Friday Afternoon Open Thread

Can Kershaw keep the Dodgers alive?

I'm really busy, but not too busy to pick college games for our Saturday College Football Open Thread!

Here's an Open Thread for today.

< Thursday Night Open Thread | Saturday College Football OpenThread >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Tom Foley, RIP (5.00 / 6) (#3)
    by shoephone on Fri Oct 18, 2013 at 03:11:02 PM EST
    He was a great Speaker of the House, IMO, and the creepy idiot who took his district seat in '94 went on to lose ten years later in an ill-fated Senate bid to unseat Patty Murray. (He was for term limits before he was against them).

    Anyway, Foley is remembered fondly in Washington State. I suspect he'll be remembered fondly in D.C. as well. Met him once; he was a very respectful, kind man of the old school brand of politicking. I can only imagine what he thought of the Tea Party.

    There seems to be a real (5.00 / 6) (#15)
    by MO Blue on Fri Oct 18, 2013 at 05:58:20 PM EST
    ongoing misconception on the part of die hard Obama supporters. The misconception that they continue to pursue is that somehow if I strongly disagree with one of Obama's policies or positions, that I would not only be just fine with that position or policy if Hillary was doing it rather than Obama but would become a cheerleader for that position. I have answered this same question numerous times:

    Will you use this standard in evaluating Hillary?

    Number one: I am not now or never have been a die hard Hillary supporter. If she runs in 2016, there is a good chance that I will not vote for her especially if she intends to continue Obama's policies.

    Number two: If I am against a position or a policy when it came from Bush and the Republicans, I am against the position or policy when it comes from Obama and the Dems and I will still be against that position or policy if and when it comes from Hillary.

    So once and hopefully for the last time, yes, I would use the same standard when evaluating Hillary.

    When numerous Democratic political writers who support Obama and the Dems state that the Dems lost the funding war when they adopted the Paul Ryan funding numbers, there is a good chance that what they are saying is true.

    The (5.00 / 3) (#28)
    by lentinel on Sat Oct 19, 2013 at 05:23:32 AM EST
    Hillary canard is such a distraction and deflection.

    The other one I find equally irritating is if I write something critical - even obliquely - of administration policy or lack thereof, I sometimes get a reply that is unresponsive to the content and instead is satisfied to call me a "hater". A synonym I have also seen here in response to a serious post, is the use of the term, "Obama-basher." I cannot tell you how unintelligent that sounds to me.

    It is just so destructive to serious discussion.
    And during these perilous times, in my opinion the last thing we on the "left" need, is to call each other names.


    I would suggest that (none / 0) (#29)
    by Edger on Sat Oct 19, 2013 at 06:08:42 AM EST
    people who fling around terms like "obama-basher", and generally engage in name calling and the kind of unresponsiveness to comments you're talking about, are in no way "left", but are poseurs, which is a fancy word for liars.

    I would suggest (none / 0) (#31)
    by ExcitableBoy on Sat Oct 19, 2013 at 07:21:05 AM EST
    neither side has clean hands -- or keyboards -- in that regard. I'm so tired of reading articles on sites (not this one) and checking out the comments, only to scroll through 50 or more that just hurl insults back and forth, without ever addressing the points discussed. You're either a teabagger that hates the President because he's black, or an America-hating, lazy socialist.

    I stopped (5.00 / 4) (#38)
    by lentinel on Sat Oct 19, 2013 at 09:27:22 AM EST
    reading those sites.

    No more Kos.
    No more Huffpo.

    Too too dumb.


    I, too, stopped (5.00 / 3) (#47)
    by Zorba on Sat Oct 19, 2013 at 10:34:53 AM EST
    reading both of those sites a long, long time ago.

    Read Jim Hightower (5.00 / 2) (#50)
    by DFLer on Sat Oct 19, 2013 at 12:05:56 PM EST
    specific facts about specific issues.



    Thank you, (5.00 / 3) (#52)
    by Zorba on Sat Oct 19, 2013 at 02:37:26 PM EST
    I already do.
    And boy, do I miss Molly Ivins!

    amen to Molly (5.00 / 3) (#53)
    by DFLer on Sat Oct 19, 2013 at 05:51:31 PM EST
    am re-reading "Bushwhacked" Old news...but terribly important.

