Sunday Open Thread

I'm spending today getting acquainted with my new iMac. Since syncing has always been a problem for me -- I always end up erasing something I want to save or with outdated versions of my contacts or with hundreds of duplicates of songs in my iTunes folder, I'm going very slowly.

Here's an open thread, all topics welcome.

< Sequester Cuts: Payments to Medicare Doctors | New Details on Aaron Swartz >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Obama is determined to cut Social Security, (5.00 / 5) (#7)
    by caseyOR on Sun Mar 03, 2013 at 06:55:24 PM EST
    Medicare and Medicaid. He is again calling for cuts to these programs as a way to end the sequester. He is not going to stop until he convinces the Democrats in Congress to gut what remains of the New Deal.

    No matter how loudly and how clearly the American people, Democrats and Republicans and Independents, say they do not want these programs cuts, Obama just spits in the collective face of Americans.

    I do not know what people can do at this point to stop this from happening. Obama does not care one whit about what the voters want. And I suspect few of our Democrats in Congress are willing to openly defy him on this issue. Ironically, our best hope may be the refusal of Republicans to take "yes" for an answer.

    Obama (5.00 / 2) (#8)
    by lentinel on Sun Mar 03, 2013 at 07:14:25 PM EST
    is a Trojan horse.

    The person as he appeared to be was swept into the center of government. Then, while no one watched, he emerged from the shell and began destroying things.


    Stay on your Senators' case (none / 0) (#44)
    by sj on Mon Mar 04, 2013 at 01:31:46 PM EST
    Ben Cardin has joined the entitlement reform chorus and I'll be making my usual phone calls.

    But seriously

    Ironically, our best hope may be the refusal of Republicans to take "yes" for an answer.
    How demoralizing is that?  Because if you want to know how Obama will get away with it, just watch the commenting here.  He has a "D" after his name.  That's enough for some people.

    That's why a chill went through me (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by Anne on Mon Mar 04, 2013 at 01:50:16 PM EST
    when I read this weekend that Obama's on a mission to get a Democratic majority back in the House - with an eye on his legacy.

    I don't even know where to start.  I'm pretty sick of this man using public office to fashion a legacy - it just smacks of about 10 levels of hubris.  Worse, when I look at where he wants to make his mark - on the Grand Bargain - I just want to throw up.

    There was a time when I thought a Democratic majority would mean the advent of a progressive and liberal approach to a lot of what ails us, but now I see it as a rubber stamp for a president who seems determined to choke the life out of the safety net - and the people who need it - and turn at least two amendments that I can think of into cat food.  

    The bad thing about gridlock is that nothing gets done, but at this stage of things, that's also the best thing about it.


    Has anyone (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Mar 03, 2013 at 07:25:44 PM EST
    heard from Jeff in Alabama recently? I hope he is doing okay.

    Balance (5.00 / 2) (#28)
    by lentinel on Mon Mar 04, 2013 at 11:04:32 AM EST
    From the NYTImes:


    Experts estimate so-called budget sequestration could cost the country about 700,000 jobs...


    but Wall Street doesn't expect the cuts to substantially alter corporate profits or threaten stock markets.

    By your logic (none / 0) (#30)
    by CoralGables on Mon Mar 04, 2013 at 11:18:25 AM EST
    I'm a winner. I can't lose my job and sequestration won't substantially alter my IRA holdings.

    It (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by lentinel on Mon Mar 04, 2013 at 01:48:06 PM EST
    ain't "my" logic,

    but I don't doubt the conclusions.

    And, since you secure in your employment, and your investments are solid, you are good shape.

    It's those who are not in good shape that pop up in my mind.

    I know what it is like to try to find a job - just something you can do to pay the rent - and it was hell on earth.


    I'm unemployed (none / 0) (#57)
    by CoralGables on Mon Mar 04, 2013 at 03:56:31 PM EST
    I see. (none / 0) (#58)
    by lentinel on Mon Mar 04, 2013 at 04:23:47 PM EST
    You can't lose your job because you're unemployed.

    Is that a good thing for you?


    it is for me... (none / 0) (#61)
    by fishcamp on Mon Mar 04, 2013 at 04:40:46 PM EST
    You seem to have got caught up (none / 0) (#63)
    by CoralGables on Mon Mar 04, 2013 at 04:54:37 PM EST
    in the word "substantial", and if they don't suffer substantial damage then they are winners. There are no winners in sequestration except for tea party type politicians that believe it will get them re-elected. For everyone else, and that includes your "winners", there is damage.

    As for "is it good for me"? It was my choice so I guess the right answer to that is, under the circumstances yes.


    OK (none / 0) (#80)
    by lentinel on Mon Mar 04, 2013 at 07:30:09 PM EST
    Bikes are bad for environment ... (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by Yman on Mon Mar 04, 2013 at 11:33:42 AM EST
    ... says Republican Rep. Ed Orcutt of Seattle:

    Republican Rep. Ed Orcutt says bikes are bad for the environment because they cause cyclists to have "an increased heart rate and respiration." "You would be giving off more carbon dioxide if you are riding a bike than driving in a car," he said, before admitting that he had not "done any analysis" of the difference between carbon dioxide emissions of bikes and cars.

    Oyyyyyyyy ....

    You also end up (none / 0) (#62)
    by jondee on Mon Mar 04, 2013 at 04:54:06 PM EST
    being over-exposed to all those carbon dioxide emitting trees, plants and animals that your neopagan, left wing treehuggers like so much.  

    Here is his reponse: (none / 0) (#64)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon Mar 04, 2013 at 05:03:36 PM EST

        First of all, let me apologize for the carbon emissions line of an e-mail which has caused so much concern within the bicycle community. It was over the top and I admit is not one which should enter into the conversation regarding bicycles.

        Although I have always recognized that bicycling emits less carbon than cars, I see I did a poor job of indicating that within my e-mail. My point was that by not driving a car, a cyclist was not necessarily having a zero-carbon footprint. In looking back, it was not a point worthy of even mentioning so, again, I apologize - both for bringing it up and for the wording of the e-mail.

