home

Monday Afternoon Open Thread

Early afternoon anyway.

Some investment advice - Louisville (-4) over Michigan, 6 units (+26 units for MM.) Soccer bonus - ManU pick over ManCity.

Open Thread.

< R.I.P. Margaret Thatcher | Cuban Embargo "Should Be Lifted For All" >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    The Drones are Coming (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Apr 08, 2013 at 12:08:30 PM EST
    Dayton, OH is kicking around using aerial surveillance.

    The Plan:

    The city has released a draft policy statement on how it would use the airplane cameras, saying they would only be deployed in a handful of circumstances -- to disrupt Part I (felony) crime patterns, to assist in weather emergencies or natural disasters, to monitor illegal dumping, to support tactical operations (SWAT, hostage cases), and to monitor major events or large-scale disturbances.

    In a statement, the ACLU said: "These planes are able to monitor an area four times as large as Dayton's downtown. The rapid-fire cameras used on the plane make the captured data more like film than still photos. Police can zoom in on any part of the image, in real time. This means that they could track your car down the street or watch you swimming in your backyard."

    LINK

    Costs $1000/hr.

    It's extremely odd that the word 'drone' is not being used, the elephant in the room.

    I almost want to register (none / 0) (#5)
    by sj on Mon Apr 08, 2013 at 12:15:13 PM EST
    just so I can use the word in a comment.  

    Parent
    And we're back ... (none / 0) (#6)
    by sj on Mon Apr 08, 2013 at 12:15:57 PM EST
    ...to not having new comments flagged.

    Parent
    It's pretty much been like that (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by Zorba on Mon Apr 08, 2013 at 01:04:04 PM EST
    for me, for awhile now.  New comments don't get flagged when I'm using Safari on my iPad, nor when I'm using Mozilla Firefox on my desk top (Windows), nor when I switched to Google Chrome or Internet Explorer on my desk top.
    I give up.  It's annoying, and I'm sure that I've missed a lot of new comments.  Unfortunately, it makes Talk Left a lot less user-friendly.

    Parent
    Well actually (none / 0) (#20)
    by sj on Mon Apr 08, 2013 at 01:09:35 PM EST
    It hasn't been that way for me too much for the last few days.  Mostly because I haven't been coming here very much.  Yes, TL is much less user-friendly.  I hadn't realized how much I counted on that.

    I believe this started happening when Jeralyn made the decision to roll TL Premium into this site instead of a separate site.

    Having said that, correlation is not causation.

    Parent

    I think (none / 0) (#7)
    by NYShooter on Mon Apr 08, 2013 at 12:22:45 PM EST
    It may have something to do who the ISP is. Mine was working fine even when many of you were reporting problems. But, today I brought my laptop to my son's office and I have the same problem you just noted.


    Parent
    I've been having intermittent problems; (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by Anne on Mon Apr 08, 2013 at 01:03:27 PM EST
    I see [new] on the main page, but sometimes, when I click into the post itself, none of the comments are marked [new], even when it's a post where I haven't read any of them.

    And sometimes, it works just fine.

    Really a pain, though, in a post with lots of comments, to pick out the one or two new ones.

    I'm using Firefox here and at home, but I also checked IE and that's been glitchy, too.

    Parent

    scratch that, (none / 0) (#12)
    by NYShooter on Mon Apr 08, 2013 at 12:33:30 PM EST
    it's working fine now.

    Parent
    That 's what seems to happen. (none / 0) (#34)
    by fishcamp on Mon Apr 08, 2013 at 02:10:47 PM EST
    I'm on Safari and the new postings come and go randomly.

    Parent
    I'm on (none / 0) (#39)
    by Zorba on Mon Apr 08, 2013 at 02:29:47 PM EST
    Firefox, and right now, it seems to be working for the new comments.
    I certainly hope it lasts.

    Parent
    When I click on a comment, (none / 0) (#43)
    by oculus on Mon Apr 08, 2013 at 02:44:08 PM EST
    all the "new" signals evaporate.

    Parent
    RIP Annette Funicello (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by sj on Mon Apr 08, 2013 at 01:05:18 PM EST
    Now that was a Disney kid.  Peace to her and her family.

    Annette Funicello, Mouseketeer and 1960s (5.00 / 3) (#18)
    by caseyOR on Mon Apr 08, 2013 at 01:06:54 PM EST
    beach party movie star, has died at 70. She had been battling MS since the late 1980s, but did not go public with it until 1992. She did so to combat rumors that her erratic walking was a result of alcoholism.

    I am old enough to have watched the original Mickey Mouse Club in real time. Annette was definitely the queen of the Mickey Mouse Club although regulars Doreen and Darlene and Cubby and Karen and Bobby and Tommy also had their fans.

    After leaving MMC, Annette went on to star in a number of "beach" movies, often co-starring with teen heartthrob Frankie Avalon. Among these were Beach Blanket Bingo, Beach Party, Muscle Beach Party and How to Stuff a Wild Bikini.

    She also had a singing career with a number of pop hits in the late '50s and early '60s. The only one I remember was a song called Tall Paul.

    And, of course, there were her TV ads for Skippy Peanut Butter, which was the PB of choice in my home growing up.

    RIP, Annette.

    I believe, "Tall Paul" (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by NYShooter on Mon Apr 08, 2013 at 01:22:17 PM EST
    was a reference to Paul Anka.

    Annette Funicello was a sex symbol even parents could like. She proved that sex was a function of the mind more than of the body. She oozed sensuality wearing a skirt and sweater more than any girl I remember. No nudity, no cursing, no slam-bang sex, and yet, she was THE ideal girl all of us dreamed about. She proved you could be sexy and maintain your dignity.

