Monday Afternoon Open Thread

Open Thread.

< Planning Ahead | Short Fingered Vulgarian Useful Foil For Obama Team >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    British NHS - an up close and personal account (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by BTAL on Mon Apr 11, 2011 at 02:51:29 PM EST
    On Jan 28th, Mrs. BTAL and I traveled to the UK due to her sister's terminal cancer condition. Unfortunately, we got there the day after she passed.

    The next evening, the 29th, Mrs. BTAL to be rushed to the hospital. She spend 8 hours in the ER then into emergency surgery to remove her spleen and other internal bleeding issues. She lost over a gallon of blood (which had been pumped into her in the ER) during the surgery then was put straight into ICU. 24 hours later they transferred her from the local/regional hospital to Addenbrookes in Cambridge as her condition was beyond what they could handle.

    She spent 18 days in ICU. 15 of those days she was completely sedated while they dealt with mechanically supporting her blood pressure then kidneys and respiration.

    After ICU, it was another 5 days in the liver ward followed by a transfer back to the regional hospital for yet another 8 days in a general hospital ward.

    The ward Dr. who processed her discharge prescribed all the wrong drugs. One in particular would have been fatal if we had left the hospital with it. Thankfully an observant nurse caught the issue.

    Here's the bullet points regarding the British NHS.

    The good:

    • The paramedica/ambulance crew were great.
    • The emergency room treatment was very good.
    • Addenbrookes ICU was incredible. They do a 1 to 1 nurse to patient model 24/7.

    The bad (especially in the regional hospital):
    • The quality of care in the wards was very poor.
    • Staff/nurses were not well trained.
    • Pillows, blankets and even wheelchairs were in short supply.
    • Had to wait 2 weeks for the mobile MRI system to make its rounds for a scan.
    • Bed availability on the wards are in short supply.
    • An upper GI test had to be deferred to here as the wait was approx. 4-6 weeks.

    The kicker - national health isn't free. Mrs. BTAL is a born and bred English citizen. Carries a British passport and has paid into the system in the past. But, because of being out of the country for several years she isn't entitled to treatment coverage. The bills so far are just over $100,000. Fortunately, they deal with TriCare and BC/BS which is our two insurers so we are not out of pocket.

    End of story, our 7 day trip turned into a 7 1/2 week trip.

    Good lord. (5.00 / 2) (#2)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon Apr 11, 2011 at 03:01:22 PM EST
    Best wishes to you and the Mrs. BTAL.

    Hope the better half... (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by kdog on Mon Apr 11, 2011 at 03:07:50 PM EST
    is recovering and feeling better BTAL.

    As for the NHS report, all that really suprised me was the bill.  Only 100k?  Spend that much time in a hospital bed stateside and aspirin charges alone will reach 5 figures...it sounds crazy, but could 100k be considered discount?

    The waiting is to be expected in a universal coverage country...the screw-ups I think could happen anywhere.  Last time I was in the ER I couldn't get a decent blanket out of them either, and the sick were on gurneys lining the halls, waiting for rooms.


    I am sure that some of the costs (none / 0) (#10)
    by BTAL on Mon Apr 11, 2011 at 03:21:41 PM EST
    are/have been absorbed by the NHS due to their billing system.  

    Then there was the "silly" costs.  Every pays for parking at all the hospitals.  They outsource the enforcement and the fees are not cheap.

    Then something as silly as phone and TV are a pay for service and outsourced.  I fully understand that TV is not a medical necessity, but when someone is stuck in a hospital bed for days and weeks, even soap operas can be a welcome distraction.  Again, an outsourced service that wasn't cheap.

    Thanks for the kind words.


    Silly costs (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by MO Blue on Mon Apr 11, 2011 at 03:27:30 PM EST
    Don't know where you live but many hospitals in MO, particularly in cities, require you pay for parking and the fees are not cheap.

    Yep (none / 0) (#15)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Apr 11, 2011 at 03:28:48 PM EST
    same here in Ga. Sometimes if you go to the doctor's office, they will stamp it and you can get out for free but when visiting the hospital you almost always have to pay for parking.

    At one of the major cancer centers (none / 0) (#29)
    by MO Blue on Mon Apr 11, 2011 at 03:40:01 PM EST
    you only receive 50% off for doctors visits. When the doctors visits are combined with numerous tests, you can be there for a half a day or more. You do receive 100% off for chemo and radiation treatments.

    They (none / 0) (#40)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Apr 11, 2011 at 03:49:43 PM EST
    will find every way they can to squeeze a penny out of you wont' they?

    There is a 50/50 chance that (none / 0) (#48)
    by MO Blue on Mon Apr 11, 2011 at 04:00:14 PM EST
    all the parking facilities by the hospital complexes are privately owned and not owned by the hospital. They are in a commercial area of the city where there is no "free parking" anywhere around. Either parking lots or parking meters.

    I have (none / 0) (#13)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Apr 11, 2011 at 03:27:47 PM EST
    been in hospitals in the US where they charge you for having a television. I distinctly remember this because when I was in the hospital having my oldest son I guess they told me up front (I don't really remember whether they did or not) but I do remember getting a bill from the hospital and the EOB from the insurance company saying they would not cover TV.

    I don't remember whether they charged me for the phone or not. Either way, with cell phones that's not a big deal anymore.


    When I had my children you had to rent the TV (none / 0) (#24)
    by MO Blue on Mon Apr 11, 2011 at 03:36:09 PM EST
    Now every room has one TV per person whether you want one or not. In a 13 seat chemo pod, there will be 13 TVs and the hospital has numerous chemo pods. The costs for the TVs are built into the cost of the rooms whether you use the TV or not.

    Since I prefer not to watch TV and find having 1 to 12 TVs going non stop annoying, I would prefer to go back to having lower room costs and people renting TVs.


    Pay for those here, too (none / 0) (#20)
    by Yman on Mon Apr 11, 2011 at 03:30:02 PM EST
    TV, phone and parking are also billed separately at hospitals here, too.

    Yikes! Sounds like a nightmare, (5.00 / 2) (#18)
    by Anne on Mon Apr 11, 2011 at 03:29:22 PM EST
    but I'm glad your wife is okay; what an ordeal.

    Also glad you had family there - doesn't everyone of a certain age dread the possibility of falling ill away from home?

    Worse, I keep thinking about your wife not really being in a position to grieve the loss of her sister in the moment, but having to deal with it while trying to recover from major health problem.

    Best wishes to you both (it's hard in a different way on those at the bedside, unable to do much but keep eyes and ears opem, ask questions, etc. - but exhausting nonetheless).

    Better days!


    BTAL, thoughts and (5.00 / 1) (#119)
    by jeffinalabama on Mon Apr 11, 2011 at 06:17:04 PM EST
    prayers and positive energy directed toward you and mrs. BTAL. I hope recovery comes quickly!

    Well (none / 0) (#3)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Apr 11, 2011 at 03:06:55 PM EST
    I guess you should be thankful that it didn't happen in a third world country.

    I hope your Mrs. is doing better.

    A friend of mine had the same almost fatal prescription thing here. The doctor was getting ready to give her a shot of penicillin (she is highly allergic) and had not read her chart. The nurse caught it and when the doctor realized that he had almost killed a patient he began shaking.


    Re: 3rd world county (none / 0) (#8)
    by BTAL on Mon Apr 11, 2011 at 03:16:54 PM EST
    First I agree and am also thankful that there was the infrastructure of family (housing, food, transportation) vs being on a vacation.

    When dealing with BC/BS International, they explained a service they provide in which they open a case and assign a team of nurses/practitioners who contact by phone the foreign hospital and nurses to monitor the treatment.  IMHO, it is probably a two-part system.  One to protect their customer but also to make sure the foreign providers don't over treat for the billable income.


    Good luck (none / 0) (#19)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Apr 11, 2011 at 03:29:48 PM EST
    with BCBS. BCBS of GA is crap. I have had nightmares dealing with them paying bills etc.

    BTAL, that's a harrowing story (none / 0) (#32)
    by shoephone on Mon Apr 11, 2011 at 03:43:13 PM EST
    I hope your wife recovers soon, and that you both have time and peace to grieve the loss of her sister.

    For what it's worth, my grandmother's doctor in California nearly killed her by prescibing a medication that had already been banned by the FDA, for causing liver failure. Indeed, after three days on the drug, her liver started shutting down. It was a very close call.


    What a horror story... (none / 0) (#117)
    by desertswine on Mon Apr 11, 2011 at 06:14:08 PM EST
    I hope the both of you are recovering well!

    Funny comment by ABG in the (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by observed on Mon Apr 11, 2011 at 04:03:18 PM EST
    earlier thread which I couldn't respond to.
    He compared my remark about Reagan cheating in debates with Carter to anger over how Obama was nominated.
    Question: does he not know the facts from 1980, or was that comparison a tell?
    I kind of think it's the latter.

    I think it's both (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by sj on Mon Apr 11, 2011 at 04:05:23 PM EST
    A material portion (none / 0) (#57)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Mon Apr 11, 2011 at 04:11:09 PM EST
    of the supporters of the losing team always argues that the winners cheated.

    As my friends in college would say, Hater-aid is a drink that doesn't refresh but is consumed wherever competitions are held.

    And yeah, I know the facts of the 1980 election. You should read up on Ted Kennedy and how he grabbed Carter's book.  


    Still waiting to hear how Kennedy (5.00 / 2) (#70)
    by observed on Mon Apr 11, 2011 at 04:31:09 PM EST
    stole Carter's debate book.
    I know you toss around bizarre "facts" like confetti, but this one really needs explanation.

    I'm curious, too ... (5.00 / 1) (#74)
    by Yman on Mon Apr 11, 2011 at 04:45:17 PM EST
    ... but don't hold your breath.

    Usually, when he gets caught making it up, he just ignores it and moves on to another commentor/thread.


