home

Thursday Morning Open Thread

BTD - I'm really busy today and tomorrow. Maybe something for the weekend.

Open Thread.

< George Zimmerman Bail Set at $1 Million | George Zimmerman's Lawyers Seek Donations >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Everybody take a moment... (5.00 / 11) (#1)
    by kdog on Thu Jul 05, 2012 at 01:34:19 PM EST
    to send positive vibrations down Alabama way for our pal Jeff, in surgery today.  

    How' bout a song for Jeffrey...I got it, Song for Jeffrey!

    It's long past time for such an all-around (5.00 / 4) (#2)
    by Anne on Thu Jul 05, 2012 at 01:44:33 PM EST
    good guy to have something go his way; am keeping my fingers crossed, the good vibrations cranked up, prayers to whatever God might be listening...

    I sure hope it helps.

    Parent

    JT will be in Houston... (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Jul 05, 2012 at 04:10:48 PM EST
    ..in 2 weeks, or rather Ian Anderson doing Thick as a Brick.  But he really is the band IMO.

    Parent
    Jethro Tull: One of the many terrific concerts (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by Peter G on Thu Jul 05, 2012 at 05:03:32 PM EST
    I attended in the summer of 1969, unless it was 1970, at the Woolman Skating Rink in Central Park, NYC.

    Parent
    There's About 10 Bands/People... (none / 0) (#73)
    by ScottW714 on Fri Jul 06, 2012 at 09:52:55 AM EST
    ...I would love to see back in the day.  I was fortunate enough to catch Pink Floyd before they broke up, but too young to really partake in the experience.  Jethro is on the top that list with Black Sabbath, and even though a couple of them are still around/alive, like the Stones/The Who/Zeppelin, I just can't imagine the experience back in the day.

    I envy the folks who were present when rock & roll was spectacular and got to see some of the greats before corporations took over.

    I still go see bands fairly often and it's a lot of fun, but between getting pat down, paying $5 for a bud light, or people acting like if there was cop around they would rat out all the weed smokers; they just seem so sterile.  

    Or maybe I have nostalgia for an era I never got to experience.

    Parent

    Of all the great bands I caught (5.00 / 1) (#100)
    by Peter G on Fri Jul 06, 2012 at 06:53:43 PM EST
    during those two summers in the park, there was only one so bad that I just walked out (despite having paid $3.50 for a ticket!) -- Moby Grape.  Even so drunk he could hardly stay seated on the stool, Tim Hardin was worth staying to hear.

    Parent
    Remind me to tell you about ... (none / 0) (#101)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri Jul 06, 2012 at 07:05:56 PM EST
    ... the time I saw Joe Cocker stagger out onstage, start singing, and then puke. Oh, wait, I think I just did ...

    ;-D

    Parent

    Great choice. Newbie to me. (none / 0) (#3)
    by oculus on Thu Jul 05, 2012 at 01:47:03 PM EST
    Why does that guy stand on one leg, I asked myself?  Here's why:

    His famous tendency to stand on one leg while playing the flute came about by accident. As related in the "Isle of Wight" video, he had been inclined to stand on one leg while playing the harmonica, holding the microphone stand for balance. During the long stint at the Marquee Club, a journalist described him, wrongly, as standing on one leg to play the flute. He decided to live up to the reputation, albeit with some difficulty. His early attempts are visible in The Rolling Stones Rock and Roll Circus film appearance of Jethro Tull. In later life he was surprised to learn of iconic portrayals of various flute playing divinities, particularly Krishna and Kokopelli, which show them standing on one leg.
     [Wiki re Ian Anderson.]

    Parent
    I only needed to read the first wiki (5.00 / 2) (#4)
    by nycstray on Thu Jul 05, 2012 at 01:55:24 PM EST
    sentence to know who it was. When I was in JHS (it think that's when it was), sis and I were asking to get the album (name escaping me), turned out, my mother already had it. Boy were we shocked, lol!~ she had heard he was a good flute player, but wasn't expecting that kind of music :)

    Parent
    As a former not-very-good flautist, I assure (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by oculus on Thu Jul 05, 2012 at 02:03:24 PM EST
    Ian Anderson is not a pretty-good flute player.  But he is entertaining.  Wiki says he gave up on electric guitar to take up the flute b/c he'd never be as good as Eric Clapton.  love it.  

    Parent
    My first two or three albums I ever bought (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Jul 05, 2012 at 02:42:01 PM EST
    as a teen were Jethro Tull.

    Here's a small sampling, starting off easy with:

    Bouree

    Greensleeves

    Skating Away

    Thick As A Brick

    Parent

    For my first album, I wanted ... (5.00 / 2) (#57)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Jul 05, 2012 at 08:39:04 PM EST
    ... The Beatles' Rubber Soul, and I even asked for it at Christmastime.

    Of course, I was six years old back then, and my grandparents somehow thought it much more appropriate that Santa Claus instead bring me The Chipmunks Sing The Beatles.

    How do you mend a broken heart ...?

    Parent

    When my parents got a new (5.00 / 1) (#60)
    by nycstray on Thu Jul 05, 2012 at 10:04:32 PM EST
    stereo, they received some free albums, Dad got Herb Albert, Mom  the Carpenters and sis and I, The Beetles (I want to say Abby Road, but my memory seems to be on vacation these days).

    Chipmunks Sing the Beetles, eh?! lol!~

    Parent

    My favorite Beatles album. (5.00 / 3) (#61)
    by caseyOR on Thu Jul 05, 2012 at 10:11:38 PM EST
    I love Rubber Soul. I bought it with my own money, babysitting money, IIRC.

    And let me just say that the very idea of Alvin and his pals singing Beatles songs is painful, so painful.

    Parent

    Excruciating (5.00 / 2) (#62)
    by gyrfalcon on Thu Jul 05, 2012 at 11:05:26 PM EST
    Sure, that often happens (none / 0) (#68)
    by brodie on Fri Jul 06, 2012 at 06:34:34 AM EST
    with great art, the critics don't understand it.  But give it a few more decades and they'll be praising it as one of the hidden gems of all albums made in the 20th C.

    Hey, could happen.  A panel of "experts" unanimously put Reagan on Mt Rushmore today.  Anything's possible.