    Two Texan women this country really misses: Molly Ivins and Barbara Jordan.


    And Ann Richards. (5.00 / 2) (#54)
    by Angel on Sat Oct 19, 2013 at 06:17:17 PM EST
    Yes! Ms Richards too (none / 0) (#55)
    by DFLer on Sat Oct 19, 2013 at 07:23:53 PM EST
    Philatelic fans: there is a Barbara Jordan stamp issued in 2011, still available at the UPS store in a commemorative package, including stamps

    So did I (5.00 / 3) (#51)
    by sj on Sat Oct 19, 2013 at 02:18:17 PM EST
    I think that Jeralyn's "No Profanity" rule has also done a whole lot to keep this site "a cut above". That can't keep out the "-basher" and -- worst of all -- "hater" comments.

    Here's the thing about the term "hater". That detestable term and usage was introduced into the lexicon by Sarah Palin. Do the people who now bandy it about remember from whom they are taking their cue? And it isn't even a case of the proverbial stopped clock. It was intended to be taunting and divisive and it does that very, very well.


    A lot (5.00 / 2) (#36)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Oct 19, 2013 at 09:11:20 AM EST
    of that comes from IMO because of the mindset of the die-hards is that if Obama does it, it is okay and if Hillary did it it would not be okay with same people.

    Anyway my problem with Obama has always been that he does not care about policy and really does not see how it affects people in their lives. On top of that he does not even try for the best policy. I mean if the ACA was really the best we could do and Obama had at least tried for something better it would be different.


    My take is the exact opposite (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by MO Blue on Sat Oct 19, 2013 at 09:30:26 AM EST
    Since they are strong proponents of personality politics (i.e. if Obama does it, it is okay), they are making the assumption (based on some unmovable idea only in their heads) that I and others are strong Hillary supporters who would champion the positions and policies we currently strongly oppose if they were Hillary's positions and policies (i.e. if Hillary did it, we would love it).

    Beyond that, it is just one of their favorite distraction techniques to move the conversation away from the actual pros and cons of the issue under discussion.



    That (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Oct 19, 2013 at 10:52:58 AM EST
    is what I was trying to say but I guess I did not get my point across. Yeah, since they think that everything Obama does is okay they think that Hillary supporters would think the same way.

    So we basically agree on that account.


    Two different cities (5.00 / 4) (#18)
    by MO Blue on Fri Oct 18, 2013 at 08:09:26 PM EST
    Two different ways to address homelessness

    The Most Innovative Homeless Service You've Never Heard Of

    Homeless Man Learning Computer Programming Arrested For Sleeping In Public

    One city finds effective ways to help and another criminalizes homelessness and saddles poor people with fines they can't afford.

    Fining someone because they have no place (5.00 / 4) (#21)
    by Amiss on Fri Oct 18, 2013 at 09:17:35 PM EST
    to sleep or live is beyond idiotic IMHO, at least. SMH.

    Unfortunately.... (5.00 / 2) (#26)
    by unitron on Sat Oct 19, 2013 at 01:21:47 AM EST
    ...it's against the law not to have money.

    It's not spelled out just like that, of course, but that's the way it works out just the same.


    Yes, but it is perfectly legal (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by MO Blue on Sat Oct 19, 2013 at 08:12:38 AM EST
    for the haves to take what little the have-nots have. In fact, it seems that our government (at all levels) is bound and determined to write whatever legislation is necessary to take it from them and put it into the pockets of the mega rich.

    The Shape We're In.... (5.00 / 2) (#40)
    by kdog on Sat Oct 19, 2013 at 09:45:41 AM EST
    I've just spent 60 days in the jailhouse
    For the crime of having no dough
    Now here I am back out on the street
    For the crime of having nowhere to go

    The Dodgers truly s*ck tonight. (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by oculus on Fri Oct 18, 2013 at 10:34:04 PM EST

    WACHA, WACHA BOOM BOOM (5.00 / 2) (#25)
    by MO Blue on Fri Oct 18, 2013 at 10:45:02 PM EST
    Cardinal pitching only gave up only 2 hits and Cardinals won the game 9 - zip.

