Thursday Morning Open Thread

College football season starts tonight. Go Gators!

Open Thread.

< Wednesday Night Open Thread | The Icelandic "Miracle" >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    I read all the news (5.00 / 3) (#1)
    by Edger on Thu Sep 01, 2011 at 10:25:47 AM EST
    this morning, everywhere I could. It's not looking so good out there. Like a whole society needs intensive care and life support. Or is it just me?

    You people in Minnesota ... (5.00 / 4) (#8)
    by Yman on Thu Sep 01, 2011 at 11:19:02 AM EST
    ... better keep an eye on your baby goats.

    Girls, 5 and 7, abduct baby goat while wearing footie pajamas.

    Great story (5.00 / 2) (#15)
    by gyrfalcon on Thu Sep 01, 2011 at 11:47:55 AM EST
    Thanks for posting the link.

    College football? (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Thu Sep 01, 2011 at 11:34:30 AM EST
    I look forward to reading all about it on SportsLeft! Oh wait...

    Go Iowa Awesome

    War Eagle! (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Sep 01, 2011 at 12:14:37 PM EST
    And don't try to tell me how bad they already suck, that was done last year :)

    War Eagle? You lose a cool point for that :) (none / 0) (#31)
    by republicratitarian on Thu Sep 01, 2011 at 01:08:21 PM EST
    Why is it War Eagle when they are the Tigers?

    Go FSU by the way, Free Shoes University!


    Heard a U of F fan (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by jeffinalabama on Thu Sep 01, 2011 at 02:23:51 PM EST
    call FSU something specifically NOT the Seminoles, but a pejorative of two words that sounds like it when combined. The last word was 'holes.'

    I have nothing against FSU. Florida I dislike this year for one game, though, possibly two!


    Those rotten "F"ers (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Sep 01, 2011 at 02:25:30 PM EST
    I have no idea (none / 0) (#43)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Sep 01, 2011 at 02:04:14 PM EST
    I've complained you know?  Why is their basketball team the Plainsmen?  Shouldn't that be a Colorado team anyhow?  Why does Alabama get to claim Crimson and now black too, and Houndstooth, and every white capital letter A in the universe, and Tide, and Elephants?  There are so many identifiers in Southern college sports there practically needs to be a community college course in it for transplanted Yankees :)  I registered the name of a now championed dog as if she represents all Alabama colleges and didn't even know it.

    My son has informed us he is going to Auburn though so I'm being supportive early on, I really messed up naming the dog though.


    I didn't know about the Plainsmen (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by republicratitarian on Thu Sep 01, 2011 at 02:24:08 PM EST
    And I can't tell the difference between Alabama's "A" and the Atlanta Braves "A" now.

    It's War Eagle because, (none / 0) (#49)
    by jeffinalabama on Thu Sep 01, 2011 at 02:21:33 PM EST
    during a game in the late 19th Century, an ROTC cadet found an eagle pin during a game AU was losing, and began chanting War Eagle! Auburn came back to win, and a cheer was started.

    Plainsmen comes from "The Deserted Village," by Oliver Goldsmith, which begins, "Sweet Auburn! loveliest village of the plain..." before going on for some 60 pages...

    Tigers-- I'll have to ask somebody about that one!

    Officially the Auburn Tigers, but often called the Plainsmen or War Eagles.

    The hoopsters are really tigers. Then there are the Lady Tigers, a successful basketball team, lol!


    You guys have bags full of identifiers (none / 0) (#52)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Sep 01, 2011 at 02:23:58 PM EST
    for every college near me :)

    FSU (none / 0) (#137)
    by john horse on Sat Sep 03, 2011 at 06:59:47 AM EST
    This looks like a good year for FSU.  Everything looks like its coming together for the Noles - great athletes and great coaches.  

    By the way, FSU stands for Florida State University.  That incident that you refer to happened over ten years ago.  Putdowns start getting lame when they get outdated.


    Anybody got any crack? (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by kdog on Thu Sep 01, 2011 at 02:27:21 PM EST
    I'll be your best friend!

    Day 4 of pump-amania...still going absolutely bonkers.  

    I miss you guys, y'all better save the world so all this effort and aggravation pumping it out is worth it...otherwise I might as well quit now and enjoy whats left of armageddon.

    I see Jeralyn has some great sh*t up too...I'll catch up over Labor Day...this one has new meaning!

    I have a crack, (none / 0) (#61)
    by jeffinalabama on Thu Sep 01, 2011 at 02:29:44 PM EST
    not that it's any of your business, kdog.  I'm sure it will be in evidence on the pirate ship.



    We all got that... (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by kdog on Thu Sep 01, 2011 at 02:33:04 PM EST
    I'm talking the Beam Me Up Scotty variety...

    I've been givin' er all she got Captain!


    Hang in there, kdog. (none / 0) (#95)
    by caseyOR on Thu Sep 01, 2011 at 04:19:51 PM EST
    Just one more day until the long weekend. Then you can imbibe to your heart's content, take in some gridiron action and catch up on your TL reading.

    Given how damaging Irene was, I fear you are in for a long haul, cubicle sales-wise, matey. Maybe you could take part of the weekend to learn a few deep breathing exercises. Seriously, the deep breathing really does help me when I'm in the midst of frantic and stressful.

    Remember, when Jeff gets through his surgery and treatment, the search for our home port-o-call begins. I promise there will be not a single cubicle or multi-line telephone anywhere on the pirate ship. :-)


    I've got certain breathing exercises... (5.00 / 1) (#119)
    by kdog on Thu Sep 01, 2011 at 06:15:05 PM EST
    down pat, fear not for me Captain...one more day.

    My dept. will be fully staffed come Tues...my cube cohort got the pre, I got the post, and we'll both get the mountain of mistakes, rga's, "Ya charged me freight!", "Whaddya mean backordered!", wah wah wah...wah..wah wah.

    A saving grace is its an American mfg, making a really good pump, employing alotta good people.  Out of quite a few mfg's I have experience with now amongst the easiest to deal with...they've kicked serious arse this week keeping the trailers comin', all the order revisions and what not.  I'd hate to imagine such a crisis with other corporations...

    China can't compete with that, pumping water before the date code is dry. Making as much of your own sh*t as you can, particularly essential sh*t, is a national security issue imo.  


    Sigh (5.00 / 1) (#91)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Sep 01, 2011 at 04:05:52 PM EST
    Go to Tuscaloosa, Auburn, Baton Rouge, Knoxville, Columbia, Jacksonville, Little Rock/Fayetteville, Tallahassee and win games.

    Donald, you are smarter than this.

    So, the Huntsman jobs program.... (none / 0) (#2)
    by ruffian on Thu Sep 01, 2011 at 10:33:15 AM EST
    Cut taxes, get rid of regulation. Basic GOP.