    Parent

    Today's Writer's Almanac includes (none / 0) (#81)
    by oculus on Fri Jul 06, 2012 at 01:32:47 PM EST
    some early history re Lennon and McCartney:

    link

    Parent

    My all-time favorite (none / 0) (#30)
    by sj on Thu Jul 05, 2012 at 03:52:18 PM EST
    Excellent! (none / 0) (#41)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Jul 05, 2012 at 05:11:41 PM EST
    Just venting (5.00 / 5) (#6)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Jul 05, 2012 at 02:03:45 PM EST
    I knew this Stolen Valor thing would get to me, I didn't even want to think about it.  When I was on DKos radio though brooklynbadboy brought up that the Supreme Court had overturned Stolen Valor as they had upheld ACA.  Stolen Valor was a law that made it illegal to lie about having served in the military and/or military awards.

    I never knew what to make of the law to begin with.  One thing that came to mind was some of the Harley guys who used to sit around the bar in Wyoming probably fibbing about their days and nights in Nam.  Do I really need to penalize them?  Seemed like they had been penalized enough and continued to penalize themselves in ways.

    Can anybody really steal your military service valor?  I just don't see how.

    AND, the most upsetting notion to me...that only soldiers lead lives of valor.  Still to this day, the people who stand out as constantly demonstrating valor were the emergency room staff of the hospital I once worked at.  I could never be a nurse, the wounds and blood, the car crashes, the violence, the crying and sometimes screaming followed by death.  Oh hell no!  But so many people in our civilian lives lead lives filled with valor.  It is creepy to single out soldiers to be this single group of people who embody valor of such significance that it must be protected by a law.  Nobody can steal your valor though by creating a story about their own.  I just don't see how that works.  But Rep Joe Heck (R) is going to eat up more time and money I'm sure trying to get his new version of Stolen Valor voted on in the House.  I'm so sick of it!  

    Does a same sex marriage damage (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by oculus on Thu Jul 05, 2012 at 02:15:51 PM EST
    a marriage between a man and a woman?

    Anyhow, a fellow county employee was terminated for making up war stories, although I suspect it was his initial application that ended his career there.  

    Parent

    And military service doesn't always (5.00 / 2) (#10)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Jul 05, 2012 at 02:27:18 PM EST
    equal valor.  Remember Richard Spencer, that Wall Streeter who was leading the charge to put all military retirements into Wall Street so that military retirement could be "fair"?  He was a Marine Corp Naval Aviator for 4 years, and then he split?  He got one of the costliest military trainings, followed by one of the most petted and idolized gigs in the entire military, and he couldn't cut it any longer than 4 years? He blew tax payer money in a huge way too.  Where's the valor in that?

    Parent
    Fair to whom? (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by unitron on Thu Jul 05, 2012 at 05:37:10 PM EST
    Does he think it's unfair that their retirement money, just like SS payments, don't get detoured through Wall Street so they can rake some off of the top?

    Parent
    He thought it was unfair (none / 0) (#47)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Jul 05, 2012 at 06:19:53 PM EST
    that in order to receive full retirement you had to give 20 years service, and partial retirements at 15 years.  He argued that all military service should result in a kind of retirement investment made and that if the government paid into Wall Street every year for each soldier serving that military retirements would then be fair.  No retirement funds dispersed though until people were 60.  When the LIBOR is fixed though so that all market volatility finds it's way into banksters pockets, nobody is going to get a retirement at any time, but some people will receive GIANT bonuses every quarter.

    He also proposed that soldiers have access to a tax deferred savings plan, which they already have but most civilians don't know that and it sounded like he was selling a better package than just funneling fresh dumb money into Wall Street.

    Parent

    It's set up that way... (none / 0) (#106)
    by unitron on Sat Jul 07, 2012 at 04:06:35 AM EST
    ...to encourage people (in whom they've invested a lot in training) to stay in a long, predictable time.

    Parent
    Exactly, if you were fibbing about Nam (none / 0) (#8)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Jul 05, 2012 at 02:20:37 PM EST
    Why stop there?

    Parent
    Slippery slope... (5.00 / 4) (#9)
    by kdog on Thu Jul 05, 2012 at 02:21:18 PM EST
    Next thing you know they will want to lock up George Castanza for claiming to be an architect.

    Most people have this thing called a bullsh*t detector, and they have no need for this stupid idea for a law.  Instead of criminalizing bullsh*tters to protect the gullible, can't we just teach the gullible some street smarts?

    Parent

    I knew I could count on you to make (5.00 / 2) (#11)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Jul 05, 2012 at 02:28:14 PM EST
    me bust out laughing over this.

    Parent
    Art Van de lay you mean (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jul 05, 2012 at 02:41:24 PM EST
    Yes, of course... (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by kdog on Thu Jul 05, 2012 at 02:56:44 PM EST
    Art Vandelay, silly me...he's even on LinkedIn!

    Parent
    That's Judge Vandelay (none / 0) (#80)
    by ScottW714 on Fri Jul 06, 2012 at 12:51:29 PM EST
    Check this out, the Wiki entry on Festivus.  It's actually based on a real holiday of one of the writer's fathers inventer.  The Real Festivus.

    Excerpt:

    But as you may or may not know, this holiday actually existed even before it appeared on television. Our father invented it-- our actual dad, Daniel O'Keefe Sr., not our Heavenly Father--our family celebrated it, and then one of us brothers stuck it on TV and bought a nice car with the money. The others received nothing, and were not allowed to touch or ride in the car. Yes, while Festivus is now apparently celebrated here and there around the country according to the principles set forth in the sitcom version, the reality of this day was far more bizarre and sinister. Less like something from a comedy about zany,lovable New Yorkers, and more like something from the "X-Files."Like if one of the "Lone Gunmen" had children, and they all lived under a power line.


    Parent
    Personally, I'd like to arrest ... (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Jul 05, 2012 at 02:51:40 PM EST
    ... Chuck Norris and Steven Seagal, and charge them both with the crime of impersonating an actor. Alas, I fear that ain't gonna happen any time soon.

    Parent
    Mel Gibson. (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by oculus on Thu Jul 05, 2012 at 02:55:49 PM EST
    He's actually a decent actor. (5.00 / 4) (#21)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Jul 05, 2012 at 02:57:50 PM EST
    His crime is impersonating a human being.

