Tuesday Morning Open Thread

Open Thread.

< Big Business Wins In Proposed Patent "Reform" | Can We Afford Continuing The Iraq Debacle? >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Fitch affirms US credit (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by Warren Terrer on Tue Aug 16, 2011 at 09:51:49 AM EST
    rating at AAA.

    Fitch (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by blueaura on Tue Aug 16, 2011 at 11:14:58 AM EST
    I have a friend who works at Fitch. We always joke that all he does is stamp things "AAA".

    Obama's Anti Congress Message (5.00 / 3) (#25)
    by Robot Porter on Tue Aug 16, 2011 at 10:02:53 AM EST
    works out to be an equally good message against his administration:

    You've got a right to be frustrated ... I am. Because you deserve better. I don't think it's too much for you to expect that the people you send to this town start delivering.

    Here's to starting the day (none / 0) (#1)
    by dead dancer on Tue Aug 16, 2011 at 07:33:58 AM EST
    with a laugh:
    The Think Tank

    Mark Sanford (none / 0) (#2)
    by jbindc on Tue Aug 16, 2011 at 07:37:12 AM EST
    aka "The Love Guru"

    The former gov, who's still seeing the Argentinean woman for whom he left his wife, explained to Morgan what he thinks went wrong.

    "I think I didn't properly love my wife," said Sanford. "I think that fundamental to a woman, I'm not trying to be a chauvinist here, is a need for security whether it's emotional or financial or a nest. And if she gets that she's happy and playful and encouraging and if she doesn't get that she can be some other things."

    Ha....what a card (5.00 / 4) (#3)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Aug 16, 2011 at 07:57:20 AM EST
    She can be anything she wants and yes, she can be other things.  She can be without the millstone Mark Sanford :)

    A pol till the bitter end (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by kdog on Tue Aug 16, 2011 at 08:20:07 AM EST
    "other things", how diplomatic!

    I hear about the "other things" from my married buddies, using less diplomatic terms...lol.


    i am SUCH a lucky man (5.00 / 2) (#6)
    by Dadler on Tue Aug 16, 2011 at 08:34:16 AM EST
    My wife is so low-maintenance, such a laid back gal, and she's the one much more likely to say, "We have to be back by one for the football game, I can't miss a second of it."  

    Those other guys, complaining all day, I have no clue.

    Knock on formica.


    Make of it what the two will (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Aug 16, 2011 at 09:22:37 AM EST
    I could never make it through the things we go through with Joshua without my husband.  When I fall down tired he takes up the yoke, we swap it back and forth.  We haven't had to fight any doctors in awhile either, but I couldn't wish for anyone else by my side when we have to do that.  All that and he made CW5 too.

    For sure... (5.00 / 3) (#14)
    by kdog on Tue Aug 16, 2011 at 09:31:48 AM EST
    when it works tis a beautiful thing, and when it don't there are few things uglier.

    Look at you and Dadler, any peeps to shack up with you guys gotta be salt of the earth:)


    You've gotta be salty something (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Aug 16, 2011 at 09:35:04 AM EST
    to shack with me :)

    Mujer especial, mujer especial, mujer... (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by Dadler on Tue Aug 16, 2011 at 09:56:10 AM EST

    You must be counting those days 'til you see her, my man.  Hope they get here quickly.


    53 hours 2 minutes... (5.00 / 4) (#27)
    by kdog on Tue Aug 16, 2011 at 10:16:27 AM EST
    yeah I'm counting...abscence does make the heart grow fonder and fonder, just hope we rekindle the magic yet again, this time stateside.  Yip yeah!

    I've got the massive cleaning operation to pass the time at night...my room and dining room done, living room, kitchen, and bathroom to go, full scrub downs, down to the nooks and crannies that never see any cleaning rag love.  Bathroom last, with my roomates' habits of leaving skidmarks and shaving gunk and all...I have begged for 10 days of tidyness outta those animals:)


    My wife's a slob, too (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by Dadler on Tue Aug 16, 2011 at 10:20:41 AM EST
    So, of course, I'm the one always begging for a little tidyness from her.  We're such a backas*wards funny couple.  But it works.

    Good luck with the roomie sitch, hopefully those hogs will keep the sty a little less stinky for you.


    I'll know soon enough... (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by kdog on Tue Aug 16, 2011 at 10:26:17 AM EST
    We're right outta town on Friday, off to our camping trip and Midnight Ramble at Levon's in Woodstock, we'll see if all my hard work was for naught or not Monday night.

    Baby ya know I'd die for you...


    My husband is a pig (none / 0) (#35)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Aug 16, 2011 at 10:58:16 AM EST
    It irritates me evil too because he knows how not to be but I guess it stiffles his creativity or something traumatic to live like that permanently :). When he went to Warrant Officer Candidate School he was the class honor grad, #1.  Which meant that he was spotless at all times and his drawers and his room were spotless as well.  He still keeps himself spotless, but when not deployed and relaxing on the homefront everything behind him is a vortex of habitat chaos.  I think when he deploys he shifts into that rigorous responsibility mode, but to love him is to clean up after him forever or at least until death do us part.

    Celebrating 31 years of marriage today, (5.00 / 4) (#40)
    by Anne on Tue Aug 16, 2011 at 11:23:30 AM EST
    and still have no idea why, if the sink is right next to the dishwasher, the plate/glass/whatever only seems to make it as far as the sink...I guess I should be glad it gets that far, huh?

    Marriage is hard, and with everything the world seems to throw at it, I sometimes consider it some kind of miracle that even 50% of marriages last.

    My husband and I are pretty much yin and yang - I guess this means we complete each other, lol.  I like to think that over the years, we have made each other bend in ways we weren't used to, made each other better in ways where we needed to be better, expanded our hearts and our minds, tested us and rewarded us through all the ups and downs.

    All in all, I think I'll keep him!


    Happy Anniversary (5.00 / 3) (#45)
    by MO Blue on Tue Aug 16, 2011 at 11:40:58 AM EST
    31 years is a long time. You both must be doing something right. Congratulations.

    CONGRATS Anne! (5.00 / 3) (#47)
    by smott on Tue Aug 16, 2011 at 11:42:33 AM EST
    31 years - well done!

    Glad you two will keep each other!

    Hope you celebrate tonight in a special way, good food, good wine, whatever!



    Congratulations Anne! (5.00 / 3) (#53)
    by ruffian on Tue Aug 16, 2011 at 12:14:22 PM EST
    Here's to 31 more! enjoy the day.

    Happy anniversary, Anne! (5.00 / 3) (#57)
    by Zorba on Tue Aug 16, 2011 at 12:36:22 PM EST
    And my very best wished for many more.  Yes, I have a yin-yang marriage myself (41 years duration as of July), but I feel that we complete each other, too.  We've always felt that, no matter what else happens, we have each others' backs.

    Thanks, Zorba - and everyone - (5.00 / 2) (#58)
    by Anne on Tue Aug 16, 2011 at 12:44:39 PM EST
    for the good wishes; don't know what the plan is for the evening, but whatever it is, we'll enjoy it!

    Enjoy! (5.00 / 2) (#62)
    by Zorba on Tue Aug 16, 2011 at 01:05:33 PM EST
    Have lots of fun!

    Happy anniversary to you both (none / 0) (#126)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Aug 16, 2011 at 10:52:05 PM EST
    I hope we can yin and yang that long.  

    Happy, happy anniversary, Anne! (none / 0) (#127)
    by sj on Tue Aug 16, 2011 at 11:01:28 PM EST
    May you have many, many more wonderful years.

    Awwwww- how sweet, kdog (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by Zorba on Tue Aug 16, 2011 at 12:31:37 PM EST
    One of the ways (but not the only way) to a woman's heart is a man who does housework.  And I've always sort of thought the old saying really should be "abstinence makes the heart grow fonder."  Or something.   ;-)

    Lifelong bachelor... (5.00 / 1) (#70)
    by kdog on Tue Aug 16, 2011 at 01:30:21 PM EST
    no choice but to learn how to cook and clean for myself.  I don't mind it really except for folding laundry and ironing...those two chores I abhor, half the time I just wear it out of the clean laundry tub, wrinkled as a prune.

    don't you watch seinfeld? (none / 0) (#72)
    by CST on Tue Aug 16, 2011 at 01:35:45 PM EST
    no need to iron, just hang it up immediately after it comes out of the dryer.

    Or oven as the case may be.


    Doesn't work for me... (none / 0) (#74)
    by kdog on Tue Aug 16, 2011 at 01:41:13 PM EST
    wrinkled right out the dryer, and I use dryer sheets and everything.