    70 years old....hard to believe, a standard I don't know has ever been duplicated.  

    Parent

    Not that there was much chance (none / 0) (#38)
    by brodie on Mon Apr 08, 2013 at 02:28:37 PM EST
    of her being involved in on-screen nudity or cursing back when she came along.  Especially so since she was hand-picked by Mr Upstanding Morals  himself Walt Disney, as someone whose attractiveness and bubbly personality would have broad but rather asexual appeal to a mass audience.

    I was kinda young back in her prime, but my impression was not that she was some sex symbol figure, but a sister or platonic friend figure, or an ideal daughter figure -- the kind parents need never worry about.

    Meaning no disrespect of course.  And I do understand how her understated, squeaky-clean persona could actually have a certain hormonal appeal to some people.

    Nice person from all appearances, and important popular entertainment figure for a bygone era.

    Parent

    Ah, but that was the secret ingredient (none / 0) (#45)
    by NYShooter on Mon Apr 08, 2013 at 02:53:32 PM EST
    When you stated, "I was kinda young...."  

    I was kinda young too, but, probably slightly older than you were. And, for guys like me, just entering adolescents, the daydream fantasy was that one day Annette would discover, and choose me to be The One that got to enjoy what was under that curvy sweater.

    You're right about everything else: Walt, parent's perceptions, society's rules, etc. But, what made Annette Funicello unique was that she could satisfy all those boundaries......... and a young stud's raging hormonal imagination also.


    Parent

    Yeah, Walt Disney, that ol' moral stalwart. (none / 0) (#49)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Apr 08, 2013 at 03:39:10 PM EST
    Disney had no problems working people like my cartoonist-illustrator great uncle to an early grave (he died in 1961 at age 54) by demanding 60-70 hour work weeks with little or no time off, or accusing my great uncle's union of being a communist front -- but heaven forbid that Annette Funicello should ever show even a hint of T&A.

    Walt Disney was indeed a true visionary, but according to my grandmother, he was also an inherently selfish individual who never did anything that wasn't first and foremost to his own primary financial benefit. Grandma was certainly no fan of Walt, and she never forgave him for the fact that after her younger brother's death, the Disney studio in Burbank invoiced his widow for the cost of the ambulance which had been summoned to take her husband to the hospital after he suffered his fatal heart attack while on the job, insisting that she reimburse the studio.

    May Annette Funicello's soul rest in peace. She certainly did not have an easy go of it these last two decades, healthwise, and she no longer suffers.

    Aloha.

    Parent

    Disney may have been a lot of... (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Mon Apr 08, 2013 at 03:50:15 PM EST
    unsavory things, but not everything he did was in his own self interest.  

    During one of my many lengthy hospital stays as a child, Walt quietly came to Des Moines and painted the playroom at Blank Memorial Children's Hospital.  He attended the grand re-opening and met all us kids.  I still have the clipping of the picture of him and I that made the local paper.  

    That playroom was our sanctuary from the otherwise constant pain, poking and prodding, blood and sometimes, death.  I appreciate him trying to brighten our lives.    

    Parent

    You almost had me, right to the point ... (none / 0) (#56)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Apr 08, 2013 at 04:14:50 PM EST
    ... where you said:

    "I still have the clipping of the picture of him and I that made the local paper."

    Disney was a master at public relations, and the man's charitable side was always played up publicly to maximum effect because after all, the people who read the local newspapers were also potential customers.

    To that end, while I've no doubt that whatever improvements Walt Disney funded for the hospital did indeed brighten your young lives, you and your fellow patients were also used as props. I would offer that Disney didn't come to Des Moines quite as "quietly" as you might remember, since his company obviously found time to put out a press release calling attention to his apprearance at your hospital -- and hence, your picture with him in the local papers.

    That said, and working with charitable foundations as I do, I recognize that people can be motivated to give for any variety of reasons. For corporations and wealthy individuals with extensive business interests, the prospects of great PR for doing the right thing can be a very compelling and tantalizing rationale. In that regard, Disney obviously did accomplish something good for your Des Moines community, and by all rights, he should be acknowledged and commended for that.

    Aloha.

    Parent

    Actually... (none / 0) (#72)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Mon Apr 08, 2013 at 07:58:58 PM EST
    I checked the old scrapbook and I was mistaken--the picture I was remembering was of Mr. Blank serving punch at an annual event.  

    Parent
    60-70 hour work weeks (none / 0) (#54)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon Apr 08, 2013 at 04:01:20 PM EST
    are still pretty much the norm in this industry.

    Parent
    As long as people are compensated fairly ... (5.00 / 1) (#60)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Apr 08, 2013 at 04:46:25 PM EST
    ... for their time and their skills, then that's their choice and I don't have a problem with it. I know that when I'm on deadlines, it's not uncommon for me to put in 15-hr. work days.

    My great uncle was not well-compensated. He was not impoverished by any means, but as the second lead cartoonist-animator during the '50s on Sleeping Beauty, Lady and the Tramp and 101 Dalmations -- all three of which earned Disney hundreds of millions of dollars in profits -- he was not treated fairly, given the unique set of skills he bought to the Disney table. His middle-class family always struggled financially, even though he was a loyal company man.

    In fact, he had just finished work on the final touches to 101 Dalmations when when he collapsed and died -- and the Walt Disney Co. saw fit to charge his widow for the ambulance which came for him at work. I'm sorry, but that's cold.

    Parent

    Agreed, that is cold. And agreed about (none / 0) (#64)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon Apr 08, 2013 at 05:28:44 PM EST
    fair compensation.

    However, fwiw, Disney in the 50's was heavily indebted due to previous movies losing money and building Disneyland, and was not exactly printing money.