    Or maybe (none / 0) (#77)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Mon Apr 11, 2011 at 04:47:15 PM EST
    I post like a madman on this forum lately and can't respond to every question or retort directly.

    What is "The likely answer" for $500 Alex?


    The former (5.00 / 3) (#81)
    by Yman on Mon Apr 11, 2011 at 05:00:26 PM EST
    I, and others, have repeatedly pointed out when you've made factually false statements.

    Guess which posts you never respond to ...


    No problem (none / 0) (#76)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Mon Apr 11, 2011 at 04:46:11 PM EST


    Maybe you should just become comfortable with the idea that I know a lot of bizarre facts.


    "Facts"? Not so much (5.00 / 2) (#79)
    by Yman on Mon Apr 11, 2011 at 04:57:52 PM EST
    "Bizarre"? - sure.

    BTW - Corbin denied (under oath) taking the books, and Shirley's accusations have never been established.  IIRC, Carter also accused George Will of stealing the debate book.


    Doesn't Will acknowledge that he (none / 0) (#82)
    by observed on Mon Apr 11, 2011 at 05:00:52 PM EST
    used the debate book, or at least not deny it?

    Yep - he acknowledges ... (none / 0) (#120)
    by Yman on Mon Apr 11, 2011 at 06:17:44 PM EST
    ... looking at the book, but he denies stealing it.

    Right, he acknowledges cheating. (none / 0) (#169)
    by observed on Tue Apr 12, 2011 at 07:55:16 AM EST
    All of that is true (none / 0) (#84)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Mon Apr 11, 2011 at 05:02:42 PM EST
    But I still believe Corbin stole it.

    Your unsubstantiated beliefs (5.00 / 3) (#92)
    by MO Blue on Mon Apr 11, 2011 at 05:18:42 PM EST
    are not the facts that you claimed in your earlier comment repeated below.

    And yeah, I know the facts of the 1980 election. You should read up on Ted Kennedy and how he grabbed Carter's book.



    No, what I'm used to is the casual (none / 0) (#78)
    by observed on Mon Apr 11, 2011 at 04:50:36 PM EST
    way you use links which don't support your point.
    You claimed that Kennedy stole the briefing books. That is not what your link claims, even indirectly.

    Also, going back to the original point: you make a comparison between sore Democrats in 1980, and sore Dems after the primaries. Well, Reagan DID cheat, as everyone acknowledges. Most people also realize that he made a deal with Iran before the election. And you have the .. what is the Yiddish word for this combination of chutzpah and totally jarring inconsistency?.. to compare the cases, as if that lets Obama off the hook?


    Right (1.00 / 1) (#83)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Mon Apr 11, 2011 at 05:02:15 PM EST
    Because for Kennedy to have stolen the book, what you are looking for is evidence that Ted Kennedy personally walked into Jimmy Carter's office with a ski mask Mission Impossible style and swiped the book and then hand delivered it to Ronald Reagan with a smiley face.

    The fact that Kennedy's closest advisor and confident gave the book to Reagan is COMPLETELY different.

    Because I bet that one of Kennedy's closets confidants would never tell Kennedy that he was sabotaging the man Kennedy hated with a passion?

    I guess that is one possibility.

    Anyway, we are talking here about cheaters.  My only point is that any time someone loses, there is a supporter of the loser somewhere that says he cheated, particularly in politics.

    No one ever wants to believe that their candidate wasn't as good. There is always a scapegoat.


    That doesn't mean that cheating doesn't happen. It just means that a person who didn't support Obama claiming that he cheated is pretty much expected.


    Look, man. There is something wrong in your head. (none / 0) (#86)
    by observed on Mon Apr 11, 2011 at 05:05:58 PM EST
    You are so emotional, and have such strong preconceptions, you are unwilling to debate honestly.
    Everyone MUST agree with all of your presuppositions COMPLETELY or they are dishonest, don't care about poor people, don't want the fabulous gifts of ACA, etc.
    Let's take the points in order.
    ONE person, 30 years after the fact, accuses someone of stealing the books.
    The person was not Kennedy's closest advisor, as you correct later.
    You leap from Shirley's article to a direct accusation against Kennedy which is not even in the article you present.
    It's a pure conspiracy theory mindset. You know what happened, and facts be damned, unless they support your theory.

    I am willing to debate honestly (none / 0) (#99)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Mon Apr 11, 2011 at 05:33:18 PM EST
    but dude you just said that John McCain was as good a campaigner as Barack Obama and didn't even giggle when you did it.  You lose all ability to criticize anyone on debating honestly after that.  The man was a rock star.  John McCain was not.

    Here is my thing:

    I admit that I am a huge Obama fan. Straight off the top. You know my deal. That allows me to admit when it influences my thinking.  I am up front about it.  It's a fair criticism whenever I get it.

    What's silly is when "serious TL commenters" claim to have The Truth and know exactly what democrats think, should think, or would think if they only had the facts.

    Me. I have more faith in my democratic bretheren.  They are, for the most part, pragmatic, more knowledgable than conservatives and better able to separate the truth from the BS.

    I start with the default that democrats aren't stupid.  And let's be clear. People here calling Obama a republican for doing what most dems want him to do are pretty much calling the majority of democrats stupid.  

    Which is fine. Free country.  But let's call it what it is.  When a minority of the party is calling an action supported by most democrats a complete sell-out, conservative takeover, etc., that's what you are saying.  Every dem that signed onto the deal is a conservative who doesn't care about 98% of the country. All of them, right? They are all Hannity's.

    But don't get mad when those same democrats, the ones you imply are stupid or traitors or whatever, start ignoring the rants from the left and align themselves with independents to get stuff done.  I mean that's the trade off. You dismiss them as ignorant and then they start dismissing you right back.

    Then, at some unfortunate point, it will dawn on the far left that they need moderates and independents to do anything.

    It will be an odd day to see democrats elated by Obama's re-election while a weirdly disconnected group of democrats is neutral or unhappy.

    It'll be odd but somewhat familiar unfortunately.


    ABG, a question... (5.00 / 2) (#104)
    by jeffinalabama on Mon Apr 11, 2011 at 05:39:14 PM EST
    in everything but the debates, he didn't seem to say anything of substance. That was one of my major issues.

    If I wanted a rock star, I'd support Springsteen. Obama can't play guitar.

    If I wanted homilies, I'd ask for some religious leader.

    He performed the bait and switch. Or perhaps he just flat out performed a flim-flam, a confidence game.

    I do not trust him to operate in the interests of democrats or democratic policies.

    I don't care if he fired up crowds-- anyone can do that with proper crowd stimulation. I care what he does or does not do.

    Hope this doesn't seem like piling on, but he was long on hat but short on cattle.


    okay, no real question in the above (5.00 / 1) (#105)
    by jeffinalabama on Mon Apr 11, 2011 at 05:39:55 PM EST
    here's the question: What does Obama stand for?

    I was quite skeptical (none / 0) (#138)
    by Politalkix on Mon Apr 11, 2011 at 08:40:46 PM EST
    initially about the Obama candidacy but some of his answers in debates made me like him more than others. I can remember the debate (very early one) where HRC and him were asked whether they would remove nukes from the table if OBL was detected to be in Pakistan and the Pakistani govt refused to give him up. Obama said "yes", he would use conventional weapons. To my surprise HRC said "No". To more surprise, the media pundits agreed with HRC's answer. His answers on other areas of foreign policy and his views about the world were also more to my liking than that of any other candidate.
    Each of us form our own opinion. IMO, "the long on hat, short on cattle" is completely unfair. I think that he is very intelligent and well informed. I have read his books and I agree with a lot of his thinking. He really looks at things from a variety of angles which is a desirable quality in leaders. I listened to him during the primaries, I really do not think that he played this "confidence game" based on what he said about himself or what he wrote in his books.
    (You also should remember that a lot of things that he said preceded the financial collapse that he inherited).
    We, as a country, are going through difficult times. I have been quite unhappy about a few of his decisions during the last couple of years. However, I do feel that he is judged by a completely unfair standard by a lot of people in this blog. Let us not lose sight of objectivity in judging people, let us also shed this arrogance of pretending to know what is best for everyone. I cannot remember him saying that he wanted to take the United States back to its Great Deal economy which a lot of you seem to want. As I have said before, I am quite unhappy with the tax deal that he signed during the lame duck session of Congress but would wait to see him complete his term before rendering judgement on his Presidency.
    The Democratic Party is a big tent party, so I will also request you to refrain from defining terms such as "interests of democrats" or "democratic policies" on behalf of everyone in the party.

    You weren't listening (none / 0) (#139)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Mon Apr 11, 2011 at 09:00:29 PM EST
    He said he was going to govern as a moderate at take bipartisanship seriously and he is.

    That was the "change". I think many people never got that "change" didn't mean "move to the far left".

    Fundamentally that is the difference in perceptions that has us speaking at odds. He was plenty substantive and he's done much of what he said he'd do.


    ABG, in that case, (5.00 / 3) (#145)
    by jeffinalabama on Mon Apr 11, 2011 at 09:32:46 PM EST
    I'[ll not reply to you again, since Obama has been as bad, if not worse, than Bush.

    Obama isn't the alternative to something worse. He EMBODIES something worse. He should be ashamed, but he is incapable of shame... process has taken over policy. Passing something, even if bad, is more important than protecting the electorate.

    I mean no offense to you personally, but my thoughts run thus: Another Obama presidency offers little difference from many, if not most, of the republican pretenders. I will not be party to a democrat running to gut the New Deal.

    At the end of the day, one must stand for something, or one falls for everything. "Compromise" doesn't signify any goal, only process.

    I regret that the president is empty. My saying he is empty didn't make it so, his actions have.

    Good luck with your re-election. We need some real candidate. I predict a crushing two years of job loss and disaffection based on what Obama has done.

    I allow you and his followers to reap the whirlwind.


