home

Wednesday Afternoon Open Thread

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Blog Related
Posted on Wed Jul 20, 2011 at 03:12:30 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

One of those days.

You'll want to watch the Tour de France the next 4 days, two mountain top finishes in the Alps (tomorrow on the HC (Beyond Category) Col de Galibier after two HC climbs, Friday on the Alpe d'Huez), and Saturday the likely decisive time trial in Grenoble.

Sunday is the parade down the Champs Elysees (except for the sprinters and their leadouts.)

Open Thread.

< Tuesday Night Open Thread | Thursday Open Thread >

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

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Wednesday Afternoon Open Thread | 193 comments (193 topical)
    Will she get the vote of migraine (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by oculus on Wed Jul 20, 2011 at 03:47:45 PM EST
    sufferers?  

    She gives me a migraine (5.00 / 3) (#14)
    by Towanda on Wed Jul 20, 2011 at 03:52:14 PM EST
    and makes me suffer.  So I feel fully qualified to assure you that the answer is:  No!

    Parent
    A serious and debilitating affliction, (none / 0) (#67)
    by KeysDan on Wed Jul 20, 2011 at 07:40:49 PM EST
    but god works in curious ways: "Not tonight".  "Oh, I understand, says Marcus, I will just work with the barbarians".

    Parent
    Max Keiser on fire (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by Dadler on Wed Jul 20, 2011 at 04:11:49 PM EST
    Great new Keiser Report, always entertaining and informative. (LINK)

    Like teh blacks and gays vote (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by me only on Wed Jul 20, 2011 at 04:25:44 PM EST
    Republican anyway.

    Well (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Jul 20, 2011 at 04:44:14 PM EST
    there are some Republican gays and I guess they would be sitting home if Bachmann is the GOP nominee.

    The problem with her is not that those groups would ever vote for her but that her ideas on gays are very much out of the mainstream of the country. You have to realize that there are a lot of people who aren't gay or African American that recoil at the kind of things that she says.

    Parent

    Just out of curiosity, have you ever (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by MO Blue on Wed Jul 20, 2011 at 05:34:48 PM EST
    heard of the Log Cabin Republicans?

    Parent
    Only when I read Gay Patriot (5.00 / 1) (#74)
    by me only on Wed Jul 20, 2011 at 08:55:09 PM EST
    That wasn't what Saul said.  The point is that Republican candidates don't win or lose on the gay and black vote.  Those groups consistently vote for Democrats by a wide margin.  There has been what, one Republican to ever win a congressional election in a majority black district (and that was only to get rid of a crook)?

    I doubt most of the Log Cabin Republicans are going to vote for Obama in 2012.  His economic policies are not in line with theirs, at all.  Marriage equality is about the only thing they agree with the left about.

    Parent

    All six of them? (none / 0) (#76)
    by andgarden on Wed Jul 20, 2011 at 08:57:31 PM EST


    Parent
    My fantasy team.... (5.00 / 2) (#37)
    by NYShooter on Wed Jul 20, 2011 at 04:54:40 PM EST
    Hillary Clinton/Elizabeth Warren

    They could do it, either in a Primary, or third Party.

    With the Clinton connections, money & viability wouldn't be a problem.

    Just remember, I said "fantasy" team. However, I can't believe that Bill, Hillary, and Elizabeth's guts aren't roiling at what Obama's done to the Democratic brand, and what a missed opportunity for Progressive values we're witnessing.

    Missed (5.00 / 2) (#40)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Jul 20, 2011 at 05:08:52 PM EST
    opportunity doesn't even begin to describe what we've witnessed under Obama.

    Parent
    Doesn't matter who would challenge (5.00 / 1) (#134)
    by Towanda on Thu Jul 21, 2011 at 10:58:05 AM EST
    Obama, as the Democratic Party would just change the rules again.  

    That message was made clear.  So any challenger just would be for show, anyway.  The fix is in for 2012 -- just as the fix was in for 2008.  

    The only thing that has changed about the smoke-filled back rooms of corrupt politics of the past is that now those rooms have no-smoking signs.

    Parent

    Obama (1.00 / 3) (#135)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Thu Jul 21, 2011 at 11:00:45 AM EST
    won by cheating and did not win fair and square.

    No.

    Sorry. I am required to squash all of that BS with authority.

    "The black guy stole the election" meme is not flying today or any other day.

    Parent

    Pfffttttt ... "squash with authority" (5.00 / 1) (#136)
    by Yman on Thu Jul 21, 2011 at 11:10:02 AM EST
    Fail.

    All you did was your usual unsupported opinion followed by your usual "If you criticize how Obama won the election it's because he's black - you racist"

    Pfffttttt ....

    Or maybe you meant you would "squash all of that with BS" ...

    Parent

    Right (1.00 / 3) (#138)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Thu Jul 21, 2011 at 11:38:53 AM EST
    Because Towanda was bringing cascades of knowledge to her comment.  

    Th rules did not allow her candidate to win and when the rules were modified to allow her candidate to lose more gracefully she accuses my candidate of breaking the rules.

    That's really all there is to it.  Now we can go back and forth forever on this and two things will remain the case:

    1. The rules committee was majority pro-Clinton
    2. Hillary and Obama agreed to the final deal
    3. Sore losers always blame their loss on the cheating of others.

    As a great man once said, haters are always going to hate, so you can't blame you for doing their job.  That's just the consequence of winning too hard.

    Parent
    More BS (5.00 / 1) (#147)
    by Yman on Thu Jul 21, 2011 at 12:02:08 PM EST
    Because Towanda was bringing cascades of knowledge to her comment.

    Towanda was clearly expressing her opinion, not claiming to "squash with authority" the counterargument, as you were.

    Th rules did not allow her candidate to win and when the rules were modified to allow her candidate to lose more gracefully she accuses my candidate of breaking the rules.

    BS - You (as usual) fail to state what rules were changed, or any evidence to back up your claim as to why they were changed.

    The rules committee was majority pro-Clinton

    BS


    Hillary and Obama agreed to the final deal

    Not sure what deal you're talking about.  Do you mean the "4 State's Pledge"?  You previously made the argument that the candidates agreed that the FL and MI votes wouldn't be counted.  You were wrong then, and you're wrong now.  (BTW - Guess what.  Only one of the candidate's violated that pledge, and his name starts with an "O".)

    Sore losers always blame their loss on the cheating of others.

    Really?  That's an easy one to solve.

    Stop being a sore loser

    As a great man once said, haters are always going to hate, so you can't blame you for doing their job.  That's just the consequence of winning too hard.

    I know that's one of your favorite (weak) arguments, and you also love (selective) polls, so here's a poll that tells you what 2/3 of people think about the idiotic "Haters Gonna Hate!" defense.

    Parent

    Actually, opinion only re 2012 (5.00 / 2) (#160)
    by Towanda on Thu Jul 21, 2011 at 01:10:58 PM EST
    since 2012 has not yet happened.

    But fact re 2008.  ABG can pretend all he wants that the May 31 Rules Committee meeting of the Democratic Party did not happen, but that's just more of his refusal to recognize facts, because I watched that meeting, after researching the rules, so I could understand fully exactly what occurred.  

    That research included reviewing the archived prior meetings of the committee as well as reviewing what I recalled so well of the significant rules changes in the '60s and '70s that made the Democratic Party so meaningful to me -- but no more.

    I know the facts.  I don't care about ABG's opinion, because it is not grounded in facts.

    Parent

    Yep - that's the way I read ... (5.00 / 3) (#163)
    by Yman on Thu Jul 21, 2011 at 01:21:56 PM EST
    ... your original comment (referring to 2012), although I completely agree with both of your comments.

    Parent
    That's actually (1.00 / 4) (#140)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Thu Jul 21, 2011 at 11:45:52 AM EST
    3 things but I was rolling.

    What's hilarious is that if you gave Hillary Florida and Michigan she still loses.

    She did not win the popular vote.  That's a ridiculous myth that only works if we pretend that the states of Alaska, American Samoa, Colorado, Idaho, Kansas, Minnesota, New Mexico, North Dakota, Nebraska, Washington, Hawaii and Wyoming don't have people who count for anything. She did not win the election.  Period.

    Any pretend fact provided to say otherwise will be countered by a real fact I will gladly provide.

    3 years later and they still can't get over it.

    Let 'em hate.

    Parent

    "Your" candidate? (5.00 / 1) (#146)
    by NYShooter on Thu Jul 21, 2011 at 12:01:18 PM EST
    He's not your candidate. He's not even a candidate. He's a puppet, lloyd Blankfein's puppet. And, for all your groveling submission, when your useful idiot role completes its mission, and any semblance of dignity and self respect you so willingly surrendered is vanished, Instead of the pat on the head you forfeited everything for, Obama will show to the East lawn, and the shrubs that need trimming.

    What a sucker.

    Parent

    Remind me again (none / 0) (#176)
    by jondee on Thu Jul 21, 2011 at 03:04:39 PM EST
    who it is on the D side who's really stood up Goldman Sachs and the rest..

    And hell, if you do it too much, like Nader, you're vilified as much as Obama is (by 2/3 of the people at this site, anyway.)

    And ABG, be careful, to paraphrase Andrew Jackson, about taking scared name Hillary "in your polluted mouth" around here, or one of the post-08 newbies may demand satisfaction on the field of honor. You should know that by now..  

    Parent

    yeah (none / 0) (#179)
    by The Addams Family on Thu Jul 21, 2011 at 03:09:56 PM EST
    remind me again who it is on the D side who's really stood up Goldman Sachs and the rest

    not Bill Clinton

    & certainly not Barack Obama

    so who did you have in mind? Bernie Sanders?

    oh wait

    Parent

    No one (none / 0) (#180)
    by jondee on Thu Jul 21, 2011 at 03:16:07 PM EST
    exactly.
     

    Parent
    You wanna point to the place ... (5.00 / 3) (#150)
    by Yman on Thu Jul 21, 2011 at 12:09:49 PM EST
    ... where someone said Hillary won the election?

