Open Thread.
Make a new account
Even NPR keeps droning on and on and on about it.
Hey, I find all the talk and rah-rah about marijuana and drugs extremely boring, so I have the option of skimming through or skipping altogether. That's kinda the point.
I'm sorry you missed it. Parent
Hypocrisy sucks, doesn't it? Parent
We don't have a state religion that should make a new Pope such a prominent and unending story. Sure, there are a lot of Catholics in this country, but we are a people of many religions, so why should the Pope, and all the attendant pomp and drama, be singled out for elevation to such a level of prominence and attention?
Yeah, I can turn it off - and many nights I don't watch at all because the media do such a terrible job in general - but I wasn't commenting on the joys of having choices, I was commenting on the media's obsession with this story.
Do let us know if the media ever devote a third of their broadcasts to drug policy and the justice system, would you? Because that's something I think the media should be spending more time covering. Parent
I think the media saturation with lolla-pope-alooza is at least as ridiculous, and so I made note of it.
And, as far as I'm concerned, the Catholic Church is a symbol of nothing positive and everything negative until the day it cleans house of the pedophiles in its mist AND the degenerates who cover up for them. There is nothing--nothing--that disgusts me more than an institution which preys on the vulnerable and then covers up for the abusers. Parent
I was tickled by that, I must admit. Parent
Anti-liberation theology in Latin America is not commendable imo. Parent
And FYI, one in four Americans identify as Roman Catholic, the Catholic Church is the largest single religious denomination in the country, and and the United States has the 4th largest Catholic population in the world after Brazil, Mexico and the Philippines. Further, there are an estimated 1.2 billion Catholics in the world today. Regardless of everyone's protestations, an election of a new pope is indeed news.
And speaking specifically as a Roman Catholic, I do agree with you that the wall-to-wall / floor-to-ceiling / 24-7 coverage of the worldwide media outbreak of Popemania has become both repetitive and tedious -- which is why I've been watching NCAA men's college basketball on ESPN.
Incidentally, the current No. 1-ranked team is from a Catholic institution of higher learning which was named in honor of a venerated Jesuit priest, Saint Aloysius Gonzaga, who was canonized back in 1726 by a pope named Benedict. Curiously, the newly-installed Pope Francis is also a Jesuit, and he succeeds a pope named Benedict. Coincidence, perhaps -- OR IS IT ??!!?
You know, I just felt a real chill come over me -- or maybe it was just this. Anyway, I better not take any chances and instead cover all my bases, by running up to the Cathedral of Our Lady of Peace to light a votive candle and recite a novena and a couple Hail Marys, and then heading over to nearby Chinatown to double down on the Bulldogs in the NCAA tournament with my bookie.
Happy New Pope Day, everyone. Aloha. ;-D Parent
The 'decisions' as far as I can remember are praising Obama over Storm Sandy and saying this of a Muslim high court appointee:
"It's just crazy, and I'm tired of dealing with the crazies. It's just unnecessary to be accusing this guy of things just because of his religious background... I'm happy that he's willing to serve after all this baloney."
The decision to expand New Jersey's Medicare was made after the CPAC invites went out I believe.
Who knows why I did it, but I went to the CPAC 2013 website. Seems like they dug up more minorities to speak than actually voted for Romney.
But they include Palin, Santorum, Trump, Ryan, Walker, Cruz, and the President and VP of the NRA. Not sure if these were some of the crazies Christie was referring but they are crazies in my book.
CPAC starts tomorrow and it's being held in New Jersey.
Your analysis is correct, " if the GOP loses, they win anyway......." The only difference in the country's inexorable move to The Right is in its rate of speed. When the R's are in power it moves fast, when the D's are in, it still moves to The Right, just a little slower.
The simple, tragic, fact is, the Republicans want their goals more than the Democrats want theirs.
And, to compound the tragedy, the American people, thinking they were electing a Roosevelt, got a Chamberlain instead. Parent
From their actions, they don't seem terribly upset about the Republicans agenda holding sway. No wringing of hands. No lamentations. No nothing.
