Friday Morning Open Thread

Jon BonJovi, the best face in rock and roll, turns 50. Since I'm sure I'm his biggest fan west of the Mississippi, I just have to play one of my favorite songs, "We Weren't Born to Follow." Hit the full screen button and watch the great collage of images. (I know them all by heart.)

"Walking beside the guilty and the innocent
How will you raise your hand when they call your name?"

This is an open thread, all topics welcome.

< AG Provides Details of Jerry Sandusky's Alleged Sexual Assaults | Perrish Cox: Not Guilty Verdict >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Tom Tomorrow (5.00 / 0) (#2)
    by Edger on Fri Mar 02, 2012 at 07:59:51 AM EST
    weighs in on insecure power mad men.

    Limbaugh calls female, GU law student ... (5.00 / 5) (#3)
    by Yman on Fri Mar 02, 2012 at 08:11:00 AM EST
    ... a "slut" and a "prostitute" for testifying re: the need for affordable birth control.  Then he doubles down, asking her "Who bought your condoms in sixth grade?" and offering to purchase "all the women at Georgetown University as much aspirin to put between their knees as possible."

    What a pathetic excuse for a man.

    And there is more... (5.00 / 2) (#6)
    by kdog on Fri Mar 02, 2012 at 08:40:01 AM EST
    the double double down...

    "So Miss Fluke, and the rest of you Feminazis, here's the deal," Limbaugh said on his radio show Thursday. "If we are going to pay for your contraceptives, and thus pay for you to have sex, we want something for it. We want you to post the videos online so we can all watch."

    The half a man's perverted obsession with this issue is downright creepy.  


    No doubt - pass the loofah (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by Yman on Fri Mar 02, 2012 at 09:34:30 AM EST
    Her response was the correct one:

       We are fortunate to live in a democracy where everyone is entitled to their own opinions regarding legitimate policy differences. Unfortunately, numerous commentators have gone far beyond the acceptable bounds of civil discourse.

        No woman deserves to be disrespected in this manner. This language is an attack on all women, and has been used throughout history to silence our voices.

        The millions of American women who have and will continue to speak out in support of women's health care and access to contraception prove that we will not be silenced.

    OTOH - part of me would love to see her call him out publicly and dare him to meet with her publicly and make those accusations to her face.  Yeah - it plays into his motive of making outrageous comments for publicity's sake - but it would be fun to watch the coward backpedal.


    I wouldn't wanna subject any woman... (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by kdog on Fri Mar 02, 2012 at 10:13:48 AM EST
    to being within 25 feet of this perv...he might start drooling and leering and playing pocket pool.

    I was reading about this just now (5.00 / 2) (#17)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Mar 02, 2012 at 09:44:04 AM EST
    I can't imagine that his wife sleeps with him.  The idea of it disgusts me.  It would be like bathing in slime.

    Ewww! Limbaugh is married? (5.00 / 0) (#22)
    by caseyOR on Fri Mar 02, 2012 at 09:51:50 AM EST
    There is a woman on this earth who agreed to marry that guy? It boggles the mind.

    I just looked it up. Limbaugh (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by caseyOR on Fri Mar 02, 2012 at 09:54:27 AM EST
    has somehow persuaded four different women to marry him. He married his first in 1977, and is currently married to the fourth.

    Four women. I'm, I'm, speechless.


    Many divorces (5.00 / 2) (#25)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Mar 02, 2012 at 09:58:01 AM EST
    His new spouse is very pretty.  How does she do it?  Ugh!  Gross! Retch! Gag!

    The divorces I understand. What woman (5.00 / 2) (#26)
    by caseyOR on Fri Mar 02, 2012 at 10:00:41 AM EST
    wouldn't divorce him? It's the original decision to marry him that confounds me, and kind of grosses me out.

    Self hatred (none / 0) (#27)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Mar 02, 2012 at 10:02:59 AM EST
    For money? (none / 0) (#28)
    by Edger on Fri Mar 02, 2012 at 10:03:27 AM EST
    For money? Surely not .... (5.00 / 2) (#52)
    by Peter G on Fri Mar 02, 2012 at 11:33:03 AM EST
    That would maker his wife a "prostitute" and a "slut," wouldn't it?

    Not in Rush's mind, cuz (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Mar 02, 2012 at 12:19:03 PM EST
    She isn't doing it for free.  In the he man woman haters club free=slut and charging=whore.  Either way you lose, you were doomed at conception.  Your sin was being born female, your sin original.

    Limbaugh is a very sick person (5.00 / 1) (#128)
    by MKS on Fri Mar 02, 2012 at 07:41:32 PM EST
    I was going to say sick "man" (5.00 / 2) (#131)
    by MKS on Fri Mar 02, 2012 at 08:00:06 PM EST
    But he is no man.

    Karen Finney on MSNBC called Romney a "coward" for not condemning Limbaugh....

    Put all conservatives on record regarding this.....


    Heh. I'm sure (none / 0) (#53)
    by Edger on Fri Mar 02, 2012 at 11:37:43 AM EST
    he'd find it in his heart to forgive her. ;-)

    Good guess... (none / 0) (#31)
    by kdog on Fri Mar 02, 2012 at 10:15:19 AM EST
    I mean there are all kinds, so who knows...but I am forced to think it is his money that has been married multiple times.

    Maybe it is the money. At least for wives 2-4. (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by caseyOR on Fri Mar 02, 2012 at 10:18:44 AM EST
    I don't think he had any money in '77 when he first married.

    I've got to say, though, that if I was straight, there would be no amount of money that could persuade me to get within 100 feet of that man.


    Some people (none / 0) (#32)
    by Edger on Fri Mar 02, 2012 at 10:16:44 AM EST
    will do anything for it, I guess...

    I understand why he might (none / 0) (#34)
    by brodie on Fri Mar 02, 2012 at 10:21:50 AM EST
    have been able to find four women, particularly after his financial success, but I always thought Elton John was a non sellout of firm liberal principles.  What was up with that?

    Agreed, and I also (none / 0) (#38)
    by KeysDan on Fri Mar 02, 2012 at 10:28:42 AM EST
    found it questionable  that Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas officiated for marriage number two--and at Clarence and Ginny's house.

    Elton John was very disappointing (none / 0) (#127)
    by MKS on Fri Mar 02, 2012 at 07:40:58 PM EST
    I hope Sandra Fluke, the Georgetown Univ. (5.00 / 4) (#35)
    by KeysDan on Fri Mar 02, 2012 at 10:23:36 AM EST
    law student, considers a defamation civil suit against Rush. Ms. Fluke is a private citizen, not a government official or an otherwise public person.  The named and personalized characterization could be shown to be false, malicious and intended to portray  her in a negative manner.  Rush would claim that his remarks were his brand of comedy, but it seems to cross into slander.

    As I noted, I hope she is (none / 0) (#113)
    by KeysDan on Fri Mar 02, 2012 at 04:23:29 PM EST
    considering her legal options.  Of course, it would not be easy, no litigation is.  She also is still a student and that, too, might factor into her consideration.  However, I do believe Ms. Fluke could posit a strong case.  I have no knowledge of her personal life but transporting a 30-year old woman, nun or not,  to a national and public characterization of slut and prostitute is a bridge to somewhere--a potential defamation suit.  

    Ms. Fluke appears committed to women's health issues, having been an organizer for Catholic Students for Women's Health.  Moreover, being a leader on women's reproductive health at a Catholic institution, albeit a Jesuit one,  augurs well for the courage necessary to withstand the inevitable rush from Limbaugh.

    Limbaugh has deep pockets, for sure,  but I doubt that Rush wold relish this kind of  legal case. But,  winning or settling a case in Ms. Flukes favor would be one small step for womankind.  These are, of course, just my thoughts.  