    A good many of us heard him loud and clear (5.00 / 1) (#150)
    by shoephone on Mon Apr 11, 2011 at 10:12:32 PM EST
    during the campaign. We knew exactly what he was, and that's why we didn't support him in the primaries. But, as I recall, our early lack of faith in him is what makes you the "angry" man that you are.

    Nope (1.00 / 2) (#184)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Tue Apr 12, 2011 at 11:22:46 AM EST
    What made me angry was the fact that Hillary got beaten fair and square and some people couldn't handle it.

    Then people like Geraldine Ferraro and PUMAs started making it about sexism while simultaneously using racism and ABG was created.

    Not to restart that whole thing, but it really is times like these that it warms my heart that Obama won.


    You wouldn't know sexism (none / 0) (#189)
    by nycstray on Tue Apr 12, 2011 at 12:07:35 PM EST
    if it bit you in the a**.

    just sayin'.


    He said a lot of things (none / 0) (#151)
    by Yman on Mon Apr 11, 2011 at 10:26:39 PM EST
    Mostly vague and ambiguous, depending upon his audience.  But on those rare occasions where he did speak "substantively" (i.e. give specifics), he took many positions that he's since betrayed:

    Public option
    Open HCR hearings
    NAFTA reforms
    Closing Guantanamo
    Ban on lobbyists
    Repealing the Bush tax cuts
    Allowing imported prescription drugs
    Cutting earmarks
    Windfall profits for oil companies
    Immigration reform ...

    Of course, "change" is a nice slogan for an election, because it means different things to different people.  The problem, of course, is that, after you're elected, all of those same people expect you to live up to their definition of "change".

    Heh ...


    Honest debate? Funniest line of the day. (5.00 / 1) (#114)
    by Anne on Mon Apr 11, 2011 at 06:03:56 PM EST
    And pardon me if I don't accept your rules on when and why people lose "all credibility;" it's getting to the point where failing to dot an "i" or cross a "t" is enough for you - but then, what else do you have?

    The only thing most TL commenters know for sure is what they, individually, think, and most of us are pretty clear that we speak for ourselves only.  You won't see a lot of poll-citing here, for the very reason that we are more concerned with expressing our individual views than in trying to make polls work for us.

    You keep saying that most Dems want Obama to do what he's doing, but you never address the question of whether that is approval in the specific, or the general.  Just like this latest poll-recital, where you would have us believe that it means something that some percentage of Democrats approve of this latest deal when no one even knows the details of it.  What are Dems saying about whether they want Obama to fix entitlements, if fixing them means a loss of benefits?  What are they saying about whether they want heating assistance to the poor reduced, or progams that support child nutrition cut?

    Do you care at all about the policy?  I see that occasionally, you express your own dissatisfaction with what's happening, but what does that mean if you aren't willing to do anything about it, other than keep voting for it?

    Independents are not going along for this ride to anywhere near the extent they did in 2008.  I read an article in the Post yesterday, about a college student who campaigned for Obama in 2008; what's he doing this year?  Working to draft Mitch Daniels to run for president.  Mitch Daniels, the Republican.  Ancedotal, but instructive that Obama's not going to be able to count on any particular demographic as he did in 2008.

    You're singing from the same songbook that Obama's been singing from: "we don't need you."

    Seems like a pretty dismissive attitude from someone who says - says - he wants to hear from everyone.  And, since you are the guy who wants as many people in the tent as possible, you need to make up your mind: if you don't want to hear what we have to say, ignore us at your peril.


    No poll (none / 0) (#140)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Mon Apr 11, 2011 at 09:01:37 PM EST
    References here? Really?

    I don't think that will take long to disprove. How about we keep track of that, eh.


    Your comment reads : (none / 0) (#90)
    by observed on Mon Apr 11, 2011 at 05:13:02 PM EST
    "Sure, Obama cheated. Get over it".
    You don't even have the energy to deny it anymore.

    Where does it read that again? (none / 0) (#98)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Mon Apr 11, 2011 at 05:22:47 PM EST
    ABG is fast ... (none / 0) (#91)
    by Robot Porter on Mon Apr 11, 2011 at 05:14:13 PM EST
    becoming the Eddie Haskell of TL posters.

    I am (none / 0) (#93)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Mon Apr 11, 2011 at 05:19:36 PM EST
    I need someone to take up my slack.  

    If there were just one or two commenters with a slightly more moderate position, I wouldn't feel compelled to defend 2/3 of the democrats from charges that they have no idea what they are talking about and need to stop being so ignorant.


    I don't think this is quite the place where (5.00 / 3) (#106)
    by Anne on Mon Apr 11, 2011 at 05:41:25 PM EST
    you want to go throwing around charges of ignorance, but if that's how you want to go with this, I guess you'll just have to be prepared - too bad preparation does not seem to be your strong suit.

    This just isn't a place where you can throw things out there without someone checking them for veracity.  And calling you on it when it's clear someone is just talking out of his or her a$$.

    But, if you're going to take that approach, you might want to stick around to answer for some of the things you post.  Case in point: the other day you insisted that the health-whatever bill wasn't written by lobbyists.  I sent you to a site where the lobbyist/legislator connections were mapped out.  

    You never responded.


    Anne (none / 0) (#109)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Mon Apr 11, 2011 at 05:46:30 PM EST
    You were charging those who do not agree with you with ignorance.


    Anyway, I know that I post a lot and all but the fact that I don't respond to every question or request made of me here either means i didn't see it or don't have the time.

    The healthcare bill, like almost every bill of substance that goes through congress, was written with the help of lobbyists.  I am sure of that.


    Uh, no...people can disagree with me all (5.00 / 3) (#116)
    by Anne on Mon Apr 11, 2011 at 06:12:33 PM EST
    they want; what I object to is failure to to take advantage of information that's readily available to educate themselves.  Big difference.

    And, for the record, you insisted that there was no way the health whatever bill was written by lobbyists.


    Or, despite prolific posting ... (5.00 / 2) (#122)
    by Yman on Mon Apr 11, 2011 at 06:28:14 PM EST
    Anyway, I know that I post a lot and all but the fact that I don't respond to every question or request made of me here either means i didn't see it or don't have the time.

    ... you just happen to fail to respond to all the posts where you've been proven factually wrong.

    Guess which one is more believable?


    Is there a post here (none / 0) (#185)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Tue Apr 12, 2011 at 11:26:11 AM EST
    where I have been proven right and you admitted that was the case.

    I don't see anyone raising their hands to be at the head of the "I was wrong" line, so spare me th command that I fall on the sword and beg apologies.

    in any event, you saying that I was wrong doesn't mean that I agree with your analysis and I am sure the feeling is mutual, so step down off the horse. I know it's high and all but you can come down now.


    Well, there is (5.00 / 2) (#146)
    by NYShooter on Mon Apr 11, 2011 at 09:33:58 PM EST
    ignorance, which is in some form, understandable, and then there's useful idiocy, which, imo, is not.

    By the way, even supposing you are (none / 0) (#80)
    by observed on Mon Apr 11, 2011 at 05:00:18 PM EST
    correct that Kennedy ordered the Carter debate books stolen (unsupported as the idea is), it only lends support to my claim that the problem with Kennedy was that he was a bad candidate, and this was the problem with his challenging Carter.

    Name a candidate better on the trail (none / 0) (#85)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Mon Apr 11, 2011 at 05:03:21 PM EST
    than Obama then.

    Take your time.  I'll wait.


    Easy. Hillary Clinton. (5.00 / 5) (#87)
    by observed on Mon Apr 11, 2011 at 05:08:14 PM EST
    That didn't take two seconds.
    It was completely clear to every single observer that by late Spring 2008, Hillary was by far the strongest campaigner.
    I didn't even have to go to a different year to find an example.

    Except (none / 0) (#94)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Mon Apr 11, 2011 at 05:20:04 PM EST
    she lost.

    That took 1 second.


    No (5.00 / 3) (#102)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Apr 11, 2011 at 05:36:13 PM EST
    the party picked Obama. It was the delegates that decided on Obama because neither one of them had the numbers by themselves.

    Whatever. Too bad they did such a poor job picking. The GOP couldn't have picked a better foil all by themselves.

    Maybe after the Obama disaster the party will change the nominating system.


    This comment is why I am done with you. (5.00 / 2) (#166)
    by observed on Tue Apr 12, 2011 at 07:43:25 AM EST
    Don't expect any more responses from me about anything.
    1) You didn't address my assertion, which is that Hillary was the better campaigner by late Spring, as everyone acknowledged.
    Obama's big months were earlier, and he was in trouble by June, relatively speaking.

    1. Even taking the whole of the primary season into account, she was clearly the better campaigner. Obama would have been toast without the caucuses. He won the caucuses because of organization, not because of his personal campaigning. In states where regular ballots determined the winner, he lost big.

    2. We don't know if he really won or not, because no honest count was allowed at the convention.
    Face it, man, the reason you keep on harping about how losers gripe at cheating is that you have a guilty conscience.

    No one among them was the better campaigner (none / 0) (#170)
    by Politalkix on Tue Apr 12, 2011 at 07:55:36 AM EST
    Demographics was key. If HRC was the better campaigner, she would have won NC and OR where primaries were held very late in the season (not WV and KY which she could have never won in the general elections). She was a better campaigner among white working class voters, BHO was a better campaigner among younger and college educated demographics.
    Observed-please stop saying things like "as everyone acknowledged". it only shows that your world is very small.

    LOL.. it's a little tongue in cheek, (none / 0) (#182)
    by observed on Tue Apr 12, 2011 at 09:14:15 AM EST
    Apparently you're not very familiar with ABG's asides. BTW,  I had a question for you.
    Can you tell me in which debate Hillary said she would not take nukes off the table re Afghanistan and Bin Laden? I'd like to know.

    Regarding nukes (reply to post # 182) (none / 0) (#183)
    by Politalkix on Tue Apr 12, 2011 at 10:31:06 AM EST

    Please see link. The debate was held some time during the summer of 2007. I will try to find the full transcript if possible. I watched the entire debate on television.


