Wednesday Open Thread

Dominique Strauss-Kahn has been released from custody after two days of questioning in the investigation of alleged organized prostitution, misuse of corporate funds and police corruption. No charges have been filed against him. He was given a summons to appear again in March, possibly as a witness and possibly for the filing of charges.

I'm still looking for the text of the 13 page written bail decision for Kim DotCom who was released yesterday. The media describes it but doesn't bother to upload it so we all can read it for ourselves. If you run across it, please let me know where in comments.

Say hello to the Wrongful Convictions blog by law profs and innocence project members, offering an international perspective.

Welcome Back, BTD.

This is an open thread, all topics welcome.

< "Inciting Extremist Activity" | Here's the Kim DotCom Bail Decision >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    For Captain Howdy... (5.00 / 2) (#3)
    by kdog on Wed Feb 22, 2012 at 12:46:47 PM EST
    a new website allows you to "convert" dead mormons into homosexuals...they got a no take-backs disclaimer and everything. Let the battle for dead souls begin!

    Payback's a b*tch mormons...lol.

    In other supernatural news...it appears if Santorum becomes president Iran & Syria are gonna have to wait in line to be attacked...Satan is the # 1 threat to America according to Tricky Ricky circa 2008.  

    I hear Van Helsing has the leg up for Sec. of Defense in the Santorum administration.  

    Yes, the by-words of a (none / 0) (#10)
    by KeysDan on Wed Feb 22, 2012 at 01:32:59 PM EST
    Santorum administration would be: the devil is in the details.

    Well I'm betting (5.00 / 2) (#4)
    by Zorba on Wed Feb 22, 2012 at 12:46:49 PM EST
    that this will go over well in Greece, if enacted.  Not.
    Some Greeks Might Have to Pay for Their Jobs

    Don't anyone tell Scott Walker about this.

    Shush! Btw, Scooter Walker is (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by Towanda on Wed Feb 22, 2012 at 01:37:30 PM EST
    . . having his own problems in the courts these days.

    I luv Diane Wood, one of the three fed judges on the panel that is administering daily smackdowns to the Repubs re their secretive redistricting emails about drawing lines to screw the Latino community, their sudden discovery of more secret emails only a couple of days before the court case began this week, etc.  

    Just today, the judges got even testier, so the case may commence tomorrow, at last.  But word is that the Repubs are ready, with what looks like the inevitable smackdown ruling, to take the next step:  Automatically, the case would go to the U.S. Supreme Court.

    And on other fronts, word also is leaking that, no surprise, Scooter is the "John Doe" in the ongoing investigations that already have led to indictments of many of his aides and donors.

    Of course, while all this is going on to distract the easily distractable media and public, the Repubs are slamming through more of their agenda in Wisconsin.  Just yesterday, they stripped the state's equal pay act for women -- and they also set back reproductive rights even more in the state that already was one of the worst on that issue.  

    Not surprisingly, then, a new poll out today shows that the impact of all of this includes a growing and large lead for Obama in the state in 2012 -- but its economy remains so tenuous that he would be wise to finally find those comfortable shoes, or at least find some to shod Holder to do something about the egregious voter suppression there.  Yeh.  As if.


    Zorba, did you (5.00 / 0) (#19)
    by sj on Wed Feb 22, 2012 at 01:56:12 PM EST
    see this in the UK?

    If you've been on the dole for six to twelve months, the Job Centre can decide to send you to a SBWA. You will spend two weeks doing workshops of varying degrees of usefulness (and get access to free jobsearch resources, always useful) and then you will spend four weeks or more doing unpaid work for whichever company, like Tesco or Poundland, has applied to get dosh for "training" unemployed people back to work.

    So Tesco gets a steady supply of unpaid workers or these workers lose their meager benefits.  Follow the links.  It's even more depressing than it sounds.  via the Sideshow.


    Ay, ay, ay! (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by Zorba on Wed Feb 22, 2012 at 02:21:37 PM EST
    Sounds great for Tesco.  Maybe not so great for the workers.  {{Sigh}}  Well, we manage to do quite well with slave labor with our own prison population, after all.

    I wonder how many will pay? (none / 0) (#14)
    by Edger on Wed Feb 22, 2012 at 01:44:37 PM EST
    Pretty good incentive to stay home in that idea, I'd think...

