangements for those without homes to go to to be bused to shelters.

    It's definitely all a work in progress; I don't think I ever expected it all to be perfect, but on balance, given the diversity of people actively participating, the open and organic nature of the movement, the tension between them and "authorities," I think it is rather remarkable that it has gone as well as it has - and that it is still evolving and growing.

    The can shut down the camps, but I don't think the people themselves are going to be "shut down," even though I think that would be the establishment's preference.


    thanks, Anne (none / 0) (#88)
    by The Addams Family on Wed Dec 14, 2011 at 04:09:51 PM EST
    i will look for the link you mentioned

    with respect to this:

    asking community members for their input on what their issues are, how they think Oakland can help, etc.

    i suspect you're providing a quick paraphrase (& sorry 'bout the crappy cold), & what you describe is a start, but asking community members for input/info on how Occupy Oakland can "help" still places Occupy Oakland somehow above/outside & tends to reinforce our community's increasing impression that the movement is tinged with the imperialistic connotations of the word "occupy"

    maybe when i find that link i will see something else, though


    It has been soooo long (5.00 / 1) (#159)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Dec 15, 2011 at 08:13:44 AM EST
    since most of us have organized as a community to say NO to things and mean it :)  It hasn't even been done in my vicinity in my adulthood except protesting during the run up for the Iraq War.  Most serious people who spoke about such things said it was all obsolete, ineffective, unprofessional, too hippie-ish, or just flat out beggar degrading (people will laugh at you) as we all became too hip and cool for the mean streets.  There were bound to be some problems getting this initially off the ground :)  Onward!

    A "balanced" deal is in the works: (none / 0) (#94)
    by KeysDan on Wed Dec 14, 2011 at 05:04:54 PM EST
    Democrats will give up on a sur-tax for $million incomes in exchange for increases in Medicare premiums of current beneficiaries. A surcharge on the second $million of annual income is unfair, but not a cut in Medicare for those retirees making $80,000 per year.

    I'm confused. (5.00 / 1) (#100)
    by caseyOR on Wed Dec 14, 2011 at 06:10:19 PM EST
    Are you saying that in exchange for the Dems dropping the surtax on millionaires the Reps are dropping their plan to raise Medicare premiums for those whose annual income is $80,000?

    Or are you saying hat the Dems completely caved, dropped the surtax and agreed to raise Medicare premiums?

    And I have to ask, why does $80,000/annually make one rich if one is on Medicare, but $250,000/annually is barely middle-class when is comes to tax rates for the non-Medicare crowd?


    My understanding is that the Democrats (5.00 / 1) (#110)
    by KeysDan on Wed Dec 14, 2011 at 06:42:36 PM EST
    are considering dropping their demand that a payroll tax holiday for workers be offset by imposing a small surtax on incomes above $1 million, owing to Republican filibuster. If so, this leaves a budgetary hole to be filled.  One option, apparently, is to have Fannie Mae/Freddie charge lenders higher fees, or, another, is to increase further Medicare premiums for current beneficiaries--starting with $80,000/year, for Parts B and D.  As to the $250,000 per year ($200,000 per year single), it is dwarfed by the $1 million (actually the surtax starts on the second million) that the Republicans oppose.   Gee, why do we need "Occupy" again?  

    qotd (none / 0) (#97)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Dec 14, 2011 at 05:56:23 PM EST
    ". . . he's been consisnten since he changed his mind."

    -Christine O'Donnell endorsing Mitt Romney.

    every time I think this cant get better.
    an Barney said, I didnt think I had lived a good enough life . . .

    I remember Ronald Reagan.  I voted for Ronald Reagan.  Newt Gingrich is no Ronald Reagan.

    also (none / 0) (#99)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Dec 14, 2011 at 06:10:03 PM EST
    I must say one descriptive it would never have occurred to me to apply to Newt is "zany" but according to websters its not that bad

    2 : fantastically or absurdly ludicrous


    ABG (none / 0) (#101)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Dec 14, 2011 at 06:12:38 PM EST
    your darling Andrew Sullivan has now endorsed Ron Paul for president. Will you still be wasting your time defending his idiocy now that he he seems to have "dumped" Obama?

    Sully was someones darling? (none / 0) (#103)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Dec 14, 2011 at 06:22:25 PM EST

    you know back a while ago there was a thread that was something like "what happens is Paul wins Iowa"

    and I commented that I thought a more interesting question was what happens if Huntsman wins NH.