    No news here, move along.

    Even worse (5.00 / 0) (#27)
    by cal1942 on Thu Sep 01, 2011 at 12:52:34 PM EST
    his "plan" eliminates taxes on capital gains and dividends.  IIRC that was the original Bush proposal and standard extremist Conservative boiler plate.

    So in a nation suffering from massive income disparity and the subsequent economic damage of that situation, Huntsman's proposal will make matters far worse.

    If Democrats lose the Senate and White House we can expect such a proposal to be passed in the House with only a filibuster in the Senate ...  oops - they'll pass it via reconciliation.


    So do continue to try and slice up the same (none / 0) (#78)
    by loveed on Thu Sep 01, 2011 at 03:20:54 PM EST
    Buffet,Clinton,even Obama keep telling everyone the tax code is not fair. They want to pay more money(Clinton still pays his taxes at the rate they were when he left office).Buffet pay less than his secretary.
     This country is in terrible shape. I say wipe out the whole tax code and start over. Start with a clean slate. Add what benefit ordinary people.

    Easier said than done, loveed (none / 0) (#82)
    by christinep on Thu Sep 01, 2011 at 03:43:52 PM EST
    ...about "wipe out the whole tax code and start over."  I'm sure most of us would like to see fair, extensive (totally redone, for that matter) tax code. In view of the institutional opposition built-in at about every level, I'd consider some relatively minor but meaningful revisions as a good step in the right direction.  My take on a complete overhaul happening anytime within the next few years: When pigs fly!

    More broadly, tho, I would be interested in your take about directly growing jobs--where & how to spend money for what jobs? For example: Would you want Huntsman or any other Repub to support government funding for infrastructure, for airport expansion, for transportation quickly & directly since such funding could be expected to produced extensive hiring in short order? What about a central infrastructure bank that Sen. John Kerry has proposed? (Note: I focus on the Repubs here because you have expressed your support for Huntsman.) Would you favor direct funding in the manufacturing area? Or would you favor extension of unemployment benefits? What about extension of the payroll tax holiday for employees?  And, also, what about tax incentives for small businesses for hiring?

    All the possibilities in the preceding paragraph may be included in the President's plan. All of these are expected to stimulate hiring...some more than others. So, while my sentiment about a new tax code is similar to your goal, I'd much rather focus on the here & now and creating a more direct avenue for job growth. Sure, we should embark on revising the tax code...but don't hold your breath that the results could be seen in the next several years.


    For now anything that will (5.00 / 1) (#110)
    by loveed on Thu Sep 01, 2011 at 04:54:08 PM EST
    actually create jobs I Am for it.
     Especially infrastructure. I would have like a bold plan of high speed railway from coast to coast (I hate flying with all the restrictions).
     I remember during the campaign,Hillary wanted to start a jobs program for the unemployed,to change all the light fixture in all government building.  The energy saving would have offset the cost of the program. It would take years to replace them.
     This pool of workers could have been trained for green jobs.
     We can't keep making temporary changes. We need to think about permanent changes. Starting with the tax code.

    Tax break to richest 1% (none / 0) (#94)
    by MO Blue on Thu Sep 01, 2011 at 04:15:56 PM EST
    with tax increases on the middle-class and new taxes on seniors, veterans, and poor families. ...He would also eliminate all taxes on all capital gains and dividend income -- the primary forms of income for the wealthiest Americans.

    Huntsman would drop the marginal rate paid by the richest Americans by more than a third to 23 percent -- a lower rate than rich people paid during the Coolidge and Hoover Administrations or any time since. He would also eliminate all taxes on all capital gains and dividend income -- the primary forms of income for the wealthiest Americans.

        - All Social Security benefits would become taxable. Senior citizens that currently receive the average Social Security benefit as their primary income source (as is the case for most seniors) currently pay no income taxes on those benefits, but would under Huntsman's plan.

        - Many middle-class parents would lose child tax credits and tax benefits for education and child care that are more valuable to them than a tax rate cut.

        - Huntsman's tax plan would also eliminate the employer health insurance exclusion, which helps enable some 160 million Americans get coverage through their jobs.

        - One of the most successful pro-work, anti-poverty initiatives, the Earned Income Tax Credit, would be abolished.

        - Veterans pensions and disability benefits would become subject to tax, as would all military combat pay, military housing allowances and meals, workers compensation payments, public assistance benefits, and state foster care payments. link

    This is a start (none / 0) (#120)
    by loveed on Thu Sep 01, 2011 at 06:31:56 PM EST
     And we have to start somewhere.
     Start with a clean plate. And go from there. Upper 1% already controls all the money.
     Why is everything shot down, instead of trying to make it better. The tax code is unrepairable.
    There are so many unfair loopholes you can't do it one by one. Every bill congress pass have new loopholes.
     Huntsman did this in Utah. It was the number one state in job growth. The best ran state in the country. Low unemployment.
     Huntsman is running on his record. I think his record speaks for it self.

    Well if giving corporations and the (5.00 / 3) (#122)
    by MO Blue on Thu Sep 01, 2011 at 07:06:39 PM EST
    upper bracket a much bigger share of the pie is something that has your complete support you will be happy to hear that lowering the marginal tax rates for corporations and the upper brackets is not a new idea that the remarkable Mr. Huntsman has developed all on his lonesome. A similar but less draconian proposal since it did not eliminate the Earned Income Tax Credit was part of the Cat Food Commission recommendations and was included in the Gang of Six agreement. It is also something that Obama has said he favors.

    It is more than probable that lowering the marginal tax rates for corporations and the top brackets will be part of our immediate future. I would not be surprised to see it as one of the changes coming out of the Super Congress. The poor and the middle class will be poorer for this change because one way or another it will merely shift more funds to the mega rich. Please if this does come about, remember that you favor this approach and your approval should not depend on whether or not it is Huntsman's plan or Obama's plan.

    Why shoot it down? Stupid plans that hurt the average citizen deserve to be shot down regardless of who champions them.

    This will be my last post on this issue since true believers like you do not rely on information and any further discussion would be a waste of time and band width.


    I'd give you (none / 0) (#123)
    by Zorba on Thu Sep 01, 2011 at 07:28:13 PM EST
    a "plus 10" for this comment if I could, MO Blue.

    The fixation on the tax code (none / 0) (#127)
    by christinep on Thu Sep 01, 2011 at 08:37:42 PM EST
    is interesting.  The problem, loveed--far from shooting things down--is that generations have talked about it (and, thats it, talked about it.) I believe that you are sincere in saying earlier that you are for any program that creates jobs; yet, the tax-code-revision-per-Huntsman total focus does seem at odds with timely creation of jobs. That the tax code should be tackled is one thing...that such a committee could reasonably be expected to realize the kind of results you say that you want is (politely speaking) far-fetched.