    Those arguments are so much easier to knck down when you build 'em yourself from straw, huh?

    Parent

    some people just never got (5.00 / 1) (#178)
    by jondee on Thu Jul 21, 2011 at 03:07:17 PM EST
    over her not winning. Obviously.

    What a lost opportunity for a white, female, version of Obama in the Whitehouse.

    Parent

    Whatever it takes ... (none / 0) (#182)
    by Yman on Thu Jul 21, 2011 at 03:22:06 PM EST
    ... to make you feel better.

    Parent
    BTW - Not that it matters ... (5.00 / 3) (#170)
    by Yman on Thu Jul 21, 2011 at 02:25:13 PM EST
    She did not win the popular vote.  That's a ridiculous myth that only works if we pretend that the states of Alaska, American Samoa, Colorado, Idaho, Kansas, Minnesota, New Mexico, North Dakota, Nebraska, Washington, Hawaii and Wyoming don't have people who count for anything. She did not win the election.  Period.

    But your "facts", as usual, are BS.  The popular vote was a virtual tie, but Real Clear Politics has a good summary:

    1.  "American Somoa" isn't a state

    2.  Iowa, Nevada, Maine and Washington are the only states that didn't release popular vote totals - Alaska, Colorado, Idaho, Kansas, Minnesota, New Mexico, North Dakota, Nebraska, Hawaii and Wyoming all did, and they're included in the totals.  Obama only "wins" the popular vote if you extrapolate from these four states to estimate a popular vote count, and if you "pretend that Michigan has people who don't count for anything."

    But keep "hatin"!

    Parent
    I Call BS (none / 0) (#152)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Jul 21, 2011 at 12:23:15 PM EST
    I agree, Obama was wanted by more voting D's then Hillary.

    But stop with the non-sense, "Sore losers always blame their loss on the cheating of others."

    No they don't.  I'm not a sore loser, but if someone gets the folks his daddy and brother appointed to ensure some votes don't get counted, I have every right to call it cheating.  Well maybe I am sore about that one... but I am no sore loser.

    Parent

    Well put. (5.00 / 2) (#161)
    by Towanda on Thu Jul 21, 2011 at 01:15:17 PM EST
    Everyone was the loser in the changing of the rules.  ABG just doesn't realize that yet, but he will see in time that the party took a big step back in time with the changing of its rules.

    This is not about a past candidate; note that I did not name one.  This is about the future of the Democratic principles, platform, policies, etc., which we now cannot with confidence expect to allow real contests and real candidates.

    And that is a sad loss for this country.  That is, this country is the loser for having those rules changed that finally had opened the party to anyone other than white men.  

    Parent

    "The black guy" (5.00 / 1) (#162)
    by Towanda on Thu Jul 21, 2011 at 01:19:43 PM EST
    did not steal the election.  I did not say so.  I named no names.

    The powers behind the party machinations accomplished their aims, using the candidates.

    Really, get past personalities and watch process.  That is crucial to understanding how history really happens -- or does not happen, depending upon what the powerful want.

    The people of the party had worked for decades to win the rule changes that were good in past.  But these changes in 2008 did not come from the grass roots.  If you can't see that, you only want to play in the sandbox of personalities, and you do not want to see how political reform and real change really work -- or are not allowed to work.

    Parent

    Power (none / 0) (#172)
    by christinep on Thu Jul 21, 2011 at 02:36:39 PM EST
    While I'm violating my own personal position of not refighting/rearguing/rehashing the ins & outs of 2008 primary politics in our Democratic Party, two quick remarks: (1) My husband & I were strong supporters of Hillary Clinton from the beginning until her withdrawal in June 2008...and, as longtime activists within the Party, we fully accepted the situation and became strong supporters of now-President Obama. We proudly volunteered & worked in Hillary's campaign, and contributed the limit; and, in the way of political life and "ya win some, ya lose some" we first attended some of the Denver events that summer at the Pepsi Center (for Hillary's speech) and Obama's acceptance speech at Invesco Field, then transferred our allegiance to the nominee, volunteering work & contributing for his election.
    That is the reality of what political life has been & is; and, it does nothing to revisit the process other than to be divisive.  (2) BTD is fond of noting that politicians do what politicians do. Then, I suppose, people nod...and soon talk again as if politics was a new invention. In the matter of Primary, 2008: Both sides played & used power politics; both Democratic contenders had power centers & used them with the strongest of elbows at appropriate times. If I would venture anything, it is what we all surely realize...on the surace, the seeming newbie surprised the established player from the git-go...throughout the course, there were tosses, turns, & re=shuffling of alignments depending on who was perceived by congressional players to be ahead, etc...the powers shifted on both sides.  It was hard-fought, as a good primary is (& the kicks were given & taken to different degrees on both sides.)  

    Now...can we give it a rest. The looking-back stuff gets you nowhere, unless you are an historian. The principal players have long since joined forces--and, IMO, the Obama & Clinton combo is still a winner.

    Parent

    christine, what you are saying (5.00 / 2) (#173)
    by The Addams Family on Thu Jul 21, 2011 at 02:49:54 PM EST
    is that, like most Democrats, you accepted the process as it played out

    that is fine

    that is your perfect right

    if i'm not mistaken, however, Towanda is a professional historian who is anything but naive about the workings of power & Democratic intraparty politics, as her further comments attest

    her initial observation about the DNC's breaking of its own rules is accurate - & how do you explain the "historic" refusal to allow a roll-call vote at the convention?

    Towanda's subsequent remarks are in part a response to AngryGuy's earlier attempt to race-bait the issue

    the fact is that a substantial minority of longtime Democrats feel betrayed by what the DNC did during the 2008 primaries, & it's not because those Democrats are naive or chronic malcontents or "haters" or because they think it's all about Hillary

    i respect you immensely, christine, but i disagree with you that "business as usual" is an adequate response to what happened in 2008

    Parent

    Thank you, Addams Family (none / 0) (#183)
    by christinep on Thu Jul 21, 2011 at 03:25:35 PM EST
    I was lucky to be travelling the land of my grandparents as the primary season ended in May, 2008. My cousin & I were in Poland--immersed in the green & warmth of the journey. We took some hours (on a bus) to cry & offer our own commentary about injustice, etc. in the agony of the moment of loss. I say "lucky" to be out of the country then because it allowed me process my feelings (my cousin & I could carry on/yell in a pasture in Poland without recrimination.  I felt it strongly. Just as strongly, tho, do I believe that we have to let the past be the past.

    Believing that it is preferable not to let the tendrils of the past pull one under in unending skirmishes does not mean that happenings/significant political events should go unexamined. In this case, the DNC decision was crucial--but those roots of membership as well as the driving force of big-time Dem names & leadership arrangements are more critical. The primary process was not "business as usual"--the hard-fought ones are not. Other hard-fought primaries see rule changes, shifts, & elbows also. Not to say that is okay...it is the world of politics, IMO.

    Actually, I sensed that ABG threw a verbal grenade that others were all too willing to toss around. My pushback response was placed 'neath Towanda because--even tho Towanda often disagrees with me--I read & usually enjoy Towanda.

    Parent

    overall, i guess it's a slow day at TL (none / 0) (#189)
    by The Addams Family on Thu Jul 21, 2011 at 04:42:21 PM EST
    if we end up talking about 2008

    not that there's anything wrong with that, but . . . yeah

    Parent

    Actually, I am (5.00 / 4) (#184)
    by Towanda on Thu Jul 21, 2011 at 04:09:12 PM EST
    an historian.

    So you give it, and your lectures, a rest.  I d*mn well will not.

    As we say, history matters.

    Parent

    I understand, Towanda (2.00 / 1) (#193)
    by christinep on Thu Jul 21, 2011 at 05:32:25 PM EST
    But, I won't give my "lectures" a rest anymore than you will continue to push your viewpoint. Believe me, I'm not an historian--and, I admire you for being one--but, while the DNC decision was critical, there were other decisions that foreordained that end result. For example: Peer into the positioning of Democratic Congressional Leadership; think about the relationship of the Executive & Legislative Branches and who may have thought they had the most to gain in the ebb & flow of that dynamic. 'Just saying. (Now, I will shut-up before getting in too deep.)

    Parent
    actually, christine (none / 0) (#197)
    by The Addams Family on Thu Jul 21, 2011 at 06:25:28 PM EST
    i would be interested in hearing your analysis if you felt like sharing it

    Peer into the positioning of Democratic Congressional Leadership; think about the relationship of the Executive & Legislative Branches and who may have thought they had the most to gain in the ebb & flow of that dynamic.


    Parent
    Excuse me? (5.00 / 2) (#194)
    by sj on Thu Jul 21, 2011 at 06:13:46 PM EST
    The looking-back stuff gets you nowhere

    Did you really say that?  Every day is a new day and yesterday's experience is irrelevant to today's adventures?  Why do we even have schools?  Just take history out of the curriculum.  It doesn't matter how we got here, because we're just here.

    Holy smoke.  Out of all the things you've said about how you make yourself comfortable in today's Democratic party, this one takes the cake.

    Parent

    Pretty silly, huh? (5.00 / 1) (#195)
    by Yman on Thu Jul 21, 2011 at 06:21:08 PM EST
    But as we know, Obama doesn'y believe in "looking back", either.

    Parent
    Yeah nothing so pitiful (5.00 / 2) (#199)
    by NYShooter on Thu Jul 21, 2011 at 07:22:25 PM EST
    as someone whose life is changed not a bit to admonish those whose lives will be degraded to depths unimaginable to "give it a rest."

    What a cesspool culture we have.

    Parent

    will. not. feed. (4.20 / 5) (#137)
    by The Addams Family on Thu Jul 21, 2011 at 11:18:18 AM EST


    Parent
    I would happily (1.00 / 2) (#141)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Thu Jul 21, 2011 at 11:46:44 AM EST
    never talk about this again.

    Th only people who raise it are Obama haters.

