Thursday Open Thread

I'm offline today, here's an open thread, all topics welcome.

< Why the U.S. Wanted to Investigate the AP Leak | Uzbek Terror Suspect Pleads Not Guilty >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Kepler telescope suffers critical failure (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by Cylinder on Thu May 16, 2013 at 03:54:34 PM EST
    The Kepler space telescope suffered another reaction wheel failure earlier this week which will likely end its primary mission to detect Earth-sized exoplanets by observing their transit. The reaction wheels act as flywheels to allow the telescope to maintain very precise alingment while looking for the tell-tale dimming of stars as an orbiting planet moves between it and the telescope. Wheel 2 failed last year leaving the spacecraft with only the three reaction wheels to maintain position accurately.

    I saw that too. Sad news. (none / 0) (#36)
    by Mr Natural on Thu May 16, 2013 at 09:09:05 PM EST
    And without a shuttle, no way to repair it - if it could be repaired.

    This telescope is 40 million miles away (none / 0) (#46)
    by Slayersrezo on Thu May 16, 2013 at 09:55:49 PM EST
    And even if it was 'only' 1 million miles away or heck, 100,000 miles away the Space Shuttle would not have been able to service it.

    The shuttle was not capable of breaking out of Earth's gravitational well.

    That's what we get for not having a real 'heavy launch' vehicle since Apollo was retired.

    And Apollo wasn't powerful enough to have performed a repair mission at such a long distance anyway. It certainly couldn't hold the necessary supplies and crew for such a long duration mission. Please remember the total length of a journey to the moon and back is about a bit over 500, 000 miles. If this telescope is 40 million miles away like I've heard, that's a total of 80 million miles.


    Close (none / 0) (#56)
    by Cylinder on Fri May 17, 2013 at 03:53:13 AM EST
    Since Kepler has an heliocentric orbital period of 371 days (obviously the Earth's period is 365 days), it isn't at a fixed distance from Earth. It's current distance is .47 AU - which is 43.7 million miles. For comparison, the Shuttle's normal orbital altitude was 200 miles. The HST service mission - the highest operational altitude for the Shuttle - was 400 miles.

    Kepler's design was to stare at the samstar fieldld for 3 months at a time, do a roll to reorient the spacecraft and repeat. Obviously, this couldn't be done in Earth orbit, since the Earth would occult the scope's FOV for significant portion of each day which would severely limit observation time. From the telescope's perspective, the transits are random events - since we are looking for new planets they cannot be predicted.

    Getting to the telescope would be the least of worries. Getting back to Earth in a reasonable time-frame would be the real trick - since there's no gravity well there to accelerate the repair craft back toward Earth it would have to be a direct return, burning a incredible amount of fuel, or it would have to use another body as a gravity assist which would take time and life support.

    At least with our current understanding, chemical rockets limit manned missions (assuming you wish to return the crew to Earth) to Earth orbit and gravity assist missions to nearby bodies. We don't yet have the technology to just drive to any arbitrary point, turn around, and drive home. Of course, you probably already know all this, but I think it is good information to repeat since many people seem curious about a service mission. With that kind of budget, you can abandon Kepler and instead build and launch 10 just like it.

    Because of that, no design consideration was given to orbital servicing.


    Scientists Find Marijuana/Weight Loss Link (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by Mr Natural on Thu May 16, 2013 at 04:21:03 PM EST
    IIRC there's also a link to (none / 0) (#48)
    by nycstray on Thu May 16, 2013 at 10:52:41 PM EST
    good cholesterol numbers. I mentioned it to my mom today :D At 77, I wouldn't put it past her to try it . . . the pharma drugs mess with her, so she's off them. Not worth it to her to live below par and not be able to enjoy her life.

    Great waste of our tax dollars (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by CoralGables on Thu May 16, 2013 at 04:23:56 PM EST
    The Republican led House is currently in the debate process as they prepare to vote once again to try and repeal the Affordable Care Act... for the 37th time.

    There was a piece on the Daily Show where (5.00 / 1) (#86)
    by ruffian on Fri May 17, 2013 at 09:41:30 AM EST
    they asked them why they keep doing it. The quite serious answer was: because there are 90 new members that have not had a chance to vote 'No' on Obamacare to pad their resume. these people are not only a waste of taxpayer money, but a waste of all planetary resources.

    Because there's nothing else they (none / 0) (#26)
    by Anne on Thu May 16, 2013 at 04:45:46 PM EST
    could possibly turn their attention to, right?  

    On second thought, might as well have them busy doing something we know they will fail at than something they could completely fk up and succeed at.

    Sometimes I can't believe we have to pay for this crap.


    It appears (5.00 / 2) (#35)
    by CoralGables on Thu May 16, 2013 at 08:47:06 PM EST
    the biggest scandal concerning Benghazi may turn out to be the falsified emails given to CBS news by Republicans.

    This is where the press should always discloswe their source. When the source gives them false info, the source should be hung out to dry.

    Nice try (2.33 / 3) (#79)
    by Slado on Fri May 17, 2013 at 09:22:55 AM EST
    USA Today

    Watching the Obama apologists try to spin this is humorous.   I like how the burden of proof is not on the administration for you guys but on the people asking the questions.

    Keep spinning.


    When you accuse someone ... (5.00 / 2) (#81)
    by Yman on Fri May 17, 2013 at 09:27:50 AM EST
    ... of something, the burden of proof is on the accuser to back up their accusations.

    I know, ... so unfair.


    Joe McCarthy (5.00 / 1) (#88)
    by MKS on Fri May 17, 2013 at 09:46:04 AM EST
    demanded people prove they were innocent....