        Second, please understand that I have not proposed, nor do I intend to propose, any tax - and certainly not a carbon tax - on bicyclists. There is little in the Democrat tax proposal that I support. However, the one aspect of the Democrat tax plan that has merit is their proposed $25.00 tax on the purchase of any bicycle $500.00 or more. I am willing to consider this because I've heard requests from members of the bicycle community that they want more money for bicycle infrastructure. The idea of bicyclists paying for some of the infrastructure they are using is one which merits consideration.

        Since I have heard concerns about doing this via sales tax due to the impact on bicycle shops, I am very willing to work with the bicycle community to determine an appropriate way to enable bicyclists to pay for some of the bicycle-only lanes and overpasses. It is my intent to seek out your advocates in Olympia to see if there are other ways to accomplish this.

        Again, I do apologize for the carbon line in the e-mail and any confusion it has created. I look forward to working on reasonable solutions to the problems cyclists are having with infrastructure.


        Representative Ed Orcutt
        20th Legislative District

    Perhaps I should not so this, but I tend (5.00 / 1) (#66)
    by caseyOR on Mon Mar 04, 2013 at 05:34:58 PM EST
    to discount any Republican politician who uses the word "Democrat" as an adjective instead of "Democratic."

    Nonetheless, I read Orcutt's response. He does get points for an actual apology instead of the one of those faux apologies that starts "If I have offended anyone".


    We do need more bike lanes (none / 0) (#68)
    by shoephone on Mon Mar 04, 2013 at 05:55:42 PM EST
    But the reason we don't already have more of them is not because of lack of funding. It's lack of will, and an inability of the bike and car proponents to work together on finding solutions. But the anti-bike crowd is really showing its true colors. Most people who bike in this area also drive carss, so they are already paying motor vehicle excise taxes, and gas taxes (we have one of the highest gas taxes in the nation). Both those taxes go directly to funding road projects.

    Particularly in the case of the extension of the Burke Gilman trail in Ballard, the sticking point has been industrial businesses along the route that keep filing injuntions against it! This is an incredibly bike-friendly place, and the war is not helping anyone. Thesse projects can be done. Two major arterials in the city (one in Ballard on 24th NW, and one on Nickerson St, just off the Ballard Bridge) were changed flast year rom 4-lane roads to 2-lane roads, with bike paths alongside. And except for cars having to wait a bit longer on Nickerson during rush hours, there has been no crisis. It was a good decision by the city to finally do it, and it's made it far less stressful and dangerous for bicyclists.

    Orcutt is really out of his league on this one.


    Yikes! I'm full of typos today! (none / 0) (#69)
    by shoephone on Mon Mar 04, 2013 at 05:57:05 PM EST
    Nice "backpedaling" (none / 0) (#82)
    by Yman on Mon Mar 04, 2013 at 08:19:10 PM EST
    Maybe he should take up cycling, himself.  His main point wasn't his ridiculous theory about cycling being bad for the environment, but even his justification for the tax is ridiculous.  Apart from all the money that would be saved if more people cycled, he completely ignores the fact that only a tiny portion (4%) of the roads in Seattle are paid for by the gasoline tax.  Not to mention the fact that cyclists own cars and directly contribute to the other 96% of the road, probably more than average for those buying the expensive bikes that are the target of the proposed tax.

    BTW - Rep. Judy Clyburn said that she does not agree with the bike tax even though she is the one who put it in the package.

    "They always say--and I don't agree--that [cyclists] are not paying for anything," she told the Stranger. The Seattle Times says the bike tax, which would only raise about $1 million over ten years, was "included for largely symbolic reasons."


    Thank you. Yes, it's Clibborn (none / 0) (#85)
    by shoephone on Mon Mar 04, 2013 at 10:45:45 PM EST
    She represents Mercer Island, on the east side of Lake Washington, the 41st district. She is a "moderate" who often plays both sides against the middle. Not an unusual stance for someone representing a very wealthy enclave which mostly hews Dem. But, as the chair of the transportation committee, she has paid lip service to putting light rail on the eastside (where developers and rich business groups are dead set against it).

    Why the objections to eastside light rail? (none / 0) (#86)
    by caseyOR on Mon Mar 04, 2013 at 11:06:49 PM EST
    Developers here in Portland like light rail and the street car line, especially developers. It has opened up new areas of the city to development. So, why the dislike in Seattle?

    Are Washingtonians just generally opposed to mass transit? Oregon and Washington are in the midst of trying to get the I-5 bridge rebuilt. Oregon insists the new bridge include a light rail line to serve Vancouver and Clark County. There is huge opposition on the north side of the Columbia to the idea of light rail making its way into SW Washington. People get quite worked up about it.

    Given the huge number of people who commute from SW WA over the I-5 bridge to Portland for work and to shop and various other things, I do not understand the intense opposition.

    Maybe Washingtonians just don't like public transportation.


    Seattle already has some light rail lines (none / 0) (#87)
    by shoephone on Mon Mar 04, 2013 at 11:16:54 PM EST
    mostly from the airport to downtown, and in the south end. We are now expanding it north to the U-District and beyond, and are flirting with a West Seattle to Ballard line. The eastside is a whole nother animal! They really need it too, because the area has grown so much, and because there are still wide swaths of suburbia. But the Republican power brokers over there hate taxes and rule the roost. It's very short-sighted, but they will pay one way or another...

    Orcutt isn't from Seattle (none / 0) (#65)
    by shoephone on Mon Mar 04, 2013 at 05:34:30 PM EST
    He's from Kalama, in southwest WA. Seattle's reps are Reuven Carlyle and Gayle Tarleton. Anyway, I don't think Orcutt's proposal is going anywhere, no matter how he explains it away...The WA State GOP is completely freaked out now that Tim Eyman's anti-tax initiatives have finally been ruled unconstitutional by the state Supremem Court. Many of us want the legislature to repeal at least a few of those 600+ outmoded, unfair, unjustified corporate tax breaks. Now there is a clear path ahead for doing just that (under Carlyle's proposal from last year's session)...except that the GOP is still screming bloody murder on revenues from taxes. Because that is all they know how to do.

    proposal from the Dem side of the aisle to add a tax to bicycle purchases, no?

