March Madness Day 2 Open Thread

Day 2. The investments:

North Carolina -4 over Villanova, Kansas -19 over Western Kentucky, Minnesota -3 over UCLA, Notre Dame -1 over Iowa State, San Diego State -2 over Oklahoma, Pacific +13 over Miami Florida, Florida Gulf Coast +13 over Georgetown, Ohio State -13 over Iona (4 units), Mississippi +6 over Wisconsin, Duke -17 over Albany (3 units), Creighton -3 over Cincinnati, La Salle +6 over Kansas State, Indiana -22 over James Madison, Illinois -1 over Colorado (3 units), Northwestern State +21 over Florida.

Yesterday, 8-7 ATS, +3 units.

Go Gators!

Open Thread.

< Thursday Night Open Thread | CO Prison Chief Murder: Suspect Killed in Shootout >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Oh, the humanity of it all! (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by jbindc on Fri Mar 22, 2013 at 07:57:34 AM EST
    These brave bankers and their wives tell us painful, but doable, ways to save money. I can't imnagine how they are holding it all together - maybe we should have a telethon for them?

    Here's one little hint from these sage and wise titans of industry:

    "Stop skiing, or ski more cheaply."

    I am extremely sad that rich people (5.00 / 2) (#2)
    by MO Blue on Fri Mar 22, 2013 at 08:38:22 AM EST
    must resort to skiing more cheaply.

    Just had my taxes done. It is interesting that I am in the same tax bracket as Mitt Romney was in 2011 while my fixed income is 522 times less than his was in 2011. My tax bracket this year is also higher than his was in 2010 when he made even more money.

    How my heart bleeds for them, especially when the powers that be want to reduce my benefits and raise my taxes so that I can contribute more so that they can contribute even less.


    Call Human Rights Watch! (none / 0) (#5)
    by kdog on Fri Mar 22, 2013 at 09:16:10 AM EST
    Ironing your own clothes?  Tutoring your own children?  

    Who could live this way? ;)


    That's (5.00 / 2) (#7)
    by lentinel on Fri Mar 22, 2013 at 09:53:01 AM EST
    why I was so anxious for Romney to win.

    I honest to godly saw him sitting with his wife Ann, and she told me (on tv - not personally, but it was so real) that her husband Mitt ironed his own shirts.

    I don't actually iron my own shirts, but I pick them up myself from the laundry.

    So I felt a bond.

    I sure hope that he hasn't given up ironing since he lost.


    Hey (none / 0) (#11)
    by jbindc on Fri Mar 22, 2013 at 10:07:09 AM EST
    I wish I KNEW how to iron (my grandmother, god rest her soul, and my mother, did TRY and teach me, but I was an utter failure).

    And it's a bi-partisan thing - Barack Obama doesn't pick up his socks if you remember!  :)


    Yuck. (none / 0) (#15)
    by lentinel on Fri Mar 22, 2013 at 10:25:57 AM EST
    The image of dirty socks.

    Leaving dirty socks for someone else to pick up...

    No thanks.


    If I had a husband (none / 0) (#18)
    by jbindc on Fri Mar 22, 2013 at 10:31:08 AM EST
    And that was the worst of his habits, I'd call that a pretty good thing!  :)

    Frankly, (none / 0) (#19)
    by lentinel on Fri Mar 22, 2013 at 10:34:42 AM EST
    I think that sock-leaving would be a red flag of sorts and a harbinger of other sorts of indifference to others.

    Thinking (none / 0) (#70)
    by lentinel on Fri Mar 22, 2013 at 03:07:30 PM EST
    about it...

    The "wives" were presented on tv to promote the fortunes of their spouses.

    The idea they, Ann and Michelle, wanted to get across, were told to get across, was that their husbands were regular guys.

    One of them, Ann, chose to do it by saying that her husband ironed his own shirts.

    The other one, Michelle, let us in on Barry's penchant for leaving his dirty sh-t on the floor for others to deal with.

    Of the two b.s. presentations, Romney's is a wee bit more palatable.