    I'll check in a while. That's very (none / 0) (#188)
    by observed on Tue Apr 12, 2011 at 12:00:06 PM EST
    informative, esp. about the timing.
    When Samantha ...? wrote her editorial on "conventional foreign policy" in Aug. 2007, she touched on exactly this point.

    Observed (none / 0) (#186)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Tue Apr 12, 2011 at 11:28:37 AM EST
    You've done nothing other than disrespect my opposing opinion anyway. What am I missing?

    I am happy to engage you because i am an adult and don't take my toys and go him when someone disagrees with me, but if you can't handle that, it's cool.

    PS: Obama won fair and square. Sorry.


    Roy Jones - '88 Olympics (none / 0) (#125)
    by Yman on Mon Apr 11, 2011 at 06:56:39 PM EST
    Half a second.

    I would say that John McCain was about (none / 0) (#88)
    by observed on Mon Apr 11, 2011 at 05:09:52 PM EST
    equal with Obama as a campaigner, objectively speaking.

    And with this (none / 0) (#96)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Mon Apr 11, 2011 at 05:21:33 PM EST

    "I would say that John McCain was about equal with Obama as a campaigner, objectively speaking."

    The defense rests your honor.


    cripes ABG (5.00 / 3) (#121)
    by DFLer on Mon Apr 11, 2011 at 06:20:00 PM EST
    you posted some 23 or so times on the Monday Morning open thread, and now up to 27 times on the Monday Afternoon open thread.

    You're hogging all the bandwidth. Give us a break!


    Oh come on (5.00 / 3) (#130)
    by lilburro on Mon Apr 11, 2011 at 07:23:56 PM EST
    I don't always agree with ABG but I don't understand why he tends to make people around here so irate.  Having a different point of view leads to good discussion.

    hahaha (5.00 / 5) (#137)
    by CST on Mon Apr 11, 2011 at 08:39:08 PM EST
    no kidding.

    Speaking of which, anyone know what happened to squeaky?

    Now those were some "irate" threads :)

    Between squeaky, creamcity, and steve m we've lost some very strong/unique opinions around here for various reasons.

    Not, IMO, a good thing.


    creamcity is back as towanda (5.00 / 1) (#142)
    by Politalkix on Mon Apr 11, 2011 at 09:11:07 PM EST
    that is what i think.
    Miss squeaky and steve m.

    Steve M is missed (5.00 / 2) (#143)
    by MO Blue on Mon Apr 11, 2011 at 09:25:45 PM EST
    He was always well informed and used facts and logic to argue his points. Even when I didn't agree with his POV on an issue, the debate was interesting and informative.

    I don't know (none / 0) (#141)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Mon Apr 11, 2011 at 09:03:56 PM EST
    The people you referenced but can someone get them back?

    I need back up.


    LOL (5.00 / 5) (#149)
    by shoephone on Mon Apr 11, 2011 at 10:07:55 PM EST
    You want back up from Cream City? She would baste you, broil you, slice you up, and eat you for lunch.

    I take it she wasn't a fan (none / 0) (#187)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Tue Apr 12, 2011 at 11:29:29 AM EST
    of Obama.

    of course liburro, but (5.00 / 1) (#160)
    by DFLer on Tue Apr 12, 2011 at 01:02:26 AM EST
    My comment was not directed at anyone's point of view....just at the volume of the often nitpicking  posts and responses either by ABG or in response to AGB.

    The morning OT got closed out early, robbing other folks who maybe had something else to say. It becomes like a chatroom on facebook. If one doesn't have the opportunity to track the convo every minute...you're out of luck. No big deal...nor a 1st amendment issue. I'll go back to silent reading. Frack it.


    Well that's not one person's fault (none / 0) (#174)
    by lilburro on Tue Apr 12, 2011 at 08:20:04 AM EST
    and in fact your original comment only mentioned one poster.  It's an open thread.  People can discuss what they want.  That's how it goes.

    you're right and I remedied that in the second (5.00 / 1) (#175)
    by DFLer on Tue Apr 12, 2011 at 08:39:34 AM EST
    post...not one guy.

    ABG in his defense of Obama (5.00 / 1) (#168)
    by MO Blue on Tue Apr 12, 2011 at 07:54:35 AM EST
    has a tendency to state "facts" which are not facts. Yesterday's goodie:

    And yeah, I know the facts of the 1980 election. You should read up on Ted Kennedy and how he grabbed Carter's book.

    Links are always absent when ABG present one of his great facts. When pressed for a link, the link provided did not substantiate ABG's fact but more or less disproved it.  

    Other goodies in the last week or so were that 1) Obama appointed the FIRST woman to head the DNC and 2)the Obama health insurance legislation was the same as the 1960's Ted Kennedy plan.

    Debbie Wasserman Schultz is the third woman to head the DNC and Kennedy's 1960's health care plan was for nationwide health care centers. This is SOP.  

    ABG has a whole play book of discounting and distraction techniques which he employs throughout his comments. I thought these techniques were a dishonest debating tactics and disliked them when they were used by Republicans and my opinion has not changed.

    ABG goes from claiming to be a liberal to deriding liberals and their policies. Many times these claims are in the same thread. Obama would be proud of how well ABG kicks the DFH.

    From my point of view, ABG's comments on the consequences of Obama's policies are the most troubling. According to ABG, it is regrettable that poor people will suffer from Obama's policies but those policies are necessary for Obama to be reelected.  

    I do not claim that my views are the views of others on this site. As BTB would say, "Speaking only for me."


    Does this really matter? (none / 0) (#173)
    by vicndabx on Tue Apr 12, 2011 at 08:10:57 AM EST
    Must it be so personal? From what I remember; and I chime in here only because you used my link to pull out selective points to support your argument, ABG's point in general was Kennedy's position changed to support something that was very similar to ACA when it was reported he was working w/Nixon.  I posted links in support of that argument.  Of course Kennedy originally wanted something much different.  He did until his death.  IMO, the fact that he wanted something different is not remarkable.  Bigger deal is that he came to support something that had broader support - as evidenced by reporting and his remarks about his earlier chances w/Nixon.

    Nitpicking over minor details like what was in Kennedy's 1960 plan is IMO, counter productive, and as you say, distracting, when there is a larger point being discussed.  Fact is you were both wrong, since he wasn't elected until 1962.  Thus there was no 1960 plan at all.


    I don't share your view that it is (5.00 / 2) (#179)
    by MO Blue on Tue Apr 12, 2011 at 08:49:47 AM EST
    "nitpicking over minor details." It is not a one time instance or one technique employed. I view ABG's tactics as a dishonest way to debate. Personally, I think these types of debating techniques are one of causes of the many problems that face this country since they prevent people from getting a honest and factual view of what is happening in this country and the real consequences of the legislation that is passed.    

    It was a misplaced ' on my part. (none / 0) (#180)
    by MO Blue on Tue Apr 12, 2011 at 08:56:46 AM EST
    I and ABG were both referring to the health care plan that Kennedy supported during the 60s. IIRC the plan was presented around 1966.

    desperation . . . perhaps? (none / 0) (#123)
    by nycstray on Mon Apr 11, 2011 at 06:44:37 PM EST
    Um. Please give me a reference. (none / 0) (#60)
    by observed on Mon Apr 11, 2011 at 04:17:24 PM EST
    I don't know what you're talking about.

    Apropos of nothing, (5.00 / 5) (#112)
    by jeffinalabama on Mon Apr 11, 2011 at 05:48:17 PM EST
    I told my department chair today he can find me in the gym for two-three hours daily from now till end of contract. It's on campus, and any student is welcome to find me while I'm doing crunches and pumping iron.

    Time to be gray, balding, old, and buff!

    House Dems make their own budget (5.00 / 1) (#156)
    by lilburro on Mon Apr 11, 2011 at 11:53:24 PM EST
    or not...digby:

    House Democrats had already been preparing to release their own 2012 budget, under the leadership of Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), the ranking Democrat on the budget committee. The House Dems' budget plan had been in the works for weeks, as Van Hollen had been meeting with every major caucus in his party to craft an alternative to the Republicans' plan. Last week, the GOP's decision to push out Ryan's plan to radically alter Medicare and Medicaid in the middle of the 2011 budget fight threw Democrats for a loop. Now the news of Obama's speech has left Dems on Capitol Hill grappling with another unexpected turn of events that could force them to change their plans, as they won't want to be too out of sync with whatever Obama proposes.

    House Dems should be out there pushing a budget that Obama won't necessarily support.  The budget has been generally frustrating but if all the House Dems exist to do is peep "me too" after the President speaks, then they're being kind of useless.

    My WA State Dem has no qualms whatsoever (5.00 / 1) (#157)
    by shoephone on Tue Apr 12, 2011 at 12:15:39 AM EST
    about being "out of step with Obama." And that's why I like him. He's got a steel spine, and integrity to boot.

    Use to be really proud of my Rep. (none / 0) (#171)
    by MO Blue on Tue Apr 12, 2011 at 07:59:16 AM EST
    during the Bush administration. Now he is pretty much a rubber stamp for Obama taking positions completely opposite of his prior votes. Disgusted to say the least.

    For your late afternoon funnies (none / 0) (#4)
    by ruffian on Mon Apr 11, 2011 at 03:07:04 PM EST
    Chicks With Steve Buscemi Eyes. Creepiest: Hilary Swank with Steve Buscemi eyes.

    just saw that (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Apr 11, 2011 at 03:28:55 PM EST
    someone needs a hobby

    It looks like someone has one :) (none / 0) (#23)
    by republicratitarian on Mon Apr 11, 2011 at 03:34:20 PM EST
    Poor Hilary Swank looks like a zombie.