    Slander lawsuits can be tricky (none / 0) (#126)
    by MKS on Fri Mar 02, 2012 at 07:39:14 PM EST
    The defense would be it was just opinion based on public facts and just parody.....

    And, the depo of the Ms. Fluke would be horrid.


    Obama calls law student ... (5.00 / 1) (#111)
    by Yman on Fri Mar 02, 2012 at 03:52:23 PM EST
    ... Sandra Fluke to offer his support, and Limbaugh makes more juvenile comments:

    On his nationally syndicated show, Limbaugh made a "kissing noise with his lips," ABC News reported, and said of Obama, "What a great guy. ... What is she 30 years old?"

    Which is also kinda funny, considering Limbaugh's 4th wife is 26 years younger than Rush.


    Good for the President (5.00 / 4) (#133)
    by Towanda on Fri Mar 02, 2012 at 08:21:13 PM EST
    for that.  This is how to use the bully pulpit against a bully like Limbaugh.  Impressive of Obama -- but as a dad of daughters, I would bet that this situation really reached his heart.

    Boehner calls Rush's comments ... (none / 0) (#69)
    by Yman on Fri Mar 02, 2012 at 01:15:09 PM EST
    ... "inappropriate", while as are DCCC references to his comments in a fundraising email:

    "The speaker obviously believes the use of those words was inappropriate, as is trying to raise money off the situation," Boehner spokesman Michael Steel said in a statement.

    Yet other wingers are defending Limbaugh's comments - Erick Erickson, Mona Charen, Tina Korbe, Brent Baker, Jim Hoft, Todd Starnes, ...


    Bog Orange has a petition to advertisers (none / 0) (#71)
    by ruffian on Fri Mar 02, 2012 at 01:23:40 PM EST
    here. Worth signing. One big advertiser has already dropped rush. Could he finally have gone too far? I sure hope so.

    Good to see (none / 0) (#90)
    by Yman on Fri Mar 02, 2012 at 02:39:26 PM EST
    Looks like he's lost Sleep Train and Sleep Number.

    Hopefully, just the first of many.


    Can't say I care enough... (none / 0) (#82)
    by kdog on Fri Mar 02, 2012 at 02:20:43 PM EST
    to wanna do something about the hate clown...I'm content just ridiculing him..

    And I fully support his right to spout all the vile nonsense his wicked little heart desires.


    I also support his 1st Amend right ... (5.00 / 3) (#91)
    by Yman on Fri Mar 02, 2012 at 02:42:36 PM EST
    ... to spew his vile garbage - at least free from government interference.  That being said, I also support the right of people to call him on his bull$hit and advertisers to pull their advertising money, as well as the right for the subjects of his comments to sue his @ss for defamation/slander.

    What was the line that Tobie used on West Wing (5.00 / 1) (#115)
    by Farmboy on Fri Mar 02, 2012 at 04:44:42 PM EST
    in a similar situation? Something about jerks having the right to spew their garbage, but they didn't have a right to spew it on the public's airwaves.

    Indeed... (none / 0) (#94)
    by kdog on Fri Mar 02, 2012 at 02:47:14 PM EST
    he's far more deserving of that kinda free speech boycott solution than say Ellen Degeneres.

    If I were the young lady I'd pass on the lawsuit, for the reasons Donald mentioned and for the simple reason she'd have to keep thinking about Rush F*ckin' Limbaugh...not sure any potential award is worth that mess;)

    Besides, everybody except the dittoheads already knows Rush has only slandered and defamed his own perverted self with his own words(again), and nobody else.


    He has the right (5.00 / 1) (#92)
    by ruffian on Fri Mar 02, 2012 at 02:44:17 PM EST
    to speak, and we have the right to alert his advertisers that the way they are spending their money is offensive.

    I am especially on hair trigger this week (5.00 / 2) (#101)
    by ruffian on Fri Mar 02, 2012 at 03:03:52 PM EST
    after having a go-around with my rightie sister-in-law, who eats all this stuff right up. I never listen to Rush myself, but just knowing he is out their polluting the minds of otherwise well meaning people is sometimes too much to take.

    He is not some sincere guy trying to make the world a better place, however much I disagree with him on what that looks like. He is just a clown making a boatload of money by stirring up s***.


    They got me last night (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Mar 02, 2012 at 08:23:48 AM EST
    Went to Dothan for an allergy shot alone, saw a new restaurant and decided to stop there for dinner and pick something to go for spouse and Josh.  There was a large group of ladies in my age range sitting near me.  They were having drinks, so getting louder.

    Did you know that President Obama is behind the price of gasoline, that he wants gas to be sky high so that ALL OF US have to give up our gas powered cars ASAP and drive those electric cars around?  It is a secret conspiracy.

    It's the most absurd thing I've heard in our precarious financial situation, no President in an election year facing this economic situation would do such a thing.  The notion is ridiculous.

    Then I get home and hear that the Virginia Senate did pass that an abortion ultrasound will stay in your medical file for 7 years as proof of your baby hating and to shame you, and I just crashed in a manic sort of way.

    I did get out my pasta machine for polymer clay though and I made new canes until 2:00 a.m.  You can really crank on that machine right now living in Bama.  It is very hard on me right now to be living here with this President facing reelection.  I can't believe the things people are saying in public right now.  The hatred is huge, and it just feels like Southern Conservatives are so angry that they want kill someone, they want to hurt someone....anyone.

    Can't imagine living there (5.00 / 2) (#5)
    by Yman on Fri Mar 02, 2012 at 08:35:20 AM EST
    Traveled there numerous times when I worked at DOJ - after hearing some of the comments made by people in public and without hesitation, I had to check the calender to verify what decade/century I was in.

    Gotta be hard to bite your tongue some times ...


    Regarding the gas thing... (5.00 / 2) (#7)
    by kdog on Fri Mar 02, 2012 at 08:43:17 AM EST
    I'm sorry to say there is a shred of truth in what the ladies say...not an Obama secret conspiracy by any means, but I've long heard some lefties saying the higher the gas price the better, that we should tax like Europe...and drive working people further to the brink of the poorhouse.

    I'm fine paying European prices (5.00 / 2) (#8)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Mar 02, 2012 at 09:00:27 AM EST
    Once the economy is on track again.  Just because lefties have said such things at different times, it does not mean that that is this President's policy that he is employing.  He's no phucking super lefty, not by my definition :)  Didn't you see Rachel's chart of the Presidents?  Obama is more conservative that JFK, Clinton, Carter....I think he was equal to LBJ.

    What is happening to the price of fuel puts our sputtering economy in grave danger at this point.  And if you want to know why, here is a great blogging voice on the economy explaining why the speculators have all this money at this time said better than I can say.


    Nice link... (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by kdog on Fri Mar 02, 2012 at 09:15:13 AM EST
    Well written in laymen's terms I could understand.

    Fundamental flaws in the entire world economic model coming home to roost...it appears we are totally uber-f*cked.


    Seems like the wrong time to be (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by Anne on Fri Mar 02, 2012 at 11:38:15 AM EST
    going all hard-ass on Iran, though, with comments like this:

    GOLDBERG: Go back to this language, `All options on the table.' You've probably said it 50 or 100 times. And a lot of people believe it, but the two main intended audiences, the supreme leader of Iran and the prime minister of Israel, you could argue, don't entirely trust this. The impression we get is that the Israeli government thinks this is a vague expression that's been used for so many years. Is there some ramping-up of the rhetoric you're going to give them?