I honestly see our present government as one mindset with two faces. All we get to do is choose the face. Parent
From the election, to the wars, to Gerrymandering, to Libby, and more, those are pretty definitive things that occurred through some very shady, and mostly likely, illegal means that resulted in shifts to the right. Lucky for them the Democrats aren't ideologues who all share the exact same philosophy which would enable them to act quickly, because a lot of the people mentioned above would not scar free and some would be in prison. Parent
If you want to discuss the means, and methods, they use to accomplish those goals, that's another topic.
However, the next time you recklessly label someone as disingenuous, you should first look up the meaning of "straw-horse." Parent
Still not clear what a straw horse is. Parent
By the way, have you heard, "Echos of Indiana Avenue" by Wes Montgomery? It is a fairly recent CD - and contains some live material from the late '50s. (It has also been issued in vinyl.) Parent
(Count me in too) Parent
I do love longshots, so Carnival is definitely the cruise line for me.
Not to mention it was a Carnival cruise where I met my very special lady, sh*t it will be 4 years ago next month! And I took enough chits off their roulette table to cover my whole bar tab. Carnival been berry berry good to me;) Parent
The passengers don't seem to experiencing the same pleasantries that Carnival's PR office is spinning.
"There's human waste all over the floor in some of the bathrooms and they're overflowing--and in the state rooms," passenger Gregg Stark, who is traveling with his wife and children, told CNN. Passenger Jonathan Evans emailed CNN Thursday, saying, "We are not allowed off of the boat despite the fact that we have no way to use the restrooms on board. ... The cruise director is giving passengers very limited information and tons of empty promises."
Passenger Jonathan Evans emailed CNN Thursday, saying, "We are not allowed off of the boat despite the fact that we have no way to use the restrooms on board. ... The cruise director is giving passengers very limited information and tons of empty promises."
Number 3 is down, they only have 23 ships. -------------------
Here are some more lyrics:
How do you think I'm going to get along, Without you, when you're gone You took me for everything that I had, And kicked me out on my own Are you happy, are you satisfied How long can you stand the heat Out of the doorway the bullets rip To the sound of the beat Parent
Are you happy, are you satisfied How long can you stand the heat Out of the doorway the bullets rip To the sound of the beat
Who's working on the boilers, Crazy Cooter Davenport proprietor of The Hazzard County Garage. Parent
Probably not Cooter's fault...maybe they're just a microcosm of America...all the profits got sucked out instead of reinvesting profits in the company and it's infrastructure till the b*tch falls apart and goes belly-up. Parent
But I guess it answers the questions we have about passports and Carnival having the means to charter a jet in a day. Parent
Without the Disney angle to keep the kids happy I don't know what I'd do on a boat for 5-7 days and nights. Parent
Even if they're generally well-behaved, children still tend to not mesh very well in adult settings. We tried very hard to not inflict our daughters upon other people while they were under ten years of age, because they got cranky and cross when tired or bored, and it wasn't really fair to either them or the adults with whom we were hanging out.
So, if we couldn't get a sitter for the evening, or talk Grandma and Grandpa into watching them while the Spouse and I traveled to some exotic locale on our own, we generally didn't go anyplace that we knew wasn't going to be kid-friendly.
I've never been on a Disney cruise, but if they've made their ships kid-friendly, kudos for them. It would've been fun to introduce our children to the world's ports of call at a younger age. Parent
The Disney cruise is beyond kid friendly it is kid oriented. But when you have three kids under 7 your life is kid oriented so you roll with it. Throw in beer and it's a pretty good time. Parent
Most days, within an hour or so, our kids found some other similar aged kids to play with, and those kids' parents and us were hanging out, swapping stories and buying each other Mai Tais.
Kind of like TL except with kids and no one talks about politics and there's liquor.
OK, it's nothing like TL... Parent
Everyone else was older and gathered around everywhere we went to coo over our kid. Every island we stopped at the locals wanted to coo over our kid.
On board, the stroller couldn't fit in our cabin so we always parked it outside our door and several people with cabins nearby thanked us and told us that that was their landmark for finding their own cabins.