    Seriously, loveed, what plans during his candidacy now has Huntsman announced regarding job growth other than this traditional Repubs-get-tax-breaks agenda? And, seriously again, if you are a volunteer for Huntsman, I also understand. Of all the other far-righters, Huntsman is closest to the classic anti-big-government conservative that looks to big business for solutions. In short: Your position seems a bit confusing to me.


    loveed my dear (none / 0) (#134)
    by sj on Fri Sep 02, 2011 at 08:55:30 AM EST
    It is indeed a start, but it's a bad start.  I can't speak to what he's done in Utah.  But those views are frightening.

    All the more frightening because it seems all high-ranking officials share those views.  All of them.


    And Texas A&M heads for the SEC. (none / 0) (#3)
    by sweetthings on Thu Sep 01, 2011 at 10:51:52 AM EST
    Will this be the domino that tips off the era of the super conference?

    The best part (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by CoralGables on Thu Sep 01, 2011 at 12:05:13 PM EST
    The SEC gets one great marching band...okay, okay, I also understand the gain of the Texas TV market and recruiting advancements for the entire conference into the state...I'm happy to have the band.

    Woo Hoo! (none / 0) (#4)
    by jbindc on Thu Sep 01, 2011 at 10:53:38 AM EST
    As an A&M grad (MBA, '93), I'm thrilled that they're leaving the Big 12.

    Here is what Rich Perry (5.00 / 0) (#115)
    by MKS on Thu Sep 01, 2011 at 05:19:20 PM EST
    says about Texas and his Alma Mater, A&M:

    He then attended Texas A&M University, where he was a member of the Corps of Cadets, a member of the Alpha Gamma Rho fraternity, was elected senior class social secretary, and was also elected as one of A&M's five yell leaders (a popular Texas A&M tradition analogous to male cheerleaders).[11][12] Perry graduated in 1972 with a 2.5 GPA, earning a bachelor's degree in animal science.[12][13]

    Perry said that the Corps of Cadets gave him the discipline to complete his animal sciences degree and earn a commission in the Air Force. In a 1989 interview he said that "I was probably a bit of a free spirit, not particularly structured real well for life outside of a military regime, I would have not lasted at Texas Tech or the University of Texas. I would have hit the fraternity scene and lasted about one semester."[

    President Rick Perry.  God help us all.  The curse of the Aggies is real.


    okay...and add (none / 0) (#117)
    by christinep on Thu Sep 01, 2011 at 05:53:24 PM EST
    I'll say it now. Perry has lots of problems; all the ones that have been spelled out and more (such as issues surrounding trips with Norquist & other email revelations.) Yet, IMO, the crowning point--so to speak--or the cherry on top of this whole fiasco is the pretense.  Whether the Reagan-call-to-mind chosen browner & browner suits with changed haircut or whatever, this America Second character is one of the biggest phonies to come along in a lifetime. And, for the world of politics, that is saying a lot.

    I think most people are happy about it. (none / 0) (#6)
    by sweetthings on Thu Sep 01, 2011 at 10:58:47 AM EST
    At least, everyone I've talked to in Austin is. But nobody is sure what comes next. The Big 12 is obviously the sick man of college football...can it survive? Does anyone even have a vested interest in it's survival?

    Whoda thunk that football crazy (none / 0) (#44)
    by brodie on Thu Sep 01, 2011 at 02:04:23 PM EST
    places like TX, OK, and NE -- which form the foundation of the Big 12 -- wouldn't have built one of the strongest and most feared conferences in all the land, instead of one teams are seeking to flee?  Strange how that one has turned out.

    Meantime, if A&M is joining with the SEC, the NCAA is risking making college football even more South-centric, regional and parochial while fattening up a conference already fat with talent not to mention money from fat, long-term tv/cable contracts.

    Oh well -- it's the NCAA after all, and so things are bound to get more screwed up and inequitable long before they improve.


    All because of A&M? (none / 0) (#56)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Thu Sep 01, 2011 at 02:25:31 PM EST
    Sorry, I don't think so.  They are a speck on the football landscape.  The SEC gains little or nothing from accepting them.  Now, if you want to talk Texas or Oklahoma, that's a different story.  

    The race is on to see which one (or both) of these national powerhouses bolts the Big 8 or whatever they're down to.  Smart money is on the Pac 10 getting the best of the implosion.  We could well see TX (although with their big new TV contract they could go the independent route ala ND), OK, OSU and TT heading out West with Mizzu going to the Big 10, Kansas to the Big East and KSU and Iowa State shivering out in the cold.  


    WIt's the Pac 12 now MileHi. (none / 0) (#90)
    by caseyOR on Thu Sep 01, 2011 at 04:03:34 PM EST
    This season both Utah and Colorado have joined the conference. Still not sure how I feel about the expansion. We now have a north and a south division, which means some very important traditional games like both Oregon and Oregon State vs. USC,  won't happen every year. It does add a conference championship game.

    As with d@mn near everything in major college sports, it is all about the Benjamins. And that always leads to trouble.

    Still, I must add GO, DUCKS!!!!  The Quackers play LSU in Cowboy Stadium this Saturday. And the game is on TV, which for years never happened for us.


    Yeah... (none / 0) (#93)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Thu Sep 01, 2011 at 04:13:35 PM EST
    I'm was just adjusting to the old reality when they went and changed everything.  

    Tell me about it--we had the conference mandating who our new rivals would be (we got Purdue!).  To heck with the natural border war with the Cheeseheads, those evil Boilermakers are now our most hated rival.  Plus, an abundance of stupidity in the naming of the divisions (Leaders and Legends?  Really?) and new trophies...  

    Oh well, at least we get to have the annual Corn Bowl on Thanksgiving now.  That will be entertaining.


    No not "all because" but (none / 0) (#103)
    by brodie on Thu Sep 01, 2011 at 04:38:47 PM EST
    only in part because.  The NCAA should be seeking to balance the conferences and this proposal -- though it could have been worse had the school been OU -- would only exacerbate existing imbalances.

    TAM is also hardly a speck on the national football scene.  Above average program looking at maybe the past decade and some years easily in the top 20.  They would tend to strengthen the SEC overall imo.


    A&M as a speck on the football landscape (none / 0) (#105)
    by MKS on Thu Sep 01, 2011 at 04:48:59 PM EST
    I like it....Good, apt and fair description......

    What about the Century long (none / 0) (#14)
    by MKS on Thu Sep 01, 2011 at 11:47:16 AM EST
    rivalry with Texas? Life will never be the same....

    The A&M folks (none / 0) (#24)
    by jbindc on Thu Sep 01, 2011 at 12:22:13 PM EST
    are gonna have to actually learn the first verse to the Aggie War Hymn (fight song), since they always sing the second verse ("Goodbye to texas University. So long to the Orange and the White.") no matter who they're playing.