    You don't actually iron your own shirts ... (none / 0) (#69)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri Mar 22, 2013 at 03:04:30 PM EST
    I (none / 0) (#71)
    by lentinel on Fri Mar 22, 2013 at 03:11:09 PM EST
    just burn them.

    Maybe someone should shoot (none / 0) (#32)
    by brodie on Fri Mar 22, 2013 at 12:03:14 PM EST
    an email with that link over to rich guy Bill Maher.  Apparently on his last show, which I missed, he was complaining about the high taxes he has to pay.

    Over at the helpful media watch group FAIR, they noted that just in 2010 Maher ranted about not wanting to hear whining from his fellow rich people about the taxes they have to pay.

    Now, in 2013, he's on board with the Republicans it seems on this issue, and gripes that the rich really do have to "pay the freight" on paying taxes.

    Someone also should recommend a good tax attorney for this guy.  I'm sure that for a few thou in fees he can find exemptions, deductions and loopholes worth at least in the hundreds of thousands if not millions


    Can't say I blame him... (none / 0) (#42)
    by kdog on Fri Mar 22, 2013 at 01:12:05 PM EST
    Paying my relatively miniscule nut every year pains me, because I pay it to people who want to see me arrested and make war overseas and give the banks carte blanche to lie, cheat, and steal.  Funding my potential demise...not pleasant.

    Now I assume Bill has his medical MJ card, but still...I think his beef is primarily with how the money is spent, and California's very high state income tax.  He's not Grover F*ckin' Nordquist..he just wants more bang for his bucks, and ackowledgement there is a limit to how much the rich can/should be taxed.


    Isn't CA income tax higher than (none / 0) (#44)
    by oculus on Fri Mar 22, 2013 at 01:22:48 PM EST
    New York State's. but I just learned NYC taxes personal income also.

    Correct... (none / 0) (#51)
    by kdog on Fri Mar 22, 2013 at 01:46:31 PM EST
    Cali has the highest state income tax in the nation, NY not far behind.

    NYS are some ball busters too, I've been audited three years in a row and hit with a 700 bill for a deduction they didn't like each time.  I got a notice of ceritified letter from them this week but I haven't gone down to the post office to pick it up yet...they must be looking for a payment.  

    I'd imagine it costs the state more than 700 dollars to collect 700 dollars from me, but whatever, no sense trying to reason with the NYS Dept. of Taxation & Finance.  Speaking of dumb state spending;)


    I can think of a lot of things I don't like my (none / 0) (#45)
    by Anne on Fri Mar 22, 2013 at 01:25:44 PM EST
    tax dollars going for, but I can also think of a lot of things I do like that they go for, so...I know it's all a silly mind game, but as far as I'm concerned, my tax dollars are going for things I support.

    It would be interesting to see, wouldn't it, how it would all shake out if we were actually given the choices?  Would defense still end up with the biggest share?  Would education and maternal/child nutrition end up with more?  Would there be more money for the environment, and infrastructure and science?  Would we still be giving corporations huge subsidies?

    Kind of a riff on what-would-I-buy-if-I-won-the-lottery, but a really interesting way of seeing what it is that people truly would like their money spent on.


    Allocating Taxes Would Be Awesom... (none / 0) (#46)
    by ScottW714 on Fri Mar 22, 2013 at 01:33:22 PM EST
    ...see how many Grover fans are out there when DoD gets a fraction of what they currently receive.  I am not saying all of it, but 50% of it we would have the option to allocate over say 10 general areas.

    We are 'the people' and the money should go where we want it.  I guarantee politicians wouldn't be living in luxury would would probably encourage more people who actually care about others getting into the mix.


    Would definitely be interesting to see in practice (none / 0) (#49)
    by jbindc on Fri Mar 22, 2013 at 01:38:07 PM EST
    especially in light of this study, as discussed on NPR:

    MARYAM HAMEDANI: When you look at American culture, independence is really foundational. From the founding documents of our nation to the heroes and the stories we tell, we really focus on the independent individual.

    VEDANTAM: So Hamedani and her colleagues decided to ask a really interesting question, Steve. Given that Americans have this streak of independence, what is the effect of asking Americans to think about the greater good?