    I suspect that (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by Zorba on Wed Feb 22, 2012 at 02:16:24 PM EST
    the Greeks will refuse to go to work and take to the streets again, if this happens.  They're not Americans, and seem to be more willing to strike, riot, whatever it takes to make their unhappiness known.  I wouldn't be surprised if this ultimately leads to the fall of the current Greek government, default, and the exit of Greece from the Eurozone.  We'll see.

    At the Oxford Center for Religion (5.00 / 2) (#22)
    by KeysDan on Wed Feb 22, 2012 at 02:01:05 PM EST
    and Public Life in 2008, Santorum's presentation "Press and People of Faith in Politics Forum" included the following as a part of the Q & A.  "Woodstock is the great American orgy.  This is who the Democratic Party has become.  They have become the party of Woodstock.  They prey upon our most basic primal lusts, and that's sex.  And the whole abortion culture; its not about life.  It's about sexual freedom.  That's what its about. Homosexuality. It's about sexual freedom."  

    I wonder if Rick got his beelzebub fears from watching "The Devil in Miss Jones" a little too often. Boy, what a choice:  LDS Romney or LSD Santorum. Maybe the Republicans can go back and rummage through the clown car, look under the cushions to see if they overlooked anyone.  Maybe, unloading Herman Cain was a bit rash, after all.

    Forget Herm Cain... (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by kdog on Wed Feb 22, 2012 at 02:11:28 PM EST
    imagine how Pawlenty feels!  LOL

    I can understand Santorums problems with promiscuity and all the other dirty f*ckin' hippie shit I hold dear, thats to be expected, but the dude even has a beef with sensuality...I'm serious, he railed on (I quote) "sensuality" in one of his rants.  

    I thought sensuality being a positive is something most everybody could agree on, liberal or conservative.  I mean I'd expect even the likes of a Santorum to enjoy the gift of sensuality with his wife...the dude has some serious f*ckin' issues.  Red Flag! Red Flag!  


    "Serious f*ckin' issues" as in (none / 0) (#29)
    by Anne on Wed Feb 22, 2012 at 02:18:41 PM EST
    he has issues with f*cking, isn't good at f*cking or he just has so many issues that "f*ckin'" is the only word that conveys just how bad his issues are?

    Probably all three, would be my guess; he has a "wham/bam-thank-you-ma'am" kind of look about him.  

    Maybe it's the sweater vests.


    Touche Anne... (5.00 / 2) (#34)
    by kdog on Wed Feb 22, 2012 at 02:25:18 PM EST
    all three is a good guess...but are we sure it isn't a "wham bam thank you strange man in the bus station mens room" look he is rockin'?

    That would explain a lot...


    Well, the sweater vests may be worn (none / 0) (#35)
    by KeysDan on Wed Feb 22, 2012 at 02:33:49 PM EST
    not so much for their back to the 50's style statement as to serve  as an absorbent for his Opus Dei self-flagellation penance for his devilish sensuality fantasies.

    Oh...oh, I think I'm going to barf... (none / 0) (#36)
    by Anne on Wed Feb 22, 2012 at 02:47:31 PM EST
    and I need some mind bleach...



    kdog, was thinking of you because i just (none / 0) (#30)
    by caseyOR on Wed Feb 22, 2012 at 02:20:25 PM EST
    got Levon's CD Ramble at the Ryman. Yeah, I know, I'm an old lady with luddite tendencies who still buys her music in the form of CDs because I do not own an iPod.

    However one gets one's music, a walk with Levon is always a treat.


    What an honor... (none / 0) (#37)
    by kdog on Wed Feb 22, 2012 at 02:56:40 PM EST
    to be thought of in the same instance as the great Levon Helm Band!  Good sh*t ain't it...get your Deep Elem Blues on pal!

    ohhh sweet mama...


    This thread has me howling (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by Towanda on Wed Feb 22, 2012 at 03:00:32 PM EST
    with laughter today, from "LDS or LSD" on through the discussion of the potentially contraceptive effects of sweater vests. . . .

    Thanks, all.  It's another tough day here, with my kids' dad back in surgery for yet another cancer recurrence, and I needed a break from waiting by the phone for word from our son and daughter.  I hope that they have their own silly sites to go to on their cell phones to keep up their spirits, too.


    Best wishes to your family (none / 0) (#68)
    by ruffian on Thu Feb 23, 2012 at 07:34:14 AM EST
    and yes, the sweater vest should provide enough laughter for a full recovery.