    Hmmm... (none / 0) (#65)
    by jbindc on Thu Sep 01, 2011 at 02:33:04 PM EST
    A&M is currently ranked #8 pre-season. They can't be that bad and be ranked that high.

    And if the SEC is really that good, this should improve A&M's game even more....


    For the record (none / 0) (#79)
    by jbindc on Thu Sep 01, 2011 at 03:24:09 PM EST
    No pom-poms here.

    A&M has no cheerleaders and there certainly are no pom-poms at any game.

    And yes, pre-season polls don't matter in the end, but please also do not casually wave the Aggies off.  

    And as far as I know, the Aggies at least don't have the distraction this season of players on suspension for criminal behavior (suspected or otherwise), involvement with alumni, etc.

    There will also be a built in rivalry with Arkansas, renewed from the days when the Razorbacks played in the SWC (In fact, they play each other in a non-conference game on October 1). The only other non-conference game A&M plays is against Idaho - not a powerhouse, but at least it isn't the powderpuffs that many current SEC teams play for their openers.

    Also, Mississippi State could be a potential big rival, since Jackie Sherrill left A&M to coach at MSU.

    This is a great move for A&M to get out of the shadow of the (many times) overrated Texas Longhorns and to get some more national coverage.


    A&M retreats (none / 0) (#108)
    by MKS on Thu Sep 01, 2011 at 04:53:08 PM EST
    because it can't beat Texas...... That's par for the course....

    Rick Perry is one of you (none / 0) (#113)
    by MKS on Thu Sep 01, 2011 at 05:11:37 PM EST
    Cased closed.

    I would rather have Bevo anyday.


    So is Lyle Lovett (none / 0) (#131)
    by jbindc on Fri Sep 02, 2011 at 07:55:30 AM EST
    Case is definitely not closed.

    I mean - Iowa????


    Never mind about Iowa (none / 0) (#132)
    by jbindc on Fri Sep 02, 2011 at 07:57:31 AM EST
    But we still have LL...

    Not a fan of June Jones and SMU (none / 0) (#111)
    by MKS on Thu Sep 01, 2011 at 04:55:36 PM EST
    They gave a family friend pretty short shrift.... I could for the first time in my life be rooting for the Aggies....

    As Lombardi said (5.00 / 1) (#124)
    by MKS on Thu Sep 01, 2011 at 07:29:52 PM EST
    Winning is everything.

    June Jones does win games.  And in Texas that matters...Doesn't mean he doesn't otherwise screw people.


    The Obama jobs plan (none / 0) (#5)
    by jbindc on Thu Sep 01, 2011 at 10:55:25 AM EST
    But he doesn't have the votes, or something... (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by Edger on Thu Sep 01, 2011 at 11:17:23 AM EST
    These guys in the Obama camp are in for a horrible, rude awakening. Sometime in the next year, they are going to blink and realize they are lying flat on their back on the canvas. Then as they finally stumble up, they'll realize they should have started fighting 11 rounds ago. Then a panic will set in, but I'm afraid it will be too late by then.

    Here is what all voters, and especially independents, despise and disdain in a politician -- weakness. Nobody wants to see their leader get beat to a pulp every night and then bow his head again.

    There is no secret, brilliant strategy. This White House is in a bubble. They think they're winning when the roof is about to cave in.
    Cenk: -- Is Obama Playing Rope-a-Dope?

    if you clicked on the link (5.00 / 2) (#9)
    by CST on Thu Sep 01, 2011 at 11:24:18 AM EST
    you will see that he is outlining things that the federal government will do alone, without the help of congress.

    Sounds nice, but it certainly begs the question - if you don't need congress, what took you so long?

    That being said, I don't really know what they are proposing or how effective it will be.  Things sound good for my sector (transportation) but we've been getting a lot of money thrown our way, and no one else has gotten anything.  So as nice as it is for me to read that I will probably be getting more funding, this is not going to cut it.


    Ding! (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by jbindc on Thu Sep 01, 2011 at 12:23:19 PM EST
    Sounds nice, but it certainly begs the question - if you don't need congress, what took you so long?

    Another question (none / 0) (#29)
    by cal1942 on Thu Sep 01, 2011 at 01:01:56 PM EST
    How much is available?  Will this be big enough to make at least some difference?

    Funny the way people view (none / 0) (#114)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Thu Sep 01, 2011 at 05:12:38 PM EST
    the same story.

    I look at it and say "we want the president doing everything in his control to stimulate the economy and it looks like he's doing that now".

    Other folks look at it and say "it won't be big enough" to fix everything.

    Just different perspectives.


    If it looks to you like the president is (5.00 / 1) (#128)
    by Anne on Thu Sep 01, 2011 at 08:49:35 PM EST
    doing everything in his control to stimulate the economy, it might be time to make an appointment with the eye doctor.

    Is it my reading comprehension? (5.00 / 1) (#129)
    by nycstray on Thu Sep 01, 2011 at 09:37:30 PM EST
    I read it as Cal asking if it will be big enough to make a dif, not saying it isn't big enough.  Oh wait, you said "other folks" . . . . is that like "some people"?

    The referenced article (none / 0) (#10)
    by KeysDan on Thu Sep 01, 2011 at 11:25:02 AM EST
    re-enforces my view expressed in a comment on an early thread regarding the necessity/desirability for the president's speech to be given before a joint session of congress, rather than from the White House.  The reason would seem to rest less with the jobs component of the speech  and more with deficit reduction, and the need to avoid a Cat Food II fail with its military/security cuts, as a part of the across the board cuts.

    what? (none / 0) (#11)
    by CST on Thu Sep 01, 2011 at 11:28:05 AM EST
    nothing in that link so much as mentioned deficit reduction.

    I'm not saying you're wrong necessarily, who knows, I just fail to see how that article "re-enforces" that view.


    According to Dan Pfeiffer, Obama's (none / 0) (#13)
    by MO Blue on Thu Sep 01, 2011 at 11:44:30 AM EST
    speech will address reducing the deficit as well as jobs.

    In a tweet, White House communications director Dan Pfeiffer first revealed that Obama had requested the rare speech to a joint session "to lay out his plan to create jobs, grow the economy and reduce the deficit." link

    If he is talking about the last 2 (none / 0) (#16)
    by ruffian on Thu Sep 01, 2011 at 11:49:05 AM EST
    being a natural outcome of the first, I am all for it.

    create jobs, grow the economy and reduce the deficit

    Well I hope he actually goes (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by MO Blue on Thu Sep 01, 2011 at 12:01:49 PM EST
    into details on how he wants to reduce the deficit. According to reports, Obama wants the Catfood Commission II to come up with bigger reductions than the $1.5 trillion deficit reduction target that they have.

