Thursday Morning Open Thread

Open Thread.

< Aaron Swartz Lawyers Seek Misconduct Review Against Prosecutor | Sequester and the Judiciary >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Jeez, Media, enough already with the Pope News. (5.00 / 2) (#41)
    by Dr Molly on Thu Mar 14, 2013 at 04:47:29 PM EST
    Most people are not Catholic. It's just a tad overdone...

    Even NPR keeps droning on and on and on about it.

    Glad I'm not the only one... (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by Anne on Thu Mar 14, 2013 at 04:53:10 PM EST
    they overdid it from the moment Benedict announced his retirement.

    SITE VIOLATOR! n/t (none / 0) (#99)
    by caseyOR on Fri Mar 15, 2013 at 04:41:19 PM EST
    Boy, I'll say! (none / 0) (#100)
    by Zorba on Fri Mar 15, 2013 at 05:12:45 PM EST
    And an exceptionally wordy one, too.  What is this?  Maybe Vietnamese?

    Yes, i do believe it (none / 0) (#101)
    by caseyOR on Fri Mar 15, 2013 at 07:02:42 PM EST
    is Vietnamese.

    Maybe the spammers (none / 0) (#102)
    by Zorba on Fri Mar 15, 2013 at 07:16:07 PM EST
    from Turkey moved to Vietnam?   ;-)

    Thank you. I wholeheartedly agree. (5.00 / 2) (#46)
    by shoephone on Thu Mar 14, 2013 at 04:57:35 PM EST
    Pope news bores the living daylights outta me. And all the news sites -- including NPR -- were pretty much !waiting for the white smoke! 24-7. It was ridiculous.

    That's the beauty of (none / 0) (#51)
    by jbindc on Thu Mar 14, 2013 at 05:11:18 PM EST
    Being able to click away, change the channel, or turn the machine off.

    You really can't tolerate other people's opinions, (3.00 / 2) (#61)
    by shoephone on Thu Mar 14, 2013 at 05:34:30 PM EST
    can you?

    Hmmmm (none / 0) (#64)
    by jbindc on Thu Mar 14, 2013 at 05:40:44 PM EST
    I'm sorry that you don't like people pointing out a positive of this oversaturated media world - sayong that it's a good thing there are many alternatives to get away from news of the Pope if one wanted too.

    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.


    So, why didn't you (5.00 / 1) (#70)
    by NYShooter on Thu Mar 14, 2013 at 06:38:59 PM EST
    simply take your own advice, and skip away?

    Hypocrisy sucks, doesn't it?


    Here's the problem I have: (5.00 / 2) (#76)
    by Anne on Thu Mar 14, 2013 at 07:38:10 PM EST
    there simply is too much going on in this country and in the world at large for a nightly news broadcast to devote to all-things-Pope nearly 10 minutes of the net 20-couple minutes (30 minute show less nearly 10 minutes of commercials) of so-called news - some of which is light-hearted fluff and "human interest."

    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.


    Funny, it's the hypocrisy noted by Shooter (5.00 / 2) (#77)
    by shoephone on Thu Mar 14, 2013 at 07:50:18 PM EST
    below that jumped out at me. After all, wasn't that you yesterday, complaining about the news media and its voraciousness for creating stories for our consumption? Oh, but maybe it's only a bummer when the media mavens want to ask Jebby Bush if he's really just hawking a book, or if he's, in fact, running for president...

    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.


    black smoke, white smoke, mauve smoke, wev! :) (none / 0) (#52)
    by Dr Molly on Thu Mar 14, 2013 at 05:13:50 PM EST
    I mean, still smoke signals, really?

    I was tickled by that, I must admit.


    It's the Vatican's form of modern technology (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by shoephone on Thu Mar 14, 2013 at 05:35:52 PM EST
    I like it (none / 0) (#53)
    by jbindc on Thu Mar 14, 2013 at 05:16:35 PM EST
    I think there's something to be said for pagentry and tradition.  Sure, it's hokey, but sometimes, it's nice to see things done in "the old way" - this is definitely much better than the new pope Tweeting "I haz won, bitches."