    Hanging it up in the bathroom during a hot shower doesn't work either...and I'm so lousy at ironing when I do attempt it the shirt looks more wrinkled than when I started.  So I've surrendered, if it must be pressed I take it to the cleaners or drive it over to moms and beg for her tender ironing mercy...lucky for me I only wear suits at weddings and funerals.


    Jeez, Dog, (5.00 / 3) (#77)
    by Zorba on Tue Aug 16, 2011 at 01:47:21 PM EST
    don't you buy permanent-press?  I haven't ironed in years.  I take the clothing out of the dryer (if your dryer has a "permanent-press" setting, use it) and hang them up immediately.  If there are a few wrinkles, I use a spray bottle of commercial "wrinkle releaser," following the directions on the bottle, and that does the trick.  

    Perma-wha? (5.00 / 3) (#79)
    by kdog on Tue Aug 16, 2011 at 01:54:00 PM EST
    The dryer we have is old-school, all it has on the knob is a timer.  Old s.o.b. still runs hot though.

    As for clothes I don't buy those either, I update my wardrobe once a year at Christmas, with  whatever I get as presents.  I'm the anti-clothes horse, if clothes make the man I'm a eunuch.


    LOL! (5.00 / 1) (#87)
    by Zorba on Tue Aug 16, 2011 at 02:16:28 PM EST
    Well, try the wrinkle-releaser, anyway.  I take a small bottle along whenever I travel, to de-wrinkle any clothing that got wrinkled in the suitcase.  Look in the grocery store where they have the "fabric refresher" bottles- there should be a "wrinkle releaser," too.  And as for ironing- I'm the oldest of five kids, and I did enough ironing growing up to put me off ironing forever.  I'm very good at it (I can even do a really good job ironing pleats, ruffles and dress shirts), but I'm sick of it, so I avoid it like the plague (I used to iron bed sheets, too, as well as shirts, blouses, slacks, etc, etc).  I only do the occasional touch-up.

    I'll give the wrinkle stuff a go... (5.00 / 1) (#93)
    by kdog on Tue Aug 16, 2011 at 02:38:12 PM EST
    I need to get to MD for domestic training with Zorba, you know all the tricks!  

    Though I think you need your head examined for ever ironing bedsheets...sorry, thats weird:)


    It certainly wasn't (5.00 / 2) (#107)
    by Zorba on Tue Aug 16, 2011 at 03:34:15 PM EST
    my choice.  As the eldest child, I did what my mom asked and helped out as much as I could- raising five kids created a whole lot of work for her.  (I did, however, manage to persuade her eventually that ironing sheets was a thankless proposition.)  OTOH, I left home knowing how to wash clothes, iron, clean, garden, cook (Mr. Zorba used to laugh that I made way too much food in the first few years of marriage, since I had learned to cook for seven people), sew, embroider (thanks to my grandmother- talk about something useless, at least to me), change diapers, sterilize baby bottles, take care of kids, oh, and also change a car tire, check a car battery, check and top off a car radiator, use a screw driver and hammer, etc to make minor repairs (thanks, Dad!).  

    If what I read in a novel is true, (none / 0) (#94)
    by MO Blue on Tue Aug 16, 2011 at 02:55:20 PM EST
    fancy butlers iron newspapers so that the ink does not come off on the hands of their employers. That is weird IMO.



    that takes skill (5.00 / 3) (#78)
    by CST on Tue Aug 16, 2011 at 01:53:29 PM EST
    although I will say I am no neat freak myself.  My only requirements for apartments is that it needs a dishwasher and a washer/dryer in house.  I know myself all too well and without those two things it could get out of hand.  Luckily I haven't had trouble finding them.

    I am more of a "clean for company" person myself.  If I have even one friend coming over I will clean like a mad woman, but if it's just me and my sister I really don't care.

    But after reading this thread, I'm even more convinced that I'm effectively married to my sister...  We even go on "date" nights.  And I definitely get along with her better than my ex.  You have to have at least one stable person in every relationship :)


    I don't get dishwashers... (5.00 / 2) (#81)
    by kdog on Tue Aug 16, 2011 at 02:00:35 PM EST
    my crib has one, never used it...ya gotta wash the dishes before ya put 'em in so whats the point?

    Another thing I don't get...only clean dishes get put in the dishrack, so where does all the gunk on the dishrack come from?  Gunk Fairy?  



    One of the great mysteries (5.00 / 1) (#86)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue Aug 16, 2011 at 02:16:05 PM EST
    of the world, kdog!  I was just grumbling and griping about that -- again -- the other day.  How on earth can something that only holds clean dishes end up with that gunk on it?

    glasses alone (none / 0) (#84)
    by CST on Tue Aug 16, 2011 at 02:08:02 PM EST
    are reason enough.  They always pile up like you wouldn't believe.  But you can just toss them in the dishwasher lickety-splat and there you go.  Then again I use to also have really narrow glasses that would cut up my hand trying to get that last bit of soda or whatever it was stuck to the bottom out.

    Really I barely rinse most dishes that go in the dishwasher, certainly not all the forks and knives and little things that add up when you're doing it by hand.

    As for dishrack gunk, I imagine that's some of the "soda at the bottom" that you just didn't get out.  Also any dust that ends up on the dishrack may pool and collect into gunk because of the water.


    You don't have to wash them (none / 0) (#88)
    by Zorba on Tue Aug 16, 2011 at 02:18:50 PM EST
    before putting them in the dishwasher kdog- if they've got big gobs of food, a quick rinse is all that's needed.  This is assuming you have a good, modern dishwasher.   ;-)

    I always thought that was the dog's job . . . (5.00 / 2) (#92)
    by nycstray on Tue Aug 16, 2011 at 02:31:27 PM EST
    'rinsing' dishes before dish washing :)

    Well, there is that, (none / 0) (#100)
    by Zorba on Tue Aug 16, 2011 at 03:23:18 PM EST
    if you have a dog!  LOL!

    'I'm not trying to be a chauvinist here,' (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by ruffian on Tue Aug 16, 2011 at 08:50:12 AM EST
    Well no Mark, you don't have to try

    Yes, so unlike a man (5.00 / 3) (#9)
    by ruffian on Tue Aug 16, 2011 at 08:51:34 AM EST
    who is such an absolute dream to live with if he is unloved and not financially secure....

    what a tool.


    In Other Words... (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Aug 16, 2011 at 09:39:08 AM EST
    ... It's Her Fault I Cheated.

    Well, he didn't love her right (5.00 / 2) (#20)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Aug 16, 2011 at 09:50:59 AM EST
    And then she wasn't playful like his girlfriend is, so then he had to cheat on her.  What an idiot.  Imagine getting to be so delightful and playful and sexy and allowing the sun to glimmer off of your naked body in just the right light while your four sons burn the house down :)

    Give me a Break...... (none / 0) (#5)
    by samsguy18 on Tue Aug 16, 2011 at 08:28:13 AM EST
    The utter arrogance.....I admire his Ex-wife Jenny Sanford.

    I watched (none / 0) (#7)
    by lentinel on Tue Aug 16, 2011 at 08:48:55 AM EST
    a new movie - a sort of spin on the "Planet of the Apes".

    As with the original, the smart ape has pinkish skin, and the more aggressive apes have darker skin.

    We haven't come very far, baby.

    The Gorrillas were always the dumb (5.00 / 2) (#19)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Aug 16, 2011 at 09:40:31 AM EST
    brutish ones, even in the original Planet of the Apes.  They were the ape military. So when we watched the new Planet of the Apes what I saw was once again those who did what was physically difficult and dangerous were once again the big dumb ones :)

    I noticed that too but have not seen anyone else (none / 0) (#10)
    by ruffian on Tue Aug 16, 2011 at 08:53:14 AM EST
    remark on it. I even looked around in the movie theater expecting some visible reactions. Not a peep.

    The orangutan was smart... (none / 0) (#12)
    by kdog on Tue Aug 16, 2011 at 09:11:46 AM EST
    but I guess he's reddish?

    I don't know, feels a lot like digging to file a pc police report to me...I saw an entertaining film, not racist propaganda...but in the eye of the beholder I guess.


    No, I didn't see racist propaganda at all (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by ruffian on Tue Aug 16, 2011 at 09:32:55 AM EST
    and thought it was a very entertaining movie. But I could not help but notice a few things. Possibly quite unintentional on the part of the director. I'm not accusing anyone of anything.

    No worries.... (none / 0) (#24)
    by kdog on Tue Aug 16, 2011 at 09:57:51 AM EST
    I just think plenty of real racism to talk about before we look for dog whistles in POTA...white supremacists might say the movie is black power propaganda:)

    It's not that it's propaganda (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue Aug 16, 2011 at 10:39:08 AM EST
    it's just that it's a reflection of subconscious attitudes that are still with us, and therefore a little depressing.