    This has probably been mentioned (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by CoralGables on Wed Feb 22, 2012 at 05:05:20 PM EST
    but you have to wonder how people like Indiana Republican State Rep Bob Morris ever get elected

    Oh, for (5.00 / 2) (#57)
    by Zorba on Wed Feb 22, 2012 at 06:05:48 PM EST
    crying in a bucket.  What an idiot Morris is.

    Too bad his parents (5.00 / 2) (#58)
    by Edger on Wed Feb 22, 2012 at 06:09:13 PM EST
    didn't practice the abstinence he preaches...

    I knew the day would come (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by CoralGables on Wed Feb 22, 2012 at 06:16:04 PM EST
    that Edger and I would be in agreement :)

    That letter (5.00 / 2) (#60)
    by CoralGables on Wed Feb 22, 2012 at 06:19:17 PM EST
    is so full of "full of it" quotes it's hard to narrow them down to pick a best of the bunch, but I'm partial to this one:

    "Of the fifty role models listed, only three have a briefly-mentioned religious background - all the rest are feminists, lesbians, or Communists."


    Dramatic good news on the unemployment front (none / 0) (#1)
    by Edger on Wed Feb 22, 2012 at 12:20:42 PM EST
    Well, it looks like the transition from a 'production'(manufacturing) based economy to a 'service' economy is working out wonderfully.

    The unemployment rate last month was unchanged at 4.18 percent from the previous month, maintaining the lowest level since August 2008, as stronger demand from the service sector offset weakness in the manufacturing industry...
    The number of people employed in the manufacturing sector fell by 3,000 last month from a month earlier, as a weaker outlook amid global economic uncertainties drove down demand for workers...

    However, demand in the service sector remained buoyant, with the number of employed in the wholesale and retail industries rising by 5,000 last month, statistics showed.
    When bonuses and other forms of compensation were factored in, the average salary last year climbed 2.73 percent from a year ago to $45,642, marking the highest level in history...

    more at TaipeiTimes.com, Feb 23, 2012

    Boom times. Anybody know who it is we're 'serving' in this 'service' economy?

    We are tracking Taiwan's economy now? (none / 0) (#41)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Wed Feb 22, 2012 at 03:24:55 PM EST
    What's the relevance?

    The Missing Memo (none / 0) (#2)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Wed Feb 22, 2012 at 12:26:59 PM EST
    Obama's options were stimulus of $500-900 billion.

    They didn't formally propose to him the higher options:


    This is key because although Krugman and others were calling for more, he tasked his team with telling him what the real, vetted options were and he was committed to choosing one of the options his experts proposed (he chose the highest option).

    Interesting footnote in that history.

    Vetted by Larry Summers (5.00 / 0) (#5)
    by Edger on Wed Feb 22, 2012 at 12:52:34 PM EST
    Cool. The New Republic is great!

    The buck stops where? (5.00 / 2) (#7)
    by observed on Wed Feb 22, 2012 at 01:22:53 PM EST
    Yes, the options vetted by his team of people (5.00 / 2) (#18)
    by ruffian on Wed Feb 22, 2012 at 01:55:51 PM EST
    he hand picked for their compatibility with his own comfort zone.

    Much like he himself only proposes things he thinks have a good chance of passing Congress, I'm sure his advisers only put things on the table that they think he will like.

    No surprise that they all think alike. And they were all wrong.


    Well, the excuses never seem to go (5.00 / 3) (#23)
    by Anne on Wed Feb 22, 2012 at 02:02:36 PM EST
    missing, do they?

    When you write of "real, vetted options," are we to understand that the only acceptable vetting was that done by Summers?  

    And, tell me, what would be the consequence if Obama had rejected the Summers memo?  A massive Summers temper tantrum?  Ooooh, scary.

    I do think Obama got bad advice, that he was not well-served by most of his so-called advisors, but the fact remains that they were his choices.  Putting a smart woman like Cristina Romer in the same arena as Larry Summers, given his history, was either incredibly stupid, or the Romer hire was never intended to be more than window-dressing ("hey, my economic team can't be all men - I need someone with breasts") to score points.

    Maybe that's why she gave up trying to have a voice and left the administration.

    But she did weigh in, she did try to be heard - and she had solid and sound reasons for the numbers she suggested; it is to Obama's discredit that Summers was the gatekeeper, that Obama failed to listen to Romer when she tried to be heard, and it is to the extreme discredit of the entire economic team that they failed to support or listen to Romer.

    But Romer should not have allowed herself to be so marginalized, either.