    Parent
    I assume you skipped "Braveheart." (none / 0) (#23)
    by oculus on Thu Jul 05, 2012 at 02:59:30 PM EST
    I liked "Braveheart." (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Jul 05, 2012 at 03:06:43 PM EST
    And I liked him in Peter Wier's 1979 film "Gallipoli." I did however, skip "Lethal Weapon" and all its attendant sequels. I don't like shoot 'em up cop movies.

    That said, I won't watch Mel Gibson any more. That guy is quite obviously out to sea without mainsail, rudder and compass, and I won't patronize the work of anti-Semites and misogynists.

    Parent

    Mostly, not a fan of Mel Gibson. (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by caseyOR on Thu Jul 05, 2012 at 08:36:29 PM EST
    Still, one of my favorite movies is The Year of Living Dangerously, directed by Peter Weir. This and Gallipoli are, I do believe, the only Gibson movies I like.

    Gibson does okay in this movie, but Linda Hunt as Billy Kwan really steals the show. Sigourney Weaver was also good in this film.

    Parent

    Now, THAT ... (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Jul 05, 2012 at 08:42:39 PM EST
    ... was a great movie. I like almost any film that's directed by Peter Weir -- well, almost.

    Parent
    Oh, jeez! (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by gyrfalcon on Thu Jul 05, 2012 at 11:10:26 PM EST
    Don't DO that to me!  I clicked on that link all innocently, and whamo!  What A Horrible Movie.

    Parent
    Otoh it features (none / 0) (#67)
    by brodie on Fri Jul 06, 2012 at 06:26:36 AM EST
    Andie MacDowell, in her prime.  I think I'll have to check it out.

    Parent
    The first "Lethal Weapon" was (5.00 / 1) (#65)
    by gyrfalcon on Thu Jul 05, 2012 at 11:22:10 PM EST
    really quite good.  The others just descended into inadvertent parody.

    "Braveheart" I also thought was quite good, although less for the acting than the directing.

    Gibson has been a very, very talented actor in the right circumstances, but whether he can ever do it again now I don't know.  He once had a way of opening up an almost unbearable human rawness and neediness, but you can't keep doing that without self-consciousness for very long after you've been dubbed "The Sexiest Man in the World."  Celebrity, for almost all actors, just crushes emotional genuineness and spontaneity.

    His first Australian film as a young actor was a very strange sort of romantic potboiler in which he played a retarded man, and he did it absolutely convincingly.  One of the very hardest things for an actor to do is to play a character way below your own intelligence level, and he did it with realism and great humanity.


    Parent

    Here's another clunker: (none / 0) (#38)
    by oculus on Thu Jul 05, 2012 at 04:21:41 PM EST
    You'll get no argument from me there. (none / 0) (#51)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Jul 05, 2012 at 08:14:42 PM EST
    Boy, what a turkey! And honestly, one really has to wonder what Academy voters were thinking when they saw that ridiculously overwrought film, and then decided that it was somehow worthy of five Oscar nominations ...

    Parent
    After we saw it, I asked my friend why she (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by oculus on Thu Jul 05, 2012 at 08:34:44 PM EST
    pickedshe picked it. She sd., Mel Gibson wet.

    Parent
    She got that right. (none / 0) (#59)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Jul 05, 2012 at 08:45:38 PM EST
    Mel Gibson was all wet. That was a serious miscasting -- but then, not even casting Robert Duvall or Robert Redford as the male lead could've saved that film.

    Parent
    This ain't no B.S. (none / 0) (#28)
    by Dadler on Thu Jul 05, 2012 at 03:39:26 PM EST
    Fourth of July special yesterday at the Apple Store of MJ Shops: $40 quarters of quality harvest. George Hemp Washington woulda shed a happy tear.

    Parent
    40 bucks!?!?!? (none / 0) (#31)
    by kdog on Thu Jul 05, 2012 at 03:54:26 PM EST
    Are you sure you don't mean 1/8?  Cuz even that is 20-33% off, never mind a 1/4.

    Hot damn that's what I call patriotic compassionate capitalism....need a new nickname for your shop D, Apple don't roll like that!  Maybe the Abbie Hoffman & The Yippies "Free Store" of mj shops.

    Parent

    Yep, a quarter (none / 0) (#34)
    by Dadler on Thu Jul 05, 2012 at 04:01:36 PM EST
    Even today you can go in and get a really nice qtr for 60, a Z for under 300.  And I know what you mean about the Apple thing, it just sticks with me because of the minimalist vibe when you go in the place.  Same feel, different product and ethos.  

    Parent
    Agreed... (none / 0) (#35)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Jul 05, 2012 at 04:08:15 PM EST
    ...I think there should be some sort of penalty for BS'ing about service to enrich yourself.  For example, if it's on your resume or you try and use it to gain sympathy on a talent show in which the ultimate goal is enrichment.

    What I don't get is how current laws don't cover it.  If you say you are going to die and take donations, there are fraud laws, people get convicted all the time.  Seems like those would work just fine.

    I think there should be penalties about lying about another service as well.  The Kerry distractors should have never been able to walk away from their shame with a victory.  Even labeled heroes by some.  You should not be able to tarnish a service record, politics or not.

    Valor is relative.  I am a Veteran of a war, in title, but what I did is nothing compared to folks like your husband, people who actually are/were on the front line.  It sucked for me, but not because bombs and bullets were flying around, it just wasn't my cup of tea.  And I never consider myself to be in that class even though we hold the same label.  My point is to most we are the same, with relatively the same valor.  When in fact my service is miniscule in comparison to folks like your husband.  And in terms of valor, I am not even close to the same class as the men and women risking life and limb.  Those people, in my mind, are real Veterans and the service itself should not label every slap d1ck, like myself, a Veteran just because they were on a boat a couple hundred miles away from the skirmish.

    So if some idiots want to brag about what they did, I say who cares, but when they use it to enrich themselves there has to be a penalty.

    And as much as I agree with kdog, let's be real, con-men exist because they fly way below the BS meter and plenty of street smart folks get taken everyday by people who misrepresent the truth.  Being fooled is one thing, being fooled and taken for a financial ride is quite another.

    And lastly, let's not forget that there is more to men and women than a one event.  Plenty of scumbag Veterans doing bad sh1t, there and here.  Just because a person was in a place at a time does not automatically make them something to be admired, the brig is full of bad people who wear the Veteran tag.  We shouldn't place so much emphasis on the label.

