Thursday Morning Open Thread

My fourth and final day of court for the week. I'm way far behind at blogging. Things should ease up by next week.

I'm looking forward to seeing what the Manhattan DA's office decides next week on whether to dismiss or keep going with the Dominique Strauss Kahn case.

More bad news for Phil Spector, who at age 71 is serving a 19 year sentence. The California Supreme Court declined to hear his case yesterday, which means he's got one avenue left: a habeas petition in federal court.

This is an open thread, all topics welcome.

< What's Different About the 2012 Election | The Imperative Of Reelecting An Impotent President? >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Talking with my sister about Bachmann. (5.00 / 3) (#47)
    by observed on Thu Aug 18, 2011 at 02:57:42 PM EST
    Bachmann is quite pro-slavery---she cites as favorites books which explain the lucky state of pre-Civil War blacks.
    Which brings to mind a thought: if slavery is so great, why don't some of those fine white folks volunteer to bond themselvesto fine white owners?

    I would like to own a fine white slave (none / 0) (#56)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Aug 18, 2011 at 08:07:47 PM EST
    I promise to be a fine white owner.  I'll even take Bachmann off of everyone's hands.  Okay, I'll take the husband too....don't want to break up a family.

    Who's the husband in that pair? :P (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by observed on Thu Aug 18, 2011 at 08:57:04 PM EST
    This is... an interesting development (5.00 / 3) (#53)
    by CST on Thu Aug 18, 2011 at 04:13:37 PM EST
    So someone mentioned the other day about Rep. Gutierrez being arrested while protesting U.S. immigrtion/deportation policy.  And he was not the only one protesting, it was obviously a well organized event.

    Today this comes out in the nytimes.

    "The Obama administration announced on Thursday that it would generally not deport or expel illegal immigrants who had come to the United States as young children and graduated from high school or served in the armed forces."

    And then there is this nugget - "White House officials said the new policy would help illegal immigrants with family members in the United States. The White House is interpreting "family" to include partners of gay and bisexual people."

    I guess my point in this is maybe we can learn something from this.  Two of the "base" groups that have organized effective criticism of Obama have actualy managed to make an impact.

    A point of local pride. (5.00 / 3) (#54)
    by caseyOR on Thu Aug 18, 2011 at 04:26:16 PM EST
    The results are in. The Multnomah County Library System, which includes the city of Portland, ranks second in the nation in circulation. Only the New York Public Library circulates more items that ours. And among libraries serving areas under 1 million in population, MCL takes the lead for the 9th year in a row.

    Multnomah County, including Portland, has a population of approx. 750,000. The system includes the main downtown Portland library and 18 branch libraries throughout the county.

    We love our library here. Voters consistently approve funding measures for both the library operating budget and for capital improvements.

    Good work, readers.

    Having tugged on Superman's cape (none / 0) (#1)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Thu Aug 18, 2011 at 07:00:27 AM EST
    Interesting timing (none / 0) (#2)
    by jbindc on Thu Aug 18, 2011 at 08:09:22 AM EST
    Don't you think?

    Feds took no action (none / 0) (#7)
    by Towanda on Thu Aug 18, 2011 at 09:28:46 AM EST
    on Countrywide, so the rest of the corrupt industry can feel safe with this administration.

    That was then (none / 0) (#11)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Aug 18, 2011 at 09:35:30 AM EST
    Now that a few trillion look to be nothing more than fairy dust, they will be wanting some scalps.

    If you actually read this (none / 0) (#9)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Aug 18, 2011 at 09:33:53 AM EST
    You would know that the investigation was started long before they downgraded the U.S.  You would also know that it picked up steam this summer, and that the Frank Dodd legislation has now put the rating agencies on the same legal responsibility field as accounting firms if their ratings ruin people's life savings.

    We can't have it both ways.  Because the mortgage backed securities are going to ruin many people as they unwind and take the life savings of many, we can't demand a return to real accounting processes to determine wealth and security and then throw a fit when the U.S. doesn't appear to be a terrific bet under the circumstances.

    This article says that it is believed that the SEC is also looking into Moody's and Fitch too and whether or not their ratings of the mortgage backed securities also puts them on the hook for the ruin of others.

