Tuesday Afternoon Open Thread

BTD is busy at work and I'm off to the dentist. Here's an open thread, all topics welcome.

< Ohio Executes Inmate With Dementia and No Memory of Crime | Strauss-Kahn on Suicide Watch at Rikers, Hearing Friday >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Harry Reid (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by CST on Tue May 17, 2011 at 03:02:43 PM EST
    Possibly doing Democrats in MA a big favor.

    "After the House passed the budget, Senate majority leader Harry Reid, Democrat of Nevada, vowed that his chamber will hold a vote on it, forcing Brown and other potentially vulnerable Republicans in the 2012 elections to take a stance on the cuts. A vote is expected before Memorial Day."

    "Brown, in a speech Friday in Newburyport, revealed that he would vote for the House-passed budget plan when it comes up in the Senate."

    Unfortunately the rest of the article goes on an attempt to defend this action as "serious" but this may be a big mistake on Brown's part.  I sure hope so.

    My jaw dropped when I saw that (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by andgarden on Tue May 17, 2011 at 06:18:19 PM EST
    If I were the gambling type, I might hit up Intrade and put some money on Dems holding the Senate. The map is a challenge, but they're getting some help.

    The House is back in reach too.


    I live in MA (none / 0) (#29)
    by itscookin on Tue May 17, 2011 at 08:33:35 PM EST
    and I don't think Brown's voting for a budget passed by the House will hurt him. Wishful thinking. The voters who sent Brown to Washington knew they were sending a Republican.

    Oh, please (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue May 17, 2011 at 10:31:24 PM EST
    They did not know they were voting for a guy who would vote to gut Medicare and Medicaid, nor did the folks who yawned and sat the election out, who were legion.

    Taibbi's hitting streak... (5.00 / 3) (#2)
    by kdog on Tue May 17, 2011 at 03:05:35 PM EST
    will soon exceed Dimaggio's...give that man a Nobel Prize, he's done it yet again.
    The People Vs. Goldman Sachs

    Even if the massive fraud is difficult to bring a case and prove beyond a reasonable doubt, the law can pull a Capone and get 'em for lying to Congress...open and shut case, if only they would choose to open it, like they did for a jerk baseball pitcher for lying about nonsense.

    Might never get down with caging these finance cannibals, must strive to be better than vampire squid, but some equality under the law sure would be nice.

    Obama?  Holder?  Bueller?  Bueller?

    Laws? Laws? (none / 0) (#12)
    by Zorba on Tue May 17, 2011 at 05:02:58 PM EST
    Kdog, you know as well as I do that "laws" are for the little people, not the "Masters of the Universe."   ;-)

    Dogman, bro, (none / 0) (#16)
    by NYShooter on Tue May 17, 2011 at 06:03:35 PM EST
    You liked Taibbi? Good.

    So, after you've finished digesting Mike's pearls of truth & wisdom, but before you break out the toothpicks, here's another gem that, knowing you, will guarantee an asteroid sized hole exploding through your skull.

    Warning! remove any sharp objects and have a barf bag close by before reading this link.


    OMG (none / 0) (#22)
    by PatHat on Tue May 17, 2011 at 07:33:31 PM EST
    Do these judges even READ the Constitution?

    I'm afraid... (none / 0) (#37)
    by kdog on Wed May 18, 2011 at 05:12:02 AM EST
    I'm way ahead of ya brother...already cried those tears of rage.

    The erosion of rights and treating free citizens like subjects or cattle hit home yesterday too...one of my roomie's got hassled and tossed yesterday at 7-11...committed a very "suspect" act of charity (lol, charity is suspect these days ya know), giving a panhandler some change, which a couple of drug squad goons mistook for a drug deal.  All in his pockets, shoes, socks, car...and not even an apology when all was said and done.  Bastards...dirty rotten scoundrels...my blood is so hot I tossed and turned all night, finally gave up trying to sleep. My neighborhood feels like an occupied territory sometimes...and I'm in the freakin' 'burbs man!

    How can we sleep while our beds are burning?


    Dumbfounding... (5.00 / 2) (#6)
    by lentinel on Tue May 17, 2011 at 04:37:47 PM EST
    Some people who have an antiquated notion about the presumption of innocence are appalled that Dominique Strauss-Kahn has been trotted out before the worldwide press in handcuffs while not yet having been convicted of anything.