    PRESIDENT OBAMA: I think the Israeli people understand it, I think the American people understand it, and I think the Iranians understand it. It means a political component that involves isolating Iran; it means an economic component that involves unprecedented and crippling sanctions; it means a diplomatic component in which we have been able to strengthen the coalition that presents Iran with various options through the P-5 plus 1 and ensures that the IAEA [International Atomic Energy Agency] is robust in evaluating Iran's military program; and it includes a military component. And I think people understand that.

    I think that the Israeli government recognizes that, as president of the United States, I don't bluff. I also don't, as a matter of sound policy, go around advertising exactly what our intentions are. But I think both the Iranian and the Israeli governments recognize that when the United States says it is unacceptable for Iran to have a nuclear weapon, we mean what we say.

    David Dayen:

    Goldberg got out of Obama what Benjamin Netanyahu wanted to get next week - an enunciation of a red line with respect to Iran. That's a dramatic step with real consequences. Kevin Drum is being too cute by half. You cannot talk about the effect of gas prices on elections without talking about the effect of gas prices on the overall economy. While Drum has a defeatist take about constrained oil supply, there isn't any doubt that geopolitics play a big role in the run-up on prices. Heck, the Iranian embargo constrains oil supply. There is a direct line between what Obama said to Jeffrey Goldberg and his own re-election prospects. I'm in no position to be a political counselor to the White House, but you'd think they'd have figured this out on their own. I admit to also having the interest of not seeing a deadly regional war in the Middle East leading to the deaths of tens of thousands, if not more.

    The confluence of a presidential election, a struggling economy, a still-volatile and unstable Iraq/Afghanistan, and the undeniable influence of
    Israel on what happens next is looking more and more to me like the kind of perfect storm that doesn't end well - on any front.  There is way too much saber-rattling going on for my comfort, and the one-note messaging is reminding me way too much of how we ended up in Iraq.

    I would be happy - really, really happy - to be reading this wrong.


    My husband said that the military is beginning (none / 0) (#63)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Mar 02, 2012 at 12:39:56 PM EST
    To become concerned about the situation because Russia is drawing a line in Syria.  They weren't expecting that and don't fully understand why Russia has taken such a hackles raised stance yet.  But if Russia is going to throw fits about us helping Syrians oust Assad, then feelings around Israel hitting Iran aren't easy to predict.  So we must prevent that hit from occurring every way we can.

    But Iran cannot shut down the Strait.  My husband said they don't have the forces or the firepower to do it.


    Syria has long been a proxy for Iran, both (none / 0) (#66)
    by ruffian on Fri Mar 02, 2012 at 12:48:30 PM EST
    Russian client states. Does not seem surprising to me.

    Israel starting something with Iran is the mother of all neo-con dreams.


    Russia is not what Russia once was though (none / 0) (#137)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Mar 04, 2012 at 09:49:58 AM EST
    And as our relationship with Russia improves we work on understanding why they would want to continue onward with some of their old policy surrounding client states.  That has actually changed a lot. My husband says they believe that this recent push is mostly about letting the U.S. know that what Russia thinks still matters and exerting some power.  The United States seems too powerful these days for everyone's taste.

    Good One... (none / 0) (#13)
    by ScottW714 on Fri Mar 02, 2012 at 09:27:17 AM EST
    Obama a lefty...

    Let's not forget who sets gas prices, Wall Street and their never gambling on Crude futures.  Not exactly a raging group of liberals...

    But who cares, it's not like those idiots were going to vote for Obama if gas was free.


    Agreed... (none / 0) (#16)
    by kdog on Fri Mar 02, 2012 at 09:37:48 AM EST
    Obama is no lefty...thats the nonsense part of their rant.  

    Some real lefties wet dream is the highest gas prices imaginable, to force or incentivize people to reduce their pollution of the planet via their tailpipe.  That was my only point...a real lefty might wanna force the real houswives of Dothan into a Volt if they could.  Obama is obviously not this person;)


    While I understand the ideal of attempting to (5.00 / 0) (#29)
    by Farmboy on Fri Mar 02, 2012 at 10:09:25 AM EST
    lower pollution rates via forcing people to buy high-mileage vehicles, the economy of the choice just isn't there. For example the Chevy Volt, built on a Cruze chassis, sells for over $41k. The Cruze sells for $17k.

    Over the course of ten years ownership, and assuming 15k/year mileage in mixed conditions, the Cruze will consume around 4000 gallons of gas. At $4/gallon that's $16k - which is still $8k less than the price difference between the Volt and the Cruze. Gas needs to be $6/gallon just to balance the purchase prices, and this scenario doesn't take the cost of purchasing electricity into consideration, nor the pollution caused by coal plants making the electricity, damage done to the planet to strip mine rare earth elements to make the batteries for the Volt, etc.

    To me, a real leftie would be in favor of helping working class folks get a safe, dependable vehicle that they can afford and serves their needs - or better yet, helps fund mass transit possibilities. Cars like the Volt don't help.


    Farmboy, I particularly like (5.00 / 2) (#70)
    by Zorba on Fri Mar 02, 2012 at 01:20:04 PM EST
    the mass transit suggestion.  This country is so far behind Western Europe in mass transit.  It's okay in many big cities (well, not Los Angeles), but most smaller cities and towns have terrible options.  
    And I like your analysis of costs over the lifetime of the vehicle.  How many people (working class/truly middle class people in particular) can realistically afford $41,000?  Shoot, I'm old enough to remember when that would have been very, very expensive for a house, never mind a car!  And then, as you mentioned, the consequences of the generation of more electricity.  This is something that few people talk about.

    I agree with you that we're behind the rest of (5.00 / 0) (#88)
    by Farmboy on Fri Mar 02, 2012 at 02:32:59 PM EST
    the Western world in mass transit, but out here in flyover land it's really a conundrum. The jobs are in the cities, but the folks who work those jobs live in all sorts of areas: rural, suburbs, and urban.  There is no one-size-fits all mass transit solution for mixed populations, so each day 50k cars flow in and out of downtown Des Moines. As long as the workforce out here is scattered, I don't see how that will change.

    As to the price of cars... 40 years ago the National Average Wage Index was $7,133. As of 2010 it was $41,673. source In 1972 the average price of a domestic car was $4,034 - 56% of the yearly wage. in 2011 it's $30,000 - 72%. source So it is getting worse.

    And yeah, I bought my first house in 1987 for $30k. That's why when I was looking for a new vehicle last summer I picked up a 2008 with low miles. The first owner handled the sticker shock for me, thank you very much, and the Edge is still new-ish.


    not just there (5.00 / 0) (#105)
    by CST on Fri Mar 02, 2012 at 03:18:40 PM EST
    it's everywhere.  The US is poorly designed for Mass transit compared to Europe - and hopefully we will never be in the position Europe is in - because the situation in Europe is that there is almost zero open space and that continent is packed in like sardines.  We have a lot more space and a lot fewer people.  There can be huge upsides to that.  But I would like to see a return to denser cities and small towns from the suburban culture, because frankly it's just poor planning to spread all the urban workers out like that.

    When my G-g-g-whatever-parents hit the Iowa (5.00 / 2) (#114)
    by Farmboy on Fri Mar 02, 2012 at 04:37:27 PM EST
    territory there was lots to do in rural areas. You could crop farm, sure, but you could also mine, mill lumber or grain, raise dairy cattle, be a carpenter, or even get all entrepreneurial and set up a country store at a crossroad. My family has done all of these. Point is, you could make a living and raise a family in a rural area, and that's what my ancestors did.

    During my grandparents' time that life was gone. The mills had moved to the cities, the mines had died out, and nobody was stopping at the little country store anymore as they whizzed by in their newfangled automobuggies. All that was left was farming, and over time farms had to be bigger and bigger just to keep one family going, so Dad took a job at the Ford plant in the city and farmed evenings and weekends. Mom took a run at raising chickens for the eggs, but by the time I was born she too was working in town. And when you can't work where you live, something's wrong.

