Sunday Open Thread

I'll be offline the rest of today, so here's an open thread, all topics welcome.

< Tenth Anniversary of War In Afghanistan | Joran van der Sloot to Become a Father >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Glad everyone seems to have had (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by Peter G on Sun Oct 07, 2012 at 10:00:05 PM EST
    such a busy and satisfying day, Sunday.  I can't remember the last time no one wanted to chime in on an open thread.

    It was an incredibly... (5.00 / 2) (#3)
    by desertswine on Sun Oct 07, 2012 at 10:44:53 PM EST
    beautiful day in NM.  We just had to go out somewhere. So we visited the Quarai mission ruins near Mountainair. We wandered the grounds as the breezes rippled thru the cottonwoods. The sky was the deepest blue that you can imagine. No politics today.

    Don't you just love Fall?! (none / 0) (#4)
    by nycstray on Sun Oct 07, 2012 at 11:19:39 PM EST
    We're getting that great weather also :)

    We don't get many days... (none / 0) (#5)
    by desertswine on Sun Oct 07, 2012 at 11:50:59 PM EST
    as beautiful as the past few have been.

    I was (5.00 / 3) (#6)
    by lentinel on Mon Oct 08, 2012 at 04:59:46 AM EST
    thinking that too.

    Usually the open threads are full of comments.

    My supposition was that everyone is exhausted from the flaccid politics with which we have been presented and have to look forward to.

    Will Obama show up?
    Who is the real Obama?
    Enquiring minds are a little less enthusiastic about wanting to know;

    Did Obama actually say that he "suspects" that he and Romney have a "similar position on Social Security" during the last tv extravaganza?

    Is there any more room under the bus?


    I've been under that bus for years. (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by Mr Natural on Mon Oct 08, 2012 at 08:23:43 AM EST
    A few years ago a conservative acquaintance said she'd always liked Reagan.  I asked why, probably pressed a bit, but she had no answer, just said he always made her feel good.  I suspect that a lot of Obama supporters are in the same leaky boat.

    They're (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by lentinel on Mon Oct 08, 2012 at 08:26:21 AM EST
    in a leaky boat alright - with the added impetus of fear propelling the thing in a circular orbit.

    I have wondered the same (none / 0) (#23)
    by Politalkix on Mon Oct 08, 2012 at 02:21:00 PM EST
    about the baby boomers in TL who loved Clinton but see people who like BHO as irrational in their preferences. Here is Bill Clinton arguing about his achievements while debating Bob Dole-cutting deficits, passing crime bills, supporting capital punishments, passing welfare reform, promoting tax cuts all seemed so good in the 1990s (this was in Clinton's first term when the Democrats held the Presidency, Senate and the House for half the time; we have not even gone into some of the very regressive legislation that was passed in the second term). Yet they will never fail to utter a collective "ugh" whenever BHO brings up the subject of deficit reduction of killing of Osama Bin Laden.
    Some of the baby boomers who instinctively liked Clinton but are always critical of BHO are also in the same leaky boat-Clinton just made them feel good.
    I have no complaints against people liking anyone; however TL seems to be pretty intolerant of people liking BHO. This is an irrationality that should be fought against.

    Well, in 1992, when Clinton was (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by Anne on Mon Oct 08, 2012 at 02:51:37 PM EST
    elected, I had a 9-yr old and a 6-yr old at home, and was working full time.  There was homework and sports and dinner and household stuff and trying to have some semblance of conversation with my husband - I didn't have a lot of time for politics or policy.

    Looking back, I can tell you that I didn't know nearly as much about deficits, about monetary and fiscal policy, about Wall Street and banking regulations as I do now; if I can be so bold, I think I might be smarter now than I was 20 years ago - and if I knew then what I know now, I wouldn't have felt as positively about Clinton in general as I did.  I know, because I don't feel the same about Clinton as I did.  I appreciate his vast store of knowledge and his ability to communicate effectively, but I can't say as I appreciate some of the policy choices he made and the paths they sent us down.

    So, maybe it isn't just about some hypocritical and revisionist mentality, some petulant denial of approval for Obama, but about where people were in their lives then, where they are now, and what they have learned in the interim.

    In many ways, I'm just not the same person at 59 that I was at 39 - my life is different, my priorities are different and I'm not easily herded or guilted or shamed into compliance with whatever the prevailing and conventional wisdom is.  And I can't - won't - apologize for training a smarter, clearer eye on the current crop of Democrats.