    INSKEEP: Which is something that the president is doing on quite a few issues, if you're talking about taxes and spending, if you're talking about gun control or gun rights. There are a lot of issues where the president is urging people to think about the community.

    VEDANTAM: Exactly right. So Hamedani and her colleagues have just finished a series of experiments. They give volunteers messages about individual liberty or ask them to think about the greater good. And what she finds is that when people are asked to think about the greater good, it actually undermines their performance on a variety of mental and physical tasks that people actually work harder, try harder when they're asked to think about themselves as being trailblazing individuals.

    And she also finds, interestingly, the same thing happens with attitudes toward policy. When she asked volunteers to think about an environmental policy, for example, people were more willing to support the policy when it's framed in the language of individual liberty. But when they're asked to think about the greater good, this has a backfire affect, and it undermines their willingness to think about this policy supportively.

    Would people really give their taxes to go to the greater good?  Too bad we can't try it out and see....


    Wouldn't that be nice (none / 0) (#78)
    by brodie on Fri Mar 22, 2013 at 04:00:36 PM EST
    Darn right I'd be allocating a lot less to the MIC & the fruit salad crowd than I am forced to do at the moment.  CIA?  Complete shut out with my money -- they should go out of business, now.

    While we're at it, we could have some new laws/ordinances about picking and choosing just the cable networks we want to subscribe to -- for a reasonable fare.

    But I don't think either will remotely happen in this lifetime -- maybe the next.  Such is the situation with our bought and paid for elected reps.

    No, this is the lifetime where we are free to choose among the thousand of breakfast cereals and varieties of sugar water.  Fast food joints too.


    See the show? (none / 0) (#48)
    by vicndabx on Fri Mar 22, 2013 at 01:37:48 PM EST
    I saw the segment, and while he did make statements about how high the rate is in CA, I wouldn't say he's "on board with Republicans." He also said he believes everyone should pay their fair share.

    The whole thing while making a point about his high rate, seemed somewhat tongue in cheek, IMO.  YMMV.


    Yeah I heard a lot more (none / 0) (#73)
    by brodie on Fri Mar 22, 2013 at 03:27:44 PM EST
    Repub-like bellyaching about the put-upon rich people having to pay so much in taxes, versus the relative footnote remark about paying his fair share.  

    And I think he was being sincere.  As he was taking his anti-Bloomberg position on the supersize drinks ordinance.  Ditto too his rather positive overall take on the outcome of the Iraq war -- "at least the country is still intact."

    On those issues at least, the March 15th Bill Maher sounds like the more libertarian and often reflexively anti-liberal Maher seen frequently in the 1990s taking a sudden right turn.

    (Btw, I partly agree with him on the NYC ordinance)


    Who needs Republicans, (5.00 / 2) (#4)
    by MO Blue on Fri Mar 22, 2013 at 09:09:45 AM EST
    when you have so called "liberal" Democrats like Durbin?

    Durbin wants the commission to make recommendations to make Social Security solvent for 75 years. The panel would be expected to consider increases in the payroll tax, a higher retirement age and a lower annual cost-of-living adjustment for beneficiaries.

    "You would basically say to a commission, within a very limited time frame, to come up with a proposal for 75-year solvency of Social Security and then -- and this is important -- it would be referred to both chambers on an expedited procedure," Durbin told reporters at a Washington breakfast sponsored by The Wall Street Journal...

    Durbin's proposed 18-member commission would contain an equal number of Republicans and Democrats but require 14 votes to send a plan to Congress. link

    I guess this time the co-chairs will be Pete Peterson and Alan Simpson.

    IMO Durbin needs a primary challenger next time up.

    Does he ever mention raising the limit (none / 0) (#6)
    by DFLer on Fri Mar 22, 2013 at 09:33:17 AM EST
    on SS taxable income (stops at $200,000.00 I believe)

    That would add some ducats to the pot.


    I'll (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by lentinel on Fri Mar 22, 2013 at 09:54:37 AM EST
    settle for adding some pot to the ducats.

