Thursday Morning Open Thread

I'll be on Daily Kos Radio with Jesse LaGreca at 11 Eastern. Listen here.

Why we are Democrats, FDR's Second Inaugural Address:

But here is the challenge to our democracy: In this nation I see tens of millions of its citizens—a substantial part of its whole population—who at this very moment are denied the greater part of what the very lowest standards of today call the necessities of life.

I see millions of families trying to live on incomes so meager that the pall of family disaster hangs over them day by day.

I see millions whose daily lives in city and on farm continue under conditions labeled indecent by a so-called polite society half a century ago.

I see millions denied education, recreation, and the opportunity to better their lot and the lot of their children.

I see millions lacking the means to buy the products of farm and factory and by their poverty denying work and productiveness to many other millions.

I see one-third of a nation ill-housed, ill-clad, ill-nourished.

But it is not in despair that I paint you that picture. I paint it for you in hope—because the nation, seeing and understanding the injustice in it, proposes to paint it out. We are determined to make every American citizen the subject of his country’s interest and concern; and we will never regard any faithful law-abiding group within our borders as superfluous. The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little.

Open Thread.

< Deterrence Shield In The Middle East | NewsMax: GOP Offered Trump Prime Time Speaking Gig for Convention >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Here's the comment I posted in that (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by Anne on Thu Aug 09, 2012 at 11:22:36 AM EST
    original post:

    Here's a possible - and plausible -
    explanation for at least part of the Romney tax returns issue - the massive size of his IRA - that I saw at David Dayen's but which came from a commenter at TPM.

    See what you think:

    ...you're missing the piece on the timeline where Romney cut a retirement deal with his partners to buy out his shares in the Bain Capital management company. Where it could be zero is if Romney had previously contributed his shares of the Bain Capital management company that he controlled 100% of into his IRA over the years.
    The corporate structure of most private equity firms is such that there is a management company (holding company) above a set of LLCs or limited partnerships which are the actual funds investing the capital and collecting the fees/distributing the profits. Romney was both a general partner in the funds and the sole shareholder of the management company.

    The management company shares are generally considered to have relatively nominal value (i.e. you can conceivably put them into an IRA) as there generally isn't a lot of (or any) income/revenue associated with them -- however, since the management company owns the brand name and controls the funds and all hiring/firing/compensation decisions (within Bain Capital), if Romney's partners wanted to continue using the name "Bain Capital" and take over control of the private equity firm and funds in the future, they would have to buy back Romney's shares over a period of several years for hundred+ of millions of dollars. This is not uncommon in private equity firms undergoing an ownership transition. Since these shares (could) have been contributed to an IRA over the years, the Romney's income 2002 to 2009 would largely be from his partners at Bain buying back shares that he's already contributed to his IRA, and just like any trading you do in your IRA, the sale of these shares would be tax free until after he turns 65 (and/or withdraws from said IRA) and he'd pay zero income taxes on that. So, if he had transferred 50% of his Bain management co. shares to an IRA, if he was being paid $20M per year to have those shares bought back, his tax rate would be a blended 7.5%. If the management company shares were held overseas or had overseas blocker entities, it is conceivable it could be even lower than that. Also, he could use his taxable shares as charitable gifts and his non-taxable IRA shares as tax free income.

    If this is what happened - or at least part of what the returns would reveal - there just isn't anything illegal about it.  I don't think it was "just" that, though - if that were the case, why is Romney still stonewalling?  No, I'm still thinking that Romney took advantage of the amnesty program for previously-unreported offshore income.  He would likely have paid a fair amount of tax on that, but he can't very well brag about all the taxes he paid if the reason he paid them was that he had evaded - not avoided - paying them for some number of years before then.

    I think this might be a great example of what it means to paint one's self into a corner.

    I think that if Romney were "just" (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by CST on Thu Aug 09, 2012 at 11:36:26 AM EST
    not releasing his returns because he's obscenely rich - he's obscenely stupid.

    Everyone knows he's beyond rich.  Shoot, he's running on his ability to run "business".  So either there is something far shadier and worse in there, or he's a complete idiot for not releasing them, because at this point many people are assuming shady - and that's a lot worse than rich.

    The fact that this issue has dragged out as long as it has, and he still won't release his returns, certainly begs the question.  It would be very simple for him to prove Reid wrong, if he were actually wrong.


    An additional rationale for not releasing the (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by Farmboy on Thu Aug 09, 2012 at 11:44:37 AM EST
    returns relates to his state of legal residency during his run for governor.

    Massachusetts Democrats said in 2002 that Mitt Romney was not eligible to run for governor in the state because the state constitution says you have to have been a resident of Massachusetts for seven years before you can run for governor. In trying to prove that allegation, they asserted that Mr. Romney's tax returns would show that he had not filed his taxes as a Massachusetts resident. They thought that should disqualify him from being able to run for governor in the state.

    According to Rachel Maddow:

    REPORTER: The Democrats point to Romney's house in Utah, which was listed as his primary residence, to support a challenge. They also want to see his tax returns.

    ROOSEVELT: We have now learned from his own lips this afternoon that Mr. Romney lied yesterday when he said he had filed resident tax returns in both Massachusetts and Utah.

    REPORTER: Romney acknowledged today he amended his 1999 and 2000 Massachusetts state tax returns to make him a resident here.


    MADDOW: To make him a resident here retroactively. So after saying all along for months to the people of Massachusetts, trust me, I have been filing my tax returns as a Massachusetts resident, it finally came out under pressure that was not true. He had to go back retroactively and refile as a Massachusetts resident because he hadn't filed as a Massachusetts resident despite what he was saying in public.