    Can't say I approve... (none / 0) (#12)
    by kdog on Mon Apr 11, 2011 at 03:27:42 PM EST
    or appreciate messin' with lovely likeness of Mila Kunis...thats just wrong:)

    Too creepy for words (none / 0) (#41)
    by sj on Mon Apr 11, 2011 at 03:50:20 PM EST
    But I disagree about Hillary Swank.  My vote for creepiest is three-way tie between Hallie Berry, Pink and Scarlett Johansson.

    Re: Paranoia (none / 0) (#6)
    by Harry Saxon on Mon Apr 11, 2011 at 03:10:59 PM EST

    Johann Hari sets sail with America's swashbuckling neocons

    The conversation ebbs back to friendly chit-chat. So, you're a European, one of the Park Avenue ladies says, before offering witty commentaries on the cities she's visited. Her companion adds, "I went to Paris, and it was so lovely." Her face darkens: "But then you think - it's surrounded by Muslims." The first lady nods: "They're out there, and they're coming." Emboldened, the bearded Floridian wags a finger and says, "Down the line, we're not going to bail out the French again." He mimes picking up a phone and shouts into it, "I can't hear you, Jacques! What's that? The Muslims are doing what to you? I can't hear you!"

    Click or Independent Me

    I know this is (none / 0) (#7)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Apr 11, 2011 at 03:15:51 PM EST
    ras but there aren't any other polls doing a strongly approve/strongly disaprove that I've been able to find
    Currently, just 37% of liberals Strongly Approve of the president's performance

    So according to that poll Obama's intensity rating is -20.

    Too Funny (none / 0) (#9)
    by NYShooter on Mon Apr 11, 2011 at 03:19:19 PM EST
    juxtapose Obamaa

    click THE DEAL

    Any opinions on the NFLPA-NFL litigation? (none / 0) (#14)
    by Makarov on Mon Apr 11, 2011 at 03:27:56 PM EST
    Judge Nelson ordered the parties to court-supervised mediation, which will begin in full on Thursday. The owners wanted to go back to DC with Cohen and the fed mediation service, which was probably more ploy to bolster their 'NFLPA really still is a union' argument than realistic.

    Nelson is expected to issue a ruling on the players' request for an injunction to end the lockout some time next week or the following.

    So far, the effects of the lockout include:

    1. No free agency prior to draft day (Apr 28)
    2. No access to team facilities impacting players coming off injuries
    3. Players forced to pay COBRA to continue their health insurance
    4. Some teams have layed off or cut wages/hours for staff and assistant coaches
    5. No roster bonuses paid and no off season training activities (OTA's)

    I still haven't found a transcript of last Thursday's hearing before judge Nelson. Owners' counsel David Boies spoke and answered questions for the majority of the time. From what I've read, Nelson did not seem swayed by Boies' argument or the owners' legal theories.

    It's possible Nelson will hold another hearing to evaluate the players' claim that the lockout is causing "irreparable harm", but the topic was argued in both the players' and owners' briefs to the court. "Irreparable harm" was discussed only once in the previous hearing, during Nelson's questioning of the players' counsel.

    I'm of the opinion Nelson will rule in favor of the players. If this happens next week, there could be a brief free agency period before the draft (round 1 on Apr 28, a Thursday night). That's something this Philadelphia fan is looking forward to (trading Kevin Kolb for a 2011 draft pick), but I still don't think it's likely.

    Meanwhile (none / 0) (#17)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Mon Apr 11, 2011 at 03:29:13 PM EST
    In the outside world:

    "A CNN/Opinion Research Corporation survey released Monday indicates that the budget agreement that prevented a government shutdown is popular, with Americans supporting it by a 58 to 38 percent margin. But there's a partisan divide, with two-thirds of Democrats and a majority of independent voters backing the deal, and Republicans divided."


    So let me get this straight.  Obama is a huge traitor to the democrats for a deal that an overwhelming majority of democrats and most independents support and most republicans don't like.


    Is this thing on?

    Get back to us after reality sets in. (5.00 / 3) (#21)
    by Anne on Mon Apr 11, 2011 at 03:32:06 PM EST
    I don't care what your polls say, or how many people today say they approve, the proof of the pudding is in the eating.

    And wait until people realize what kind of pudding it is...

    Popular support does not make bad policy better.


    Right (none / 0) (#25)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Mon Apr 11, 2011 at 03:36:20 PM EST
    What do people know about their own feelings?

    Wait. What?


    Since you provided no link to the poll, (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by Anne on Mon Apr 11, 2011 at 03:42:17 PM EST
    I will ask whether it was the avoidance of the shutdown that got the approval or the specific cuts agreed to so far.

    For weeks now, the media has been bombarding people with the dire consequences of a shutdown, and in the last few days before the agreement was reached, they hit them with "our heroes in uniform won't be paid!" and every other ooggeddy-boogeddy scare tactic, so it's hardly surprising to find support for avoiding the shutdown.

    As I said, the story will be told when people start feeling the consequences of The Deal 2.0.


    Link (none / 0) (#34)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Mon Apr 11, 2011 at 03:45:11 PM EST

    "Did the GOP leaders give up too much in the budget agreement? Only 25 percent of all Americans think so, but that figure rises to 50 percent among all Republicans," says Holland. "Did Obama and the Democrats in Congress give up too much? Only a third of Democrats feel that way."


    "Only a third of Democrats" (5.00 / 2) (#39)
    by shoephone on Mon Apr 11, 2011 at 03:49:41 PM EST
    Once again, this is not a good result for Obama. Fully a third of those in his own party oppose it.

    50 percent among all Republicans (none / 0) (#165)
    by Politalkix on Tue Apr 12, 2011 at 07:35:29 AM EST
    will think that saying "Hi" to a Democrat is giving up too much when "F**K You" can be said. One-third of Democrats will feel the same about saying "Hi" to a Republican.

    Bottom Line (none / 0) (#37)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Mon Apr 11, 2011 at 03:47:24 PM EST
    If unemployment continues to trend in the direction it has been, they'll be just fine.

    And if we all clap really, really hard, (5.00 / 5) (#47)
    by Anne on Mon Apr 11, 2011 at 03:57:32 PM EST
    we might be able to save Tinkerbell...

    There is just no way anyone believes this austerity plan is going to keep unemployment headed down and create jobs.

    Well, except you.  And Paul Ryan.  And - sorry - Obama.


    Why, why Anne (none / 0) (#63)
    by NYShooter on Mon Apr 11, 2011 at 04:22:06 PM EST
    do you bother?

    No one, not even our "representatives" in congress know what's in the deal (only delivered to them today)

    So what does a poll from the public mean? Nothing! Zero, Zilch, Nada

    We know whenever something "get's done" the knotheads posing as informed voters reflexively clap.

    p.s. certainly not referring to Mr. Angry


    You mean if unemployment declines ... (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by Yman on Mon Apr 11, 2011 at 04:12:10 PM EST
    ... because even more people have given up looking for work?

    Unfortunately, none of the net reduction in the US unemployment rate over the past year came from increases in the employment-to-population ratio; all of it came from declining labour-force participation.

    Unemployment has fallen from 10.1% over the course of the past 18 months, but the employment to-population ratio has remained stuck at 58.4%. Perhaps it would be better if unemployed people who could have jobs, and who at full employment would have them, were actively looking for work rather than out of the labour force completely.

    Not sure how that helps.


    See vivid graphic currently adorning ... (none / 0) (#111)
    by RonK Seattle on Mon Apr 11, 2011 at 05:47:30 PM EST
    ... the masthead of Brad deLong's blog.

    The question is (5.00 / 1) (#95)
    by lilburro on Mon Apr 11, 2011 at 05:20:33 PM EST
    will the unemployment number continue to trend down?  Will it do so fast enough?  Will the policies enabled by the budget lead to results that people like less than they thought they would?  Etc.

    My frustration with Obama is that someone so charismatic took office and then decided to be about as uncharismatic as possible.  That's disappointing.  And he appears content to play defense against the GOP.  Not much he can do about that right now, but the GOP got their tax cuts for the rich extended, and now they've got budget cuts larger than they initially imagined as well.  If Obama isn't able to change the strategy, the GOP will continue to rack up wins.  And that's not from my POV good for the country.


    I wonder if he loves campaining, (5.00 / 3) (#100)
    by jeffinalabama on Mon Apr 11, 2011 at 05:33:46 PM EST
    but doesn't care about governing. He wouldn't be the first leader in that position.

    Although we need leadership, a position, a set of positions, and we don't get them. The moveable feast keeps moving away from the people who need to eat.


    I think he loves the fund raisers (5.00 / 1) (#172)
    by MO Blue on Tue Apr 12, 2011 at 08:03:50 AM EST
    with the rich and famous, enjoys the rock concerts where he is the rock star and completely dislikes going to the rural areas and talking to ordinary folks.

    He doesn't (none / 0) (#103)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Apr 11, 2011 at 05:38:15 PM EST
    even like campaigning that much. Don't you remember him whining about how long the primary was going on and how "tired" he was. Then he started whining about the Presidential campaign. No, it's obvious that he likes giving speeches to cheering crowds and that seems to be about it as far as campaigning goes.

    It's hard work being the decider, (5.00 / 1) (#107)
    by jeffinalabama on Mon Apr 11, 2011 at 05:41:55 PM EST
    and hard work being the ace campaigner.

    Geez, why do we keep running slackers?


    You got (none / 0) (#108)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Apr 11, 2011 at 05:44:34 PM EST
    me. His behavior during '08 reminded me of W. in '00. W. wanted his pillow. Waaa. Obama's feet hurt waa...

    Really. I have ZERO sympathy for this kind of behavior when we've got millions unemployed right now.


    And now he's whining that he no longer can ... (5.00 / 4) (#113)
    by RonK Seattle on Mon Apr 11, 2011 at 05:53:26 PM EST
    ... get in the car, drive to the market, and squeeze the fruit.

    In past pursuits, he never stayed with anything long enough to leave a mark on it.

    What lies ahead?


    Where ya (none / 0) (#124)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Apr 11, 2011 at 06:54:40 PM EST
    been old pal? Great to run into you again.