    Well, as far as Sexpressing, (none / 0) (#70)
    by shoephone on Mon Mar 04, 2013 at 06:03:49 PM EST
    that's something both Dems and Repubs are known to do, but usually behind closed doors? Sorry, couldn't resist...I've had my own typo issues today ;-)

    Orcutt is a Repub.


    But yes, the idea came from a Dem (none / 0) (#71)
    by shoephone on Mon Mar 04, 2013 at 06:10:41 PM EST
    (forgive me, I forget her name right now, but I'll find it). And it was immediately shot down by everyone in the biking community and lots of Democratic voters.

    WA State is in a lot of craziness right now because of the Supreme Court decision AND because two Senate Dems just crossed over to join the Republican caucus (making a one vote majority) so that they could grab power. One of them, Rodney Tom, used to be a Repub, then became a Dem when he thought it would give him more power, and now he's switching back again, without officially changing party affiliation, The other one, Tim Sheldon, has always been a DINO in a mostly red district.

    So the Dems are doing their own version of freak out on how to take back power and get bills passed before the session ends in about 6 weeks.


    Thanks, quite the drama! (none / 0) (#72)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon Mar 04, 2013 at 06:16:18 PM EST
    Oops! My fat fingers! (none / 0) (#73)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon Mar 04, 2013 at 06:17:08 PM EST
    SF Opera in Berkeley reviewed (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by Dadler on Mon Mar 04, 2013 at 12:26:44 PM EST
    Came accross a really interesting book (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon Mar 04, 2013 at 01:48:52 PM EST
    this weekend" "The Last Ape Standing."

    The author explains his theory of why only we, of the 27(!) different human species that have trod the earth, are still around.

    In fact there was another recently discovered human species in S. China that existed as little as 11,000 years ago.

    If I have it correctly, he attributes our ascendency to our long childhood. That the 6 years or so of childhood when our brains are furiously being wired and rewired enable us to learn much, much more than the any of the others.

    He says this came from our specific evolutionary adaptation to the narrow pelvises and narrow birth canals that all human species developed as result of our extending period of waking upright on the savannahs of Africa.

    The trouble was, as the birth canals evolved narrower, the various human species' brains brains and skulls were evolving larger, leading to life-threatening (and species-exincting) problems giving birth.

    Apparently homo sapiens alone evolved the practice of giving birth much earlier to much less developed babies than the other species, such that our heads could fit through the birth canal but then grew about 3x in size after birth.

    So our brains spend about 6 years of their development while outside the womb interacting with the world around, in contrast to at most about 1 year in apes, our closest living relatives.

    Interesting stuff!

    turned the corner and farming and domestication animals led to civilization.)

    There is a Really Good Movie (none / 0) (#55)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Mar 04, 2013 at 03:39:20 PM EST
    ...that reincarnates the best educated guesses of what occurred when Homo Sapiens and Neanderthal first came into contact, from the first sighting to the the very last Neanderthal dying.

    It explores all the possibilities that lead to only one species prevailing, from viruses to brain power, to community interaction and species intermingling. They explored a lot of common theories while making it human.

    That happened at least 27 times, probably many more.



    Clash of the Cavemen (none / 0) (#101)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Mar 05, 2013 at 10:58:04 AM EST
    (Cue dramatic movie sounds)
    In the ice-ravaged wilds of Europe, circa 25,000 BC, a range war like no other raged between two species of primitive man. In a unique moment in the world's history, these two species, Neanderthal and Cro-Magnon (Homo sapiens), competed for resources and for a permanent spot at the top of the animal kingdom.

    It was an epic battle of brains versus brawn that determined the course of human history. In this scenario, based on scientific theories, witness our prehistoric ancestors as they clash with a completely different species of humans, the Neanderthals, some 30,000 years ago in Ice Age Europe.


    I looked it up on Amazon (none / 0) (#77)
    by sj on Mon Mar 04, 2013 at 06:49:52 PM EST
    It looks interesting.  I'd like to read it.  Just as soon as I get some bandwidth for pleasure reading.

    27 other humanlike species (none / 0) (#89)
    by MKS on Tue Mar 05, 2013 at 12:40:48 AM EST
    That suggest that humanlike beings are occurring are arising quite often--that such beings are a natural result of carbon based life, and not just a one-off fluke.

    With all the galaxies and earth-like planets out there, there must be other like humanlike beings.....

    Now, I shall go watch another episode of Ancient Aliens.....


    It's a quality entertainment (none / 0) (#92)
    by brodie on Tue Mar 05, 2013 at 07:47:21 AM EST
    with plenty of interesting visuals.  The on-screen talking heads are a real mixed bag however.

    A recent news item revealed that our scientists now estimate there are some 4.5b Earth-like planets just in the Milky Way galaxy, one of I don't how many galaxies we can see with our modern instruments.  And that's just counting this one universe; there may be many more.

    Yeah, I suspect the human-like form is common in our galaxy, and it would seem logical to conclude that we've been visited by them, in the past and currently, and that the various govts and security services throughout the world keep this info from the public.

    Afaik however, maybe only one person on the planet is being directly contacted -- the other alleged contactees of recent times don't seem credible.

    Btw, assuming Homo sapiens intermingled with Neanderthals, it's likely a fair number of humans today still carry some trace of genetic material from the vanished species.  This could also account for all the violence and stupidity in the world -- assuming for the moment the traditional story about knuckledragging Neanderthals is on the mark.