    Mayor Bloomberg has answered their concerns with a typically incisive analysis:

    "I think it is humiliating, but, if you don't want to do the perp walk, don't do the crime..."

    With concern for civil liberties and the rights of the accused in the hands of people like those in local and national government, we can forge ahead to the 15th century.

    Nobody (5.00 / 3) (#8)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue May 17, 2011 at 04:40:27 PM EST
    worries about this until it happens to them. My conservative brother has been involved in a court case and has found out that he's "guilty until proven innocent" and all of a sudden has become a civil libertarian like never before.

    Fortunately there are people like Jeralyn that hold those views under all circumstances but they are far from the norm.


    even when there's no perp walk (none / 0) (#27)
    by desmoinesdem on Tue May 17, 2011 at 08:13:15 PM EST
    people's reputations can be ruined by media presumption of guilt. When I was in high school a friend's dad was charged with some kind of alleged fraud related to stock trading. It was on the front page of the Des Moines Register. When he was acquitted some months later, the story was on an inside page of the metro section.

    Wow, that's incredible! (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by Peter G on Tue May 17, 2011 at 08:36:48 PM EST
    The paper actually covered the acquittal?!

    Harmon Killebrew (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by mmc9431 on Tue May 17, 2011 at 04:50:54 PM EST
    Passed away today after battling cancer. Sad day for baseball. A guy who proved you could hit home runs without steroids.

    I listened to Boog Powell on (5.00 / 0) (#15)
    by Anne on Tue May 17, 2011 at 06:02:56 PM EST
    the local sports radio show in Baltimore tonight, talking about what a fine human being his friend Harmon Killebrew was; he had exceptional talent, packed a lot of power in a pretty average-sized body, but had no superstar ego - the spring training after the year "Killer" - as Boog referred to him - won league MVP, Killebrew ran into Boog and apologized to him.  Boog responded with, "what are you sorry for?" and Killebrew said, "you should have won MVP."  Boog's reaction was, "are you kidding? do you remember what your numbers were?"

    You hate to lose people like this; godspeed Harmon Killebrew.



    I remember watching Boog Powell... (5.00 / 0) (#21)
    by Dadler on Tue May 17, 2011 at 07:28:50 PM EST
    ...finish his career, oddly enough, as a Los Angeles Dodger in 1977. From the left field pavilion ($1.25 a ticket if I recall correctly, egad) he looked like an old man, at the rip old age of 35.  Another longtime Oriole, Rick Dempsey was key in the '88 Dodger World Series run.

    RIP, Harmon.  Kill a brew or two in heaven for us.


    Yes...Harmon Killebrew, a very good person (none / 0) (#24)
    by christinep on Tue May 17, 2011 at 08:03:43 PM EST
    Three comments caught my eye (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by christinep on Tue May 17, 2011 at 08:18:31 PM EST
    from the last day or so. (1) The unflappable, ignoramus & PA's one & only former Senator Rick Santorum (R), who noted that "he" didn't understand what enhanced interrogation was in referring to Sen. John McCain. (OTOH, maybe this is a karma for all the parts of himself that McCain seems to have sold politically heretofore. But, despite my low opinion of what McCain morphed into politically, it cannot be denied that he is conversant personally with torture.)  (2)The "I'm smarter than all the hoi polloi & everyone else" rich guy Ben Stein reportedly said about maids in hotels, in general, as he tried to speak up for Dominique Strauss-Kahn, the wealthy IMF chief accused by a NY hotel maid of assault & attempted rape": Many of the maids are "lunatics." AND (3) The Newt's many statements--not the least of which is the very recent statement that he wasn't prepared for the "gotcha" questions of Meet The Press where he has appeared 35 times. (Oh, somewhere in there should also be reported ol' Ron Paul's statement that he would not have voted for the 1964 Civil Rights Act and his new opposition to the government's decision to use water-control diversions on the Mississippi to avoid flooding in the most populous areas in Louisiana. Yep, the ol' Libertarian do-nothingism at work.)

    A real fun Repub primary season ahead.

    Matthews today (none / 0) (#36)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue May 17, 2011 at 10:36:55 PM EST
    compared these guys to "Thanksgiving Day floats."  Heh.

    Santorum, I think, may literally be insane.


    sometimes (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by CST on Wed May 18, 2011 at 10:40:15 AM EST
    (and I really mean often) the Catholic Church (especially in MA) can be a real piece of work.

