Wednesday Morning Open Thread

Are folks interested in a live blog of tonight's debate? I think I can swing it, though to do the fancy "Cover It Live" doohickey, I need Jeralyn.

Anyways, Open Thread.

< NZ PM Releases Results of Kim Dotcom Review | Presidential Debate Live Thread >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Yes (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by Democratic Cat on Wed Oct 03, 2012 at 12:29:04 PM EST
    Live blog and lots of thread to discuss would be appreciated.

    Here's some wishful thinking.... (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by magster on Wed Oct 03, 2012 at 04:02:58 PM EST
    Paul Krugman to work in WH??  Please please please.

    That would be huge. (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by brodie on Wed Oct 03, 2012 at 04:41:09 PM EST
    Assume -- hope -- Krugman wouldn't pull a stubbornly pure Ralf Nadir and decline the offer.

    Huge in any case, even if O tries to undo the wisdom and goodwill of that move by proposing Bowles for Treasury, which would be stupid of him but also a way for him, typically, to show proper ideological balance and that he's not really one of them liberal liberals.

    Too early though and speculative to get all wound up ...


    Ha!! (none / 0) (#70)
    by magster on Wed Oct 03, 2012 at 06:05:57 PM EST
    Oh well. That diary I linked is now getting hidden as total cr*p for being wishful thinking and unsourced.

    Sure, having Krugman advising Obama (none / 0) (#81)
    by caseyOR on Wed Oct 03, 2012 at 07:28:52 PM EST
    would be great, provided Obama actually listened to Krugman and took his advise.

    The more likely scenario, sadly, is that Obama will tout the appointment of Krugman, bask in the laudatory remarks from the left of center crowd, and then ignore and marginalize him. Obama ignored the advice of Christy Romer, the one economic advisor who pushed for a bigger stimulus. And he stabbed Elizabeth Warren in the back over the Consumer Protection Board.

    Absolutely no reason to think the same would not happen to Krugman.


    Billy Beane is a happy man (5.00 / 1) (#72)
    by Zorba on Wed Oct 03, 2012 at 06:33:54 PM EST
    tonight.  And the Texas Rangers must be in shock.

    And much to my dismay, your (none / 0) (#75)
    by caseyOR on Wed Oct 03, 2012 at 07:07:57 PM EST
    &*^%$#@% Cardinals have made it to the play-offs. There is no joy in Mudville.  :-)

    Well, there's joy (none / 0) (#78)
    by Zorba on Wed Oct 03, 2012 at 07:12:09 PM EST
    in St. Louis, in the Zorba household, and among the Zorba relatives.   :-)

    Bah humbug! n/t (none / 0) (#79)
    by caseyOR on Wed Oct 03, 2012 at 07:22:17 PM EST
    Hee, hee! (none / 0) (#80)
    by Zorba on Wed Oct 03, 2012 at 07:24:29 PM EST

    The pre-debate spin (none / 0) (#1)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Wed Oct 03, 2012 at 12:10:30 PM EST

    The pre-debate spin from both campaigns is a hoot.  They both seem to claim that their own candidate will get walloped.

    Maybe (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by lentinel on Wed Oct 03, 2012 at 12:19:10 PM EST
    they're both right.

    Angry Black Guy Origin Story (none / 0) (#3)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Wed Oct 03, 2012 at 12:20:06 PM EST
    In 2007, I adopted my name "Angry Black Guy" from the online reactions of the right and some in the Hillary camp to the Obama Tape that Tucker, Drudge and Hannity are now promoting.

    In one of my discussiones, someone said that Obama sounds angry at America, just like Reverend Wright, and I objected based on the idea that the "angry black man" stereotype is the easiest way to nullify an african american's thoughts and contributions.  I adopted the name to bring the issue to the forefront.  I get angry at America. I get frustrated at people struggling.  That makes me an angry black guy at times.  But so what? Lots of people of all backgrounds are angry.  Why do blacks (particularly black men) have to hold our tongues to avoid threatening the status quo?

    4 years and a moderately successful first term later, Obama is still just an angry black guy to many on the right.

    And my name is unchanged.

    The point still, unfortunately, has to be made.

    If you were trying to stir the Right up (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by jondee on Wed Oct 03, 2012 at 01:51:05 PM EST
    and poke the scab of post-sixties, post-civil rights era resentment, you'd try to portray him as an "angry black man" too.