    While I'm sorry you lost your relative and understand why you personally blame it on Walt, none of his movies made "hundreds of millions of dollars in profits" back then. They didn't make any where near that in even in box office sales, never mind profits after distribution and production expenses.

    That said, Disney did make enough during the late 50's to pay off all the debt it had taken on.


    Parent

    Ha! Typical RW Republican (none / 0) (#57)
    by brodie on Mon Apr 08, 2013 at 04:17:32 PM EST
    that Walt Disney, when it came to money and treating employees right and other things.

    Like his being an FBI informant against alleged Hollywood communist infiltration, and willing/eager witness before HUAC on same.

    One story I've long heard about and that sounds true to his character (if unconfirmed by me) was his alleged decision in designing the originial Disneyland in Anaheim not to have many or any water fountains available to park goers in order that they would be forced to buy (overpriced) drinks.

    If so, his nickle-and-diming customers and not taking care of their comfort lives on today in our nation's airline industry ...

    Parent

    Where have all the zaftig women gone? (none / 0) (#55)
    by jondee on Mon Apr 08, 2013 at 04:11:44 PM EST
    long time passing..

    Parent
    They would not be (none / 0) (#58)
    by Zorba on Mon Apr 08, 2013 at 04:19:33 PM EST
    getting the acting jobs now, because they would be considered "fat" by today's standards.  Size 6 or 8 is often considered "too big," for pity's sake.

    Parent
    The other night (none / 0) (#84)
    by jondee on Tue Apr 09, 2013 at 04:02:11 PM EST
    my daughter and were looking through an old Rolling Stone from the mid-nineties, when the popularity of the moribund, heorin-chic look for models - and apparently, a lot of actresses and female singers - was at it's peak. Most of the women not only had the standard woefully malnourished appearence but, a good % looked like someone may have been forced to airbrush out the needle tracks..

    Why women still knuckle under to this fascism that won't allow them to be themselves, to be actual human beings, is completely beyond me..

       

    Parent

    I have never understood this (none / 0) (#85)
    by Zorba on Tue Apr 09, 2013 at 04:36:05 PM EST
    They are not attractive, and, as you said, why do women still "knuckle under" to this?
    Well, part of the reason, I think, is that they cannot get lucrative jobs in acting or modeling if they do not look positively emaciated.
    And I would love to know what audience they are playing to.  Every male that I have ever spoken to does not find this attractive.  They have expressed to me that they prefer women with actual curves.  But what do I know?  
    Men, let us know.  Do you find this look attractive?
    And it only seems to serve to make a lot of women feel unattractive.  Personally, I don't give a rip about it, but many women seem to.
    So, what audience are they trying to attract?
    Beats the heck out of me.

    Parent
    "Men, let us know. (5.00 / 4) (#86)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Tue Apr 09, 2013 at 04:48:45 PM EST
    Do you find this look attractive?"

    This is a trap, isn't it?  

    Parent

    You got it. Answer at your peril! (5.00 / 3) (#87)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Apr 09, 2013 at 04:50:41 PM EST
    LOL! Okay, okay (none / 0) (#88)
    by Zorba on Tue Apr 09, 2013 at 05:07:55 PM EST
    I get the paranoia, sarc.  
    However, I must say that the men I have spoken to seem to prefer hips and boobs.  Not the "broomstick" look.
    YMMV.     ;-)

    Parent
    Hey... (5.00 / 2) (#96)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Apr 09, 2013 at 06:30:24 PM EST
    ...not to point out the obvious, but the men of rolling stone in that era weren't exactly the bastions of cleanliness or health, they all look smelly and strung out IMO.

    If you want to know what men find visually stimulating, buy a men's magazine like Maxium, see who's hot in the adult entertainment industry, or take note of ladies during the commercials of a sporting event.

    The bulimics, the anorexics, the underfed and the underdeveloped are saved for the ads in women's magazines, selling fashion to women.  Don't blame men, we aren't to blame for this one.

    And ladies, pleazzzzzzze, plenty of girls love that heroin chic look on dudes, its almost a necessity for start-up bands that are trying to be edgy, think Kurt Cobain.  

    Women are no more pushed into a look then men, have you seen boy bands, the difference of course... nevermind.  But I will say this, a guy would never buy anything with a bunch of emaciated dudes in their underwear looking like death, even the dudes that like dudes.  And we would never ever continually support an industry that makes us ashamed of ourselves.  We support industries that over exaggerate our self images making us believe, at some level, that product will get us that girl.

    Parent

    Well, that would (5.00 / 1) (#97)
    by Zorba on Tue Apr 09, 2013 at 07:34:44 PM EST
    definitely not be me.  
    And ladies, pleazzzzzzze, plenty of girls love that heroin chic look on dudes, its almost a necessity for start-up bands that are trying to be edgy, think Kurt Cobain.

    But then, hey, I happen to think that Peter Dinklage is quite sexy, and he is a "little person," and nowhere near the dude heroin chic look.  But he is also a d*mned fine actor.

    Parent
    That Dude is Cool... (none / 0) (#104)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Apr 10, 2013 at 08:39:52 AM EST
    ...in Elf he played the privileged jack@ss to a T.

    One of my favorite TV characters ever, was Kramer's pal Mickey, Danny Woodburn.

    Parent

    Okay, I'll bite, too. (5.00 / 1) (#101)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Apr 10, 2013 at 02:28:20 AM EST
    Mme. Zorba: "Men, let us know.  Do you find this look attractive?"

    No, I was never attracted to the Ally McBeal look. I had a huge secret crush on Grace Jones in my college years. I even liked her music.