    From the Scheiber piece:

    Peter Orszag, the incoming budget director, agreed in retrospect that the figure should have been included in Obama's memo even though Orszag personally opposed the larger number. "I think there's a basic principle that if a senior member of the economic team wants something presented to the president, it should be presented--with the pros and cons," he said. "I do not think it's the role of the economic team to play politics."

    But Romer was reluctant to second-guess Summers on political questions in light of his imposing government résumé. She protested, but dropped the matter when Summers held firm.

    When the economic team finally walked through the contents of the memo with the president-elect on December 16, Romer mentioned her preference for over a trillion dollars. Summers allowed that bigger would be better. But these points were made in passing.

    Whatever behind-the-scenes power-tripping nonsense was going on, the end result was, the number was too low.  

    And Obama was in waaaaaay over his head.


    Well (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by lilburro on Wed Feb 22, 2012 at 03:01:18 PM EST
    I don't know why you want to believe Obama only read this memo and only made decisions based on this memo.  What happened happened but I don't think he came up with the number he did because he had never heard of any other numbers or was unaware that there was debate about higher numbers.

    I think he was aware (none / 0) (#42)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Wed Feb 22, 2012 at 03:28:21 PM EST
    but this is just a factual point in the narrative. The point being that his most trusted advisors gave him a range and he actually choose the highest numbers in the range. I am sure that he heard plenty of projections, but the president doesn't sift through Krugman columns.  He hires people who know what they are doing to present him a range of possible choices out of all of the analysis and chatter.

    In any event, there were stories out there that suggested he chose the middle or lower of the ranges presented to him.


    Obama absolutely knew that the higher, (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by Anne on Wed Feb 22, 2012 at 03:53:49 PM EST
    $1.2 trillion, number was the best one - and so did Summers and other of his trusted advisors; the article says as much, and do did Obama when he discussed the proposal made to the Congress - that the $1.2 trillion number was the ideal, but it couldn't get through the Congress, so they were going with the smaller, $800+ billion number in hope that the concession would engender more cooperation from Republicans.

    They all knew the number they settled for was too low, but the mistake they made was operating from a position of weakness, and a belief that if the Congress rejected their best number, no deal would get done at all - which was just ludicrous; everyone knew a stimulus deal was going to get done - it had to get done.

    So, you can take the 11-dimensional, brilliant-politician approach and say that Obama let slip that he had made a pre-negotiation concession to the GOP so that he could get the number he wanted all along, but given that even Larry Summers knew, and told Obama, that the higher number would be more effective in getting the economy moving, and he was not alone in that belief, the decision to go with the $800+ billion wasn't based on expert economic advice, but political calculation.

    We know that what Obama wanted, right out of the gate, was a win - and that's what the lower number gave him.  We'll never know what might have happened if he had gone to bat for the best economic plan, but that's kind of Obama's pattern - he goes for political wins, not policy wins.

    And it shows.


    [Yawn] (none / 0) (#51)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Wed Feb 22, 2012 at 05:14:20 PM EST
    Obama always made the wrong choice about everything no matter what the issue and never did anything in his miserable life right ever.


    The good news: Russ Feingold, like you, thinks that Obama has been a terrible failure and a complete betrayer of everything progressive and has decided to mount an aggressive campaign against Obama's conservative ways by becoming a co-chair of Obama's national re-election campaign.

    Because doggone it, that's how angry real progressives like Feingold are with this gun toting, Foxnews favorite, Barack Obama.

    This is all very, very hilarious to me.


    What Feingold Said (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Wed Feb 22, 2012 at 05:24:19 PM EST
    "The thing that confuses me is how people can wonder how, if you agree with someone 95 percent of the time and you are open about your disagreements with the person, that means that you wouldn't want to support him. I appreciate the fact that we have a really intelligent and thoughtful President. And he understands that he and I disagree with things. It would come as no surprise to him that I would disagree with him on those issues even though I think he's not only been a good president but I think by the end of this he's going to be a great president, especially on international policy."

    - Russ Feingold, Progressive Supporter of Barack Obama and Possessor of Much Common Sense


    Feingold said it? (5.00 / 2) (#56)
    by NYShooter on Wed Feb 22, 2012 at 05:48:31 PM EST
    Well then, That takes the pressure off of me to watch, read, observe, and analyze what's taking place in order to make up my own mind as to what is the truth, and what is political chicanery.

    As long as Feingold said it............


    Last year (none / 0) (#63)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Wed Feb 22, 2012 at 07:39:07 PM EST
    feingold was held out as a legitimate progressive whose opinions and statements should be respected.