    Did you know that in experiments, black children still overwhelmingly prefer lighter-skinned dolls to darker ones?  They're getting that message from somewhere, and movies that continue to do this aren't helping.


    Well said - thank you! (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by ruffian on Tue Aug 16, 2011 at 10:58:26 AM EST
    Points taken... (none / 0) (#34)
    by kdog on Tue Aug 16, 2011 at 10:48:52 AM EST
    I'll consider myself lucky that I don't have the subconcious attitudes to notice.

    Is that a recent study/experiment with the dolls?  I tend to think the subconcious attitudes you mention are far less prevalent now, iow things have gotten better.  People my age, unless they were raised in bigoted households (of which far too many still exist), just don't see sh*t like 'the dark ones are dumb', we just see a fun action movie with smart apes kickin' human arse.


    The movie was released on Obama's B-day (none / 0) (#49)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Aug 16, 2011 at 11:46:00 AM EST
    (ok, the day after) it must be racist.

    "Keep your hang-ups off me... (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by kdog on Tue Aug 16, 2011 at 01:08:49 PM EST
    you damned dirty pc police!"

    Can't cite you chapter and links, Kdog, but (none / 0) (#128)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed Aug 17, 2011 at 12:38:19 AM EST
    I saw a piece on this just a few months ago I think on CNN.  Yeah, you'd think that attitude would have changed a lot since Brown vs. Board of Education, but apparently it hasn't, even with a black man in the White House.

    Just as an experiment some day, go see if you can find a "new baby" greeting card that doesn't have a white baby on it-- not one that has a black baby, those don't exist, just one that doesn't have a white one but has, oh, I don't know, flowers or birds or something.

    Then go cruise a toy store and look at the pix on the boxes.  You'll see some minority kids pictured, but almost always they're off to the side watching the white kid play with the toy.

    It's insidious and widespread, still, and not something you notice usually if you're the color of the "normal" yourself.

    Point being that this stuff is reinforced constantly, day after day, item after item.  Hollywood could help, but even all those nice liberals don't really want to make the effort.


    I see this with my nieces. (none / 0) (#138)
    by vml68 on Wed Aug 17, 2011 at 12:04:47 PM EST
    black children still overwhelmingly prefer lighter-skinned dolls to darker ones

    And see (none / 0) (#11)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Tue Aug 16, 2011 at 09:09:30 AM EST
    from your interpretation I at first took away that the smart ape was female and so this was going to be a good thing.

    But no, we haven't come far in sex or race, or even poor versus rich.  Our politicians had been on a marketing campaign for a long time to make us think we've come far, but they've stopped even with that.


    For all its problems ... (none / 0) (#23)
    by Robot Porter on Tue Aug 16, 2011 at 09:56:41 AM EST
    this is one thing that the Tim Burton remake tried to subvert.  The ape species aren't philosophically monolithic.  The chief villain is chimp.  One of the human's allies is a gorilla.  And so on.

    Though to read the ape species caste system in the original films, which is also present in the novel, as a simple racial analog, is just too simplistic a reading of the work.


    "For all its problems"... (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by kdog on Tue Aug 16, 2011 at 11:28:38 AM EST
    thats putting it lightly....the Burton version sucked so bad I try to forget it ever viewing it.

    Not to say pc-ification is the reason it sucked, though pc-ification can put the suck in works of art something fierce.


    I wasn't (none / 0) (#69)
    by lentinel on Tue Aug 16, 2011 at 01:29:04 PM EST
    reading anything into this not-so-great movie.
    I don't consider it to be propaganda.
    I find things that are self-consciously politically correct to be racist.

    I just noticed that the intelligent simian, the one who finds up being able to talk, the leader of the pack, is kinda white.

    I think, as gyrfalcon posts below, that it is more a reflection of some sort of subconscious attitude that still persists. A hangover from the days of "high yellow".

    Does anyone recall good old Harry Reid touting Obama partially on the basis on his being, "light skinned"? Oy.

    I'm not even talking about the movie itself which, imo, went nowhere and signified nothing whatsoever.


    It definitely could be... (none / 0) (#85)
    by kdog on Tue Aug 16, 2011 at 02:10:58 PM EST
    a subconcious projection of subconcious bigotry, or it could be nothing.  I mean somebody still has to play the bad guy, the dumb guy, etc. etc...and we've come a long way since Amos & Andy.  In this case I think it is nothing, if anything just staying true to the original.

    The most dispicable character in the original is Dr. Zaius, and he was a pale chimp...he was smart, yes, but in an evil way.


    That's (none / 0) (#108)
    by lentinel on Tue Aug 16, 2011 at 03:36:31 PM EST
    all I'm saying.

    The smart ones are "pale".
    The dumb ones aren't.

    By the way, I adore Amos 'n' Andy - the t.v. show, not the radio show.

    The performers were just great.
    The characters were original. Unique. Lovable and unforgettable.
    And, in addition to the main characters there were representations of black realtors, businessmen and women, doctors and lawyers.

    Scandalously, it was taken off the air due to pressure from the NAACP. It is something they will never live down.


    I gotcha... (none / 0) (#113)
    by kdog on Tue Aug 16, 2011 at 04:01:26 PM EST
    All I'm saying is one ape has to be the first smart one, or there is no Rise of The Planet of The Apes.

    But... (none / 0) (#116)
    by lentinel on Tue Aug 16, 2011 at 04:54:36 PM EST
    there didn't seem to be any other smart ones... Although one of the other apes seemed kinda sweet. I also had a fondness for the one who looked at the guy teetering on the brink of the cliff, stood there, said "fk it" and walked away. My kinda ape.

    But how does this plot remotely relate to a rising of the planet of the apes?

    All we see is a bunch of unarmed apes - swinging from trees and bridges. What were they hoping to accomplish?

    The original movie, which I also disliked, had one riveting scene - the one at the end where we see the top of the Statue of Liberty washed up on the beach.

    This movie.... I was slightly interested in the corporate-world-greed-coupled-with-a-possible-cure-for-alzheimers scenario... but they left that subplot in the dust...


    Accomplishing freedom... (none / 0) (#135)
    by kdog on Wed Aug 17, 2011 at 08:28:30 AM EST
    from human chains.  And with the killer virus spreading the globe killing humans, at the same time as apes rapidly evolve via chemistry, we have a rising of the planet of the apes.

    I dug the plot...human hubris, greed, and excessive meddling with natural law/life & death kills us all and gives the planet to apes to rule...beats Transformers by a mile:)


    I see (none / 0) (#136)
    by lentinel on Wed Aug 17, 2011 at 09:27:30 AM EST
    the freedom part.
    Of course that is for those apes who were previously imprisoned in that weird jail for simians.

    But other apes are already free.

    I missed the part that humankind was doomed because of a killer virus. I must have been distracted...

    But what happens when the stash of chemicals run out?

    Can apes from other continents make some more in their labs?
    Or is apekind dependent on the descendants of those who were lucky enough to have gotten sprayed in the apejail?

    Will there be a war between dumb apes and smart apes?

    Will they have cable?

    OK. I'll go for it. I'll vote for any kind of simian (or even a crocodile) that promises to end the war in Iraq.

    Sorry, kdog. I'm over the top tonight.


    All good... (5.00 / 1) (#137)
    by kdog on Wed Aug 17, 2011 at 09:37:23 AM EST
    better than under the bottom lentinel.

    Yeah, the lab tech who was sick gave it to the pilot neighbor of the Franco character, and it spread around the world rapidly...they showed an infection map during the closing credits, I'm hoping its a set up for the sequel!  Man goes back to the jungle and gets dim, or smart again, depends on how you look at it.  And the apes reproduce and get smart, or dim:)

    If you haven't guessed I'm a fan of the franchise...the original enthralled me as a kid, I love that dystopian f*cked-up future downfall of man sh*t.


    Who has been in office? (none / 0) (#17)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Tue Aug 16, 2011 at 09:37:18 AM EST

    Who has been in office these past two and a half years.  The "very specific plan" is way overdue.  From a man that has been busy as a beaver putting in place policies that stunt job growth, one wonders if this is an actual change of policy or just hot air.  

    His policies of increasing the cost of labor, increasing the cost of energy, increasing the cost of capital, decreasing return on investment, and increasing regulatory compliance costs have had sadly predictable effects on the job market.

    "In announcing that he will be putting forth "a very specific plan to boost to the economy, to create jobs and to control our deficit," Obama preemptively challenged Congress to "get it done," or else."

    You seem more than a little (5.00 / 4) (#26)
    by waldenpond on Tue Aug 16, 2011 at 10:09:40 AM EST
    I don't know...jealous?  It actually bothers you a person who tacked a D after their name is getting credit for your agenda.