    S&P also put out a revised analysis of our future growth, said that past analysis was inflated....they "downgraded" us some more yesterday, or maybe they finally have gotten around to some truth telling.  If I were on the legal hook now for making analysis and giving ratings I would probably be much more thorough and truthful too than I had been in my not legally responsible for anything past.


    So they say...... (none / 0) (#10)
    by jbindc on Thu Aug 18, 2011 at 09:34:45 AM EST
    Rick Perry's made up facts (none / 0) (#3)
    by jbindc on Thu Aug 18, 2011 at 08:28:37 AM EST
    about global warming

    Perry's statement suggests that, on the climate change issue, the governor is willfully ignoring the facts and making false accusations based on little evidence. He has every right to be a skeptic -- all scientific theories should be carefully scrutinized -- but that does not give him carte blanche to simply make things up.

    Interesting fact check at the link (none / 0) (#4)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Thu Aug 18, 2011 at 08:59:13 AM EST

    The supposed "fact checks" do not appear to directly address Perry's #1. or his #2.


    Peer-reviewed literature is your (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by observed on Thu Aug 18, 2011 at 10:02:15 AM EST

    Hmmm (none / 0) (#5)
    by jbindc on Thu Aug 18, 2011 at 09:10:50 AM EST
    1. A substantial number of scientists have manipulated data so they will have dollars rolling into their projects.

    Despite our repeated requests, neither spokesman provided any evidence to back up Perry's claim that "a substantial number of scientists ... have manipulated data so that they will have dollars rolling into their projects" -- perhaps because that particular scandal appears to be a figment of Perry's imagination.

    Perry can't back up his own statements.  I could say that the sky is green, but that doesn't make it true.

    2. Almost weekly or even daily, scientists are coming forward and questioning the original idea that man-made global warming is what is causing the climate to change.

    Only 9,000 of the signers actually have PhDs, and the list of signers'qualifications shows only a relatively small percentage with expertise on climate research. (One study estimated that under the petition's rather expansive definition of a "scientist," more than 10 million Americans would be qualified to sign it.) Judging from news reports, the number of signers has barely budged from 2008, further undercutting Perry's claim of a groundswell of opposition.

    Another Perry spokesman, Ray Sullivan, provided links to a number of recent articles that he said demonstrated skepticism in the scientific community. We reviewed the articles, and they are anecdotal in nature, not evidence of the groundswell of opposition suggested by Perry.

    Seems to answer his questions and put them to bed quite nicely, IMO.


    Still not addressed (none / 0) (#26)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Thu Aug 18, 2011 at 10:58:52 AM EST

    On point one, the only ding is that Perry has not offered facts to back up his assertion.  That is far different from a counter assertion that there are no such facts to begin with.  

    On point two, the "fact check" is no more than a contrary opinion.  As far as I can tell Perry did not rely on the 9,000.  Even the ding on the 9,000 is off base.  You don't need to be an expert in climate research to recognize adherence or failure to adhere to scientific method.


    Again (5.00 / 0) (#29)
    by jbindc on Thu Aug 18, 2011 at 11:10:57 AM EST
    I can assert anything - if I can't back it up, then it's just hogwash.  Perry can go around saying all kinds of stuff - global warming isn't man made or the moon is made of cheese.  It really doesn't matter unless he can back that up. Since he has been repeatedly asked for his sources, and can't or won't produce them, this is just another case of a politician pulling something out of his a$$ to appeal to a certain segment of the primary and caucus voting population.

    Perry didn't rely on the 9000?  You must have missed this part:

    In response to our queries, Perry spokesman Mark Miner sent us a link to something called the Petition Project, which claims to have collected the signatures of 31,487 "American scientists" on a petition that says there is "no convincing scientific evidence" that human release of greenhouse gasses will "cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the earth's climate." The petition is a bit old, having been started in opposition to the 1997 Kyoto agreement on global warming.

    But this petition doesn't back up Perry's claim of a growing army of scientists opposed to the climate change theory.

    So, his own campaign is relying on information that has been discredited.