    Pope Francis (none / 0) (#89)
    by MKS on Fri Mar 15, 2013 at 01:27:50 AM EST
    was apparently anti-liberation theology in a country of right wing authoritarians....

    Anti-liberation theology in Latin America is not commendable imo.


    Suffice to say that nobody ... (none / 0) (#75)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Mar 14, 2013 at 07:28:00 PM EST
    ... will mistake any of you in this subthread for Pope-aholics.

    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.


    what surprised me was the country with (none / 0) (#87)
    by Amiss on Thu Mar 14, 2013 at 10:40:24 PM EST
    the largest % is (?sp.) is Czechoslovakia.

    CPAC Boss on Christie (none / 0) (#1)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Mar 14, 2013 at 01:04:21 PM EST
    "This year, for better or for worse, we felt like, ah, like he didn't deserve to be on the all-star selection, ah, and, for decisions that he made. And so hopefully next year he's back on the right track and being a conservative," Cardenas said. "He's a popular figure, but everyone needs to live by the parameters of the movement."  LINK

    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.

    To me (none / 0) (#7)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Mar 14, 2013 at 01:22:52 PM EST
    this is more evidence that the GOP is likely to lose again in 2016. Apparently everybody in the "movement" can only have far right views.

    Ultimately, (5.00 / 3) (#10)
    by lentinel on Thu Mar 14, 2013 at 01:40:04 PM EST
    if the GOP loses, they win anyway because their agenda seems to survive and prosper.

    The problem is.......intensity. (none / 0) (#14)
    by NYShooter on Thu Mar 14, 2013 at 02:16:05 PM EST
    The Republicans have it, the D's, don't.

    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.


    No shame in being compared (5.00 / 2) (#38)
    by brodie on Thu Mar 14, 2013 at 04:32:16 PM EST
    to Chamberlain.  Wilt was an outstanding player and still holds the record for most points scored in a game.

    The (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by lentinel on Thu Mar 14, 2013 at 05:27:50 PM EST
    only thing I would question is whether the Democrats really want something different than the Republicans do.

    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.


    Of course, you're right (none / 0) (#72)
    by NYShooter on Thu Mar 14, 2013 at 06:48:37 PM EST
    It's not easy talking about democrats and republicans today. As many on this site have lamented, the democrats of today are certainly not the democrats they grew up with. What I was referring to in my post was the traditional idea of democrats. And, as you alluded to, today's democrats could be rightly referred to as republican-lite.

    Hold On... (none / 0) (#24)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Mar 14, 2013 at 03:01:13 PM EST
    ...if you can't mention that lying, cheating, and stealing is how they do it, then you are being disingenuous.  

    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.


    All I said was, (none / 0) (#28)
    by NYShooter on Thu Mar 14, 2013 at 03:14:28 PM EST
    "The simple, tragic, fact is, the Republicans want their goals more than the Democrats want theirs."

    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."


    You Mean Like... (none / 0) (#40)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Mar 14, 2013 at 04:38:40 PM EST
    ...claiming something that can't be proven, as a fact:
    The simple, tragic, fact is, the Republicans want their goals more than the Democrats want theirs.

    Got it, disingenuous.

    Still not clear what a straw horse is.


    Still not clear what a straw horse is. (none / 0) (#71)
    by unitron on Thu Mar 14, 2013 at 06:43:03 PM EST
    Judging by the context, I think it's what a straw man rides in on.

    They're angry because he hugged Obama (none / 0) (#13)
    by shoephone on Thu Mar 14, 2013 at 02:07:30 PM EST
    during the worst days of Storm Sandy. From the right wing crazies' point of view: hugging black president is traitorous behavior.

    I think (none / 0) (#63)
    by lentinel on Thu Mar 14, 2013 at 05:39:36 PM EST
    that it is partisan rather than racial. That is the treason. It is OK for Dems to hug and cuddle Repubs, but not the other way around.

    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.)