    Gets (none / 0) (#126)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Apr 11, 2011 at 06:58:14 PM EST
    back to the age old question about Obama--why exactly did he want to be President? It surely wasn't he was passionate about policy. You know, he could've have had all the time he wanted if he had stayed a state senator in IL or even in the US Senate. He wanted the job and that's what comes with the job. Going to play golf isn't really much positive PR for him though.

    What do they know about what (5.00 / 2) (#42)
    by MO Blue on Mon Apr 11, 2011 at 03:50:39 PM EST
    was cut and how it effects them? It is impossible for the people to know because Congress doesn't know. The President and Congress agreed to a deal without knowing the details.

    But it became evident on Sunday that they had yet to work out the details of the agreement, which would cut roughly $38 billion from a federal budget expected to exceed $3.7 trillion this year.

    "You may not be surprised to hear this, but they're still sifting through the areas where they are going to make cuts," Representative Chris Van Hollen of Maryland, the senior Democrat on the House Budget Committee, said Sunday on the ABC News program "This Week."

    A Republican Congressional aide said on Sunday night that the House and Senate Appropriations Committees were still working on the fine points, since "thousands of budget line items have to be negotiated." link

    Are you kidding with this nonsense? (5.00 / 2) (#26)
    by shoephone on Mon Apr 11, 2011 at 03:37:15 PM EST
    You actually think that a THIRD of Democrats not supporting this deal is a GOOD thing for Obama?

    Through the Looking Glass.......


    Yeah. (none / 0) (#31)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Mon Apr 11, 2011 at 03:42:40 PM EST
    Actually that is pretty good given the situation.

    And denial ain't a river in Egypt. (none / 0) (#33)
    by shoephone on Mon Apr 11, 2011 at 03:44:16 PM EST
    Lock it up... (5.00 / 2) (#46)
    by kdog on Mon Apr 11, 2011 at 03:56:00 PM EST
    This thread is gonna fill up as fast as this mornings:)

    Can we just fast forward to 2013 and continue our empirical demise from that point in time?  

    Damn you Bukowski for being so damn perceptive...

    The difference between a democracy and a dictatorship is that in a democracy you vote first and take orders later; in a dictatorship you don't have to waste your time voting.

    Aprrove of What ? (5.00 / 2) (#54)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Apr 11, 2011 at 04:04:45 PM EST
    Not shutting the government down or the actual deal ?

    Because if you really believe anyone polled actually knows what was in the deal, your crazy.  The poll had to be taken yesterday, so the deal would have been closed for less than a day, a Sunday.

    You make loads of non-sense assumptions, but assuming that Americans know what is in the deal a day after it's reached on the weekend, is one of your most spectacular.

    This poll tells me democrats are happier the government didn't shut down than republicans.  Shocker.  Yet, you tied the numbers right to Obama, as if the question was about Obama, that leap is worthy of some sort of medal fo-sho.


    Well (none / 0) (#59)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Mon Apr 11, 2011 at 04:13:01 PM EST
    One way to argue against a poll is to say that the poll takers were stupid and don't know as much as you and if they knew as much as you they'd believe what you do.

    OK. Well technically that's right but ...


    Unless specifics are in the poll, the (5.00 / 2) (#62)
    by observed on Mon Apr 11, 2011 at 04:22:03 PM EST
    result is meaningless. If you ask someone "should we cut the size of the federal government", a big majority will say yes.
    If you then offer questions about cuts in SS, Medicare, etc.,
    that answer will become a big fat no.

    Again (1.00 / 2) (#65)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Mon Apr 11, 2011 at 04:24:18 PM EST
    I never hear this parsing of polls with respect to healthcare reform legislation around here.

    That's just a bizarre comment. (5.00 / 2) (#71)
    by observed on Mon Apr 11, 2011 at 04:33:26 PM EST
    Take it as a given that most people here don't care for ACA. We also know that you post many polls showing strong support for the bill.
    Are you saying that people here don't parse those polls? It makes no sense.
    You're in poor form today.

    Wrong (none / 0) (#61)
    by Yman on Mon Apr 11, 2011 at 04:19:32 PM EST
    The point is that people couldn't have an informed opinion of the budget deal because the "details" hadn't yet been defined.  The poll results merely show that a majority (of Dems, at least) were approving of the fact that the govt. wasn't shut down.

    But nice try at putting words in ScottW714's mouth ...


    But you have an informed opinion? (none / 0) (#67)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Mon Apr 11, 2011 at 04:24:43 PM EST
    Read it again ..... slooooooooowly (none / 0) (#73)
    by Yman on Mon Apr 11, 2011 at 04:40:56 PM EST
    Once again - the poll was taken only hours after the deal was reached.  No one, including the Congress, knew anything about the details of the detail, because they hadn't yet been spelled out.

    He//, - I'd be surprised if many of those respondents weren't just made aware of the deal when the pollster called them.

    Not sure how to make that any clearer.


    Is that what the poll (none / 0) (#64)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Mon Apr 11, 2011 at 04:23:31 PM EST
    tells you or is that the way you have to contort the poll to make it match your feelings.

    because the details of the poll are available you know.


    Again, I am not even saying that I agree with this budget deal.

    I just think that there are levels of criticism.

    Claiming that this deal was the result of a closet republican is just silly. Criticisms loose power if they overreach.


    These (none / 0) (#22)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Apr 11, 2011 at 03:32:21 PM EST
    generic polls don't tell you anything. I would like to know how many people like the details of "the deal".

    The opposite is true (none / 0) (#28)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Mon Apr 11, 2011 at 03:38:34 PM EST
    I am sure if you ask a democrat, he/she will dislike every part of the deal that most liberals dislike and vice versa.

    It's not even worth doing that.  What matters is how you see the plan as a whole.

    Anyway, what you are suggesting is an unfair tactic. A very slim majority doesn't like healthcare reform, but if you walk people trough it item by item, they love it.

    We should at least be consistent.


    What matters is whether it's good policy, (5.00 / 3) (#44)
    by Anne on Mon Apr 11, 2011 at 03:52:52 PM EST
    not how the politicians and media frame it.

    A "very slim majority" doesn't like the ACA?  I wouldn't be using that as selling point, but knock yourself out.

    And, I have no doubt that if you're the one walking people through the ACA, it is a real tiptoe through the tulips, but when people start understanding what it means to them in their real lives, not so much.

    I have yet to encounter anyone who "just loves" it - most are trying to figure out why insurance costs even more, and covers even less.


    You (none / 0) (#35)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Apr 11, 2011 at 03:46:50 PM EST
    don't know that. The poll is only doing "big picture" not details.

    Why does Obama have a -20 intensity rating according to the poll I linked to above?

    That's what I'm getting out. People like about 20% of the ACA but dislike the other 80% of it hence the over 50% who want it repealed. You can't say that people like the deal because we don't know what all the details are. When unemployment goes up next year due to the deal, are you going to be singing it's praises? Supply side economics have NEVER worked and they certainly aren't going to work this time.

    There's a reason that Obama has a -20 intensity rating and it's crap like this deal that do it.


    In order (none / 0) (#50)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Mon Apr 11, 2011 at 04:02:32 PM EST
    First, you referenced a Rasmussen poll t attack Obama? That's like referencing a Hannity survey to determine whether we should leave Iraq.  Give me another poll that is more reputable.

    Second, people like way more than 20% of Aca. As a matter of fact the only thing they don't like intensely is the mandate.  And who really likes a new tax?

    Earlier this week someone said that Obama was losing the support of younger voters.  That was similarly false:

    http://content.usatoday.com/communities/theoval/post/2011/03/obama-regains-poll-standing-with-young- people/1

    No need to turn this into a poll war, but my only point is that we are calling Obama a traitor and a republican for a deal the democrats overwhelmingly support.

    That should factor in to some degree in how we view this.


    he's (5.00 / 1) (#72)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Apr 11, 2011 at 04:36:05 PM EST
    only getting 38 freakin' percent of the 18-29 vote according to that poll and you think that's good??? That's horrid and 2 to 1 they think the country is headed in the WRONG direction.

    The reason I linked to Rasmussen is because he is the only one polling INTENSITY. INTENSITY is what caused the massive loss this pass November because Obama's top line numbers were not that bad. Don't you recall people discussing the "enthusiasm gap"? Well, it still exits and it is hugely against Obama.

    And if he's only got 67% support from Dems that is horrible. If he loses 1/3 of his voting base he's toast. Kerry got 80%, split independents with Bush and still lost. Obama's Hispanic numbers are down where Kerry's were in '04. To say these numbers are good is just delusional.


    Yes, it is worth doing that (none / 0) (#38)
    by shoephone on Mon Apr 11, 2011 at 03:47:35 PM EST
    You need to bone up on how polls are conducted. By claiming that specific questions about the deal aren't relevant, that only the the one question about "deal/or no deal?" matters, you deligitimize the result.

    Can we use that tactic (none / 0) (#51)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Mon Apr 11, 2011 at 04:02:58 PM EST
    On the polls referenced here on The Deal and ACA?

    Not really a traitor to the Dems (none / 0) (#36)
    by ruffian on Mon Apr 11, 2011 at 03:47:01 PM EST
    as it turns out...just not very good at job creation.

    Yeah (none / 0) (#43)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Apr 11, 2011 at 03:51:32 PM EST
    and he's giving us the same failed solutions from the past.

    Says who (none / 0) (#53)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Mon Apr 11, 2011 at 04:04:05 PM EST
    Employment numbers are beating projections held this time last year.

    Have you seen any projections on (none / 0) (#101)
    by Anne on Mon Apr 11, 2011 at 05:35:38 PM EST
    what the $38.5 billion in cuts will mean for jobs and the unemployment rate?

    If, as widely touted - by Democrats - the Republican plan to cut spending by $61 billion was going to cost some 700,000 jobs, where do you think almost $40 billion will take that number?  And is there something we should be cheered by that Obama's agreed-upon amounts are less than what the GOP was shooting for?