    Long story short, there was no planning for long-distance commutes when this area was settled. If you really, really had to go to town you could find one about five miles in any direction - a convenient distance for a horse-drawn wagon. But take a fifty mile round trip commute every day? That's just crazy talk.


    Exactly, Farmboy (5.00 / 1) (#116)
    by Zorba on Fri Mar 02, 2012 at 04:51:49 PM EST
    Where I live, very many of the families have lived here for generations.  They could make a living out of farming, and some were craftsmen (they were carpenters or cabinet-makers or barn-builders or tool-makers or had a sawmill, etc).  Nobody up here can make a living out of farming any more.  Many still farm, but it's more of a "side-line" for a bit of extra income- they must have another job just to make ends meet.

    I live 25 miles from my job, which is (none / 0) (#100)
    by Anne on Fri Mar 02, 2012 at 02:58:13 PM EST
    in downtown Baltimore.  We have light rail, bus and Metro subway transportation, as well as the Charm City Circulator, a relatively new bus option that is completely free and operates within for the most part within a small radius of downtown.

    But, here's the problem: I would have to take the light rail as my form of public transportation.  The northern end is 5 miles from my house, so first I have to drive to the station.  Then, I board the train for the ride into town, and it takes a good hour (shoot, it takes 15 minutes from the initial stop to the next one, which is about 3 miles away), because in addition to the regular stops, once it gets into the city, it has to stop at all the red traffic lights.  The stop I would get off at is by Camden Yards, probably close to a mile from the office.  I could try and catch the Circulator, which would get me to a stop in the block where I work, but you never know whether you will wait 5 minutes or 20.

    I did this when it was first open - back when I had to drive closer in to get on the train.  It was and is a form of torture for someone like me who gets motion sick.

    My drive in takes about 30 minutes, and I park in the building where I work; time is also money, and it's less stressful in the end.

    The return trip comes with other problems.  Getting on the train at Camden Yards, you are likely to be sharing it with people you don't dare make eye contact with as you hope they will be getting off before you do.  Because that's the other problem: crime at the stations.  I remember one time having to leave work in the late morning because one of my kids got sick at school, and as I rode on a mostly empty train to a poorly patrolled parking lot, all I could think was, "if someone conks me on the head, no one will know to even look for me for hours."

    We want to get where we want to go quickly, cheaply and as conveniently and safely as possible - and none of the public mass transit options where I live really fit that bill.  For quite a long time, the light rail here wasn't even completely double-tracked, so in the sections where opposing trains had to share a track, you could sit waiting if the other train was running behind.  Not to mention the fun of total breakdown, where you sit on the tracks in a car that has no heat or cooling waiting for them to get buses in to get you the rest of the way.

    Which is probably why, as I see the trains on my drive in and out of the city every day, I note that they are mostly empty, most of the time.


    Unfortunately, Baltimore (5.00 / 1) (#109)
    by Zorba on Fri Mar 02, 2012 at 03:50:14 PM EST
    is not exactly the model for mass transit.  Many long years ago, Mr. Z. and I lived in Boston quite comfortably without a car.  I used the T to get to work, and to school, and it was easy.  We lived in San Francisco, too.  We had a car then, but almost never drove it within the city- we pretty much always took public transit, so much easier (and way cheaper, back then, at least).  I visit New York City a lot- we get around quite well there without a vehicle.  I also used to go to Chicago a lot- easy to get around without a car.  There are cities where this is quite doable, depending upon where you live.  Baltimore is not one of them, unfortunately.  And Washington DC's Metro is not exactly covering itself with glory in recent years, either- prices keep going up and service keeps deteriorating.  Mass transit has to be not just affordable, but convenient and efficient, or nobody will use it.  

    Mass Transit... (none / 0) (#76)
    by kdog on Fri Mar 02, 2012 at 01:56:09 PM EST
    must also be affordable...when they want over 30 bucks for a peak round trip from my ghetto burb on Long Island to NYC on the LIRR, thats not gonna be useful as part of the solution.  22 bucks one way if ya buy the ticket on the train!

    The "discount" monthly pass is going for 334 dollars.  I did a little cost/benefit analysis awhile back and figured out it did not pay to sell the whip and rock mass transit, all things considered.  


    you must have parking (5.00 / 0) (#79)
    by CST on Fri Mar 02, 2012 at 02:12:12 PM EST
    that's the main thing that makes it so much more expensive to drive around here.  Then again I'm on the "T", with a monthly pass that costs $60.

    If I were to drive, the cheaper place to park near my office costs $19 a day.  They may go a little cheaper if you get a monthly spot, but still, that's insanity.  I now have a car so I can use it for days when I have to go on site visits, or grocery shopping, or whatever, but I won't use it to drive to work everyday.  And I hope I never have to.  There's nothing more annoying than driving a car at rush hour.


    Zorba daughter (5.00 / 1) (#84)
    by Zorba on Fri Mar 02, 2012 at 02:23:19 PM EST
    lives in New York City.  She doesn't have a car (and doesn't need one- she walks to work, and if going farther, she takes the subway; on very rare occasions, she takes a taxi).  She basically cannot afford a car.  Not only is the car insurance expensive, she would have to pay for a place to park the d@mned thing, which is very, very expensive.  Yes, the long-term garages are a bit cheaper than the daily/monthly garages, but they're not exactly free.

    Here in DC (none / 0) (#85)
    by jbindc on Fri Mar 02, 2012 at 02:29:41 PM EST
    Parking can be expensive, but you can get "deals" if you come in early (which I do).  To take the metro from my apartment  (15 miles away and a half mile walk - or a shuttle ride) costs me $11.50 per day during peak (and they are talking about raising rates agsin).  I can park 2 blocks from my office for $12, share a ride in (so parking is really only $6, and gas is shared) and I have the freedom of my car and a usually shorter commute home than if I take public transportation.

    I wouldn't be commuting to NYC... (none / 0) (#86)
    by kdog on Fri Mar 02, 2012 at 02:31:58 PM EST
    that was just for reference, I have free parking at work and my train fare would be cheaper than that, though with a considerable walk from home to station and station to work....no subways out here, no useful bus service out here.  It doesn't pay when you consider the time lost...driving I'm door to door in less than a half hour...by train and walk I'd be looking at almost two hours door to door...thats 3 hours a day of my time down the drain, which is fine if you're saving a ton of money, but for practically the same price its crazy.

    For leisure, I only take the train when I know I'll be getting hammered....otherwise I drive to Manhattan then circle Manhattan for as long as it takes to find a free spot...those parking garages are indeed outrageous.


    I have found (none / 0) (#96)
    by CST on Fri Mar 02, 2012 at 02:49:58 PM EST
    that parking for free in Manhattan is way easier than parking for free in downtown Boston.  And the $19 per day parking is the early-bird special.  Goes up to $25.

    I love living on the T.  Luckily there are still a few places around where you can sort of "afford" it (there is no place that's actually cheap, but I basically live in the Queens of Boston).  I wouldn't give up that commute for anything though.  15 minute walk, followed by 5 minute wait, 15 minute train, and a final 5 minute walk.

    The one time I really like having a car is when I go anywhere that's not downtown.  All trains lead to downtown, so if you are going to a neighborhood on another line, it could be next to yours but you have to go all the way in and then all the way out again.  In that case it's much faster to drive and there is usually parking in the neighborhoods.


    Do you know about (none / 0) (#136)
    by BackFromOhio on Sat Mar 03, 2012 at 12:02:04 PM EST
    the Municipal Parking garage on W 53 Street -- assuming it's still there it's much cheaper than other paid parking.