    I did hear one tune from it (none / 0) (#78)
    by shoephone on Thu Mar 14, 2013 at 07:55:13 PM EST
    on the radio, when it was released last year. It was a cut with organ (Mel Rhyne, probably?), bass and drums. A couple months later when I went to the music store to get it...it was nowhere to be found. I guess I'll have to order it on line. And thanks for reminding me, because I was really excited when it came out. Wes is my favorite.

    You (none / 0) (#83)
    by lentinel on Thu Mar 14, 2013 at 08:57:02 PM EST
    won't be disappointed.

    Where is the post racialism (none / 0) (#91)
    by TeresaInPa on Fri Mar 15, 2013 at 06:03:12 AM EST
    we were promised back in 2008?  Don't you realize that you minimize black people when you refer to all opposition to them as individuals as being race based?

    You must have missed the comments (none / 0) (#103)
    by MKS on Fri Mar 15, 2013 at 09:07:58 PM EST
    from the GOP state legislator that it was good politically to oppose a black President.

    With a line-up of crackpots like that, ... (none / 0) (#35)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Mar 14, 2013 at 03:50:09 PM EST
    ... the CPAC gathering should be held in a padded room.

    So who wants to go on a cruise? (none / 0) (#2)
    by sj on Thu Mar 14, 2013 at 01:09:43 PM EST
    And who would ever choose Carnival again?

    I do and I would! (none / 0) (#3)
    by kdog on Thu Mar 14, 2013 at 01:12:45 PM EST
    This latest one went kaput in a very good spot, docked in beautiful sunny St. Maarten.  Free flight home plus half-refund plus 50% off a future cruise...sign me up!

    See there (none / 0) (#11)
    by CoralGables on Thu Mar 14, 2013 at 01:43:44 PM EST
    You're an investor at heart. Very happy with the possibility of compound interest on your cruise investment.

    (Count me in too)


    Speak English will ya... (none / 0) (#12)
    by kdog on Thu Mar 14, 2013 at 01:50:44 PM EST
    I'm a gambler at heart...ya lost me at "compound" ;)

    Gotcha (none / 0) (#15)
    by CoralGables on Thu Mar 14, 2013 at 02:32:40 PM EST
    You bet on an out of favor horse (Carnival), and even though it pulled up on the backstretch (St Maarten) you won the side bet bad beat jackpot (great weather, 50% refund, 50% discount on next bet).

    I see... (5.00 / 2) (#18)
    by kdog on Thu Mar 14, 2013 at 02:38:31 PM EST
    said the blind man.  Now you're speaking my language.

    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;)


    Sign Up Fool... (none / 0) (#16)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Mar 14, 2013 at 02:34:34 PM EST
    ...at this rate your odds of hitting a Carnival winner are damn good.   And by winner I mean being stranded on a boat that becomes a biological hazard because the waste system malfunctions.

    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."

    Carnival... (none / 0) (#20)
    by kdog on Thu Mar 14, 2013 at 02:42:05 PM EST
    is definitely putting the "13" in 2013...I wonder if Royal Caribbean or Norwegian is behind this;)

    Four on the Floor... Heavy Beat... (5.00 / 1) (#93)
    by ScottW714 on Fri Mar 15, 2013 at 09:18:44 AM EST
    Another One Bites the Dust
    boom... boom... boom... boom...
    And another one gone, and another one gone
    Another One Bites the Dust

    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


    Un-be-liev-a-ble.... (none / 0) (#94)
    by kdog on Fri Mar 15, 2013 at 09:27:51 AM EST
    They say these things come in 3's...one more and Carnival is f*ckin' done, if they ain't done already.

    Kind of like the Knicks... (none / 0) (#95)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Fri Mar 15, 2013 at 09:43:11 AM EST
    after that Mile High disaster the other night?  :)

    Brutal... (none / 0) (#96)
    by kdog on Fri Mar 15, 2013 at 10:21:25 AM EST
    road trip...don't wanna talk about it:(

    Damn... (none / 0) (#97)
    by ScottW714 on Fri Mar 15, 2013 at 10:54:46 AM EST
    ..yesterday you were all 'sign me up'.