    Yes, we do carry neanderthal DNA. (none / 0) (#99)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Mar 05, 2013 at 08:54:55 AM EST
    But no, according to this scientist, the neanderthals were not at all like we commonly think.

    They may have had bigger brains than we did, iirc.

    The problem is that the primary skeleton that led to our current view of neanderthals was of a very old neanderthal person (35 y/o) who was wracked with arthritis which led to artist's renderings of "knuckle draggers."

    This scientist believes the neanderthals were not at all what we have been led to believe since that skeleton was discovered.


    Theres an app called (none / 0) (#1)
    by fishcamp on Sun Mar 03, 2013 at 04:05:38 PM EST
    Song Sargeant that it will find and zap your duplicate songs.  It will also keep them in a separate folder if your not sure.

    3 hours have passed and (none / 0) (#6)
    by Jeralyn on Sun Mar 03, 2013 at 06:08:35 PM EST
    I'm no closer to figuring it out.

    The way I see it... (none / 0) (#10)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Sun Mar 03, 2013 at 07:46:21 PM EST
    if I have duplicates of a song, I must really like it, so I probably won't mind if it comes up more often in my shuffle.  

    Or, it is a different version of the same song (studio v. live).  

    I'm still struggling (can't figure out for the life of me) how to remove factory installed apps.


    Time machine (none / 0) (#2)
    by Molly Bloom on Sun Mar 03, 2013 at 04:14:02 PM EST
    Get a 1tb external drive and use time machine to back up your files. It's easy enough to do. If you already use time machine you can set up your new Mac using your back up drive and it will replicate your older Mac.

     Also if you sync to iCloud your contact list should be backed up there as well.

    It's a voice from the past. (none / 0) (#3)
    by oculus on Sun Mar 03, 2013 at 04:58:44 PM EST
    I am still around (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by Molly Bloom on Sun Mar 03, 2013 at 05:31:22 PM EST
    I read this blog and others daily once in the AM and once in the PM, but I dont post much any more. Theres more to life and life is too short as it is and I realize how much I have missed and how complicated life has become, I just dont usually have the time or inclination to engage on blogs anymore. I try to concentrate more on family, friends and the love of my life.

    Well, we use to have things to discuss (1.00 / 2) (#13)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Mar 04, 2013 at 12:05:02 AM EST
    ... the sins of Bush...now...we have...the sins of Bush...



    Or, the sins of Obama, ... (none / 0) (#19)
    by Yman on Mon Mar 04, 2013 at 08:36:39 AM EST
    ... both real and imagined, the looming threat of Shariah Law, opinion pieces challenging global warming, etc., etc. ...

    Somebody's been asleep for the past four years. (none / 0) (#88)
    by shoephone on Mon Mar 04, 2013 at 11:19:43 PM EST
    You may scoff at the notion, but ... (none / 0) (#4)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sun Mar 03, 2013 at 05:06:20 PM EST
    ... seriously, I'm coming to believe that Mitt Romney is actually entertaining thoughts of running for president again in 2016.

    Think about it. Romney will be 69 years old, he still has a healthy surplus in his war chest, and when -- not if -- the far-right finally implodes politically, I don't see any credible GOP candidates -- save for Chris Christie, maybe -- on the horizon who'd be able stop him if he does decide to run again.

    The far right has mostly succeeded in its quest to purify the GOP, because other than Romney and Christie, the GOP doesn't really have any other name candidates who could appeal effectively to the mainstream.

    Rick Perry totally embarrassed himself on the national stage in 2012, so I don't see him in the mix at all. Bobby Jindal, Paul Ryan or Marco Rubio? Uh, no. Each one of those three brings multiple damaging flaws to the table. Pretty much every other known GOP personality out there who has aspirations for the White House -- here's looking at you, Rand Paul -- is a charter resident of Looney Tunes territory.

    Ronald Reagan ultimately succeeded to the White House in 1980, in large part because he simply refused to do the decent thing by Beltway standards and go away after challenging incumbent President Gerald Ford for the 1976 GOP presidential nomination and losing. Like today, there were no other big-name, post-Watergate GOP presidential aspirants in the aftermath of the 1976 elections, except for Reagan, Sen. Bob Dole and perhaps Gov. Jim Thompson of Illinois.

    (Sorry, but George H.W.Bush was not a big name back then, and really rose in stature only because Reagan subsequently named him as his 1980 running mate.)

    Now granted, Mittens is no Reagan, but who to say that adopting a similar strategy of hanging around the stagewings won't work?

    One word why he won't run again: Anne. (none / 0) (#12)
    by Angel on Sun Mar 03, 2013 at 10:55:18 PM EST
    Well... (none / 0) (#42)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Mar 04, 2013 at 01:18:59 PM EST
    ...he's the only one they have that doesn't come off off as crazy and/or really stupid.  Even his own party doesn't like him all that much, but it's all they got.  So unless they find some new material, that spot probably won't be that hard for Romney to fill.

    Christie is close to getting kicked out of the club.  He just praised portions of ACA and expended his state's Medicare.  He praised Obama right before the election over Sandy, which some think was the tipping point of Obama's win.

    He was key speaker for the Republican Convention, but he wasn't even invited to the CPAC which is in New Jersey this year. Snub for sure.

    He has proved himself to be a man willing to compromise, help people in need, criticize his own party, and praise a President his party despises.

    IOW he is not GOP material, not even close.  


    Don't be so sure (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by NYShooter on Mon Mar 04, 2013 at 01:28:08 PM EST
    You might have read that Fox News's ratings are falling at a greater rate than ever before, much less than your CNN's, CNBC's, MSNBC's, etc. Also, more and more "regular" Republicans are realizing how much damage the Tea party types have done to them, especially in the voting booth.

    I think Christie has just the right set of qualities, cajones, but with brains, and he may be just the go-to guy for those disillusioned R's.


    While I agree (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Mar 04, 2013 at 01:48:18 PM EST
    that what you're saying has some merit it's not the whole story I would say. Yes, there are some Republicans like those around Atlanta here in GA that realize the party needs to enter the 21st century and Christie would be an ideal candidate for them.