    From our "Flippity, Floppity" file: (5.00 / 2) (#41)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Aug 09, 2012 at 05:45:36 PM EST
    In trying to explain his reticence about releasing more tax information in the face of increasing public clamor, Mitt Romney today completed yet another round of 180-degree politial metamorphosis -- from the guy who boldly told Iowa hecklers that "Corporations are people, my friend", to a wounded candidate who plaintively whines to Bloomberg reporter Jenanne Cummings, "I'm not a business."

    my summary of political ads in this region (5.00 / 5) (#11)
    by CST on Thu Aug 09, 2012 at 12:17:17 PM EST
    Obama:  Mitt Romney is going to destroy women.  AHHHH.

    Romney:  Obama wastes money, and destroyed the economy.  AHHHH.

    Elizabeth Warren:  We can do better, we need to do better, this is how we should do better.

    Scott Brown:  I swear I'm not a Republican, here are a bunch of Democrats who like me.

    Go Liz! (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by kdog on Thu Aug 09, 2012 at 01:03:05 PM EST
    Positive informative campaign ads?  Having a record and experience she is not embarassed to run on?

    Yep, she's definitely new in this business;)  And exactly the kinda fresh blood we need.

    Now if we can only get here to drop that scarlet letter D from the end of her name...she's too good for it.


    And I shall vote democratic (5.00 / 5) (#12)
    by the capstan on Thu Aug 09, 2012 at 12:24:41 PM EST
    again when they run a real Democrat like FDR (who was inaugurated when I was 5 months old).

    That's exactly why (5.00 / 2) (#16)
    by sj on Thu Aug 09, 2012 at 01:24:57 PM EST
    I used to be a Democrat.  Exactly.

    Amen (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by Dadler on Thu Aug 09, 2012 at 01:28:10 PM EST
    And women. Mostly women. If we're lucky.

    Oh, how I wish this: (5.00 / 4) (#21)
    by Anne on Thu Aug 09, 2012 at 02:06:00 PM EST
    The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little.

    was the mission statement for the current Democratic Party's platform.  I would even settle for it being Obama's mission statement, except that I would need to see some action that comported with the lofty language.

    I do despair of the Democratic Party heeding that call, maybe ever again.  I don't recall ever feeling so much like I had a target on my back as I have these last four years, as both sides seem to want to battle to see which party gets the most credit for dismantling the social safety net.

    FDR tells us so eloquently why we are Democrats; I wish he could tell us why party leaders aren't hearing that message.  Maybe they can't hear it over the sound of the cash accruing to their own benefit.

    Questions about "negative campaigning" (5.00 / 2) (#36)
    by observed on Thu Aug 09, 2012 at 04:55:32 PM EST
    I was just reading that Obama (surprisingly?)
    has not suffered in the polls from the negative campaign against Romney.
    First question: does negative campaign usually hurt the candidate who is making the attacks?
    I'm skeptical.
    Second: How negative is the Obama campaign against Romney?
    They are trying to paint him as a callous, out of touch businessman---one who doesn't care about the suffering caused when Bain put people out of work.
    I'm sorry, but that's not "negative campaigning" in my book.

    A negative campaign would hint at magic underwear, would whisper that Romney's religion was un-American. Hell, a negative campaign would show him speaking fluent French and accuse him of being under the influence of a foreign power.
    I see the Obama campaign as being rather normal, just concentrated and effective.

    "Negative campaigning" is defined ... (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Aug 09, 2012 at 09:40:38 PM EST
    ... as anything you say about my preferred candidate that can be interpreted as even remotely detrimental to the cause.

    Were my candidate to do the same thing to your candidate, that's simply called "hardball."



    Both sides are negative campaigning... (none / 0) (#63)
    by kdog on Fri Aug 10, 2012 at 08:31:22 AM EST
    at least in regards to tv ads.  To me a negative campaign is one focused on how much the other guy sucks, a positive campaign is one focused on why you are the best person for the job.

    The ads coming from Brand D are negative, but not nasty.  Negativity on the issues, if you will.  Your examples would be negative and nasty, imo.


    Yes (none / 0) (#72)
    by cal1942 on Fri Aug 10, 2012 at 01:36:56 PM EST
    IMO, it's not negative to make comparisons.

    A recent Obama ad does just that.

    Divulging real factual information in proper context isn't negative IMO.


    Campaign ads and religion (5.00 / 2) (#56)
    by shoephone on Thu Aug 09, 2012 at 11:56:28 PM EST
    Here's Romney's new ad, "Be Not Afraid," which not only waxes romantic over how St. Ronnie ended the Cold War, but paints Obama as waging a "war against religion" (meaning: a war against Christianity and Catholicism).

    Stupid as the ad is, I have to ask: Does this constant dog whistle cr*p about Obama not being a real Christian open the door to the Dems taking on Romney's Mormonism? Hasn't Romney now made his own religion fair game?

    Does the Democratic Party need the (none / 0) (#57)
    by oculus on Thu Aug 09, 2012 at 11:59:55 PM EST
    Mormon vote?

    I dunno (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by shoephone on Fri Aug 10, 2012 at 12:07:12 AM EST
    According to Dick Morris, Obama's losing in all the important states. And I keep seeing billboards all over Seattle with photos of young hipsterish looking folks from different ethnic groups, with the caption, "My name is____and I'm a Mormon!"

    Just wondering, if Romney and the wingers keep hammering on Obama-the-secret-Muslim, does everybody still have to ignore the elephant in the room.