    But I guess there will also be people who believe the dinosaurs helped build the pyramids too.


    scientific method, lol. (5.00 / 2) (#48)
    by Dr Molly on Thu Aug 18, 2011 at 02:58:07 PM EST
    today, perry is also saying that evolution is 'just a theory'.

    you know, gravity is just a theory too.


    I doubt he's willing to be a test subject (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by CST on Thu Aug 18, 2011 at 03:06:24 PM EST
    for that one.  Or germ theory for that matter.

    Right, as opposed to supply-side (5.00 / 2) (#52)
    by observed on Thu Aug 18, 2011 at 03:53:46 PM EST
    economics, which is established fact.

    Investigation of S & P began (none / 0) (#6)
    by oculus on Thu Aug 18, 2011 at 09:22:56 AM EST
    prior to S & P downgrading its rating of U.S. bonds.

    You don't think (none / 0) (#12)
    by jbindc on Thu Aug 18, 2011 at 09:36:33 AM EST
    conversations were taking place long before S&P actually downgraded the credit rating?  Such as, "If the economy doesn't get better in the next year, we (S&P) will be downgrading you."

    And an investigation was started?



    They had been fighting with (none / 0) (#14)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Aug 18, 2011 at 09:44:55 AM EST
    our treasury since March about the fact that the United States did not add up on paper.  They had been fighting with Geithner for at least four months about our upcoming downgrade when they did it.  And Geithner got on the tube right before it happened and said that it was impossible for us to be downgraded, and then we were.  Did he think he was successfully blackmailing S&P into giving him the rating he demanded or he was going to put a foot on the investigation gas pedal?

    They sure do pick their battles, don't they? (none / 0) (#20)
    by Anne on Thu Aug 18, 2011 at 10:27:41 AM EST
    Didn't see them fighting too hard or lobbying Treasury about the crap securities they were being paid - and paid well - to rate - didn't see anything but love for those great investments.

    From David Dayen:

    Besides, it's not like S&P's corruption during the housing bubble is unknown. The Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission wrote about how rating agencies would get paid up to $100,000 per financial instrument that they rated, and how they would highly rate issues they knew were crap. We knew that the banks shopped around for a good rating. And former officials at the rating agencies have testified to the dirty dealing inside the agencies, including senior managers who "intimidated and harassed employees and promoted MBS and CDO managing directors because to fire them would be an admission of guilt." Basically, what DoJ and the SEC wants to investigate, whether senior leadership stopped ratings downgrades on mortgage backed securities, has already been revealed.

    We already knew that the SEC was investigating S&P over whether they leaked news of the US downgrade early and selectively. This is just another investigation on top. It's important to note that this is yet another civil, as opposed to criminal, investigation, even though DoJ could bring criminal charges.

    I'm sorry - but should S&P even have any credibility now?  


    Because of Frank Dodd (none / 0) (#24)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Aug 18, 2011 at 10:55:28 AM EST
    S&P is now legally on the hook for their ratings.  They didn't used to be.  I would think that change and introduction of reality does mean something.  I don't understand why some want to beat the crap out of them now.  It was a game everyone was playing before the crash, to include Geithner and all of Wall Street.  The jig is up now, scalps will be taken because the losses are too huge not to, and S&P will be in legal trouble in the future for misleading investors so they stopped misleading.  Everyone was misleading before, everyone who is in this current "fight".  Tim Geithner isn't held responsible for anything though, not anything that he did years ago and not anything that he does now, but S&P has been informed they are now responsible for what they put out there and how that leads people to make important decisions when they invest.  They are on a hook, our Treasury is not and they want more of the old fantasy world NOW OR ELSE!

    Another interesting development (none / 0) (#50)
    by MO Blue on Thu Aug 18, 2011 at 03:27:06 PM EST
    The City of Los Angeles will no long hire Standard and Poor's to rate the city's investment portfolio. From the LA Times:

    "We have really lost faith in S&P's judgment," Interim Treasurer Steve Ongele said.

    After its downgrade of U.S. debt last week, S&P cut its rating of L.A.'s general investment pool to AA from AAA. It also downgraded dozens of other municipalities with large investments in U.S. Treasury notes.