    Standing ovation. Wild cheering! There will be partying in downtown area tonight.


    My poor Dodgers tonight reverted to their earlier incarnation from late spring that had landed them in last place and 9.5 games out on June 21, the day before they commenced that amazing run during which they won 42 of their next 50 games.

    Oh, well. It was still a great season overall, particularly since at the start of it I had picked the Boys in Blue to finish third in the NL West, well behind the Giants and Diamondbacks, whereupon Don Mattingley would be forced out as manager.

    Instead, L.A. won the division handily, dispatched the Atlanta Braves in four during the division series, and made it to the NLCS, while Mattingley has to be considered a strong candidate for National League Manager of the Year honors.

    (Actually, putting aside my Dodger partisanship for the moment, I really hope Pittsburgh's Clint Hurdle wins that award, because he did an amazing job this year in piloting the Pirates to their first winning season and playoff berth in over two decades.)

    Congratulations to a very deserving St. Louis Cardinals team, for whom I'll be rooting in the World Series -- especially if they're playing the Boston Red Sox.



    What do you have against the Sox? (none / 0) (#30)
    by ExcitableBoy on Sat Oct 19, 2013 at 07:05:39 AM EST
    A very likable team IMO, with a huge turnaround in attitude and record from the last couple years. Historic collapse in September 2011, 69 wins and last in the division last year, to 97 wins and one away from the World Series.

    Assuming they can past Detroit -- no easy feat with Ace 1 going tonight and Ace 2 if needed tomorrow -- I would've loved going against the Dodgers, with Gonzalez and Crawford in the other dugout.


    Oh, the Red Sox...maybe it isn't them so (none / 0) (#33)
    by Anne on Sat Oct 19, 2013 at 08:20:36 AM EST
    much as it is their generally obnoxious fans, obnoxious fans that took advantage of the Orioles' decade-plus losing streak to gobble up the many extra tickets to games at Camden Yards and overrun the streets of the city and act as if they owned it all.

    Yankees fans did the same thing.

    The best part about the resurgence in the Orioles is not having to contend with that level of invasion, and once again being able to have a home game on and, from the other room, know that if you hear cheering, it isn't Red Sox fans or Yankee fans.

    Your asking what's wrong with the Sox is like asking a Ravens fan what's wrong with the Steelers...and I could go on about that subject, too.  :-)


    Fair enough (none / 0) (#34)
    by ExcitableBoy on Sat Oct 19, 2013 at 08:49:43 AM EST
    But if the team on the field is so bad that you lose home field advantage to the visitors, I think your ire is better directed at the ownership and management that fills out the roster, rather than opposing fans who support their team.

    But Sox fans, like many others, can be jerks, and I can't imagine being outrooted at home by the likes of Yankees fans, or anybody else.

    One of my biggest problem with Boston fans is when I would hear them whine about having to compete with the Yankees payroll, as if they didn't realize the Sox pay a few players more than the entire payroll of some teams. They've addressed it a little with luxury taxes or whatever, but there needs to be more parity. Someone might break through once in a while, but too many fans wake up on Opening Day knowing they have absolutely no shot.


    Oh, there was plenty of ire...and part (none / 0) (#35)
    by Anne on Sat Oct 19, 2013 at 09:00:57 AM EST
    of it was that the failures of ownership and management were not just subjecting fans to mediocre baseball, but to having Sox and Yankees fans in our city rubbing the fans' noses in it.

    Trust me when I tell you that there was a lot of satisfaction taken in the Orioles spoiling the Red Sox post-season chances two years ago - with help from Tampa...

    I'm not the only one who's wondered how a salary cap would change baseball, but I don't think we're likely to see it anytime soon.


    The memners of bipartisan, bicameral group (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by MO Blue on Sat Oct 19, 2013 at 09:56:43 AM EST
    It has 29 members. The bipartisan, bicameral group includes the entire Senate Budget Committee, as well as four House Republicans and three House Democrats. Here's the full list:

    House Republicans:
    Rep. Tom Cole (Okla.)
    Rep. Tom Price (Ga.)
    Rep. Diane Black (Tenn.)