    I suspect I'm not alone, but, as always, I am just speaking for myself.


    Thanks Anne and Zorba (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by Politalkix on Mon Oct 08, 2012 at 03:56:49 PM EST
    I really appreciate the honesty of both of you.
    Zorba-Even though I may have disagreed with you a few times, I have always found your posts to be consistent in its ideology. So I never had any real quarrel with you, even if I had a few disagreements once in a while. I always understood where you were coming from.
    Anne-I understand where you were coming from a lot better now (so I will not consider your posts revisionist any more). There is a lot that we agree on, there is also a lot in your posts that I find educational. Your posts have always been very well written and even where we have disagreed, I have always found something in them that was thought provoking.

    Thanks Politalkix... (5.00 / 2) (#36)
    by Anne on Mon Oct 08, 2012 at 05:26:03 PM EST
    When people are trying to discuss these hot-button issues, it's quite maddening, not to mention insulting, to be told that one is being irrational for not agreeing with someone else - not to mention that for many of us women, whose opinions were disregarded for years because of "hormonal influences," we sill hear an echo of "is it that time of the month?" in those kinds of accusations.

    So, the hot buttons have their own hot buttons.

    If I'm guilty of anything, it's probably that I set the bar high; I just haven't seen the benefit of continuing to lower it - all I see is the steady decline in the quality of our representation, and worse, the willingness of people to accept that decline, as long as there is someone else who's even worse.  And there always is.

    Listen, I am as appalled and disgusted as anyone at the idea of a Romney presidency and all that would come with it, and you couldn't get me to vote for him for love nor money.  But that doesn't translate to full-throated support for his opponent, or to my acceptance of what I see as his policy flaws and blunders.

    If nothing else, I guess I do the best I can not to come across as a raving lunatic, lol, and while I think I'm fairly successful at that, I'm as vulnerable as anyone to letting my sarcastic, snarky, slightly insulting side out - I'm sure there are people here who think that's the only side I have, but I work pretty hard at controlling it.

    Believe it or not!


    Well, (none / 0) (#32)
    by sj on Mon Oct 08, 2012 at 04:15:03 PM EST
    as usual, you speak for me as well.  That describes the then/now quite well.  An aside: I've never understood why people expect others to have very same opinions forevermore just because those opinions are on the record.  

    Apparently people aren't supposed to learn or something.  Oh, or unless the opinion is changed to mirror what the critic believes.  Then it's self-congratulation all around.


    And then there are (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by Zorba on Mon Oct 08, 2012 at 03:15:04 PM EST
    the baby boomers on TL like me, who didn't like Hillary, or Bill, for that matter, or Barack, because I see all of them as being too far centrist, and frankly even tilting way too far to the right as far as I am concerned.
    But then, I am an old, unregenerate DFH.  And as I have said so very many times before, "I didn't leave the Democratic Party, the Democratic Party left me."
    So give me a really good argument, Politalkix, for not voting for Jill Stein  or Rocky Anderson.  And I really don't want to hear "But the other guy is so much worse!"
    I want to hear positives.  Positives that mean something profound to me.  Because, at this point, I am really beginning to think that nothing will change until things get so very, very bad that people will finally wake the f*ck up.  And even at that point, I don't trust the American voters, who seem to be either listening to scare  tactics, or worrying about their stock portfolios.
    Give me a reason to truly believe in this country again, instead of my thinking and planning to bail out of here as soon as we can afford to.  
    Because, g*dd@mnit, I loved this country, and I worked for, and protested and hit the streets for, and gave hard-earned money to causes that I profoundly believed in.  And as far as I'm concerned, all of that didn't seem to make a bit of difference.
    That is where I am.

    Positives (none / 0) (#39)
    by vicndabx on Mon Oct 08, 2012 at 06:07:17 PM EST
    IMO, it is a reaffirmation of an approach to governing that involves compromise, finding that thing in the middle that represents the best of all approaches.  That is truly what this country should be about.

    For too long we have been out what is best for me, what is in line with my politics, all about I, and not about what works best for the vast majority of us.

    What type of country were you fighting for?  One where only one side of the political spectrum was ascendant?  What happens when that side no longer is?


    The thing you seem to be missing is (5.00 / 2) (#43)
    by Anne on Mon Oct 08, 2012 at 07:29:34 PM EST
    that a lot of us believe that the policies we favor ARE the ones that will benefit the most, which is why we have trouble seeing the positives in settling for some mushy middle position that only has going for it the fact that it's probably disliked by equal numbers of people.