    And Clinton was just another ex-sixties leftist, anti-war radical in disguise (who was initiated into the Communist Party by Senator Fulbright, according Scaife's "Arkansas Project" dirty tricks boys.)

    "Nullifying" in the name of winning at all costs is what it's all about.


    Btw, (5.00 / 3) (#28)
    by jondee on Wed Oct 03, 2012 at 01:58:31 PM EST
    did I hear correctly that "Dineesh D'Souza" is actually Hindi for "little, egg-sucking mongoose."?

    I heard it translated as .... (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by magster on Wed Oct 03, 2012 at 02:16:33 PM EST
    "hacktacular lying sack of excrement".

    Yes, but the problem is that the translation (5.00 / 2) (#42)
    by Anne on Wed Oct 03, 2012 at 02:28:51 PM EST
    cross-references to so many other names with the same meaning that it had to be moved from the dictionary to the thesaurus, where, at last count, it fills up close to five pages.

    I get angry too (5.00 / 1) (#60)
    by ruffian on Wed Oct 03, 2012 at 04:37:05 PM EST
    How can anyone not get angry when we see what goes on? I don't think it is wrong to get angry 'at America'. To me America is its people, and some of them get my anger.

    The outrage machine has been cranked up (again) over this tape and I don't think it will work any better than it did the first time, for the simple reason that Obama is not saying anything outrageous. It is mostly Drudge and Carlson reminding the lizard brains 'hey, Obama is black, you know'. It's disgusting.


    What (5.00 / 1) (#66)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Oct 03, 2012 at 05:27:15 PM EST
    they are TRYING TO DO is divide and conquer. They are hoping to split black and white votes and create racial tension. If they can get enough whites mad about whatever and it creates black vs. white they seem to think they're going to come out the "winner" but they are too FREAKING STUPID to realize that it's not 1972 anymore and the rest of the country doesn't operate like Mississippi.

    I don't know. (5.00 / 3) (#65)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Oct 03, 2012 at 05:22:39 PM EST
    Why don't you tell us why we're only "likable enough" when we're being strong women????

    That video points out how (1.00 / 1) (#21)
    by Slado on Wed Oct 03, 2012 at 01:38:53 PM EST
    Obama quickly threw the Rev. Wright under the bus after he won the nomination.

    He obviously was in all those sermons and had no problem with what the Rev. said until it came time for a national electrion.

    Then it was see you later and off to the White House he went.

    Also he said the Federal Gov't didn't spend enough in new Orleans?   Please.

    More lies and double talk from the president.   We don't need the video to know that about him.   We have plenty of evidence from the last four years.

    How about this Whopper from the first debate...

    "I will go through the budget line by line and get rid of wasteful spending".

    6 Trillion dollars later we're still waiting for him to get his pen out and cross through a few lines.


    BOOOOO !!!!!!!!! (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by magster on Wed Oct 03, 2012 at 02:14:45 PM EST
    Whatever dude.

    Sorry about the lack of a reasoned response.... (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by magster on Wed Oct 03, 2012 at 02:24:13 PM EST
    Sometimes it's like, what's the point?

    And here I thought (5.00 / 3) (#41)
    by CoralGables on Wed Oct 03, 2012 at 02:28:10 PM EST
    "Whatever dude" was perfectly reasonable there.

    Make believe hype? (none / 0) (#5)
    by CoralGables on Wed Oct 03, 2012 at 12:30:42 PM EST
    In Obama we have a candidate everyone already knows, and in Romney we have a candidate no one wants to know.

    Is the buildup for tonight's debate just overblown media hype that will once again rate low on the Nielsen debate scale?

    It doesn't matter who watches (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Wed Oct 03, 2012 at 12:46:54 PM EST
    What matters is who appears to be the winner of the debate in the 36 hours afterwards.

    Stats (none / 0) (#9)
    by CoralGables on Wed Oct 03, 2012 at 12:53:00 PM EST
    actually tend to show that it doesn't amount to a hill of beans worth of difference, no matter how the planted talking heads spin it.

    I think this time it might actually (none / 0) (#11)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Wed Oct 03, 2012 at 12:57:02 PM EST
    I am moderately worried.  Obama is not the best debater.

    I'm (5.00 / 3) (#52)
    by lentinel on Wed Oct 03, 2012 at 03:09:59 PM EST
    looking forward to how they are both going to talk war with Iran and not talk war with Iran at the same time.