    Seems that Obama and his supporters only (5.00 / 4) (#9)
    by MO Blue on Fri Mar 22, 2013 at 09:59:29 AM EST
    mention raising the limit on SS taxable income when they are in campaign mode. After being elected, they support the same agenda of the Fix the Debt CEOs, raising the retirement age, implementing chained CPI and lowering tax rates for corporations and the wealthy through the guise of tax reform.

    Don't forget that Durbin came out in favor of Simpson/Bowles Cat Food Commission recommendations.

    BTW, I believe the current Social Security tax limit is 4.2% of your wages up to $110,100.


    Not Even Close (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by ScottW714 on Fri Mar 22, 2013 at 10:20:08 AM EST

    • Employees -- the Social Security tax rate is 6.2 percent on income under $113,700 through the end of 2013. The Medicare tax rate is 1.45 percent of all income;
    • Employers -- the Social Security tax rate is 6.2 percent. The Medicate tax rate is 1.45 percent; and
    • Self-employed --the Social Security tax rate is 12.4 percent on income under $113,700 through the end of 2013. The Medicare tax rate is 2.9 percent.

    The $200k might be this, which is good:

    Also, beginning in 2013 you must pay 0.9 percent more in Medicare taxes on earned individual income of more than $200,000

    thanks for the facts y'all (none / 0) (#86)
    by DFLer on Fri Mar 22, 2013 at 07:57:02 PM EST
    I guess the 2k was in my dream!

    Joan Walsh's column (none / 0) (#16)
    by KeysDan on Fri Mar 22, 2013 at 10:28:19 AM EST
    in Salon entitled "Is the not so grand bargain coming back?"  notes not only the prospect of chained CPI for social security, but also, "some kind of means-testing for medicare."  Higher income (however that will be defined) beneficiaries already pay higher premiums but there will be a new limit on the services they receive (whatever that means).  Of course, this is a step toward ending Medicare as we know it,  moving the program to welfare status subject to demonization, marginalization and political vulnerability.

    Durbin = useless tool (5.00 / 1) (#67)
    by MO Blue on Fri Mar 22, 2013 at 02:51:07 PM EST
    Boehner Wants Another Debt Ceiling Fight

    Now we are heading towards another game of political chicken.

    Last time, President Obama took a firm stance and the Republicans eventually folded by approving a debt limit increase without spending cuts. If Obama takes an unyielding stance this time, the GOP will likely back down again; but there are a few concerning signs some Democrats might want to use the debt limit to try to rerun the artificial crisis scam. Just a few days before Boehner made this statement, Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL) said he though the debt limit might provide an opportunity to force a grand bargain.

    Shocker! (2.00 / 1) (#3)
    by jbindc on Fri Mar 22, 2013 at 09:01:06 AM EST

    Hillary crushes Rubio and Bush in Florida, annihilates Perry in Texas

    Ok, not really a "shocker", at least at this point, 3 years out from an election, and when none of the people named have even officially announced their candidacies - this is sensational headline writing at its best.

    But I do like this little bit:

    The Clinton phenomenon reveals larger truths about the American electorate that are not yet understood because of the delusional rightist and Republican press that treats politics as a one-party (Republican) state, the often-lazy national press corps that treats politics as an insider lunch date, and Washington-based Democrats who are so lacking in genitalia that one expects their voices to shift octaves higher.

    Isn't it ironic that the Democrats with the biggest balls are women named Hillary, Nancy and Elizabeth while the Republicans act more like Marie Antoinette than Ronald Reagan?

    Start working out, Hillary (none / 0) (#34)
    by Dadler on Fri Mar 22, 2013 at 12:09:09 PM EST
    I hate to say it, but I worry about her physically. Bill was bad enough twenty years ago with his pasty Big Mac addict diet, but we're all older now, and she just doesn't look good to me. I hope she uses the time off to refresh and rehab her mind and body for a good run, if she so chooses.

    The shocker (none / 0) (#53)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Mar 22, 2013 at 01:51:07 PM EST
    in that is Texas. Rubio only got 49% of the vote in a strong GOP year and people in FL are now seeing the result of Jeb Bush's policies---not popular in the least.