    The latest:

    "The sexual abuse crisis in the Catholic Church was caused by the influence of sweeping social changes and increasing "deviant behavior'' of the 1960s and 1970s on priests who were inadequately trained, emotionally unprepared, and isolated, according to a new report commissioned by the nation's Roman Catholic bishops"

    Gotta love that giant deflection.  Oh, it's not our fault, we just couldn't handle all that social change.  What comes next just blows my mind though:

    "Abusive priests have often been branded pedophiles, but the report -- in a declaration that appears destined to stir controversy -- insists that fewer than 5 percent actually met that definition. In the process, however, the study's authors seem to redefine what constitutes pedophilia.

    Major associations of psychiatrists typically define pedophilia as interest in children 13 and younger, calling them "prepubescent.''

    But to reach their conclusion about the low incidence of the disorder among priests, the report authors seem to suggest that the prepubescent period ends at age 10.

    "The majority of victims were pubescent or postpubescent,'' the report states. "Thus,'' they wrote, "it is inaccurate to refer to abusers as pedophile priests.''"

    Oh great.  You waited until they were 11.  How lovely.

    This is (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed May 18, 2011 at 10:49:10 AM EST
    nothing new. It sounds like it came from a Rick Santorum press release.  

    That's rich... (none / 0) (#60)
    by kdog on Wed May 18, 2011 at 10:53:32 AM EST
    even the pope likes to kick hippies...popular hobby.

    Because (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed May 18, 2011 at 10:55:50 AM EST
    it's easier than actually taking responsibility and acknowledging their belief that not allowing priests to get married might actually attract pedophiles to the profession.

    the rest of the article (5.00 / 2) (#63)
    by CST on Wed May 18, 2011 at 11:01:23 AM EST
    goes on to say that they concluded celibacy had nothing to do with it.

    It does not say how they came to that conclusion.  Just that it was concluded.  Kind of like how they concluded that sleeping with an 11 year old doesn't make you a pedophile.


    Precisely (none / 0) (#73)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed May 18, 2011 at 11:44:53 AM EST
    They are doing some kind of kabuki dance to try to ignore the real problem--their policies but they are too invested in those policies to ever change them.

    Peter "She Said"* Fonda (5.00 / 2) (#75)
    by brodie on Wed May 18, 2011 at 12:08:14 PM EST
    in Cannes for some fancy film festing, accuses Obama of being a "f[ing] traitor" for allowing the Brits to cover up the BP oil spill atrocity, etc.

    Those Fondas are sure outspoken, aren't they.

    * cultural insider-y kind of reference.  Points if you know it w/o googling.  Double points if you know it and are not a Boomer or from the 60s ...

    Nicely done cultural reference, brodie. (5.00 / 1) (#84)
    by caseyOR on Wed May 18, 2011 at 01:40:54 PM EST
    My age precludes me from earning all possible points. I am old enough to clearly remember The Beatles February 1964 appearance on Ed Sullivan, and have been a fan of the boys ever since.

    Court rules for NFL owners (none / 0) (#3)
    by lilburro on Tue May 17, 2011 at 03:20:23 PM EST
    and that's about as deep as my legal analysis is going to get.  The prospects of a 2011-12 NFL season aren't looking that good :(

    Reminds me of "Airplane".... (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by kdog on Tue May 17, 2011 at 03:27:57 PM EST
    replace "and we're out of coffee" with "and no NFL next year."

    Our nation is the doomed aircraft.

    This is a good time to start sniffing glue.


    Here's hoping (none / 0) (#17)
    by Makarov on Tue May 17, 2011 at 06:06:29 PM EST
    that Obama can find a way in which the NFL is engaged in "commerce" so he can invoke Taft-Hartley and end the lockout.

    Not that I expect he'd side against billionaires over every else.


    My read (none / 0) (#18)
    by Makarov on Tue May 17, 2011 at 06:08:48 PM EST
    of the majority decision is "don't ever join a union, ever, because then your employer can do whatever the hell it wants even if it's a monopoly".

    Seriously - they turned a 75 year old law (Norris-LaGuardia) written to stop judges from breaking strikes completely on its head.


    Tommy Thompson (none / 0) (#5)
    by jbindc on Tue May 17, 2011 at 03:41:34 PM EST
    running for Kohl's Senate seat.