    I don't get the whining of libertarians and conservatives.  The guy keeps pushing a conservative agenda, actually gives teabaggers what they want and the complaining continues.

    He's your dream.  He's moving a more conservative whack job ideological agenda than Bush and still with the complaining.

    Well, at least Bill Kristol is giddy over his neocon President.  Kristol is your typical conservative nutter but at least he's consistent with regards to Presidents.  I don't think Kristol giggled this much under Bush.

    Your elected conservatives despise democracy.  The conservative plan was always to destroy the middle class and concentrate wealth to buy off the got.  It happened.  Obama is just blowing out the candles of your agenda cake.  


    Uh, I don't know any teabaggers (none / 0) (#28)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Aug 16, 2011 at 10:16:45 AM EST
    Did they work for Lipton?

    Perhaps that's it. They've lost their jobs and are angry at Obama.


    Why would they be angry (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by waldenpond on Tue Aug 16, 2011 at 10:28:10 AM EST
    They should feel blessed by that magical fairy that lives in the sky.  It's good for big business that US wages are collapsing.

    Is it or is it not a primary goal of conservatives to collapse wages?  You know... hatin' on all them soshulist unyun thugs?  

    Prophet Perry can explain it to you.


    Should they? (none / 0) (#33)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Aug 16, 2011 at 10:41:38 AM EST
    I'm still trying to remember any teabaggers I knew..

    Primary goal of conservatives to collapse wages?

    Do you actually think that the only conservatives are people who PAY wages rather than EARN them???

    Your slur is meaningless and only displays an inability to make a logical comment. Thanks for demonstrating who you are.

    BTW - Do you still beat your spouse?



    Conservative much? (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by waldenpond on Tue Aug 16, 2011 at 11:03:01 AM EST
    Good grief, what a lack of self-awareness... don't you comment on how tough business has it all the time?  Poor babies fee fees are hurt when they have to pay too much in wages so they just have to {wimper}go to China waaaaahhhhhh!  Profits baby!!

    BTW = Why do conservatives hate facts?


    Uh, no I don't comment on how (none / 0) (#60)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Aug 16, 2011 at 12:58:10 PM EST
    tough business has it all the time. I have pointed out that, for example, Obamacare is hurting job formation. Does that make me a bad person?

    I have also commented that I had hoped that Obama would do a single payer system using Medicare as the model.

    In case you have forgot, I am a social liberal who would probably disagree with AAA on many issues. Does that make me "better?"


    BTW - Wages are part of something called "cost" which becomes part of something called "price." If you will just tell us how to sell products doing the same thing for a higher price I am sure business will be happy to increase wages.

    That's just a fact. There's no politics involved.

    And insulting people by calling them names just demonstrates a lack of debating ability and proving their point.


    Plenty of them are wage earners (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by ruffian on Tue Aug 16, 2011 at 12:24:23 PM EST
    at defense jobs who are in denial they get paid from government spending.

    Indeed... (none / 0) (#65)
    by kdog on Tue Aug 16, 2011 at 01:12:02 PM EST
    at my outfit they rail on government spending, then get all giddy when a request for quote on a government job comes in.  

    Err, those who earn commission at my outfit get all giddy, at best its just job security for me:)


    The trouble is (none / 0) (#43)
    by cal1942 on Tue Aug 16, 2011 at 11:33:59 AM EST
    Wage earning Conservatives, tea partiers, etc. don't get they're going to get the short end of the stick.  My experience with many wage earning Conservatives is consistent.  In all cases they have remarkably little understanding of history, economics, civics, etc.  I have a nephew who went into the military at a tender age.  He fancies himself a foreign policy expert, an economics guru, he's sure global warming is a hoax, etc.  Talking to him is like talking to an empty room.  He knows so little it's hard to know where to start.  People like him have drunk the Kool-Aid.  The result of nearly forty years of constant propaganda from right-wing "think tanks" financed by wage payers.  

    Leaders of the Conservative Movement know perfectly well what will happen and what their objectives are.  

    It ain't pretty.


    In my experience... (5.00 / 4) (#48)
    by kdog on Tue Aug 16, 2011 at 11:44:11 AM EST
    wage earning conservatives are the kings and queens of kick the dog.

    Ya know who they're angry at here at my outfit?  Not the banks, not Wall St., not the Brand R pols who sell them down the river repeatedly...they're angry at the letter carrier and the teacher and the cop and the undocumented worker, cuz they feel like they're getting over on their low wages no pension high health care costs arses.

    I mean how twisted can ya get it? But thats how they think.  I might be jealous of a union workers wages and benefits, public or private, but I ain't hatin', its what we should all be striving to get...the pie is big enough if we stop letting the top 1-5% stuff their face like no tomorrow.


    That is the difference that could (5.00 / 2) (#50)
    by MO Blue on Tue Aug 16, 2011 at 11:53:53 AM EST
    well do us in.

    Some people want to bring everyone else down to a level lower than where they are rather than bringing themselves and everyone else up to a higher standard of living. Instead of demanding that everyone make a living wage, receive actual affordable health care and are able to retire with dignity, they want to make sure that other workers have things a lot worse than they do so that they can feel superior.    


    It always seems (none / 0) (#52)
    by cal1942 on Tue Aug 16, 2011 at 12:01:07 PM EST
    the wage earning conservatives believe that everyone is overpaid but them.

    People With Everything Need More (5.00 / 1) (#83)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Aug 16, 2011 at 02:06:01 PM EST
    What stupefies me is the average middle class republican will fight tooth and nail in regards to the rich paying too much taxes.

    Just had this discussion yesterday, and after a while I said "So the people with everything should get more and the people with nothing should get less ?"

    I kid you not, his reply was a resounding, 'Yup'.  Now I am not sure if he said that because he didn't want to reverse his stand, or if that how he feels.

    This is a guy who has two grown daughters that are living on the edge of poverty and would be probably be in dire straights w/o his very generous help.  He gives more than any parent I have ever met, he donates to a lot of causes, and volunteers his time helping older people w/o means.  He is not a 'Me, me, me' person.

    I don't understand how someone can help people on a personal level, and then back the very policies that put them in the position in which they need that help.


    Nope (none / 0) (#98)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Aug 16, 2011 at 03:21:04 PM EST
    I think that the average wage earner knows that once you start increasing taxes it is always the middle class who takes it in the shorts.

    There aren't enough "rich people" to make a difference.

    That's what they understand.


    No (none / 0) (#139)
    by cal1942 on Wed Aug 17, 2011 at 05:11:17 PM EST
    It's because, as John Kenneth Galbraith said, every generation has to learn all over again.

    Yup (none / 0) (#51)
    by cal1942 on Tue Aug 16, 2011 at 11:54:31 AM EST
    Very good point kdog.

    A common thread is anger about what the other guy gets.  They always say ... why does he/she get that?  Instead of ... I should also get that.

    It isn't that the pie is big enough it's that the pie can be made bigger.  Unions made the pie bigger.


    Well I am impressed to know that (none / 0) (#61)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Aug 16, 2011 at 01:02:02 PM EST
    you have beat the law of averages and only met conservatives that are "dumber" than you.

    Tell me how you do that. Does it have any thing to do with your opinion of yourself?


    It's Easy (none / 0) (#140)
    by cal1942 on Wed Aug 17, 2011 at 05:13:01 PM EST
    Conservatives can't see past their noses.

    It's not good (none / 0) (#42)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Tue Aug 16, 2011 at 11:32:05 AM EST
    when you depend on people earning wages to buy your products.  

    As a net matter, companies in many industries probably lose money when wages fall.


    Don't expect them (none / 0) (#44)
    by cal1942 on Tue Aug 16, 2011 at 11:37:28 AM EST
    to understand that.

    Cutting labor, cutting wages is a principal objective.


    When you get ready to talk (none / 0) (#64)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Aug 16, 2011 at 01:09:39 PM EST
    about Democratic President Bill Clinton and NAFTA.

    When you get ready to admit that the flood of illegal immigrants are depressing wages in agriculture and construction.... let me know.

    Labor is a commodity. Unfortunately the Democrats and the Repubs have exported our jobs and now our labor is competing with China, Vietnam, etc.

    Those are the enemies of the wage earners.


    Bill Clinton (5.00 / 0) (#141)
    by cal1942 on Wed Aug 17, 2011 at 05:20:38 PM EST
    was probably the most successful Republican President since TR.

    NAFTA passed Congress with nearly all Republicans supporting it in the House and Senate.  A majority of Democrats in the House and Senate rejected NAFTA.

    And soon we'll have to talk about Barrack Obama, Korus and Republican Congressional support and a de facto Republican President.

    When you're ready to talk about actual Democrats we'll talk.