    Of mustachios and pom poms. (none / 0) (#10)
    by KeysDan on Fri Mar 22, 2013 at 10:00:18 AM EST
    NYT columnist and early cheerleader for the Iraq war, Tom Friedman, give his status report on its 10th anniversary.  His quest for a "decent" outcome remains elusive to him, but he does find that three things are clear:

    "First, whatever happens in Iraq, we overpaid for it in lives and treasure and focus.  Second, you can overpay for something decent and you can overpay for total junk.   What exactly we overpaid for in Iraq is not yet clear and will be decided by Iraqis.  Third, as much as we'd prefer to forget about Iraq, what happens there matters more than ever for the MIddle East. "

    It seems the second clear thing about the Iraq war is its lack of clarity which is clear.  As always, the better parts of Tom's column's come from the words of others that  eclipse the quality of his own.   While there are no taxi drivers' gems there are the considerations of a student in a minivan whose insights bring these conclusions to Tom's thinking: "  It may take two generations for those young voices of Baghdad U. to prevail.  Or it may take much longer.  Or it may never happen."   Tom urges us to stay tuned for a 20th anniversary status report.  In the meanwhile, we can continue to depend on his keen foreign policy expertise.  

    So the size (none / 0) (#14)
    by sj on Fri Mar 22, 2013 at 10:21:20 AM EST
    of a Friedman Unit has changed from 6 months to 10 years?

    Appears so, (none / 0) (#17)
    by KeysDan on Fri Mar 22, 2013 at 10:29:48 AM EST
    just one big old FU.

    indeed (none / 0) (#22)
    by sj on Fri Mar 22, 2013 at 10:56:30 AM EST
    The (none / 0) (#12)
    by lentinel on Fri Mar 22, 2013 at 10:11:52 AM EST
    NYTimes published a photograph of what purports to be what the cosmos looked like about 370,000 years after the purported big bang.

    In the photo, the universe is represented as an oval - a flattened oval. With borders. The outside of the oval.

    What I can't begin to comprehend is what would be outside of the clearly defined frame in which the cosmos is represented.

    Nothing, It Doers Not Exist (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by ScottW714 on Fri Mar 22, 2013 at 11:15:51 AM EST
    What I can't wrap my brain around is the big bang started as a singularity, smaller than the smallest known object.  And while the laws of physics didn't exist, it still contained all the mass of the Universe, which right now stands at 100,000,000,000 galaxies that contain an average of 100,000,000,000 stars.  That's a hundred billion of each, not including, black holes, gases, planets, and everything else in space.  

    All of it contained in a singularity smaller than an atom, not even visible to the the strongest microscope.

    Beyond the edge is nothing, just like now, the Universe is expanding and beyond the edge is nothing, it doesn't exist.

    And for the record, that isn't a "photograph of what purports to be what the cosmos looked like about 370,000 years after the purported big bang", it's a mapping of microwaves.  It's the oldest 'static' deep space telescopes have been picking up for years, and proves that the Universe was once much smaller, and that it is expanding.  It supports the theory of the Big Bang, because of the universe is expanding, so working backwards you will eventually arrive at the singularity.  It's how they date the age of the Universe as well.

    The Universe expands at a faster rate as time increases because the further apart objects become, the less effect gravity has.  It's uniting force is getting weaker with time.


    This very topic..... (5.00 / 1) (#88)
    by Dr Molly on Sun Mar 24, 2013 at 08:23:12 AM EST
    the 'nothingness' before the big bang....  

    used to give me crazy dreams and nightmares when I was a kid.


    Saw that above the fold (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by brodie on Fri Mar 22, 2013 at 11:17:58 AM EST
    splashy FP spread this a.m. at my local Starbucks.  Maybe I just don't appreciate the importance of this scientific disclosure, but for me it left me a bit underwhelmed.  

    As for that neatly bordered flat oval, I suspect the gray people at the Times, and probably elsewhere in the Establishment, would prefer if you didn't think so much beyond those borders but instead confine yourself to where you're supposed to be looking from their prompt.

    As for me, a while back I accepted the notion that there are probably many other universes, but consistent with the dark matter we can't see in our own universe but which apparently is really there, they exist outside our ability to perceive it at the moment, probably in some different space-time reality.