    House Democrats:
    Rep. James Clyburn (S.C.)
    Rep. Chris Van Hollen (Md.)
    Rep. Nita Lowey (N.Y.)

    Senate Republicans:
    Sen. Jeff Sessions (Ala.)
    Sen. Charles Grassley (Iowa)
    Sen. Mike Enzi (Wyo.)
    Sen. Mike Crapo (Idaho)
    Sen. Lindsey Graham (S.C.)
    Sen. Rob Portman (Ohio)
    Sen. Pat Toomey (Pa.)
    Sen. Ron Johnson (Wis.)
    Sen. Kelly Ayotte (N.H.)
    Sen. Roger Wicker (Miss.)

    From Senate Democratic Caucus:
    Sen. Ron Wyden (Ore.)
    Sen. Bill Nelson (Fla.)
    Sen. Debbie Stabenow (Mich.)
    Sen. Bernie Sanders (Vt.)
    Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (R.I.)
    Sen. Mark Warner (Va.)
    Sen. Jeff Merkley (Ore.)
    Sen. Chris Coons (Del.)
    Sen. Tammy Baldwin (Wis.)
    Sen. Tim Kaine (Va.)
    Sen. Angus King (Maine)


    I would recommend contacting your congresscritters regarding opposition to cuts to domestic and safety net programs. Specific mention of opposition to the chained CPI and mean testing of Medicare and penalizing first dollar coverage as CUTS to be voted down. Raising the cap on SS would actually help SS and not chained CPI. Depending on their party affiliation, I would emphasize the long term political damage to the their Party if they pass these cuts. Republicans count on the votes of seniors too.

    If you are represented by anyone on the new Cat Food Commission, please call often and flood their phone lines and email boxes with notification of your opposition and the effect that their vote will have on your support.

    Van Hollen - Call and tell just say NO (5.00 / 2) (#43)
    by MO Blue on Sat Oct 19, 2013 at 10:27:29 AM EST
    As part of an event with the Wall Street Journal and corporate leaders, Rep. Chris Van Hollen (MD) -- a leading Democrat and ranking member of the House Budget Committee -- indicated that he thinks cuts to Social Security and Medicare benefits should be part of the upcoming deficit negotiations:

    On Capitol Hill, it isn't clear how strenuously Democrats will resist cutting entitlements. Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D., Md.) said he and others were open to changes as long as they were done in a measured way and were part of deal that included tax increases. Mr. Van Hollen also said changing Social Security and increasing the Medicare eligibility age above 65 should be part of negotiations.

    "I'm willing to consider all of these ideas as part of an overall plan," Mr. Van Hollen said Tuesday at the Journal's CEO Council.


    Clyburn (5.00 / 2) (#45)
    by MO Blue on Sat Oct 19, 2013 at 10:29:37 AM EST
    James Clyburn was one of only 16 Democrats to vote for the Simpson-Bowles plan when it came to a vote in March 2012. That is even worse than it looks because S-B critic-turned-cheerleader Nancy Pelosi argued that the plan being put to a vote was to the right of Simpson-Bowles. She refused to whip for it accordingly. link

    AN AXE LENGTH AWAY, vol. 160 (none / 0) (#1)
    by Dadler on Fri Oct 18, 2013 at 01:21:38 PM EST
    I hope Kershaw can keep them alive... (none / 0) (#2)
    by Dadler on Fri Oct 18, 2013 at 01:24:16 PM EST
    ...but the rhythm of the series tells me the Cards will win tonight. That Wacha is pretty whacka, too. If Puig was in some kind of a groove, I might think differently, but that's why they throw out the first pitch and play the games.

    Go Blue!

    Cards need a run or two early (none / 0) (#4)
    by Slado on Fri Oct 18, 2013 at 03:33:20 PM EST
    If Kershaw gets rolling there will be no chance at getting runs.

    I want the Cards to win but Kershaw is a stud and I can't believe Wacha has another almost no hitter in hims.

    Hope I'm wrong.

    Go Cards!


    Good call... (none / 0) (#37)
    by Visteo1 on Sat Oct 19, 2013 at 09:26:44 AM EST
    Do you have a prediction for the Sox and Tigers?