    Cal, there aren't (none / 0) (#142)
    by Zorba on Wed Aug 17, 2011 at 06:02:59 PM EST
    a whole he!! of a lot of "actual Democrats" around any more.  Unfortunately.  :-(

    Sadly (none / 0) (#145)
    by cal1942 on Wed Aug 17, 2011 at 11:13:24 PM EST
    Zorba, you're probably right.

    As Republicans become ever more depraved we're finding so many people who would have been Republicans in decades past invading the Democratic Party.  I even see it in our county party.

    With organized labor far weaker than in bygone days the funding sources for the Party are found on Wall Street and all the other wrong places.


    Actually (none / 0) (#67)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Aug 16, 2011 at 01:23:12 PM EST
    they enacted a tea party bill here because they believed that "illegal immigrants" were "taking their jobs" and guess what? It has done NOTHING. GA still has double digit unemployment some of the highest in the nation. Did you know that picking fruit doesn't even pay minimum wage? They were begging people and even the state subsidized the farmers with using people from prisons for some of the labor. It's been a logistical nightmare and they're already thinking of undoing the bill.

    And if you're so upset about NAFTA then you should be enraged at Bush for using the Trade Act of 2002 to fast track any and all trade agreements and he made a heck of a lot of them.


    A tea party bill?? (none / 0) (#103)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Aug 16, 2011 at 03:26:20 PM EST
    Was that one Tea Party or all the Tea Parties? Just in GA or are other states included?

    Who said I was a big Bush supporter? The best I can say for Bush is that he was better than Algore and Kerry on defense...

    I mean, talk about damning with faint praise.

    And it sounds to me like the farmers aren't paying high wages to get workers.

    I thought you would want them to do that.


    The tea (none / 0) (#111)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Aug 16, 2011 at 03:55:24 PM EST
    party members were the one pushing for the bill.

    Anybody who thinks George W. Bush was good on defense is living in a fantasy world. He was awful. As bad as Obama is, he beat the living heck out of a dimwit who continually told us that Sadaam Hussein attacked us on 9/11 and never found Bin Laden.

    I love how conservatives always blame Gore and Kerry for their own mistakes. You voted FOR Bush so take responsibility for it and live with it. You guys are the ones who wanted him so you are going to have to live with that mistake for quite a while.


    You mean Bush didn't look for OBL (none / 0) (#119)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Aug 16, 2011 at 07:11:23 PM EST
    THE PRESIDENT: Deep in my heart I know the man is on the run, if he's alive at all. Who knows if he's hiding in some cave or not; we haven't heard from him in a long time. And the idea of focusing on one person is -- really indicates to me people don't understand the scope of the mission.

    Terror is bigger than one person. And he's just -- he's a person who's now been marginalized. His network, his host government has been destroyed. He's the ultimate parasite who found weakness, exploited it, and met his match. He is -- as I mentioned in my speech, I do mention the fact that this is a fellow who is willing to commit youngsters to their death and he, himself, tries to hide -- if, in fact, he's hiding at all.

    So I don't know where he is. You know, I just don't spend that much time on him, Kelly, to be honest with you. I'm more worried about making sure that our soldiers are well-supplied; that the strategy is clear; that the coalition is strong; that when we find enemy bunched up like we did in Shahikot Mountains, that the military has all the support it needs to go in and do the job, which they did.


    Like Obama didn't?

    Barack Obama suggested last night that removing Osama bin Laden from the battlefield was no longer essential and that America's security goals could be achieved merely by keeping al-Qaeda "on the run".

    "My preference obviously would be to capture or kill him," he said. "But if we have so tightened the noose that he's in a cave somewhere and can't even communicate with his operatives then we will meet our goal of protecting America."




    Only (none / 0) (#130)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Aug 17, 2011 at 06:26:51 AM EST
    talking results here. Bush also said he would hunt for him forever or some such.

    Looks like OBL was hunted forever, or at least (none / 0) (#132)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Aug 17, 2011 at 07:16:23 AM EST
    until those tasked with finding him did and killed him.

    The point, as you know, is that both Bush and Obama said the same thing.

    So your snark is shown for what it was, a snark.


    Nope (5.00 / 0) (#133)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Aug 17, 2011 at 07:29:10 AM EST
    Bush didn't get him. Who knows what was in the mind of Bush but he seemed to be obsessed with Sadaam more so than OBL. Foreign policy is about the only area where Obama scores well with the public. Bush destroyed the GOP advantage in that area.

    Uh, in case you missed it (none / 0) (#143)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Aug 17, 2011 at 10:55:21 PM EST
    Seal Team 6 got him.

    I mean, please. Shall we also say that Obama got the 20 members of the Seal team killed?

    It is juvenile to make out that Obama is able to leap over tall buildings in a single bound unless you are also willing to admit that the 13 killed at Ft Hood were his fault.

    Where was the President when we needed him?


    Well (none / 0) (#147)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Aug 18, 2011 at 05:58:54 AM EST
    then you can't blame Obama for the economy then either and you're so ready to blame the Dems in congress for the economic problems when Bush was president.

    The buck stops with the President no matter who is President in my book.


    I can't balme Obama for the (none / 0) (#151)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Aug 18, 2011 at 10:15:27 PM EST
    economy because he and Bush had people hunting for Osama bin Ladin?



    That's so funny you should copyright it.


    My point (none / 0) (#157)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Aug 19, 2011 at 11:53:48 AM EST
    is that did Bush get OBL? No, he didn't. I know you would like to give him credit but he doesn't get credit.

    So you have a problem with the buck stopping with the president apparently. Yes, I know. It's how conservatives operate. It's always somebody else's fault when they screw up but when somebody does something good, they are all rushing to take credit for it when they had nothing to do with it.


    Bush also said (none / 0) (#179)
    by cal1942 on Sat Aug 20, 2011 at 05:36:08 PM EST
    he didn't really think about him very much.

    And it DID (none / 0) (#112)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Aug 16, 2011 at 03:57:53 PM EST
    NOT raise wages ONE IOTA hence the state using prisoners to do the work. The prisoners were paid the same as the migrant workers and actually they weren't really paid anything until the state decided they were. If you think that's a good bill, well, have it. I see it as another gross failure of conservatism.

    The List of Conservative Laws That Promise... (5.00 / 1) (#115)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Aug 16, 2011 at 04:22:11 PM EST
    ... and never deliver is mighty long.

    In Texas, malpractice reform, deregulating the power companies, and home insurance limits are 3 off the top of my head that have done the exact opposite of their original lame claims.

    Electricity here is obscene, but that was before I arrived, one of the nations highest/kilowatt rates.   My medical, car, and home insurance rates have doubled, and home is approaching tripling, all since they made changes that were suppose to do the opposite.

    All they did is lie to us and put large sums of money in corporate coffers.


    Wasn't electricity deregulated? (none / 0) (#122)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Aug 16, 2011 at 07:28:23 PM EST
    Actually it wasn't, just as telecom wasn't.

    Included within SB7 was a regulated rate concept governing the pricing behavior of the ex-utility providers known as the "Price To Beat" or PTB


    CA also deregulated.... Except they deregulated the wholesale suppliers and kept the retail providers regulated. Result? Rolling blackouts and utility company bankruptcy...

    And until we have an actual NATIONAL medical insurance market the theory of competition lowering prices cannot be tested.


    Uh, the point was that the farmers (none / 0) (#120)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Aug 16, 2011 at 07:13:12 PM EST
    obviously didn't raise wages enough to attract workers.

    I thought you was for increased wages.... Unless it increases the price of your fruit, eh?


    Yes (none / 0) (#129)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Aug 17, 2011 at 06:23:25 AM EST
    the farmers were not willing to pay for labor so hence the state offering free labor to them. It just shows the failure of this type of legislation. It disproves all the things that conservatives have been saying about bills like this. They do nothing to raise wages at all.

    Of course the state should not have (none / 0) (#131)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Aug 17, 2011 at 07:13:54 AM EST
    intervened. Is GA a socialist state??

    Well (none / 0) (#134)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Aug 17, 2011 at 07:32:02 AM EST
    are conservatives now socialists? GA is a state completely controlled by conservative Republicans.

    What would you call conservatives who believe private businesses get to keep the profits but the tax payers pick up any losses?


    No, the state is controlled (none / 0) (#144)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Aug 17, 2011 at 10:57:18 PM EST
    by people who say they are conservative.

    That is meaningless.

    You are what you do, not what you claim.


    I find (5.00 / 1) (#148)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Aug 18, 2011 at 06:01:38 AM EST
    this excuse a lot when conservative issues are shown to be a failure--they're not really conservatives is the excuse. Well, yes, they are conservatives simply because they are calling themselves conservatives and policies like this are what conservatives have been advocating.