    We don't see the value in compromise for its own sake; I don't see any middle ground on the issue of torture, for example.  I don't think the government should be legislating a woman's dominion over her own body, or defining marriage in terms of the state.  I think a single-payer health system would be hugely beneficial to the vast majority of us - and it's the job of leaders who share these beliefs to lead on them, sell them, advocate for them, find ways to keep them alive.

    I hate to think what things would look like, what they would be like, if those who fought for civil rights, for equal rights, had just stopped fighting and settled for something somewhere in the middle.  

    The middle is not always the best place to be, and it is unbelievably depressing that you think that the quest for the middle is what this country is truly about, what makes America great.

    "America: The Land of Polite Mediocrity."

    Now, there's a motto that should inspire millions.


    What should be obvious (2.00 / 1) (#45)
    by vicndabx on Mon Oct 08, 2012 at 08:35:19 PM EST
    and is clearly not what we're talking about are policies that affect the rights of the individual.  Ergo, there is no mushy-middle w/r/t civil rights and the like.

    Your example of health-care reform is a perfect example of an area where compromise is a good thing.  You can firmly believe in single-payer, and I can just as strongly not believe in the same thing.  You can find studies that say it's the best thing in the world, I can find studies that say it won't solve the root cause of our issues so why impact people's livelihoods?  

    It is not polite mediocrity when each side really has no idea of what will "work.  What's unbelievably depressing is that you believe your answers are best for everyone, merely because you "know" they are, and yet you go on about civil rights and the like.


    Your comment makes no sense. (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by Anne on Tue Oct 09, 2012 at 08:24:51 AM EST
    I realize you are employed in the insurance industry, so you have a vested interest in keeping single-payer or expansion of Medicare off the table, but trying to reduce the issue of single-payer/expanded Medicare to a matter of dueling studies, when there is real-life, real-world experience out there in other countries just seems kind of desperate to me.

    There is compromise and then there is compromise; if the compromises that were made in the ACA were in any way, shape or form intended to be a foot in the door to single-payer, I could agree with you, but they weren't.  Are there some good things in the Act?  Sure.  But I'm not convinced the good will counter the inescapable reality that the same industry that has contributed mightily to the crisis the ACA purports to solve is right in the thick of it still - and looking for every loophole, advantage and maneuver to avoid compliance.

    You say that we shouldn't compromise when it comes to the rights of the individual, so I need to ask if you've actually been paying attention to what's been happening with respect to those rights.  I see those rights being slowly compromised away in the name of national security, and I see no accountability, no transparency and no line at which compromise will stop.  

    And while there is no question Romney will be horrible when it comes to this kind of erosion, the door to that was thrown wide open by this president on many fronts, most especially when he made the decision that we were not going to hold anyone from the Bush/Cheney years accoutable for their actions.  I suppose that was a compromise, too?  Why waste time with the rule of law when you can just maintain the status quo, and ensure that the current president can act with impunity, eh?

    So, for those who don't want full-blown insanity, full-out destruction of the safety net and the economy, well, we are just so lucky and privileged to have the option to choose the team of Obama/Biden - the Compromise Candidates...Still better than the other guys!


    My comment makes perfect sense (none / 0) (#56)
    by vicndabx on Tue Oct 09, 2012 at 12:32:14 PM EST
    and I am not the only one w/a "vested" interest here.  Further, your attitude, which seems to write me off as some bad actor who can't be trusted exemplifies the unwarranted cynicism that IMO is at the root of the mistrust that creates the inability to see compromise as a good thing when it can work.  For the record, again, yes, I work for an insurance company.  Didn't you post some time back that you want to go see out of network doctors.  Should I assume you have a vested interest in driving up costs for the rest of us because of this?  No.  Don't assume about me and I won't assume about you.  This is the problem w/too many of our citizens.

    As far as your constant attempts to make the insurer the boogeymen:

    looking for every loophole, advantage and maneuver to avoid compliance

    There are no loopholes or manuevers.  What actually exists are fines, penalties and lost customers and jobs for non-compliance.  I submit you, who only have experience as a consumer, have no idea what you are talking about.  You have no proof to support this statement.  If you do, please provide it.  

    Hyperbolic statements don't help drive an informed discussion, they sound great, but often don't deal w/reality.