    That respect lasted as long as he served to make the point people wanted him to make.  

    Now he's  a party man like all the others.

    All we need is Bernie Sanders endorsing Obama to make him a sellout secret conservative too.

    Oh wait a second

    "SANDERS: Well, President Obama is I believe strong to be candidate. I believe in President Obama begins the fight of the working family in this country, show working people that he's going to stand up to big money interest. I think he will win this election and I look forward very much to supporting him."

    Yup, just as we all expected.  Bernie Sanders, sellout, conservative, party hack following the will of the overseers.

    Is no one immune to the conservative spell woven by Obama?  Well we know the answer.  The righteous are here to speak the one and only truth, and if you don't agree, you are blind.

    Can I get a witness?


    Maybe someday, when pigs fly, perhaps, (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by Anne on Wed Feb 22, 2012 at 08:05:39 PM EST
    you will understand that most of us are forming our opinions not on what a Russ Feingold says, or a Bernie Sanders says, or [fill in the blank] says, but on what's inside of us, what we believe in - that's the metric above all else.

    These are politicians above all else, and they are masters of positioning themselves to further their interests.  These are the authors of more sternly-worded letters than we can shake a stick at - letters and press conferences that were full of sound and fury, and often followed by quiet votes that fell in line, shrugged shoulders and regretful faces that bemoaned their inability to do more.

    We keep trying, or I at least have tried, to tell you this on so many occasions; telling me what Russ Feingold thinks is interesting, but has nothing to do with me.  Should we agree, well, what a happy coincidence.

    Sometimes you remind me of the kid who keeps trying to convince his parents that they should let him do something because Joey's parents think it's okay, and Billy's dad is okay with it, and so is Bobby's - well, maybe that worked on your parents, but it's not working here.

    But, seriously, if Bernie Sanders thinks Obama's going to stand up to big money interests, I think Bernie's been smoking something; maybe he should pass it around so we can all share in that delusion...sheesh.


    Hold on a minute Anne (5.00 / 2) (#72)
    by jbindc on Thu Feb 23, 2012 at 08:36:08 AM EST
    We may not base our opinions on what Russ Feingold says or what Bernie Danders says, but I think the real question that has to be asked is WWHD? (What would Hillary do?)



    Anne (none / 0) (#65)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Thu Feb 23, 2012 at 02:02:32 AM EST
    I get your point but in a discussion of opinions where two sides are unable to see each others perspective, the opinion of a respected third party should have some sway.

    I respect Feingold a great deal so when he blasted Obama on the PACs it meant something.  I listened.  I disagreed with BTD vehemently on the Deal for tax cuts, but his vocal opposition to it gave me pause because I respected his opinion. It made me critically evaluate my position.

    You, however, fit your sources and references around the narrative so that if someone you have referenced many times suddenly makes a point against your position, that person's opinion is no longer valid on that issue.

    In my profession, it is not enough to form an opinion and demand that others see the logic of it in a vacuum.  You set forth your position and support it with references to respected sources.

    It is the difference between unsupported self generated logic and a supported, defensible position.

    You are completely within your rights to disregard the statements of people you have relied upon for support in the past.

    But I am completely within my right to point out the hypocrisy of your selective use of sources that only back up your position.  There is no winner because we aren't in a battle or contest.

    But there is a more supportable position.  If you are going to now say sanders, who I believe you have specifically referenced before, is no longer to be listened to, the superior argument is obvious to any one objectively reading our back and forth.


    Your copy/paste (5.00 / 3) (#66)
    by Edger on Thu Feb 23, 2012 at 03:59:51 AM EST
    of the Sanders quote up above there is from the CNN rush transcript. It contains errors and omitted words which alter the meaning of what he said. That happens often - it's why they are called rush transcripts. They are done in a hurry and not verified before publishing.

    This what you posted in your comment up above...

    "SANDERS: Well, President Obama is I believe strong to be candidate. I believe in President Obama begins the fight of the working family in this country, show working people that he's going to stand up to big money interest. I think he will win this election and I look forward very much to supporting him."

    Crooks and Liars has the video as well as the transcript, on this page, so you can listen, read, compare, and get the correct quote.

    This is what Sanders says in the video...

    Well, President Obama is I believe going to be a strong candidate. I think IF President Obama begins the fight for the working families in this country, shows working people that he's going to stand up to big money interests I think he's going win this election and I look forward very much to supporting him.