    I agree, Dog (none / 0) (#81)
    by Zorba on Fri Mar 02, 2012 at 02:18:52 PM EST
    It has to be affordable, as well as convenient, frequent, and reliable.  Very frankly, it needs to be subsidized in most, if not all, areas, and I think it should be.  You could say that this is in our national interests- if they want us to be less reliant on foreign oil (and potentially unstable regimes), why not build more mass transit and subsidize it?  Take the money from the defense budget.  (And the DEA, and the TSA......ah well, I'm just dreaming, there.)  Not to mention the benefits to the environment.  

    I'm with you... (none / 0) (#37)
    by kdog on Fri Mar 02, 2012 at 10:24:42 AM EST
    sh*t a real lefty might throw the paycheck to paycheck crowd a bone right now and temporarily reduce or eliminate gasoline taxes, till (hopefully) the speculators chill and the price returns to earth.

    Or fire up the printers for us for a change and do a little capital injection into working class households...like (gasp!) G-Dub did with those checks for a couple hundred bucks....his best idea ever.


    It is not so much leftys as it is (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by caseyOR on Fri Mar 02, 2012 at 10:37:50 AM EST
    economists. Their formulas and graphs and whatnot tell them that if the price of gas goes high enough, people will drive less. Thus, less gas will be needed, less pollution will be spewed into the air.

    And they are right. At some price point people will not be able to buy gas, and so will not be driving.

    Rather than reduce or eliminate the gas tax, which won't have any long-lasting or appreciable effect on prices,but will contribute to our already disintegrating roads and bridges, I would like to see rampant speculation stopped. Right now. In its tracks.

    Speculators (yeah, you, Goldman Sachs) are what is driving these insane price increases. Stop the betting.

    At some time, people will have to change how they get around. The diminishing supply of gasoline will force us into other modes of transport. Ideally, we would now be building the necessary transportation to keep people mobile when that time comes. Of course, we are not doing that.


    I get the theoritical aspect... (none / 0) (#41)
    by kdog on Fri Mar 02, 2012 at 10:46:20 AM EST
    and I agree...if gas is 6-7-8 bucks a gallon behavior will change and local pollution would likely decrease.  Thats all well and good for Mother Earth, but comes at a very high cost to Mother Hubbard's stress level and quality of life.

    In a country this large with so much rural area and such insufficient public transportation, people need to drive to get to work...and in this job market, sometimes drive a long way for a paycut.  When driving to get to work eats up more of their stagnant or decreasing paycheck, staying in food, shelter, and clothing becomes more difficult.  The theory is fine for textbooks but in real life it will put a hurtin' on a lot of people.

    And when speculators own our government, ya can forget about the government tackling the problem from that end.  Sh&t half of Congress is probably insider trading their way to a fortune on oil.  That leaves a gas tax holiday or a gas stamp program kinda like food stamps for relief...I'm outta ideas.


    Problem is that either Mother Hubbard today (none / 0) (#61)
    by ruffian on Fri Mar 02, 2012 at 12:35:29 PM EST
    gets stressed out or her children and grandchildren get even worse treatment. Cheap gas can't last forever. At some point we have to start paving the way for future generations to even have a chance.

    Isn't the reality that (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Fri Mar 02, 2012 at 10:41:20 AM EST
    (a) The best way to push innovation into alternative fuels and cheap electric cars and such is high gas prices


    (b) there will never be a time (during a recession or otherwise) that people will welcome high gas prices.

    The reality is that if we want the $10,000 electric car, the only way to get there is $8 a gallon gas.

    That's really the most effective way to force innovation and that's how the Chevy Volts and similar cars will become cheap.  There is just never a good time for high gas prices and whoever is in office when they rise will get the blame (despite the fact that the POTUS has very, very little control over such things.

    Personally, I think we should suck it up in the next 3 years, place a high tax on gas and then force the market to give us cheap alternatives. It will hurt but what will hurt worse is delaying the inevitable.  EU style gas prices are coming.  We need to use that to propel innovation now.


    Problem is... (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by kdog on Fri Mar 02, 2012 at 10:57:06 AM EST
    only the paycheck to paycheck brigade will be asked to suck it up and suffer...2 dollar gas vs 10 dollar gas makes no difference to the 1%, its a rounding error.  To the family barely treading water it is food off the table.

    Though I guess its never been any other way has it...it's always the poor that suffer the collateral damage of "progress".


    Not true KDog (none / 0) (#47)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Fri Mar 02, 2012 at 11:23:14 AM EST
    Yes the folks on the lower end of the scale suffer more, but gas prices impact nearly everything.  Transportation companies like UPS and Fedex will take massive hits that will result in lower profits and ultimately fewer jobs.  Same with grocery stores and Best Buy and anyone else who depends on products being driven to their stores for sale.

    It will impact everyone. But long term, everyone is better off if we do it.

    And we are at or near peak oil right now so the prices are going to start rising rapidly regardless.  I'd rather we be ready when they rise than enjoy 5 years of lower prices and then get smacked in the mouth hard when there is no other choice.  Sacrifice now to avoid much, much greater pain in the future.


    Impact is different than suffer.... (none / 0) (#50)
    by kdog on Fri Mar 02, 2012 at 11:27:24 AM EST
    ABG...don't worry about UPS and FedEx...they're fuel surcharge is covering their end, believe you me...I can't tell ya how many phone calls I've gotten here in the last few weeks from customers b*tching about freight charges.  Had one just yesterday, a 15 lb. carton next day air from KY to NY cost the customer 130 bucks and change...feels like yesterday that shipment ran around 6o-70 bucks.

    Yes, gas prices impact everything, but the suffering is limited to those with no money and no customer down the line to pass the increased costs on to.


    Raise the tax, with some of the proceeds (none / 0) (#62)
    by ruffian on Fri Mar 02, 2012 at 12:38:35 PM EST
    going to helping the people at the bottom pay for it. There is a way to make it work if there were the political will to do it.

    But there never will be the will until it is at a real crisis point down the line.


    I'm down... (5.00 / 1) (#67)
    by kdog on Fri Mar 02, 2012 at 01:09:13 PM EST
    I'm down with any solution to this massive long-term problem that doesn't involve driving what was formerly known as the middle class even closer to poverty.

    You start making sense (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by sj on Fri Mar 02, 2012 at 10:57:15 AM EST
    and then you insert your opinion as fact.  If you had changed this:
    [The reality is] that if we want the $10,000 electric car, the only way to get there is $8 a gallon gas.
    to something like this:
    [I believe] that if we want the $10,000 electric car, the only way to get there is $8 a gallon gas.
    I would have happily recommended this comment because it is well considered.  Plus, I agree with you.  But then you stated your opinion as fact.

    If we reallocated... (5.00 / 3) (#44)
    by kdog on Fri Mar 02, 2012 at 11:04:42 AM EST
    the entire weapons development budget into fuel efficient/alternative fuel vehicle development, we could get there without 8 dolla a gallon gas....no?

    Of course (none / 0) (#49)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Fri Mar 02, 2012 at 11:26:08 AM EST
    reallocation in that way is the best but we all know that's not going to happen.  There is no profit or other compelling incentive to do it.

    I think we have to find solutions to this real problem that can be implemented within our current system.


    Our current system... (5.00 / 2) (#51)
    by kdog on Fri Mar 02, 2012 at 11:31:03 AM EST
    guarantees the suffering will be limited to those without representation in our government...aka the poor and the working stiffs.

    Our current system may be the root of the problem my friend;)


    That is all true (none / 0) (#87)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Fri Mar 02, 2012 at 02:32:22 PM EST
    but we can't throw up our hands.

    Need to find the best solution possible within the system to the extent that it can't be changed.