    I'm surprised that Dick Morris actually ... (5.00 / 1) (#73)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri Aug 10, 2012 at 01:41:24 PM EST
    ...looked up from his latest paramour's feet long enough to study the issue and render an opinion.

    Except for Utah (none / 0) (#74)
    by cal1942 on Fri Aug 10, 2012 at 01:42:51 PM EST
    which Democrats won't win anyway I don't see how the "Mormon vote" could make a real difference in a significant toss-up state.

    I'm being facetious re the "Mormon vote" (none / 0) (#77)
    by shoephone on Fri Aug 10, 2012 at 02:33:26 PM EST
    I was just answering Oculus' question because she asked...

    I'm really posing my question as a matter of tactics. I see Dems cowering in the face of the religious issues. I understand that there shouldn't be any reason to bring it up first, but I'll repeat: if Romney and the wackos keep hammering away with the dog-whistle nonsense about Obama not being sufficiently Christian enough for America, they are opening the door to questions about Romney's Mormonism. I don't see how that can be in dispute.


    If the correct position is that this is a (5.00 / 1) (#80)
    by Anne on Fri Aug 10, 2012 at 03:09:23 PM EST
    country where religion is personal, not public, I think it's a mistake to go after Romney on the basis of his religion - I mean, his policies and positions are bad enough that keeping the focus on them ought to be enough.

    And I think that there's a way to change the perception of Dems as cowering in the face of religious issues to one of standing up for everyone's individual right to express and practice their religion, or lack of religion, in accordance with the Constitution.

    It gets sticky - Catholics will claim that if Obama believes so strongly in those individual religious freedoms, his ACA shouldn't be forcing Catholic business owners to provide birth control coverage for their employees - but it can and should be pointed out that work-arounds have been offered for those kinds of situations.

    I think if that door gets opened, we're in a religious pie fight of epic proportions - and I don't see why we should play this game the way they want us to play it; better to address it by saying something simple like,

    "I know you all have seen the ads and heard the talk, and it's obvious to me, at least, that my opponent and members of his party would like nothing better than to draw me and the Democratic Party into making religion a centerpiece of this election, but I'm here to tell you that we're not taking that bait.  The Constitution affords all of us the right to practice our religion - or not - as we decide, and I won't be drawn into a fight about who is more Christian and whose religion would better represent us as a nation.  I know it's easier to make religion an issue than it is to address how the real problems of this country are going to be addressed, so as long as my opponent and those who purport to speak for him or his party keep up that line of argument, I will be forced to conclude that they have no answers for anything else.  And maybe that should be your conclusion, as well, but that's your call."

    Or maybe Obama can just walk out to the podium one day, and just as he says, "I know you all are interested in my position on the things my opponent and members of his party have been saying about religion.  Well..." he can reach for a large mug on which is emblazoned STFU, take a long swallow, carefully put it down, and conclude by saying, "I'd rather we talk about the real issues."

    That would take balls of a size I'm not sure Obama has, but it would be something to see, wouldn't it?


    Yes, that's what he SHOULD say (none / 0) (#92)
    by shoephone on Fri Aug 10, 2012 at 05:57:18 PM EST
    but he won't. Will Axelrod? Plouffe? Maybe Biden is the only one with the cajones to take it to the GOP, but he won't do it either, because it's already been decided that you do not cross the GOP on the bright, shiny badge of honor they wear for Christianity.

    To be clear: I'm not proposing that Obama start nailing Romney on Mormonism. But Romney opening the door on religion in that ad deserves a strong response. I'm convinced the Dems are pu$$ies on the issue.


    If the Dems hit Romney on the basis of (none / 0) (#81)
    by oculus on Fri Aug 10, 2012 at 03:12:42 PM EST
    his "maybe/maybe not" Christianity, Dems are repeating The Reverend Jeremiah Wright crap.  I hope they don't go there.  

    Don't worry, they won't (none / 0) (#93)
    by shoephone on Fri Aug 10, 2012 at 06:09:05 PM EST
    I hope we don't go there, either. (none / 0) (#94)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri Aug 10, 2012 at 06:17:29 PM EST
    "It is folly to fight over religion. You're basically killing each other to see who has the better imaginary friend."
    -- Yasser Arafat (1929-2004), Palestinian statesman

    Speaking for myself only, I believe that spirituality is an inherently personal subject, and not a one-size-fits-all proposition.

    I always try to remember my grandmother, a devout Roman Catholic, and her wise counsel about the concept of moral superiority and religious vanity: "People who proudly wear their religion on their sleeves, will do so because there's no room for faith in their hearts."

    And quite honestly, I have no problem telling other people that since I prefer to keep my own counsel on such matters, they should therefore consider doing the same and mind their own business.

    "Why is it that when we talk to God we're said to be praying, but when God talks to us we're schizophrenic?"
    -- Lily Tomlin (1939- ), actress & comedian, The Search for Signs of Intelligent Life in the Universe (1986)



    The hits keep on coming... (5.00 / 1) (#67)
    by kdog on Fri Aug 10, 2012 at 10:37:47 AM EST
    Mitt Romney, Bain, Salvadorean Death Squad connections.  Linkage

    Oligarchs of a feather make money together.

    Money trumps life... (none / 0) (#95)
    by desertswine on Fri Aug 10, 2012 at 11:11:54 PM EST
    You wonder how some people can sleep at nite. No conscience of course. This makes me want to vomit.