    Sanders hopes to see Obama doing something that will win him Sanders support. He does not say that Obama is doing that. He says IF Obama does that something then Sanders will support him.


    Thanks for posting that, Edger; it (5.00 / 2) (#67)
    by Anne on Thu Feb 23, 2012 at 07:07:57 AM EST
    explains my reaction that Bernie must have been smoking something - but what's funny is that it wasn't even a "hmmmm" moment for ABG; all he saw was "Bernie Sanders supports Obama," and I'm guessing he couldn't get here fast enough to throw it in our faces.

    Haste, as they say, makes waste - or makes people look foolish, perhaps.

    Perfect example of someone who never goes below the surface, but then, neither do millions of other people, so I suppose he has plenty of company.

    In his criticism that I selectively choose sources that support my opinions - there might be just a little projection there on his part, I think - what he misses is that generally, what I try to bring here isn't just some politician or pundit or blogger giving his or her opinion about all-things-Obama, but someone providing more information and details about legislation and events and policies and decisions and actions, so that people's opinions can be better informed.  What does the legislation actually provide, what groups or people did the president or members of Congress meet with before such-and-such deal was done, who's changing his or her vote and why, what aren't we being told about this or that - these are the things I want to know, and they're things I think everyone should know - not just so they can be better informed, but because what we aren't being told, what is being kept from us, how shallow the media coverage is - these things are important to understanding what's going on.  It's important to understand which politicians are shining us on today, and why.

    I bring that kind of stuff here because getting past the headlines and stenography is how I shape my own opinions - with information, not by seeing which politician says what I want to hear.

    It's too bad ABG doesn't know the difference, eh?  Any minute now, I expect he'll be bringing Andrew Sullivan by for a visit...


    Funny that mr. guy (5.00 / 3) (#70)
    by Edger on Thu Feb 23, 2012 at 08:16:20 AM EST
    didn't provide a link to his source for the quote, isn't it?

    I have a standard thing I do when I need to find the source of something that looks like it makes no sense - I put part of the first sentence of it in quotes and google it, like this...

    "President Obama is I believe strong to be candidate"

    This sentence read out loud sounds like something maybe a back alley Russian wodka connoisseur  might say while thumping his chest with his fist.

    "Obama strong like bull! Me support him!"

    It sure doesn't sound like Bernie Sanders. ;-)


    Ha! Yeah, it all sounded off to me, (5.00 / 1) (#71)
    by Anne on Thu Feb 23, 2012 at 08:30:52 AM EST
    and the lack of a link was a red flag - I just didn't take it to the next level like you did and Google it - and I often do that, especially with the stuff ABG asserts, because I just don't trust him; too many times he leaves out the context, which, if provided, wouldn't make the points he wants the excerpted material to make.

    He's great isn't he? I love abg. (none / 0) (#73)
    by Edger on Thu Feb 23, 2012 at 08:39:04 AM EST
    I get more good belly laughs out of reading his comments than from almost anyone else, except maybe ppj? ;-)

    Here is the link to the quote (none / 0) (#76)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Fri Feb 24, 2012 at 10:29:23 AM EST
    Of course I altered nothing

    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2011/12/12/interview_with_senator_bernie_sanders_112390.ht ml

    Bottom line: if sanders endorses Obama my point remains.  


    So, you've read these words: (5.00 / 2) (#77)
    by Anne on Fri Feb 24, 2012 at 02:37:33 PM EST
    "SANDERS: Well, President Obama is I believe strong to be candidate. I believe in President Obama begins the fight of the working family in this country, show working people that he's going to stand up to big money interest. I think he will win this election and I look forward very much to supporting him."

    and you actually believe this is what Sanders said? That his syntax is broken-English level?

    Once more, with feeling:  

    President Obama is I believe strong to be candidate
    And again:  
    I believe in President Obama begins the fight of the working family in this country.

    Hey, I guess if CNN says that's what he said, then it must be so - do you know if Blitzer called 911 to report that Sanders might be having a stroke because he was speaking as if he and Borat were BFF's?

    How about if you watch the interview, and tell us if CNN got it right?  Start listening at about 6:12 of the video, here.  

    Come on, ABG - CNN clearly got it wrong; can't you even admit that much?

    You point is that Sanders looks like he's going to support Obama - at least over two months ago, when the interview took place.  Sanders is entitled to support whomever he wants, for reasons that make sense to him, but do you have anything more current?