    Where is the bold legislator... (none / 0) (#99)
    by kdog on Fri Mar 02, 2012 at 02:56:38 PM EST
    to propose a gas stamp program along the lines of the food stamp program?  Thats all I can think of that has half a snowball's chance in hell within the current system...make that 1/8th a snowball's chance in hell;)

    On the backs of the poor it is!  Same as it ever was, same as it ever was...maybe throwing up our hands is the play:(  


    All of this is my opinion (none / 0) (#48)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Fri Mar 02, 2012 at 11:23:57 AM EST
    That's implied in everything I say for the most part.

    Not so much (none / 0) (#97)
    by sj on Fri Mar 02, 2012 at 02:55:01 PM EST
    That's implied in everything I say for the most part.
    We all know it.  Or assume it.   But you state your opinions as facts.  So we don't know if YOU know it.  Have a good weekend.

    there will never be a good time (5.00 / 2) (#45)
    by CST on Fri Mar 02, 2012 at 11:05:48 AM EST
    to raise gas prices.  But there are bad times.  This would be a very bad time.

    Other than that I agree with you.


    The Government Doesn't Control Gas Prices (none / 0) (#60)
    by ScottW714 on Fri Mar 02, 2012 at 12:34:00 PM EST
    ...beyond the tax portion.  

    WS is the price determiner, Shell doesn't say, hey look the prices of oil is $100 a barrel, give us $101, they get what the market dictates they get which is based on projections and estimates.

    The government can manipulate it slightly with the reserves, but they have no hand in determining price, directly.

    What they can alter are subsidies, increase lease prices, tax write offs, and other various factors to make gas less appealing and alternatives more appealing.

    Why not cap and trade it, you get X gallons of fuel, then all these giant 4x4's and long haul commuters might decide that living 80 miles from work isn't worth the cost of buying fuel from the the green 'idiots' on an open market.  They might even think economical cars look a lot better.

    Of course it would be more complex, but I think if every person is treated the same and have the option of actually turning a profit by selling credits on a market, a lot of the no naysayers might think twice.  It would also trickle cash to people who are too poor to drive.


    Agreed. A higher gas tax (none / 0) (#59)
    by KeysDan on Fri Mar 02, 2012 at 12:33:41 PM EST
    offers the twin goals of fostering innovation and promoting conservation.  Indeed, it has long been my opinion that a gas tax of one dollar per gallon should have been added when gasoline was in the $2 dollar range.  The nation would have captured the revenue and gasoline would have been conserved.

    The price per gallon did rise with increased demand and the revenues were captured by OPEC and other oil producers/refiners/speculators.  The timing is not ripe for an increase, but just as soon as the economy is relatively stabilized, an increase in gasoline tax should be implemented--although an increase up to a cost of $8 per gallon may be neither feasible nor necessary.  To address the inequities this "flat tax" would impose, a system of "gasoline stamps" for low/moderate incomes and gas tax credits for users such as farmers, could be developed.  


    Obama is left handed... (none / 0) (#56)
    by fishcamp on Fri Mar 02, 2012 at 12:12:18 PM EST
    Well, either taxation or scarcity is required ... (none / 0) (#121)
    by cymro on Fri Mar 02, 2012 at 06:52:20 PM EST
    ... for the price of gas to rise and for people to be motivated to buy less of it. And we won't use less gas until people really want to use less gas, and that won't happen until it hurts them to keep using the same amount. It's basic economics.

    Well... (none / 0) (#11)
    by ScottW714 on Fri Mar 02, 2012 at 09:22:55 AM EST
    ...turn on the News, drunk ladies in Alabama aren't the only was spouting the gas non-sense and the always loved, Obama is coming for your guns.

    I do feel for you, Houston is fairly liberal, but it's still in Texas and it just seems to be common knowledge.  I guess I need to get on some wort of right wing hackery email list to get it, but I am not about to dispute their truths.  Learned long ago, logic is lost on them.


    Obama coming for the guns? (none / 0) (#19)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Mar 02, 2012 at 09:48:11 AM EST
    When?  I know that people who sell guns love it when we have a Democrat for President.  I have a disabled cousin who made a fairly decent living off the Clinton Presidency.  He laughs about how crazy gun people get when we have Democrat for President.  They might already have 40 guns, but they need 40 more to protect themselves from the tyranny.

    Someone Asked Romeny... (none / 0) (#55)
    by ScottW714 on Fri Mar 02, 2012 at 11:46:24 AM EST
    ..yesterday, in Ohio no less, three days after the school shooting.
    A gun-owning voter asked Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney in Bexley, Ohio, if he would allow him to keep his gun because the U.S. is close to becoming a "tyrannical government"

    LINK There a video as well.

    They ran out of guns here in Texas after the last election, seriously.


    Yup - ran out of ammo here (none / 0) (#64)
    by ruffian on Fri Mar 02, 2012 at 12:41:01 PM EST
    locally right after the inauguration. The rubes really do believe this stuff.

    When the zombie apocalypse (none / 0) (#75)
    by CST on Fri Mar 02, 2012 at 01:42:13 PM EST
    or the second civil war happens - you'll be happy you live in Texas.

    At which point us northeasterners will be totally screwed.  I've got some kitchen knives...  I'm fairly cerain I'm the only person in my immediate family who has ever shot a gun.  I have a few friends that I know have shot guns before.  I only know one person under 50 who actually owns one though, and he moved to North Carolina.

    If the government tries to impose tyranny on us, we'll have to go back to spilling tea and rabble rousing.  Which frankly, at that point, would probably be more effective than handguns.  But if it's zombies or straight up war, we're pretty screwed.


    You Think A Liberal in the Land... (none / 0) (#93)
    by ScottW714 on Fri Mar 02, 2012 at 02:45:56 PM EST
    of Right Wing wanna be cowboys will be safe if there is a civil war ?

    My door will be the first to be kicked in, and if I am lucky they will just hang me and not burn me in the city square.

    These meat-heads are all blow & show, it's why they always go after the weak and never the powerful.  Sure they can kill a deer at 100 yards, but they will load their pants when the bullets start coming their way.

    And sorry, I love my state, but we are incapable of winning any war.  The true/blue para-military isn't about to leave their fortresses and the rest are gun happy idiots that think GWB was the bestest eva.

    That being said, I grew up on a farm in Wisconsin.  There wasn't much to do but shoot the hell out of stuff.  And don't you know, with every 5th jumbo sized slurpy bought in Texas, you get a free gun.


    Mr. Zorba and I (none / 0) (#73)
    by Zorba on Fri Mar 02, 2012 at 01:29:27 PM EST
    own guns.  We believe that reasonable (sane and not criminal) people should be able to have a reasonable number of guns, if they want.  We live way out in the country, police response time is at least half an hour (20 minutes if we're lucky), and we are prepared to use those guns for self-protection.  Having said that, we do have friends who think that they can arm themselves to meet the threat of a "tyrannical government."  Give me a break!  As I said to one close friend who thinks this way, "Come on!  You're going to be able to go up against heavily armed troops, or a tank?  And if they decide your immediate neighborhood is a threat, what are your guns going to do against a Hellfire Missile?  Or a drone attack?  If the government wants to wipe you out, you're gone.  In any case, do you realistically think that the government is going to attack its citizens in this way?"

    Over the years I've developed that attitude that (5.00 / 3) (#95)
    by Farmboy on Fri Mar 02, 2012 at 02:49:55 PM EST
    the people who argue the loudest about how they "have to have" a gun are usually the ones who really shouldn't be allowed to buy ammo.

    Maybe it's my country upbringing, but folks who are reasonable and responsible about gun ownership don't make much of a fuss about them. Guns are tools designed to do one thing: throw hunks of metal at other things with a dangerous amount of force.