    Congress authorized estab. of the (5.00 / 1) (#69)
    by oculus on Fri Aug 10, 2012 at 10:57:34 AM EST
    Smithsonian on this date in 1846--after a federalism/states' rights tussle:

    The bequest sparked a debate in Washington between the Federalists and the supporters of states' rights. The states' rights people argued that the Constitution didn't make any provisions for a national institution. But the Federalists won out,...

    Writer's Almanac

    Sorry (none / 0) (#1)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Aug 09, 2012 at 11:13:09 AM EST
    I accidentally wiped out the other post.

    It is was worth it (none / 0) (#2)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Aug 09, 2012 at 11:20:59 AM EST
    For the addition of FDR

    P.S.  Go USA women beat Japan!  Whoop em bad


    I'm gonna (none / 0) (#4)
    by CoralGables on Thu Aug 09, 2012 at 11:35:55 AM EST
    whoop you if you don't lose that word lol

    Now be nice to me (5.00 / 2) (#8)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Aug 09, 2012 at 11:55:49 AM EST
    I just found out I've been purged from the Colorado voter rolls.  I'm a resident, active duty military spouse voted mail in.  Now I'm wondering how voting is going to go for my husband, he's a  Florida resident.  The 2nd term Bush Presidential election vote for active duty was heavily protected as well as the 2008 Presidential election military vote.  But the enlisted voted HARD Obama in 2008 and there are more enlisted than anyone else in the military.  Can Florida be trusted with the active duty soldier vote this election since Obama shut down dying for nothing in Iraq and also got Bin Laden?

    Florida is a huge (none / 0) (#10)
    by CoralGables on Thu Aug 09, 2012 at 12:14:28 PM EST
    military voting state. Legal residency here has great tax perks. He's not planning on running for office in Alabama anytime soon is he? He may have to retroactively change his residence.

    If not Colorado, can we get you on a Florida base for the upcoming election also?


    You can't fudge residency in the military (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Aug 09, 2012 at 12:44:56 PM EST
    anymore.  If you get caught you get in big trouble and they make you pay back all the state income taxes you owed to the state you were avoiding paying.  Either you are a resident of the state you entered into service from, or you purchased property in the new state you are changing your residency to. But nobody has a reason to change their legal Florida active duty residency, that's for sure.

    If he runs for office in Alabama we can always "amend" our returns like Mitt does :)

    I don't know if as his spouse I can change my residency to Florida, but that would be ideal for me since I know more about current Florida issues than I do Colorado.  When we married and then had to move, my big concern was my Colorado residency.

    In the 2000 Presidential election though my husband was in Korea.  When it went into recount I called him and frantically asked him who he voted for since they were "waiting" for the Florida military vote to arrive.  That was when he told me that when he went to vote the voting station was a mess.  Nothing was organized, most of it was still in boxes and nobody could answer any of his questions.  He got frustrated and left and did not vote.

    Then Florida attempted to say that if a soldier's ballot arrived and it was not correctly signed, because that part was confusing, they would not count the vote.  That caused a big uproar in the military too.  Then in 2004 lives were risked getting  the Presidential election ballots to the troops because of what happened with the Florida vote, and nobody told them they were going to disqualify any votes for silly reasons.  2008 was very organized and respectful too.  But my husband says that making certain the deployed could have their voting rights maintained and properly respected has never been a given.


    Humor for the day (none / 0) (#6)
    by CoralGables on Thu Aug 09, 2012 at 11:40:59 AM EST
    earliest known photo of Michael Phelps

    Michael's first winning sprint swim

    new short verse at the Dadler blog (none / 0) (#15)
    by Dadler on Thu Aug 09, 2012 at 01:07:44 PM EST
    Sweet and lovely (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by DFLer on Thu Aug 09, 2012 at 01:35:55 PM EST
    Casey two so far (none / 0) (#19)
    by CoralGables on Thu Aug 09, 2012 at 01:48:42 PM EST
    Soccer for those without cable.



    and USA (none / 0) (#20)
    by CoralGables on Thu Aug 09, 2012 at 02:00:05 PM EST
    takes a quick early lead on what looked like a header by Carli Lloyd

    one more (none / 0) (#23)
    by CoralGables on Thu Aug 09, 2012 at 02:11:18 PM EST
    Um. (none / 0) (#22)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Thu Aug 09, 2012 at 02:11:03 PM EST
    President Geithner?  Not about all of this....

    Is that the ... (none / 0) (#24)
    by unitron on Thu Aug 09, 2012 at 02:19:32 PM EST
    ..."...and I welcome their hatred." speech?

    FDR "[welcomed] their hatred" ... (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Aug 09, 2012 at 02:59:48 PM EST
    ... in a campaign speech at New York's Madison Square Garden on October 31, 1936. This took place about a week before the landslide election which returned him to the White House with 61% of the popular vote and 98% of the electoral college vote.

    The quote you cite is found between 1:20 to 1:40 in the above link: "Never before in all of our history have these forces been so united against one candidate as they stand today. They are unanimous in their hate for me, and I welcome their hatred."

    You can clearly discern the obvious confidence in Roosevelt's voice as he delivers the line. This was a man who knew he was about to win big, and he wasn't above rubbing his opponents' faces in it.


    I listened to part (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Aug 09, 2012 at 03:31:36 PM EST
    of that. Wow. The GOP says the same thing today that they said 70 years ago about the unemployed in this country. They want these people to starve to death because they deem them "worthless".

    As an example of partisan speech, ... (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Aug 09, 2012 at 05:14:56 PM EST
    ... FDR's Madison Square Garden address has to stand out one of the best ever made.

    Another FDR political speech that's just as devastating rhetorically is his "Martin, Barton and Fish" speech almost four years later to the day on October 28, 1940.