    So Wisconsin will lose another Dem (5.00 / 0) (#20)
    by Towanda on Tue May 17, 2011 at 07:24:33 PM EST
    seat, with the now-open seat?  Tommy was the winningest gov ever.  And what he wants, he still gets, so that explains why Paul Ryan pulled back.

    Not a word yet that I can see on which Dems(s) will run.  Feingold seems happy writing his book.

    Both Wisconsin Senate seats going GOP.  It has been a couple of decades, I think, since that happened.


    Feingold attacking (none / 0) (#31)
    by MO Blue on Tue May 17, 2011 at 08:45:17 PM EST
    those who have tried to stop President Obama from issuing an executive order that would force government contractors to disclose their campaign spending.

    But not surprisingly, corporate interests in Congress want to keep this process in the dark. Sadly, but predictably, it's not just Republicans. Some Democrats are joining Republicans in pressing to keep the cycle of political money and federal contracts hidden [...]

    This culture of corporate influence and corruption is precisely what we as Progressives United want to change. So we've decided to take on those legislators who are unwilling to stand up to corporate power, and we're naming names.

    Sen. Joe Lieberman, I-CT; Sen. Claire McCaskill, D-MO; Sen. Mitch McConnell, R-KY; Sen. Rob Portman, R-OH; Rep. Steny Hoyer, D-MD; and Rep. Darrell Issa, R-CA. link

    Feingold may not be corporate friendly enough for the New Democratic Party.


    Exactly. (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by Towanda on Wed May 18, 2011 at 08:33:47 AM EST
    He's not running for the Senate seat as a Dem.  

    The national Nu Dems did not come to Feingold's aid in his last Senate campaign, so the state lost a long-solid Dem seat to Senator Crazy Johnson.  And the state party got put in its place by the national Nu Dems when the White House made a debacle of the gubernatorial campaign.  The result?  Walker, the governor who is destroying the state of Wisconsin.  

    Heckuva job, White House and national Nu Dems.  


    What procurement officer (none / 0) (#39)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed May 18, 2011 at 08:49:16 AM EST
    will have the nerve to pick a company or a government contract that has not contributed to Obama and the Demo Party.

    And the answer is.... None!

    This is pure old fashioned Chicago politics at its worst.


    Except that (none / 0) (#41)
    by Harry Saxon on Wed May 18, 2011 at 08:57:09 AM EST
    it's the Obama Administration that wants openness, and not one of the Senators mentioned against it are from IL, let alone Chicago.

    Uh, the openness is to let the procurement (none / 0) (#44)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed May 18, 2011 at 10:03:36 AM EST
    officer know who contributed to Obama. That way the procurement officer will have no excuse that he/she didn't know who to give the contract to.

    Chicago thuggery at its best.


    If you are (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed May 18, 2011 at 10:44:20 AM EST
    so concerned with this, then you should be advocating to get rid of privatization. Were you complaining that Bush gave contracts to his pioneers when he was President?

    Just get rid of privatization and let the government do it's thing and the private sector do theirs and don't commingle them.


    Sorry, but that still doesn't make sense. (none / 0) (#46)
    by Harry Saxon on Wed May 18, 2011 at 10:12:13 AM EST
    More on the GA (none / 0) (#7)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue May 17, 2011 at 04:37:53 PM EST
    fig newton:
    ingrich, who represented Georgia in Congress for two decades, retired in 1999. But his wife, Callista Gingrich, was employed by the House Agriculture Committee until 2007, according to public records. She listed a "revolving charge account" at Tiffany and Company in the liability section of her personal financial disclosure form for two consecutive years and indicated that it was her spouse's debt. The liability was reported in the range of $250,001 to $500,000.

    I am a small and petty person (5.00 / 2) (#10)
    by sj on Tue May 17, 2011 at 04:51:33 PM EST

    May (5.00 / 2) (#11)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue May 17, 2011 at 04:54:17 PM EST
    I join your small and petty club? I would like to be a member too! LOL!

    I'd like to hear some (none / 0) (#13)
    by ruffian on Tue May 17, 2011 at 05:07:36 PM EST
    speeches about 'austerity' from the Newtster

    Or (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue May 17, 2011 at 05:21:55 PM EST
    maybe we'll hear about how buying things at Tiffany's is "left wing social engineering" or maybe it's "right wing social engineering".

    I think the Newster is done. I had predicted that he would last until December but I think I might have to shorten my time frame on that one.