    And while tou might talk to a neighbor about your new Remington and how nice that buck that's been in the corn field will look once it's in little white packages in the freezer, it's time to back the truck up when folks start going off about using guns for protection from gov't tyranny. Puts the speaker firmly in the "no ammo for you" group.


    That's pretty much (5.00 / 2) (#102)
    by Zorba on Fri Mar 02, 2012 at 03:07:53 PM EST
    the way we and the people out here (way out in the country, on top of one of the mountains in Western Maryland) feel.  Guns are a tool.  You use them to hunt, if you're a hunter, you use them to kill varmints if you have to, which we have done (no, I'm not talking about "human varmints"), and you're prepared to use them if some drug-addled or otherwise-stupid idiot tries to invade your home (and yes, we've had that happen on occasion up here- it's not the inner-city, but there have been break-ins over the years, mostly involving people trying to steal things to pawn so they could get drugs).  Nobody that I know up here thinks that guns are anything but tools, and nobody up here is talking about "resisting government tyranny."  If they were, we'd move, much as we love it up here.  The majority of my neighbors up here are conservative and tend to vote Republican, but they're not nuts.  

    Same as You (5.00 / 0) (#104)
    by ScottW714 on Fri Mar 02, 2012 at 03:14:56 PM EST
    Police time doesn't matter, they ain't be there in the time it takes me to get to my closet, which might not even be enough if I sleeping.  I live in Houston, and although I don't fear for my safety, bad things happen and like anything I do, I am prepared.

    I like having that right, but let's be honest, that right is the reason we need it and I hate that.

    I think we need to really start cracking down on owners who's guns come up missing.  You wanna own 500 guns, fine with me, but when your house is broken into and they come up missing, it's jail time.  One a year exemption or something along those lines.  You want to collect dangerous weapons, secure them, so I don't have to deal with the punk that ends up with it next week.  

    It would get guns locked up tight and people wouldn't be so sloppy when storing them, yet still afford people to have one or two with quick access should they need it.  Exempt rifles and other none criminal guns and really hammer handguns.


    We own (5.00 / 2) (#118)
    by Zorba on Fri Mar 02, 2012 at 05:45:06 PM EST
    Two shotguns, one (not semi-automatic) rifle, and one (legally registered) handgun.  All are locked up (with ammo secured separately), but I can get to them, unlock them, and load them pretty d@mned fast (we've timed this, believe me, living out where we do).  Probably way faster than someone could break into this house and make their way upstairs, if it came to that.
    And I agree with you about the "missing guns."  If you choose to have guns, you need to secure them and make sure that there is no easy access to them, particularly handguns and semi-automatic rifles.

    I guess you never saw "Red Dawn"... (5.00 / 1) (#107)
    by kdog on Fri Mar 02, 2012 at 03:29:06 PM EST
    a ragtag buncha high-school kids with hunting rifles held their own against the mighty Soviets.

    That was a documentary, right? ;)



    Red Dawn Remake (none / 0) (#138)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Mar 05, 2012 at 09:39:11 AM EST
    Complete failure because it depected the Chinese invading, but because they own part of the studio, they CG'ed in a North Korean invasion.

    Red Dawn was awesome because it came out when kids worried about this stuff, but North Korea, might as well be Iran.  Worrisome, but certainly don't have the capabilities to invade us.

    From WIKI:

    The film was scheduled to be released on November 24, 2010, but was shelved due to MGM's financial troubles, and is now set for a 2012 release. Instead of depicting a Soviet invasion of the United States as in the 1984 film, the 2012 version's storyline was originally filmed with a Chinese invasion. This was later edited to depict a North Korean invasion in post-production due to concerns from distributors.

    Wild... (none / 0) (#139)
    by kdog on Mon Mar 05, 2012 at 10:24:30 AM EST
    I never heard there was a remake planned, or that the Chinese put the kibosh on being portrayed as the villians.

    I freakin' loved that movie as a kid, and still can't change the channel away if I catch it on cable.  Lots of cold war propaganda aimed at the kids back then...the popular arcade game "Rush'n Attack", Rocky IV, countless others.


    No WPT Shooting Star for Dadler (5.00 / 4) (#18)
    by Dadler on Fri Mar 02, 2012 at 09:44:46 AM EST
    My wife slipped and fell on our hardwood stairs the other day, broke a couple of rips and partially dislocated one of them.  For anyone who's ever broken or even just bruised ribs (me), it's the worst.  Every breath hurts, and heaven forbid you should sneeze or cough or have the temerity to laugh, it is simply agony.  My poor Queen!  So I'm nurse Dadler for a few weeks, not tournament poker Dadler.  Have a good weekend, y'all.  

    Oh no, Dadler. (5.00 / 3) (#20)
    by caseyOR on Fri Mar 02, 2012 at 09:50:09 AM EST
    Your poor wife. I've had bruised ribs. It hurts like the h*ll. Holding my breath forever seemed like a reasonable idea at the time. Broken ribs are so much worse.

    I hope your wife is a fast healer.


    Oh No (5.00 / 2) (#21)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Mar 02, 2012 at 09:51:25 AM EST
    Very sorry for Ms. Dadler...ouch.  Thinking soft thoughts and sending cushions of good will.  I'll leave vibes out, no vibes right now.  

    She wants to try to go to work today (5.00 / 3) (#36)
    by Dadler on Fri Mar 02, 2012 at 10:23:39 AM EST
    So she's a bit buzzed from an extra half a vicodin, and I'm going to drive her in on her command.  Tried to talk her out of it, but she has some meeting at ten that she can't miss.  Pray for no fender benders as we head into The City.  Peace.

    Pump Mrs. A... (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by kdog on Fri Mar 02, 2012 at 11:08:53 AM EST
    full of 'dins and bring her along as a railbird D;)

    Just kidding...hope the better half heals up quickly, I've only bruised or maybe fractured my ribs and it is an annoying injury.  At least the doc coughed up the good script...that always helps, and in the drug war crazy age sometimes they try to pawn off that Tylenol w/ Codeine kiddie crap on ya.


    That's so painful! (5.00 / 2) (#68)
    by Zorba on Fri Mar 02, 2012 at 01:11:26 PM EST
    Please convey our wishes for a speedy recovery.

    There's nothing many of us women (5.00 / 1) (#83)
    by Anne on Fri Mar 02, 2012 at 02:21:29 PM EST
    hate more than being helpless, or feeling that we have to depend on the kindness of others to do for us what we either can't do for ourselves, or can't do very well.

    When I broke my shoulder in the process of dislocating my shoulder (something I managed to do to the other shoulder a scant 5 years later - go figure), I spent months in a sling, many of them with a strap that kept my arm tight to my body.  

    There are a whole lot of things that are very hard to do with one arm, especially when it is your dominant arm, but do you think I asked for help?  Only when there was no other way, most of the time.  I figured out how to get a bra on, how to put pantyhose on, button buttons and tie shoes.  I switched the buttons on my computer mouse so I could use it left-handed.  I found a way to prop up the blow-dryer so I could style my hair with the only arm available to me.  

    It's just who we are - we don't want to give in to that whole "weaker sex" thing that is, I think, a creation of men.

    Don't get me wrong - I did get help, I just couldn't ask for it - although I finally had to stop refusing the help, because I realized that people genuinely wanted to help and it was making them feel bad that I wouldn't accept it.

    Sometimes we women don't even understand ourselves...lol.

    Best wishes to her for a speedy recovery - I think ribs can be somewhat slow to heal, so if she can get a wrap-around corset-like thing to support the ribs as much as possible, she may be much more comfortable than she would be without it.