    What I am afraid will happen based on different things he has said is that Obama is planning to frame it as cuts in domestic and safety net programs and tax reform (lower corporate - upper bracket rates) will be necessary if we want to create jobs here. No cuts in these programs - no money for job creation and the confidence faire will never be seen again.  


    A vain hope, I'm afraid... (5.00 / 0) (#23)
    by sj on Thu Sep 01, 2011 at 12:16:44 PM EST
    That's how he's framing it now, and I don't see him changing direction between now and the time he delivers the speech.

    I think that if you follow (none / 0) (#18)
    by KeysDan on Thu Sep 01, 2011 at 12:00:30 PM EST
    your own comment ("If you clicked on the link you will see that he is outlining things that the federal government will do alone, without the help of congress.") you may understand why I feel that the joint session venue will have a primary reason other than prodding for action on an array of job bills for congressional action.  Indeed, it would be curious if the president took the opportunity just to tell congress about all the things he was planning to do without it.  And, yes, there is nothing in the referenced link to deficit reduction, just my connecting dots such as the reported deficit reduction component of the presidential address, Petraeus and Panetta's warnings about cuts, and Cat Food II.

    But the audience is something other than (none / 0) (#41)
    by christinep on Thu Sep 01, 2011 at 02:03:07 PM EST
    Congress. It could be quite interesting: Contrast the President, looking the role before a joint session & with the media all primed, with a number of the rightwing babble from the Repub "debate" the day before. Given the kerfuffle yesterday, the media & hosts will be inclined to ask direct questions there about direct job proposals. And--now that many people will have transited the long hot summer, they may be more prepared than usual to hear a bit here & there.

    The Obama campaign kickoff speech (none / 0) (#17)
    by Towanda on Thu Sep 01, 2011 at 11:51:22 AM EST
    has been rescheduled by Republicans, who are not going to play along with being the audience while they let him go into his lecturing mode.

    And they now have rescheduled him against pregame talk on ESPN and pregame parties across Wisconsin, a state that they know that he will need in 2012.  

    The rest?  Just details.  Watch for their next move to be rules blocking agencies from acting without Congressional approval, as he plans.


    I'll be wearing my Packer's tee (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by nycstray on Thu Sep 01, 2011 at 12:08:33 PM EST
    and manning the bbq pre-game. What jobs speech? :)

    More Wikileaks news (none / 0) (#26)
    by jbindc on Thu Sep 01, 2011 at 12:29:30 PM EST
    String of errors leaks names of informants, some whose safety may now be compromised.


    More than 250,000 secret U.S. diplomatic cables are now available in full and unfiltered online, exposing scores of U.S. diplomatic sources and informants that were meant to be protected often for their own safety, according to the website WikiLeaks.

    But this is not an official WikiLeaks release. Rather, what appears to be a string of errors has lead to both the raw file and the password that unlocks that file to be released into the public domain, without WikiLeaks control.

    In a statement posted on Twitter, WikiLeaks said, "Guardian investigations editor, David Leigh, recklessly, and without gaining our approval, knowingly disclosed the decryption passwords in a book published by the Guardian."

    More (none / 0) (#28)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Sep 01, 2011 at 12:56:22 PM EST
    bad news for Obama:
    Obama keeps hitting record lows

    Do the incompetents in the White House even read the polls? Obama is losing in every category except for African Americans and the approval there is 76%.

    We are dealing with Carter II. Thanks Obama. You're probably condemning us to another 12 years of fundamentalist rule in this country.

    IMO, worse (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by cal1942 on Thu Sep 01, 2011 at 01:06:37 PM EST
    than Carter.

    In the damaging the Democratic Party category he's far worse.


    That's a little premature (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by brodie on Thu Sep 01, 2011 at 01:51:37 PM EST
    don't you think?  Not to mention hyperbolic.

    Let's at least get to w/n a few weeks of Nov 2012 before writing off Obama.

    Meanwhile last I checked Obama still had more overall electoral appeal and likability than Jimmy C. did towards the end.

    Carter also got the toughest and most charismatic opponent possible in St Ronnie.  I don't think either Perry or Romney are remotely close to being in the Reagan category of formidable opponents.  I'm not even sure Obama, however much he stumbles and wimps out in dealing with the GOP leadership, is as politically clueless and unliked as Jimmy was in 1980.

    Obama also doesn't suffer from being seen as weak and ineffective in FP, as Jimmy did, nor on DP is all the blame on the incumbent as with JC.  

    Just some things to consider before writing O's obit and putting him in the JC-Dem Loser category.


    Obama (none / 0) (#45)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Sep 01, 2011 at 02:04:59 PM EST
    no longer has the personal appeal either looking at the polls and unfortunately has Carter's lecturing "eat your peas" personality. Carter wanted to run against Reagan thinking he was the most beatable much like Obama seems to think about Perry. Bush I thought that no one would vote for Bill Clinton. Political history is rife with examples of that kind of thinking that didn't work out. And then you have to take into account the number of people who might just want to vote against Obama not caring that the nominee is Perry or whoever. I'm frankly hoping that the GOP doesn't nominate Perry based on the fact that I don't want to take the chance of having a President Perry who is beholden to the fundamentalist agenda.

    I do agree though that Obama has not had the feckless foreign policy mistakes that Carter had thankfully.


    Even Reagan didn't run on (none / 0) (#62)
    by brodie on Thu Sep 01, 2011 at 02:32:31 PM EST
    a platform of wanting to gut and replace "Ponzi scheme" programs like SS and Medicare, as Perry is threatening to do.  Plus he was eminently more appealing a candidate than the French-cuff wearing TX cowboy, who sounds so much like the eminently unappealing faux TX cowboy GeeDubYa.

    A Perry-led GOP ticket would be the farthest right the party has gone since at least the ultrahawkish Goldwater, and I don't think Barry's DP platform (which was probably more moderate Ike-like than not) was as close to as extremist as Perry's could be.

    Neither BG nor RR were religious nuts to the extent Perry is campaigning to be.  Nor were they secessionist nuts as Perry as hinted he might be.

    Hard to imagine a reasonably competent Obama campaign team -- which though flawed is still much better than the one Carter put together -- couldn't figger out how to portray Perry to the public in consideration of some of the above extremist factors.  The campaign strategy almost writes itself.


    Reagan (none / 0) (#77)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Sep 01, 2011 at 03:10:19 PM EST
    did cut social security benefits and campaigned on eliminating it initially. You don't remember that I guess.

    I remember in 1980 it was "that actor" so I'm not willing to risk wanting to have Perry as the nominee since I don't want the possibility of a President Perry. Who would have thought that a guy who grew up in CT the son of a famous family and an ex-president could pull off that schtick?