    I now think a still more interesting question is what happens is Paul wins Iowa AND Huntsman wins MH


    Most likely scenario is (none / 0) (#105)
    by CoralGables on Wed Dec 14, 2011 at 06:31:53 PM EST
    neither happens, with the latter damn near impossible unless Newt, Mitt, and Paul all drop dead. I'd be more likely to bet on Paul with a 3rd in Iowa and Huntsman a 4th in NH, and Paul going on to garner a handful of 3rds and Huntsman moving on to whatever Huntsman does.

    there is now a quite wave for Huntsman (none / 0) (#107)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Dec 14, 2011 at 06:39:03 PM EST
    lots of influential conservatives are taking another look at him and talking him up.  if Paul wins in Iowa and the empire thinks Newt has any chance I believe you may see a real push for Huntsman.

    oops (none / 0) (#108)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Dec 14, 2011 at 06:39:49 PM EST
    "quiet" wave

    I still think (none / 0) (#113)
    by CoralGables on Wed Dec 14, 2011 at 06:47:57 PM EST
    the quiet wave will be waving him bye. Huntsman isn't a Republican in the current mold of Republican voters. He's been a consistent last on a national scale, no matter who enters or who drops out.

    time will tell (5.00 / 1) (#114)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Dec 14, 2011 at 06:49:56 PM EST
    I believe that superpacs mean that untold amounts of money could be put behind him by panicked establishment conservatives if they think Newt is going to take Mitt out.

    and btw (none / 0) (#116)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Dec 14, 2011 at 06:51:35 PM EST
    he IS in fact a conservative.  there is a good argument to me made that of the three, Newt, Mitt and him, he is the certainly the most conservative and maybe the only conservative.   if enough money is put behind that message it could work.

    and btw #2 (none / 0) (#118)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Dec 14, 2011 at 06:56:31 PM EST
    IMO he would the the Obama campaigns worst nightmare.

    another reason he could be talked up


    "He's been a consistent last" (none / 0) (#155)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Dec 15, 2011 at 05:30:50 AM EST
    last no more.  like I said:

    According to a new poll out Wednesday, Romney leads Gingrich in the state 38% to 20%, with former Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman making a significant bump to third place with 13%.


    Still last (none / 0) (#163)
    by CoralGables on Thu Dec 15, 2011 at 10:54:11 AM EST
    that's a NH poll. Nationally he is always last.

    thats because he (none / 0) (#166)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Dec 15, 2011 at 01:36:53 PM EST
    has done no national campaigning.  he has only worked NH.  he has said again and again that it is all about NH.  

    stand by.


    for example (none / 0) (#111)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Dec 14, 2011 at 06:43:45 PM EST
    A series of pieces from both movement and establishment conservatives have recently made the case for Huntsman. These writers run the gamut from slightly idiosyncratic intellectuals, (George Will of the Washington Post, Ross Douthat of the New York Times, Jim Pethokoukis of the American Enterprise Institute, Michael Brendan Dougherty in Business Insider) to doctrinaire activist partisans (Red State's Erick Erickson).

    heh (5.00 / 1) (#112)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Dec 14, 2011 at 06:46:18 PM EST
    Look at Will's argument for Huntsman, and you see a crucial fallacious assumption: that Republican primary voters care about policy. Will writes:

    [Huntsman] endorses Paul Ryan's budget and entitlement reforms. (Gingrich denounced Ryan's Medicare reform as "right-wing social engineering.") Huntsman would privatize Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (Gingrich's benefactor). Huntsman would end double taxation on investment by eliminating taxes on capital gains and dividends. (Romney would eliminate them only for people earning less than $200,000, who currently pay just 9.3 percent of them.) Huntsman's thorough opposition to corporate welfare includes farm subsidies. (Romney has justified them as national security measures--food security, somehow threatened. Gingrich says opponents of ethanol subsidies are "big-city" people hostile to farmers.)... Between Ron Paul's isolationism and the faintly variant bellicosities of the other six candidates stands Huntsman's conservative foreign policy, skeptically nuanced about America's need or ability to control many distant developments.

    so true.  I believe the best part about Newts rise   is that it exposes tea party once and for all the for the soulless hypocrites they are.


    your (none / 0) (#133)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Dec 14, 2011 at 07:52:29 PM EST
    last sentence is so right. I've had many a debate with tea partiers on facebook and they don't know anything. It seems if they really believed what they said they would be lining up for Paul but Paul's biggest downfall for them is that he's not a neocon and they simply can't let go of the fact that neo-conservativism is a failure.

    there is no shortage (none / 0) (#134)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Dec 14, 2011 at 07:54:08 PM EST
    of right wingers if that is really what they wanted.   they want hate.  and Newt is giving it to them.

    I wonder this because (none / 0) (#106)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Dec 14, 2011 at 06:32:36 PM EST
    I believe that the empire is now truly freaked and the floodgates are about to open on the Newtster

    IMO they will not allow him to be the nominee.  whatever it takes.  understand, I hope I am wrong.  I would love to see a Newt candidacy.  


    If you had (none / 0) (#128)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Dec 14, 2011 at 07:49:19 PM EST
    asked me weeks ago about Paul winning IA I probably would have laughed but honestly now he is tied with Gingrich if the polls are right and people like George Will are using all they have to knock Gingrich off the top spot. It sure is fun to watch. I happen to think that a tie goes to Paul in IA because his supporters are a lot more dedicated than Gingrich's.

    right (none / 0) (#131)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Dec 14, 2011 at 07:50:43 PM EST
    and Huntsman has been quietly doing the old fashioned campaign work to position himself in NH.  the next few weeks are going to be most interesting.