    And, remember, this isn't over - they're not done yet, according to Obama: this is just a start.

    I haven't seen you quoting Krugman lately - could that be because he thinks this is absolutely the wrong approach to move the economy forward?


    I've read (none / 0) (#144)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Mon Apr 11, 2011 at 09:28:12 PM EST
    A fair amount about the cuts now and I don't think people know exactly what they are talking about in terms of what is being cut.

    "Now" you've read about the cuts? (5.00 / 2) (#147)
    by Anne on Mon Apr 11, 2011 at 09:50:19 PM EST
    Assuming I even can believe you, which is doubtful, what you're saying is that, up to this point, all the cheerleading you've been doing, all the lecturing you've been doing about being good little Democrats, all the polls you've been dragging in here - that was all based on your not knowing anything about what was being proposed?

    Jesus Christ on a crutch.

    And in case all the "reading" you've been doing hasn't clued you in, all we really know is the dollar amount of the cuts - we still don't know what, specifically is on the chopping block.

    Honestly, how is it that you keep thinking you can toss off a statement like you just did and expect anyone to take you seriously?


    Could you give us a breakout on the (5.00 / 1) (#152)
    by nycstray on Mon Apr 11, 2011 at 10:44:25 PM EST
    cuts and expand on them since you "don't think people know exactly what they are talking about in terms of what is being cut"?

    NYT and WP has articles on the cuts (none / 0) (#153)
    by Politalkix on Mon Apr 11, 2011 at 10:58:41 PM EST
    not very detailed though. NYT and WP.

    AP article on the cuts (none / 0) (#154)
    by Politalkix on Mon Apr 11, 2011 at 11:48:53 PM EST
    Thank you (none / 0) (#158)
    by nycstray on Tue Apr 12, 2011 at 12:18:38 AM EST
    hadn't seen the later ones, only a bit earlier in the day ones which contained even less detail. Just scanned them , but will read thoroughly when done with today's deadline :)

    They started taking that poll ... (none / 0) (#45)
    by Yman on Mon Apr 11, 2011 at 03:55:42 PM EST
    ... only a few hours after the deal was reached late Friday night.  You really think most people knew the details of the deal.  He//, most people even now don't know the full details of the budget deal ... they're just happy (particularly Dems) that a shutdown was averted.

    Here's a link, if anyone's interested.  There was one interesting part you left out ...

    "But this doesn't mean Obama gets a political boost from the deal.

    The president's overall approval rating is now 48 percent; in late March, that figure was 51 percent. This is the first time this year that a CNN poll has found his overall approval rating below 50 percent," says CNN Polling Director Keating Holland.

    Meanwhile, in the outside (none / 0) (#49)
    by Zorba on Mon Apr 11, 2011 at 04:00:20 PM EST
    (actual outside) world, US continues to kill civilians in the war zones.  Libya.  Pakistan.  And we mustn't forget the Kill Team in Afghanistan.  These are now both "Obama's wars," ABG.  He may not have started Afghanistan, and we may not be the only ones in Libya, but you cannot dismiss the fact that Americans have killed, and will continue to kill, civilians.  And even if you can point to polls that show American approval of all of this (which I doubt), I don't give a flying fig.  Killing civilians is immoral and unacceptable.  Yes, you might say "an unfortunate and unavoidable cost of war."  But the wars themselves are avoidable.

    We're on wars now (1.00 / 1) (#68)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Mon Apr 11, 2011 at 04:27:42 PM EST
    OK, kind of feels like we're flipping between whatever Obama action justifies your dislike, but I can talk wars too.

    Obama is wrong on the wars.

    [the crowd gasps]

    I don't agree with Obama's slow withdrawals or escalations (although I do agree with his actions in Pakistan and Libya).

    But if you think that means I see him as some kind of conservative hawk, you're mistaken.  There is a middle ground people. Forcing Obama to be 100% Conservative or 100% Liberal is silly.  

    He does a bunch of stuff I like. He does a bunch of stuff I don't like. I give him a B grade overall and that's more than enough to get my vote next year.


    Look, you lost all credibility (5.00 / 1) (#69)
    by observed on Mon Apr 11, 2011 at 04:30:06 PM EST
    to talk about anything related to the war when you dismissed concern over how or when detainees are tried as something few votes care about (hence not important).
    That's not even morally shallow---its as if you don't even know the concept of morality.

    Detainees (1.00 / 1) (#110)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Mon Apr 11, 2011 at 05:47:21 PM EST
    and wars are two different topics.

    Horse manure (5.00 / 3) (#127)
    by Zorba on Mon Apr 11, 2011 at 07:13:26 PM EST
    They're not, and if you think that they are, shame on you.  Really, profoundly- shame on you.  I have nothing further to say to you.  Ever.

    I agree. Time to shun. (none / 0) (#167)
    by observed on Tue Apr 12, 2011 at 07:52:34 AM EST
    Last time I looked (5.00 / 1) (#75)
    by Zorba on Mon Apr 11, 2011 at 04:45:40 PM EST
    this was an "open thread."  So I'm allowed to talk about wars.  And I'm thrilled beyond belief that you think that "Obama is wrong on the wars."  But then you go on to say that "there is a middle ground...."  Not as far as I'm concerned.  Drone (and other) attacks on civilians, the continuing existence of Guantanamo prisoners, trying people in military tribunals who should be tried in civilian courts, the presidential okay to assassinate American citizens overseas, with no trial, nothing.  These are war crimes, ABG.  There is no middle ground.

    Dark day for my USD Toreros (none / 0) (#27)
    by Dadler on Mon Apr 11, 2011 at 03:37:57 PM EST
    You think you've got it bad? (none / 0) (#56)
    by Zorba on Mon Apr 11, 2011 at 04:06:53 PM EST
    Two University of Florida basketball players (and their manager) were arrested for felony burglary for trying to break into a car.  (Pardon me, the team manager was only arrested for being the look-out.)  A wave of felony arrests in the college basketball.  What is this world coming to?

    That should make BTD feel better (5.00 / 0) (#66)
    by Dadler on Mon Apr 11, 2011 at 04:24:43 PM EST
    As if he already weren't chipper enough these days.

    Now now Z... (none / 0) (#97)
    by kdog on Mon Apr 11, 2011 at 05:22:30 PM EST
    don't make me take away your ACLU card...for all we know at this point they locked their keys in the car.

    It sure would be nice if you could assume wrongdoing based on arrest, but at 13-14 million per year, all it means for sure is chains, mugshot, fingerprints, cage, and hopefully bail.


    Dog, sweetie, I'm talking about (none / 0) (#128)
    by Zorba on Mon Apr 11, 2011 at 07:18:27 PM EST
    the whole appearance thing.  Of course, they are innocent until proven guilty.  But college hoops are not covering themselves with glory recently.  ;-)   (And when I lock my keys in the car, which I have been known to do, I usually don't use a look-out;  I either call Triple A or a locksmith.)

    Just bustin' your chops... (none / 0) (#176)
    by kdog on Tue Apr 12, 2011 at 08:41:14 AM EST
    Of all people I know you believe in innocent until proven guilty:)

    I'm just not buying this collegiate athlete crime spree hype...the only thing new is 24/7 media so we here about every single arrest, in the past we'd only hear of local arrests, if that.  Also, in the past the star athlete would get the courtesy of a phone call to coach instead of of a phone call from jail.  We're more obsessed with background checking too.  Mix it all together and you've got another faux crime trend...maybe to distract from the exploitive model of big time big money college sports?

    College athletes are no more prone to criminal behavior then they ever were, I see no reason to think otherwise.  


    Kdog, it's an attempt to arrest, convict, (5.00 / 1) (#178)
    by jeffinalabama on Tue Apr 12, 2011 at 08:48:18 AM EST
    and sentence athletes, so private prisons can fiel d their "mean Machine" teams... make more money, and only have t pay the players 37 cents an hour. If there's no NFL, ESPN Entertainment and Sports from Prison network will rack up on Sundays.

    I think... (5.00 / 1) (#181)
    by kdog on Tue Apr 12, 2011 at 09:03:21 AM EST
    you've been conversing with me too long my brother:)

    I've been reading about (none / 0) (#195)
    by jeffinalabama on Tue Apr 12, 2011 at 12:34:45 PM EST
    the anarcho-syndicalists in the Spanish Civil War... and watching "Capitalism, a LoveStory," by Michael Moore.

    I was leaning toward anarcho-syndicalism years ago, and there are some fine qualities in the philosophy, especially when compared to plutocracy. I'll send you some links. Can you email me at my new addy, jeffinalabama@gmail.com?


    Anarcho-syndicalism... (none / 0) (#197)
    by kdog on Tue Apr 12, 2011 at 01:00:07 PM EST
    I've heard & read a little bit...please do feed my head some more.

    I'm definitely down with lawless voluntary associations...I know law-choked involuntary "democratic" association all too well and ain't too happy with it...ya end up with a DEA running around breaking peoples doors down stealing their property and liberty, troops on foreign soil doing god knows what, and on and on and on.  It may help the trains run on time, but it sure is a nasty way to do things.


    You won't find this... (none / 0) (#89)
    by kdog on Mon Apr 11, 2011 at 05:10:34 PM EST
    on any state curriculum, nor any standardized test...but can you think of a more fitting lesson plan right now?

    Somebody get that man an apple.

    I've been to squats ... (none / 0) (#118)
    by Robot Porter on Mon Apr 11, 2011 at 06:16:59 PM EST
    that are nicer than some apartments I lived in.  Especially in the Eighties when they had some degree of cultural acceptance.

    It does seem like we're going through some kind of replay of the Eighties.  From the economy to fashion to music.  Maybe squats too will once again become de rigueur.


    And if you squat... (5.00 / 2) (#177)
    by kdog on Tue Apr 12, 2011 at 08:47:20 AM EST
    a bank owned property, as the prof suggests, you are performing a patriotic public service as far as I'm concerned.  