    You got that right (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by kmblue on Wed Oct 03, 2012 at 03:19:34 PM EST
    If Obama gives long condescending professorial answers or gets his sulky face on after being needled, the Republic is doomed.

    People matter more than money (none / 0) (#14)
    by Dadler on Wed Oct 03, 2012 at 01:07:15 PM EST
    And we create money in the first place, and control its value entirely. It's not a seed, or a pelt, or a bead, or a cow, you can't do jack with fiat currency besides pretend it has value. That's why the entirety of fixing the economy comes down to the Golden Rule and nothing more. Everything else about it is bullsh*t commentary.  It would also be nice if he could give the country a little lesson and drive home the FACT that it is IMPOSSIBLE for a nation sovereign in its own currency to every go bankrupt. Factually impossible. We can only CHOOSE to destroy the nation, money can do nothing to anyone on its own.

    When we start trading in actual commodities or livestock or something useful, then all the "money is finite, we're going bankrupt" nonsense will have merit. Until then, as long as we trade in fiat currency, money is nothing but a marker for how well or not well people are treating other people. Right now, we're treating each other like sh*t.  And we see the result.

    Good luck, O.  You should kick Mitt's rhetorical ace but good, so do it.


    I mean to say at the top (none / 0) (#15)
    by Dadler on Wed Oct 03, 2012 at 01:11:12 PM EST
    That "People matter more than money" should be his type of theme, drive it home.  This is people, not just funky accounting.  Go beyond Clinton.  Bill is proud of that surplus. I'm not.  There were plenty of people who needed and deserved help when that surplus was sitting there. And we can create a surplus any time we need one, provided we have a functionally regulated economy, with enforced rules, but we don't have anything close right now.

    Yes, I am worried as well. (none / 0) (#22)
    by KeysDan on Wed Oct 03, 2012 at 01:41:00 PM EST
    According to some reports, polls are tightening in Florida and Virginia--in my view, because Romney has been out of the news for the past week which showcases him best.  The re-emergence of Romney in the debates could help him if he just remains standing doing the equivalent of singing American the Beautiful.  In the Republican primaries, Romney was not all that bad, but, then, we have to recall his competition.

    President Obama had better not let Romney box him in on how we all want to "reform" social security and medicare, just do it differently.  If President Obama does not fall into that Bowles-Simpson-ish mode and unequivocally affirms medicare (giving ACA's pilot studies a basis for further analysis) and social security (advocating,as he did at the recent AARP meeting) for raising the cap, perhaps with a donut hole), he will be in good shape in Florida.  Given the success of President Clinton's explanations of policy, this  may be a debate where "winning"  will be where substance is allowed to eclipses style.


    Charlie Pierce talks about this a little bit, (4.67 / 3) (#30)
    by Anne on Wed Oct 03, 2012 at 02:06:44 PM EST
    in typical Charlie Pierce fashion -

    For example, the two candidates will agree in Denver this evening -- and you can count on it, and not just because the pundits said so -- that The Deficit is one of America's most pressing political problems. The International Harvester Willard Romney will blame the president for it, and the president will blame the thousand-pound dungburger of an economy left to him by his predecessor. But neither of them will bother to answer seriously either the economic arguments of, say, Paul Krugman, who explains, over and over again, why Beltway mania over The Deficit is simply an excuse for gutting programs you don't like, or to answer the political arguments of anyone else who explains that concern for The Deficit is far down their list of priorities. Instead, I would almost guarantee that in Denver this evening, we're going to see a "tough" exchange over which of these two men is the most devoted to that current Washington cargo-cult, the Simpson-Bowles "plan." Some sort of austerity deal will just be assumed by both men. The "liberal" position, advanced by the president, will be that we all will have to "share the sacrifice." Meanwhile, Romney, who has spent his entire life avoiding this kind of sacrifice, and who knows in his bones how easy it will be for the people in his income bracket to dodge this kind of sacrifice this time around, will try and keep from giggling.

    And do you think Jim Lehrer will bother to mention that, as explained in a D-Day post today, we've already cut spending by almost all of the Bowles-Simpson targets?  

    Not bloody likely.

    As Jared Bernstein says (my bold):

    Finally, I've said it before and I'll say it again. What is so damn great about cutting the heck out of non-defense discretionary spending? Clearly, we want to evaluate their effectiveness, but in an age of increased inequality and diminished opportunity and mobility among the least advantaged, many of the programs in this category should be expanded (help with college assistance, Head Start, job programs and job training). Simply cutting for the sake of optics without regard to social need and economic context is not the way forward.