    All Netherlands residents are required to purchase health insurance, which is provided by private health insurers that compete for business. The insurers can be either for-profit or non-profit, but are tightly regulated by the federal government, and are required to accept every resident in their coverage area, regardless of preexisting conditions.

    Managing cost:

    {Borowitz} points to the Netherlands' strong system of high quality general practitioners that act as gatekeepers to specialized care as a success in helping to keep costs down.

    Canada - gov't mostly provides healthcare:

    The average Canadian family pays about 48 percent of its income in taxes each year, partly to fund the health care system. Rates vary from province to province, but Ontario, the most populous, spends roughly 40 percent of every tax dollar on health care, according to the Canadian Taxpayers Federation.

    Of course, they still have issues w/waiting lists and the like:

    An estimated 4 million of Canada's 33 million people don't have family physicians and more than 1 million are on waiting lists for treatment, according to the Canadian Medical Association. Meanwhile, some 200 physicians head to the United States each year, attracted by lower taxes and better working conditions. Canada has 2.1 physicians per 1,000 people, while Belgium has 3.9, according to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.

    France -

    France, like the United States, relies on both private insurance and government insurance. Also, just like in America, people generally get their insurance through their employer.

    In France, everyone has health care. However, unlike in Britain and Canada, there are no waiting lists to get elective surgery or see a specialist, Dutton says.

    How do they do it?

    In France, the national insurance program is funded mostly by payroll and income taxes. Those payments go to several quasi-public insurance funds that then negotiate with medical unions to set doctors' fees. (Doctors can choose to work outside this system, and a growing minority now charge what patients are willing to pay out of pocket.) The government regulates most hospital fees. This system works collectively to keep costs down.

    In spite of that they still have issues:

    France, like all countries, faces rising costs for health care. In a country that's so generous, it's even harder to get those expenses under control.

    Last year, the national health system ran nearly $9 billion in debt. Although it is a smaller deficit than in previous years, it forced the government of President Nicolas Sarkozy to start charging patients more for some drugs, ambulance costs and other services. Debates over cost-cutting have become an expected part of the national dialogue on health care

    The root cause of our problem is not boogeyman or imagined bad actors, it is the same as it is in every country, the cost of services, i.e. provider payments, drugs, utilization of certain high-cost services, etc.

    Healthcare reform is but an example, but illustrates the point succintly.  We need to let go of preconceptions and be prepared to compromise when dealing w/data that supports multiple ways of confronting an issue.

    As far as constitutional protections, I have been paying attention.  Politically and probably tactically, it wouldn't have been a good idea to go after Bush & Cheney.  IMO, better to spend energy on improving the approach of the predecessor then dredge up mud in the hopes of......what?  Putting Bush and Cheney in jail?  Did you really think they would be put on trial?  I didn't.  IMO, it is better, when faced w/numerous priorities, to focus on that which will have the most impact to the day-to-day lives of Americans.  I submit prosecuting Bush was, and still is, low on the list of people's priorities.  In any event, I am probably to the right of you on the so-called "war on terror" anyhow and don't really feel the need to go into a long explanation on it.  Suffice it to say, there is no requirement that any changes made in the last 10 years be permanent.  Beyond that, as a NYC resident whose company had headquarters at 1 WTC, I'd simply say, don't try to blow $hit up, and you won't have any problems.


    You may be assuming a lot (5.00 / 4) (#27)
    by shoephone on Mon Oct 08, 2012 at 03:27:32 PM EST
    In my case, I mostly couldn't stand Clinton as president. I hated his triangulation schemes, his school uniforms and ending-welfare-as-we-know-it, and the the way he threw his first two highly qualified female picks for AG under the bus. I did not vote for him in '96 because of these and many other things. In 1998, I was disgusted with him over the Lewinsky affair. But impeachment was the most outlandish response, and he fought like the dickens against the Republicans over it. He  proved that he was a fighter, even if it usually was in service to self-preservation.

    He was exceptionally smart and had a real talent for explaining deeply complex issues to the rest of us in simple, understandable, meaningful language. And he knew how to negotiate like a tiger when he wanted to. I have never seen those qualities in Obama. Never. I have, however, seen him and his administration scoff at and demean the DFH's and the "professional left" with relish. It's more than counterproductive -- it has put him at odds with many in his own party during times when he needs mass support.

    More importantly, Clinton got some of the big things right, especially when it came to foreign policy. eg., the Good Friday agreements. And, though it didn't end successfully, he worked day and night to forge a peace pact between the Israelis and Palestinians.