    That being said, how many of those are actually in the party anymore? They created a monster with the Tea Party and as far as I can tell, they are not going to be tamed. Right now there is a huge circular firing squad going in with the GOP with Karl Rove going after the Tea Partiers.

    I suppose Christie could get the nomination but the primary schedule would have to be changed to the extent that states like NY, NJ and CA are front loaded into the primaries and states like TX and SC would have to take a back seat in deciding who wins.

    What I've been seeing here locally is that some in the upper echelon of the GOP realize they have a serious problem while the rank and file republicans have doubled down on stupid. Romney's 47% comment apparently continues to be put out there by smarmy, condescending and sanctimonious rank and file Republicans.


    I always love it when the Demo Left tells the (2.00 / 1) (#76)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Mar 04, 2013 at 06:46:49 PM EST
    Repubs who to run...

    Why should Repubs pay any attention?

    Do you realize that IF Romney had received as many votes as McCain did he would have won?? And that, rightfully or wrongly, McCain is regarded as more conservative??

    So why not let the Repubs nominate a conservative... I mean if you think that would make them easier to beat..


    I'm not (5.00 / 2) (#79)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Mar 04, 2013 at 07:19:49 PM EST
    telling anybody who to run. I think the GOP will pick a full on tea party nut and get creamed in the general election.

    McCain was not considered more conservative. If you remember McCain supported immigration reform and he also had denounced George W. Bush and the evangelicals back in 2000.

    I mean weren't you the guy that thought Rick Perry was a good candidate?


    Never-ending wingnut myths (5.00 / 1) (#81)
    by Yman on Mon Mar 04, 2013 at 08:05:29 PM EST
    Do you realize that IF Romney had received as many votes as McCain did he would have won?? And that, rightfully or wrongly, McCain is regarded as more conservative??

    Do you realize this is a complete lie?

    1.  Romney got more votes than McCain.
    2.  Obama got more votes in 2008 and 2012 than either of them.

    Governor Romney garnered 59,979,858 votes this election cycle compared to Senator McCain in 2008 who picked up 59,948,323 votes. President Barack Obama, on the other hand, dropped about 5.5 million votes behind his 2008 total to 64,005,851 this year.

    Link to your winger Washington Times for the numbers.

    Do you get most of your news from wingnut sites or just the emails your TP friends forward to you?

    Too easy...


    Sure Jim, (5.00 / 1) (#103)
    by jondee on Tue Mar 05, 2013 at 01:55:33 PM EST
    as long as the conservaive supports single payer, gay marriage, and a woman's right to choose.

    Afterall, we're all social liberals around here. Don't forghet that.



    But... (5.00 / 4) (#104)
    by shoephone on Tue Mar 05, 2013 at 03:09:02 PM EST
    a conservative who claims to support a woman's right to choose, while also supporting the Christianists right to withhold access to birth control...well, that person's not a social liberal. That person's a fraud.

    Don't rule out (none / 0) (#50)
    by jbindc on Mon Mar 04, 2013 at 01:53:44 PM EST
    Well (none / 0) (#52)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Mar 04, 2013 at 02:30:19 PM EST
    I wouldn't put it past the GOP to be stupid enough to nominate another Bush.

    Voters have short term memories (none / 0) (#53)
    by jbindc on Mon Mar 04, 2013 at 02:38:16 PM EST
    And Jeb is not as hated as George. And it will be after 8 years of a Democratic White House.

    He can speak to Hispanics and Latinos with credibility, since his wife and family are Mexican and of Mexican-descent -  a big issue that will surely resonate in 2016. And while he's conservative, he's not of the Tea Party ilk.

    I don't know if he'll run or not, but as of right now, he looks like he could be a viable candidate.


    That (none / 0) (#54)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Mar 04, 2013 at 03:22:22 PM EST
    might work for other Republicans but not a Bush.

    No Way... (none / 0) (#56)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Mar 04, 2013 at 03:51:58 PM EST
    Short memories, yes, but forgetting Bush is going to take a generation.  

    The problem with minorities isn't the guy running, it's the policies of the party that he's pledged to follow.  The GOP isn't getting that group back without losing a good portion of their base.

    A Hispanic candidate might be able to do it, but that would require winning the primary and that seems highly unlikely.


    I don't know (none / 0) (#59)
    by jbindc on Mon Mar 04, 2013 at 04:30:56 PM EST
    But 4 years is a long way away.

    Many on this blog vociferously kept touting that the Republicans would not nominate a Mormon, right up until the moment Romney won the nomination.

    Anything can happen, and right now (again, with the caveat that 4 years is a long way away), the only viable candidates the Republicans have is Christie and maybe Jeb Bush.  Christie is in the doghouse right now for not following the playbook.

    But with statements like the above, and no matter what he says, Jeb Bush is running.


    How does Jeb Bush confront the issue of the (none / 0) (#74)
    by Angel on Mon Mar 04, 2013 at 06:26:05 PM EST
    Iraq and Afghanistan wars that were started by his brother?  How does he address the trillions of dollars spent on those debacles? Does he publicly support what his brother and Cheney did, or does he publicly denounce his brother's and Cheney's actions?  I can't see him getting over that obstacle, it's too big.  

    How does Obama confront those issues? (4.00 / 3) (#75)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon Mar 04, 2013 at 06:27:32 PM EST
    Obama isn't Dubya's brother. (none / 0) (#84)
    by Angel on Mon Mar 04, 2013 at 10:31:01 PM EST
    And he isn't running for President again.

    Why does he (none / 0) (#90)
    by jbindc on Tue Mar 05, 2013 at 07:31:55 AM EST
    have to confront those issues any more than any other Republican candidate?  Just because George is his brother?  Are you responsible for all of your siblings' choices?  He actually could have an advantage over a Senator or Congress-critter who runs because he wasn't in a position to vote for any of it.