    Who's working on the boilers, Crazy Cooter Davenport proprietor of The Hazzard County Garage.


    Oh I'd still sail with them... (none / 0) (#98)
    by kdog on Fri Mar 15, 2013 at 11:04:07 AM EST
    just stating what must be their economic reality.

    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.


    Carnival allegedly chartered (none / 0) (#21)
    by fishcamp on Thu Mar 14, 2013 at 02:47:56 PM EST
    a jumbo jet to fly folks from St. Maartin to Orlando.  Think what that airplane will smell like when they get there.  Sorry that was a stinky joke...

    That's Cool... (none / 0) (#25)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Mar 14, 2013 at 03:04:47 PM EST
    ...it's what they should have done the last time around instead of making everyone stay on board Alabama.

    But I guess it answers the questions we have about passports and Carnival having the means to charter a jet in a day.


    The only memorable thing about ... (none / 0) (#32)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Mar 14, 2013 at 03:44:25 PM EST
    ... St. Maarten to me was that beach at the foot of the runway at Princess Juliana Int'l Airport. It certainly gives you a unique viewing perspective which you seldom encounter at other airports.

    And... (none / 0) (#34)
    by kdog on Thu Mar 14, 2013 at 03:48:09 PM EST
    little oil specks on your feet that are the Dickens to wash off...that's what I remember about that beach.  The views were wild though...

    Yes, indeed. (none / 0) (#37)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Mar 14, 2013 at 03:58:13 PM EST
    That's why when we were in St. Maarten, we stayed at a hotel which provided ALL the amenities, such as rags and a bottle of solvent.

    I'm a Disney guy (none / 0) (#5)
    by Slado on Thu Mar 14, 2013 at 01:14:18 PM EST
    Went on a Disney Cruise with my wife's family last year and with zero expectations had a great time.

    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.


    The very last thing I want to do ... (none / 0) (#29)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Mar 14, 2013 at 03:30:39 PM EST
    ... when I'm on vacation is to have to deal regularly with other people's young kids, as on a cruise.

    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.


    Cruise for kids (none / 0) (#65)
    by Slado on Thu Mar 14, 2013 at 05:46:38 PM EST
    I'd never take my kids on a real cruise.   I'd also probably never go on a cruise without my kids.

    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.


    Though some might object (none / 0) (#67)
    by brodie on Thu Mar 14, 2013 at 05:55:21 PM EST
    that serving beer to kids under 7 is not right, good time or not.

    cruise I have gone to various resorts with my kids in HI, etc., that had huge water slides and water parks, etc., and they were a total blast for both us an our kids.

    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...


    in the Caribbean once. There were very few kids on that big a$$ ship and we had one of the only infants, and we were treated like celebrities.

    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.


    Top Ten List... (none / 0) (#4)
    by kdog on Thu Mar 14, 2013 at 01:13:44 PM EST
    What a surprise (none / 0) (#6)
    by Slado on Thu Mar 14, 2013 at 01:18:13 PM EST
    #1 is a D.C. suburb.

    Good to know my tax dollars are being put to good use.


    Ridiculous. (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by Dr Molly on Thu Mar 14, 2013 at 04:56:22 PM EST
    #1 - Chevy Chase - is populated mainly by lawyers, doctors, and lobbyists, as the article mentions. Not federal government workers - many of whom are not paid very well and commute long distances to DC from outlying, cheaper suburbs.

    Yep (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by jbindc on Thu Mar 14, 2013 at 05:09:03 PM EST
    Population by Occupation in Chevy Chase

    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.)


    I have no problem with (none / 0) (#66)
    by Slado on Thu Mar 14, 2013 at 05:52:20 PM EST
    Federal workers.

    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.  


    Pssssttttt ... those high-priced lawyers ... (5.00 / 2) (#104)
    by Yman on Fri Mar 15, 2013 at 10:02:05 PM EST
    ... and lobbyists aren't "required to make the federal government run" - at all.  They're hired by private industry to work the system to their advantage.