    Cosmic (none / 0) (#59)
    by P3P3P3P3 on Fri Mar 22, 2013 at 02:16:25 PM EST
    Starbuck came to mind
    warm and fuzzy, and its not the coffee

    It's turtles (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by Zorba on Fri Mar 22, 2013 at 12:09:14 PM EST
    Isn't it obvious (none / 0) (#25)
    by CoralGables on Fri Mar 22, 2013 at 11:15:23 AM EST
    In the photo, the universe is represented as an oval - a flattened oval. With borders...

    What I can't begin to comprehend is what would be outside of the clearly defined frame...

    Illegal aliens trying to steal your job. If only they'd sealed the borders 370,000 years ago.


    Somehow this seems like an appropriate place (none / 0) (#30)
    by sj on Fri Mar 22, 2013 at 11:38:06 AM EST
    to hang a link to the international trailer for "Star Trek Into Darkness".  And for other ST obsessive compulsives, a link to an overanalysis of that trailer and to some early Easter Eggs.

    And here i thought (none / 0) (#31)
    by CoralGables on Fri Mar 22, 2013 at 11:58:16 AM EST
    Maybe it's just (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by jbindc on Fri Mar 22, 2013 at 12:12:04 PM EST
    Another reason we need more women in power (none / 0) (#20)
    by jbindc on Fri Mar 22, 2013 at 10:35:22 AM EST
    Women generally aren't as bogged down by rabid partisanship and can actually work together to find solutions. (Duh, as if we needed a study to tell us that).

    A wide array of scholarship supports the view that women tend to cross party lines to build legislative consensus more frequently than men. In a recent article in the American Journal of Political Science, "When Are Women More Effective Lawmakers Than Men?." the authors found, for example, that the dynamic tends to favor women in the minority party. In particular, the study found "while men may choose to obstruct and delay, women continue to strive to build coalitions and bring about new policies."

    The study found that over the course of 30 years in the House, minority party women were better able to keep their sponsored bills alive in later stages than minority party men, largely by keeping the focus on the underlying policy goal over politics.

    Women have also focused on legislation that men do not typically consider, like financial security for women, an issue championed by Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison, the Texas Republican who retired in January. The seven women now serving on the Senate Armed Services Committee have begun to push their priorities, including efforts to prevent and adjudicate sexual assault in the military as well as to open combat jobs to women.

    All depends on WHAT... (none / 0) (#62)
    by Dadler on Fri Mar 22, 2013 at 02:24:26 PM EST
    ...they cross party lines to do. The whole good policy versus bad policy thing.  And since both parties are really just slightly different wings of what is the bought and paid for corporate corruption party, it really doesn't make a meaningful enough difference yet. When one of those ladies wants to champion ending the delusional lies being told by DC to the American people about money in general, get back to me. Right now, IMO, ain't nobody in either party of either sex doing nearly enough with the position they have.

    But sure, women like to get consensus more than men, for the most part. That's a good thing. But broad generalizations about the sexes though, especially in the context of DC, no thanks.


    Hollywood for ugly people (none / 0) (#63)
    by Dadler on Fri Mar 22, 2013 at 02:25:18 PM EST
    No more true cliche about DC exists, IMO.

    Who you calling ugly?? (none / 0) (#66)
    by jbindc on Fri Mar 22, 2013 at 02:42:07 PM EST
    I'm in DC!  (Good thing I live in Virginia)



    If the name of a team.... (none / 0) (#21)
    by magster on Fri Mar 22, 2013 at 10:47:55 AM EST
    contains the word "Colorado" or "Denver" in it, no matter the sport, BTD will not pick that team.

    Colorado State dominated last night, and it stinks they got an 8/9 seed. They are better than many teams that will make the sweet 16.

    I like the Nuggets (none / 0) (#23)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Mar 22, 2013 at 11:02:49 AM EST
    Corey Brewer, Gator.

    Have bet them a lot.


    I love Brewer. (none / 0) (#28)
    by magster on Fri Mar 22, 2013 at 11:22:13 AM EST
    The Nuggets are the only team he can thrive on.