    I think he loved his country so much (5.00 / 3) (#32)
    by ruffian on Tue May 17, 2011 at 08:47:32 PM EST
    he had to buy it jewelry.

    having dealt with (none / 0) (#26)
    by desmoinesdem on Tue May 17, 2011 at 08:10:37 PM EST
    fallout from John Edwards $400 haircut for months (as a precinct captain for Edwards in 2007), I can assure you that Iowans will not be fooled by any excuse to explain away a $250K debt to Tiffany's. Who on earth borrows that kind of money to buy jewelry?

    I guess my question is (none / 0) (#40)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed May 18, 2011 at 08:54:20 AM EST
    why is important? If being rich enough to have that kind of credit card debt disqualified people then 90% of the Senate would be gone and no Kennedy would have ever been elected.

    Because (none / 0) (#42)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed May 18, 2011 at 09:06:54 AM EST
    it's not what Newt preaches. He says he's just a "regular guy". I mean if Edwards can be hounded over a $400 hair cut then Gingrich should be run out of town for this.

    I remember Edwards (none / 0) (#45)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed May 18, 2011 at 10:09:03 AM EST
    making a big deal out of his cotton mill background but I haven't seen Newt making similar claims.

    Isn't the bottom line that both sides attack the other over the same issues?? Watch the Demos line up to zap Arnold over his affairs who defended Clinton...

    Hypocrisy is a equal opportunity disease.


    an equal... (none / 0) (#48)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed May 18, 2011 at 10:13:03 AM EST
    Democrats aren't "lining up" ... (none / 0) (#50)
    by Yman on Wed May 18, 2011 at 10:24:32 AM EST
    ... to attack Arnold over his affair.  Democrats in general could care less about a politician's sex life unless a pol is hypocritically riding around on their morality horse to court the religious right, while at the same time doing the very things they are condemning ...

    ... like Newt.


    I suggest you read the thread on Arnold... (none / 0) (#54)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed May 18, 2011 at 10:42:21 AM EST
    Already read it (none / 0) (#62)
    by Yman on Wed May 18, 2011 at 10:56:41 AM EST
    ... and most people there could care less about Arnold's personal sex life, except as it relates to the numerous charges of sexual misconduct that were made against him.

    Then my point is made (none / 0) (#77)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed May 18, 2011 at 12:20:27 PM EST
    The Repubs did it to Clinton and the Demos do it to Arnold.

    Both sides are hypocritical.

    I have long said that many on the Left and the Right are just flip sides of the same coin.


    And you were wrong then, ... (5.00 / 2) (#85)
    by Yman on Wed May 18, 2011 at 03:05:00 PM EST
    ... and you're wrong now.  Democrats (rightly) don't support spending millions of dollars and impeaching a POTUS over his private sex life.  For the most part, Dems couldn't care less about a pols sex life.  Repubs, OTOH, preach morality and ride their high horse of "family values", "the sanctity of marriage". etc., while tapping their shoes in restrooms, having affairs, patronizing prostitutes, and loading up on Viag@ra for their trips to the Dominican Republic.

    That's hypocrisy.


    Yman....please (none / 0) (#94)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed May 18, 2011 at 06:03:53 PM EST
    The Dems have jumped on every Repub the could over this issue and vice versa. And the only reason they haven't done it re a Prez is that a Repub Prez hasn't got himself in that position.

    Both sides do it.

    It's just the nature of the beast.


    Jim ... please (none / 0) (#95)
    by Yman on Wed May 18, 2011 at 08:01:33 PM EST
    No, they haven't.  It's the holy-rolling, self-righteous, proselytizing, Christian-fundy Repubs that feel the need to pry into sex lives and lecture about "family values" blah, blah, blah...

    The Dems just like to laugh at their hypocrisy when they get caught hiring hookers and hooking up in public restrooms.

    It's pretty funny.


    You (none / 0) (#57)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed May 18, 2011 at 10:47:42 AM EST
    haven't been paying attention then. Gingrich is just a "lowly college professor" with a moderate income according to himself.

    Yeah, and how many Republicans who supported impeaching Bill Clinton stood behind David "the diaper" Vitter when it came out about him?

    I could care less about Ahnuld. His record in CA is what he should be attacked for.


    It's Chinatown Jake... (none / 0) (#43)
    by kdog on Wed May 18, 2011 at 09:09:00 AM EST
    the lesser importance it is, the bigger the campaign "issue" it becomes.