    Looking back, I am fully aware that I did not treat girls and women well when I was younger, and in personal relationships looked for those whom I could dominate. They tended to be the opposite of my mother, older sister and grandmother, all of whom always saw right through my macho posturing and never failed to let me know who was really the alpha in the room if I got out of line.

    (As a boy raised in an extended family dominated by strong women who refused to accept second-class status by virtue of their gender, they commanded my respect and were my port in the storm, and that's probably why I have such a strongly developed feminist streak for a guy.)

    Accordingly, as I matured into adulthood and got over myself, I've found that I gravitate toward strong and exotic women who know who they are and what they want, who love to convey a sense of femininity, but do it to please themselves and don't necessarily care what I think about it.

    Aloha.

    Parent

    Your upbringing (none / 0) (#108)
    by Zorba on Wed Apr 10, 2013 at 04:57:50 PM EST
    with a bunch of strong women sounds very much like Mr. Zorba's upbringing.  As a result of which, he is also a strong feminist and not in the least intimidated by strong women.  
    Probably why we get along so well.    ;-)

    Parent
    Okay, I'll bite (none / 0) (#89)
    by Yman on Tue Apr 09, 2013 at 05:09:12 PM EST
    I've always been personally attracted to a thinner body type - maybe because I ran XC/track and dated a lot of other runners.  Never was particularly attracted women with large bre@sts or behinds - just not my thing.  That being said, at some point "thin" becomes unattractive - the Rolling Stone/waif models are way past that point, IMO.

    Let the beating begin ...

    Parent

    I'll give you a 5 (5.00 / 4) (#90)
    by MO Blue on Tue Apr 09, 2013 at 05:16:56 PM EST
    for being brave enough to weight in. (Pun intended)

    Parent
    Hee, hee! (none / 0) (#91)
    by Zorba on Tue Apr 09, 2013 at 05:20:18 PM EST
    n/t

    Parent
    Nicely said. I too am attracted to (5.00 / 1) (#92)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Apr 09, 2013 at 05:29:11 PM EST
    fit, athletic looking women. And I am lucky enough to have found one who puts up with me!

    Parent
    In fact, you have described (none / 0) (#93)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Apr 09, 2013 at 05:33:07 PM EST
    exactly why I quit baseball my freshman year in HS and did track instead.

    Parent
    I'm not talking about (5.00 / 1) (#95)
    by Zorba on Tue Apr 09, 2013 at 06:02:47 PM EST
    large  boobs and hips, Yman, I'm talking about "any."
    I do know men who prefer, and are married to, or in long-term relationships with, very fit, athletic women, including runners.  But their S.O.'s are not the totally skinny types.


    Parent
    Well, I have to admit ... (5.00 / 1) (#98)
    by Yman on Tue Apr 09, 2013 at 07:54:28 PM EST
    ... to being fond of some b00bs and hips ... :)

    Parent
    Do you remember, (5.00 / 2) (#99)
    by NYShooter on Tue Apr 09, 2013 at 08:15:07 PM EST
    years ago, the Ballantine Ale commercials which depicted a sexy girl hugging an athletic guy and her hands stroking the back of his hair? The commercial never showed the guy's face (adding some mystery) and the jingle, or voiceover, said, "Who is the Ale Man?; He could be YOU."

    Anyway, I was working at a boat company at the time, and one day I got a phone call from the advertising agency that did those commercials. They asked if we had a small sailboat (for the guy & girl,) a cabin cruiser to shoot from, and an operator to pilot the boat. My answer, "yes, yes, and yes."

    So, on the day of the shooting, I met the whole gang from the agency, and after introducing me to almost everyone, they finally introduced me to the female model. My freaken jaw dropped...THUD! Emaciated, anorexic, didn't begin to describe her. Dead....starved to death was more like it. I mean, and, I'm sorry, but I couldn't help thinking of those concentration camp pictures we're all too familiar with. The producer, or director, seeing my reaction, said, "they all gain 5-10 pounds in the final picture." I remember saying something like, "5-10 lbs? That would make her look like she weighed 20 lbs. Total. Are you kidding me?"

    Whatever, just a personal memory of the "Twiggy Look": of the 60's.

    Parent

    I saw Vera Wang one time (5.00 / 1) (#106)
    by jondee on Wed Apr 10, 2013 at 12:22:32 PM EST
    and she herself looked right on the verge of skeletal..

    I don't see how anyone can make any kind of plausible argument that people who push that whole self-loathing aesthetic like, or even care about women..or even that much about themselves..

    As that other queen of darkness Fionna Apple was put it, it's all bullsh*t, not-cool, and people shouldn't pay any attention to it..

    Parent

    And puh-leeze (5.00 / 1) (#107)
    by jondee on Wed Apr 10, 2013 at 12:32:03 PM EST
    spare me the "the fashion industry employs a lot of people.."

    Sweatshops employ a lot of people..child labor helps poor familes overseas..the automatic and chemical weapons industries employ a lot of people..

    Parent

    How deep are the cuts? (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by MO Blue on Mon Apr 08, 2013 at 01:13:13 PM EST
    How big is the president's chained CPI cut? For someone who retires at 65, it would be:

    a 3.7 percent cut at age 75;
    a 6.5 percent cut at age 85;
    and a 9.2 percent cut at 95.

    What about the dollar cost of the president's cut? For the average earner, cumulative benefits would be cut by:

    $4,631 -- more than three months of benefits -- by age 75; $13,910 -- nearly a year of benefits-- by age 85; and $28,004 -- more than a year and a half of benefits -- by age 95.

    Unless the president's budget excludes the chained CPI from IRS calculation, it would also lead to tax increases for all income except that in the highest tax bracket. So his Social Security cut would also be a middle-class tax hike.