    Whats your point? (none / 0) (#105)
    by Slado on Sat Mar 16, 2013 at 07:26:40 PM EST
    If it wasn't so profitable and easy to extract favors from our leaders they wouldn't bother.

    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.


    My point is that ... (none / 0) (#106)
    by Yman on Sat Mar 16, 2013 at 08:31:26 PM EST
    ... your premise is false - the lawyers and lobbyists you complain about aren't required to make the federal government run.

    Watching libertarians contort themselves to blame government for everything (including the excesses of private industry) is just funny.


    Why do you intentionaly (none / 0) (#107)
    by Slado on Sun Mar 17, 2013 at 08:53:50 AM EST
    Avoid my point?  I assume from your posts that you are more then capable of understanding yet you avoid my point to focus on scoring debate points.

    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.


    What?!? (none / 0) (#108)
    by Yman on Sun Mar 17, 2013 at 09:46:58 AM EST
    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.


    Now we're getting somewhere (none / 0) (#110)
    by Slado on Sun Mar 17, 2013 at 09:58:58 AM EST
    My point is not that business isn't to blame but that blaming them is pointless.

    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.


    Yep - that's what I thought (none / 0) (#114)
    by Yman on Sun Mar 17, 2013 at 12:24:10 PM EST
    Using the excesses of private industry to rationalize cutting government.

    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.


    Here's a link for you (none / 0) (#109)
    by Slado on Sun Mar 17, 2013 at 09:47:50 AM EST
    ECB says increased size of government negatively impacts government growth.

    Maybe I'm not so crazy?


    You're not crazy (yet) (none / 0) (#111)
    by NYShooter on Sun Mar 17, 2013 at 11:39:46 AM EST
    but, did you really mean, "increased size of government negatively impacts government growth?"

    No, good catch (none / 0) (#112)
    by Slado on Sun Mar 17, 2013 at 11:52:38 AM EST
    Economic growth.

    FYI i've been ordered by my wife to take a break form the blogging.

    Enjoyed it.   See you in a few days.


    lol, smart lady (5.00 / 1) (#113)
    by NYShooter on Sun Mar 17, 2013 at 12:15:23 PM EST
    you didn't know it, but I paid Yman to soften you up for a couple of days. So, now that I jump into the ring, your wife throws in the towel.

    Good move.....feel better.


    Heal up! (none / 0) (#116)
    by Yman on Sun Mar 17, 2013 at 06:36:12 PM EST

    The working paper, from the ... (none / 0) (#115)
    by Yman on Sun Mar 17, 2013 at 01:52:03 PM EST
    ... European Central Bank, discusses EU and Scandinavian countries, but says nothing about the United States or how it compares to those countries.  Of course, government spending in the US is already @ 10 percentage points less than than the EU27, and @ 15-18 points lower than the Scandinavian countries.  Before the 2008 crash, the difference was even larger.  So unless you're arguing that any level of government spending is always bad for economic growth, this apples-to-oranges comparison is not very helpful.

    What you're really arguing is the old Rahn Curve.



    Sneaking back on (none / 0) (#117)
    by Slado on Sun Mar 17, 2013 at 09:08:02 PM EST
    If we admit that there is an appropriate point of spending it seems perfectly logical that it would not be the same for every country.

    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.  


    I think everyone would ... (none / 0) (#118)
    by Yman on Mon Mar 18, 2013 at 08:30:33 AM EST
    ... agree that - at some point - government spending becomes too large.  If the purpose of the ECB study is to demonstrate that point, it's really not necessary.  For example, if government spending was 100% of GDP, it would undoubtedly cripple the economy.  Conversely, if government spending was 0%, it would also cripple the economy, because there would be no government, no enforcement of laws, no defense, no education, etc.  The issue is where the line is drawn.  For that purpose, the ECB study isn't useful, given that it's only looking at countries spending 10-18% more than the US (and historically, even higher than that).  In fact, the GDP of several EU countries has outgrown the US GDP over the past 50-60 years, despite government spending levels that far exceeded US levels.