    Though I guess one could argue it is evidence of fiscal recklessness...if we were talking about a candidate with good ideas some personal debt wouldn't bother me.

    I just think it makes him look like a guy who can't get any love without a Tiffanys box...not there is anything wrong with that:)


    Not bad, not bad (none / 0) (#47)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed May 18, 2011 at 10:12:25 AM EST
    But I would flip it on you and say that if the person has never had any debt, how can they understand the problems??

    Normal people debt... (none / 0) (#49)
    by kdog on Wed May 18, 2011 at 10:17:59 AM EST
    is being reduced to charging gas and groceries cuz ya haven't gotten a raise in 3 years while everything goes up up up, or unemployment not enough to meet their nut...kind of an apples and oranges.

    Not to say there aren't regular folks with their means equivalent of frivolous debt by spending on luxuries...but again there is a different rules different fools difference. I'm sure the crooked credit reporting agencies would happily trade with Newt in favors to clean up his report...they treat the rich and powerful quite differently than you or I.


    True story (none / 0) (#52)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed May 18, 2011 at 10:41:38 AM EST
    about middle class and below debt.

    The scary thing is oil prices. If they hold around $4 the economy will collapse.


    I hope I don't collapse... (none / 0) (#56)
    by kdog on Wed May 18, 2011 at 10:45:06 AM EST
    before the economy...I'm starting to feel fuel costs a wee bit, and the heating oil tank needs a refill...but I ain't calling the oil man till I see what kinda cash the roomies are workin' with at the moment, thats gonna be a whopper C.O.D. invoice!

    The Lundberg Survey is optimistic (none / 0) (#59)
    by Harry Saxon on Wed May 18, 2011 at 10:52:36 AM EST

    CAMARILLO, Calif. -- The oracle of gasoline prices, crude oil, crashed $12.06 during the last two days of last week, to $97.18 per barrel., according to the most recent Lundberg Survey of approximately 2,500 U.S. gas stations. This has allowed the retail price of gasoline to peak, after rising 11.98 cents per gallon in Lundberg's twice-monthly survey updated May 6, at $4 per gallon. Lundberg spot checks around the country suggest the U.S. price got to $4.01 around May 4, and is already reacting to crude oil's decline.

    82 words, for those folks playing the home version of the game.

    The Pump Price has Peaked Link


    Tell the gamblers... (none / 0) (#64)
    by kdog on Wed May 18, 2011 at 11:03:35 AM EST
    I believe the price at the pump is predominantly determined by the degens on Wall.

    Unless I missed something there were no supply issues that led to this massive retail price increase, no refining issues...and the oils companies sure as hell ain't hurting...it's speculator based price gouging.  Reverse Robin Hood since we're talking about a staple for the vast majority, not a luxury.


    The strife in Libya produced an (none / 0) (#65)
    by Harry Saxon on Wed May 18, 2011 at 11:25:00 AM EST
    effect out of proportion to the amount of oil they produce as a % of the world's supply, and the unrest due to the "Arab Spring" didn't help either.

    The refining issues are when they are shut-down for maintenance and/or industrial accidents, I haven't kept up on that one recently, but wouldn't be surprised if there was some of that going on.

    Reverse Robin Hood since we're talking about a staple for the vast majority, not a luxury.

    The Republicans filibustered an increase in the taxes that oil companies have to pay, but they're the party of real Americans, as the Quitbull said when she was on the campaign trail in 2008.

    But then, look on the bright side, the Obama Administration has demonstrated yet again how anti-oil they are:

    The Interior Department already has granted extensions to eight companies holding nine leases, according to documents provided by the Interior Department. Among the companies that have received extensions are BP PLC (BP, BP.LN), Royal Dutch Shell PLC (RDSA, RDSB, RDSA.LN, RDSB.LN) and Chevron Corp. (CVX). The lease extensions range from about four months to nine months.

    US Works On Criteria For Offshore-Drilling-Lease Extensions


    Libya and Arab Spring... (5.00 / 2) (#68)
    by kdog on Wed May 18, 2011 at 11:33:44 AM EST
    was all speculation in regards to oil.  Maybe it would effect supply, maybe it wouldn't...an uncertainty the degens on Wall were more than happy to line their pockets exploiting.