Anyway, we had a blast. Parent
Good to know my tax dollars are being put to good use. Parent
Management, Business, and Financial Operations 26.70% (Chevy Chase) vs 14.04% (US) Professional and Related Occupations 46.42% (Chevy Chase)vs 20.61% (US) Service 4.63% (Chevy Chase) vs 14.45% (US) Sales and Office 19.10% (Chevy Chase) vs 26.75% (US) Farming, Fishing, and Forestry 0.00% (Chevy Chase) vs 0.70% (US) Construction, Extraction, and Maintenance 2.25% (Chevy Chase) vs 9.42% (US) Production, Transportation, and Material Moving 0.90% (Chevy Chase) vs 14.05%(US)
Management, Business, and Financial Operations 26.70% (Chevy Chase) vs 14.04% (US)
Professional and Related Occupations 46.42% (Chevy Chase)vs 20.61% (US)
Service 4.63% (Chevy Chase) vs 14.45% (US)
Sales and Office 19.10% (Chevy Chase) vs 26.75% (US)
Farming, Fishing, and Forestry 0.00% (Chevy Chase) vs 0.70% (US)
Construction, Extraction, and Maintenance 2.25% (Chevy Chase) vs 9.42% (US)
Production, Transportation, and Material Moving 0.90% (Chevy Chase) vs 14.05%(US)
So, 73% of the population in Chevy Chase works in a management / business/ financial operation or a "professional" job (i.e. doctor, lawyer, etc.) Parent
I have a problem with the amount of lobbyists and lawyers that are required to make the federal government run.
This is what is wrong with Washington. Parent
Politicians are responsible for the rules. Business people are going to make the most of whatever system is in place. Business does not operate to do,the right thing. They exist to make money by whatever means necessary.
What you and other progressives seem to ignore is the fact that as government grows so do the lobbyists as they see more opportunities to,get an edge through government over their competition. If they don't their competitor will.
If congress wanted to they could reduce the influence of K street but the fact is neither party wants to. Parent
Watching libertarians contort themselves to blame government for everything (including the excesses of private industry) is just funny. Parent
That fine if that was the goal but for me it's not. I enjoyed learning a few things in some of our other posts but you seem to not be interested in learning anything. Instead you seem to only be interested in proving to yourself that your smarter then the other poster.
Do you agree that as the federal government has expanded so has influence of lobbyists?
If so is that a good thing or bad.
I say bad
Since you won't answer I'm left to assume that you would prefer the Feds control everything since you we're so sad to see Chavez go and bent yourself into knots to ignore what a horrible leader he was no matter how many links I sent you. Parent
Do you agree that as the federal government has expanded so has influence of lobbyists? If so is that a good thing or bad.
Bad. Definitely bad. I also think that disease, poverty, and vampires are bad.
My point was that the lawyers and lobbyists are not "required for the federal government to run" at all. To the contrary, they are a natural function of private industry, despite the libertarians efforts to blame everything on the government. BTW - You seem to be suggesting there's some kind of causation between the growth of the federal government and the influence of lobbyists. That's one of those nasty side effects of private industry - chasing the $$$. If your suggestion is stronger laws restricting lobbyists access and influence, I'm right with you. I have a feeling, however, that your solution involves using the influence of lobbyists as an excuse to cut government and get rid of programs you don't like or think are unnecessary - the classic libertarian approach of blaming the government for everything, even the excesses of private industry.
Since you won't answer I'm left to assume that you would prefer the Feds control everything since you we're so sad to see Chavez go and bent yourself into knots to ignore what a horrible leader he was no matter how many links I sent you.
I wasn't 'sad to see Chavez go" in the least. I just think it's funny how Conservatives/Libertarians try to paint Chavez as the devil because he enacted programs that redistributed wealth and helped the poor. he committed the Libertarian equivalent of blasphemy by taking some money from the "haves" and using it for the benefit of the "have nots". For that reason, and not because they truly care about the economy or people of Venezuela, the feel the need to attack his record and legacy.