    Parent

    Well... (none / 0) (#143)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Jul 21, 2011 at 11:52:31 AM EST
    Not going there, but let's not forget Hillary was on life support and sure to lose in here in Texas until Limbaugh turned it around by pushing republicans to vote in the Democratic primary.

    She pulled out by a sliver, had republicans not participated, she would have lost and been mathematically out.

    No doubt in my mind the majority of voting democrats wanted Obama as their candidate.

    All the monkey business with the DNC, Michigan, Florida, and the Super Delegates would have never come into play had republicans acted like adults and let democrats decide their candidate.

    Parent

    don't really want to go there, but (none / 0) (#153)
    by The Addams Family on Thu Jul 21, 2011 at 12:33:23 PM EST
    do you have a link?

    let's not forget Hillary was on life support and sure to lose in here in Texas until Limbaugh turned it around by pushing republicans to vote in the Democratic primary

    i am aware that Limbaugh was urging Republicans to vote in the Democratic primary, but where is your evidence that Hillary Clinton's victory in Texas was due to Limbaugh's intervention?

    i may have missed that evidence, but i could provide links to reports on fraud in the Texas caucuses that benefited Obama

    or you could Google it

    Parent

    Obama won the Republican vote (none / 0) (#157)
    by Yman on Thu Jul 21, 2011 at 12:54:44 PM EST
    ... in the Texas primary, and almost every other open primary.

    Parent
    You're Joking Right ? (none / 0) (#174)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Jul 21, 2011 at 02:52:47 PM EST
    Prove that a political ploy influenced and election ?  OK, then....  

    Sorry I didn't specify... "In my opinion and most political analysts agree Rush Limbaugh pulled out a victory for HRC in Texas"  


    Parent

    you make NO sense (none / 0) (#175)
    by The Addams Family on Thu Jul 21, 2011 at 03:02:44 PM EST
    see Yman's corrections to your nonsense

    Parent
    Who's joking? (none / 0) (#181)
    by Yman on Thu Jul 21, 2011 at 03:19:37 PM EST
    Not sure who you mean by "most political analysts", but your original claims were just plain wrong.

    1)  

    let's not forget Hillary was on life support and sure to lose in here in Texas until Limbaugh turned it around by pushing republicans to vote in the Democratic primary.

    Nope.  A survey of the final Texas primary polls the day before the primary shows a virtual tie (0.3 Clinton lead average).

    2)  She pulled out by a sliver, had republicans not participated, she would have lost and been mathematically out.

    No doubt in my mind the majority of voting democrats wanted Obama as their candidate.

    Once again, opinions are nice, but that's just wrong.  Look at the primary results.  Democrats went for Clinton by 53% to 46%.  Obama won the Republican "crossover" vote by 53% to 46%.

    Parent

    Nope - Obama won the Republican ... (none / 0) (#155)
    by Yman on Thu Jul 21, 2011 at 12:45:08 PM EST
    ... crossover vote by 53% to 46%.

    Parent
    of course he did (none / 0) (#156)
    by The Addams Family on Thu Jul 21, 2011 at 12:52:26 PM EST
    so doesn't that contradict your earlier claim?

    She pulled out by a sliver, had republicans not participated, she would have lost and been mathematically out.


    Parent
    sorry Yman (5.00 / 1) (#167)
    by The Addams Family on Thu Jul 21, 2011 at 02:05:37 PM EST
    thought i was responding to Scott

    Parent
    But, as I recall, Bill Clinton recently (none / 0) (#38)
    by oculus on Wed Jul 20, 2011 at 04:58:59 PM EST
    told that conference in Aspen essentially the same things Pres. Obama is saying now re how to fix the economy, cut deficit, raise debt limit, reform SS, etc.  

    Parent
    I saw him on Jon Stewart a few weeks back (5.00 / 1) (#102)
    by hairspray on Wed Jul 20, 2011 at 11:36:05 PM EST
    before all this debt dialogue got so overheated, saying he thought jobs should be the major topic and there were some ways to improve the situation.  Then he ticked off about 3 policy ideas.  After that he said no deficit reduction until the economy was in better shape.  Jobs first.  I also heard on NPR today that when Clinton drafted his first economic plan in '93 he went after Medicare first, then tax increases on a 1-1 split.

    Parent
    Yes, and Bill Clinton recently (none / 0) (#49)
    by KeysDan on Wed Jul 20, 2011 at 05:38:14 PM EST
    told Paul Ryan, at a deficit conference sponsored by the Peterson Foundation, that he hoped the NY-26 Congressional upset by Kathy Hochul (who campaigned against the Paul Ryan coupon plan) would be used as an excuse for Democrats to do nothing on Medicare.  Adding,  with an additional sensitivity toward rescue, that Ryan should give him a call and discuss it.  

    Parent
    he's the Consummate Politician (5.00 / 1) (#110)
    by NYShooter on Thu Jul 21, 2011 at 02:47:57 AM EST
    "........and keep your enemies closer."

    Parent
    oculus (none / 0) (#130)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Thu Jul 21, 2011 at 10:46:31 AM EST
    Bingo.

    Basically Pelosi is saying the same thing as Obama.

    Reid is saying the same thing as Obama.

    Clinton is saying the same thing as Obama.

    But Obama is the only one who is betraying liberal ideals?  As I have said, the flip side of the Tea Party refusing tax increases in any way is liberals refusing any change in entitlements in any way.

    Both groups are equally extreme and what we are seeing are our dem leaders understanding the political environment and using spin to game the system.

    The fact that Pelosi is using the same language as Reid tells me that they are now on the same page in terms of their strategy generally.  As I have always maintained, everything we are hearing now is posturing.

    Parent

    Oh, for the love of God - how long (5.00 / 3) (#142)
    by Anne on Thu Jul 21, 2011 at 11:47:17 AM EST
    have you been out in the sun today?  Drink some cool water, go for a swim - maybe that will help with the delusions.  If not, I can't help you.

    "Posturing?"  So, Pelosi actually isn't against cuts to the social safety net, even though she has been saying that she is?  Along with some 70 other House Dems?

    And so, do they or don't they think huge spending cuts are what create the conditions where jobs can be created?  We know that's always been the GOP line - cut and cut and oh, yeah, while you're at it - cut some taxes for the corporations!  They pay too much!  Even the ones that don't pay any!

    Was the Deficit Commission part of the "posturing?"  The Gang of Six in on it, too?  Did Obama call the Gang in for a little secret chat and task them with coming up with a "grand bargain" that Obama would support, so that when it didn't get any support anywhere else, they could go to the next bamboozle?  The one they really want?  Or the next plan they don't really want to get them to the one they do?

    Is this dragging-out of the process because Obama's new and improved super-hero costume isn't finished yet, and he wants to be able to be wearing it when he swoops in at the last minute with The Best Deal Ever?

    This is just nuts, ABG.


    Parent

    Anne (none / 0) (#144)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Thu Jul 21, 2011 at 11:54:30 AM EST
    There will be cuts that you do not like.

    The posturing bit is over this $ trillion silliness which is impossible given the timing.

    The great news is that, as predicted, the House dems now have power again.   They'll have to agree to some cuts we won't like but it's not going to be as terrible as it could have been.

    I am pretty happy with where things are going and think that the end result is going to show that the "Obama is going to kill SS" talk to be BS premature wrongness.

    The only fear I have now is that Obama agrees to a temporary extension.  If that happens, bad things could occur.  But if we have no extension, everything will work out OK.  Not perfect mind you (although I know you'll complain about any compromise) but just fine from a bigger picture perspective.

    Parent

    More "it could have been worse" talk (5.00 / 3) (#145)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Jul 21, 2011 at 12:00:24 PM EST
    That is supposed to make me feel better while nobody fights for the real solutions to our problems when the opportunity to do so presents itself.

    Parent
    This is the real world Tracy (none / 0) (#148)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Thu Jul 21, 2011 at 12:03:30 PM EST
    I wish we could make the Tea Party disappear through jedi mind power, but we can't and as long as we can't, sometimes this is the best you can ask for.

    I mean in a perfect world, we'd have just passed the debt ceiling increase months ago and be talking about the economy and jobs.

    Parent

    "in a perfect world"? (5.00 / 3) (#151)
    by The Addams Family on Thu Jul 21, 2011 at 12:17:58 PM EST
    I mean in a perfect world, we'd have just passed the debt ceiling increase months ago and be talking about the economy and jobs.

    it doesn't take a "perfect world"

    it takes a president who is up to the job

    the 'Bamateur blew it with "The Deal" last December & that is exactly why we are here now

    if the Tea Party didn't exist, the 'Bamateur would have had to invent it

    Parent

    This is bull pucky (none / 0) (#188)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Thu Jul 21, 2011 at 04:41:16 PM EST
    There is no President that makes the 80 or so members of the house who are insane go away.

    This is just as delusional as those who argue that nothing will happen if we default.

    Don't get me wrong. I am with Reid and Pelosi: if we get some compromise with no material revenue component i am going to be pissed, but the polls say the following:

    The country generally doesn't want to raise the debt ceiling (meaning they don't understand what is at stake)

    The country generally favors solutions in this order: 1. Cut spending/raise taxes, 2. cut spending only, and 3. raise taxes only.

    The country trusts Obama, the dems and the gop, in that order.

    If there is no deal, most will blame the republicans.

    Link

    So you take all of that and where does it leave you given the republican obstructionism.

    It leaves you negotiating a spending cuts with some tax increases that gets us over the GOP objections and solves the problem.

    Which is where we are.

    The world in which the debt ceiling is raised without any spending cuts does not exist in this dimension and now super powered, green lantern ring having president could do otherwise.

    It is what it is.

    Parent

    Tell this tale of the lack of bold problem solving (5.00 / 6) (#154)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Jul 21, 2011 at 12:38:02 PM EST
    to the next Great Depression ABG.  Obama isn't an FDR, but someone will eventually be.  Too bad he didn't take the opportunity when it was handed to him but he was too worried about being sidetracked from his planned legacies that the broken economy will not be able to afford.