    Leaving office with the U.S. in a multi-billion dollar surplus canot be disregarded as a huge achievement.

    And, yep, many of those successes occurred in his second term. But it was not a surprise that Clinton had that fight and that ability in him. I have not seen anything from Obama that implies he will come out swinging in a way that matters if he gets a second term. Where is the evidence of that??? Is he suddenly going to oppose Republican policies that he has been bending over for since he took office? Is he suddenly going to become an ally of the Democratic Progressive Caucus?

    Is it that people irrationally loved Clinton and hate Obama? I don't think so. I think it's easy to view Clinton's attributes and flaws in a realistic light, but somehow, applying the same standards to Obama is considered unfair and elicits whining about unrealistic perfection-seeking and smears that people "hate" him.

    Usually, debates don't affect strong late election season trends. So, who knows, maybe Obama will still be able to capitalize on his pre-debate upward trending poll numbers. But his performance was so lackluster and ineffectual, a lot of people are having big doubts whether he can repair the damage he did to himself. And he did  a lot of damage.


    You describe my feelings as well (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by ruffian on Mon Oct 08, 2012 at 03:39:17 PM EST
    I love Clinton's fighting spirit and communication skills. I was not real crazy about a lot of his policies.

    The impeachment travesty and other endless right wing attacks brought me more firmly into his camp than I would have been otherwise.

    Obama's misunderstanding of the right's capacity for just plain making sh** up, and his seeming strategy to take it and not fight it, is unforgivable even up to this day. It is NOT dignified, if that is what he thinks he is accomplishing.

    I too hope it is not too late. As a Cubs fan I have a fatalistic attitude about September and October swoons and am wondering if either a billy goat or Steve Bartman were in that debate hall the other night.


    It's not "irrationality" (5.00 / 3) (#42)
    by Yman on Mon Oct 08, 2012 at 07:18:22 PM EST
    You can like him all you want.  Others can criticize him all they want, especially when he breaks his campaign promises and throws them under the bus.

    Well (5.00 / 2) (#44)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Oct 08, 2012 at 08:08:34 PM EST
    about 90% of the public supported welfare reform even a lot of liberals thought that it was not working as it was.

    Clinton had a roaring economy and frankly the things that you are talking about he campaigned on. So he more or less kept those campaign promises.

    People have a problem with Obama's austerity plan right now because of the economy. Back then it was different. People had jobs or if they didn't they could find one soon and not be out of work for months and months like they are now. Obama just seems to have his priorities mixed up. His whole term he should have been working on getting the job situation settled. The ACA could have waited. He could have just passed a few bills for preexisting conditions etc. and be done with it.

    And Obama attacked Hillary over some of those exact same things and then turned around and embraced them.


    I am angry with him about jobs (none / 0) (#46)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Oct 08, 2012 at 08:36:53 PM EST
    I'm angry with him for allowing Summers and the University of Chicago Economics Shock Doctrine Department let our demand go right into the toilet to save high finance.  I can't afford for Mitt Romney to be President though.  I'm not sure the world can afford to have Mitt Romney be President.

    The best (5.00 / 2) (#50)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Oct 09, 2012 at 07:00:21 AM EST
    argument against Romney's economic plan is the one Paul Krugman made. He said that Ireland has done exactly the same thing Romney wants to do here and they have 14% unemployment.

    Are you comparing America to Ireland? (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by Politalkix on Tue Oct 09, 2012 at 08:00:45 AM EST
    Romney: This is the problem about how the President and liberals like Krugman see the world. They do not believe in American exceptionalism. We do! Hardworking Amercans, know how to make ideologies that do not work anywhere else in the world work for us and create prosperity.

    I'm not sure how to approach that argument (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Oct 09, 2012 at 08:15:03 AM EST
    So many Americans want the myth that we are superior in all ways to be true.  Joe Scarborough was beating the desk this morning saying that if the government would just get out of the American people's way we will rise like a phoenix.  

    We are the same DNA as the rest of the planet, our democracy is a low scoring democracy based on the principles and dynamics that define democracy.

    If you have never been anywhere else and noticed that we are only human beings, and if you have never experienced different social dynamics, it is easy to buy into the B.S.

    When my spouse got to work with NATO soldiers, he came away with an understanding that the current social structure of the United States is damaging us and not making us greater or stronger.  When you are constantly worried about your ability to provide healthcare for a sick or disabled family member you have days of anxiety that NATO soldiers do not ever experience.  And they (NATO soldiers) can't believe we do to each other in this country the things that we do where healthcare is concerned.