    Also, Obama is really going to soak it to the rich on Medicare premiums. Oh, wait!

    Despite its severity, reports tell us that the chained CPI isn't this budget's only harsh austerity measure.  The president will also propose increasing Medicare premiums for higher earners. The figure that's been reported is $47,000 per year. That targets comfortable seniors, not just the wealthy.

    In less than 25 years, that more than one retired person in four would be paying an increased Medicare premium.  (See the Kaiser Family Foundation's analysis for more.) This cost hike wouldn't do anything to reduce runaway health care costs. It's just cost-shifting.

    Source

    People making $250,000 annually are so poor we must save them from any additional tax burden. The estate tax exemption was raised to $5 million - $10 million with current COLA adjustments so the heirs of the rich will not have to starve. Yet people on Medicare are high earners when they have incomes of $47,000 and must assume more of the financial burden. Also, the game has been rigged by the chained CPI so that more and more seniors and the disabled have to pay the tab.  

    There are many things about (5.00 / 1) (#65)
    by KeysDan on Mon Apr 08, 2013 at 05:33:51 PM EST
    the use of the chained CPI that we can be sure of: it is a cut in social security benefits,  it is an experimental method of calculating cost of living overall, and expressly and specifically when teased out for social security--the substitution idea of say, if coffee for a klatch is too high, we will have tea for a party.

    However, it is not at all clear that it applies accurately to seniors in their choices of, and substitutions for, medical treatment (a larger portion of expenditures).   Moreover, what is not clear is how the chained CPI cuts impact the much ballyhooed need for "strengthening" social security long term.  Does it extend the time period for being able to pay full benefits from the present 20 more years at full benefits, before  paying 75 to 80 percent of benefits?   And, for how long? These discussions seem to have gone missing.   And, how do the cuts help the deficit? (v. the debt).

    Parent

    This is the only thing I've found on (5.00 / 2) (#68)
    by MO Blue on Mon Apr 08, 2013 at 06:14:27 PM EST
    the impact on the funding gap. From DDay (David Dayen):

    Even if all of the savings from it get plowed back into reducing the long-term income gap, it doesn't do enough by itself to eliminate that. It reduces the trust fund gap by about 1/3. Which means that fiscal scolds would still be clamoring for a deal to "fix" Social Security, and the fact that the solutions were entirely on the benefit side this time around won't matter. This is just an invitation to more cuts down the road. link

    If IIRC, that estimate is based on implementing the chained CPI for all beneficiaries. If the legislation exempts disabled veterans and the disabled on Supplemental Security Income from the chained CPI, it would have an even smaller impact on the funding gap down the road.

    Also, there have been a few proposals being tossed around to protect the most vulnerable that could deplete the Trust Fund even faster in the first 10 years putting more pressure on the program and providing the people shouting "the system is bankrupt" with more ammunition while bringing the majority of the beneficiaries to the cusp of the poverty level.

    The powers that be are IMO staying away from the details on exactly how this proposal is "strengthening" SS because there would be an even bigger uproar if people realized that their money was being taken without actually fixing the anticipated problem.

    Parent

    Agreed. (none / 0) (#70)
    by KeysDan on Mon Apr 08, 2013 at 06:57:55 PM EST
    the devils are staying away from the details. The cruel cuts in social security benefits will not help the deficit and they will not do much, if anything, to strengthen social security.  

    Parent
    RIP Les Blank (5.00 / 1) (#69)
    by Dadler on Mon Apr 08, 2013 at 06:41:39 PM EST
    I (5.00 / 1) (#79)
    by lentinel on Tue Apr 09, 2013 at 09:57:33 AM EST
    guess that it is the phenomenon of not saying anything critical of the recently departed, but I must admit that I was taken aback at what seemed to me to be the virtually universal gushing with respect to Lady Thatcher.

    A day or so has passed, and so it may be considered appropriate for me to express a contrary opinion.

    I have absolutely zero fond recollections of her tenancy.
    I don't remember ever being conscious of even a glimmer of the quality of compassion from her.

    And I believe she left a legacy of hardship in her wake for British people of modest means.

    And, to the extent that she and Reagan have been given any credit for the demise of the Soviet Union, I am far far more inclined to attribute that to the wise stewardship of Mikhail Gorbachev.

    There's a difference, at least in my mind, (5.00 / 1) (#83)
    by Anne on Tue Apr 09, 2013 at 12:21:05 PM EST
    between speaking ill of the person, of bashing his or her family, and speaking ill of that person's actions as a public or corporate official.

    Margaret Thatcher's death did not magically transform the bad decisions she made, and the bad policies she instituted during her political career, into good ones.

    Parent

    I completely (none / 0) (#94)
    by lentinel on Tue Apr 09, 2013 at 05:40:25 PM EST
    agree with you.

    But I saw no criticism of Thatcher's policies at all.

    I attributed it to what I said: the notion that out of respect for the newly departed, we refrain from any criticism.

    For instance, I went back to J's post about Thatcher, and read the following:

    If all you have is something negative to say about Ms. Thatcher, please do it elsewhere.

    It seemed to me that this was a universal sentiment. Understandable, and time honored.

    But it felt as if today, those of us who were less than enthralled with her legacy might be given license to vent a little.

    Parent

    The London papers (5.00 / 1) (#100)
    by christinep on Tue Apr 09, 2013 at 09:44:07 PM EST
    Today, I glanced at the London coverage...very extensive, and comprehensive.  The coverage definitely includes write-ups of substantial detractors, etc.  For awhile--like yourself--I was wondering if the naturally immediate adulation would include a broader view...I was even considering that the Thatcher-Reagan image keepers were starting anew the re-naming effort so prevalent after Reagan departed.  While there does seem to be a bit of that, obviously, in the London papers, the coverage does not shy away from the controversial Thatcher.