    Parent
    I am just telling you (none / 0) (#190)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Thu Jul 21, 2011 at 04:44:42 PM EST
    where we are. Look it is hot as heck outside and I am about 90% certain that it because we are polluting our planet and killing ourselves slowly but that doesn't change the reality we live in.  No president would be able to convince big business to give up billions based on the evidence out there so you do what you can do.

    You may be right in that the deal may cause a second recession (doubt it) but we simply cannot do what you desire.  

    I don't know why people think a POTUS is magic.

    Parent

    Well, I guess I missed out on the (5.00 / 3) (#159)
    by Anne on Thu Jul 21, 2011 at 01:10:02 PM EST
    perfection of the world all those many, many times the debt ceiling got raised without being used as an ideological tool to advance or obstruct either party's agenda.

    But, hey - you just keep setting that bar to wherever it has to be so you don't have to be "disappointed."  Because, God knows, that's an emotion to be avoided at all costs - even if you have to give away the damn store.

    Just keep telling yourself that the only thing that matters is Obama's oh-so-precious "win" - even if the policy that results is beyond craptastic.

    And I thought Barbara Bush was insensitive and cold when she said, of the Katrina refugess camped out in the stadium, that "this was working out quite well" for these people, since, you know, they didn't have much to begin with, but after weeks of your simpering, shallow and condescending comments about what we all have to settle for so your beloved Obama can prevail make Barbara Bush look good.

    Parent

    Republicans weren't as crazy then (none / 0) (#191)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Thu Jul 21, 2011 at 04:45:08 PM EST
    Reagan would be considered a democrat now.

    Parent
    "Reagan would be considered a (5.00 / 2) (#200)
    by Anne on Thu Jul 21, 2011 at 07:33:32 PM EST
    Democrat now."

    Which is exactly the problem, ABG; that's how far to the right the party has gone in a very short period of time.

    I didn't find Reagan's policies and ideology to be remotely acquainted with what I, as a Democrat, believed then, and I certainly have not grown to see any wisdom in them now - even if they are coming out of the mouths of Democrats, most particularly Barack Obama.

    You may not have intended to, but you just expressed exactly what so many of us have been saying for a long time: Barack Obama is no Democrat.

    Parent

    Ohhhhhh ... it's the REAL world (none / 0) (#158)
    by Yman on Thu Jul 21, 2011 at 01:02:43 PM EST
    ... with no jedi mind powers.

    Thanks for clearing that up.

    BTW - Is there much money in platitudes?

    Parent

    Just how terrible does it have to get ? (5.00 / 2) (#166)
    by MO Blue on Thu Jul 21, 2011 at 01:52:47 PM EST
    If Obama's policies only increase the poverty rate by 5% rather than 10% does that make his policies a good thing. If they only add 10 - 15 more million people to the the many who already suffer from food insecurity rather than 20 or 30 million does that make his policies good policies. If his policies push wages down even further while he increases the taxes on people making $20,000, does that make his policies a good thing because he hasn't taken the entire amount and given it to his rich friends and corporations in tax cuts.

     

    Parent

    I don't think his policies will do any of those (none / 0) (#192)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Thu Jul 21, 2011 at 04:45:38 PM EST
    things so I don't have an issue.

    Parent
    I would agree with you (none / 0) (#39)
    by Peter G on Wed Jul 20, 2011 at 05:00:53 PM EST
    if only Hillary C. were still a progressive.

    Parent
    Not quite understanding (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by NYShooter on Wed Jul 20, 2011 at 05:36:38 PM EST
    You said, "if she still....." So, I presume you believe she was at some point. Anyway, I guess my question is, do you believe she has rejected progressive ideals, or has become too pragmatic in the other direction?

    In my eyes, she was never perfect, but for the fight we're in today, I think she'd be a pretty good advocate for the issues at stake.

    Parent

    I think she'd probably make an (5.00 / 2) (#55)
    by Anne on Wed Jul 20, 2011 at 06:20:03 PM EST
    excellent President of Domestic Issues, and I think she'd be great as President of Women's Advocacy Issues, both domestic and foreign.  I wish I knew how much she aligns herself with the Obama extension of the Bush policies on things like domestic surveillance, privacy rights, state secrets, indefinite detention - and the fact that the drone attacks and consequent deaths of innocent citizens are happening on her watch troubles me.

    What I suspect is that she is more of like mind with Obama in the arena in which she is serving, and would have been a giant thorn in his side if he had named her to a Cabinet position that put her in the domestic arena.  Which is why she is where she is.

    Speaking of Elizabeth Warren, did you read Yves Smith's piece in naked capitalism?  Excellent stuff.  

    The companion piece, here, won't be happy news for those hoping Warren would run for Scott Brown's seat in MA.

    A poll conducted in late June by Scott Brown and the Republican National Committee raises an even more basic question: whether she even has a shot at winning. We pointed out an obvious flaw: Warren would not get much if any big corporate sponsorship, and big warchests are usually necessary to buy enough airtime to unseat incumbents.

    The poll shows a 25 point gap, which is a massive hurdle, and also indicates that Brown is seen by many voters as not being a Republican stalwart (as in he is perceived to vote for the state's, not the party's, interest). A 25 point gap is a near insurmountable hurdle and shows that Warren's reputation does not carry as far as the Democratic party hackocracy would like her fans to believe.

    Warren's talents would, in my opinion, be wasted in the Senate; she can - and I hope will, do much more from outside the bubble than in.

    Parent

    it's very possible she may lose (5.00 / 1) (#186)
    by CST on Thu Jul 21, 2011 at 04:29:22 PM EST
    that being said, I'm really tired of the whole "so and so is too good for X job" nonsense.

    My goodness.  Sure the senate isn't perfect, but we desperately need more people of her caliber there.  By this logic, anyone who is good at anything should not run for senate.

    If she wants the position, she should run.  The polling isn't great, but she hasn't even announced yet and she is beating all the other possible challengers.  Half the people here have probably never heard of her, and Scott Brown seems like a "nice guy".

    He will be hard to beat, but this is a presidential election year in a blue state.  We should be putting up the best possible candidate on our side and support them like crazy.  I think that's probably Warren.

    Parent

    Yes, and yes, and (none / 0) (#78)
    by NYShooter on Wed Jul 20, 2011 at 09:38:32 PM EST
    I'll finish my response on Peter's post below.

    Parent
    I think Elizabeth Warren is much more (none / 0) (#103)
    by hairspray on Wed Jul 20, 2011 at 11:41:07 PM EST
    valuable as a possible cabinet choice. She needs to be leading the charge for reform of the banking system where she can avoid what happened to Brooksley Borne of Stanford. I don't know where that spot is but the senate is not the place.

    Parent
    Elizabeth Warren in particular (5.00 / 4) (#106)
    by The Addams Family on Thu Jul 21, 2011 at 12:10:49 AM EST
    would never be able to avoid what happened to Brooksley Borne, no matter what cabinet post she occupied - we need her on the outside of the Obama/Wall Street boys' club, which has no use for Elizabeth Warren, as we've just seen

    & that Rose Garden visual of President Obama passing Elizabeth Warren over for promotion, in favor of the man she hired & whose boss she was - that was classic

    no one should imagine that a large bloc of professional women voters didn't see it for exactly what it was

    Parent

    Yes wasn't it.? (5.00 / 1) (#108)
    by hairspray on Thu Jul 21, 2011 at 12:28:56 AM EST


    Parent
    Just too pragmatic, yes (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by Peter G on Wed Jul 20, 2011 at 07:32:53 PM EST
    ... plus what Anne says about the stuff she's now partly in charge of, which virtually no one in the power structure seems to oppose, no matter how unlawful or immoral (or budget-busting).  As for the "still" part, I knew her slightly back in law school when she really was progressive, a very long time ago.  And her handsome, ambitious, but less talented boyfriend from Arkansas, too, for that matter.

    Parent
    Sure, (5.00 / 2) (#80)
    by NYShooter on Wed Jul 20, 2011 at 09:57:46 PM EST
    I share your doubts, and questions about how much of a hawk she personally is, how much she adopts to display some sort of toughness creds, and/or how much she's just is a good, loyal soldier.

    I hate comments like the one I'm going to make....nobody's perfect, especially a politician. So, I'll just revert back to my preface....."fantasy."

    I just feel she's "real" in a way Obama most certainly is not. I think she has many more good qualities than bad, or questionable ones, and I just share with many others the hope that she'll get the chance to prove to all of us, and to herself, what could be accomplished by a dedicated public servant who is incorruptible, and "doesn't need the job."


    Parent

    Oh, no question - there's definitely more (5.00 / 3) (#87)
    by Anne on Wed Jul 20, 2011 at 10:14:43 PM EST
    "there" there, and the woman clearly has a solid resume - whether one thinks it's good or bad - and a history of working on and seeing things through in greater than 2-year increments.

    I think she would have been much more susceptible to being pushed from the left - I just don't see her trying to climb out of this economic hole we're in on the backs of the old, the poor and the sick.

    You're right that nobody's perfect, and Clinton was never perfect for me; I admit to having learned something about her in her current role that I'm not altogether comfortable with, but again, I wonder what the differences would be if she were carrying out her own vision, instead of doing the good soldier thing and carrying out Obama's.

    We may never know, and in truth, I would like to see the emergence of the next generation of more-liberal-than-progressive leaders to whom the torch can be successfully passed.

    Parent

    No argument from me (none / 0) (#90)
    by NYShooter on Wed Jul 20, 2011 at 10:29:41 PM EST
    Although I've never really understood the difference between "Liberal," and "Progressive."

    And I also agree I'd like to see a younger liberal candidate. But I don't see anyone who's attained the standing to fill that roll at this time.