    In that speech, the president pointedly singled out (among others) for his scorn and ridicule the three isolationist GOP Congressmen Joseph William Martin, Bruce Barton and Hamilton Fish III, who had repeatedly sought to obstruct his administration's efforts to both aid the British militarily in the wake of the German conquest of France and rebuild the U.S. military in anticipation of the impending escalation of the conflict.

    By saying the names "Martin, Barton and Fish" over again at the end of various paragraphs, Roosevelt effectively turned them into a political punchline, to the point that his partisan Democratic audience would eventually anticipate and join him in repeating the names to their own cheers and delight.


    No (none / 0) (#27)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Aug 09, 2012 at 02:34:55 PM EST
    Too bad, (none / 0) (#30)
    by unitron on Thu Aug 09, 2012 at 02:54:39 PM EST
    ...'cause that's the one they need an up to date version of.

    This is (none / 0) (#25)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Aug 09, 2012 at 02:32:04 PM EST
    a fantastic take down of the GOP by Mike Lofgren:

    GOP Insider: How religion destroyed my party

    It's not religion though per se. It's the radical fundamentalism that has infused the GOP through and through.

    linky no wurky (none / 0) (#26)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Aug 09, 2012 at 02:34:29 PM EST
    try this (none / 0) (#28)
    by DFLer on Thu Aug 09, 2012 at 02:42:27 PM EST
    Thanks (none / 0) (#29)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Aug 09, 2012 at 02:48:57 PM EST
    Zimmerman lawyer to seek Stand Your Ground (none / 0) (#32)
    by ruffian on Thu Aug 09, 2012 at 03:06:28 PM EST
    hearing. I think that is the best idea. Get it out there in public and let's see the reasoning of the judge for either granting or denying the SYG immunity.

    That attempt (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by CoralGables on Thu Aug 09, 2012 at 03:52:19 PM EST
    will fail.

    Excuse me? This is a defense- (none / 0) (#44)
    by oculus on Thu Aug 09, 2012 at 08:32:32 PM EST
    oriented site.  

    I'm a fan of the defense (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by CoralGables on Thu Aug 09, 2012 at 08:52:04 PM EST
    of common sense.

    And the Gators. (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by oculus on Thu Aug 09, 2012 at 09:33:01 PM EST
    Well, I'm all "Zimmed" out and ... (none / 0) (#52)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Aug 09, 2012 at 09:42:20 PM EST
    ... just want it to be over.

    This election is really (none / 0) (#35)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Aug 09, 2012 at 04:50:45 PM EST
    Ugly, and it isn't even September.  All Conservatives must stop updating their Facebook profile photo.  y'all are starting to look like serial killers.

    What are (none / 0) (#37)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Aug 09, 2012 at 04:57:08 PM EST
    they putting on their facebook pages?

    They take new pictures of themselves (none / 0) (#55)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Aug 09, 2012 at 11:01:21 PM EST
    a couple of times a week right now,  and it's just them sitting in front of their computers. I'm only seeing degrees of getting angrier and angrier.  Okay...so now you are so angry you forgot to shave today.  At least Liberals still have some humor, they only update their photos right now when they have an old rainbow afro clown wig on their heads before their wives force them to throw it away.

    Well (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Aug 10, 2012 at 09:40:06 AM EST
    I don't get the pictures but I do get some of the posts and all I have to tell them is that they are NOT helping Romney by putting on the crazy. I mean their posts are filled with conspiracy theories of all kinds. They make themselves look like they need to be in the mental hospital instead of on facebook.

    Next edition of Webster's (none / 0) (#38)
    by observed on Thu Aug 09, 2012 at 05:01:34 PM EST
    should have a photo of Romney as an example of "tomato can".
    Boy, is he folding under the rain of blows.
    This could be a great fall.

    I know. It's great political theatre. (none / 0) (#40)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Aug 09, 2012 at 05:23:26 PM EST
    We should probably make some more popcorn and blend up another round of margaritas ...

    What's the difference between ... (none / 0) (#42)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Aug 09, 2012 at 06:51:15 PM EST
    ... San Francisco International Airport and Oakland International Airport?

    According to Google Maps, it's only 9 miles, which is the distance across San Francisco Bay from one another. But according to Expedia and Travelocity, it's $192, or the difference in the R/T tickets between Honolulu and SFO ($604) and OAK ($412), respectively. So, guess which airport I'm using on my business trip to the Bay Area in September?

    Honestly, this 46% markup for SFO makes no sense to me whatsoever, and I don't know how they figure this out. But however they do, I'd respectively suggest that they might consider that as one of the primary reasons why the air travel industry is so unstable.

    Yes, no kidding, Donald (none / 0) (#43)
    by Zorba on Thu Aug 09, 2012 at 07:45:18 PM EST
    I do the same thing when I go to the Bay Area.  Taking a cab from Oakland to San Francisco is way cheaper than the difference in price.  In fact, it's even way cheaper to hire a d@mned limo from Oakland than to pay the extra expense, and Mr. Zorba has done this on business trips many times.

    Well, I just think it's ridiculous. (none / 0) (#48)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Aug 09, 2012 at 09:10:37 PM EST
    I suppose I shouldn't complain, as OAK is actually a much easier airport to get in and out of than SFO. I can disembark the plane, walk down to baggage claim, grab my luggage, and be out of the airport and on my way up to the BART station in about 15 minutes, if the gods are with me -- which they usually are, because baggage claim at OAK is pretty fast and efficient.