    One of them, Northern California's San Mateo County, has decided not to renew its contract with S&P. Florida's Manatee County has also dropped its contract with the company, according to news reports. link

    Looks like (none / 0) (#51)
    by Zorba on Thu Aug 18, 2011 at 03:47:27 PM EST
    S & P doesn't approve of municipalities with large Treasury holdings.  Maybe it ought to downgrade the entire stock market, because investors sure seem to be fleeing the market and buying Treasuries right now.   ;-)

    This is so entertaining (none / 0) (#8)
    by loveed on Thu Aug 18, 2011 at 09:30:34 AM EST
    Do anyone really believe Perry will be the nominee?
     When you see Perry, you see GWB.
     But it is entertaining. It's late summer no one is really paying attention (kids going back to school,vacation,working 3jobs ect..).
     The media encouraged him to run, practically begged him to run. They had all this juicy information they could use against him. The media also like to spotlight the right wing of the party. Make them look crazier.

     On stage now Rick Perry, guns a blazing,tough talking,horse riding,looking like Regan,walking and talking like GWB. " we know how treat them in texas" "a president our military can be proud of". This is better than SNL.
     What about the shootout between the bush's and the perry's.Who knew?
     This will entertain me til after labor day.
       There will be 3 debates in two wks. This is when the race for 2012 starts.
       So until then entertain me.  

    I have no idea (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Aug 18, 2011 at 09:46:43 AM EST
    Enough people voted for Bush that he was able to claim the Presidency twice.  There doesn't appear to be standards :)

    ANy media fave has a decent chance (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by smott on Thu Aug 18, 2011 at 10:21:44 AM EST
    As we found out with Obama.

    Mittens seems to have the biggest war-chest which is a huge factor.

    But if Perry can rival him for fund raising, I think he has an excellent chance at the nomination. Just MO of course.


    There's a pretty decent chance he will be. (none / 0) (#13)
    by tigercourse on Thu Aug 18, 2011 at 09:42:54 AM EST
    He's mostly everything the Republicans who don't like Romney want. Already in second in the polls, I'd bet on him beating back Bachman pretty soon.

    You bet. (none / 0) (#18)
    by sweetthings on Thu Aug 18, 2011 at 10:18:05 AM EST
    Heck, I think there's a decent chance he'll be President.

    Look at him! He's everything America wants in a leader! He shoots things on his daily jog with the laser-sighted pistol he carries on him at all times. He has picture-perfect hair and that charming Texas drawl. You couldn't dream up a manlier man if you tried. He's the very definition of a cowboy, and America LOVES a cowboy.

    If we really do slip into another recession, start practicing the phrase 'President Perry.' It'll come in handy, I promise.


    Been there,done that (none / 0) (#32)
    by loveed on Thu Aug 18, 2011 at 11:39:28 AM EST
     already had a cowboy.
     The last two election.
     1. The president you would like to have a beer with (GWB)
     2. Let's make history (Obama)

     This election will be about experience. Whether your a dem. or repub. you have fears about the direction of the country.

     I would like a president that actually knows what he or she is doing. I don't care about parties. The dems. is offering Obama as there candidate. He's not acceptable. So that leaves the repub. or and independent challenge.

     I still like Huntsman.


    Another 500pt loss today? (none / 0) (#17)
    by andgarden on Thu Aug 18, 2011 at 10:04:32 AM EST

    Where the tax revenue went (none / 0) (#21)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Thu Aug 18, 2011 at 10:32:13 AM EST
    In 2007, 390,000 tax filers reported adjusted gross income of $1 million or more and paid $309 billion in taxes. In 2009, there were only 237,000 such filers, a decline of 39%. Almost four of 10 millionaires vanished in two years...

    This highlights one of the problems with a progressive income tax.  Namely that tax revenue rises faster in boom times (exemplified by the increase in revenue during the dot-com bubble) and falls faster in hard times.  

    Tax revenues decline when income declines? (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by Yman on Thu Aug 18, 2011 at 10:56:18 AM EST
    Uhhhhmmm ... yeah.  They also declined sharply when Bush cut taxes.