    Parent

    a "progressive" (5.00 / 3) (#99)
    by The Addams Family on Wed Jul 20, 2011 at 11:11:27 PM EST
    is a Democrat who is afraid that the big bad Republicans are going to call him/her a "liberal"

    Parent
    Hah! (none / 0) (#111)
    by NYShooter on Thu Jul 21, 2011 at 02:51:20 AM EST
    good one

    Parent
    My thoughts about Hillary are that she is (5.00 / 3) (#104)
    by hairspray on Wed Jul 20, 2011 at 11:49:36 PM EST
    better on domestic issues and therefore would have been a better president than Obama.  In that realm I saw her progressive nature (or thought I did). Especially when she said during the campaign that the "forgotten" people would not be overlooked by her. It was always the blue collar working people who favored her.  In the realm of foreign policy she has always been more hawkish.  What I think I see her doing now is carrying out the wishes of the generals and by extension, Obama.  But underneath it all, I think she has made the state department a more professional organization and she has worked to build the third leg of their mission, the well being of the people, particularly the women and children.  Other SOS's have focused on trade and military alliances.  She has added the third dimension.

    Parent
    I don't think (none / 0) (#41)
    by jondee on Wed Jul 20, 2011 at 05:10:58 PM EST
    it was too trying a transition.

    Parent
    The Gang of Six (5.00 / 3) (#44)
    by KeysDan on Wed Jul 20, 2011 at 05:19:56 PM EST
    is thinking of the American people all the time.  For example, their plan for Social Security (according to an analysis by Marie Diamond, Think Progress, Economy) would affect current retirees, however, not a penny "saved" would go to deficit reduction.

    So why bother?  Well, the Gang said that the "changes" go toward securing long-term security for the program even though Social Security is solvent until 2037 and does not contribute to the deficit.  Ms. Diamond calculates that the chained CPI that the Gang proposes, on its own, is tantamount to a $1,300 cut each year for recipients over a lifetime of benefits.

    Former Obama advisor and Co-Director of Strengthen Social Security, Nancy Altman,  is quoted in the piece saying that the idea is an "overly harsh cut".  Moreover, Ms. Altman maintains that "the chained CPI is poor policy and given that seniors vote in disproportionally high numbers, it is equally poor politics."

    What a deal they have for you (5.00 / 5) (#57)
    by MO Blue on Wed Jul 20, 2011 at 06:49:59 PM EST
    Future retirees will enjoy reduced SS benefits and to make sure you are left with little in your golden age they plan to eliminate tax breaks for retirement savings. Of course, the president and congresscritters are not cutting their pensions or tax payer subsidized health care.  

    Parent
    Rep Fazio explains (5.00 / 1) (#79)
    by suzieg on Wed Jul 20, 2011 at 09:39:24 PM EST
    it all very well in just a few minutes:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rWiSJVtTZ8Q&feature=player_embedded

    Parent

    It's the (5.00 / 4) (#54)
    by andgarden on Wed Jul 20, 2011 at 06:18:58 PM EST
    final countdown. Panic will no doubt ensue before long!

    Best of luck, Andy (5.00 / 3) (#68)
    by Peter G on Wed Jul 20, 2011 at 08:12:14 PM EST
    You'll do fine on the exam, and it's obvious you're going to be a terrific lawyer.

    Parent
    Knock wood (5.00 / 2) (#69)
    by andgarden on Wed Jul 20, 2011 at 08:19:50 PM EST
    Thanks. It's remarkable how little consistency or logic there is behind the rules of Criminal Procedure. It's proof positive for me that there's nothing to Constitutional law but counting to five. That ought to be appreciated here of all places!

    Also, I'm a little bit sorry that I never took Wills & Trusts.

    The other remaining hurdle is a  J O B.

    Still working on that. . .

    Parent

    Wills and Trusts is the only class I took (none / 0) (#70)
    by Peter G on Wed Jul 20, 2011 at 08:32:34 PM EST
    in law school, I think, where I learned substantive law that I have actually used from time to time, as opposed to the problem-identifying, -analyzing, and -solving techniques that were otherwise the real subject-matter of the curriculum.  As a result of that class, I can now say with confidence, at family reunions, etc., who is a second cousin and who is a first cousin once-removed.  That is the most useful concrete thing I learned in three years of law school.  This is not to put down the metaphysical and logical analysis part of what I learned (99%), which I totally believe in and swear by, even now, 35 years later.

    Parent
    Do I get one educated guess (none / 0) (#71)
    by andgarden on Wed Jul 20, 2011 at 08:39:40 PM EST
    about where you went to law school? There is a school in New Haven that has a reputation for teaching law that way. . .

    Parent
    I am not at liberty to say ... (none / 0) (#72)
    by Peter G on Wed Jul 20, 2011 at 08:46:59 PM EST
    but see Comment 64 in this very thread.

    Parent
    Speaking of someone who failed the Bar Exam. . . (none / 0) (#73)
    by andgarden on Wed Jul 20, 2011 at 08:52:28 PM EST


    Parent
    You'll Ace it! (5.00 / 1) (#85)
    by NYShooter on Wed Jul 20, 2011 at 10:10:00 PM EST
    you're half-way there already.

    Your comments sound really brilliant, and I don't understand a thing you're saying most of the time.

    A natural.

    Parent

    Thanks, but I consider that a failing (none / 0) (#88)
    by andgarden on Wed Jul 20, 2011 at 10:17:02 PM EST
    I usually try to write comprehensibly!

    As to the exam, it is said that you can get a substantial amount of credit on the essays even if you misstate the law in an egregious way. I don't want to rely on that, but. . .

    Parent

    Your failing is (5.00 / 1) (#89)
    by NYShooter on Wed Jul 20, 2011 at 10:22:18 PM EST
    not recognizing a tongue portruding through a cheek.

    You're much brighter than most of my attorney friends, which only goes to prove how lonely I really am.

    Lighten up, you'll breeze through.

    Parent

    It's true, or used to be (in response to #88) (none / 0) (#93)
    by Peter G on Wed Jul 20, 2011 at 10:38:35 PM EST
    Back in the day, when I was a law professor (a couple of decades ago), I was on the committee that evaluated and approved the model answers to the essay questions (to be used as a checklist for grading) for the PA Bar.  I learned then that most of what they were looking for was the ability to identify correctly what the question was about, at least in general terms, and whether the applicant used the key vocabulary in her/his answer.  That was more than half the credit right there. It hardly mattered at all whether the essay answer was "right" or "wrong."

    Parent
    That's what I'd gathered (none / 0) (#96)
    by andgarden on Wed Jul 20, 2011 at 10:50:30 PM EST
    I think I will still have dreams fro the rest of the week about encountering issues related to rules that I never learned. And in the absolute worst case, I am prepared to make up a rule (in order to salvage some "issue" and "analysis" points). It seems like they'll pay you something for the product even if the cans are empty.

    I am very lucky that the Bar Exam isn't graded like a Chinese Imperial examination, where perfect regurgitation of rules (and calligraphy!) were crucial. We are even allowed to word process our essay responses on computer. And that is mostly a real boon.

    Parent

    No kidding? (none / 0) (#83)
    by NYShooter on Wed Jul 20, 2011 at 10:07:36 PM EST
    I didn't realize Winchester Firearms gave out degrees. Kind of like McDonald's Hamburger U?

    lol

    Parent

    Shoot! (5.00 / 1) (#92)
    by Peter G on Wed Jul 20, 2011 at 10:32:28 PM EST
    You found me out. Winchester indeed.

    Parent
    "Shoot!" LoL (5.00 / 1) (#112)
    by NYShooter on Thu Jul 21, 2011 at 02:56:58 AM EST
    You are one Punny guy.

    Parent
    They got Dodd père to introduce (none / 0) (#84)
    by andgarden on Wed Jul 20, 2011 at 10:09:39 PM EST
    protectionist firearms regulations in the 60s, no?

    Parent
    Was that when Dodd was a Democrat? (5.00 / 1) (#86)
    by NYShooter on Wed Jul 20, 2011 at 10:13:53 PM EST
    As for me, I was in college in the 60's, and sex, drugs, and rock 'n roll ruled the day.....not politics.

    Until Uncle Sam asked me if I'd like to see the world.

    Parent

    Best of luck andgarden (5.00 / 4) (#77)
    by MO Blue on Wed Jul 20, 2011 at 09:07:23 PM EST
    You'll do just great. Good luck also on landing the type of job that suits your abilities.

    Parent
    Good luck! (5.00 / 1) (#107)
    by Madeline on Thu Jul 21, 2011 at 12:20:15 AM EST
    nt

    Parent
    already? (none / 0) (#58)
    by The Addams Family on Wed Jul 20, 2011 at 06:53:56 PM EST
    didn't you just start?

    Parent
    Yup, already (none / 0) (#59)
    by andgarden on Wed Jul 20, 2011 at 07:01:07 PM EST


    Parent
    Remember, (5.00 / 1) (#60)
    by jeffinalabama on Wed Jul 20, 2011 at 07:06:53 PM EST
    wear a ball cap with a white underside to put your crib notes on!

    Good luck. I'm sure you'll do well!

    Parent

    Heh (none / 0) (#65)
    by andgarden on Wed Jul 20, 2011 at 07:35:24 PM EST
    They make you tear the label off the clear plastic bottle you are permitted to bring in.

    Parent
    That was (none / 0) (#202)
    by Jane in CA on Thu Jul 21, 2011 at 07:44:54 PM EST
    my first thought as well!

    Congrats on accomplishing so much in the last couple of years, Andgarden, and good luck on the bar exam -- although, I suspect you won't really need it :)

    Parent

    No. Comment. (none / 0) (#66)
    by andgarden on Wed Jul 20, 2011 at 07:36:58 PM EST


    Parent
    I have faith in you (none / 0) (#196)
    by sj on Thu Jul 21, 2011 at 06:22:35 PM EST
    But good luck anyway!

    Parent
    MSNBC is on your side (5.00 / 1) (#126)
    by waldenpond on Thu Jul 21, 2011 at 10:12:39 AM EST
    Check out Cenk Uygar's explanation for why NBC dumped him.  Apparently he hurt some feefees.  He was flat out told that NBC is the system.  Too funny.... and don't forget, MSNBC is on your side.