    At SFO, it can take you on average about 10 to 15 minutes just to walk from your arrival gate down to your baggage claim area -- and sometimes longer, if you happen to arrive at a gate on the far end of one of the concourses. Then after you claim your bag, it's another 10-minute hike upstairs to the BART station.

    It's even quicker to catch BART from OAK into downtown San Francisco / Montgomery St. (20 minutes) than from SFO (30 minutes), and further, there are more trains running from the OAK / Coliseum Station than from SFO. So go figure. Frankly, I don't know why OAK isn't a more popular airport than SFO, at least for business travelers.

    (Call me a cheap SOB, but I take BART whenever I can, rather than a taxi, when I'm in the Bay Area. I've always been an advocate for public transportation, and I'm never afraid to use BART. Plus, I've been up there to the Bay Area so often that I actually know my way around pretty well. So, I only take cabs when traversing the downtown areas from the nearest BART station to wherever it is that I need to go -- and even then, only if I'm pressed for time.)



    BART rocks, as does most PT around here (none / 0) (#53)
    by nycstray on Thu Aug 09, 2012 at 10:25:21 PM EST
    yeah, it has it's hiccups, but compared to driving around here (especially with all the added traffic of SV folks), PT is a breeze. I have 3 different PT options if I should need to get into SF for work. The ferry is by far the most relaxing as you don't see any of the traffic, lol!~ and they have flat screens! BART is also another option for me.

    What is SV? (none / 0) (#54)
    by oculus on Thu Aug 09, 2012 at 10:45:52 PM EST
    Silicon Valley :) (none / 0) (#61)
    by nycstray on Fri Aug 10, 2012 at 01:44:32 AM EST
    and it's companies/people that wander/expand up north-ish.

    We took the ferry up to ... (none / 0) (#59)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri Aug 10, 2012 at 12:21:20 AM EST
    ... spend the afternoon in Sausalito one time. It was a really nice ride, and it was easy and convenient. Much better than driving around if you don't have to.

    Yes, I used to take BART (none / 0) (#75)
    by Zorba on Fri Aug 10, 2012 at 01:43:02 PM EST
    all the time, and am very familiar with it.  But as I age, and have more problems walking and have to use a cane, it's now easier for me just to take a cab.
    We used to live in San Francisco, and even though we had a car, it was very often easier to take Muni and BART than to take our car- we didn't have to worry about traffic or finding a place to park.    ;-)

    Do you ever miss the Bay Area? (none / 0) (#76)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri Aug 10, 2012 at 02:02:35 PM EST
    I just love San Francisco and the surrounding area, and so does the spouse. Not surprisingly, that's where we first met one another. If we weren't living in Hawaii, we'd probably be there, that's for sure. I'm happy that my work affords me the opportunity to spend time in the Bay Area about five times a year.

    My aunt and uncle recently relocated back to the East Bay (Oakland) after living in Greeley, CO for the past decade to be near their daughters. They just decided that they missed everything the Bay Area had to offer, and while I'm sure my aunt meant no offense to Colorado resident enthusiasts like Jeralyn, "it just wasn't California."


    Yes, I do miss it (none / 0) (#79)
    by Zorba on Fri Aug 10, 2012 at 03:05:56 PM EST
    Our kids were born while we were there, so I will always have fond memories of it.  It is a great area, and we had a lot of good times there.  Plenty of things to see and do, easy to get  around on public transportation, great food, great areas to visit within a reasonable driving distance.  And, although some people complained about the fog in some areas, there was NO FRIGGING SNOW AND ICE!  And if you love snow, the mountains were not all that far away in the winter.  
    Plus, I found the people to be very nice and very reasonable.  It was a culture shock to me when we moved to New York after living in San Francisco, and we had to deal with the rudeness and abruptness of many New Yorkers.  Not that there are not wonderful things to see and do in New York, but the people are just different.
    And then Maryland was yet another cultural adjustment when
    we moved here.  ;-)
    I think that I can live anywhere, and we have lived all over the country.  But if I had to choose one place to live in the United States, San Francisco would be at the top of my list.

    I actually find the fog to be one of ... (none / 0) (#84)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri Aug 10, 2012 at 03:43:19 PM EST
    ... the city's best attributes. Granted, fog can be annoying to drive around in, but when it rolls on in from the Pacific and laps over the top of Twin Peaks and the Marin headlands, that almost haunting vision serves to enhance the general allure of the locale.

    Now, if people want to see places in California where the fog can be truly disconcerting, if not downright dangerous to drive around in, I'd offer up Sacramento and the Central Valley. I find there to be a very big difference between the Bay Area's coastal fog that hovers off the beaches and coastline and occasionally sweeps inland from the ocean, and the Tule fog that arises from the Sacramento River delta's wetlands with a change in temperatures and then smothers the ground in a thick layer.

    Not surprisingly, when you hear of major traffic accidents involving dozens of vehicles along the I-5 corridor in the Central Valley, its underlying cause is more often than not the Tule fog.


    Where we lived, (none / 0) (#86)
    by Zorba on Fri Aug 10, 2012 at 04:05:58 PM EST
    we often had fog in the morning.  You could sometimes see it rolling in.  The fog never bothered me.  Indeed, as you said, it can be beautiful.
    As far as the traffic accidents along the I-5 corridor are concerned-  well, if people had any sense, they would be careful and drive with consideration for the conditions.  Every time there is any kind of freezing rain here, for instance, people seem to lose their minds and wind up in accidents.  This seems to be especially true of those drivers who have four-wheel (or all-wheel)  drive.  As  my son once said,  "Four-wheel drive doesn't mean four-wheel stop".
    I have driven in all kinds of weather.  Snow, ice, fog, heavy rain- you name it.  The main thing is to keep your head and drive with respect for the road conditions.     ;-)

    Fares San Diego/SFO on SW are (none / 0) (#45)
    by oculus on Thu Aug 09, 2012 at 08:34:12 PM EST
    excellently low at the moment.   The problem with Oakland is going home.  Who wants to schlep on BART, and then BART BUS to arrive at Oakland airport?  Yes, I've done it.  