    Well (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Oct 09, 2012 at 11:57:18 AM EST
    the only benefit to Romney winning would be that there would be no doubt in the majority of American's minds that voodoo does not work.

    They will find a way to blame Democrats (none / 0) (#55)
    by Politalkix on Tue Oct 09, 2012 at 12:22:04 PM EST
    for not allowing voodoo to work. They will not care for deficits when they are in charge and try to ramp up the economy through war spending.
    If HRC decides to run in 2016, they will blame her for "national security lapses" that led to the death of the ambassador in Libya and led the Muslim Brotherhood to infiltrate the government through Huma Abidin. They will revert to a "weak on national security" campaign against any Democrat that decides to run for President.

    So what (none / 0) (#57)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Oct 09, 2012 at 06:57:06 PM EST
    else is new? And the whole Muslim Brotherhood thing is a big conspiracy theory. War spending is not going to work. It has not worked since WWII when we had to build everything from nothing. They might try but the GOP has lost the national security debate after George W. Bush and all his screw ups.

    "an irrationality ..." (none / 0) (#33)
    by sj on Mon Oct 08, 2012 at 04:22:10 PM EST
    "...that should be fought against."  Hmmm.  That statement explains so much about your comments.  You realize that what you have been ending up with is the equivalent of "I demand that you cease criticizing Obama.  I demand that you appreciate him as I do".

    How far do you think that's really going to get you?


    No sj (none / 0) (#34)
    by Politalkix on Mon Oct 08, 2012 at 05:09:18 PM EST
    My response was in reply to the following post

    "A few years ago a conservative acquaintance said she'd always liked Reagan.  I asked why, probably pressed a bit, but she had no answer, just said he always made her feel good.  I suspect that a lot of Obama supporters are in the same leaky boat"

    The poster made a comment that indicated that a lot of Obama supporters would have no answer about why they liked him. Atleast speaking for myself as someone who likes BHO, I disagreed with the poster's comment. I can articulate very clearly the resaons I like him (and I have done so on numerous ocassions). Where was the demand from me that everyone stop criticising Obama and appreciate him as much as I do?


    That's very true (none / 0) (#35)
    by sj on Mon Oct 08, 2012 at 05:16:09 PM EST
    I can articulate very clearly the resaons I like him.
    It also has nothing to do what I said.  

    But if you truly want an answer to this

    Where was the demand from me that everyone stop criticising Obama and appreciate him as much as I do?
    You might want to read your own comments as if you were on the receiving end instead of the sender of those scolds.

    I don't mind when people are critical of BHO (none / 0) (#37)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Oct 08, 2012 at 05:53:44 PM EST
    But when you compare him to Romney and try to tell me they equal the same policies, no effing compute.  And it does seem that there is a problem here at times in even admitting that we should at least be pulling for Obama because God help us if we get Romney.  It doesn't make any sense to me how that has been going down here at times.

    There is always a contingent (2.00 / 2) (#40)
    by CoralGables on Mon Oct 08, 2012 at 06:33:25 PM EST
    that wakes up in the morning already bitching. I've learned to accept that no matter the topic there is a group of people that are never happy...It's the Roseanne Roseannadanna segment of society..."It's always something".

    And there's always the contingent (5.00 / 2) (#47)
    by shoephone on Mon Oct 08, 2012 at 08:44:46 PM EST
    that tells people who dare to stick to their values and vote their conscience that they'd better just STFU and "go along to get along" or they'll be hastening the apocolypse.

    I'm not sure where in my comment (3.50 / 2) (#48)
    by CoralGables on Mon Oct 08, 2012 at 10:01:01 PM EST
    you see anything about voting or values or telling anyone to STFU.

    It's a very generic comment that there are people no matter the topic that are never happy and bitch about everything...if you find the need to read into that and find offense with it to the extent you need to bitch about it, it's safe to say if the shoe fits go ahead and wear it proudly.

    Honestly, I'm stunned anyone would see themselves in the comment. It obviously served as a mirror for you.


    Nice try (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by shoephone on Mon Oct 08, 2012 at 10:47:26 PM EST
    but no cigar.