    If Obama really wants to give the people a choice, he could be the one to deliver the bolded message, not the as-long-as-everyone-is-experiencing-some-pain-it's-fair one that seems to be the gist of the message he's most comfortable with.

    If all we get tonight are dueling-Banjos-for-Austerity, I'd say there's not a scintilla of hope that we're not utterly and completely screwed.


    i forgot to buy bourbon today. So, (5.00 / 1) (#82)
    by caseyOR on Wed Oct 03, 2012 at 07:30:57 PM EST
    I don't think I can watch the debate. i only got through the 2008 debates with the aid and comfort of Jim Beam Black.

    Does this have anything to do with polls (none / 0) (#62)
    by vml68 on Wed Oct 03, 2012 at 04:41:13 PM EST
    tightening in Virginia?
    Lockheed Martin Layoffs

    I am basing this off the comments after the article because I really have no idea if this is a good move or bad.


    You think? (none / 0) (#37)
    by lilburro on Wed Oct 03, 2012 at 02:18:58 PM EST
    Kevin Drum had some stuff suggesting perceptions of who won the Bush v. Gore debates changed drastically based on what channel folks were watching, NBC or CNN.  The media is my only real concern.

    I'm not all that worried otherwise because I don't think Mitt can really pull off any "zingers" and he seems to be an easily frustrated person.  So I don't see him shining.  The entitlement bubble with that guy is too thick.  I think he eventually slips up.  


    I know. (none / 0) (#35)
    by magster on Wed Oct 03, 2012 at 02:18:04 PM EST
    I'm watching this like a sporting event, all ready to Freep polls, fact check and troll my idiot relatives facebook pages.

    Going to be a long night.


    Then (none / 0) (#51)
    by lentinel on Wed Oct 03, 2012 at 03:08:43 PM EST
    we're fortunate that we will be told by the talking noggins who appeared to be the winner.

    It's nice not to have to watch.

    Saves time.
    Any good movies on?


    Which is more significant? Pres. debate or (none / 0) (#6)
    by oculus on Wed Oct 03, 2012 at 12:44:53 PM EST
    Mariinsky performing "Swan Lake" with full Mariinsky Orchestra?  The latter performance is tonight in Costa Mesa.  

    If you're going to put up shows to watch (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by vicndabx on Wed Oct 03, 2012 at 01:26:28 PM EST
    I'd say the Yankees-Red Sox game is actually the can't miss TV - as the Yanks try to win their division and secure home field advantage.  I mean c'mon, no way Swan Lake compares to that.

    /s :-)


    Unless you're from Baltimore, in which (none / 0) (#23)
    by Anne on Wed Oct 03, 2012 at 01:45:34 PM EST
    case, you're glued to Orioles-Rays, and checking on Red Sox-Yankees, hoping the Yankees will be traveling to Camden Yards tomorrow to play a game that decides who wins the AL East...

    Both teams are in no matter what, but in this improbable O's season, I can't help thinking the magic's going to continue!


    It would be a much better day (none / 0) (#38)
    by CoralGables on Wed Oct 03, 2012 at 02:22:07 PM EST
    of baseball under the rules of last season. Someone would be going home and you'd be glued to this afternoon's Oakland/Texas game which would have just as much importance as tonight's O's game and tonight's Yankee game. Instead of playing for where they'll be playing, they'd be playing to survive.

    That may be so, but here in the (none / 0) (#45)
    by Anne on Wed Oct 03, 2012 at 02:38:23 PM EST
    land of losing seasons - and I do know that other teams have longer ones than the O's - we're just thrilled to have had the season we've had; seriously, if I gave you a nickel for every O's fan who, when spring training started, thought the O's would be battling for a division title in October, well...I'd still have all my nickels.

    And all those fans who thought we should trade Manny Machado for some "quality" player?  I think they're pretty glad he's still wearing orange and black - I know I am.

    As with all sports, I think it's a lot more fun when teams aren't just playing to get it over with, but have something to play for.


    Keeping the Cards out of the play-offs (none / 0) (#74)
    by caseyOR on Wed Oct 03, 2012 at 07:06:23 PM EST
    would be fun for me. Every team needs a goal. And though knocking the Cards out of the play-offs is not as much fun as seeing the Cubs in the play-offs,  I go through the baseball season with the team I have, not the team i wish I had. :-)

    So, color me sad that those #%^&$#@ Cardinals have clinched a play-off berth.