    Exchange Website (none / 0) (#5)
    by Slado on Fri Oct 18, 2013 at 03:34:02 PM EST
    Interesting insight on how we got where we are.

    Friday's laugh. (none / 0) (#6)
    by Angel on Fri Oct 18, 2013 at 03:41:39 PM EST
    Why? (none / 0) (#8)
    by Slado on Fri Oct 18, 2013 at 04:19:18 PM EST
    He'd be the first person in government to do so.

    It's obvious you didn't read the link. (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by Angel on Fri Oct 18, 2013 at 05:50:31 PM EST
    Just for that I'm posting another Ted Cruz goodie.  "The Dream of Keeping Poor People from Seeing a Doctor Must Never Die"

    You don't realize (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by Zorba on Fri Oct 18, 2013 at 05:57:47 PM EST
    that Andy Borowitz is a comedian and satirist?  He's like The Onion, dude.  Try to keep up.  ;-)

    Yman (none / 0) (#7)
    by jbindc on Fri Oct 18, 2013 at 03:58:15 PM EST
    As since sj rightly pointed out about the blog-clogging, this will be my last comment discussing this issue with you. You won't be convinced, depsite evidence put right in front of your face. But you wanted Henry Chao's comment (which was quoted in the link I provided earlier), but since you didn't like where it came from, you chose to ignore it.

    So here you go.

    Chao was frank about the stress and tension of the compressed time frame involved in setting up the exchanges. "We are under 200 days from open enrollment, and I'm pretty nervous,'' he said. "I don't know about you," he added, to murmurs from the insurance industry audience. Members peppered Chao and Cohen with many questions about the format for the health care policies they will submit to HHS for approval so the plans can be marketed in the exchanges.

    Chao said the main objective is to get the exchanges up and running and signing up the uninsured. "The time for debating about the size of text on the screen or the color or is it a world-class user experience, that's what we used to talk about two years ago," he said. "Let's just make sure it's not a third-world experience."

    Cohen said his staff continues to work toward the October start date and expects that the exchanges will be ready to oversee enrollment in insurance plans by individuals and small businesses. There are 18 exchanges expected to be run by states and the District of Columbia, seven by state-federal partnerships and 26 by the federal government.

    But "there is contingency planning that is going on to address foreseeable things that may be problematic on day one," Cohen said. "Everyone recognizes that day one will not be perfect."

    Perfect?  No, not even close. And what was this "contingency plan" they mentioned? Strangely, it was only after Chao made those comments in March, that the costs of this project went from almost $94 million to $292 million:

    "Why this went from a ceiling of $93.7 million to $292 million is hard to fathom," said Scott Amey, general counsel at the Project on Government Oversight, a Washington, D.C.-based watchdog group that analyzes government contracting.

    "Something changed. It suggests they ran into problems and knew last spring that they couldn't do it for $93.7 million. They just blew through the original ceiling. Where was the contract oversight?

    So yeah, I guess Mr. Chao had a good reason to be nervous.

    Those were the comments ... (none / 0) (#10)
    by Yman on Fri Oct 18, 2013 at 04:50:44 PM EST
    ... you were referring to?!?  I saw them in the article and a long time ago.  I assumed you must have meant some other comments, since they have absolutely nothing do do with your claim.

    After I said we don't yet know the reasons for all the problems with the healthcare.gov rollout, you said that you did "know" the reasons, citing a piece by McArdle.  I pointed out that's merely your opinion (shared by McArdle), but that you didn't "know" what caused it.  Then, you said "I will take the word of the guy in charge of the project, Henry Chao, over your random interpretation," suggesting that:

    1.  Chao supports your claims about what caused the rollout problems, and

    2.  Chao's statement somehow contradicts my point that we don't yet know what caused the problems.

    It does neither.

    Chao's comments occurred prior to the rollout, and he was expressing worries about the rollout.  He said absolutely nothing about what caused the rollout problems, and he said nothing which (even slightly) contradicts my point.

    I'll leave the "blog-clogging" BS aside, since the two of you should be the last people to play hall monitor on that issue.