    How does he confront it?  "I am not my brother, and just like President Obama, I did not have access to all the classified information to thoroughly understand what went into the decision making leading up to the wars. With the advantage of hindsight and history, now, I would have done X, Y, and Z differently."

    Boom.  Steps away from his brother and in the same statement, reminds people that Obama admitted that while he had positions about the war, he himself did not have all the relevant information to make a completely informed decision.  (Again with hindsight, one can argue the truth and value of that information, but not the substance of what was being told to the administration at the time).


    Seriously? You think the electorate and the media (none / 0) (#91)
    by Angel on Tue Mar 05, 2013 at 07:42:37 AM EST
    won't look at him and compare him to his brother and his father before him?  He will be held to a different standard about some things, rightly or not.  I would bet money on it.  I just hope he doesn't run because I am sick of the Bush family.  They've done enough harm to this country.  

    I think they will (5.00 / 1) (#94)
    by jbindc on Tue Mar 05, 2013 at 07:59:09 AM EST
    compare them - for about a week.  Then once Jeb would start staking out his own positions, everyone would move on.  How much did everyone compare GWB to his father when he ran? There was some comparing between Hillary and Bill, but then the focus was on her.

    Again - voters have a short attention span and we will have a thousand new poltiical scandals about everyone else before then.

    I just say, don't count him out.


    And when the comparison is made (5.00 / 1) (#96)
    by brodie on Tue Mar 05, 2013 at 08:04:18 AM EST
    Jeb comes out looking very good -- "Wow, a smart Bush!"

    The corporate media will be behind him big time, while, like the 2000 election, working overtime to trash the Dem nominee, especially if it's Hillary or any Dem to the left of Max Baucus.

    No, I think the Jebster knows he's well-positioned, despite the recent pathetic record of his dumb brother, to come in and save his party with the combination of enough conservative cred, articulateness*, and the positive winning track record of the Bush family in prez'l elections.

    At this point he's more likely to get the nom than the too moderate and Obama-friendly Christie.

    Remember people:  it only took a few years for the badly discredited Nixon to turn things around and win his party's nom.  The Jebster actually has less of a steep hill to climb, given that he would probably start with 47% of the vote from Romney and won't be as clumsy a campaigner as the Mittster.

    * on Morning Joe today, I thought I heard Jeb mispronounce the word "exasperate" as "exapserate" -- he then paused, knowing it didn't seem right, but couldn't correct it


    Precisely (none / 0) (#93)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Mar 05, 2013 at 07:50:09 AM EST
    because he is his brother is the reason why he would have more of a problem than other Republican candidates. He can't pretend he's an orphan and I'm sure he is on tape praising his brother multiple times.

    So? (none / 0) (#95)
    by jbindc on Tue Mar 05, 2013 at 08:02:00 AM EST
    It would probably be more suspicious if he didn't praise his brother.

    There may be barriers, but I think he could give a good run through the primaries and wouldn't be discounted because of his brother.  And remember - people like you would not be picking the nominee.  A Tea Partier won't get the nomination - the fiscal conservatives will see to that - but someone like Christie is too much of a wild card for the evangelicals.  Jeb might be seen as a "middle of the road" candidate that would be palatable to both sides of their party.


    Actually (none / 0) (#97)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Mar 05, 2013 at 08:41:43 AM EST
    I think the GOP would be stupid enough to nominate him because they think that G.W. Bush was fantastic.  My comments concern his ability to win a general election with the albatross of his brother around his neck.

    Can you imagine what Hillary could do to him if he was the nominee?


    I think (none / 0) (#102)
    by jbindc on Tue Mar 05, 2013 at 11:28:16 AM EST
    If Hillary Clinton is the nominee, then they will nominate a Tea-partier (sacrificial lamb just to get their message out).

    If she is out of the game, then the election is a whole different ballgame.


    I think (none / 0) (#105)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Mar 05, 2013 at 03:41:04 PM EST
    they are going to have a tea party nominee no matter what. Just from what I hear the local Republicans saying and they are saying things like "I would rather lose than change" and "I don't care if the GOP ever wins another election"

    You know what (none / 0) (#98)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Mar 05, 2013 at 08:47:27 AM EST
    though? If the GOP primary last year could turn a middle of the road GOP governor like Romney into a wacko, can you imagine what the next primary is going to be able to do?

    Honestly, the whole thing just makes (none / 0) (#100)
    by Anne on Tue Mar 05, 2013 at 09:23:42 AM EST
    me want to stick needles in my eyes...

    I think there's going to be a huge fight between the Tea Party wackos and the stealth wackos - they're the ones that look normal and sound normal, but can't be trusted to actually be normal - and as long as that fight goes on, it probably won't be that hard for a Democrat to win in 2016.

    If I never heard the name "Bush" in the context of the presidency, it might be too soon; I don't want to hear "Cheney" - as in Liz - either.  

    It's just so depressing to consider what the possible field will look like on both sides of the aisle that the needles-in-my-eyes approach might take my mind off it.


    I'm with you (none / 0) (#106)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Mar 05, 2013 at 03:44:22 PM EST
    on the Bush thing.

    Very much a circular firing squad going on right now. 1/2 the party knows the tea party has cost them a ton of votes while the other half is so sanctimonious and self righteous that they don't care what costs them votes.


    I for one (none / 0) (#78)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Mar 04, 2013 at 07:16:12 PM EST
    was not one that was saying the GOP would not nominate a Mormon. I knew that once the GOP base was told to vote for Romney they would do it. However, it seems that they are now in complete revolt against that kind of stuff after losing with McCain and Romney. Jeb Bush has now come out sounding like a hard right nut on immigration. The primary voters which essentially determine determine the nominee are a big problem. Whoever is going to have to play the same game that Romney played in 2012 and sign onto all the wacko stuff the Tea Party wants.