    OTOH, maybe we could tax everyone the same, flat amount from Bill Gates to a migrant laborer.


    Whatcha talkin' about? (none / 0) (#28)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Thu Aug 18, 2011 at 11:06:31 AM EST

    Total federal revenues grew by about $625 billion, or 35 percent, between fiscal year 2003 and fiscal year 2006

    Actual revenue (as opposed to projections or guesses) actually grew after the Bush tax rates were in place.



    I'm talking about the fact ... (none / 0) (#58)
    by Yman on Fri Aug 19, 2011 at 09:31:30 AM EST
    ... that the Bush tax cuts caused a huge drop in expected tax revenue.  Of course, if you want to choose a narrow, 3-year period to look at, you may end up with a distorted view.  Not that anyone would be trying to do that.

    BTW - Federal revenue (in absolute, dollar terms) normally increases every year.  In fact, it's increased every year but 5 since 1962.  Of course, as a percentage of GDP, they dropped substantially during the Bush terms - (all of Bush's term, not just a select 3 years).


    BTW - You ignore the primary point - your lament that the a progressive tax system causes revenues to rise and fall with income.  Should we tax Bill Gates the same amount as a waiter?


    They never were millionaires (none / 0) (#22)
    by Dadler on Thu Aug 18, 2011 at 10:47:58 AM EST
    Yawn.  And you don't even address the unregulated corruption and criminality that has run rampant and de-facto controlled the levers of this economy for many years now, and which caused the craziness we are now seeing.  Poor people don't rig markets.  As for taxes, what's really interesting is that, to you, the "problem" with progressive tax rates is that they cannot act in a clairvoyant fashion.  Brilliant.  Now that I think about it, I've seen the flat tax on TV, performing incredible feats of mental acumen and market prediction, I even saw the flat tax on Letterman correctly guess the number of pennies in a full jar.  

    But I'm convinced he had inside info... (none / 0) (#23)
    by Dadler on Thu Aug 18, 2011 at 10:49:01 AM EST
    ...for that Letterman trick.

    If Only (none / 0) (#27)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Aug 18, 2011 at 10:59:04 AM EST
    This highlights one of the problems with a progressive income tax.  Namely that tax revenue rises faster in boom times (exemplified by the increase in revenue during the dot-com bubble) and falls faster in hard times.

    It doesn't because it neglects to mention how much tax the remaining 7 figure incomes contributed. That number is needed to make/break your contention.

    And this gem "Almost four of 10 millionaires vanished in two years...".  Bold face lie, a millionaire is someone whose net worth is over a million.  People making a million dollars in income dropped, loads of millionaires who never have a million in AGI.

    Note, the time line is 2007 to 2009, Bush era, and I suspect most of that is carry over losses that took 7 figure incomes and moved them into 6 figure incomes.  Stated income is not the same as actual income especially when that number approached 7 figures.

    Very poor tax analysis by the poster and by the WSJ.  So poor I would call it deceptive at best.


    You may not have picked up on it (none / 0) (#30)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Thu Aug 18, 2011 at 11:12:32 AM EST

    but the article uses the term "millionaire" to describe someone with a million in taxable income.  

    BTW, figuring a persons net worth is necessarily based on estimates (guesses) of the value of property.


    But that is Not the Definition (none / 0) (#35)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Aug 18, 2011 at 12:45:47 PM EST
    It wasn't in passing, the main point was 4 of 10 millionaires have disappeared, which is a complete lie, not spin, not opinion, that is a lie and you took it as fact and regurgitated it as some sort of proof.

    If I say 1 in 10 people are republicans, when in fact 1 in 10 black people are republicans, it is a lie.  I can't say but the article uses the word 'people' to describe black people.

    Thanks for the lesson on valuing property, doesn't have anything to do with anything, and certainly doesn't change your source's bold face lie.


    Don't be obtuse (none / 0) (#38)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Thu Aug 18, 2011 at 01:38:44 PM EST

    It is obvious from the context they were talking about people with adjusted gross income of over a million.  Colloquial usage is not a "bold face lie."