    You guys are lucky to ... (none / 0) (#50)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Aug 09, 2012 at 09:33:44 PM EST
    ... have Southwest Airlines. We don't have any of the discount carriers flying out here. Our major airlines at HNL -- in terms of numbers of seats available to the U.S. mainland -- are United, Hawaiian, Delta, Alaska and American. The most flights are on United (7x daily to LAX and 6x to SFO), and the cheapest fares out of here are generally found on Alaska.

    I generally prefer to fly Hawaiian Airlines because we're longtime members of their mileage program, and I tend to build up a lot of miles on my numerous interisland business trips. Plus, they have a great reciprocal agreement with Delta Airlines and JetBlue, and it also helps that they have the best-rated inflight service of all the major U.S. carriers. In fact, I can use my miles to send Eldest Daughter back to school in New York state, as Hawaiian also flies nonstop between here and JFK -- which, at 11 hours and 4,980 miles, is the longest domestic flight in the U.S.


    A space for a jumbo jet at SFO (none / 0) (#60)
    by Jack E Lope on Fri Aug 10, 2012 at 12:32:47 AM EST
    costs more than $30,000 per month.  Plus there are gross-weight-based landing fees, cargo-handling-area rents, ticket counter rent approaching $200/sq. ft., and various other per-passenger, per-landing, per-departure, per-employee, per-ground-vehicle and other fees.

    Rates at KOAK are lower - because people are not willing to pay the premium prices that SFO demands.

    The very existence of your complaint indicates that you see some greater value in flying to SFO, even if the value to you does not match the higher prices.


    I actually prefer SFO because ... (none / 0) (#62)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri Aug 10, 2012 at 03:56:38 AM EST
    ... there are over a dozen nonstop flights daily from HNL, starting at 7:00 a.m. until 11:00 p.m. Most of them are on large widebodies such as the B777, B747 and A330, so there are many more seats available to SFO than OAK. I like the convenience of choosing when I want to leave and arrive.

    There are only two nonstops daily out of HNL to OAK, one on a Hawaiian Airlines B767, and the other on an Alaska Airlines B737, for about 390 seats total. And both of them leave within one-half hour of each another in and around 2:00 p.m. HST, and arrive in and around 10:00 p.m. PDT.

    Oakland Int'l Airport has a 10,000-ft. runway that's perfectly suitable for handling widebody jets, which is what Hawaiian flies exclusively on its trans-Pacific routes. In fact, OAK was United Airlines' main maintenance base for its Bay Area hub for years, until they pulled out in June. There's also plenty of room for growth there; Southwest Airlines (which has a west coast hub at OAK) just opened a brand-new additional concourse a few years ago.

    Why all the airlines insist upon cramming themselves into a perpetually overcrowded SFO is totally beyond me, especially when OAK is perfectly suitable and underutilized. They do exactly the same thing down south at LAX, leaving a newly rebuilt and modernized Ontario Int'l Airport (about 40 miles east of LAX) equally underutilized.

    It's been great for Southwest Airlines, which has been ceded a virtual monopoly at both OAK and ONT, but really doesn't do much for consumers. I would hope that city officials in both regions will eventually demand that airlines work to diversify the air traffic in both metro areas, and spread their flights to other regional airports.



    Here's is my disappeared question: (none / 0) (#46)
    by oculus on Thu Aug 09, 2012 at 08:35:52 PM EST
    Re today's DK radio:  what was the lovely musical piece featuring a clarinet and other instruments?  Please provide, if possible, the name of the composer, piece, and musicians.  Thank you.  

    P.S.  Jesse now starts each new thought slowly, then ramps up the speed.  This is progress.  

    MOT and BTD (none / 0) (#65)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Aug 10, 2012 at 10:34:34 AM EST
    Are going after global warming denier Jeff Sessions :)

    MOT says Jeff Sessions gives him (none / 0) (#66)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Aug 10, 2012 at 10:36:10 AM EST
    Foghorn Leghorn flashbacks, except Foghorn Leghorn makes fun of stupid people and Foghorn Sessions is stupid people.

    Seattle & WA. Teacher's Stuck on Inslee (none / 0) (#68)
    by seabos84 on Fri Aug 10, 2012 at 10:46:43 AM EST
    and DelBene and Cantwell and Pathetic-Phake-moderate-ism cuz ... cuz ... Lessor of two evil! Walker Scott Brown Nelson Scott!

    In another round of back door 'activism' by "Leaders" committed to treating the grassroots like rubes, my union also endorsed susan delbene, the msft millionaire, over darcy burner in CD-1.

    pardon my random ... if the fringe on right and left is 4%, then the middle is 92%. if the fringes are ... 15%, the middle is 70%.

    Appx. 40% (or less, they're still counting) of registered voters voted in our Tues. 7 Aug primary, and registered voters are not eligible voters. By STABUS table 398 there are appx. 5.1 million over 18 in WA, by WA Secretary of State there are appx. 3.7 registered.

    3.7/5.1 times .4 = means about 29% of the citizens participated in Tues ...