    Salon.com

    Irony: Salon's title "Cenk lashes out" ha! priceless!  Watch the non-tone?  I guess Salon defines discussing facts and reality as impolite, and dontcha know, that's the same as tone.

    Contador still your pick? (none / 0) (#1)
    by me only on Wed Jul 20, 2011 at 03:30:58 PM EST
    He looked very strong yesterday.  Schleck not so much.

    Evans (none / 0) (#2)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jul 20, 2011 at 03:32:17 PM EST
    But Conta's the man.

    Parent
    At least until Aiugust (none / 0) (#27)
    by me only on Wed Jul 20, 2011 at 04:26:42 PM EST
    after that he might be soft pedaling...

    Parent
    Do the guys in the breakaway group (none / 0) (#3)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Jul 20, 2011 at 03:33:05 PM EST
    ever win the stage?

    As long ago as (none / 0) (#6)
    by me only on Wed Jul 20, 2011 at 03:41:27 PM EST
    yesterday.

    Parent
    Well there you go. (none / 0) (#12)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Jul 20, 2011 at 03:49:02 PM EST
    We record it and watch it at night aftet the kids go to bed, I guess I dozed off before the end last night...

    Parent
    Just read up on it. (none / 0) (#16)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Jul 20, 2011 at 03:57:43 PM EST
    I guess I meant when breakaways occur early in the stage, do those guys ever win the stage. Seems like the peloton always catches up at some point...

    Parent
    Yes, a couple of the more (none / 0) (#23)
    by me only on Wed Jul 20, 2011 at 04:22:21 PM EST
    well known were

    Stuart O'Grady in 2004, Stage 5.  (Famous for some French dude getting the yellow jersery, cough, cough).

    George Hincapie in 2005, Pla d'Adet.

    El Falcon in 2005, Stage 17.  I think that was an early break as well.

    I won't mention either of the banned duo.

    Bastille day on medium mountain days is a decent bet for early break success.

    It is rare that an early break on a flat stage nets a win.  The likes of Cavendish, McEwan, Hushovd etc like throwing their arms up too much.

    I can't wait like i used to.  I "watch" online.  The stages are less memorable the last 5 years.

    Parent

    Excellent, thank you. (none / 0) (#33)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Jul 20, 2011 at 04:35:35 PM EST


    Parent
    And yesterday (none / 0) (#122)
    by me only on Thu Jul 21, 2011 at 08:35:33 AM EST
    I didn't even spoil it for you.

    Parent
    In 1959, British cyclist Brian Robinson ... (none / 0) (#43)
    by cymro on Wed Jul 20, 2011 at 05:18:30 PM EST
    won the 20th stage of the Tour, from Annecy to Chalon-sur-Saône, a relatively flat stage of about 200km, by 20 minutes. I remember reading about it the next day in a British paper.

    Parent
    In 1959, I was about -8. (none / 0) (#75)
    by me only on Wed Jul 20, 2011 at 08:57:13 PM EST
    So can I be forgiven for not remembering that one?

    The Cannibal also won flat stages on solo breakaways.  That was also awhile ago.  

    Parent

    According to Wikipedia ... (none / 0) (#168)
    by cymro on Thu Jul 21, 2011 at 02:20:15 PM EST
    ... in the 1969 Tour, "Merckx won the 17th stage, over four cols from Luchon to Mourenx by eight minutes after riding alone for 140 km." Not a flat stage, but a bit more research would probably show that he did that too -- he certainly had the ability. In 1969 he was so far ahead of his competition that won all the major classifications, a feat that seems unlikely to be repeated now.

    Parent
    I was just putting up an open thread (none / 0) (#4)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Jul 20, 2011 at 03:33:29 PM EST
    with this picture.  The heat is really bad today, over 100, and even the keyboard feels sticky when I come back indoors.

    And I just was writing of 110 degrees (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by Towanda on Wed Jul 20, 2011 at 03:42:50 PM EST
    per our heat index in Hades aka Chicago, with a temp of 98 and dewpoints out of sight.  

    If you missed this in the waning posts of the last thread, I shared a sign shared by friends on FB:

    "Satan called, and he wants his weather back."

    It's just not supposed to be this bad along the Great Lakes with our Canadian winds -- or in the  Colorado mountains, and not at the same time!  I saw a report that the geographical area hit by this heat wave is larger than all of Mexico.

    Parent

    Here on the east coast, it's hot and (5.00 / 3) (#15)
    by Anne on Wed Jul 20, 2011 at 03:55:08 PM EST
    getting hotter...and the humidity is just crushing; as much as I get tired of breathing canned air everywhere I go, I'm grateful I have the option - the city's opened cooling centers, for those without A/C, but that's not much help to those who work outside.

    Not much relief in sight anytime soon - they are forecasting temps in the triple digits into the weekend - and it's not even August yet, which is when it's usually the hottest.

    Even the pets don't want to go out unless nature calls...last night, when I went to let the dogs out before I went to bed, our older lab just looked at me as if she was saying, "you're kidding, right?"  Even after a thunderstorm around 10:30 pm, it was still in the low 80's an hour later.  

    Hate to think what the next electric bill will look like...sheesh.

    Parent

    I was so high and mighty (5.00 / 3) (#18)
    by CST on Wed Jul 20, 2011 at 04:10:03 PM EST
    the last 2 years, in my 1st floor apt, with just my ceiling fan, lots of windows and good circulation.  Being all eco friendly.

    Now I'm back on the 3rd floor, and my how quickly our morals disappear.  CRANK THAT AC UP.

    The humidity is really the worst.  It's not too bad here yet, but we are headed there soon.  And I will be "out in the field" tommorow for part of the day, so no AC there.  I'll probably drink 3 gallons of water.

    Sometimes I feel like the only thing worse than severe winter weather on the east coast, is severe summer weather on the east coast.  If only spring and fall were 12 months of the year.

    Parent

    Yes, it will be worse your way (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by Towanda on Wed Jul 20, 2011 at 04:10:07 PM EST
    by the day, as this is supposed to be our worst day before we "drop!" into the low 90s again.

    And now there are outages here for at least hundreds of homeownrers, and it looks like my kids' place is in the neighborhood hit -- as are stores on the Magnificent Mile.  So there could be thousands of shoppers inside.  I hope none are in elevators, as those will heat up like ovens, or stuck behind electronic doors.

    No heat deaths reported so far, but I fear that can't last; the last heat wave like this killed almost 500 in Chicago alone.

    Parent

    p.s. My grandpuppy and your dogs (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by Towanda on Wed Jul 20, 2011 at 04:14:44 PM EST
    had the same reaction.  We chuckled at reports of how fast our little Sheltie guy, with his heavy fur coat from his Scottish heritage, is high-tailing back inside these days.  

    He usually tugs at the leash, so eager to get to the park near his Chicago home to meet and greet the other urban canines.  But this week, his paws do not like the pavement, so he sticks to his backyard patch of green and then gets back to the door as fast as he does in a blizzard in January.

    Parent

    Hot in a glorious way here... (5.00 / 2) (#121)
    by kdog on Thu Jul 21, 2011 at 08:32:30 AM EST
    Day 2 of extensive brush clearing and landscaping today...what a job, good lord!

    This is a section of the yard maybe 15 yards wide between the fence and the road(it's a corner house, 1/2 acre lot), a litter magnet patch thats become a real eyesore. Ran it by the landlady and got the ok to clean that sh*t up.  I knew it was a big job but I really had no idea, really sold us short on the rent reduction!:) I found the grease monkey that used to live across the street was dumping all his used car parts over there...rotors, oil filters, motor oil.  Thanks a lot dude! More liquor bottles and beer bottles than I've ever seen in one place, plastic bags really do never biodegrade, couch cushions, a fire extinguisher, sh*t you name it somebody dumped it.  Troubling though were the couple hyperdermic needles I found...somebody in the 'hood was on the junk, hopefully the grease monkey and not the current neighbors.  The garbage man is gonna hate us, 30 big bags of trash, leaves, and thorny brush and only half way there.

    Maybe its karma for all the littering I've done in my life...I learned my lesson for sure this time, littering is utterly not cool. And the only buried treasure I found so far were two big glass cookie jars, intact, that will become outdoor ashtrays.  Was hoping to find some cash or a kilo thrown out the window by a fleeing suspect...maybe today.

    Enjoy your AC's, I'm gonna soak up this heat working in the sun. I don't think I've sweat like this since my ditch-digging days in FLA.  Time to get to work, and as pops always said, make this job "over, finished, done". I tell ya this the neighbors appreciate the death of the eyesore, one came by with a spliff break, and another with an ice cold brew, praising the work...hope they see me again today and bring more carrots:)

     

    Parent

    Better put up a really high fence. (none / 0) (#139)
    by oculus on Thu Jul 21, 2011 at 11:40:55 AM EST
    With concertina wire at the top.  

    Parent
    Move to alabama, J, (none / 0) (#5)
    by jeffinalabama on Wed Jul 20, 2011 at 03:37:53 PM EST
    it's only 90 here, and no more humid than usual... so very ;-)

    Parent
    Hey, he's up and at 'em! (none / 0) (#13)
    by oculus on Wed Jul 20, 2011 at 03:50:30 PM EST


    Parent
    Living life (5.00 / 2) (#53)
    by jeffinalabama on Wed Jul 20, 2011 at 06:05:06 PM EST
    without bread and beer. I begin to wonder if this is what Hell is like,but then I remember that Hell would include Lee Atwater, Karl Rove, Sarah Palin and Roger Ailes forcing me to participate in writing new propaganda.

    So... this is existence, barely. The idea of a sandwich with lettuce instead of bread, and iced tea without sugar would be included with the above. BUT...in about 10-12 weeks, I'll have bread and beer, and be able to pee again!

    TMI? ;-)

    Parent

    I really do think you'll adapt pretty quickly. (5.00 / 2) (#56)
    by oculus on Wed Jul 20, 2011 at 06:31:41 PM EST
    Sweets taste overly-sweet to me now.  