Plus, I think your links to opinion pieces from fellow Libertarians and conservatives are just funny. Parent
Business is a constant. They will always look out for #1. The only thing we can all predict 100% of time is that. Make a rule and business will figure out how to get around it or how to use the rule to their advantage.
My point is that as government expands and gets more involved in everything then business is forced to go where the money is and IMHO the interaction between lobbyist and government is less efficient and beneficial to society then the free market.
That's my point. We can't trust that giving government more control and power will work out in the long run because the policy makers are not honest or smart enough to see the unintended consequences that result from their policies.
My ECB study is the result of this reality. More government is detrimental for the economy because it is not as efficient as the free market.
As I've said before too little government is just as detrimental. There is a perfect amount of government that results in both growth and a good standard of living but IMHO we are way above that point. Parent
If lobbyists and their influence is the problem, make an argument for increasing restrictions on lobbying (the most obvious being campaign contributions). The problem is, lobbyists are already seriously restricted in making gifts or direct giving to those in office. The way they get around it is to give campaign contributions. Whenever someone proposes strict limits on campaign contributions, public funding of elections or clean money clean elections laws, they are strongly opposed or challenged afterwards by conservative/libertarians, usually on free speech grounds.
If government is the problem, make an argument on the merits as to which programs are too big and why those programs should be cut.
Otherwise, it's just the same old tactic of blaming the government for everything (including lobbyists) in order to rationalize the real objective of libertarians - slashing government in order to look out for their own interests. Parent
Maybe I'm not so crazy? Parent
FYI i've been ordered by my wife to take a break form the blogging.
Enjoyed it. See you in a few days. Parent
Good move.....feel better. Parent
What you're really arguing is the old Rahn Curve.
Meh. Parent
I'd be willing to wager the smaller more homogeneous societies of Europe can afford a little more planning then ours.
That is just speculation. It could be the other way.
The point of me linking that is only to show that at some point government becomes to large. What is not so clear is where is that point and is the US there yet.
I'd say yes but I'm biased.
What I'd like to see is for government to adjust like a business does to the changing times.
Unfortunately the problem as I see it is once government gets involved in something it never stops. Every year we act as if the level of government is the bare minimum and the only way to improve things is to spend or regulate more. We never or rarely seem to ask ourselves if we should stop doing something or Spend less. Parent
Since the spending is based on percentage of GDP (relative to the size of the country's economy), I have no idea why the size of the country would make a difference one way or the other - or their relative homogeneity, for that matter. Parent
We all know how that's working out.
I and others would maintain its because its not real austerity.
I'm sure you probably wouldn't agree but it is also not stimulus.
It's just the worst parts of both and not very affective. Parent
There could be more backlash from this one going forward if the FDLE go after more of the storefront casinos. Parent
"Police are seeking the public's help in finding two men who sexually assaulted a man in Denver early Sunday." LINK
No comment other that I have never read a random sexual assault of a male by men. I know it happens, just odd to actually read.
This is obviously an easy thing for Cruz to do, since he apparently doesn't shame easily, doesn't care if others are embarrassed for him, and doesn't seem to mind that he looks and sounds like a complete fool.
As Senate Judiciary Chair Patrick Leahy observed off-camera at the tail-end of that ABC News clip linked above, today probably marked the very first time that the normally affable Sen. Feinstein, who's pretty widely renowned for maintaining both decorum and composure, got so visibly angry that she told a colleague off in no uncertain terms -- and on national television, no less:
"Let me just make a couple of points in response. One, I'm not a sixth grader. Senator, I've been on this committee for twenty years. I was a mayor for nine years. I walked in, I saw people shot. I've looked at bodies that have been shot with these weapons. I've seen the bullets that implode. In Sandy Hook, youngsters were dismembered.
"Look, there are other weapons. I'd been up -- I'm I'm not a lawyer. But after twenty years, I'd been up close and personal to the constitution. I have great respect for it.
"This doesn't mean weapons of war, and the Heller decision clearly points out three exceptions, two of which are pertinent here. And so I -- you know, it's fine that you want to lecture me on the constitution. I appreciate it. Just know I've been here for a long time. I've passed a number of bills. I study the constitution myself. I'm reasonably well educated. And I thank you for the lecture.