    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.


    Good point (none / 0) (#120)
    by Slado on Mon Mar 18, 2013 at 10:10:36 AM EST
    What I think or suppose is this study was done as a way to justify Austerity.

    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.


    BTW - Don't let your wife ... (none / 0) (#119)
    by Yman on Mon Mar 18, 2013 at 08:32:07 AM EST
    ... catch ya - you should probably be resting!  :)

    5 outta 10.... (none / 0) (#9)
    by kdog on Thu Mar 14, 2013 at 01:27:23 PM EST
    are Wall St. suburbs...the DC mafia is good, but there is no doubt where the kings of crime work!

    You gotta (none / 0) (#8)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Mar 14, 2013 at 01:26:51 PM EST
    love a town named Muttontown on that list. I guess Maryland and NY are the place to be if you have money

    I know Muttontown pretty well (none / 0) (#73)
    by NYShooter on Thu Mar 14, 2013 at 06:59:09 PM EST
    I worked for a very rich family a while back and when two of the daughters got married they and their grooms got wedding presents most of us can only daydream about: Each got three building lots, worth about 1 ½ million each. The center lots were for their custom built homes, and the adjoining lots were for privacy. That's four and a half million bucks each, just for the lots. (and that was about 20 years ago)

    Coral Gables and Fishcamp, (none / 0) (#17)
    by KeysDan on Thu Mar 14, 2013 at 02:37:28 PM EST
    our governor and Medicare fraud expert, Rick Scott, will have to soldier on without his chosen Lt. Governor.  Ms. Jennifer Carroll abruptly resigned Tuesday, the result of a federal/state criminal investigation into an Internet sweepstakes company for which she once served as a consultant.  The company, Allied Veterans of the World, operating as a charitable organization for veterans was allegedly  running a $300 million illegal gambling, racketeering and money laundering scheme, according to the Florida Attorney General.  The company grossed $290 million but donated only $6 million.  Mr. Scott said that by her resignation Ms. Carroll was " doing the right thing for Florida families."

    KeysDan (5.00 / 1) (#82)
    by CoralGables on Thu Mar 14, 2013 at 08:15:44 PM EST
    First name to drop is FL Sen. Miguel Diaz de la Portilla. He took money from Allied Veterans of the World and sponsored a bill to keep the Internet casino cafes open.

    During the legislative session (none / 0) (#22)
    by CoralGables on Thu Mar 14, 2013 at 02:56:13 PM EST
    a year or two ago, I was told the bill to clamp down on the illegal internet gambling cafes got stuck in a drawer because several State Legislators were invested in them after earlier passing a bill giving the strip mall casinos a loophole.

    There could be more backlash from this one going forward if the FDLE go after more of the storefront casinos.


    Thanks KeysDan... (none / 0) (#27)
    by fishcamp on Thu Mar 14, 2013 at 03:10:31 PM EST
    I'll try and soldier on through another of our Governor's blunders.  So many odd, corrupt, and unthinkable events happen daily down here.  The morning news always has both hit and runs and shootouts which are probably common in many cities.  But we have cars crashing into storefronts or flying off roads into canals.  The canal one is bizarre, some get rescued, some don't.  Alligators in ponds is another good one.  At least the Governor shut down the pill mills...didn't he ?

    Hmmm. (none / 0) (#19)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Mar 14, 2013 at 02:42:02 PM EST
    I clicked on a link in a different post and this was on the sidebar:
    "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.

    Caution: Slow Thinkers Keep Right. (none / 0) (#23)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Mar 14, 2013 at 03:00:05 PM EST
    Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Dark Side of the Moon) wallowed in his own a$$holery today as the Senate Judiciary Committee took up Sen. Dianne Feinstein's proposed bill that would limit / curtail the sale of assault weapons in the country bill.

    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.