    I think Sullivan is endorsing Ron Paul (none / 0) (#115)
    by KeysDan on Wed Dec 14, 2011 at 06:51:04 PM EST
    for the Republican primary.  But, he will be in the Obama camp for the general election.  Never-the-less, I wonder how Sullivan squares Ron Paul's position on GLBT issues?

    Andrew (5.00 / 2) (#135)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Dec 14, 2011 at 07:54:53 PM EST
    never has a problem with that it seems. He used to be in love with W. until W. went over the top with gay bashing. So as long as they keep their "gay hating" to to a simmer instead of a rolling boil, Andrew isn't going to complain.

    Maybe he was promised a good spot (none / 0) (#160)
    by KeysDan on Thu Dec 15, 2011 at 08:43:38 AM EST
    on the boxcar--a corner with large slats.

    no doubt Sully (none / 0) (#141)
    by The Addams Family on Wed Dec 14, 2011 at 08:10:52 PM EST
    will give his butt a vigorous rub before pulling the answer therefrom

    I wonder how Sullivan squares Ron Paul's position on GLBT issues?

    weird weather (none / 0) (#127)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Dec 14, 2011 at 07:47:22 PM EST
    it is 8pm on the 14 of Dec and it is about 65 degrees and we are having a thunderstorm.

    question (none / 0) (#136)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Dec 14, 2011 at 07:55:35 PM EST
    how stupid does someone have to be to think you will answer a call from "unknown"?

    Caller ID came up "PHONE SCAM" (5.00 / 1) (#145)
    by Towanda on Wed Dec 14, 2011 at 08:48:17 PM EST
    a few days ago for me, for a call from one of those numbers that constantly redials and drives me crazy.  It used to just say "OUT OF AREA."

    I consider the new label quite an improvement!


    They are (none / 0) (#137)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Dec 14, 2011 at 07:58:06 PM EST
    hoping that you don't have caller ID. One of these bozos even faked my own phone number in their call.

    Delivering Freedom & Democracy (tm) (none / 0) (#144)
    by Edger on Wed Dec 14, 2011 at 08:41:41 PM EST
    Iraqis burn U.S. flags to celebrate troop pullout

    FALLUJAH, Iraq -- Hundreds of Iraqis set alight US and Israeli flags on Wednesday as they celebrated the impending pullout of American forces from the country in the former insurgent bastion of Fallujah.

    Shouting slogans in support of the "resistance," the demonstrators held up banners and placards inscribed with phrases like, "Now we are free" and "Fallujah is the flame of the resistance."

    Surrounded by the Iraqi army, demonstrators carried posters bearing photos of apparent insurgents, faces covered and carrying weapons.

    They also held up pictures of US soldiers killed and military vehicles destroyed in the two major offensives against the city in 2004.

    "We are proud to have driven the occupier out of Iraq, at the cost of enormous sacrifice," said Khalid al-Alwa, the local leader of the Islamic Party, a Sunni Muslim grouping.


    U.S. President Barack Obama, who made an election promise to bring troops home, told Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki that Washington will remain a loyal partner after the last troops roll across the Kuwaiti border.

    U.S. Planning Troop Buildup in Gulf After Exit From Iraq

    MacDILL AIR FORCE BASE, Fla. -- The Obama administration plans to bolster the American military presence in the Persian Gulf after it withdraws the remaining troops from Iraq this year, according to officials and diplomats. That repositioning could include new combat forces in Kuwait able to respond to a collapse of security in Iraq or a military confrontation with Iran.
    During town-hall-style meetings with military personnel in Asia l[in October], the secretary of defense, Leon E. Panetta, noted that the United States had 40,000 troops in the region, including 23,000 in Kuwait, though the bulk of those serve as logistical support for the forces in Iraq.

    That "region" count does not include Afghanistan, where by the end of 2012 after his drawdown Obama will have only twice as many troops in Afghanistan as were there on the day he was inaugurated.

    WWW (none / 0) (#147)
    by HeartSmart1 on Wed Dec 14, 2011 at 09:26:12 PM EST
    Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. How many times must we learn this lesson??? Ultimately, it is at our own expense. It's okay, nicey-nicey, put the guns down, eat (not too much), drink (not too much) and talk it out (not too much).

    Obama = evil genius (none / 0) (#168)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Dec 16, 2011 at 03:43:18 PM EST
    fact:  big labor, a very important supporter of the president, wants the pipeline

    fact: environmentalists, a somewhat less enthusiastic supporter of the president, does not.

    fact:  Obama is in the process of manipulating the republicans into "forcing" him to accept the pipeline to get tax cuts for the middle class and extended unemployment for poor folks like me.