    Not being a conservative I find (none / 0) (#149)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Aug 18, 2011 at 10:10:14 PM EST
    no need to argue with you over what "conservatives" have or have not done.

    But clearly claiming that someone is a conservative when their actions show otherwise is an exercise in newspeak.


    So (none / 0) (#158)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Aug 19, 2011 at 11:57:08 AM EST
    I guess you're the ultimate arbiter of who's a conservative and who's not? People calling themselves conservative is what we have to go by like it or not. When conservatives pass a certain policy and it's one that they themselves have been advocating for then I guess you have to deem it's conservative.

    no, "conservative" doesn't quite (none / 0) (#159)
    by jondee on Fri Aug 19, 2011 at 02:46:27 PM EST
    do you justice.

    Even a lot of U.S conservatives would think twice about running a website that reads like something from Anders Brevik's favorite links list.


    The invasion of Iraq (none / 0) (#146)
    by cal1942 on Wed Aug 17, 2011 at 11:17:35 PM EST
    weakened the nation.  How in hell can you say that Bush was better re defense.

    Weakened it what areas? (none / 0) (#150)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Aug 18, 2011 at 10:11:53 PM EST
    Have you considered that if the anti-war Left had supported the troops the war may have been lest costly in lives and treasure??

    "Supporting the troops" ... (5.00 / 1) (#152)
    by Yman on Fri Aug 19, 2011 at 07:31:10 AM EST
    ... is not synonymous with supporting a war.

    Have you considered that if the pro-war Right had supported the troops by opposing a war based on false claims of WMD and imaginary threats, the war may have been less costly in lives and treasure?


    Of course it is. (none / 0) (#153)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Aug 19, 2011 at 07:43:15 AM EST
    Despite what you may think, in this world you are what you do and what you do is noticed by others.

    Q: Was the American antiwar movement important to Hanoi's victory?
    A:  It was essential to our strategy.  Support of the war from our rear was completely secure  while the American rear was vulnerable.  Every day our leadership would listen to world news over the radio at 9 a.m.  to follow the growth of the American antiwar movement.  Visits to Hanoi by people like Jane Fonda, and former Attorney General Ramsey Clark and ministers gave us confidence  that we should hold on  in the face of battlefield reverses. We were elated when Jane Fonda, wearing a red Vietnamese dress, said at a press conference that she was ashamed of American actions in the war and that she would struggle along with us.



    So Bui Tin's opinion ... (none / 0) (#155)
    by Yman on Fri Aug 19, 2011 at 08:33:31 AM EST
    ... is your standard of what constitutes "supporting the troops"?!?!

    Hahahahahahahah ... that's hilarious.  One man's opinion is your support for the claim that you must support a war in order to "support the troops"?  Hey, does that mean that the Germans who opposed the Nazi regime and their attack on other countries were responsible for the Germans losing WWII?  Were they failing to "support the troops" by opposing the Nazi regime and opposing the war?

    Not only that, but you choose to base your conclusion on the opinion of a communist, North Korean Colonel?  The same Bui Tin who claimed he was with the first tank unit to smash through the gates of the Presidential Palace and that he accepted the surrender from the last South Vietnamese leader, Dương Văn Minh - all with zero witnesses?  The same guy who claimed no American POWs had been tortured during their captivity in North Vietnam?!?!

    You're funny.


    Do you claim that the morale of a (none / 0) (#160)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Aug 19, 2011 at 03:14:22 PM EST
    country and the belief of the country's enemies does not effect the outcome of any war?

    That is so juvenile that it doesn't deserve a reply and I expected better than that.

    As for Bui Tin:

    What did the North Vietnamese leadership think of the American antiwar movement? What was the purpose of the Tet Offensive? How could the U.S. have been more successful in fighting the Vietnam War? Bui Tin, a former colonel in the North Vietnamese army, answers these questions in the following excerpts from an interview conducted by Stephen Young,  a Minnesota attorney and human-rights activist  [in The Wall Street Journal, 3 August 1995]. Bui Tin, who served on the general staff of North Vietnam's army, received the unconditional surrender of South Vietnam on April 30, 1975. He later became editor of the People's Daily, the official newspaper of Vietnam. He now lives in Paris, where he immigrated after becoming disillusioned with the fruits of Vietnamese communism.


    I would say he has all the qualifications needed to explain what the antics of the anti-war Left gave North Vietnam and cost America.


    "America" (none / 0) (#162)
    by jondee on Fri Aug 19, 2011 at 03:41:07 PM EST
    being, in this case, that miniscule nation-within-a-nation here that still believes the U.S's military involvment and prosecution of the war in Vietnam was morally justified.



    Doesn't make any difference (none / 0) (#163)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Aug 19, 2011 at 06:17:32 PM EST
    what anyone thinks about the war.

    The facts are what the anti-war Left did and Tin's acknowledgement of how much it helped North Vietnam and extended the war thus killing more US service people as well as South and North Vietnamese.

    So please. Don't talk about morals. You aren't qualified.


    Heh (5.00 / 1) (#166)
    by Yman on Fri Aug 19, 2011 at 09:02:36 PM EST
    So please. Don't talk about morals. You aren't qualified.

    As if you are.


    Must be a comprehension issue (none / 0) (#165)
    by Yman on Fri Aug 19, 2011 at 09:01:17 PM EST
    Do you claim that the morale of a country and the belief of the country's enemies does not effect the outcome of any war?

    Uhhmmm, .... no.

    English is your first language, right, Jim?

    I would say he has all the qualifications needed to explain what the antics of the anti-war Left gave North Vietnam and cost America.

    Good for you.  I would say the opinion of a single man is just that, and nothing more.  I would also say his opinion is just as believable as his claims that American POWs were never tortured by the North Vietnamese or that he was the one to accept surrender of the South Vietnamese forces, which are slightly more believable than your claims.


    Well his resume (none / 0) (#167)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Aug 19, 2011 at 10:24:22 PM EST
    Bui Tin, who served on the general staff of North Vietnam's army, received the unconditional surrender of South Vietnam on April 30, 1975. He later became editor of the People's Daily, the official newspaper of Vietnam. He now lives in Paris, where he immigrated after becoming disillusioned with the fruits of Vietnamese communism.

    is much better than yours.



    Really, Jim? (5.00 / 1) (#168)
    by Yman on Fri Aug 19, 2011 at 11:17:49 PM EST
    A)  You wouldn't know, becuase (as usual) you haven't the slightest clue about the subject of which you're speaking, and

    B)  Which part of his resume impresses you?  The part where he became disillusioned with communism, or the part where he fought for North Vietnam and killed Americans?



    You don't deserve an answer (none / 0) (#169)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Aug 20, 2011 at 08:58:22 AM EST
    But I believe him for two reasons.

    1. His assessment of how the anti-war Left helped the North matches many others.

    2. His recognizing that his beliefs were wrong and leaving a position in which he was secure for an uncertain future.

    You know, you again demonstrate a Dark Avenger trait by claiming that I don't know.... and then failing to prove your point.

    If you are going to engage in a debate you should really try and prove something from time to time. It would enhance your credibility.


    You believe him because ... (none / 0) (#171)
    by Yman on Sat Aug 20, 2011 at 09:38:30 AM EST
    1.  His (current) opinion supports your "assessment", and

    2.  He's a communist who "repented", yet still lies about American POWs not being tortured by North Vietnam - a lie you conveniently ignore because you like his silly opinion.

    BTW - Claiming "you don't know" is hardly a DA trait.  That would be pretty much anyone with at least a double-digit IQ and basic reading skills.

    But the DA paranoia is funny.  Sounds like he/she knows what he/she is talking about.


    Yep just like DA (none / 0) (#172)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Aug 20, 2011 at 02:45:32 PM EST
    Do you have a brother on the West Coast?


    I gave you the reasons. Your continual personal attacks just displays your inability to prove the reasons wrong.


    "Prove the reasons wrong" (none / 0) (#173)
    by Yman on Sat Aug 20, 2011 at 03:50:51 PM EST

    Your "reasons" are just silly, unsupported, winger opinions with no support or evidence.  It's like trying to prove the Easter Bunny isn't real to a screaming child with his finger in his ears.


    So the answer is.... (none / 0) (#175)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Aug 20, 2011 at 04:21:07 PM EST
    You can't.

    So you go for the personal attack.

    Very DAish of you.


    This is a waste. I'm done.


    So the answer is.... (none / 0) (#176)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Aug 20, 2011 at 04:21:07 PM EST
    You can't.

    So you go for the personal attack.

    Very DAish of you.


    This is a waste. I'm done.