    That is NOT colloquial usage. (5.00 / 0) (#42)
    by observed on Thu Aug 18, 2011 at 02:14:57 PM EST
    Look, this is a not the place to present arguments made for dummies. WE know that the wealthy have seen their incomes skyrocket over the last 30 years---and by incomes I do NOT mean wages alone. The share of property owned by the top 1% is staggering. If you look at the wealth of the top .1% or top .01% the picture is even more amazing.
    One can always find a convenient way to cut data to bolster one's view; your example is particularly unconvincing.

    A good, concise read (none / 0) (#31)
    by jbindc on Thu Aug 18, 2011 at 11:33:17 AM EST
    On the fan-boy mentality from Taylor Marsh.

    The Obama White House is a poll-driven universe. Now that liberal dissatisfaction with Pres. Obama has risen so high he's getting negative numbers in New York, what's being written on the big movement progressive blogs like Jane Hamsher's Firedoglake matters.

    As for Paul Krugman, he's hitting the President and his team where they deserve to be eviscerated: economics. This also happens to be where Obama has plummeted the farthest, down to 26%, which is a reelection killer.

    There's this also (none / 0) (#33)
    by vicndabx on Thu Aug 18, 2011 at 12:18:40 PM EST
    Whether it's Perry or Romney, you can bet Republicans will come out in 2012, because there's nothing they want more than to make Obama a one-term president. In the end they'll have all hands on deck.

    I.e. regardless of the side of the tent the candidate resides in R world, they can count on the support of all of their party.  We haven't quite grasped that concept though have we?

    I honestly wonder why so-called "progressives" don't get this. They're supposed to be the "smart" ones, yet they seemingly believe that structural problems in America decades in the making, compounded by the self-centered & greedy, made worse by cheap labor found worldwide, can be magically made to disappear merely by doing everything Paul Krugman says. (ftr, I like Paul, his ideas are just a subset of numerous different ideas/possible solutions)  

    Fact is who doesn't want to see higher, quality, long-term employment for as many Americans as possible?  Whether we can return to the glory days of the past the way the world is interconnected now is something that requires serious discussion however.  IMO, we cannot, not w/our current thinking.  We like to buy stuff cheap, and that requires cheap labor and manufacturing w/little regulation - which is why manufacturing has left the US.  Construction jobs don't last forever.  We as a nation can never have the discussion if those we entrust with responsibility are constantly worried about the next election cycle doing quick fixes along they way.


    I guess I must be one of the (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by Anne on Thu Aug 18, 2011 at 12:33:51 PM EST
    "dumb" liberals, because I don't quite grasp the concept of continuing to support and vote for candidates just because there's a (D) after his or her name, when they keep proving they are working against my interests.

    For sure we need comprehensive and highly-regulated public financing of elections - there are a lot of very talented people out there, truly interested in public service, who don't stand a snowball's chance under the existing system - but the protection racket that is our political system is just not going to allow that to happen.


    Me Too (5.00 / 2) (#37)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Aug 18, 2011 at 01:10:33 PM EST
    Not getting blind allegiance out of me, they have to earn my vote and trust me, at this point, a little liberal lip service is all it would take, but Obama can't even be bothered with that.

    I'm not going to vote for someone that I don't think is capable of running the country or that doesn't share some core principles.  

    I will never ever vote for anyone who is openly interested in dismantling the New Deal.


    So you only have like what? (none / 0) (#36)
    by vicndabx on Thu Aug 18, 2011 at 12:48:16 PM EST
    1 or 2 interests?

    Rhetorically, I seriously wonder how you have actually been harmed by legislation implemented under this president's first term. I'm not talking about policies that might be implemented, but policies that actually have been implemented.

    Public financing is part of the problem, but not what I'm talking about.  Giving a politician time to enact a broad agenda is what I'm talking about.  Unrealistic expectations of turnaround time is what I'm talking about.