    WHO or what is 'the middle'? the 70% who said ukfay ouyay on Tuesday?

    the lying DLC yuppie scum 'moderates' of WA. have earned their wins, and they merit the ennui of the community. once again, the state Democratic party is running a top down 'grassroots' campaign of LOTE, cuz, what the hell else they gonna run on? Jay & Maria's participation in the rotating villain club? Susan's soon to be ascension?

    the Democratic party is about building long term communities of participation, OR, crises du-election Help The Top and let the little ones fend for them selves! once again, the state Democratic party is running a top down 'grassroots' campaign of LOTE, cuz, what the hell else they gonna run on? Jay & Maria's participation in the rotating villain club? Susan's soon to be ascension? Cowpatch Grassroots - 'Well pardners, it is election time, time to go to the grassroots, chew 'em up, spit 'em out, pee on 'em, crap on 'em, move on!'

    sadly, my union 'leaders' are content to be summoned to Big Meetings with Big Leaders, sat at their kidde table with their bibs, their sippy cups, their sporks and their mush - and be scolded into accepting the latest version of cutting edge conventional wisdom - don't scare the middle, or, we'll lose!

    30% of the citizens participate, the purveyors of mush keep their jobs ... if their goal is keep their 6 figure a year jobs, they're getting what they've earned. the lying DLC yuppie scum 'moderates' of WA. have earned their wins, and they merit the ennui of the community.

    Pst - FYI - mush ain't FDR, and 30% is the middle of what? The guy who coined up The Big Lie would be proud. The guy who coined doublethink ... is probably filling another Victory Gin.

    SEA - WEA union leaders ...

    You know who I am.

    Great....more guns please! (none / 0) (#70)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Aug 10, 2012 at 01:18:03 PM EST
    The alleged shooter went to school with my daughter, quiet nerdy kid.

    Jesus Christ....I know, guns don't kill people, just quiet nerdy pissed off people with guns kill people.

    Even better, the dead dancer has three kids (none / 0) (#71)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Aug 10, 2012 at 01:20:03 PM EST
    Great, just great!

    I'm sorry (none / 0) (#78)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Aug 10, 2012 at 03:00:40 PM EST
    to hear this Tracy. Honestly, what is wrong with these people? Well, I kind of know living in the south all my life. It's the prevalent culture that killing someone is going to solve all your problems. I call it southern redneck justice or southern redneck frustration.

    My daughter said that he never (none / 0) (#82)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Aug 10, 2012 at 03:18:49 PM EST
    acted like a person who could do this.  But angry people with guns do many goofy things.  My daughter being used to such shootings ending in the shooter killing themselves wondered why he instead ran into the woods and stayed on the run all night long.  I thought it was probably because this wasn't premeditated, he was angry, he did it, but he wasn't miserable depressed...he was just ticked off.

    Some of the things we have been told...so are not fact of course, are that when people ran out of the club he went shooting into the woods after them too.  Also, that he shot the club owner's son (the person who booted him out) five times.  My husband said Fort Rucker was quiet as a church until the victims names were released afraid that a flight school student could be among them, everyone was local though.


    I'm also so very sorry, Tracy (5.00 / 1) (#83)
    by Zorba on Fri Aug 10, 2012 at 03:26:12 PM EST
    How is you daughter taking this?  I hope she's okay- it can be hard on the people who knew the perpetrator, too.
    And my heart breaks and goes out to the victims and their loved ones.  Just so sad.  And getting to be so frigging common, unfortunately.

    It's never really been uncommon. (none / 0) (#85)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri Aug 10, 2012 at 03:57:31 PM EST
    Of late, I've been reminded of one of Elton John's most underrated, timeless and haunting masterpieces, "Ticking," which explored this very subject back in 1974.

    It's rather sobering to consider that so very little has really changed in the 38 years since this song was first written and recorded.


    solve it all down the barrel (none / 0) (#89)
    by jondee on Fri Aug 10, 2012 at 04:40:13 PM EST
    of a gun. Whatever the problem is. Alot of people have spirtual erectile dysfunction in this country, and think, for some twisted reason, that violence is the solution. It's all basically a deadly adolescent temper tantrum: I can't get what I want (and think I deserve) so nobody's going to get what they want..

    Our ancestors solved it (none / 0) (#90)
    by Zorba on Fri Aug 10, 2012 at 05:01:32 PM EST
    with clubs and, eventually, spears, arrows, and so on.   We're not so very different from them.  Unfortunately.  I despair for the human race.  We cannot seem to get beyond the mind-set that says "You are close to me- good.  You are not close to me- bad".

    To me, the people who (none / 0) (#91)
    by oculus on Fri Aug 10, 2012 at 05:06:44 PM EST
    kill people they don't know and don't want property from, as in an armed robbery or burglary, are acting from mental disorder with the unfortunate number of murders possible because the mentally disordered person acquires a firearm and ammo.  

    You reach a point where ... (none / 0) (#87)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri Aug 10, 2012 at 04:07:00 PM EST
    ... you just become numbed by the news. I keep hoping and praying that one of these light years, we're finally going to wise up collectively as a people, and deliver the type of vicious smackdown that the NRA and their poliitical lapdogs truly deserve. This is just insanity, and it's sickening.

    As I get older, Donald, (none / 0) (#88)
    by Zorba on Fri Aug 10, 2012 at 04:37:04 PM EST
    I have to say, I become more and more pessimistic about whether we will "wise up" or not.
    Humans are still hairless (more or less) plains apes.  If you are not "of my tribe," you are "the enemy."  I used to think, many years ago, that we could get beyond this.  I really don't think so any more.    :-(