    Parent
    Well, even her press secretary admitted ... (2.00 / 1) (#102)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Apr 10, 2013 at 02:48:11 AM EST
    ... that she was a divisive figure who did not shy away from controversy, and in fact relished a good political row. Suffice to say that Margaret Thatcher was a strong woman who definitely knew what she was about.

    From a political standpoint, I found Mrs. Thatcher's force of personality most admirable, especially the manner in which she used it to wield power in a patriarchal political establishment. But like Anne, I think one can state their strong objections to her often less-than-admirable policies without making it personal.

    Parent

    What (5.00 / 1) (#103)
    by lentinel on Wed Apr 10, 2013 at 06:02:55 AM EST
    I commented on was the lack of any criticism on the part of the world press - and here - of her policies.

    In the last few days, what Christinep refers to as the "adulation", has subsided and there is a more balanced presentation of her legacy.

    But, after all is said and done, one comes to a conclusion about a person's character by noting their policies and the effect they have had on the lives of others.

    Parent

    "MM"= ? (none / 0) (#1)
    by oculus on Mon Apr 08, 2013 at 12:05:38 PM EST


    post March april Madness (none / 0) (#3)
    by CoralGables on Mon Apr 08, 2013 at 12:10:27 PM EST
    Is that a bet? On what? (none / 0) (#4)
    by oculus on Mon Apr 08, 2013 at 12:14:18 PM EST
    Up 26 Units... (none / 0) (#10)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Apr 08, 2013 at 12:32:22 PM EST
    ...means he is up $2600 if a unit is is hundo($100), which is what I believe.  Either way, it's damn good and if Big T is a real degenerate, he might even be up $26k.  Not mean as derogatory, just the term I use for people who bet real money.

    Parent
    It's how much he is ahead (none / 0) (#11)
    by CoralGables on Mon Apr 08, 2013 at 12:32:49 PM EST
    on March Madness. Cumulative total for past bets.


    Parent
    Fortunately my tutoree bailed for tonight (none / 0) (#13)
    by oculus on Mon Apr 08, 2013 at 12:54:23 PM EST
    so I can watch to see how this final bet pans out. Only 1/3 of bettors put $$ on my alma mater.

    Parent
    FWIW, both of my grandsons, (none / 0) (#24)
    by MO Blue on Mon Apr 08, 2013 at 01:17:50 PM EST
    early in the playoffs, picked Louisville to win it all.

    Not sure how good they are at picking winners in basketball but the oldest grandson has won all of the fantasy football pools he has participated in for 2 years running.

    Parent

    Michigan plays best as underdog! (none / 0) (#27)
    by oculus on Mon Apr 08, 2013 at 01:28:23 PM EST
    Well it looks like the grandsons were right (none / 0) (#77)
    by MO Blue on Mon Apr 08, 2013 at 10:56:09 PM EST
    and BTD made his spread. Louisville 82 - 76 over Michigan final.

    Parent
    Don't watch... (none / 0) (#30)
    by kdog on Mon Apr 08, 2013 at 01:32:25 PM EST
    your alma mater's exploited labor...watch young Matt Harvey take the next step towards the NL Cy Young Award, with Dead-Arm Halladay on the hill for the Phils.

    Since the hottest team in the NBA is off tonight after the big road win in OKC yesterday.

    Parent

    But the star rides three--count em-- (none / 0) (#31)
    by oculus on Mon Apr 08, 2013 at 01:45:50 PM EST
    unicycles!

    Parent
    He should play for (none / 0) (#35)
    by kdog on Mon Apr 08, 2013 at 02:13:43 PM EST
    Barnum & Baileys and make some cashish;)  God forbid he suffers a career-threatening injury tonight making everybody else rich.

    Parent
    Mad Men premier (none / 0) (#8)
    by Slado on Mon Apr 08, 2013 at 12:27:45 PM EST
    I liked it.  

    Good interview with Creator about Season Six Premier.  Warning, lots of spoilers.

    Between GoT, Vikings and Mad Men my Sunday nights have become rather busy.

    Thought it was bad (none / 0) (#19)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Apr 08, 2013 at 01:08:25 PM EST
    I thought it was tedious. (none / 0) (#62)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Apr 08, 2013 at 05:16:34 PM EST
    We'll see where they eventually go with the storylines, but honestly, I found the two-hour season premier to be way too long, given that the ball wasn't really moved forward all that much during that time. Were I not such a long-time viewer of Mad Men, I saw nothing last night which would make me really want to tune in next week to see what happens.

    Parent
    Skewed nostalgia with good production design (none / 0) (#67)
    by Dadler on Mon Apr 08, 2013 at 06:13:48 PM EST
    Other than that...yawn...

    Parent
    Late to the Oscars, Early to Netflix. (none / 0) (#9)
    by KeysDan on Mon Apr 08, 2013 at 12:31:27 PM EST
    Finally watched the unwatchable, Zero Dark Thirty, from one of the perspectives offered up by  Kathyrn Bigelow and Mark Boal--it is just a movie, after all.   My over-arching reaction was that it was pure torture for the movie goer.  The movie succeeded in taking a potentially exciting story and making it a drag.  Although the advantage was that, at least during the first hour,  you could get up, head for the kitchen, make a sandwich, return and not miss anything.

    The second half was as riveting as  a detective story that follows an analyst rifling  through filing cabinets, spiced up with some explosions here and there.   I am glad that I saw Jessica Chastain live in her Broadway performance of "The Heiress", to let me know that it was just her CIA character that was lifeless.  She did seem to disapprove of the torture she was part of as an observer--either that or  her frowns were due to dyspepsia from chewing the scenery.    