    Scott above is right. The Bush name might not be toxic to the GOP but it's going to take a generation  to get the stench off their name. It's not like Jeb could pull a Christie and have nothing to do with Bush. It's his own brother. Romney had the problem or wanting to return to Bush's policies and you can multiply the problems with Jeb Bush. Man can you imagine how Hillary Clinton could rip him to shreds if she's the nominee


    Republicans (none / 0) (#45)
    by sj on Mon Mar 04, 2013 at 01:33:24 PM EST
    have two years to watch what the Tea Party does.  He might indeed seem a savior to TPTB.  The Koch brothers might choke.  

    Just. Stop. (none / 0) (#83)
    by ruffian on Mon Mar 04, 2013 at 08:35:22 PM EST
    Another interesting anti-DOMA brief (none / 0) (#11)
    by NYLeft on Sun Mar 03, 2013 at 10:32:20 PM EST
    filed by former Federal Election Commission commissioners says DOMA violates married LGBTs First Amendment rights. What a great twist, considering the SCOTUS's Citizens United decision.

    Maybe some of you (none / 0) (#14)
    by NYShooter on Mon Mar 04, 2013 at 12:07:41 AM EST
     have heard that Warren Buffet is starting to invest heavily into newspapers. The reason that's interesting is because all we've been hearing lately is that the newspaper industry is a dying business. And, that's actually true as more and more big name papers have gone bankrupt. Many more have downsized tremendously, and even more are trying to transition the news onto the internet.

    Now, the reason I said this is interesting is simply because of who is doing the investing, and like that commercial from years ago, "when Warren Buffet is buying, smart people are listening." (or something like that)

    Anyway, I started doing some more research on this subject, again, because it's Buffet, and Warren has always said that his first rule of investing is "only buy stocks (companies) that you understand inside out." I do know that he sometimes studies certain stocks, companies, and industries for many years before investing. So, I have to conclude that he's done his homework (due diligence) and sees value there where no one else does.

    FWIW, I just thought I'd throw this out there and see if anyone has any ideas or input. The bottom line is I think I've figured out why W.B. is betting on the newspaper business, and when Buffet buys, he buys big.  Finally, this story is not going away and, for me anyway, I'll be watching it closely.

    The problem is not that newspapers do not (5.00 / 2) (#15)
    by caseyOR on Mon Mar 04, 2013 at 01:12:08 AM EST
    make any money. They just do not make enough money to satisfy the private equity companies and hedge funds who invested in them. These greedy SOBs are stripping everything of value out of newspapers just like they do every business they get their grubby hands on.

    Newspapers are not going bankrupt. They can pay their bills. So, maybe what Buffet sees is an industry with the potential for steady, though not astronomical, profits.

    Buffet does have some experience with newspapers. Way back when Katherine Graham took over control of the Washington Post following the suicide of her husband Buffet stepped in to advise her on the business side of the newspaper. He has kept his hand in the news biz over the years.

    The interesting thing will be what newspapers he buys.


    Whether newspapers (none / 0) (#16)
    by NYShooter on Mon Mar 04, 2013 at 01:42:20 AM EST
     are going bankrupt, or suffering greatly reduced profit margins is irrelevant. The papers that are being bought and sold today are priced at just their asset value....real-estate & equipment. The "news" part of the business is valued at "0."
    For whatever reason, the industry is 20% smaller than it was just 10 years ago.

    But, I do agree with you that it will be "interesting." I think Buffet believes that the whole concept of "news" has been mismanaged and erroneously characterized. You're right about the Hedge Funds and Private Equity firms, and their approach, especially vis-à-vis newspapers.

    I think Buffet sees a huge, hidden value in real "news," and the fact that all of today's so-called, news, outlets have completely mismanaged this asset gives him a perfect "buy-in" opportunity.


    maybe he sees a chance (none / 0) (#17)
    by TeresaInPa on Mon Mar 04, 2013 at 07:44:09 AM EST
    to have some influence over the quality of the news media.  Maybe since "papers" both real and virtual are still a major driver of what gets talked about and who gets taken seriously, he wants to have some influence.

    This early in the game, (none / 0) (#22)
    by NYShooter on Mon Mar 04, 2013 at 09:47:34 AM EST
    I'm looking at this development as a good thing. While many businessmen are looked at with jaundiced eyes (and, for good reason) guys like Buffet and Gates are somewhat different. With the usual disclaimer: We may find out later that his agenda is less than 100% altruistic, I think I'd have a higher level of trust in Warren Buffet meaning what he says about the news business than some of the other wild-eyed, beyond greedy,  hedge fund managers, and such.

    But, back to the News business, how many times have we talked, here at TL, about the sorry state of the News and/or Journalism  racket? We refer to them as "stenographers," and their "news" usually consists of bringing on two shop-worn pundits from opposite ends of the political world to repeat their party's talking points. And, that's about it; Their mantra, "there's two sides to every story," means you'll never get the real, truthful  side.

    Anyway, if Buffet intends to lift "news" back up to the place its held in the public's esteem years ago, I'll be rooting for him.

    p.s. another good point is that he may have a lot of people who have prospered greatly from the media's "sell-out" a little bit worried here. I mean, the public actually getting factual, unbiased, and critical information about the world we all live in? Talk about "clutching pearls!!"


    With whose money is he buying? (none / 0) (#20)
    by unitron on Mon Mar 04, 2013 at 08:45:26 AM EST
    Is he spending BH's money or WB's money?

    If the former, it's an investment.

    If the latter, maybe speculation, maybe rescue/hobby.

    Maybe he just wants one he can stand to read.


    Good point, (none / 0) (#24)
    by NYShooter on Mon Mar 04, 2013 at 10:33:16 AM EST

    While I don't have any more information than you do, I believe, due its wide publicity and the large stake he's going to be taking, I'd have to believe it's BH money.

    It's Berkshire Hathaway (none / 0) (#25)
    by CoralGables on Mon Mar 04, 2013 at 10:46:53 AM EST
    BH Media Group now owns 28 daily newspapers and related weekly newspapers in Nebraska, Iowa, Texas, Oklahoma, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Alabama and Florida.