    Because, in my opinion, the day Obama stands up to the big money interests will be the day pigs take flight.  And maybe the reason you don't have anything more current to offer is that Sanders may have reached the same conclusion.


    That makes much more sense ... (5.00 / 3) (#69)
    by Yman on Thu Feb 23, 2012 at 07:44:51 AM EST
    ... than the "quote" that ABG posted - it was hard to figure out what he was saying.

    Not that it makes a single bit of difference from ABG's perspective.


    Depends on what the meaning of is is (none / 0) (#74)
    by vicndabx on Thu Feb 23, 2012 at 02:30:08 PM EST
    You put the "if" in caps as though Bernie Sanders emphasized that when speaking and he didn't.  It doesn't sound like his support is conditional upon the president doing something at all.  His body language and word emphasis is the total opposite IMO.

    (quote begins at around 6 minutes)


    Feingold said that?!? REALLY?!? (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by Yman on Wed Feb 22, 2012 at 07:31:11 PM EST
    (yawn) ...

    Russ Feingold (none / 0) (#61)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Wed Feb 22, 2012 at 07:05:08 PM EST
    is a good party boy just like you.

    He just does a better job of pretending otherwise occasionally.


    Well, (none / 0) (#75)
    by lilburro on Fri Feb 24, 2012 at 12:57:50 AM EST
    based on Rahm's reaction to Krugman (I don't remember the exact words, but it was more or less eff that guy, he doesn't know what he's talking about, he's not in govt, blah blah blah) I think the Admin was actually sifting through Krugman columns.  Not that I would want newspaper columns to be the basis of policy, of course.  

    I just don't see that this memo absolves Obama of bungling the stimulus.  I think based on "Recovery Summer" and other Administration PR efforts they really thought it would work.  I think it's more a question of political willingness through the past 3.25 years more than anything else.  Additional stimulus, payroll tax cuts v. other stimulus, all those things and the political process that shaped them aren't changed by this one memo.  I think if you can go too far in seeing Obama as the source of all suffering, you can certainly go too far in seeing him as absolved of all fault.

    I hope he gets re-elected for another 4 years.  Whether he does or he doesn't, though, I have a hard time seeing how managing the economy will be his legacy.  That'll go to a number of other items (a fairly long list), a firm hand on advancing LGBT rights, and hopefully, health care and financial reform, if they work.  I think he'll also be remembered for being remarkably good at foreign policy (I really do feel so much safer now that he's in office), and that includes bin Laden, of course.  

    I just think it's hard to avoid the mess, and understandable mess - he did not himself run the economy into the ground - of the economic policy.


    They didn't "formally" propose - heh (5.00 / 2) (#44)
    by Yman on Wed Feb 22, 2012 at 03:32:58 PM EST
    Oh, ... well .... if they didn't formally propose the higher options.



    Happy Ash Wednesday (none / 0) (#6)
    by CST on Wed Feb 22, 2012 at 01:13:20 PM EST
    to all the Catholics on TL.

    If I ever forget how Catholic Boston is, this day comes around once a year to remind me.  Every third person I've seen today is wearing ashes.

    It's also (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by CoralGables on Wed Feb 22, 2012 at 01:39:16 PM EST
    National Margarita Day, so for Lent this once upon a time catholic is giving up Lent and serving up margaritas later tonight.

    Now you're talking... (5.00 / 2) (#15)
    by kdog on Wed Feb 22, 2012 at 01:46:23 PM EST
    Make that two giving up Lent for Lent, I like my 'ritas extra salty!

    And don't be giving up (none / 0) (#33)
    by CoralGables on Wed Feb 22, 2012 at 02:22:25 PM EST
    your Knicks for lent. At least not until after they get bashed Thursday night. Cheapest courtside ticket on Stubhub for the Heat/Knicks is $6471.00. Think I'll watch on TNT for free.

    First things first... (none / 0) (#38)
    by kdog on Wed Feb 22, 2012 at 02:59:28 PM EST
    Atlanta Hawks in town to close out the homestand tonight...need to get a W for some momentum before facing the mighty Heat, after Deron went absolutely ballistic on us Monday.

    Giving up abstinence (5.00 / 3) (#21)
    by ruffian on Wed Feb 22, 2012 at 01:57:35 PM EST
    I like it!

    Sign me up! (5.00 / 3) (#24)
    by caseyOR on Wed Feb 22, 2012 at 02:07:39 PM EST
    Giving up abstinence for Lent sounds like an excellent plan. Perhaps you would like to join my religious study group Distilling Spirits: a Gift from Heaven.