    Parent

    People attempt to enrich themselves (5.00 / 3) (#48)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Jul 05, 2012 at 06:26:09 PM EST
    all the time using all sorts of made up experience though.  I don't see soldier valor to be any greater than the valor that some law enforcement officers have displayed or physicians and healthcare providers, even sometimes the guy nextdoor during unforeseen circumstances.  It's easy to check military service on military.com, just join and do a buddy check.

    Parent
    Lying about your service (5.00 / 3) (#64)
    by gyrfalcon on Thu Jul 05, 2012 at 11:13:36 PM EST
    is absolutely shameful, IMO.  But it's not reasonable to criminalize it.  I was not unhappy that that law was struck down.  YOu can't criminalize every last bit of dishonorable behavior. (Well, I suppose you could, but not anyplace I'd want to live.)


    Parent
    Didn't you go through training... (none / 0) (#44)
    by unitron on Thu Jul 05, 2012 at 05:55:11 PM EST
    ...same as everybody else?

    And risk the same bad stuff that can happen in training, same as everybody else?

    If they'd sent you to the front, wouldn't you have gone?

    Parent

    The Justice System. Innocent woman jailed 53 days (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by lousy1 on Thu Jul 05, 2012 at 05:50:01 PM EST
    For having the wrong first name?
    Innocent woman spends 53 days in jail


    How the Army wasted $5 billion (5.00 / 2) (#71)
    by jbindc on Fri Jul 06, 2012 at 08:11:19 AM EST
    And made our soldiers walking targets:  The camouflage made them more visible.

    Apparently, Army commanders were "envious" of the dust-colored pixelated camouflage being developed for the Marine Corps, and rushed to demand a similar pattern in their own colors, instead of playing it safe with the classic cloudy globs traditionally used for Army camouflage. Things went haywire when officials insisted on using the Army's traditional grey-green color scheme, which, when paired with the pixels -- not to mention darker gear -- turned soldiers into walking targets. "Brand identity trumped camouflage utility," says military journalist Eric Graves. "That's what this really comes down to."


    My plane is late this morning, so ... (none / 0) (#14)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Jul 05, 2012 at 02:47:16 PM EST
    ... I have to share this rather funny story -- with video -- from San Diego about the "Big Bay Boom" 4th of July fireworks show that ended up being a complete bust last night, because a pyrotechnical glitch sent the entire show skyward within a 15-second period, while upwards of 500,000 spectators lined San Diego Bay to watch.

    Saw that this morning (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by jbindc on Thu Jul 05, 2012 at 02:49:56 PM EST
    Wouldn't that just $uck to have gotten there hours early to stake out a place, only to have the show last 15 seconds???

    Although it was a very cool show!

    Parent

    Well, neither of us ... (none / 0) (#19)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Jul 05, 2012 at 02:56:51 PM EST
    ... were sitting on the shores of San Diego Bay for hours yesterday, and that's what makes this so funny. I mean, if you and I can't have a hearty laugh at other people's misfortune, then life just really ain't worth livin' -- knowhutahmean?

    ;-D

    Okay, they're calling my flight for boarding. Off to Molokai. Talk to you later. Aloha.

    Parent

    Schaudenfraude (none / 0) (#25)
    by jbindc on Thu Jul 05, 2012 at 03:04:07 PM EST
    Glad I watched the DC ones from the comfort of my BFs TV.  :)

    Parent
    Of course, there is a local lawyer (none / 0) (#22)
    by oculus on Thu Jul 05, 2012 at 02:58:57 PM EST
    making a fortune from the City of San Diego for challenging lack of compliance with a city ordinance requiring environmental review b/4 fireworks events.  Hmmmmm.  

    Parent
    Our last place in Bay Park... (none / 0) (#29)
    by Dadler on Thu Jul 05, 2012 at 03:44:59 PM EST
    ...overlooked Mission Bay and we had an unobstructed and elevated seat for every fireworks show Sea World shot off -- nightly in the summer, weekends other times.  Lemme tell you, it's hard to believe all that smoke and crap, and we're talking enough to blot out our view for a half hour or more, isn't doing very bad things to the bay water it settles into.  Not that Mission Bay's is anything approaching pristine, used to be a dump as I recall.  

    Parent
    Swamp. But I think the lawsuit pertains (none / 0) (#32)
    by oculus on Thu Jul 05, 2012 at 03:55:16 PM EST
    only to La Jolla Cove, i.e., Pacific Ocean.  

    Parent
    was a wetland, i know, but... (none / 0) (#33)
    by Dadler on Thu Jul 05, 2012 at 03:58:09 PM EST
    ...also back in the day they were, I believe, dumping barrels of toxic crap into it, or burying it there, something like that.

    Parent
    The beaches at MB are frequently (none / 0) (#37)
    by oculus on Thu Jul 05, 2012 at 04:15:07 PM EST
    "closed" even now, usually b/c of storm runoff.  

    Parent
    I remember all that (none / 0) (#49)
    by Dadler on Thu Jul 05, 2012 at 06:55:04 PM EST
    We only moved away a year ago.  And I know well that a rainy week in San Diego means stay out of the ocean until the fecal matter and motor oil and medical trash settles to the bottom.  

    Parent
    That shouldn't have been ... (none / 0) (#53)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Jul 05, 2012 at 08:28:42 PM EST
    ... much of a problem, considering that SoCal's rainy season is December through March. Can't say that I've ever really been partial to swimming in 50-degree waters.

    Parent
    The best surf is typically in the winter. (none / 0) (#56)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Jul 05, 2012 at 08:38:41 PM EST
    That's true. (none / 0) (#98)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri Jul 06, 2012 at 06:30:56 PM EST
    And that's why surfing was also the invention of Native Hawaiians, and not the native Chumash and Gabrielino peoples.

    Parent
    According to wiki... (none / 0) (#114)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon Jul 09, 2012 at 10:53:21 AM EST
    For centuries surfing was a central part of ancient Polynesian culture. Surfing might have been first observed by Europeans at Tahiti in 1767 by Samuel Wallis and the crew members of the Dolphin who were the first Europeans to visit the island in June 1767.

    Another candidate is the botanist Joseph Banks[1] being part of the First voyage of James Cook on the HMS Endeavour, who arrived on 10 April 1769 on Tahiti.

    Lieutenant James King was the first one who wrote about the art of surfing on Hawaii when completing the journals of Captain James Cook upon Cook's death in 1779.