    I suppose it's possible that the problems (5.00 / 3) (#11)
    by Anne on Fri Oct 18, 2013 at 05:25:11 PM EST
    being reported now, both on the user end and on the insurer end, are rooted or have a genesis in something other than the software or the platform or the timing or the contract specs or how much money was spent, or the management structure, but what you've been hammering both sj and jb on for lo these many comments has a flavor of wanting those hoofbeats we're hearing to be coming from zebras and not horses.

    I think, at each point along the way, whatever problems there are will be looked at through the lens of those who have expertise and knowledge at that particular point.  There will be much Monday Morning quarterbacking, and I don't think there will be any one thing that is more valid than any other thing - but the cumulative effect of the problems will make sorting it all out, while people are trying to use it - much more difficult to rectify.

    I think, if you were my lawyer, I would be thrilled at your dogged pursuit of the facts, and your ability to open up potholes for people to break their rhetorical ankles in - but I think sometimes that approach in this community atmosphere seems unnecessarily argumentative and confrontational, especially when there seems to be some agreement on the essential truth that the rollout has been much less than successful.

    I think, at this stage, we're all trying to explore the whole issue, and sometimes your approach inhibits that process more than it encourages it, and people just end up mad, not better informed.


    See my link above (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by Slado on Fri Oct 18, 2013 at 05:44:01 PM EST
    My take is it's still too early to call this thing a complete train wreck but it's not a leap to say the train is stuck at the station.

    For whatever reason the administration was not ready for the 10/1 rollout.   We are so far beyond "glitches" that the use of the term has for the most part stopped.

    I think the actual problem is no one really knows how bad it is.  Critics and commentators are prone to exaggeration and we're seeing that from the right and left.

    At this point I'd say there's a 50/50 chance they get their act together by the end of the year.  

    The real question and what no one knows is what happens when not enough young people have signed up.    Then what does the administration do.

    My recommendation, not that they'll take it, is to call it quits early rather then drag out the pain through the 2014 election season.

    It doesn't take a crystal ball to predict that if the administration does what it always does (deny the obvious) this could turn out poorly for the dems come election day 2014 and the shutdown will be a distant memory.

    The president caught a break when Ted Cruz took the medias attention away from the rollout but that is over.   A little follow up to the repubs bad few weeks this weekend will quickly lead to what the hell is wrong with Obamacare if this thing keeps going the way it's going.


    Given choice of online or talking to human being (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by DFLer on Fri Oct 18, 2013 at 08:20:57 PM EST
    on the phone....take the phone!

    heard on Chris Hayes that the phone wait is about 2 minutes...that's way better than any vendor I have to talk to.


    The phone only works (none / 0) (#56)
    by jbindc on Mon Oct 21, 2013 at 07:46:04 AM EST
    If you know what plan you want to purchase.  If,  like me, you want to look and see what options are available, and do a comparison , then no, a phone call is not going to be helpful, despite what Chris Hayes says.

    See, here's the thing (none / 0) (#20)
    by Yman on Fri Oct 18, 2013 at 08:44:51 PM EST
    I'm sure there would say many of the same things about you, Anne - but much as SJ, JB and (possibly you) would like it to be, that's not the point.  I'm going to spell this out as clearly as it can be:

    As far as the substance of the argument, my point was/is that no one "knows" what the causes of the healthcare.gov problems are, with the possible exception of the contractors and managers of the program.  I say "possible" because, while they are the only ones with detailed, firsthand knowledge of the process by which it was developed, they're still in the middle of trying to figure it out.  There are many different opinions of what's caused the problems, but the reality is it's too early to tell whether this was an oversight/management failure, a design failure by the contractors, a political failure based on the the late development of regulations (for political reasons), a specs failure, a procurement failure caused by an inflexible, antiquated procurement system, an integration failure due to an enormously complex job of integrating numerous different federal databases into a single hub, or another reason as yet undiscussed because we have no direct knowledge - or a combination of some or all of these.