    If she didn't live in a Gold Coast mansion... (none / 0) (#50)
    by Dadler on Thu Mar 14, 2013 at 05:11:15 PM EST
    ...bought with war profiteering blood money, I'd feel better about her occasional lapses into leadership. Also, she DOESN'T respect his views, and neither do I, which I would prefer be said. But that's just me.

    That's the way (none / 0) (#57)
    by Zorba on Thu Mar 14, 2013 at 05:25:24 PM EST
    most Senators speak.  Not all, but they tend to be more "polite" than Representatives, for the most part, and speak in "code."
    But as for DiFi- yes, yes, sure, I'm glad that she at least disagreed with Cruz on national television.
    Every once in awhile, as you said, she has fleeting lapses into leadership.  But I'm no fan of DiFi- far from it.  We lived in San Francisco when she became Mayor after George Moscone was assassinated (along with Harvey Milk, who was our Supervisor).  I didn't like her then, and I don't like her now.

    The Dow (none / 0) (#26)
    by CoralGables on Thu Mar 14, 2013 at 03:08:25 PM EST
    does it again.

    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.

    Speaking of Wall Street, (none / 0) (#30)
    by NYShooter on Thu Mar 14, 2013 at 03:31:34 PM EST
    I have posted here on numerous occasions that the single biggest betrayal of president Obama was his refusal to bring to justice those miscreants on Wall Street who destroyed our economy, and our way of life.

    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"


    If you're listening to Rand Paul (none / 0) (#33)
    by CoralGables on Thu Mar 14, 2013 at 03:44:57 PM EST
    you've lost touch with reality. He views the Tea Party as patriots leading the modern day American Revolution.

    I give up, (none / 0) (#39)
    by NYShooter on Thu Mar 14, 2013 at 04:37:03 PM EST
    I think I'll join BTD in his opinion about the comprehension abilities of some of our commenters here.  

    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?


    C'mon, CG, the above comment by Rand (none / 0) (#42)
    by caseyOR on Thu Mar 14, 2013 at 04:50:00 PM EST
    Paul clearly falls in the "stopped clock" and "blind squirrel" category. In this instance, Paul has, perhaps by accident, fallen into reality.

    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.


    Agreed (none / 0) (#54)
    by CoralGables on Thu Mar 14, 2013 at 05:17:55 PM EST
    with both Shooter and casey. I should have obviously kept my poorly aimed potshot solely at the Kentucky Senator.

    Yes, you probably (none / 0) (#59)
    by Zorba on Thu Mar 14, 2013 at 05:30:20 PM EST
    should have, but I certainly appreciate your admitting to a lapse- a very, very rare thing on Talk Left (or any other political website, for that matter).  It takes a big person to do so.  Thank you for that, CG.     ;-)

    And, I second that (none / 0) (#74)
    by NYShooter on Thu Mar 14, 2013 at 07:14:40 PM EST
    Thank you, Ms. Zorba.

    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.


    We can only do (none / 0) (#81)
    by Zorba on Thu Mar 14, 2013 at 08:11:27 PM EST
    what we can do, Shooter.  Vote, protest, support causes and candidates you believe in, contact others, and so on.  At the end of the day, you have to take a step back and say "I did what I could."  
    It bothers me, too, Shooter, when those who should be held accountable are not, and continue to rape this country.  
    People are people.  We are all imperfect, but those who have acquired a lot of money and power far too often begin to think that they are golden and answerable to nobody.
    Don't drive yourself crazy about this, Shooter.  You also need to take care of yourself.
    Namaste, my brother.  Take some deep, cleansing breaths.

    My Dear, you know what? (none / 0) (#84)
    by NYShooter on Thu Mar 14, 2013 at 08:57:06 PM EST
    I feel much better now......really:)



    No, no, Casey! (none / 0) (#60)
    by Zorba on Thu Mar 14, 2013 at 05:32:04 PM EST
    It's not a "blind squirrel," it's a "blind pig," and involves acorns.  Although, I suspect it depends upon what area of the country you live in.    ;-)

    no matter what (none / 0) (#92)
    by TeresaInPa on Fri Mar 15, 2013 at 06:25:08 AM EST
    no matter who the politician is, sooner or later they are going to say something or hold a position that you agree with.  The trick is to continue to think for yourself and form your own ideas on a whole number of issues and not just turn your whole brain over to that person or party.  
    I have almost no use for Rand Paul, but he has said things here and there I agree with.  Even Obama has said things I agree with. The problem is that he says them but doesn't agree with them.