    References to surf riding on planks and single canoe hulls are also verified for pre-contact Samoa, where surfing was called fa'ase'e or se'egalu (see Kramer, Samoa Islands) and Tonga far pre-dating the practice of surfing by Hawaiians and eastern Polynesians by over a thousand years.



    Parent
    Actually, the big boom was at (none / 0) (#50)
    by oculus on Thu Jul 05, 2012 at 07:51:20 PM EST
    San Diego Bay, not Mission Bay:  UT

    Parent
    Lots of people stayed around for at least (none / 0) (#20)
    by oculus on Thu Jul 05, 2012 at 02:57:34 PM EST
    an hour waiting for the rest of the show.  The company has staged fireworks for the Olympics and other mega events.  Maybe the same technician who wiped out power here Sept. 8, 2012 is the culprit?

    Parent
    They actually waited an hour? (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Jul 05, 2012 at 03:00:03 PM EST
    Well, then, that clearly elevates this story from "funny," to the realm of "friggin' hysterical."

    ;-D

    Parent

    Sept. 8, 2012?!? (none / 0) (#45)
    by unitron on Thu Jul 05, 2012 at 06:00:41 PM EST
    Perhaps the everything in 15 minutes deal was a malfunction of his time machine.

    Parent
    Ha. 2011. (none / 0) (#46)
    by oculus on Thu Jul 05, 2012 at 06:11:30 PM EST
    Watched Serena Williams this morning (none / 0) (#27)
    by Dadler on Thu Jul 05, 2012 at 03:32:52 PM EST
    She made it through a very tough and motivated Victoria Azarenka to reach the Wimbledon Finals -  6-3, 7-6.  Her finals opponent will be in her first major final, while Serena is nearing her 20th.  As such, I'd put my money confidently on Ms. Williams to hoist the platter.

    Good for her. (5.00 / 3) (#52)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Jul 05, 2012 at 08:17:50 PM EST
    Serena Williams has had a pretty tough go of late, with some serious health issues, etc. I'd love to see her win Wimbledon.

    Parent
    Inane post of the day (none / 0) (#39)
    by DFLer on Thu Jul 05, 2012 at 04:48:24 PM EST
    What that heck is raspberry ketone? It seems to have taken the junk mail race over from viagra and ed spam.

    Thought of you when I passed a holistic (5.00 / 1) (#116)
    by oculus on Wed Jul 11, 2012 at 01:35:19 PM EST
    store recently.  Big poster in the window for raspberry ketone.  W/o any explanation.  

    Parent
    Laughable historical revisionism (none / 0) (#66)
    by brodie on Fri Jul 06, 2012 at 06:17:36 AM EST
    today on Morning Joe.  Who else would you put on Mt Rushmore?

    Doris Goodwin:  FDR, Truman, Reagan and "half of LBJ"

    Jon Meacham:  Jackson, FDR, JFK and Reagan.

    Evan Thomas:  FDR, Ike, Reagan and Poppy Bush

    Some panelists objected to JFK being included based on (apparently) the recent allegations of that female staffer (this show likely was taped around the time that somewhat suspicious, one source story hit).  Mika B. was apoplectic that "someone who was apparently violent to those working for him" (sic) would be venerated.  Joe S. objected to JFK on grounds I didn't catch.

    No one had objections to including Reagan, who made it on all the panelists' scorecards.

    Meacham seemed to make more sense than all the others when he noted that a president who saved the world from
    nuclear disaster probably deserves a place.  And when he noted that most of the presidents currently carved had personal shortcomings.

    DKG was truly a disgrace.  Still trying to rehab warmonger LBJ while trying to ingratiate herself further to the Beltway establishment by elevating Reagan to the mountain top.

    Who ELSE would I add? (5.00 / 3) (#82)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri Jul 06, 2012 at 02:04:57 PM EST
    No one.

    Mt. Rushmore is a contemporaneous work of art that reflects its era. I'd like to think that one would no more "add" an additional bust or two (or three) to it, than one should consider remodeling Frank Lloyd Wright's "Fallingwater" into a duplex.

    Parent

    Good Gravy (none / 0) (#83)
    by ScottW714 on Fri Jul 06, 2012 at 02:31:49 PM EST
    The question was political abstract, no one was seriously suggesting blasting a national monument.  

    Definitely ridiculous post of the day.


    Parent

    Scott, sweetie, (5.00 / 1) (#84)
    by Zorba on Fri Jul 06, 2012 at 02:45:22 PM EST
    I don' think that Donald was in any way suggesting that anyone is seriously considering that we blast a national monument.  He was just expressing his opinion.  As we all do, from time to time.  His comment, too, was a "political abstract."  Unless I'm reading him incorrectly.   ;-)

    Parent
    No Way... (none / 0) (#93)
    by ScottW714 on Fri Jul 06, 2012 at 04:45:59 PM EST
    ...this one of many that others say he playing/joking/abstract/satire, but I never see it any posts, and he's never concurred.  Just more father knows best blah IMO.

    Parent
    I'm seriously suggesting doing (none / 0) (#85)
    by jondee on Fri Jul 06, 2012 at 02:54:09 PM EST
    to that grandiose, unfeeling mass of stone what was done to the Souix, Arapahoe, and Cheyenne -- whose sacred Paha Sapa it once was. Once was, I might add, even according to the specific, carefully considered terms of the squadrons of silver tongued, double-dealing devils who drew up the original treaty.

    A colossal, post-mortum stone ediface hasn't ever made any departed one's metabolism function better any way.

    Parent

    Well, if you put it THAT way, then ... (none / 0) (#96)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri Jul 06, 2012 at 06:17:22 PM EST
    ... why not a question about removing one of Mt. Rushmore's busts?

    Personally, I've never quite understood why Theodore Roosevelt was placed up there alonside George Washington, Thomas Jefferson and Abraham Lincoln. Why not James Madison, who after all was the primary author of our nation's Constitution, or even Andrew Jackson or -- heaven forbid -- Ulysses Grant?

    Perhaps it was a contemporaneous choice, given that T.R. was an enormously popular president of his day, one whose memory still remained fresh in the minds of many Americans when work on the memorial first commenced in 1927. T.R. had died only eight years earlier in 1919, at age 61.