    One of my interests, if it matters to you, (5.00 / 2) (#39)
    by Anne on Thu Aug 18, 2011 at 01:47:50 PM EST
    is that I really do believe in the power of government to improve people's lives, especially the lives of those who don't have the money or the power to make much happen on their own; we have more people like that in this country than ever before.  That I am fortunate to have a job doesn't mean I don't care that my husband doesn't - and hasn't for almost two years.  That I own a home doesn't mean I don't care that my children, even as they are saving like crazy, may not be able to realize that dream.  That I am lucky enough to still have my mother doesn't mean I don't care whether she will be able to afford to stay where she lives.  That I can no longer have children doesn't mean I don't care about policies and provisions that may affect my daughters' reproductive rights.  That I have nothing to hide doesn't mean I don't care that this president has been behind more intrusions into our personal lives.  That I am too old to serve in the military, doesn't mean I don't care about the wars that never end, the wars-that-aren't-wars.

    I could go on, but perhaps you are one of those "smart" progressives who can figure out that "my" interests are not just about me.  

    I've never wished to be one of those people who doens't give a hoot about anyone but myself, who has no problem telling everyone else to go to hell as long as I get mine - but perhaps that's how you live your life; it would explain a lot.


    to be fair (none / 0) (#40)
    by CST on Thu Aug 18, 2011 at 02:01:14 PM EST
    I'm pretty sure that that's not what this commenter was trying to say.

    Not that you, personally, haven't been affected.  But that people in general haven't actually been affected on a personal level.  That means you, your husband, the guy down the street, whomever.

    Now I certainly disagree with that sentiment but it's not the same thing as what you are saying - which is not to care about anyone but yourself.


    When someone says, (5.00 / 0) (#45)
    by Anne on Thu Aug 18, 2011 at 02:40:19 PM EST
    Rhetorically, I seriously wonder how you have actually been harmed by legislation implemented under this president's first term.

    I think that's a pretty specific and in-your-face challenge, which is why I responded the way I did.

    First, I got the snide, "what do you have, like 1 or 2 interests," as if there couldn't possibly be more of concern to me, and then I got the challenge as to whether or not I had "really" been affected - and further challenged by the confines of actually-implemented legislation, not proposed legislation.

    I applaud you for your charitable interpretation of the commenter's remarks, but would suggest that his/her comment was not framed with similar benign intent.  


    It was indeed w/benign intent (none / 0) (#46)
    by vicndabx on Thu Aug 18, 2011 at 02:56:07 PM EST
    it's a blog, relax (or not, should you choose)

    I know you have more than 1 or 2 interests - that is obvious and is kinda my point.  Most people whose postings I've read on this blog have things they area passionate about, but as you point out, their concerns actually span a wide range of issues.  Which is why I was suggesting, albeit in a roundabout manner, looking at the person/party best in a position to support the wide range of issues and base decisions on that.

    I'm not interested in winning anything here, I merely try to make my points, that is all.


    Honestly (none / 0) (#55)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Aug 18, 2011 at 05:14:31 PM EST
    BTD was right when he was saying that his "supporters" are actually his worst enemies because they alienate yet more people.

    Anytime I think I MIGHT get up off the couch in '12 and go vote, one of his online supporters starts making snide remarks and name calling and voila! i hear the couch calling my name again.


    Thank you (none / 0) (#41)
    by vicndabx on Thu Aug 18, 2011 at 02:04:40 PM EST
    That is exactly what I was saying.

    Well, it was on Obama's watch... (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by Dadler on Thu Aug 18, 2011 at 02:33:31 PM EST
    ...that my wife's honest little bank was shut down and sold off to a bigger player in a move that could only be read as a rigged sale to an insider.  

    It is Obama who has chosen to make a low priority of going after the corruption that brought down the economy.  And perhaps, um, that is because he chose to people his economic team with some of the very same folks who brought the economy down.  That, by itself, is astonishing.  The results speak for themselves, and things are NOT getting better.

    I know at least three deserving people for whom federal mortgage assistance has been inexplicably useless.

    That program, to say the least, has been so dismally ineffective as to be negligent.  


    I feel exactly the same as you (none / 0) (#43)
    by vicndabx on Thu Aug 18, 2011 at 02:23:08 PM EST
    regarding our obligations to those we share this earth with.

    this part seem incongruous though:

    but perhaps that's how you live your life; it would explain a lot.

    Bless your heart.