    Do you actually know ... (none / 0) (#181)
    by Yman on Sat Aug 20, 2011 at 07:24:58 PM EST
    ... what "LOL" means, Jim?

    'Cause you're not using it correctly, unless you're trying to feign amusement.

    (Ohhhhhhhhhhh ......)


    How in the eff (none / 0) (#178)
    by cal1942 on Sat Aug 20, 2011 at 05:33:08 PM EST
    can you make such a baldly stupid statement?

    I'm ready to talk about NAFTA (none / 0) (#154)
    by Yman on Fri Aug 19, 2011 at 08:12:43 AM EST
    But what metric do we use?  We could use the CRS study of the four major NAFTA studies examining the effects of NAFTA which concluded:

    "NAFTA had little or no impact on aggregate employment..." and "...NAFTA did not cause the widening U.S. trade deficit with Mexico."

    Or, we could use your usual metric ...

    ... just make it up and call it "common sense".


    Nonsense is nonsense (none / 0) (#161)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Aug 19, 2011 at 03:19:25 PM EST
    no matter where it comes from.

    Perot was exactly right when he said we should be listening for a giant sucking sound.

    I find it risible that you criticize Bush for allowing jobs to go out the country while defending a Democrat.


    I find it "risible" ... (none / 0) (#164)
    by Yman on Fri Aug 19, 2011 at 08:55:42 PM EST
    ... that you offer not a single piece of contradictory evidence to support your claims or counter the four major studies of NAFTA.

    But you work with what ya got, right?

    BTW - "Risible" - appropriate as it may be for your fact-free posts - is getting a bit old.  Try thesaurus.com for something fresh.

    BBTW - When did I criticize Bush for "allowing jobs to go out the country"?  Don't you ever get tired of just making $hit up?


    So the manufacturing base of (none / 0) (#170)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Aug 20, 2011 at 08:59:59 AM EST
    the country is just fine, eh??

    When I see studies such as you use I remember the old saying, "Figures don't lie but liars can figure."

    Try some commonsense sometimes.


    Where did I say THAT?!? (none / 0) (#174)
    by Yman on Sat Aug 20, 2011 at 03:57:26 PM EST
    You can read .... can't you?

    BTW - When I see people saying "try some common sense", ignoring every major study by people who actually know what they're talking about while providing zero evidence to support their claims, I remember the old saying:

    "It is better to keep your mouth shut and have people think you're a fool than to open it and remove all doubt".


    Yes, all those people know (none / 0) (#177)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Aug 20, 2011 at 04:24:09 PM EST
    that NAFTA is good.

    Makes me warm all over to know they could't be doing whatever to make everything come out right.

    And that was one of DA's favorites when he couldn't prove anything.

    Just keep up being nasty. It so defines you.



    Can you actually read? (none / 0) (#180)
    by Yman on Sat Aug 20, 2011 at 07:20:31 PM EST
    Not joking in the slightest, Jim.  You apparently have some issue understanding the words I'm using.  No one made the claim that NAFTA is good.  What every one of those studies showed was that NAFTA didn't cause a loss of jobs in the US.

    Economists/experts/detailed studies vs.

    no evidence, just Jim's "common sense".

    Not much of a battle.


    I made the claim that (none / 0) (#182)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Aug 21, 2011 at 12:02:32 PM EST
    NAFTA has injured the economy by facilitating the export of jobs.

    You produced studies, which I do not believe, supposedly claiming otherwise.

    So why did you do that??

    A reasonable person would say because you disagree with my claim that NAFTA is bad.

    Common sense tells me that means you think NAFTA is good.

    Or else you just want to argue.



    You really have absolutely ... (none / 0) (#183)
    by Yman on Sun Aug 21, 2011 at 02:19:58 PM EST
    ... no idea how logic works, do you?  Gotta admit, though ...

    ... it's fun to watch you try.

    BTW - Just to make it easier for you.  Just because claim (and provide evidence) that "A" is not bad, does not mean you think that "A" is good".  I know you wingers like to think in black-and-white terms, but most things don't work that way.

    Still waiting for even a single study showing that NAFTA caused a loss of jobs in the US.

    Was that a pig that just flew by ...?


    You sure do dance good but a polka (none / 0) (#184)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Aug 21, 2011 at 02:27:27 PM EST
    can't be called a waltz.

    Wanna piece of cheese with that wine??

    You did what you did.

    Now, I'm through.

    Have a nice day.



    Forget the logic (none / 0) (#185)
    by Yman on Sun Aug 21, 2011 at 08:46:08 PM EST
    You need help with the dementia before we can work on the logic.

    collapse wages? (none / 0) (#71)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Tue Aug 16, 2011 at 01:34:48 PM EST

    The labor rate basically has two components, wage cost and regulatory cost.  Rising regulatory cost is going to push wages down and/or unemployment up.  

    High wages are good.  Low labor cost is good.  And no, those two are not mutually exclusive.



    Wages little related to cost (none / 0) (#106)
    by waldenpond on Tue Aug 16, 2011 at 03:32:14 PM EST
    ok sure....

    High wages are bad for profit.  Always.  You will get no one in the top 5% to agree with you.  You know this because breaking unions is important to you.  Regulations put the cost of business on the business.  Can't innovate?  Tough.  Can't compete?  Tough.  Someone out there is smarter and will.

    Job creators keep labor costs low by keeping wages low enough to parasitize off of govt health care and further lower labor costs by defaulting on pensions and pocketing the money (not in wages but in stock so they can parasitize off the system yet again by avoiding taxes).

    Regulations are ruining libertopia!!!!! You should propose that owners should no longer be required to heat buildings.  You can be the first to innovate an employee purchased 30 lb battery pack that powers an employee purchased temp system (think of the patents!)  You should propose owners no longer be required to provide bathrooms.  Demonstrate your libertarianism by using a hose that goes down your leg into a bag and being a cost loyalist, take your bag home with you at the end of the day.  You should propose environmental standards be reduced on the theory that employees will no longer need to take time for grooming when their hair and nails fall out.  If people gasp at your proposals by whinging that OMG people will die... tut-tut in an age of high unemployment, replacements are so cheap, it's what the truly loyal employee would do.


    High wages are bad for profit. Always. (none / 0) (#124)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Tue Aug 16, 2011 at 07:45:37 PM EST

    High wages are bad for profit.  Always.

    That is utter baloney and economic ignorance.  You can make more profit selling the services of an analytical chemist at $200k than selling the services of a high school drop out at minimum wage.  

    You can make more profit paying machine operator wages to a Bobcat operator digging ditches than a minimum wage guy with a shovel.  As a matter of fact your ditch digging company would go broke pronto if you tried the minimum wage with a shovel route.



    New Phil Ochs Documentary ... (none / 0) (#39)
    by Robot Porter on Tue Aug 16, 2011 at 11:19:43 AM EST
    now streaming on Netflix.

    Really worth watching.  Doesn't go for easy answers or shy away from the complexities in his personal, artistic and political life.

    It's called "Phil Ochs:  There But for the Future".

    Thanks. (none / 0) (#59)
    by Madeline on Tue Aug 16, 2011 at 12:54:55 PM EST
    Will definitely want to see (none / 0) (#97)
    by brodie on Tue Aug 16, 2011 at 03:06:36 PM EST
    Ochs doc, thx.

    I'm still looking for a really well made, full length and preferably recently done doc on both the 1968 Chicago convention, and the Chicago 8 trial.

    End summer movies I look forward to seeing:

    Midnight in Paris

    Apollo 18 (I think that's the title):  doc style film positing a secret US mission to the moon apparently to investigate signs of intelligent alien life.  Trailer looks kinda spooky in a Blair Witch way.


    Have you seen "CHICAGO 10"? (none / 0) (#156)
    by Robot Porter on Fri Aug 19, 2011 at 09:29:03 AM EST
    It's a documentary from '07.  It uses animation to recreate parts of the trial.  Really quite good.  Link to imdb page here.

    Netflix (none / 0) (#101)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Aug 16, 2011 at 03:23:58 PM EST
    This past weekend I went looking for something fresh on Netflix and I can not believe how many documentaries they have added, especially in music.  I was shocked with all the music related content.

    Ended up watching the Pink Floyd film following the development of Dark Side of the Moon.


    Ever see... (none / 0) (#104)
    by kdog on Tue Aug 16, 2011 at 03:28:46 PM EST
    Live at Pompei?  If you're a fan of Pink Floyd, its a must bro.

    Have it on VHS (none / 0) (#114)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Aug 16, 2011 at 04:07:48 PM EST
    Can you believe that was actually released in theaters ?  How cool would a midnight showing be ?