    So sad, too bad ;-) (none / 0) (#76)
    by Zorba on Wed Oct 03, 2012 at 07:10:33 PM EST
     Color me happy!

    I presume (none / 0) (#13)
    by CoralGables on Wed Oct 03, 2012 at 12:59:34 PM EST
    you're headed to Swan Lake. I'd go for the athleticism while you go for the music.

    Still can't get this song outta my head (none / 0) (#8)
    by Dadler on Wed Oct 03, 2012 at 12:49:08 PM EST
    favorite lyric (none / 0) (#10)
    by Dadler on Wed Oct 03, 2012 at 12:53:17 PM EST
    Who walks this dusty road?
    Who always pulls their weight?
    Who's this inside of me
    Who made a big mistake?
    Who sees these constellations
    Seen in those spinning round
    Carry these men and women
    Who get lost when the sun goes down?

    coveritlive is no longer (none / 0) (#12)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Oct 03, 2012 at 12:57:50 PM EST
    free. The free version only includes 100 clicks, and in past events, we averaged a thousand or more. Plus, it's a monthly fee, I can't just pay for tonight's debate.

    BTD, how about if you do a  live debate thread the traditional way. I'll join in in comments. I'll  put up a pre-debate live thread about 2 hours early.

    Should either reach 200 comments, we can put up new ones.

    Thanks! (none / 0) (#18)
    by Democratic Cat on Wed Oct 03, 2012 at 01:30:09 PM EST
    I always like to "listen" to the reactions of the smartest bloggers and commenters around.

    Done (none / 0) (#24)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Oct 03, 2012 at 01:45:42 PM EST
    But I made need you (none / 0) (#25)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Oct 03, 2012 at 01:46:24 PM EST
    to put up the first live blog thread. A close call for me at the start is likely.

    Speaking of the race card (none / 0) (#16)
    by vicndabx on Wed Oct 03, 2012 at 01:21:27 PM EST
    Instead, the nation, which is generally reluctant to declare a president a failure -- thereby admitting that it made a mistake in choosing him -- seems especially reluctant to give up on the first African American president. If so, the 2012 election speaks well of the nation's heart, if not its head.

    George Will

    or maybe, Mitt just sucks in comparison.  How condescending can these clowns get?

    Saw that - I doubt he said the same thing (none / 0) (#58)
    by ruffian on Wed Oct 03, 2012 at 04:28:16 PM EST
    about Bush in 2004.

    Yep, that is about as condescending as it gets.


    Though I'd love to read... (none / 0) (#19)
    by kdog on Wed Oct 03, 2012 at 01:31:55 PM EST
    a "tear Romney a new arse" live blog, there are more pressing matters to attend to tonight.

    Le-Von! Le-Von! Le-Von! Le-Von! Le-Von!

    That's right folks, history in the making, live at the Meadowlands arena...it's time for the Love for Levon benefit to save the barn.

    And wouldn't ya know it, nj.com is running a live blog of this stupendous event;)

    The show's lineup includes Garth Hudson of the Band, Roger Waters, My Morning Jacket, John Mayer, Joe Walsh, Dierks Bentley, Eric Church, Gregg Allman, Bruce Hornsby, Ray LaMontagne, John Hiatt, Grace Potter, Warren Haynes, Lucinda Williams, Mavis Staples, Allen Toussaint, Robert Randolph, John Prine, Jorma Kaukonen, Marc Cohn, Jakob Dylan, David Bromberg, Mike Gordon and the Levon Helm Band. It wouldn't shock anyone if some other unannounced guests showed up as well.
     That means you Bob & Bruce!!!

    So for those who don't wallow in America's muck tonight, there is a place to celebrate America's greatness, honoring the king of Americana music.


    Wow. Have fun! (none / 0) (#26)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Oct 03, 2012 at 01:50:34 PM EST
    Been meaning to ask... (none / 0) (#29)
    by kdog on Wed Oct 03, 2012 at 02:04:35 PM EST
    did you and the Mrs. dig the Bingham show?  

    We did. Really cool venue. Pricey beers (none / 0) (#33)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Oct 03, 2012 at 02:15:12 PM EST
    but they were ice cold, which is kinda rare these days in a bar. Ryan touring in support of his new album, which is way different from his previous music. Very rock-oriented. I did like it, but most of the songs were new to me and was expecting a completely different genre. We did have a great time though.