    And it's that contemporaneousness, I would offer, which would probably explain all those current (and patently ridiculous) suggestions that Ronald Reagan somehow belongs up there with the greats -- as though falling all over ourselves to name major airports, freeways and federal buildings after "The Gipper" somehow isn't enough for him.

    Aloha.

    Parent

    As I've read, Coolidge (none / 0) (#104)
    by brodie on Fri Jul 06, 2012 at 09:21:58 PM EST
    who was president at the outset of the project and whose cooperation or support presumably was needed by the builders, insisted there be two Republicans and one Democrat depicted.  TJeff being the Dem and Abe the Repub, they needed one more R.

    Popular Teddy seemed a reasonable pick given the alternative of Grant and probably no one else.

    Sort of what you were suggesting except today's Rs have the obvious option of popular Ike.  But for ideological and political reasons they much prefer the far more partisan and conservative St Ronnie over bipartisan moderate Eisenhower.

    Parent

    WTF (none / 0) (#76)
    by ScottW714 on Fri Jul 06, 2012 at 12:05:23 PM EST
    Truman, Jackson, and Bush Sr. ??

    I am surprised no mention of Clinton or MLK.
    I always though TR was an odd choice.

    For me, FDR for sure, and I really think it should be more than Presidents, it should include Franklin without a doubt.

    I always thought it would be cool if they had a whole area carved with great Americans.  Something in which one could camp and backpack an area for a couple days to take it all in.  

    Parent

    MLK (none / 0) (#77)
    by jbindc on Fri Jul 06, 2012 at 12:16:01 PM EST
    has a memorial - it took them 40 years to get that!

    Parent
    Agree on TR (none / 0) (#86)
    by brodie on Fri Jul 06, 2012 at 03:00:00 PM EST
    And I'll go considerably against the grain here and elsewhere by nixing FDR -- the shameful unnecessary treatment of the J-As and the callous indifference to the Euro Jews.  Sorry folks but those are two huge black marks in my book, disqualifying ones when added together.  Add the hard line of "unconditional surrender" he drove against Japan -- unnecessary and prolonged the war.  The economic blunder of 1937 leading to a Roosevelt Recession.

    So no Roosevelts.  But one Kennedy (JFK) and one King both for their courage and positive vision and principled leadership plus the missile crisis brilliant management by Kennedy.

    There should be one woman up there too but I don't know who.

    Parent

    And still not even a passing mention (none / 0) (#87)
    by jondee on Fri Jul 06, 2012 at 03:02:55 PM EST
    of Red Cloud, Crazy Horse, Chief Joseph, or Sitting Bull..

    Seriously, are you folks for real?

    Parent

    Oh, sorry (none / 0) (#88)
    by sj on Fri Jul 06, 2012 at 03:42:57 PM EST
    I just came back from reading more about Crazy Horse,  Geronimo and Sitting Bull.  I came to the conclusion that a mountain is too small a canvas for such great spirits.

    And anyway Crazy Horse, my favorite, already has a mountain of his very own.

    Parent

    Would that the funding (none / 0) (#89)
    by jondee on Fri Jul 06, 2012 at 04:17:27 PM EST
    and manpower were marshalled for THAT project the way they were for that historical facelift job done on Rushmore.

    Amiably bidding the uncomfortable past goodbye: we're sure good at that here.  

     

    Parent

    I don't think we're as good at that as we pretend (none / 0) (#90)
    by sj on Fri Jul 06, 2012 at 04:27:53 PM EST
    I think that's why so many people try to shut down inconvenient questions.  Or create bullsh!t questions to deflect an issue when it -- or the implications of "it" -- becomes too uncomfortable.  

    If we were good at bidding the uncomfortable past goodbye it would mean that we are also acknowledging it.  Instead psyches slip and slide and find ways to either ignore it or justify it.

    But personally, the Native Americans I would really like to know more about are not the battle masters, much as I respect them. But I wish I knew the names of the Shamans and other teachers.

    Parent

    That's Not the Point (none / 0) (#94)
    by ScottW714 on Fri Jul 06, 2012 at 05:05:19 PM EST
    You asked about Indians being added to Rushmore and sj pointed out there is a single carving, a few miles away from Rushmore, of Crazy Horse.  And IMO much more spectacular in design and placement.

    So why would anyone speak of adding it Rushmore it it already exists.  And if I were to guess, there are far more Indian Stone Carvings on Indian lands then white folks.  Certainly in the Badlands and Blackhills.  And if go per capita, I would imagine Indians are represented in a far greater ratio.

    Yeah, it's a shame, a depiction of 4 US presidents gets more restoration money than a Lone Indian.  A real travesty.

    Parent

    Oh please.. (none / 0) (#115)
    by jondee on Mon Jul 09, 2012 at 11:45:45 AM EST
    and please, please, please again..

    If you "had to guess", but you just can't think of any off-hand..

    I'm not suggesting that anything be added..I'm suggesting that those "Ozymandias king of kings" bitter mockeries be removed and replaced with some faces more justifiable than a 1% chest-thumping, Kiplingesque warmonger and, two 1% slave owners..

    And maybe we could leave Lincoln. Possibly.

    Parent

    Well, 30 years ago, someone envisioned ... (none / 0) (#97)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri Jul 06, 2012 at 06:24:29 PM EST
    brodie: "There should be one woman up there too but I don't know who."

    ... Bette Midler.

    Parent

    They already do have that area. (none / 0) (#102)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri Jul 06, 2012 at 07:09:06 PM EST
    But somehow, I don't think the security guards at the Niagara Falls Wax Museum would appreciate you setting up your tent and camping out for a few days.

    Parent
    I'd add one of the Koch Brothers (none / 0) (#103)
    by Dadler on Fri Jul 06, 2012 at 08:20:16 PM EST
    Martin Sheen also, and maybe a Gore Girl.

    Parent
    80,000 jobs added in June (none / 0) (#69)
    by jbindc on Fri Jul 06, 2012 at 07:33:30 AM EST
    Lower than the 90,000 predicted.

    Unemployment holds at 8.2%

    More (none / 0) (#70)
    by jbindc on Fri Jul 06, 2012 at 07:39:13 AM EST
    BLS

    The number of persons employed part time for economic reasons (sometimes referred to as involuntary part-time workers) was essentially unchanged at 8.2 million. These individuals were working part time because their hours had been cut back or because they were unable to find a full-time job.