    Well (none / 0) (#24)
    by CoralGables on Fri Mar 22, 2013 at 11:10:36 AM EST
    "They are better than many teams that will make the sweet 16"

    You sound like a fan expecting to be on your way home after Saturday.


    CSU won't beat Louisville (none / 0) (#29)
    by magster on Fri Mar 22, 2013 at 11:22:51 AM EST
    Since (none / 0) (#33)
    by CoralGables on Fri Mar 22, 2013 at 12:09:08 PM EST
    the early rumors and reports on the Senator Menendez prostitution scandal from the Dominican were wrong, perhaps media outlets should hold off on reporting the newest rumor attached to it.

    A top Dominican law enforcement official said Friday that a local lawyer has reported being paid by someone claiming to work for the conservative Web site the Daily Caller to find prostitutes who would lie and say they had sex for money with Sen. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.).

    "War on Easter"? (none / 0) (#37)
    by Yman on Fri Mar 22, 2013 at 12:23:02 PM EST
    Bill O'Reilly, fresh on his self-declared victory in the "War On Christmas", now joins Fox's "War On Easter", despite previously crediting himself with preventing a "War on Easter".

    It's not so much the delusional, alternate reality they enjoy creating - that's just a given at this point.  It's the pompous, self-aggrandising pronouncements that make you want to laugh in their faces ...

    How did I miss an entire war? (5.00 / 3) (#38)
    by jbindc on Fri Mar 22, 2013 at 12:25:05 PM EST
    Technically... (5.00 / 3) (#43)
    by kdog on Fri Mar 22, 2013 at 01:22:44 PM EST
    it is the "Easter Conflict", without a binding declaration of war...but it's no joke, they had to beef-up the Easter Bunny's secret service detail.  CIA & NSA picking up lots of chatter.  TSA says no more Cadbury Eggs in carry-on luggage as the cream filling could contain explosives.

    As long as they don't ban (none / 0) (#47)
    by jbindc on Fri Mar 22, 2013 at 01:34:29 PM EST
    Reese's Peanut Butter Eggs - a must-have in my Easter basket every year.

    Those are good! (none / 0) (#50)
    by kdog on Fri Mar 22, 2013 at 01:41:17 PM EST
    Gotta love those chocolate covered marshmallow eggs and peeps too...both served best frozen.

    But we better keep this candy convo down, our health insurance provider might be reading;)


    But (dark) chocolate is good for your heart! (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by jbindc on Fri Mar 22, 2013 at 01:58:08 PM EST
    They will need a sample.. (none / 0) (#56)
    by kdog on Fri Mar 22, 2013 at 02:08:20 PM EST
    of your preferred dark chocolate to send to the lab to confirm...increase stands till the lab results come back, and you will be billed for the lab test, not covered.

    If you have some peeps, (5.00 / 2) (#74)
    by Zorba on Fri Mar 22, 2013 at 03:27:53 PM EST
    and some toothpicks, you may want to stage a "peep war."
    You take two peeps, stick a toothpick in the front of each, and put them in the microwave, facing each other.  Turn the microwave on.  The peeps will swell up.  Usually, one of the peeps will "stab" the other first.
    I'd provide a link, but my iPad is being uncooperative about links right now.  Just Google peep wars, YouTube.

    Have you been (5.00 / 1) (#75)
    by jbindc on Fri Mar 22, 2013 at 03:47:55 PM EST
    to the Peep Store at the National Harbor outside of DC?

    Who knew they could make a whole store (with prime retail space) out of Peeps??


    One of my favorite issues of the (5.00 / 1) (#77)
    by Anne on Fri Mar 22, 2013 at 03:54:56 PM EST
    Sunday WaPo magazine is the one where the annual Peeps contest winners are showcased...people put some serious effort into their Peeps dioramas.

    Ok, Ms. Zorba - that was funny! (none / 0) (#76)
    by jbindc on Fri Mar 22, 2013 at 03:51:09 PM EST
    commercial. Very cute.

    at about 0:40 as he's brushing his teeth?