    Agreed... (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Apr 08, 2013 at 01:16:52 PM EST
    ...the beginning was so disturbing that I nearly turned it off.  How anyone can claim that is not morally repugnant is seriously F-ed in the head.

    (semi-spoiler)

    The one line that really caught my attention, (said to Chastain):

    "Look, Maya, you gotta be real careful with the detainees now. Okay, politics are changing, and you don't wanna be the last one holding a dog collar when the oversight committee comes."

    The politics were changing, but not the law and when that clown figures it's time to split before people start asking questions, it really bothered me.  He know damn well it was wrong and too chicken sh1t to answer for his part.  It's a movie, so hard to claim that really happened, but bothered me immensely in the movie, that was some real scumbag sh1t.

    I was shocked at how much time they spent in the house.  Don't know why, but I guess I just assumed, it was in and out, grab what you can.  I like movies, this and Argo, where you are super tense, even when you know what happens.

    They second half was way better.  the only other thing I didn't like, is if there was an employee around here would acted like Chastain's character, they would be fired in an instant.  They never really showed that her disrespectful treatment of everyone made anything happen faster.  She put the 2+2 together, but the rest was just annoying.  She was integral, but so were a lot of others who didn't give Bigelow a scoop.  

    I don't feel safer knowing any of the 'intelligence' folks portrayed in the movie are still government employees.  If anything it proved that political pressure runs the operation with far more authority than the law.

    Parent

    The law itself never changed. (none / 0) (#52)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Apr 08, 2013 at 03:50:22 PM EST
    scott: "The politics were changing, but not the law and when that clown figures it's time to split before people start asking questions, it really bothered me."

    Laws prohibiting the use of torture during the interrogation of military detainees have been in place in this country ever since the U.S. Senate first ratified the Geneva Conventions of 1949 and their additional protocols. The only thing that changed was the Bush administration's willingness to adhere to those laws after 9-11.

    Parent

    My Point Was... (none / 0) (#59)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Apr 08, 2013 at 04:21:42 PM EST
    ...in the movie the torturer states the politics is changing.  No mention of the law and certainly no mention of the secret memos.  No intellectual/moral thought into it, just "Watch out, those damn oversight committees are coming, see ya, sucker..."

    To me it was real indicative of how I think the CIA is run, do whatever you need to, and bug out when it gets hot.

    IOW, Rules are for Fools.

    Parent

    Exactly, (none / 0) (#61)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Apr 08, 2013 at 04:52:18 PM EST
    Then again, the rule of law is only as effective as one's willingness to see it enforced. And in that regard, the rule of law concerning the use of torture during the interrogation of prisoners has been rendered ineffectual through Justice Dept. inaction.

    Parent
    Maybe I shoulda sprung for (none / 0) (#14)
    by oculus on Mon Apr 08, 2013 at 12:57:23 PM EST
    "The Heiress."  

    Have you seen "Dzango"?

    Parent

    One more moves out (none / 0) (#22)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Mon Apr 08, 2013 at 01:15:16 PM EST
    You are cracking me up (5.00 / 3) (#26)
    by sj on Mon Apr 08, 2013 at 01:28:00 PM EST
    Seriously.  From anti-gub zealots to anti-gum zealots it makes me wonder, will we ever be safe?

    I think there's a definite and measurable benefit to clean sidewalks.

    Parent

    I thought Singapore... (5.00 / 2) (#36)
    by kdog on Mon Apr 08, 2013 at 02:15:45 PM EST
    cornered the market on chewing gum zealotry?

    Parent
    I thought you were referring (5.00 / 1) (#75)
    by Peter G on Mon Apr 08, 2013 at 10:23:50 PM EST
    I never see (none / 0) (#105)
    by sj on Wed Apr 10, 2013 at 11:45:59 AM EST
    Woody Allen movies, so I didn't even know about this, but that's hilarious!

    Parent
    Where Did the Jobs Go ? (5.00 / 2) (#28)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Apr 08, 2013 at 01:28:25 PM EST
    They hiring dogs and cats in Texas ?

    Ditto for taxes, both roughly net out.  So if there is this horrible loss in Colorado, which you keep claiming, isn't the a super awesome gain for Texas ?

    This tired argument is old and it's dumb.  It could be said about any company that moves further than employees can commute.  One jurisdiction gains, another loses, but the gain/loss is just about the same.

    Man, if only you were around when companies started moving jobs overseas, to post each and every job loss to people no in the United States...  You could have told everyone to stop voting for the republicans in the US government who let folks in say Guam stamp made in the US on the good they produce.

    But you really only care about jobs as a footnote to some other argument.

    Parent

    No one's "chasing" them out (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by Yman on Mon Apr 08, 2013 at 01:32:23 PM EST
    You can't prevent a company from kowtowing to the gum zealots, having a tantrum and taking their ball home.

    Nor should you even bother to try.

    Parent

    Well you have to give him some credit (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by MO Blue on Mon Apr 08, 2013 at 02:02:12 PM EST
    There could be a definite correlation between a  a gum zealot and gub zealot.

    I do think that by their very nature the gubs must follow the gum.

    Parent

    Another swing and miss. (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Mon Apr 08, 2013 at 03:32:04 PM EST
    Pretty sad that you can't even tell the difference between Colorado and Connecticut, much less spell.  

    Your posts make me wonder if you're one of the fine, upstanding citizens from out of state who sent who sent these emails to our elected officials.

    Parent

    Oh, darn...and I had so hoped to (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by Anne on Mon Apr 08, 2013 at 03:57:02 PM EST
    be reading that your days here at TL, where you prove that Charlie Pierce's 5-minute rule (you will make sense for exactly five minutes. However, at precisely the 5:00:01 mark, you will say something so completely bazats as to make you doubt your own cognitive capacities) doesn't just apply to Pauls pere and fils, and is pretty darn accurate.