    In June, 2.5 million persons were marginally attached to the labor force, down from 2.7 million a year earlier. (These data are not seasonally adjusted.) These individuals were not in the labor force, wanted and were available for work, and had looked for a job sometime in the prior 12 months. They were not counted as unemployed because they had not searched
    for work in the 4 weeks preceding the survey.

    Among the marginally attached, there were 821,000 discouraged workers in June, a decline of 161,000 from a year earlier. (These data are not
    seasonally adjusted.) Discouraged workers are persons not currently looking for work because they believe no jobs are available for them.
    The remaining 1.7 million persons marginally attached to the labor force in June had not searched for work in the 4 weeks preceding the
    survey for reasons such as school attendance or family responsibilities.



    Parent
    Gang Violence... (none / 0) (#72)
    by kdog on Fri Jul 06, 2012 at 08:37:26 AM EST
    Violent gang pulls a smash & grab in Long Beach CA. Manhandling the staff at a local business, destroying securrity cameras while wrecking the joint, and escape with the valuables and a few hostages.  Scary stuff.

    Gang Violence ?? (none / 0) (#74)
    by ScottW714 on Fri Jul 06, 2012 at 11:16:23 AM EST
    What the cops did was pretty damn pathetic and inexcusable, but in no way reflects your post.

    Cops raided MM dispensary heavy handily and do what they always do, tore the place up.  They destroyed the video surveillance, but not before getting their mugs on the camera.

    The article is pretty unclear about what was taken into evidence.  But what is odd to me is this is city cops busting a business that is legal in the state, w/o a city permit.  Isn't this citation territory ?

    And the money quote:

    This is a personnel matter and we are unable to discuss any further details," Lisa Massacani, with LB police, wrote in a statement.

    No problem, just an HR issue.

    What absolutely astonishes me is the boldness of it all, they know there is a camera and I assume they know about the internet.  There is about a 5% chance, IMO, that this doesn't get back to them.  Even stooopid criminals have the common sense to look for a camera, and if there is one, they at least try and hide from.  Not these idiots.

    And lastly, how is destroying a camera not destroying/tampering with evidence ?  

    Parent

    Well you're no fun... (none / 0) (#75)
    by kdog on Fri Jul 06, 2012 at 12:02:36 PM EST
    Pardon the hyperbole but I insist it ain't that far off...violent gangsters doin' violent gangster sh*t, the only difference is the badge.

    It wouldn't surpise me if it was a robbery posing as a raid...wouldn't be the first time a couple pounds or a couple bucks went missing between the "crime scene" and the evidence locker.  That would explain the lame-brained attempt at destroying the cameras...maybe the jackbooted morons thought destroying the cameras destroyed the remote hard drive the images are stored on?  

    Or maybe they were moonlighting as enforcers for a rival mj distributor...another wouldn't be the first time.  

    Parent

    Lots of Maybe's... (none / 0) (#78)
    by ScottW714 on Fri Jul 06, 2012 at 12:33:47 PM EST
    I was just saying that when cops come in an seize, say stolen car parts, it's hardly a smash and grab, which is what you wrote.

    I wouldn't be surprised with anything the cops do, but I highly doubt they are working for a rival.  That's like saying they busted into a Best Buy under orders of Circuit City.

    But that is pretty big block in your legalize argument, it will eliminate that kind of violence, no ?  Odd that is a conclusion you came to.

    If they are dirty, I would put money that they are self employed dirty cops.  But as it stands, it's the guy's word that they manhandled and seized his property.  Let's see what made it back to the station before we call them thieves.

    And I am all for legalization, I don't know about shops and over the counter aspect, seems too sterile.  I have always liked the system in place, except for going to jail part, but some of my closest friends I have made is through the blackmarket and dealing with all the non-sense.  Which in it's own right is pretty damn cool.  Dudes that don't want jobs have implemented a system in which countless billions can't even put a dent in it's efficiency.

    I would really miss the uncertainly and the ingenuity of the the current system, not to mention the list of characters I probably would never come into contact with purchasing over the counter.

    Parent

    How is not a smash and grab? (none / 0) (#79)
    by kdog on Fri Jul 06, 2012 at 12:44:46 PM EST
    It's on video...smashing and grabbing.  Sometimes a smash & grab can be justified...like say retreiving stolen auto parts.  Not the case here or in any other drug raid smash and grab.

    Legalizing weed will not end weed theft, but it will give the victims of theft the option of reporting it if they so choose, which should reduce violence.  Unless cops like this show up when you drop the dime, and rob you a second time:)

    Yeah I would miss the flavor of the black market a little, and feel really bad for all the non-gangster entrepenuers who will likey be put out of business...but it would be progress, and hopefully the small growers and distributors can carve out a niche in a legal marketplace.

    Parent

    Listening to the news (none / 0) (#91)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Jul 06, 2012 at 04:33:05 PM EST
    The jobs report sucked the oxygen right out of the Obama campaign as it exists in its summertime form right now.  Not that it is extremely significant at this point.  Debates will be important, and Romney must have a plan, but it is kind of discouraging watching it tonight.

    Jobs jobs jobs (none / 0) (#92)
    by jbindc on Fri Jul 06, 2012 at 04:43:21 PM EST
    Ever jobs report from now until Election Day are going to be vitally important. And while the experts are often wrong, most agree that it is not going to get better before then.  

    Right now, most people aren't paying that much attention.  But come the September jobs report, that could be game, set, match.

    Parent

    Romney's offering nothing though (none / 0) (#109)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Jul 07, 2012 at 11:22:03 AM EST
    And Bain has been described in business journals during Romney's leadership as a pioneer in offshoring job development to create larger corporate profits.  Let's see what he can do with that in this U.S. unemployment reality.

    Parent
    Here's the way I see it, (none / 0) (#95)
    by NYShooter on Fri Jul 06, 2012 at 05:49:20 PM EST
    in a nutshell.

    #1..Obama must change his campaign strategy. It's not working; his wishful hoping that the economy would bail him out has proven wrong. (I have to insert here that many of us have been screaming this very point since the beginning; we predicted that following Geithner's disastrous plan would be suicidal.....we were proven right)

    Okay. Now what? Everybody's tired of the worn out meme, "yeah, but Romney's worse." So, basically he has to call an "audible."