    No one - least of all me - is claiming that "it's possible that the problems being reported now, both on the user end and on the insurer end, are rooted or have a genesis in something other than the software or the platform or the timing or the contract specs or how much money was spent, or the management structure."  In fact, I think it's quite possible that some (or maybe even all) of those factors - or others that haven't even been discussed - played a role in why the rollout was such a failure.  In fact, I specifically mentioned those issues as possible causes when I answered the question that prompted all this:

    I honestly don't know.  I don't think anyone does yet, really.  From what I've read, it may have something to do with the decision to delay the regulations until this year.  it could also be the enormous complexity of integrating dozens of large, pre-existing databases.  It might also be a huge screw-up at the contractor level and/or the managerial level.

    This is where it went downhill.  To that fairly innocuous post, JB replied that he did "know" the reasons for the failure, citing McArdle's piece as his evidence and stating that he would take the word of Henry Chao over my "random interpretation" - despite the fact that Chao hasn't ever commented on the reasons for the website problems.  After that, we were off to the races with both jb and sj putting words and my mouth and hypocritically whining about blog-clogging.

    Now I know you tend to get more than a little upset (rightly so) when someone (repeatedly) tries to put words in your mouth.  IIRC you've had the very same issue with jb on several occasions.  Not to mention that you have been accused on several occasions of being "unnecessarily argumentative and confrontational," or some variation thereof.  I also know you have little tolerance for condescending responses with no substance (i.e. "Not really. I get it that this isn't your field.") or amateur psychoanalysis.  Their responses had nothing to do with making people "better informed" or "exploring the whole issue".

    So while I appreciate your attempt at playing mediator, when someone pulls that bu//$hit I can deal with it myself.


    Oh, for the love of God... (5.00 / 2) (#22)
    by Anne on Fri Oct 18, 2013 at 09:29:32 PM EST
    I don't think jb has a monopoly on putting words in people's mouths and not comprehending what people are saying - I think you've done a masterful job of being deliberately disingenuous and turning what could have been a reasonable discussion into one most people are avoiding at all costs.

    You jumped the shark on this about 8 comments ago; no one cares about your points anymore.

    And golly, you managed to do that all by yourself.


    Really, Anne? (none / 0) (#23)
    by Yman on Fri Oct 18, 2013 at 09:35:06 PM EST
    Is that how you feel?

    Well, now I'm upset.


    This week in Orlando crazy (none / 0) (#9)
    by ruffian on Fri Oct 18, 2013 at 04:21:54 PM EST
    2 convicted murderers, serving prison time, managed to get forged release papers through the system, probably with some inside help of some kind. They were released accordingly, and even registerd after release as they were told.

    But now they are gone on the wind.

    A truly crazy story.... (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by magster on Fri Oct 18, 2013 at 06:32:21 PM EST
    Now that's... (none / 0) (#42)
    by kdog on Sat Oct 19, 2013 at 09:56:48 AM EST
    a pretty slick prison break...gives me hope for the future.

    Lets hope these two dudes find the righteous path and redemption, so it's a feel good story through and through.  


    You can't be serious! (none / 0) (#44)
    by oculus on Sat Oct 19, 2013 at 10:29:12 AM EST
    Never totally serious... (none / 0) (#49)
    by kdog on Sat Oct 19, 2013 at 10:57:44 AM EST
    but my usual semi-serious/confused, sure.

    They did 15 years hard time...maybe they can pull a Jean Valjean or Gregory David Roberts.  And I truly do have hope for the future when people beat our stacked against us systems...be they prison systems, legal systems, security systems, economic systems.


    I'm with you kdog. (none / 0) (#46)
    by Visteo1 on Sat Oct 19, 2013 at 10:32:42 AM EST
    I see short prison terms with huge sentences hanging over a parolee's head as a solution to the prison population explosion.

    The threat of long prison terms for past crimes seems to work with many absconders and escapees.


    FYI (none / 0) (#57)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Oct 21, 2013 at 09:23:12 AM EST
    These clowns were caught over the weekend.

    Bummer...n/t (none / 0) (#58)
    by kdog on Tue Oct 22, 2013 at 12:56:13 PM EST
    They contacted law enforcement. (none / 0) (#59)
    by oculus on Tue Oct 22, 2013 at 01:34:06 PM EST
    Rep. C.W. Bill Young, (none / 0) (#17)
    by Amiss on Fri Oct 18, 2013 at 07:40:15 PM EST
    The longest serving member of the House, died today.
    He was from Fla.