    The problem is I haven't owned functioning VCR in probably 7 years.  One of These days I'll get it on DVD, probably has a bunch of cool stuff on it.


    ahh new england (none / 0) (#46)
    by CST on Tue Aug 16, 2011 at 11:41:43 AM EST
    so summer just started, we had a "heat wave" where it got unbearable and muggy for about 6.23 days, and now it's rainy and getting colder, and almost smells like autumn.

    We'll have a few more hot days, but fall is coming.  Glorious, wonderous, fall.

    Also, September is, IMO, the best month to go to the beach all year.  The crowds are gone, but the water is warm (ish).

    Lovely! (none / 0) (#54)
    by ruffian on Tue Aug 16, 2011 at 12:16:52 PM EST
    I think I still have a few more weeks.  But I did notice yesterday that the late afternoon light is slightly different, which is always my first harbinger of fall. Next is when the nighttime temp drops below 70!

    it's 2:30 in the afternoon (none / 0) (#73)
    by CST on Tue Aug 16, 2011 at 01:37:35 PM EST
    and 70 degrees out.  High of 74 today.

    I could get use to this, even with the rain.


    I have a theory, that even among the (5.00 / 1) (#76)
    by Anne on Tue Aug 16, 2011 at 01:44:59 PM EST
    dog days of August, we get these glorious cool days to remind the kids that it's almost time to go back to school!

    Medicare's arbitrary "death" panel (none / 0) (#66)
    by suzieg on Tue Aug 16, 2011 at 01:21:57 PM EST
    rejected Thalomid for my husband's newly diagnosed Multiple Myeloma, which is part of a proven protocol to a successful remission.

    I just talked to a representative at Curascript to find out why we hadn't received it yet and she told me Medicare or AARP  had rejected the Thalomid, however she is trying to obtain an override and hopefully we will have approval later today.

    If the override doesn't come through, (5.00 / 1) (#75)
    by Anne on Tue Aug 16, 2011 at 01:42:49 PM EST
    try contacting the manufacturer directly; there might be something they can do for you.

    In the meantime, I'm sorry you are facing yet another hurdle...

    I remember when my mom had her stroke and was undergoing occupational and speech/language therapy in the rehab hospital (her deficits were attentional - it was like she had ADD - and she had "left-side neglect" where she was unaware of much that was going on to her left), she was coming to the end of her stay and she said something like, "so once I've had the post-hospital therapy at home for X days, I can't have any more?"  And I said, "you can have as much therapy as often as you want, as long as you can pay for it, but Medicare and BC/BS are only going to pay for so much."

    It always comes down to money, or so it seems.

    Hang in there, and please keep us posted.


    Happy Anniversary Anne (5.00 / 2) (#80)
    by suzieg on Tue Aug 16, 2011 at 01:58:20 PM EST
    and hope you have many more to come.

    Thank you all for your words of encouragement.

    It's my birthday today, finally turned 65 after counting the days down to when I would be finally off private health insurance, now I'm not so sure I'm as happy that I'm on Medicare. Finally received my card yesterday, just in time!


    Thanks, suzie - and happy birthday to (5.00 / 2) (#82)
    by Anne on Tue Aug 16, 2011 at 02:01:31 PM EST
    you - I hope all your birthday wishes come true!

    Suz ie (5.00 / 1) (#89)
    by MO Blue on Tue Aug 16, 2011 at 02:21:39 PM EST
    Get your oncologist involved right away. Their office or hospital affiliate should be familiar with navigating the claims review process. If this is standard treatment, Medicare should approve.

    Also, here is the contact information for the Multiple Myeloma Research Foundation. Call them and see if they can help either by providing funds for medicine or by assisting you to get Medicare to pay for treatment. If they are unable to help, they might be able to direct you to an organization that can assist you.  

    The Multiple Myeloma Research Foundation
    383 Main Avenue
    5th Floor
    Norwalk, CT 06851
    tel: (203) 229-0464
    fax: (203) 229-0572

    It is my understanding that if Medicare approves treatment, the supplemental insurance is on the hook. So contact your congresscritters, Rep and both Senators. It is their job to help you in situations like this and ask them to help your husband get the treatment that your doctor wants him to have. Emphasis should be on doctor's treatment plan and proven protocol to a successful remission.

    Best advise I can give you is to contact everyone and stay in people's faces (in a nice but persistent way).


    Thank you, thank you, thank you (5.00 / 1) (#91)
    by suzieg on Tue Aug 16, 2011 at 02:31:13 PM EST
    it's just so overwhelming! I will do everything you're telling me...

    I hope (none / 0) (#68)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Aug 16, 2011 at 01:25:11 PM EST
    you get your override. When I worked in the private health insurance industry, I found that 1/2 of the claims were overturned on appeal leaving me to believe that the insurance companies, at least, just want to deny the claim and hope the person doesn't fight back.

    No override! (none / 0) (#90)
    by suzieg on Tue Aug 16, 2011 at 02:29:15 PM EST
    Medicare does not recognize Thalomid as standard therapy therefore we have to pay $13,782.83 monthly -  we arrogantly never took Medicare part D because he was in perfect health and no cancer on both side of his family.

    I've just called the pharmaceutical company for assistance but have been told that we have to exhaust our "liquid" assets before they'll assist us!


    I'm sorry. (none / 0) (#95)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Aug 16, 2011 at 03:03:51 PM EST
    Someone I know (none / 0) (#99)
    by MO Blue on Tue Aug 16, 2011 at 03:22:55 PM EST
    has Multiple Myeloma and only high deductible insurance. She got financial assistance from a Multiple Myeloma Foundation. May or may not be the one I gave you contact information. I know she had assets like house and retirement account but not sure of other liquid assets.

    Once again contact your doctor. He may be able to pursue an exception or he may know other alternatives such as clinical trails etc. that will get your husband the treatment he needs.

    Also contact Medicare office, your husband may be able to get Medicare Part D. but he will have to pay an ongoing penalty for late enrollment (doesn't look real expensive).  He may have to wait for the next enrollment period but it could still save you money. IIRC, you still have time to sign up for Part D. without a penalty.



    2 jailed (none / 0) (#96)
    by jbindc on Tue Aug 16, 2011 at 03:05:22 PM EST
    But they actually didn't (none / 0) (#102)
    by nycstray on Tue Aug 16, 2011 at 03:26:10 PM EST
    Two men - whose posts did not result in riot-related event - sentenced at Chester crown court after arrests last week

    They sure do have fast trials there . . . .


    They are divering them (none / 0) (#109)
    by waldenpond on Tue Aug 16, 2011 at 03:39:16 PM EST
    out of the regular system and into I believe the Kings court? so they can impose tougher sentences.  A mom with a looted skirt got 2 years.  A girl who took a bottle of water got 6 months.

    It's interesting how they make up new charges and penalties on the spot.  Something we aren't used to.


    or trying to rob somebody, but not actually being successful doing it.

    So if we protest (none / 0) (#105)
    by Madeline on Tue Aug 16, 2011 at 03:32:07 PM EST
    and I plan to, what do you thing will happen to us?

    It's that time of year again! (none / 0) (#110)
    by jbindc on Tue Aug 16, 2011 at 03:50:43 PM EST
    The 50 Most Beautiful People on Capitol Hill.

    Almost all Republicans - go figure. Are Democrats just not as attractive?  Do Democrats hire uglier people?

    panetta and military retirement (none / 0) (#118)
    by Jlvngstn on Tue Aug 16, 2011 at 05:54:46 PM EST
    great thought imo, with a slight twist.  Only affects soldiers who enlist after the legislation is enacted.  This will create needed attrition in the next decade as less people will enlist due to the change in benefits.  Second twist is that the gov't guarantees 80% of their standing prior to any significant market shock.  No person should lose their retirement as a result of a market crash, but i don't think we are prepared to guarantee it for an entire nation, but for 20+ year veterans, i think it a fair proposition.

    Go in at 18, out at 38 and you are still employable in a good job market.  You have a decent 401k to help in 30 years, and with social security and whatever else you can save, retirement not so bad.

    It will pass savings down a generation if the estimates are correct of 250bn in moving what we have now i would imagine it would be a few decades before we got to that big of a number but savings nonetheless that are not painful to anyone now.

    Lastly, paying into it would have to be mandatory.  When i joined the service i spent every dime i had as did most of my buddies.    sure we were all totally irresponsible, but we were 18 and overseas and stupid....

    does Ed Rendell (none / 0) (#121)
    by The Addams Family on Tue Aug 16, 2011 at 07:23:16 PM EST
    see Obama losing in 2012? does he think that by 2016 the country will have had its fill of another b@tsh!t crazy GOP administration?

    SITE VIOLATOR (none / 0) (#125)
    by caseyOR on Tue Aug 16, 2011 at 08:05:47 PM EST
    What is with all the site violators hawking shoes?