    I might sell my soul for one politician (none / 0) (#48)
    by Anne on Thu Mar 14, 2013 at 05:04:35 PM EST
    who really understood monetary policy and the economy.

    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.

    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.


    This is why establishing a floor... (none / 0) (#55)
    by Dadler on Thu Mar 14, 2013 at 05:18:15 PM EST
    ...that is overly humane, overly generous, and which requires and provides meaningful work if necessary, is the long-term solution to our currently rigged casino. Not a new New Deal, a Better Deal. A deal that establishes that citizens ultimately matter more than money. That allows for wealth through achievement, luck, inheritance, whatever, but simply will not allow the wild quest for wealth to be priority one, as it has been for decades now.

    Anne, I have read more about MMT (none / 0) (#79)
    by NYShooter on Thu Mar 14, 2013 at 07:57:51 PM EST
    than probably any man alive.......and, am still trying to fully understand it. And, yes, I read Yve's blog, Naked Capitalism,  almost daily. I get the main thesis, that those managing our economy today are incompetent a$$holes. My own guess is that they know exactly what they're doing, and that is manufacturing a faux-crisis for the express purpose of panicking an ignorant public.........while completing their ultimate goal of totally transferring the Nation's wealth, from the bottom to the top.

    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.


    It was a type of wake up (none / 0) (#31)
    by fishcamp on Thu Mar 14, 2013 at 03:41:41 PM EST
    call what Rand Paul did with his filibuster.  But I keep thinking of him as the way they described Nixon...something like a spiraling downward success.  

    The half a day filibuster (none / 0) (#36)
    by CoralGables on Thu Mar 14, 2013 at 03:50:52 PM EST
    (which actually delayed nothing since the vote was originally scheduled for the following day anyway) was his way of moving back towards the top of the 2016 GOP primary ladder that had been recently dominated by Marco Rubio. He succeeded in that goal by dominating the news cycle for a few hours.

    Ladies and Gentlemen (none / 0) (#44)
    by jbindc on Thu Mar 14, 2013 at 04:53:39 PM EST
    You next Secretary of Commerce?

    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.

    Bet you a turkey sandwich (none / 0) (#47)
    by shoephone on Thu Mar 14, 2013 at 04:58:31 PM EST
    she won't be asked about how much $$$ she's hiding in her Cayman islands accounts.

    Virginia's sodomy law (none / 0) (#56)
    by jbindc on Thu Mar 14, 2013 at 05:24:09 PM EST
    is finally now invalid.  (Yes, 10 years after the Supreme Court ruled in Lawrence v. Texas)

    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!

    Dick the dick Cheney (none / 0) (#80)
    by shoephone on Thu Mar 14, 2013 at 08:05:40 PM EST
    Can't disagree with that. (none / 0) (#85)
    by desertswine on Thu Mar 14, 2013 at 09:11:46 PM EST
    That's saying a lot, ... (none / 0) (#86)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Mar 14, 2013 at 10:16:52 PM EST
    ... given that he's facing some pretty stiff competition from Spiro Agnew, who gleefully played the part of rabid attack dog for the Nixon administration. I think that with the passage of four decades' worth of time, we sometimes forget how thoroughly repulsive and polarizing Agnew really was.

    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.



    Compared to Cheney, Agnew was a two-bit crook (5.00 / 1) (#88)
    by shoephone on Thu Mar 14, 2013 at 10:47:25 PM EST
    who resigned over a tax evasion charge totaling about $20,000. That's small potatoes compared to what the polticos and the CEO's are stealing from the American people on a regular basis these days.

    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...