    Why can't they just bet on the Preakness on Sat. if they're jonesing for action?  I mean I can relate...I like action...but I'd be appalled to bet on whether Joe Blow has enough gas to get to work, or enough left for food after gas.


    They should have the following (none / 0) (#69)
    by Harry Saxon on Wed May 18, 2011 at 11:37:02 AM EST
    in 10-foot bronze letters above the front door of every stock exchange, trading board, etc. in the country:



    May I add... (none / 0) (#72)
    by kdog on Wed May 18, 2011 at 11:43:52 AM EST
    If you're looking for a square gamble, Atlantic City is down the Garden State Pkwy...beware of many toll booths.

    Taxes are a business cost (none / 0) (#80)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed May 18, 2011 at 12:32:04 PM EST
    that the oil corps will just pass along to the consumer.

    Nothing new or unique there. All businesses do it.


    Actually, according to some (5.00 / 1) (#82)
    by Harry Saxon on Wed May 18, 2011 at 12:38:23 PM EST
    it's just simply unAmerican:

    On Wednesday, ConocoPhillips CEO Jim Mulva outraged many on Capitol Hill when he released a statement calling it "un-American" to end subsidies to the Big 5 oil companies -- ExxonMobil, BP, Shell, Chevron, and ConocoPhillips. A press release referencing the subsidies posted on the company's website was headlined: "ConocoPhillips Highlights Solid Results and Raises Concerns Over Un-American Tax Proposals at Annual Meeting of Shareholders."

    ConocoPhillips CEO Refuses To Apologize For Saying It Is `Un-American' To End Oil Subsidies

    He's the same guy who testified that with oil 55$/barrel, the oil companies didn't need incentives to explore and drill for more oil.

    Apparently he's reversed his opinion since then.

    Funny how that works................


    I don't see the connection between (none / 0) (#87)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed May 18, 2011 at 04:09:51 PM EST
    incentives for exploring and $55 oil. The incentives were there at $10.00 oil.

    The point remains. Take away the incentives and the oil corps will just pass the increased costs on to the customer.


    Agree (none / 0) (#79)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed May 18, 2011 at 12:29:26 PM EST
    The price around here has went up 15 cents (none / 0) (#78)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed May 18, 2011 at 12:27:59 PM EST
    in the past 7 days.

    I hope your source is right.

    The real question is this. How long before it will  retreat to around $2.40?


    Why is that the "real question"? (5.00 / 1) (#86)
    by Yman on Wed May 18, 2011 at 03:15:01 PM EST
    What magical event happens at the $2.40/gallon level?

    BTW - The answer is probably never.  International demand, instability in the Middle East and booming demand in China and India mean the days of cheap gas are over.


    At around that level (none / 0) (#89)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed May 18, 2011 at 04:31:45 PM EST
    the economy will continue to improve.

    There is no shortage of oil so the demand argument does not work.

    The price is being artificially set by the speculators and OPEC.


    Ever-growing demand ... (none / 0) (#92)
    by Yman on Wed May 18, 2011 at 05:33:50 PM EST
    ... for the forseeable future is one of the primary drivers of the commodities market, along with instability in the Middle East.

    What makes you think $2.40/gallon gas is the level required for the economy to continue to improve?  Might be nice, but it's not gonna happen ...


    Well, when it was around there (none / 0) (#93)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed May 18, 2011 at 05:54:20 PM EST
    everyone from Obama's admin said it was improving.

    Would they lie to me?



    That makes no sense, ... (none / 0) (#96)
    by Yman on Wed May 18, 2011 at 08:04:19 PM EST
    ... but they'd probably lie to you ... if they knew who you were.  After all, ...

    ... "what's good for the goose", etc., etc.


    Just some humor, Yman (none / 0) (#97)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed May 18, 2011 at 08:14:33 PM EST
    But I think you got my point.

    Google (none / 0) (#81)
    by Harry Saxon on Wed May 18, 2011 at 12:32:32 PM EST
    The Lundberg Letter, PPJ, if you have any questions about how reliable it is as a source.

    The real question is this. How long before it will  retreat to around $2.40?

    Probably never.  


    I really don't care one way or the other (none / 0) (#88)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed May 18, 2011 at 04:12:26 PM EST
    about the reliability of the LL. The results will speak for themselves.

    You can use Google (none / 0) (#90)
    by Harry Saxon on Wed May 18, 2011 at 04:47:19 PM EST
    and decrease your ignorance, or you can cross your fingers and 'hope' they are right.