    Oh, well - I guess you live to fight another day.

    Oh, frabjous day!

    Parent

    ... with a response, other than ROTFLMAO.

    Parent
    GOP Panties... (none / 0) (#32)
    by kdog on Mon Apr 08, 2013 at 02:01:57 PM EST
    in a twist over America's first couple Beyonce & Jay-Z's anniversary trip to Havana.   Two congressional reps with nothing better to do.

    Maybe this is a good time to ask why we all can't jet down to Havana for some mojitos without jumping through bueracratic hoops that are relics of a bygone era.  We can buy micro-processors from China and vacation in Shanghai, but we can't buy cigars from Cuba and vacation in Havana...where's the reason to the rhyme y'all?

    you can go to cuba kdog... (none / 0) (#37)
    by fishcamp on Mon Apr 08, 2013 at 02:23:54 PM EST
    but you have to be invited for one of their fishing or sailing tournaments.  Then in theory you are not spending any money which is doing business with the enemy.  Just go to www.hemingwayyachtclub.org.

    Parent
    Thanks... (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by kdog on Mon Apr 08, 2013 at 02:30:46 PM EST
    fishcamp.  We've discussed before and I know it can be done.  It's just the principal of the thing...the embargo is a joke considering some of the less than stellar regimes we can do business with and travel to.  

    Cherry on top of this criminal embargo policy is these two clown reps looking to start a congressional investigation over Jay Z and Beyonce visiting...Exhibit # 1,725,697 of how the government can't possibly be in financial trouble if a penny gets spent on this sh*t.

    Parent

    it is a bummer that we can't (none / 0) (#42)
    by fishcamp on Mon Apr 08, 2013 at 02:40:30 PM EST
    just hop on a high speed catamaran and be there in a couple of hours.  they had big plans for that from both tampa and key west but that went away.  Jay Z and Beyonce get the special passes for education, medical or some other reason that we can get but with a group and strict itinerary.  

    Parent
    Total Bummer... (none / 0) (#44)
    by kdog on Mon Apr 08, 2013 at 02:48:43 PM EST
    and one of the stupidest government policies going...and thats really saying something with a government that classifies marijuana Sch. 1!

    Speaking of which, is it 5 o'clock yet?  The stupid is making my head hurt and I've got just the Sch. 1 remedy for that.

    Parent

    We Had This Discussion a Little Bit Ago (none / 0) (#41)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Apr 08, 2013 at 02:38:15 PM EST
    The thing is... I would be shocked if they didn't have a license.  But more importantly, there is no fine that could hurt them, the norm is $1500.

    It's has to do with Treasury and no one has ever been put in jail for spending cash in Cuba and I think, from memory, the largest fine every issued was $7500.

    Nonsensical republican grandstanding, IOW normal time wasting BS.

    Parent

    Will I have to pay to watch tonight's (none / 0) (#46)
    by oculus on Mon Apr 08, 2013 at 02:56:01 PM EST
    U of M/Louisville game on my laptop?  Alternatives are radio broadcast and/or sports bar.

    Any TV anywhere on CBS at 9:23 ET (none / 0) (#47)
    by CoralGables on Mon Apr 08, 2013 at 03:17:13 PM EST
    American Express just called (5.00 / 2) (#63)
    by fishcamp on Mon Apr 08, 2013 at 05:27:18 PM EST
    and said someone tried to buy gasoline for their car in Canada less than an hour ago with my credit card.  My card was cloned somehow.  They immediately denied the person and the AMX lady said a Mountie was on the way.  The last time this happened, about five years ago, somebody did charge $3 K at Victorias Secret in California.  I didn't have to pay that one either but I did get Victorias Secret catalogs for the next three years.  The post office ladies were thrilled.

    Parent
    Actually it was Fredericks (none / 0) (#66)
    by fishcamp on Mon Apr 08, 2013 at 06:09:56 PM EST
    of Hollywood not Victorias Secret.  Fredericks is way more risqué.

    Parent
    Free on my laptop courtesy of (none / 0) (#74)
    by oculus on Mon Apr 08, 2013 at 10:05:10 PM EST
    NCAA.com.  

    Parent
    Oh well. (none / 0) (#76)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Mon Apr 08, 2013 at 10:49:05 PM EST
    Good job, good effort.

    Parent
    I jinxed them. (none / 0) (#78)
    by oculus on Mon Apr 08, 2013 at 10:58:12 PM EST
    Gun control news (none / 0) (#71)
    by Dadler on Mon Apr 08, 2013 at 07:29:59 PM EST
    that's a bad story... (none / 0) (#73)
    by fishcamp on Mon Apr 08, 2013 at 09:51:26 PM EST


    Bill Clinton (none / 0) (#80)
    by CoralGables on Tue Apr 09, 2013 at 09:59:38 AM EST
    at The Clinton Global Initiative University Meeting last night

    as he is interviewed by Stephen Colbert

    21 minutes of Colbert being Colbert in a sitdown with PrezBillyJeff

    A little morning pick-me-up (none / 0) (#81)
    by sj on Tue Apr 09, 2013 at 10:28:12 AM EST
    If Only... (none / 0) (#82)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Apr 09, 2013 at 12:19:57 PM EST
    The channel they are talking about is regular Fox, not Fox News, which is already a cable only station, like CNN.  Fox has like 15 cable stations, but just one broadcast channel.

    This is huge for sports fans who don't have cable/satellite.  All the broadcast shows are available on their website, but not sports.

    Parent