    Coming up for air . . . (none / 0) (#2)
    by nycstray on Sun Oct 07, 2012 at 10:42:00 PM EST
    between 3 teams in the playoffs and 2 football teams to follow (thankfully one is tomorrow night!) I've got my sports background going to get some work done to. I was just going to make some simple adjustments to my marketing materials, but now it's a full on studio name change, new graphics etc, which means I have backed myself into designing a new website! Oh, and then there's that 14mo Dalmatian that resides here . . . so much for moping the floors :D

    Taking care of (none / 0) (#7)
    by brodie on Mon Oct 08, 2012 at 08:11:33 AM EST
    family matters here, and finding myself sole representative of the liberal wing of the Brodie brood.  A few other family members have drifted noticeably over the years from FDR to adherents of the Obama Muslim Conspiracy wing of the GOP-Know Nothing Party.  So wackaloon it's impossible to hold a rational fact-based discussion b/c they have their own set of right wing radio approved facts.  

    No Internet or even cell phones -- that stuff is for fancy CA liberal elitists like myself.  Fortunately just one more day here in the South before I return to civilization.


    Just curious. (none / 0) (#12)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Oct 08, 2012 at 09:01:51 AM EST
    What state would this be in?

    Given my personal experiences, (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by easilydistracted on Mon Oct 08, 2012 at 09:20:48 AM EST
    I think this must be the general prevailing attitude throughout the Diabetes Belt.

    True (none / 0) (#16)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Oct 08, 2012 at 10:28:30 AM EST
    but just wondering which particular one.

    This would be in the state of (none / 0) (#17)
    by brodie on Mon Oct 08, 2012 at 10:37:24 AM EST
    Right-wing Southern Paranoia, but not GA.

    And didn't intend to imply folks don't generally have access to fancy 21st C things like the Internet or iPhones or cable tv, just that these family members don't.

    It's like they're stuck in 1983 with Reagan and America's many enemies and all those hoity toity unpatriotic liberals.  1983 or 1863, as they wonder why we have all these minorities around with their special privileges.

    Three days of constant Fear and Mooslim Paranoia with this bunch.  

    Looking forward to getting back to this century.  Even looking forward to being shoehorned into my plane seat for the return flight.


    Sounds like Texas (none / 0) (#18)
    by easilydistracted on Mon Oct 08, 2012 at 10:53:29 AM EST
    It's like they're stuck in 1983 with Reagan and America's many enemies and all those hoity toity unpatriotic liberals.


    Or as JFK said to (none / 0) (#20)
    by brodie on Mon Oct 08, 2012 at 01:25:10 PM EST
    Jackie upon seeing that black-bordered Wanted poster ad in the DMN, "We're in nut country today."

    The assassination, (none / 0) (#25)
    by MKS on Mon Oct 08, 2012 at 03:09:12 PM EST
    I read once, somewhere in a galaxy far away, is why Dallas so wanted the Cowboys to win. To live down being the City that killed JFK.

    As you may recall, before they were America's team, the Cowboys were the team that "couldn't win the big one."  A sense of defeat permeated their fans and city.


    I think that's right. (none / 0) (#28)
    by brodie on Mon Oct 08, 2012 at 03:32:14 PM EST
    And further on putting that dark day behind them, or putting the city's own special spin on it, the local Sixth Floor Museum has walled off the entire week of the assassination 50th anniversary next year, permit-wise, for commemorations at Dealey Plaza, and apparently no other groups will be permitted.  

    That museum famously has a lone nut Oswald Did It Alone perspective.   Voices for conspiracy apparently will have to make do arranging events elsewhere.

    I seem to detect a possible free speech violation here by Dallas officials if the permit monopoly status quo continues.


    I watched a cable show (none / 0) (#31)
    by MKS on Mon Oct 08, 2012 at 04:12:04 PM EST
    last night on ballistics that showed the kill shot had to come from Oswald in the Sixth Floor Depository.

    An hour long special with reconsctructions of the scene, the shot and a sophisticated model human head.  If the shot were from the grassy knoll, it would have either entirely exploded his head, or passed through the skull and killed Jackie too.

    A shot from the Sixth Floor Depository would have resulted in the same wound as shown by the autopsy photos and the same blood and brain matter splatter pattern as actually occurred.  Seemed convicing to me, but these shows always do.



    Didn't see it, but other lone (none / 0) (#38)
    by brodie on Mon Oct 08, 2012 at 05:56:45 PM EST
    nut docs that purport to reconstruct and scientifically prove shots only from the TSBD need to be carefully scrutinized point by point from a scientific perspective, which scrutiny the shows I've seen do not provide.  They are one sided and slickly produced and can be momentarily persuasive as presented, but that doesn't make them scientifically or forensically valid or true.  