"Incidentally. This does not prohibit -- you used the word 'prohibit.' It exempts two thousand, two hundred and seventy-one weapons. Isn't that enough for the people in the United States? Do they need a bazooka? Do they need other high-powered weapons that military people use to kill in close combat? I don't think so.
"So, I come from a different place than you do. I respect your views. I ask you to respect my views."
Thank you, Sen. Feinstein.
Up for the 10th straight day, tying it for the 5th longest up streak since 1945.
Today started on an up note after four-week average new unemploment claims dropped to a five year low.
Somebody got that message, apparently. And, it wasn't President Obama having an epiphany, and it wasn't even a Democrat. It was Rand Paul.
Yesterday at CPAC:
"I'm going to steer this party away from Wall Street and toward what used to be called Main Street and doesn't have a name anymore. Our economy won't take off again until our pigsty of a tax code is cleaned up. People have to feel everyone's being treated fairly, that the rich aren't calling the shots and gaming the system. And all future growth could be stymied if you guys make a half-trillion-dollar wrong bet tomorrow because some trader in London was high as a kite on Ambien. That could bring down the system the way it crashed in '08. So we have to change the system. Too big to fail is too big to live."
So, what will the Democrats run on in 2016.........?
"We destroyed Social Security, and gave a pass to the folks who destroyed your jobs, stole your house, and killed your futures.......Elect us" Parent
I agreed with Lentinel's comment up above, and another poster makes up stuff about me, and then says I'm disingenuous. Here, I report on a statement Rand Paul made about one of the most contentious issues of our time, an issue that the Democrats should own, which, of course, makes me a Tea Partier, "out of touch with reality."
C'mon CG, you're better than this. Can't we have a political discussion here without being smeared by inference? Parent
So, agreeing with Rand on this one statement does not mean Shooter has lost touch with reality, but rather that Rand has had a close brush with said reality. Parent
Actually, the point I was trying to make was that the Democrats passed on a perfect opportunity to gain huge political advantage with the Wall Street Banksters' destruction. The Republicans, or Rand Paul, saw a golden opportunity, and seized it.
I'm pretty sure a lot of people, Democrats and Republicans alike, feel like I do: It just eats away at my guts how the WS Scum committed the worst financial damage imaginable on the American public, and not only got away scot-free, but kept their jobs, while making more money than ever as we speak. Parent
Spasiba Parent
Don't know if you read this guest post over at naked capitalism, but I'd recommend it for anyone who'd like a common sense explanation about modern monetary theory.
Here's an excerpt (bold is mine):
Modern Monetary Theory is a way of doing economics that incorporates a clear understanding of the way our present-day monetary system actually works - it emphasizes the frequently misunderstood dynamics of our so-called "fiat-money" economy. Most people are unnerved by the thought that money isn't "backed" by anything anymore - backed by gold, for example. They're afraid that this makes money a less reliable store of value. And, of course, it is perfectly true that a poorly managed monetary system, or one which is experiencing something like an oil-price shock, can also experience inflation. But people today simply don't realize how much bigger a problem the opposite condition can be. Under the gold standard, and largely because of the gold standard, the capitalist world endured eight different deflationary slumps severe enough to be called "depressions." Since the gold standard was abolished, there have been none - and, as we shall see, this is anything but coincidental. The great virtue of modern, fiat money is that it can be managed flexibly enough to prevent both deflation and also any truly damaging level of inflation - that is, a situation where prices are rising faster than wages, or where both are rising so fast they distort a country's internal or external markets. Without going into the details prematurely, there are technical reasons why a little bit of inflation is useful and normal. It discourages people from hoarding money and encourages healthy levels of consumption and investment. It promotes growth - provided that a country's fiscal and monetary authorities manage it properly. The trick is for the government to spend enough to ensure full employment, but not so much, or in such a way, as to cause shortages or bottlenecks in the real economy. These shortages and bottlenecks are the actual cause of most episodes of excessive inflation. If the mere existence of fiat monetary systems caused runaway inflation, the low, stable rates of consumer-price inflation we have seen over the past thirty-plus years would be pretty difficult to explain. The essential insight of Modern Monetary Theory (or "MMT") is that sovereign, currency-issuing countries are only constrained by real limits. They are not constrained, and cannot be constrained, by purely financial limits because, as issuers of their respective fiat-currencies, they can never "run out of money." This doesn't mean that governments can spend without limit, or overspend without causing inflation, or that government should spend any sum unwisely. What it emphatically does mean is that no such sovereign government can be forced to tolerate mass unemployment because of the state of its finances - no matter what that state happens to be.