    Parent
    Get a stevia plant (none / 0) (#63)
    by nycstray on Wed Jul 20, 2011 at 07:25:38 PM EST
    then make sun tea with a leaf of two added. You can also just make reg tea and let the leaves steep with the bags :)

    Parent
    Some awful names there! (none / 0) (#100)
    by hairspray on Wed Jul 20, 2011 at 11:21:00 PM EST


    Parent
    Come to Western Washington (none / 0) (#24)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Wed Jul 20, 2011 at 04:23:59 PM EST
    We have one 77 degree day in the forecast.  Otherwise, we'll be thrilled if the temp gets above 70.

    Parent
    Same here on the SF peninsula (5.00 / 2) (#30)
    by Dadler on Wed Jul 20, 2011 at 04:31:53 PM EST
    73 today and tomorrow, 68 the following two days.  Ho-hum.  Let loose with curses now, oh rest of ye broilers.

    And stay as cool and safe and healthy as you can.

    Peace.

    Parent

    I'm staying out of this one! (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by oculus on Wed Jul 20, 2011 at 04:34:31 PM EST


    Parent
    I'm flying to Seattle in a few weeks (5.00 / 2) (#35)
    by republicratitarian on Wed Jul 20, 2011 at 04:46:47 PM EST
    My first trip out West other than Vegas. Conference on the company dime. Woohoo!

    Parent
    MiniBar Madness (none / 0) (#42)
    by Dadler on Wed Jul 20, 2011 at 05:17:23 PM EST
    But seriously, is there ever a good time for a seven dollar Snickers or a fifteen dollar shot of Cutty Sark?

    Don't answer that.

    As Spinal Tap keyboardist Viv Savage said in the famous "rocumentary" about the band: "Have a good time, all the time. That's my philosophy, Martin."

    Parent

    I'll get my monies worth for sure (none / 0) (#124)
    by republicratitarian on Thu Jul 21, 2011 at 09:54:54 AM EST
    Every time I think of Spinal Tap I always think of the scene with the volume knobs that go to 11.

    Parent
    She must be the lesser of several evils (none / 0) (#9)
    by Towanda on Wed Jul 20, 2011 at 03:45:15 PM EST
    on the Republican side, so this is easily explained!  After all, we are supposed to understand and support that argument on the Democratic side.

    I saw a poll (none / 0) (#10)
    by lilburro on Wed Jul 20, 2011 at 03:46:36 PM EST
    that she was #1, ahead of Romney (by like a point, but still).  

    Seems like the RW is mobilizing against her though (the Daily Caller migraine hit job).

    I don't think (none / 0) (#22)
    by NYShooter on Wed Jul 20, 2011 at 04:17:40 PM EST
    we've seen the end of the candidates on the Republican side.

    Remember back in the early 90's, when most of the Dem heavy hitters wouldn't throw their hat in the ring because Bush 1 seemed unbeatable? (Desert Storm) That's how we got Bill Clinton.

    I can't believe the Republican, big money/power guys aren't looking for a sane candidate to put up.

    I think a greatly weakened, vulnerable, and extremely beatable Obama is too tempting to leave to this early field of flat-earthers.

    Maybe (5.00 / 2) (#26)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Wed Jul 20, 2011 at 04:26:16 PM EST
    they don't feel Obama has really branded the Dem name with economic disaster creation yet.  Or maybe they have more problems they want to pin on Democrats.

    One thing I've noticed about Repubs...they are must more long-term thinkers than Dems.

    Parent

    The big money/power guys of both (5.00 / 2) (#28)
    by MO Blue on Wed Jul 20, 2011 at 04:29:55 PM EST
    parties are probably thinking that Obama is doing just a fine job getting them an even bigger slice of the pie, why ruin a good thing. 2012 the year of the Republican crazies for president with them saving who they consider their big guns for 2016. Then the Republican president can finish the job that Obama started from 2010 - 2015.

    Parent
    I was thinking along the same lines (none / 0) (#29)
    by Towanda on Wed Jul 20, 2011 at 04:31:03 PM EST
    just yesterday, in a conversation in which I recalled a Republican candidate who was trailing the Dem incumbent in all polls -- almost 10 points behind in the Gallup poll, for example -- only about 10 days before the election.

    The election of 1980.

    And Reagan had not even declared his run by this point.

    Parent

    But of course, my recollection (none / 0) (#31)
    by Towanda on Wed Jul 20, 2011 at 04:33:15 PM EST
    was doubted until others in the conversation checked on this, and were amazed; the younger ones have been raised to think that St. Ronny was  immediately recognized as the Messiah.  Not so, not by a lot of Republicans until almost election day.

    Parent
    Or perhaps, even more to the point (none / 0) (#52)
    by Towanda on Wed Jul 20, 2011 at 05:50:36 PM EST
    as I now recall:  St. Ronny was favored by a lot of Republicans -- but it was the crossover Dems and Indies in the closing weeks that won it for him.

    I am reminded of this by the PPP poll linked from a comment below, as PPP states that Obama might not win if the election were today, especially because of loss of some Dems and more Indies.

    Parent

    FWIW (5.00 / 2) (#94)
    by NYShooter on Wed Jul 20, 2011 at 10:40:59 PM EST
    Carter's in house pollster, using his own proprietary criteria,  had Carter losing by a considerable amount weeks prior to the election. That last debate put the icing on it, but was not determinant.

    I wasn't crazy for Carter, yet I felt a profound sadness at his loss, or rather at Reagan's win.

    To say I didn't share in the euphoria would be the understatement of the century.

    Parent

    Now you've got me curious (none / 0) (#114)
    by NYShooter on Thu Jul 21, 2011 at 03:16:01 AM EST
    I remember reading this pollster's memoirs, and his feeling of pity for Carter, who, while displaying a not so believable, stoic front, betrayed that false bravado in private glimpses. In fact, I remember him saying that the saddest moment of his life was when some poll at the end ticked up in Carter's favor, triggering a momentary show of elation, he felt he had to pull Carter aside and inform that, "Mr. President, the election is lost. Mr. Reagan has won."

    Lemme do some research, then we'll both know for sure.

    Parent

    The sources I checked (5.00 / 3) (#98)
    by Towanda on Wed Jul 20, 2011 at 11:10:12 PM EST
    during the discussion showed Gallup reporting Reagan down 8 points on October 29 -- after being down 10 points some unstated days before but only a "few" days before.

    I remember so well that in September, the thought of Reagan having even a chance was seen as laughable.  I remember because I was taking a grad course with the amazing George Reedy, who kept having to leave class to take calls from Ben Bradlee.  George was serving as a consultant to WaPo -- and predicting that Reagan would win.  Bradlee kept calling to get George to change that, but he would not do so, so WaPo ignored his advice.

    And how did George Reedy make that prediction?  He had us tracking things like sales of cowboy boot and cowboy hats, sales that soared that summer.  He saw in that a strong level of support for Reagan that was not being measured, because the polls were undercounting, even dismissing as not worth polling, some demographic groups.  George said, especially, that the pollsters were missing angry groups.  Voila!  Remember the post-election discovery of "angry young white men" said to have tipped the election to Reagan?

    So, we have had some interesting discussions at TL about groups whose anger is being ignored, even dismissed these days.  Now, what sorts of odd measures could we use to attempt to assess them and what they will do in the polls?  I have some thoughts . . . but they'd bring out the sort of discussion that would go nowhere, sadly.

    Parent

    Obama is doing (none / 0) (#132)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Thu Jul 21, 2011 at 10:50:15 AM EST
    TPM:

    "If Ronald Reagan was the Teflon President, Barack Obama may be the Kevlar President -- bad news can bruise him, but none can pierce his armor to cause any severe damage to his approval ratings.

    That's according to Gallup Editor In Chief Frank Newport, who spoke to reporters Tuesday at a breakfast meeting sponsored by the Christian Science Monitor. Newport says he's crunched the numbers as far back as they go in Gallup's polling archive and found that no one's done as well as Obama when the public is as unhappy with the economy."

    Parent

    So Obama is doing (none / 0) (#169)
    by Towanda on Thu Jul 21, 2011 at 02:24:17 PM EST
    what?  Not as terribly as did . . . Carter?  And from that, you take comfort?  Have you actually read any history for context for these comments?

    Parent
    You know, (none / 0) (#36)
    by NYShooter on Wed Jul 20, 2011 at 04:53:23 PM EST
    we keep asking who could appear as a viable opponent to Obama, either from the Republican side, or from the Democratic side? ( in a Primary)

    But, it doesn't have to be someone who's now in the political realm. It could be a businessman/woman, actor, or any famous person.

    As a matter of fact, a non-politician would automatically give them a leg up.

    A while ago I thought Michael Bloomberg (none / 0) (#101)
    by hairspray on Wed Jul 20, 2011 at 11:28:55 PM EST
    might run.  I guess not.  

    Parent
    Bloomberg of the (5.00 / 1) (#115)
    by MO Blue on Thu Jul 21, 2011 at 03:31:56 AM EST
    "No Label" movement who joins with Charlie Crist, Mike Castle, Blanche Lincoln, Evan Bayh and IIRC Joe Lieberman to pursue a bipartisan approach in government.

    I have had more than I can stand of the bipartisan approach to government with Obama. don't see him as an alternative to Obama. With cohorts like those mentioned about I wouldn't trust Bloomberg not to give us the same policies as Obama.  


    Parent

    90 funny/infuriating seconds about Moody's (none / 0) (#45)
    by Dadler on Wed Jul 20, 2011 at 05:23:10 PM EST
    And the ratings racket.  Max is making me laugh lately, which we all need.  But I'm crying too.  Dammit. (LINK)

    Obama in (none / 0) (#46)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Jul 20, 2011 at 05:25:17 PM EST
    perilous shape according to PPP

    No problem (5.00 / 2) (#50)
    by MO Blue on Wed Jul 20, 2011 at 05:41:35 PM EST
    Once people realize that he is the main driver to cuts to the safety net programs, people will flock to support him. :-(

    Parent
    So it turns out to be true that (5.00 / 3) (#51)
    by Towanda on Wed Jul 20, 2011 at 05:47:13 PM EST
    you can only fool some of the people some of the time.