    Not willing to risk (none / 0) (#87)
    by christinep on Thu Sep 01, 2011 at 03:55:01 PM EST
    Gov. Perry may be the biggest galvanizing agent the Dems have had in years. Perry is an example of how the named opponent is quite a different thing than a generic opponent. It is the very reason you indicate--the memory of how we all thought that Reagan could never be elected--that Dems will cohere earlier & stronger than expected.

    Winning against a weak named opponent (trans: scary, stupid, or way out of the mainstream) is just as valid as winning against a strong, thoughtful opposition. 'Happens all the time at every level of political office. (Yet, I take your concern about "what if" Perry is elected because I too remember well 1980.)


    Right christine (none / 0) (#112)
    by brodie on Thu Sep 01, 2011 at 05:06:48 PM EST
    Perry galvanizes and unifies Ds far more than say Romney who would help keep D turnout down with his slippery political shape shifting.  Perry is much more direct and straight forward in his extremism and would scare nearly all of us Disappointeds into dashing to the polls to vote early and often for Obama.  Though it also should be noted that Romney would offer more of a chance to keep Rs disunited and uneager to vote.

    No I don't recall RR campaigning on (none / 0) (#92)
    by brodie on Thu Sep 01, 2011 at 04:12:09 PM EST
    a pledge to "eliminate" SS even if privately he may have held that view.  He did want to (ahem) "strengthen" it in various ways but he was able to sell that lie to enough of the public including seniors.  Had he ever called overtly for the elimination of SS Carter and his campaign would have been all over that one, running for reelect solely on that issue and mentioning it early and often in the one debate.  It didn't happen because RR never made such an unpopular pledge.

    Once in office, after an initial attempt at diluting SS failed, he went on later to actually broaden the scope of the program.

    Perry doesn't strike me as the type to want to work with Ds in congress as RR did or was encouraged to do to build a positive record.  Perry strikes me as much more ideologically rigid.

    And also unelectable because of his extremist attitudes.


    Me neither (5.00 / 2) (#96)
    by sj on Thu Sep 01, 2011 at 04:23:59 PM EST
    No I don't recall RR campaigning on ... a pledge to "eliminate" SS

    In my memory, his straw man of choice was the welfare queen.

    Having said that, Obama did compaign on "fixing" "entitlements".


    Well (5.00 / 1) (#102)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Sep 01, 2011 at 04:35:19 PM EST
    I've thought a lot of people were unelectable who ended up getting elected so I'm not gonna go there with that one.

    My point is just because you might like to have Perry because you think he's the least electable of the GOP bunch doesn't mean that we can't have the nightmare of a President Perry.


    Yes Obama will actually have to show up (none / 0) (#107)
    by brodie on Thu Sep 01, 2011 at 04:52:00 PM EST
    and do some competent campaigning.

    I only argue that for obvious extremist reasons, O and his team must be salivating over the prospect of running against Perry instead of Romney -- much as JFK privately hoped to get the out of the mainstream Goldwater instead of the guy he feared most, the more moderate George Romney gov of Michigan.


    Obama (5.00 / 2) (#116)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Sep 01, 2011 at 05:45:02 PM EST
    is going to need more than competent campaigning. He's going to have to figure out a way to get the economy to improve because people might be so desperate with this high unemployment that they might be willing to take a chance on crazy. It's happened before.

    In terms of economics/employment (none / 0) (#118)
    by christinep on Thu Sep 01, 2011 at 05:59:41 PM EST
    History: FDR and Reagan...high unemployment & combined misery index.  Also: Even in the heat of dismal August, polls/public opinion strongly shows that the public continues to blame Bush II primarily. Yep. Small comfort...but, the same avenue ultimately pursued historically by FDR & Reagan for reelection. Lots of stuff in that history.

    Carter (none / 0) (#101)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Sep 01, 2011 at 04:32:19 PM EST
    was all over it. During the debates he brought up Reagan's record of voting against social security and Medicare. In the end it didn't matter and Reagan did cut Social Security benefits for survivors.

    And, Obama, unlike Carter, (none / 0) (#54)
    by KeysDan on Thu Sep 01, 2011 at 02:24:29 PM EST
    does not have an Iranian hostage situation, with the media counting days and presenting them on the scroll.

    Right, plus Obama's (none / 0) (#68)
    by brodie on Thu Sep 01, 2011 at 02:35:36 PM EST
    Special Forces mission abroad was successful -- Jimmy's famously was not.  

    O got partial credit -- much more if he'd been doing better with the economy -- for taking out Ben Lodden.  

    Unlucky Jimmy got nailed but good politically for looking weak and incompetent in the Desert One Fiasco.  It tainted him with the air of a loser.


    Hmm, I think that we can predict (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by Towanda on Thu Sep 01, 2011 at 01:36:01 PM EST
    the ploy ahead, based on this:

    He hasn't had positive numbers . . .  since the middle of May, when he was coming off the tail-end of the temporary bounce he got after Osama bin Laden's death.

    The photos never were released, so the "October surprise" will be release of the photos and DNA tests to show that was not bin Laden, after all.  And then the late-October surprise on the eve of the election will be killing bin Laden, again.

    You read it here first.


    Office of Management and Budget (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by MO Blue on Thu Sep 01, 2011 at 01:48:36 PM EST
    released its Mid-Session Review (MSR) on Thursday. It projects the unemployment rate to remain above nine percent in 2012 and not fall below six percent until 2016. Source

    Under that model, the unemployment rate takes even longer to decline, going from 9.0 percent in 2012, to 8.5 percent in 2013 to 7.8 percent in 2014. In 2016 it hits 6.1 percent.

    Some entities are doing quite well in this "shared sacrifice" environment since they are getting what others are sacrificing.

    In 2009, domestic corporate profits were $906 billion. By 2011, that number had risen to $1.322 trillion -- an increase of roughly 46 percent. During that same time period, employee compensation went from $7.812 trillion to $8.264 trillion -- an increase of just 5.7 percent.

    Oh, (none / 0) (#46)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Sep 01, 2011 at 02:06:52 PM EST
    like they said the stimulus was going to bring down unemployment to below 8%? If they are saying 8.2% then expect it to be 9.8 like Roubini said.

    Nah (none / 0) (#32)
    by MO Blue on Thu Sep 01, 2011 at 01:20:48 PM EST
    They are employing their winning strategy to appeal to independent voters. The fact that their policies keep losing them independent voters (as well as parts of their base) is irrelevant since all you have to do is believe in the confidence fairie.

    Bet you though the confidence fairie only applied to job creation - but no - the confidence fairie applies to all aspects of the Obama administration.  


    Looks like the WH got a new shipment (none / 0) (#37)
    by Anne on Thu Sep 01, 2011 at 01:54:35 PM EST
    of lipstick for the pig that is the economy...