    Membership is open. An acquaintance with various gins is a prerequisite. Exceptions can and will be made for anyone with an interest in the subject matter and a willingness to explore.


    this could get dangerous (5.00 / 3) (#27)
    by CST on Wed Feb 22, 2012 at 02:13:26 PM EST
    give me enough gin and pretty soon I'll be giving up celibacy for lent too.

    I heard Santorum (none / 0) (#8)
    by KeysDan on Wed Feb 22, 2012 at 01:27:53 PM EST
    asked to be immersed in a vat of ashes.

    Not just Catholics (none / 0) (#9)
    by Zorba on Wed Feb 22, 2012 at 01:32:05 PM EST
    Lots of Episcopalians, Lutherans, and even other Protestant denominations observe this.

    shows how much (none / 0) (#11)
    by CST on Wed Feb 22, 2012 at 01:34:43 PM EST
    I know.

    Happy Ash Wednesday to all those that practice Ash Wednesday!


    'Appreciate your consideration, CST (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by christinep on Wed Feb 22, 2012 at 03:30:03 PM EST
    Actually, the psychology/dynamic involved with Lent can be quite liberating. One of the best "give ups"--for those around me & for my health--was giving up smoking on Ash Wesnesday 1993. The psychology: Lots easier than giving up a bad habit on New Years or your birthday or whatever, because--with Lent--it only lasts six weeks; and, if taken a day at a time, everything becomes doable...and, by the end of six weeks, it seems downright dumb to go back to doing what you didn't want to do & tried to stop anyway. ('Haven't touched a cigarette since.)

    Also: Maybe I didn't notice it so much before, but there has been a lot of emphasis in recent years to observe Lent by DOING GOOD.  Looking inward & discovering what you should be doing in the way of "good or helpful to others" can be quite challenging...but, then, it is meant to be.  So, today, I'm still thinking.  


    In the Eastern Orthodox tradition, (5.00 / 3) (#48)
    by Zorba on Wed Feb 22, 2012 at 04:58:34 PM EST
    Great Lent has always been a time of reflection and "doing good."  The "three legs of the stool" of Orthodox Christian Lent have always been prayer, fasting (and not just from meat, but also from bad habits, bad behavior, and bad thought) and alms-giving, including any kind of charity or helping those more unfortunate than we are.  Those, and asking for forgiveness from whomever you may have offended.  And in the spirit of Great Lent, Christine, I ask your forgiveness for the times I may have offended you in the past.  May you go in peace.  

    Zorba, you have helped make this a (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by christinep on Wed Feb 22, 2012 at 05:13:15 PM EST
    truly beautiful day and a good start to a season of promise. Let us forgive each other.  And, Peace with your spirit.

    Peace be with you (none / 0) (#54)
    by Zorba on Wed Feb 22, 2012 at 05:33:17 PM EST
    as well, and with your spirit.

    Have always found that (none / 0) (#52)
    by christinep on Wed Feb 22, 2012 at 05:15:19 PM EST
    film/stories that can merge laughter & tears tell so much. Thanks, Donald.

    Apparently (none / 0) (#16)
    by jbindc on Wed Feb 22, 2012 at 01:47:25 PM EST
    Here in DC, there was a guy outside the McPherson Square metro stop giving out ashes.  Don't know what purpose that would serve - if you are a believer, then 1 hour (or less) in mass to get the "real thing" won't kill you, and if you don't believe anyway, then what's the point?  Who are you trying to fool?

    Back in High School... (5.00 / 0) (#20)
    by kdog on Wed Feb 22, 2012 at 01:56:58 PM EST
    I'd ash my own forehead just so the sisters & brothers wouldn't give me sh*t about skipping mass...maybe they're rehabilitated Catholics caving to family or peer pressure?

    Maybe, in this political climate (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by KeysDan on Wed Feb 22, 2012 at 02:12:32 PM EST
    citizens feel it is wise to couple their American flag lapel pins with the ashes.

    Well, if I see anyone with a flag pin (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by Anne on Wed Feb 22, 2012 at 02:21:04 PM EST
    jammed into the middle of his or her forehead, we'll know the bishops have gone a wee bit too far...

    saw that too (none / 0) (#17)
    by CST on Wed Feb 22, 2012 at 01:52:29 PM EST
    Stop in for some quick ashes!  They were outside of a church though, and wearing church garb, so maybe they were hoping people would feel guilty and go in?