    Foolish as the electorate can be, they do know that they have paid dearly for decades for the security that this president so mistakenly refers to, like a Republican, as "entitlements."  

    Parent

    Well that explains why Obama has (none / 0) (#105)
    by hairspray on Wed Jul 20, 2011 at 11:56:26 PM EST
    gone to the right of center.  He hopes to capture the independents and thinks the left has no where else to go.  All of this posturing as the only adult in the room is to capture them (me too, since I am an Indy now as well). He is too far right for me, but what are my choices?

    Parent
    He apparently is correct in his assumptions (5.00 / 4) (#116)
    by MO Blue on Thu Jul 21, 2011 at 03:39:51 AM EST
    that the majority of the left will vote for him as the lesser of two evils regardless of how harmful his policies are to liberal policies and to the poor and the middle class.

    His reelection, which I think is a done deal, will establish that the Masters of the Universe can continue to rape and pillage and inflict real hardship on the poor and the middle class with no real opposition. Only grumbling on the side lines that can be dismissed because when it comes time to vote the grumblers will fall in line and vote for their abusers.    

    Parent

    These cuts are too serious and painful (5.00 / 2) (#117)
    by suzieg on Thu Jul 21, 2011 at 06:46:36 AM EST
    for the most vulnerable of our society. A great many democrats will not forget or forgive or trust him for basically breaking the sacred trust re: safeguarding the entitlements. Sacrificing them for continued tax cuts for the rich and Corporate America - it's just too obscene and disgustingly revolting!

    Personally, I could no longer support/vote for democrats regardless of their votes because they didn't put a stop to this folly from day one  - the betrayal is just too great this time around!

    My vote can no longer be taken for granted as he so arrogantly presumes!

    Parent

    I agree with you (5.00 / 2) (#119)
    by MO Blue on Thu Jul 21, 2011 at 08:04:19 AM EST
    But I think that we are in the minority. The opinion expressed by people here at TL that they have no alternative but to vote for Obama and the Dems is what I am hearing from my friends and family who are Democratic voters.

    The indies how they will decide to swing is anyone's guess.

    Parent

    We'll see where things are this time (5.00 / 1) (#120)
    by Anne on Thu Jul 21, 2011 at 08:25:58 AM EST
    next year - without marked improvement in the economy over an extended period, I think whatever energy Obama brings to his campaign is going to be hard-pressed to overcome the malaise and indifference being felt by voters.

    Was thinking last night that it isn't always a good thing to have no primary opponent.  With no one to debate, no competition from within the party, pretty much all the attention will be on the GOP race - there will be no Democratic debates to watch, no hotly contested primaries, no tension going into the convention.  Sure, Obama's the president, so he will be in the news, obviously, but the economy is going to be doing a lot of the "speaking" for him, and it's not going to have much good to say, I don't think.

    I could be completely wrong about how this will play out - we'll see soon enough.


    Parent

    I'm not a poll puppy, (none / 0) (#125)
    by NYShooter on Thu Jul 21, 2011 at 09:55:43 AM EST
    but I did read a poll the other day that Indie support has dropped 4-5 points in its latest survey.

    Anybody out there to verify this?

    Parent

    Checked WGN for a moment, (none / 0) (#95)
    by jeffinalabama on Wed Jul 20, 2011 at 10:43:18 PM EST
    90 degres in Chicago at 10 pm... checked here, 76. That's a mean heat wave. Good luck, midwest...

    It was 86 degrees when I pulled into (none / 0) (#118)
    by Anne on Thu Jul 21, 2011 at 07:04:30 AM EST
    the parking garage downtown (Baltimore) at 7:30 this morning; it's headed for 103, with a heat index of 111.  Dew point is at 75, and we had some fog this morning because the air is so saturated it can't hold onto much more.  

    Hotter tomorrow.

    And we really need some rain!

    Parent

    We are at 102 right now (5.00 / 1) (#185)
    by MO Blue on Thu Jul 21, 2011 at 04:18:20 PM EST
    Don't even want to know what the heat index is.

    Possible T-storm tomorrow evening which will bring the high temp down to about 97. A real cool front. At this point I will take whatever reduction in temperature that we can get.

    Parent

    It was 99 (none / 0) (#187)
    by Zorba on Thu Jul 21, 2011 at 04:34:06 PM EST
    earlier down in the valley.  Even up here on the mountain, it got up to 91 today.  Heat index?  Who knows?  Abominable, no doubt.  I was only able to spend a few minutes in the garden today, just enough time to grab a couple of zucchini, pick some basil and tomatoes, and dig up one plant of new potatoes, and even that had me about wiped out.

    Parent
    Drink plenty of water, Anne! (none / 0) (#128)
    by jeffinalabama on Thu Jul 21, 2011 at 10:14:00 AM EST


    Parent
    Rain (none / 0) (#198)
    by sj on Thu Jul 21, 2011 at 06:36:13 PM EST
    Were you in town day before yesterday when the skies opened up?  It scary, scary rain, but didn't last long.

    Parent
    I was - the rain was beating against the (none / 0) (#201)
    by Anne on Thu Jul 21, 2011 at 07:39:07 PM EST
    windows like crazy - really wild for a little bit.

    Worst part was, we didn't get a drop of it at home - had a late night t-storm, but nothing from the earlier one.

    Parent

    I just found out (none / 0) (#97)
    by jeffinalabama on Wed Jul 20, 2011 at 10:52:40 PM EST
    that there was a re-make of "Red Dawn" in 2010, but this time, the Chinese attack.

    Y'know, just changing the bad guy does not a good movie make. You can't make chicken salad with chicken sh*t.

    Can't believe I didn't know about the remake. capt howdy must have posted it but I missed it.

    The Best Part (none / 0) (#129)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Jul 21, 2011 at 10:22:43 AM EST
    Is the studio that made the re-make is owned, in part, by Chinese, so after production, when they got wind of it, they used CGI to change all the China stuff to North Korea.

    I believe they did it because there is a huge market for these types of films in China, but they love us and hate NK.  So for it sell, they had to make it ridiculous.

    Should give Kim Jong-il a wet dream or two.

    Parent

    ARRA cost per job (none / 0) (#123)
    by Jlvngstn on Thu Jul 21, 2011 at 08:59:23 AM EST
    Why doesn't someone do a study on the Bush tax cuts and the jobs created by the cuts and the cost for each job like they are doing with ARRA?

    Being that we have had these tax breaks active for 10 years at a cost substantially higher than ARRA which actually put people to work.

    I have not seen one study on the tax breaks, but there many on ARRA.

    ARRA = job killer
    Tax Break = job creator

    Prove it.

    I know it sounds rediculous (none / 0) (#127)
    by CST on Thu Jul 21, 2011 at 10:12:44 AM EST
    to use the whole "created or saved" metric on the ARRA, but it's a valid metric.

    I say that as someone who's job was "saved" by the ARRA.

    I never lost my job, but I've been working on ARRA projects for the last 2 years. I have no doubt that if it weren't for that funding, I would not have stayed employed.  There was no other work to be done.  It's only in the last few months that I've seen any private sector work come back.

    Parent

    Heat Wavers (none / 0) (#131)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Jul 21, 2011 at 10:48:26 AM EST
    It hasn't been below 90 here in Houston for like 90 days.  It has, but for like a minute.

    No offense to anyone, but I am so tired of hearing about the National Heat Wave that is cooler than my average summer day here in Houston.

    And this heat index non-sense...  How can we try to make people think it's hotter than it is ?  Unless you are in the desert, when it gets hot it gets humid.  We are on the Gulf, and the only time I hear the term 'heat index' is when it gets hot up north.  We don't use it, maybe a mention with the pollen report, but it's not normal weather lingo here.
    ----------------------------------

    Beyond the silliness, is it just me or has the term 'global warming' been banned from the media.  I know weather vs climate, but everything the climatologists predicted is happening, tornadoes, floods, heat waves, every year more intense and crickets from the media.

    Do you have air conditioning? (none / 0) (#133)
    by me only on Thu Jul 21, 2011 at 10:55:24 AM EST
    Much of the upper Midwest does not.

    Parent
    fair 'nuff (none / 0) (#177)
    by CST on Thu Jul 21, 2011 at 03:06:51 PM EST
    that's pretty much how i felt when London shut down over 3 inches of snow.

    Although re- humidity, it's not just the desert that is dry, it's places that are further away from water.  After soon as you start driving west in MA the humidity drops significantly.

    I have also found that the "heat island effect" of the city exacerbates the humidity/heat issue significantly as well.

    And while I do have AC these days, it's not central air, it's only in my bedroom, and for the last 2 years I did not have any AC, and I certainly did not have it when I was living in the midwest.  Growing up we never had it in any room.

    Plus, what can I say, we are all wimps.

    Parent

    Non-Sense (none / 0) (#149)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Jul 21, 2011 at 12:09:09 PM EST
    I am from Wisconsin, lived their for ~25 years, never lived anywhere w/o AC.

    Does anyone here not have AC ?

    We did not have it in Illionos, nor in Colorado (none / 0) (#164)
    by ruffian on Thu Jul 21, 2011 at 01:40:38 PM EST
    or California. I've never had it until I moved to FL, where it does not cool down at night.

    Parent
    I don't have A/C. (none / 0) (#165)
    by caseyOR on Thu Jul 21, 2011 at 01:44:58 PM EST
    I have a fan, but that is it.

    Parent
    Which is what you are (none / 0) (#171)
    by me only on Thu Jul 21, 2011 at 02:32:52 PM EST
    This is old, but even with the trend, only about half the midwest would have air conditioning by now.

    Parent
    Wednesday Afternoon Open Thread | 193 comments (193 topical)