    From CBS MarketWatch:

    President Barack Obama will attempt re-election with an unemployment rate of 8.2%, the White House estimated Thursday as it laid out its economic forecasts.

    The unemployment rate the White House predicts for the fourth quarter of 2012 would be the highest for an incumbent since Franklin Delano Roosevelt successfully was re-elected in 1936 with a 16.6% unemployment rate. Jimmy Carter lost when he attempted re-election with a 7.5% unemployment rate.

    The U.S. unemployment rate will average 8.8% this year, falling from a previously estimated 9.3% as the economy grows at a moderate pace, the White House added.


    The OMB report paints a picture of an economy that is still growing painfully slowly for many Americans and warns that the jobless rate will decline only gradually over the next several years.

    "With continued growth, the unemployment rate is projected to fall, but it is not projected to fall below 6.0% until 2016," the OMB report says.

    OMB predicts the economy will grow by 2.1% this year, a downward revision from the 2012 budget's estimate of 2.7%.

    "With continued growth" seems like an important qualifier, given the austerity program on tap.

    I find this confusing (none / 0) (#48)
    by MO Blue on Thu Sep 01, 2011 at 02:16:33 PM EST
    The report I read said that the OMB report predicted that the unemployment rate would remain above nine percent in 2012.

    The White House is the one predicting an unemployment rate of 8.2% for 2012. The White House predictions are even the rosier than projections made by the Congressional Budget Office, which pegged unemployment to be at 8.9 percent in 2011 and 8.7 percent in 2012-2013. IIRC the CBO's estimates were made prior to GDP growth being revised downward for April through June.  

    In an effort to take into consideration changes in the economic climate that have occurred since June, however, OMB offers an "alternative economic forecast" along with the Mid-Session Review. Under that model, the unemployment rate takes even longer to decline, going from 9.0 percent in 2012, to 8.5 percent in 2013 to 7.8 percent in 2014. In 2016 it hits 6.1 percent. link

    Going to the gym, (none / 0) (#38)
    by jeffinalabama on Thu Sep 01, 2011 at 02:00:09 PM EST
    then planning on a COLLEGE FOOTBALL ORGY! Tonight, Friday, ALL DAY SATURDAY! 11 AM, Auburn Tigers versus Utah State!

    Sunday and Monday, also!

    I'll have to squeeze the Braves in there somewhere.

    Georgia- Boise State... My money's on Georgia, but I don't bet football...

    BTD, your take?

    Here are my picks (none / 0) (#72)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Sep 01, 2011 at 02:50:27 PM EST
    Football - College Lines (Game) Point Spread
    (169) Colorado State -6 (-105) Sat@6:00p
    Competitor:(170) New Mexico

    (174) East Carolina +21 (-115) Sat@7:00p
    Competitor:(173) South Carolina

    Houston -3 (-105) Sat@3:30p
    Competitor:(157) UCLA

    South Florida +10 Sat@3:30p
    Competitor:(164) Notre Dame

    Southern Mississippi -13 Sat@10:00p
    Competitor:(191) Louisiana Tech

    Missouri -18½ (-110) Sat@12:00p
    Competitor:(153) Miami Ohio

    Western Michigan +14 (-120) Sat@3:30p
    Competitor:(160) Michigan

    Oklahoma -25 Sat@8:00p
    Competitor:(183) Tulsa

    USC -23 (-105) Sat@3:30p
    Competitor:(161) Minnesota

    SMU +16½ (-110) Sun@7:30p
    Competitor:(210) Texas A&M

    Auburn -21 Sat@12:00p
    Competitor:(149) Utah State

    Hawaii -7 (-105) Sat@10:15p
    Competitor:(193) Colorado

    Georgia +3½ (-115) Sat@8:00p
    Competitor:(187) Boise State

    West Virginia -22 Sun@3:30p
    Competitor:(207) Marshall

    Boston College -3 Sat@12:00p
    Competitor:(147) Northwestern

    Mississippi +3 Sat@4:45p
    Competitor:(165) BYU

    Wisconsin -35 Thu@8:00p
    Competitor:(131) UNLV

    TCU -6 (-115) Fri@8:00p
    Competitor:(146) Baylor

    Akron +34 Sat@12:00p
    Competitor:(152) Ohio State

    Memphis +29 Thu@8:00p
    Competitor:(133) Mississippi State


    Only one I know of (none / 0) (#73)
    by jeffinalabama on Thu Sep 01, 2011 at 02:55:15 PM EST
    that I don't agree with the line completely is Georgia... I would think that would be a tossup. Well, the old axiom is bet the SEC during the first three weeks of the season, though.

    But I don't see South Carolina hanging 21 points in victory against East Carolina, either. That's a huge line.


    Here you go Tent... (none / 0) (#81)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Thu Sep 01, 2011 at 03:32:13 PM EST
    another LGM poster to bicker with:

    Before the national championship game last January, people noted the culture between Eugene and Auburn could not be any different. Indeed. Auburn, Baton Rouge, and other SEC cities are dominated by everything we don't like about football-homophobia, rednecks, halfwits. Reading LSU blog sites lately (because of the huge Oregon-LSU game this Saturday) has been depressing-misspellings abound, anti-liberal sentiment is everywhere, it's just generally awful.

    That's just moronic (none / 0) (#85)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Sep 01, 2011 at 03:46:43 PM EST
    He was just effing around (none / 0) (#100)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Sep 01, 2011 at 04:31:52 PM EST
    He missed this... (none / 0) (#109)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Thu Sep 01, 2011 at 04:53:08 PM EST
    What? No line on the Oregon vs.LSU game? (none / 0) (#97)
    by caseyOR on Thu Sep 01, 2011 at 04:27:14 PM EST
    Admittedly, it is a bigger game for us than for the rest of the country, but still, somebody must be betting on it.

    Sure there is a line (none / 0) (#98)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Sep 01, 2011 at 04:31:30 PM EST
    I don't like the game for betting purposes.

    I'll give the full rundown Saturday, including betting units.


    Sounds like us (none / 0) (#74)
    by Zorba on Thu Sep 01, 2011 at 02:58:06 PM EST
    We have at least a year's worth of food (and the capability of growing and hunting/fishing for more), an endless supply of water, wood, two wood stoves, etc to cook and keep warm with, and so forth.  Unlike Dilbert, though, we're armed.   ;-)

    Noted: "stay off of Zorba land" (none / 0) (#75)
    by republicratitarian on Thu Sep 01, 2011 at 03:06:23 PM EST
    It's been called (5.00 / 1) (#80)
    by Zorba on Thu Sep 01, 2011 at 03:31:53 PM EST
    "The Republic of Zorba" by several commenters.  

    Today is the biggest moving day (none / 0) (#40)
    by CST on Thu Sep 01, 2011 at 02:00:48 PM EST
    of the year.  The yankees are in town.  And 100,000 college kids are descending upon us.