    The most recent acquisition is the Tulsa World.


    Since he is the ultimate inside trader... (none / 0) (#26)
    by Dadler on Mon Mar 04, 2013 at 10:51:52 AM EST
    ...I would guess he's in the know with info no one else would be legally allowed to possess. Or, as all humans are prone to, he could just be making a dunderheaded error. For the first time ever, Berkshire is going to be outperformed by the S&P for five str8 years. So his magic touch ain't all that right now. But inside traders have their advantage, so we'll see.

    Very difficult (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by CoralGables on Mon Mar 04, 2013 at 11:05:22 AM EST
    for a company the size of Berkshire to continually beat the S&P, although that is their stated goal.

    Buffett is in buying mode right now and, as he says, not because he is sure they are going up right now, but rather because they are a great value right now.

    When you buy entire companies you aren't really an inside trader. Inside traders buy and sell stocks. Berkshire Hathaway buys and holds.

    Just a sample of the variety they own 100% of now:
    Benjamin Moore Paints
    Brooks Sports
    Burlington Northern Santa Fe
    Dairy Queen
    Fruit of the Loom
    Helzberg Diamonds
    Omaha World Herald
    Sees Candies
    The Pampered Chef


    SITE VIOLATOR: rebeccacascarret (none / 0) (#18)
    by jbindc on Mon Mar 04, 2013 at 08:34:04 AM EST
    All over old threads.  Very busy.

    A Monday morning treat... (none / 0) (#21)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Mon Mar 04, 2013 at 09:28:25 AM EST
    for music lovers--the stream of "Sound City: Real to Reel" from NRP's First Listen.

    Nice to see my homeboy Corey Taylor on there!

    NPR bringing the goods lately... (none / 0) (#23)
    by kdog on Mon Mar 04, 2013 at 09:58:27 AM EST
    though of you and the link you posted to the new Jimi release at the Allmans show on Friday, they did an epic cover version of Jimi's "1983 (A Merman I Should Turn To Be)" that blew our f*ckin' minds!!!

    Derek Trucks and Warren Haynes have the whole "intricate art of basket weaving" thing on lock.  The three-headed percussion monster of Butch Trucks, Jaimoe, and Marc Quinones were bringing the beat too...what a feeling when they pull the curtain and you see all them drums!

    What a show, gotta find my way back for another before the Beacon run is done.  I miss the old pre-MSG corporate takeover Beacon...when a twenty in the palm was all you ever needed to get it in to any show;)


    Thankfully, there's been good stuff... (none / 0) (#27)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Mon Mar 04, 2013 at 11:00:50 AM EST
    coming out for them to feature.  I was a bit surprised that I liked the Rick Springfield and Paul McCartney songs off Real to Reel quite a bit.

    3 drummers, eh?  I'll bet that's a ton o' drums!  Makes you want to run up on stage and start banging on them, huh?  


    Rick Springfield.... (none / 0) (#31)
    by kdog on Mon Mar 04, 2013 at 11:31:02 AM EST
    For the basketball fans ... (none / 0) (#33)
    by Yman on Mon Mar 04, 2013 at 11:36:00 AM EST
    ... who haven't yet seen this, a buzzer-beater for the ages in the New York Section 1 Class AA final on Sunday.

    The kid from Mt Vernon (none / 0) (#34)
    by CoralGables on Mon Mar 04, 2013 at 11:39:12 AM EST
    that intercepted the inbounds pass will kick himself for twenty years. All he has to do is hold the ball and they win.

    I was thinking the same thing (none / 0) (#35)
    by Yman on Mon Mar 04, 2013 at 11:47:44 AM EST
    Or, if the idea was to keep the clock running by tossing the ball in the air to avoid a clock-stopping foul, just toss it a little higher.  I couldn't tell if he was throwing it up to keep the clock running or tying to lob it over the Rochelle player to his teammate.

    Either way,  you gotta feel bad for him.


    He'll have that play on a loop in his (none / 0) (#36)
    by Anne on Mon Mar 04, 2013 at 12:01:59 PM EST
    head for a long, long time...

    Anne (none / 0) (#37)
    by CoralGables on Mon Mar 04, 2013 at 12:10:59 PM EST
    I thought of you when I saw thw Flacco contract. By my NFL contract theory it's a very good deal for Flacco and a very bad deal for the Ravens.

    It's a very cap-friendly deal, at least (none / 0) (#38)
    by Anne on Mon Mar 04, 2013 at 12:25:55 PM EST
    in the short term - I think it's like $6.8 to $7 million for 2013 - far less than the $19.5 mil hit they would have taken for the exclusive tag or the $14.5 mil hit for the non-exclusive tag.  By the time they get to year 3 or 4, the hit will be huge, but by then I expect a restructuring.

    I think people underestimate how good the Ravens front office has been over the years, so I'm not too worried about what happens next.  I remember the panic that ensued when we dumped Todd Heap and Willis McGahee, among others, and we not only survived, we were one dropped pass away from a Super Bowl that year.

    What we both know is that Flacco's status as the highest-paid player isn't going to last long - there will be someone who gets more, and soon.  I do think salaries have reached obscene levels - but I've given up any possibility that some of the billions of dollars that flow through and to the NFL and the owners will ever filter down to reduce the high cost of tickets.


    Dropping high price players (none / 0) (#40)
    by CoralGables on Mon Mar 04, 2013 at 12:43:20 PM EST
    usually doesn't hurt, with a solid example being the Patriots over the years. I agree the hit this upcoming season will be better than if he was franchised. I just wouldn't bank on restructuring. The Dolphins always tried to get that from Marino and his answer was always the same. No.

    I'll adjust my thought a little. For this season it's a good deal for the Ravens to try and get back to the SB, (provided there is no clubhouse jealousy with Flacco pocketing a $29 million bonus before the season starts) but with longterm consequences.