    Atheist Billboard (5.00 / 0) (#80)
    by ScottW714 on Fri Mar 02, 2012 at 02:16:22 PM EST
    Slaves obey your masters.
      - Colossians 3:22

    The lesson in Bronze age ethics brought to you by The Year of the Bible and House of Representatives.

    With a black man in chains, and done in a way that is simply shocking.


    I (heart) this billboard !!!

    Atheists seem to have more money than sense ... (none / 0) (#120)
    by cymro on Fri Mar 02, 2012 at 06:38:02 PM EST
    ... if this is anything to go by. You would think they could find something more useful to do with that money, like donating to charities that help poor people in Harrisburg.

    I had my first sample of Kazakh (5.00 / 1) (#117)
    by observed on Fri Mar 02, 2012 at 05:20:41 PM EST
    dentistry today. I hadn't seen a dentist in several years, and had a very large cavity in one of my rear molars. After a couple of false starts with the local anesthetic, in which I screamed and winced at the poking with the needle, things settled down and she was able to do the work.
    The whole visit lasted about 1 hour, and the cost was about $62. I had no pain at all, except for a slightly sore jaw.
    I'll be returning for cleaning another time.
    The modern cleaning in KZ is apparently so painful they give you an anesthetic. They use ultrasound followed by a high pressure saltwater rinse.
    The latter is what hurts.

    Limbaugh shows it is never about the (5.00 / 0) (#129)
    by MKS on Fri Mar 02, 2012 at 07:51:55 PM EST
    economy, stupid.

    It is about cultural/religious issues with Republicans--always.....The bad economy is just an excuse to attack Democrats....Republicans do not care about the unemployed--in their heart of hearts, they think the jobless are lazy and deserve what they get.

    Limbaugh and his defenders have shown better than Susan Faludi ever could that it is a true backlash against women that is at the core of the cultural grievance of right wingers.  They do not want women to be equal because they are threatened by that.  So, they demean them sexually.....

    Repeblicans pine for a time when women were put and stayed in their place.....

    To borrow from Clarence Thomas, this is a high tech sexual assault on women who dare challenge conservative men.


    Good video, Jeralyn. (none / 0) (#1)
    by Edger on Fri Mar 02, 2012 at 07:03:28 AM EST
    That works better than coffee. Cat's a little nervous now, but she'll be alright. ;-)

    Jeralyn you just slay (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by fishcamp on Fri Mar 02, 2012 at 09:24:10 AM EST
    me with your crushes on these rock and roll stars.  I remember when you were in love with Don Henley of the Eagles and almost peed your pants when you finally met him in Aspen.  Now he's too old and married.  You would be a star in a karaoke bar...

    Heart like a Wheel (5.00 / 1) (#130)
    by MKS on Fri Mar 02, 2012 at 07:55:43 PM EST
    Still remember that album cover....

    I had a crush on Hal Ketchum (none / 0) (#23)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Mar 02, 2012 at 09:54:21 AM EST
    When my husband got home from Iraq he surprised me with tickets to see him.  I had been so stressed out for a year I got plastered while Hal sang and played, completely face planted.  And after the concert Hal Ketchum came and sat next to me, and I couldn't even talk I was so messed up.  Worst moment EVER!

    I thought about Jeralyn first thing this AM (none / 0) (#58)
    by ruffian on Fri Mar 02, 2012 at 12:30:02 PM EST
    when they said on NPR that it was JBJ's 50th. He also has a commercial on TV now that I'm sure she does not speed through.

    Happy Birthday Jon! You give us all a grin.


    Whew....Saw the Pic... (none / 0) (#10)
    by ScottW714 on Fri Mar 02, 2012 at 09:15:55 AM EST
    ...and for a split second when I saw the pic, I thought 'No not Jon'...  Good to see the man is 50.

    I can't remember what I at for lunch last week, but I can remember with amazing clarity the summer our family went to Gaylord, Michigan for a month long family reunion at the campground.  

    'Runaway' was my very favoriest song that summer.  I was in 7th or 8th grade and me and bandito cousins ran wild that summer, first time I made out with a girlie.  

    'Slippery When Wet' was my first first CD I ever had.  I believe I got it through one of those, get so many for $.01, and buy some many in the future.  That year I got wheels, but the beast only had an 8-track player.  And yes, I was the only tool in school with an 8 track player in my car in 1987.  But that car...  

    Factoid - Real Name Jon Francis Bongjovi; can't get any more Jersey then that.  One of the very few junior and high school bands I have on iPod.

    Hey Trace... (none / 0) (#14)
    by kdog on Fri Mar 02, 2012 at 09:33:39 AM EST
    been meaning to ask your take on the recent proposal to significantly increase your families health care costs.  Sounds pretty f8cked up...

    Though for the life of me I can't understand why Repuiblicans are so upset about it...it's classic Republican policy, cutting public sector employee bennies.  They should be thrilled.

    We are just starting to take (none / 0) (#65)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Mar 02, 2012 at 12:47:30 PM EST
    A look at it.  Before 9/11 officers had copays on Tricare.  Small ones, and they disappeared when Bush broke the military and everyone was getting out in droves.  It seems a little premature.  I think they should at least have to wait until they've wrapped their flunking wars up.  And no war veteran should have copays on him or herself.

    Hear Hear.... (5.00 / 2) (#77)
    by kdog on Fri Mar 02, 2012 at 01:59:00 PM EST
    No war vet should ever pay a penny for healthcare...they is owed.

    Sh*t all active military and all vets with years of service for that matter, it should be part of the compensation & retirement package, especially considering what Uncle Sam pays as a salary.


    Got my injured wife into the city (none / 0) (#72)
    by Dadler on Fri Mar 02, 2012 at 01:26:29 PM EST
    Some of that great poetry (none / 0) (#74)
    by Dadler on Fri Mar 02, 2012 at 01:38:38 PM EST
    "Out there somewhere,
    are the kind of people
    who do not accept
    the premature autopsy
    of a novel art form.
    These are the ones
    who follow in the footsteps
    of the gifted,
    and the disciplined.
    Who have been deeply hurt
    but not discouraged.
    Who have been frightened,
    but who have not forgotten
    how to be brave.
    Who revel in the company
    of their friends and sweethearts,
    but who are willing
    to face the loneliness
    that is demanded of mastery."

    speaking of public transit (none / 0) (#108)
    by CST on Fri Mar 02, 2012 at 03:33:47 PM EST
    vs driving - when we talk about the "cost" - at least on the state side of things, whether to build or not build.

    This pretty much nails it.

    I object to... (none / 0) (#110)
    by kdog on Fri Mar 02, 2012 at 03:50:52 PM EST
    a state police car being used to symbolize safety...nothing says "danger on the highway" like some flashing lights in the rearview.

    Other than that, an excellent cartoon.


    Gingrich ads airing in Portland. (none / 0) (#123)
    by caseyOR on Fri Mar 02, 2012 at 07:17:55 PM EST
    Over the last several days I have been treated to TV ads attacking both Romney and Santorum and urging me to vote for Newt. I have no idea why these ads are running here.

    The Oregon primary isn't until May. Given that we have not hit Super Tuesday yet, these ads seem both premature and overly hopeful. Does Newt really expect to still be in it come May?

    Probably because of (none / 0) (#134)
    by CoralGables on Fri Mar 02, 2012 at 09:00:04 PM EST
    the Vancouver, Washington market across the Columbia. They caucus Saturday.

    You're right. (none / 0) (#135)
    by caseyOR on Sat Mar 03, 2012 at 01:07:01 AM EST
    I try not to know too much about the GOP primaries. So, the Washington caucuses had totally slipped my mind.

    Vancouver and the rest of southwest Washington are part of Portland's media market. Gingrich is the only candidate running ads.