    You and I and ... (5.00 / 1) (#83)
    by sj on Fri Mar 22, 2013 at 04:16:53 PM EST
    ...several YouTube commenters are wondering the same thing.  I'm still trying to think of an alternative.

    It's definitely cute, but (none / 0) (#81)
    by Zorba on Fri Mar 22, 2013 at 04:11:41 PM EST
    I bet if you leave the microwave on too long, it'll make a heck of a mess inside your microwave!

    Gross... (none / 0) (#87)
    by fishcamp on Fri Mar 22, 2013 at 08:24:23 PM EST
    I Read... (none / 0) (#52)
    by ScottW714 on Fri Mar 22, 2013 at 01:47:34 PM EST
    ...that they are using drones for the secret rendition of tasty chocolate bunnies from the carefully hidden baskets of children all over the world.

    Cadbury is the special facility they built for these very tasty bunnies and eggs.  Now, some of those delicious brown bunnies are coming up missing and the CIA is all hush/hush over it.

    Don't kid yourself, there is a war going on.  It's every chocolate lover for themselves, and I thank god that we have men like Bill O'Reilly will the balls to report about the secret War on Easter.  A war the lame stream media refuses to acknowledge.


    Good thing... (none / 0) (#57)
    by kdog on Fri Mar 22, 2013 at 02:11:22 PM EST
    the assault weapons ban went belly-up, we need to get AR15's to guard our easter baskets.

    Happy Teaster (none / 0) (#64)
    by P3P3P3P3 on Fri Mar 22, 2013 at 02:28:28 PM EST
    Thank dog there's no war on Passover (5.00 / 2) (#82)
    by shoephone on Fri Mar 22, 2013 at 04:16:40 PM EST
    And I still have free choice on matzo brands. These Easter people just have no idea what it would be like to have to live in a nanny matzo state.

    That's why FOX News is so much fun... (none / 0) (#40)
    by unitron on Fri Mar 22, 2013 at 12:47:32 PM EST
    ...They distort, we deride.

    And you thought Bloomberg's soda ban was bad (none / 0) (#39)
    by jbindc on Fri Mar 22, 2013 at 12:26:26 PM EST
    Interesting article (none / 0) (#41)
    by sj on Fri Mar 22, 2013 at 12:47:50 PM EST
    But a tax is not a ban.

    And Wisconsin goes down (none / 0) (#55)
    by jbindc on Fri Mar 22, 2013 at 01:58:49 PM EST
    Oh no - another upset by a number 12 team!

    Workplace productivity went down first (5.00 / 1) (#60)
    by Towanda on Fri Mar 22, 2013 at 02:18:35 PM EST
    all across Wisconsin, with a Friday-afternoon game.

    Except for bartenders.


    I had them going to the Elite 8 (none / 0) (#61)
    by jbindc on Fri Mar 22, 2013 at 02:21:47 PM EST
    Oh well, that whole little part of the bracket is busted as I chose Pitt too.

    it wasn't from basketball (none / 0) (#65)
    by P3P3P3P3 on Fri Mar 22, 2013 at 02:37:52 PM EST
    Walker removed State Union rights

    Wisconsin is all D and no O (none / 0) (#58)
    by Dadler on Fri Mar 22, 2013 at 02:16:17 PM EST
    Well, now they have some O, as in OUT.

    I might start watching (none / 0) (#72)
    by brodie on Fri Mar 22, 2013 at 03:12:23 PM EST
    when they've whittled down the field of 128 to a more manageable 64.

    Until then, just too many teams and games to track!


    A computer with a sound card (none / 0) (#68)
    by sj on Fri Mar 22, 2013 at 02:52:18 PM EST
    makes things so much more interesting.

    Blind dog has his own "seeing eye dog"

    LaSalle wins?? (none / 0) (#84)
    by jbindc on Fri Mar 22, 2013 at 04:25:30 PM EST
    This is already a crazy tournament!

    K State (none / 0) (#85)
    by CoralGables on Fri Mar 22, 2013 at 04:30:45 PM EST
    only showed up for the second half. Almost pulled off one of the great comebacks in NCAA history