The great virtue of modern, fiat money is that it can be managed flexibly enough to prevent both deflation and also any truly damaging level of inflation - that is, a situation where prices are rising faster than wages, or where both are rising so fast they distort a country's internal or external markets. Without going into the details prematurely, there are technical reasons why a little bit of inflation is useful and normal. It discourages people from hoarding money and encourages healthy levels of consumption and investment. It promotes growth - provided that a country's fiscal and monetary authorities manage it properly.
The trick is for the government to spend enough to ensure full employment, but not so much, or in such a way, as to cause shortages or bottlenecks in the real economy. These shortages and bottlenecks are the actual cause of most episodes of excessive inflation. If the mere existence of fiat monetary systems caused runaway inflation, the low, stable rates of consumer-price inflation we have seen over the past thirty-plus years would be pretty difficult to explain.
The essential insight of Modern Monetary Theory (or "MMT") is that sovereign, currency-issuing countries are only constrained by real limits. They are not constrained, and cannot be constrained, by purely financial limits because, as issuers of their respective fiat-currencies, they can never "run out of money." This doesn't mean that governments can spend without limit, or overspend without causing inflation, or that government should spend any sum unwisely. What it emphatically does mean is that no such sovereign government can be forced to tolerate mass unemployment because of the state of its finances - no matter what that state happens to be.
I suspect that if you could get Rand Paul to discuss these things for more than 5 minutes, you'd soon find that under the surface of a few seemingly cogent and coherent sentences is a sinkhole of nonsense. Parent
Further, I'm not alone in thinking that, without a popular, grass roots, violent uprising, that transfer will be accomplished inasmuch as both major political parties are working in tandem towards that goal.
But, back to MMT for a moment. I will continue studying it, but I'm in good company with many leading economists whose views are still being formulated. Krugman has adopted certain portions of it, while before, he was totally rejecting it. But, Cullen Roche of "Pragmatic Capitalism," an early, fiercely dedicated proponent of MMT, has moved away from it.
I think MMT is a profoundly, game changing concept, but one that hasn't been fully completed. I am encouraged that more and more really smart people are discussing it, and working on it. And, because a new framework of how a modern society's financial system should work, is so important, and so vitally needed, I'm pretty confident that we'll soon see how our economy should be working............and, how we've been getting screwed all along. Parent
Penny Pritzker, the frontrunner to be President Obama's next nominee for commerce secretary, resigned her position on Chicago's school board Thursday, adding yet another data point to the speculation that she's preparing to join the administration.
Even though the Supreme Court invalidated this country's sodomy laws ten years ago in Lawrence v. Texas, the State of Virginia has continued to press forward with prosecuting a few people for consensual sex acts. That is until yesterday, when a panel of the Fourth Circuit held the Virginia statue is unconstitutional as applied to any person (the opinion can be read here).
And by a pro se defendant!
In fact, I'd offer that Agnew may actually have a leg up on Dick Cheney in that competition, because he was ultimately compelled by the Justice Dept. to cop a no contest plea to political corruption and resign his office in disgrace in October 1973 -- whereas Cheney is simply a disgrace who's heretofore copped to nothing, and has apparently been granted a mulligan by the good folks at DOJ, rather than handed a felony indictment.
Aloha. Parent
Cheney is responsible for the torture of dozens (at the least), and the murder of thousands because of his deceit. He's a real monster. A monster who, literally, has no human heart inside him. Tick tock, tick tock... Parent