    Since we've allowed our country to be stolen, perhaps the only way to get it back is to steal it back.  "This land is my land, this land is your land".  No mention of any BofA land:)

    I too would love to see a squatters renaissance a la the 70's-80's...turn these lemons into lemonade.  Stop being punching bags.


    Winklevosses lose (none / 0) (#115)
    by fuzzyone on Mon Apr 11, 2011 at 06:09:18 PM EST
    I don't really care about the substance but Judge Kozinski writes a typically pithy opinion (pdf) in the ongoing Zuckerberg/Winklevoss feud.

    Zorba (none / 0) (#129)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Apr 11, 2011 at 07:19:24 PM EST
    when are you going to let us in on some of your secret Greek recipes?

    Which recipes do you want? (none / 0) (#132)
    by Zorba on Mon Apr 11, 2011 at 07:55:37 PM EST
    Let me know.  I'm in the midst of preparing for our upcoming (after Easter) spring food festival right now, so cooking is on my mind.  Baklava, hummus, tzatziki, avgolemono soup, kritharaki.....what do you want to know?  

    Second the txatziki (5.00 / 1) (#192)
    by sj on Tue Apr 12, 2011 at 12:25:23 PM EST
    I just want an invitation (none / 0) (#133)
    by jeffinalabama on Mon Apr 11, 2011 at 08:03:30 PM EST
    to eat this weekend or whenever easter is... I need to look up if Greek Orthodox and Western Easters happen at the same time!

    Orthodox and Western Easters (none / 0) (#135)
    by Zorba on Mon Apr 11, 2011 at 08:16:24 PM EST
    are the same this year, just as they were last year- I don't remember this happening two years in a row before in my lifetime.  Very unusual.  

    And my invitation? (5.00 / 3) (#136)
    by jeffinalabama on Mon Apr 11, 2011 at 08:28:59 PM EST
    Can't blame a guy for trying...

    Tzatziki (none / 0) (#148)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Apr 11, 2011 at 10:01:42 PM EST
    because mine is always too runny but now that we can get Greek yogurt that might change. avgolemono soup sounds good too. What is kritharaki?

    I have a Greek Orthodox cook book put out by a church in N Y somewhere. I've made some of the recipes and they are really good.

    Do you dye the red eggs for Easter and put them in the bread?


    Tzatziki (5.00 / 1) (#190)
    by Zorba on Tue Apr 12, 2011 at 12:20:04 PM EST
    The recipe is approximate for a small batch- I usually make about 4-5 gallons at a time.  I use a lot of garlic when making it for Greeks (and people who love garlic), but less when I make it for a booth at non-ethnic food fairs.  Use your own taste to adjust amounts of peppers, dill, mint, garlic, lemon juice.  This is a good starting point, though.  (I also use a mixture of white vinegar and some lemon juice when making a huge batch, but for a small amount, just used lemon juice.)

    2 large cucumbers
    3 cloves garlic (or more, to taste)
    2 cups Greek whole milk yogurt*
    2 fronds of fresh dill, finely chopped
    1 teaspoon fresh mint, finely chopped
    Ground black pepper, to taste
    Ground white pepper,     "
    Ground cayenne pepper,   "
    Kosher salt,             "
    2 T. olive oil
    2 T. fresh lemon juice
    1/3 c. sour cream
    1/3 c. mayonnaise

    Peel and seed the cucumbers (leave a few strips of skin on, for color).  Chop into very small pieces (use a food processor).  Place into colander and allow to drain 15-30 minutes, then squeeze out any excess water.  Crush garlic into a pulp.  Mix together cucumber, garlic, yogurt, dill, mint, oil, lemon juice, sour cream, and mayo.  Add salt and a dash of black, white, and red peppers, to taste.

    *  If you can't get Greek yogurt, take plain, good quality whole milk yogurt (about 4 cups), put into a colander lined with cheese cloth, and allow to drain for several hours, until reduced by about half.
    (The sour cream and mayo are not "traditional," but they sure are good- makes it creamier.)


    Thanks. (none / 0) (#193)
    by sj on Tue Apr 12, 2011 at 12:26:14 PM EST
    Glad you posted it, even if I can't spell it.

    Avgolemono Soup (none / 0) (#194)
    by Zorba on Tue Apr 12, 2011 at 12:32:48 PM EST
    Kritharaki (also called manestra) is orzo pasta cooked with tomato sauce, stock, garlic, and drippings from a roast lamb, chicken, or beef.  Often served with grated Greek cheese on top (hard cheese, or sometimes feta).  Here's the soup:  

    Avgolemono Soup
        One large chicken, cut up
        One onion, quartered
        Two celery stalks, quartered
        Two carrots, quartered
        Two cloves garlic
        Two-four chicken bullion cubes
        One cup rice
        Four eggs, separated
        Juice of two lemons
    Boil chicken parts in water, adding chicken bullion cubes, onion, carrots, celery, and garlic. When done, skim out the veggies, set the chicken aside, and skim the fat from the stock. (make sure you have about 8 cups--add canned stock or water plus bullion cubes to make 8 cups, if necessary). Bring the stock to a boil. Add 1/2 to 1 cup rice (depending on how "ricey" you like it). Reduce heat and simmer until rice is done. You can add some of the chicken meat, diced, if you want. Remove the pot from the heat. Separate 4 eggs. Beat egg whites until they peak. Add the beaten yolks, then slowly add the juice of two lemons, beating the whole time. Slowly add the stock, a little at a time, until you have added about two cups worth. Then pour the mixture back into the pot, stirring gently. (Take the skin off of the chicken pieces and brown the chicken in butter to serve alongside, or save the meat that you haven't added to the soup for another use.)


    I made moussaka a couple of (none / 0) (#196)
    by vml68 on Tue Apr 12, 2011 at 12:43:27 PM EST
    weeks ago and tried it the way you mentioned with potatoes and eggplant instead of just the eggplant like I usually make it. It was yummy.
    I wanted to ask you if you use ground beef or lamb when you make it and also how do you season the meat?

    I use ground (5.00 / 1) (#199)
    by Zorba on Tue Apr 12, 2011 at 01:02:13 PM EST
    lamb if I can get it around here (not usually possible).  Otherwise, ground beef, or ground beef mixed with ground pork.  (I've made it with ground venison, too.)  For seasoning, besides salt and pepper, add garlic and minced Italian parsley, and after that it varies.  Some people like to put in oregano.  I like to put in a little bit of cinnamon and allspice or nutmeg (just a tiny bit or it will be overwhelming).  If you don't like your meat tasting like cinnamon, use the oregano.  I won't tell.   ;-)

    Thanks (none / 0) (#198)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Apr 12, 2011 at 01:00:30 PM EST
    for the recipes Zorba!!!

    You're welcome (none / 0) (#200)
    by Zorba on Tue Apr 12, 2011 at 01:06:10 PM EST
    Παρακαλώ.   ;-)

    Japan is raising Nuke threat level (none / 0) (#131)
    by nycstray on Mon Apr 11, 2011 at 07:32:16 PM EST
    to 7 so says a brief breaking news blip on my local news . . . .

    oh get over it nycstray (none / 0) (#155)
    by The Addams Family on Mon Apr 11, 2011 at 11:49:41 PM EST
    that Japanese miniseries is so last month - aren't you watching The Borgias?

    No, but my mom did :) (none / 0) (#159)
    by nycstray on Tue Apr 12, 2011 at 12:23:55 AM EST
    It was weird, after the breaking news blip at the end of the 5PM local news, nada, zip, zilch, nothing.

    But hey, news has been really good about keeping up with all the really, really important details of the upcoming wedding in another country . . . . and Barry Bonds trial since I'm in his neck of the woods. They keep telling us they will break into programing with the verdict . . . .


    Whoa -- (none / 0) (#134)
    by brodie on Mon Apr 11, 2011 at 08:12:50 PM EST
    the first thing Bob Redford (on Piers Morgan tonight) says when asked about Paul Newman:  "He had a short attention span."

    Hah!  First thing he thinks to say about the late great film legend ... geez ... thanks, Bob.

    As a film legend himself (none / 0) (#191)
    by sj on Tue Apr 12, 2011 at 12:24:54 PM EST
    I think Redford's entitled to view Newman as a human being.

    I guess this was a good time (none / 0) (#161)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Apr 12, 2011 at 02:20:43 AM EST
    to be feeling disillusioned and doing other stuff.  People in the blogosphere are very unhappy, and I'm certain representative in some way to what is being experienced on the street.  Looks like there has been a lot of melting down.  Also noticed that radiation levels are reaching levels that concern me in the U.S.  Why hasn't Japan begun the process of for lack of a better word "paving" the reactor site over?

    I feel the (none / 0) (#162)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Apr 12, 2011 at 05:09:52 AM EST
    same way dear. BTD's malaise is spreading to me.

    My husband said that work was difficult (5.00 / 1) (#163)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Apr 12, 2011 at 07:32:20 AM EST
    yesterday too like everyone had an emotional hangover.  I don't blame that on our President, but if he gets up there on Wednesday and talks about how great Republicans are and how wonderful everything is while they announce their next attack, I don't know what people who were damaged by what happened are supposed to do with that.  He could come to the people and outline the fights and the upcoming fights and ask for them to take his side, but if he is going to stand up there and talk about how great everything and everyone is, there isn't anything more to want from him.  He has then at that point made himself part of the enemy.  These are very very challenging economic times, the most challenging I've ever seen in my lifetime.  People got furlough notices, they pushed right up to the cliff edge, and many went into total shock and meltdown.  And not the Republicans are bragging about what comes next.  I never worried about Obama getting reelected, I thought it was a given.  Now I'm not so sure.

    Other Democrats should not follow him (5.00 / 1) (#164)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Apr 12, 2011 at 07:32:44 AM EST
    over this cliff either.