    When its pricey... (none / 0) (#36)
    by kdog on Wed Oct 03, 2012 at 02:18:40 PM EST
    it better damn well be icey! ;)  

    I like his rockin' tunes the best, sounds like I'd dig the new record, gotta get on that.  Were the Dead Horses backing him or a new band?


    Ha! New, unnammed band... (none / 0) (#40)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Oct 03, 2012 at 02:24:40 PM EST
    ...according to the roadie who manning the T-shirt booth.

    Thanks mate... (none / 0) (#43)
    by kdog on Wed Oct 03, 2012 at 02:31:12 PM EST
    now I know the scoop for the 18th.

    If you ever wished you were still livin' in suburgatory, I bet tonight's the night.  I can't believe the talent assembled in the swamps of Jersey.  Levon sure was loved and admired.

    I hope I brought enough spliffs, this one could go to into the wee wee hours, or at least I hope so!  


    I will await your review tomorrow... (none / 0) (#46)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Oct 03, 2012 at 02:43:42 PM EST
    Golly, kdog, I didn't think you were (none / 0) (#47)
    by Anne on Wed Oct 03, 2012 at 02:45:50 PM EST
    old enough to be dealing with the "wee wee" hours...



    Hey now... (none / 0) (#48)
    by kdog on Wed Oct 03, 2012 at 02:52:32 PM EST
    I didn't have a curfew when I was 16 Anne, nevermind 35!

    Well I get up in the morning
    Kick the covers from my bed
    The sunlight in my eyes
    Playin' tricks on my head
    I work like a dog
    On the job every day
    Tryin' to make some money
    So I can go and play

    In the night time
    Oh that's the right time
    I say the night time
    That's the right time

    Now, I'm laughing because when I (5.00 / 3) (#50)
    by Anne on Wed Oct 03, 2012 at 02:59:46 PM EST
    originally read "wee wee," I was thinking, "that time of night when one has to keep getting up to go to the bathroom," so my "I didn't think you were old enough" was about that.

    But the fact that you didn't know what I was talking about confirms that, yes, you are too young to have the getting-up-to-go problem - but surely you've seen the commercials?

    Ohh, I may chuckle about this one for a while...


    Yep, wrong "wee wee"... (none / 0) (#53)
    by kdog on Wed Oct 03, 2012 at 03:12:17 PM EST

    I'm speaking strictly in the Chuck Berry "Wee Wee Hours" sense old pal.  

    That being said...I am finding myself waking up at 2 am to take a leak on occasion, but I think it is more of being too comfortable/lazy to take care of it before bed, and my bladder not making it till the alarm goes off...not old age;)


    That's just an excuse... (none / 0) (#83)
    by unitron on Wed Oct 03, 2012 at 08:11:13 PM EST
    ...to sell blank T-shirts at silk-screened prices.

    See, now that's funny! (none / 0) (#84)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Oct 03, 2012 at 10:32:18 PM EST
    Wrongful Conviction (none / 0) (#20)
    by lawstudent on Wed Oct 03, 2012 at 01:38:34 PM EST
    Wrongful conviction article that is likely of interest to many readers here.

    I'm jsut hoping that if candidates' (none / 0) (#31)
    by ruffian on Wed Oct 03, 2012 at 02:09:59 PM EST
    opinions about religious figures are put back on the table, it means we get to ask Mitt about the con man(IMO) Joseph Smith.

    dumb dumb dumb dumb dumb..... (none / 0) (#44)
    by magster on Wed Oct 03, 2012 at 02:37:44 PM EST
    Did you see the South Park on Joseph Smith??

    Nope, but I've heard it was good (none / 0) (#59)
    by ruffian on Wed Oct 03, 2012 at 04:29:23 PM EST
    I'll have to find it someplace. Not a fan of animated shows in general.

    Who here is surprised about (none / 0) (#49)
    by Anne on Wed Oct 03, 2012 at 02:56:26 PM EST

    From Bloomberg (bold is mine):

    Four years ago today, President George W. Bush signed into law the biggest corporate rescue in American history. Even as U.S. unemployment has remained above 8 percent for 43 months, the country's biggest banks are making almost as much as they ever have.

    The combined $63 billion in profit reported by the six largest U.S. lenders over the four quarters through June is more than they earned in any calendar year since the peak in 2006.