    Here's my advice as to the theme he should take:

    #2..The banks caused this problem. We thought that by stabilizing the banking system they would, in turn, do the right thing for the country. We were wrong. Given the choice of being grateful for bringing them back from the dead, and then counting on them to use all their vaunted "talent" to figure out how to pump-prime the economya....vs....enriching themselves, while simultaneously "flipping the bird" to the rest of America, they chose the middle-finger-solution.

    #3.."They Must Go!" Starting with Geithner, then followed by the seven CEO's of the largest TBTF institutions. No great fundamental change to our financial system; simply taking a page out of football or baseball. If you lose consistently you don't change the players, you change the coaches and/or managers.

    I'm not going to go into all the many details here and now. We have many great experts available to do that. But, I just wanted to lay out the headline, which would, "in a nutshell," signal, "it's a new day in America."


    Well, sometimes you ... (none / 0) (#99)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri Jul 06, 2012 at 06:39:44 PM EST
    ... need to change the players, too.

    After all, even the immortal Casey Stengel couldn't pump life into baseball's "Lovable Losers," those New York Mets of the early '60s, or cajol "Marvelous Marv" Throneberry to get a hit while runners were actually in scoring position.

    Parent

    Which is why (none / 0) (#105)
    by NYShooter on Fri Jul 06, 2012 at 10:44:21 PM EST
    I added this:

    "I'm not going to go into all the many details here and now. We have many great experts available to do that."

    ...of which you are the 1'st to fill in the countless details.

    Parent

    Problem is (none / 0) (#107)
    by jbindc on Sat Jul 07, 2012 at 07:13:58 AM EST
    Who would take him seriously (besides the true believers ) when he talks about coming down hard on the banksters?

    Parent
    What good does it do to change the (none / 0) (#108)
    by Anne on Sat Jul 07, 2012 at 08:50:20 AM EST
    strategy if it's just talk?  I mean, we've seen that show before, and it requires a level of trust that, frankly, Obama just hasn't earned.

    He's not getting rid of Geithner, and even if he did, there's just nothing that indicates Obama wouldn't replace him with someone who will just pick up where Geithner left off.  There's a reason Obama picked the people he picked, and it wasn't because he wanted to change their philosophy and approach, it was because he is a proponent of their philosophy and approach.

    As for the banks causing the problems with the economy, it's going to be tough to sell that statement of the obvious, four years and no accountability later, don't you think?  He can say it, but the counter is, "everybody and their grandmother knows this - what did you do about it?  Nothing, except continue to look the other way while consulting them at every turn, filling your administration with them, keeping your door open to them so they would keep writing checks, lobbying hard for a settlement that wouldn't even rise to a slap on the wrist, and ensure that they could keep doing what they did that got us here and is keeping us here."

    He'll either win or he'll lose - but nothing he "says" and no strategy he uses will be in service of anything but winning; once he's got the win in the bag, he's who he's always been: more conservative than liberal, frighteningly authoritarian, way too fond of big money, willing to deny people much-needed help lest someone "undeserving" end up benefiting, an Erskine Bowles/Alan Simpson fan, devoted to secrecy and in love with power, highly judgmental.

    Some will say that this is what politicians do, and that the politician on the other side of the aisle will be worse; to me, they are more the same than they are different on issue after issue - the only thing that really separates them is the speed at which they want to take the country where they want it to go.  

    We're screwed either way.  

    Parent

    Anne, (5.00 / 1) (#112)
    by NYShooter on Sat Jul 07, 2012 at 12:22:50 PM EST
    I hope you didn't think I completely lost my mind in believing what I said was realistically possible? I guess the best way to restate what I was trying to say is this:

    Picture Obama as Paul Neuman (or Robert Redford) in that scene from "Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid."  You know, the one where they're trapped on that cliff 500 ft, high, with the posse about to catch (kill) them?

    Where Neuman says to Redford (who can't swim) "The fall will probably kill you."

    "Oh, shiiiiiiiiiit"

    lol


    Parent

    I don't think you've lost your mind, Shooter, (5.00 / 1) (#113)
    by Anne on Sat Jul 07, 2012 at 02:17:46 PM EST
    I think you are like a lot of us who just so desperately want something better than the choices we've been given, someone who doesn't just pay lip service to liberal/progressive/Democratic ideals but actually believes in them.  Works for them. Doesn't regard them as bargaining chips.

    I don't know if there will ever be such a person, or if the Democratic Party will ever be or stand for the things I want it to, the things that made me choose that party over any other.  I know that Obama has taken it somewhere I - and many others - didn't want it to go.

    Obama can, apparently be moved and pressured by threats of closed checkbooks and withheld votes, but only if those threats come from some well-defined interest group, such as the LGBT community or Latinos; I don't see him responding too well to my group - white women over 50 - he's just not afraid of me.  Not that into me, either.  After all, I'm approaching the age when I will start mooching off the government - something that will be more important to me than ever if my retirement funds continue to limp along.  

    No, you're not crazy, and neither am I.  We both can see what the problems are, but the only problem Obama seems to see right now is whether he can get re-elected, and all of his calculations are in service to that goal.  If he thinks some policy initiative will help, he'll act - and that may be our only hope.  But if he starts to double down on the austerity thing, in spite of clear evidence from Europe that that doesn't work, he's going to lose.

    And so are we.

    "Oh, shiiiiiiiiiit" is right...

    Parent

    Who will obviously do the least damage though (none / 0) (#111)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Jul 07, 2012 at 11:56:54 AM EST
    in the next four years if you really think Obama is mostly full of it?  Obama.  Who will be free to make the moves he deems necessary and not have to worry about being re-elected?  Obama.  I was not happy with what he threw away the first two years, but Obama has things for me that I want and Romney is offering nothing.  I don't think Obama is willing to serve two terms and desire to finish out less than Bill Clinton and Ronald Reagan, some say he is an arrogant President.  If he really is an arrogant President, now is the time he will give me things that will lead to him going down in history as much loved.

    Parent
    I don't think team Obama (none / 0) (#110)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Jul 07, 2012 at 11:27:15 AM EST
    is asleep at the wheel.  I know it is discouraging when the jobs report hit the table, but the news cycle has already moved away from it I suppose because nobody would take the subject on in a meaningful way.

    It is a little premature to throw your whole self at the election.  People are historically a little distracted during the summer.  We have debates coming.  I hope they take your advice on banking.  I would love to see that unfold exactly like that.

    Parent