    Okay then.


    Harry, you are now in time out (none / 0) (#91)
    by Jeralyn on Wed May 18, 2011 at 04:49:08 PM EST
    Pakistan says we can have our (none / 0) (#23)
    by Militarytracy on Tue May 17, 2011 at 07:34:40 PM EST
    helicopter tail back if we don't take away the dollars we give them.  Pakistan is just a damned mess.  And the cover on that helicopter is blown now, it's a modified Blackhawk....keep it :)

    looks like 20-week abortion ban won't pass in Iowa (none / 0) (#25)
    by desmoinesdem on Tue May 17, 2011 at 08:08:18 PM EST
    Not this year, at least. The Republican-controlled Iowa House passed a broad ban on abortions after 20 weeks gestation (modeled on Nebraska's statute). The Iowa Senate has a narrow 26-24 majority and several anti-choice members of the Democratic caucus. Two of them actually signed a discharge petition seeking a full Senate vote on the 20-week abortion ban (that bill had been bottled up in committee).

    However, Senate Democrats united behind a different approach to preventing a clinic for late-term abortions from opening in Iowa. On a party-line vote yesterday, Senate Democrats passed that bill and rejected Republican attempts to force a floor vote on the 20-week abortion ban.

    Habitable planet found? (none / 0) (#33)
    by desertswine on Tue May 17, 2011 at 09:44:38 PM EST
    Gimme a ticket...  I volunteer to be the first Gleisian.

    It takes 300,000 yrs to get there (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by ruffian on Tue May 17, 2011 at 10:33:38 PM EST
    but with any luck at all you can't see Donald Trump's ego from there.

    Not without me ya don't d'wine... (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by kdog on Wed May 18, 2011 at 10:41:54 AM EST
    I'm dying for a fresh start without centuries of civilization baggage...bad blood, bad law, entrenched wealth & power structures...bad scene. Gleise 581d could be Eden.

    You can scavenge for the native foods and fresh water , I'll scavenge for the native psychotropics.


    Hey, some of you wishing (none / 0) (#66)
    by brodie on Wed May 18, 2011 at 11:25:44 AM EST
    for another planet -- I hear that the Shadow Visitors who apparently have been visiting our home planet for quite a while now (probably even before Roswell), occasionally accept a willing human volunteer for off-planet resettlement to fill some spiritual/social/scientific need on another planetary system.

    Must be the psychologically well-balanced type however, and not have unpure motives or selfish purposes.  Or be in it just for the groovy unpolluted dope.


    Oh well... (none / 0) (#74)
    by kdog on Wed May 18, 2011 at 11:47:51 AM EST
    I guess I won't be getting that interesting inter-galactic offer from our visitors from the great beyond.

    there may (none / 0) (#67)
    by CST on Wed May 18, 2011 at 11:30:00 AM EST
    already be inhabitants with baggage.

    What say you kdog, would you attempt to make nice with the natives?  Maybe get into some alien cross breeding?  Put them in zoos?  Or maybe they'll put us in a zoo.


    Was hoping for (5.00 / 1) (#71)
    by kdog on Wed May 18, 2011 at 11:41:28 AM EST
    uninhabited...but native intelligent life is a possibility, if intelligent life isn't a universal oxymoron.

    To answer your questions...I'd come in peace, of course, and act as my moms taught me how to act as a guest in somebody's house.  Inter-species breeding would depend on looks and personality and finding a willing native, same as earth.  If the local females look like Zoe Saldana in Avatar I'm willing:)

    If they have cages, I'm trying to escape, again same as earth:)


    I suspect intelligent life (none / 0) (#76)
    by brodie on Wed May 18, 2011 at 12:11:28 PM EST
    is probably ubiquitous in the Universe (or Multiverse more likely), our home planet being a backward exception despite recent advancements in home electronics.

    No guarantees, but it's doubtful you'd be treated as some zoo specimen for their Human Earthling exhibit, like in the old Twilight Zone episode starring Roddy McDowell.


    Sugar Ray Leonard (none / 0) (#70)
    by jbindc on Wed May 18, 2011 at 11:41:07 AM EST
    Wow (5.00 / 1) (#83)
    by Militarytracy on Wed May 18, 2011 at 12:51:52 PM EST
    If it's hard for woman to come forward it is double so for men.  Courageous