    Bank of America Corp. made more in the 12-month period than Walt Disney Co. and McDonald's Corp. combined. Citigroup Inc. (C), which like Bank of America took $45 billion in taxpayer funds from the Troubled Asset Relief Program, earned more than Caterpillar Inc. (CAT) and Boeing Co. JPMorgan Chase & Co. (JPM), the largest U.S. bank by assets, had profits of more than $17 billion even after reporting a $5.8 billion trading loss.

    The bonuses this year should be quite handsome, I would guess...

    So what's responsible for it?  

    David Dayen says:

    The reasons for Wall Street's bounce-back are clear, and enumerated earlier. But the more recent growth can be attributed to the newfound profitability in home lending. The implementation of QE3 reduced the cost of selling loans into the marketplace, but banks did not drop their cost of lending in a commensurate fashion. That growing spread means big bucks for the banks. The other benefit comes from the refinance mini-boom. Refis always bring in profits in terms of closing fees. But because banks have interpreted the HARP 2.0 rules in such a way to limit the marketplace and trap underwater borrowers into staying with them, the cost of refinance loans has increased artificially. Basically, for underwater borrowers, servicers have decided to only offer refis on the loans they already service. By reducing competition, these servicers can charge higher interest rates for the loans, and they are.

    Gives new meaning to "the fix is in," doesn't it?

    I think Romney is going to get his (none / 0) (#56)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Oct 03, 2012 at 04:06:26 PM EST
    blank handed to him, I'm going to a wine tasting :)  Watch it later

    Local wine? (none / 0) (#57)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Oct 03, 2012 at 04:19:50 PM EST
    For you, Kdog (none / 0) (#63)
    by Yman on Wed Oct 03, 2012 at 04:59:20 PM EST
    Mariju@na joint falls out of Assistant City Attorney's pocket while in court.

    I hate when that happens.

    First execution in PA since '99 NOT going forward (none / 0) (#64)
    by Peter G on Wed Oct 03, 2012 at 05:19:36 PM EST
    The state supreme court this afternoon refused to overturn the stay of execution granted last Friday by a Philadelphia judge.  The stay was granted upon revelation that the prosecutors had withheld information that would have been favorable to the defendant, Terry Williams, at the penalty stage of the proceedings -- evidence that he had been sexually abused when younger, by the man he killed.

    ianal, is this true?: (none / 0) (#67)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Oct 03, 2012 at 05:29:53 PM EST
    Those comments irked prosecutors, who said the information was not "exculpatory material" that the U.S. Supreme Court has said prosecutors were required to disclose to the defense.

    "We're not required to transfer all information," said Deputy District Attorney Ronald Eisenberg, who argued the appeal before Sarmina.

    "These are little tidbits of information suggesting, perhaps, that Amos Norwood had an interest in homosexual activities," Eisenberg added.

    Eisenberg said there was no independent evidence that Norwood had molested Williams, and that Williams did not make that argument at trial. Instead, Williams testified that he did not know Norwood and was not there when he was killed.

    It is true that the Deputy DA said that (none / 0) (#68)
    by Peter G on Wed Oct 03, 2012 at 05:43:36 PM EST
    But what he said is not legally correct, not remotely.  Factually, what he said is a bunch of half-truths and irrelevancies, and thus -- in the context of arguing a capital case, imho -- essentially untrue.

    Thanks, yes, that's what I meant; (none / 0) (#69)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Oct 03, 2012 at 05:51:20 PM EST
    "Was what the Deputy DA said legally correct?"

    Yes, BTD (none / 0) (#71)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Oct 03, 2012 at 06:16:53 PM EST
    please live blog if you can!!

    I have no doubt that (none / 0) (#73)
    by sj on Wed Oct 03, 2012 at 06:57:18 PM EST
    Filipino prisons are serious business.  But this made me happy.

    But this was absolutely awesome.  That is Michael Jackson's choreographer and two of his dancers in the lead positions.  That white guy can move.  

    Dancing inmates I think are even better than the inmates who train dogs.  Because it looks like they can all participate.

    We'll be watching it live. (none / 0) (#77)
    by Angel on Wed Oct 03, 2012 at 07:10:56 PM EST
    I am hoping for a stellar performance from the President and a stumble for the Mittster.  And I'm eager to hear some of the zingers he's supposedly been practicing.  My fervent hope is that he does a Dubya with something along the lines of "It's hard to put food on your family."  Or, "Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we."  I need to laugh tonight, and I'm hoping it is at the Mittster's expense.