    The fact that 1/6 of the population all moves on one day affects the entire renting market in Boston so that about 90% of all leases start on September 1, whether you are a student or not.

    Not a good day (week) to attempt driving.

    We're close to a campus bookstore (5.00 / 1) (#99)
    by Towanda on Thu Sep 01, 2011 at 04:31:37 PM EST
    or actually an off-campus bookstore but, anyway -- the packs of students are back, the backpacks are on their backs, and we were entertained today during morning coffee by the views out the window.

    I can report that the fashion statements of today's students continue their decline.  Soooo many young women who ought to go up a size in clothing, and soooo many young men who ought to go down a size and/or get a belt for those shorts!  

    In sum, we have observed a lot of underthings. :-)


    news flash for the ladies (5.00 / 1) (#106)
    by CST on Thu Sep 01, 2011 at 04:51:24 PM EST
    those clothes will probably only get tighter...

    I've spent most of my life in the ultimate college town.  The one big chunk of time I wasn't here - college.

    It's perfect because it allows me to look down on all the hoodied masses and think "d@mn kids!" without feeling like a hypocrit.  I assure you college students in Pittsburgh would never behave in such a manner :)


    I need to get apostillated. (none / 0) (#42)
    by observed on Thu Sep 01, 2011 at 02:03:20 PM EST
    I hope it doesn't hurt too much.
    Ok, it's my diploma which needs to be apostillated, but I never heard of the word before an hour ago.

    No problem. (none / 0) (#47)
    by jeffinalabama on Thu Sep 01, 2011 at 02:15:16 PM EST
    Usually it's done in the state vital records. Had to do it myself before marrying in a different country.

    I don't remember if they charged or not... if they did, it wasn't much.


    It's going to take time---that's the problem. (5.00 / 2) (#51)
    by observed on Thu Sep 01, 2011 at 02:23:53 PM EST
    And I'm not sure where my diploma is. If I have to order another copy, the whole process could take 3 weeks or more.
    I just sent an email off asking if I could go over there before I have the apostillated diploma.
    I hope so.
    I'm anxious to get over there, and the small town Indiana relaxation has gone on a bit too long for my taste!

    Ouch. (none / 0) (#58)
    by jeffinalabama on Thu Sep 01, 2011 at 02:27:18 PM EST
    If I had to present my bachelors' degree, I'd be in the same boat. Know where the other diplomas are. Had to send copies to Colombia back in 06, when applying at a university there.

    They didn't have to be apostillated for the application, but would have been for the job, I guess.


    Well, all my papers and books are in (none / 0) (#63)
    by observed on Thu Sep 01, 2011 at 02:32:38 PM EST
    boxes right now. Some of those boxes aren't even here yet (surface mail from the Caribbean is sloooowwwww).

    I did find out that my contract (5.00 / 2) (#57)
    by observed on Thu Sep 01, 2011 at 02:26:16 PM EST
    was counter-signed today.
    If I only had to wait for the visa, I could probably leave  in about 10 days.

    Maybe they'll allow you (5.00 / 1) (#60)
    by jeffinalabama on Thu Sep 01, 2011 at 02:28:51 PM EST
    with the diploma to follow? Call and ask. Might be different rules over there, though, I dunno.

    Read a great Latin phrase today: (none / 0) (#66)
    by jeffinalabama on Thu Sep 01, 2011 at 02:33:33 PM EST
    Calvo turpius est nihil compto.

    Translation: (5.00 / 2) (#71)
    by jeffinalabama on Thu Sep 01, 2011 at 02:44:42 PM EST
    (How could I forget that? It's one of the old Roman military sayings)

    "There's nothing more contemptible than a bald man who pretends to have hair."


    revisiting disaster aid: (none / 0) (#67)
    by the capstan on Thu Sep 01, 2011 at 02:35:06 PM EST
    I see South Carolina and (probably TX) intend to forego accepting fed funds to set up a health exchange.  Does this mean the US would maybe set up a 'layaway plan' with the money to cover disaster damages along the coast (if states are required to pony up their share of disaster relief)?  Yes, very funny, McGee!*

    (My final take on that subject was posted a little late to get any comments on the Monday morning open thread.  But in summary: being a US citizen trumps being a citizen of a particular state IMO.)

    *Fibber McGee and Molly

    Washington (none / 0) (#70)
    by jeffinalabama on Thu Sep 01, 2011 at 02:42:00 PM EST
    Eastern will be a game to see, definitely. Let's see if another Michigan-like upset can happen. I know, you'll be pulling for your alma mater, but it's a game to pay attention to. It's also on television in some places: RSNW/FCSP... no idea what the acronyms are for, but it's on cable, not PPV.

    Oh, might this be Michigan's year-- (none / 0) (#130)
    by oculus on Thu Sep 01, 2011 at 11:51:26 PM EST
    for something/anything?

    Yes (none / 0) (#135)
    by CoralGables on Fri Sep 02, 2011 at 09:32:08 AM EST
    after carefully going over the schedule, I am confident that Michigan will win on November 3. Don't lay the points though. Find a chump and play it pick em.

    Rumor is the words to their fight song may be altered slightly if they open the season losing three straight so the words are a better fit...
    "Oh hell to Michigan this bland team makes me blue."


    Oh, destino crudele! (none / 0) (#136)
    by oculus on Fri Sep 02, 2011 at 11:00:50 AM EST
    (BTW, did you know Babelfish does not provide for translation of English to Latin!!!  How could that be?  What is this world coming to?)

    Joran van der Sloot (none / 0) (#84)
    by jbindc on Thu Sep 01, 2011 at 03:46:05 PM EST
    Formally charged with murder in Peru.

    Prosecutors are asking for a 30-year prison sentence and a restitution of $73,000 to the family of Stephany Flores. They also charged van der Sloot with theft.

    Charged alongside van der Sloot were three Peruvian drivers who allegedly helped him flee Peru into Chile. Prosecutors want five-year prison sentences for them and fines of about $1,800.

    That is just happening now? (none / 0) (#89)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Sep 01, 2011 at 04:03:34 PM EST
    Seems like 10 years ago.

    I know... (none / 0) (#133)
    by jbindc on Fri Sep 02, 2011 at 07:59:43 AM EST
    Chicago Dept. of Aviation (none / 0) (#104)
    by oculus on Thu Sep 01, 2011 at 04:47:52 PM EST
    is sponsoring live blues band at O'Hare.  Great idea, espec. as back up @ security was working on my last nerve.

    SiTE VIOLATOR (none / 0) (#126)
    by caseyOR on Thu Sep 01, 2011 at 07:49:13 PM EST
    Jeralyn-- this spammer, newmen, has hit several comment threads.