    Frankly I see a lot of GIGO problems with the Oswald did it shows, and that would appear to be the case with any doc claiming Jackie would have to be in the line of fire with a shot from the knoll, the place from which shots were heard and to which numerous eyewitnesses ran in the moments after the gunfire ceased.  That's where gunsmoke was also detected.

    Top JFK aides O'Donnell and Powers, in the car right behind, also later stated they heard shots from the knoll, smelled gunpowder, but were told by the FBI not to testify to that effect.

    So much other conspiracy evidence is out there but I am not inclined to go through it all each time this case gets brought up.


    Pet peeve: companies - like Amazon and (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by Anne on Mon Oct 08, 2012 at 08:45:05 AM EST
    Williams-Sonoma - that send you e-mails on the basis of things you may have only looked at on their websites.  

    Amazon is just plain creepy.  My daughter picked out bedding that she bought there, and I went and looked at it to see the design.  Not only do I now get e-mails every Monday (Baby Bargain Mondays!), but when I went there to look at Pack `n' Plays, the one I clicked on to see in more detail they showed with a mobile that matches the bedding theme!  

    And the Google ads that are based on things I've done searches for or websites I've visited are just weird.  

    I know they're all tracking our every move, hoping to get us to spend more money, but I'm the kind of person who can't stand pushy salespeople - "thank you, I'll let you know if I need your help" - but this is approaching stalking, and it's starting to tick me off - to the point where I don't want to buy from these retailers.  

    Silly, stupid thing to get annoyed about, but it beats being disgusted at how poorly the Ravens played - even though they won - or thinking too much about Jim Johnson's meltdown in the 9th inning of the Orioles/Yankees game.

    I may be a little cranky today - apologies in advance.

    I don't think it is silly or stupid (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Oct 08, 2012 at 09:34:05 AM EST
    They do it because without such sort of predatory advertising most of us would buy things we need vs. shiny things we may only briefly want.

    My son-n-law works with his hands doing such extreme things he wanted an inexpensive wedding ring made out of titanium.  My daughter regrettably shopped for it on Amazon on my computer.


    As usual, Justice Scalia (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by KeysDan on Mon Oct 08, 2012 at 10:06:16 AM EST
    nails it.  Clearly, all his fellow legal giants throughout the history  of the Court have found questions that affect the lives of all  Americans to be easy to decide.  Supreme Court decisions would all be unanimous if it were not for those Justices who do find some issues to require brains, but those are probably just socialist "make work" projects.  It is easy to see why Romney and Scott Brown find Scalia to be a favorite--putting questions of law on a business footing amenable to an efficient computerized process.

    Intended as a reply to (none / 0) (#19)
    by KeysDan on Mon Oct 08, 2012 at 12:13:06 PM EST
    Mr. Natural on Scalia.

    "Absolutely Easy" sez Scalia (none / 0) (#10)
    by Mr Natural on Mon Oct 08, 2012 at 08:42:18 AM EST
    Speaking of Jackie, I was unaware (none / 0) (#21)
    by brodie on Mon Oct 08, 2012 at 01:31:56 PM EST
    until recent days that she had expressed a highly negative view of Arnold, just a few years after he made the formal hookup with Maria.

    According to the DB and repeated by Lawrence O'D in a recent righteous rant against Schwarzenegger, Jackie was quoted as telling a friend about Arnold "I loathe everything the man stands for."

    I guess there's no accounting sometimes for the matches made, but I would have thought a Shriver wouldn't have fallen for such a lug and louse.

    I know. It's not like Maria was some (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by caseyOR on Mon Oct 08, 2012 at 01:56:24 PM EST
    besotted teenager when she married Arnold. She was in her early 20s when they met. And they didn't marry until nine years later. So, there was plenty of time for Maria to get to know him.

    Oh well, I guess the heart wants what the heart wants.


    Yeah, disappointing -- (none / 0) (#41)
    by brodie on Mon Oct 08, 2012 at 07:05:54 PM EST
    especially after reading the Lawrence Leamer piece about one particular incident where he absolutely humiliated her, in a gross hands on Arnold way, in front of others.  Had that been me on the receiving end he would have gotten a fierce physical response probably followed by an immediate separation and call to a good divorce atty.

    But she apparently doesn't think like me, sadly.  She's a puzzle to me.