    Oh, honestly, Slado. (5.00 / 1) (#153)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri May 17, 2013 at 02:16:03 PM EST
    ABC's Jonathan Karl initially said he was quoting an e-mail he had supposedly "obtained," only it turned out that not only he had he not seen or obtained any White House e-mails, he was quoting directly from notes given to him by a Republican congressional staffer that supposedly quoted the e-mail verbatim -- except that "quote" proved to be a complete fabrication.

    CBS News is also questioning the Republicans' versions of the e-mails, provided to the media last week. Further, Mother Jones noted earlier this week that the Republicans' interim report included the correct version of the emails, which tends to underscore the point that last week's "revelations" to Jonathan Karl were motivated by malice, and not the result of incompetence on the part of GOP congressional staffers.

    Yman is absolutely correct. You and your friends in the GOP are the ones who are making the accusation of a cover-up -- where's your proof? And no, getting louder and more obnoxious in your accusations is not proof of wrongdoing, nor is pointing to an aging and increasingly pathetic has-been who's trying desperately to call attention to himself and stay relevant.

    Rep. Darrell Issa's House Oversight Committee has long had possession of these e-mails for several months, and they've been selectively leaking portions of emails to the point where the White House finally released them publicly on Wednesday. And now, because of that document dump, it looks like Issa's committee has been apparently caught engaging in a fabrication.

    Read the White House e-mails for yourself, Slado. And who knows, maybe even you will finally see that there's simply no there there. Then, perhaps you'll think twice before posting an uninformed comment that's held up for general ridicule by everyone here.



    I've read them (none / 0) (#163)
    by Slado on Fri May 17, 2013 at 04:12:45 PM EST
    You can see in the emails that the CIA went back and forth on deciding how to talk about the attack.

    If you like the administration you point the finger at the CIA.

    If you don't you point the finger at the State Department.

    What you don't see in the emails is any mention of the video.

    Somehow it went from maybe a demonstration and most likely a terrorist attack to Susan Rice going on National TV and stating clearly that it was a demonstration in response to a video.

    How did that get in there?

    Why did the president push this narrative for two weeks?

    I know why.  It was an election year.  And they didn't want a screw up on their watch ruining his reelection bid so they pushed the video narrative far beyond what the facts showed.


    ... as your apparent reading comprehension skills.

    The administration clearly stated at the time Susan Rice appeared on those Sunday talk shows that as details were still coming in as the investigation of the Benghazi incident moved forward, their initial assessment as to what exactly happened that night would be subject to later reassessment and revision, as more facts became known to them. Further, those e-mails bear all that out.

    Now, why is this so hard for you to understand -- or is that you really don't want to understand, given that the actual facts of the case run completely counter to your predetermined narrative?

    You are as bad and as unrepentant a bull$H!++er as Darrell Issa on this matter.


    What (none / 0) (#37)
    by lentinel on Thu May 16, 2013 at 09:13:21 PM EST
    I would like to know is - what is the original source for the widely circulated story that it was a Youtube video that defamed Muhammed that caused riots in Benghazi and led to the deaths of the Embassy workers.

    The producer of the film was even named - one  Sam Bacile - a Californian who, it was reported,  was forced to go into hiding.

    Who was the source for this tale?


    The Ministry of Truthiness? (none / 0) (#39)
    by Mr Natural on Thu May 16, 2013 at 09:16:21 PM EST
    For me, (none / 0) (#45)
    by lentinel on Thu May 16, 2013 at 09:54:39 PM EST
    this is a serious question.

    That story went on and on for days and was accepted as fact.
    More and more details were added daily. It seemed to be an unfolding story.

    If it was entirely bogus, it is important to me to know the mechanism that launched and perpetuated it.

    We had a good sampling of how this worked with the selling of the war in Iraq. As i remember it, Cheney planted a story in the NYTimes. The Times printed it. Then, the story became, "The NYTimes reports that..." And so on and so on and boom. We're at war.

    We can't afford to let this happen again and again.

    So who was behind the "Muhammed video" story?


    Are you serious? (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu May 16, 2013 at 11:42:27 PM EST
    You really don't know???

    I bet you even think it caused the attacks at Benghazi.



    I (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by lentinel on Fri May 17, 2013 at 04:55:16 AM EST
    give up.

    I'm saying that it was a bogus story.

    I just wanted to know, if anyone knows or cares, how the tale got started.

    I'll do some googling.


    Preliminary (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by lentinel on Fri May 17, 2013 at 06:37:18 AM EST
    googling revealed practically nothing.

    Possibly someone at State said it caused rioting. No one is identified that I could find.

    The name of the filmmaker was fraudulent.

    The AP ran with it for days.

    That's all I could find for the moment, and since nobody else is interested in this, I'm not going all out to find out what happened at this time.

    Got to go to work.


    Protests began in Egypt 9/11/2012 (5.00 / 2) (#65)
    by CoralGables on Fri May 17, 2013 at 08:16:51 AM EST
    at the US embassy in Cairo. Tensions were inflamed by the youtube video being shown on Egyptian television according to Al Jazeera.

    From there they spread to Libya, Yemen, Sudan, Lebanon, Tunisia, Iran, Iraq, Pakistan, and Afghanistan.

    Here is a news report on Al Jazeera 3 days after the protests began

    As for the name of the filmmaker being fradulent, Sam Bacile was the alias used by Nakoula Basseley Nakoula when posting the video to youtube. As the director of the film clip, he also gave several news interviews under the name Sam Bacile. That's how the name Sam Bacile spread before it came back to Nakoula.


    I appreciate (none / 0) (#136)
    by lentinel on Fri May 17, 2013 at 12:53:36 PM EST
    the link.

    It's interesting to see it on Al Jazeera.

    But still -- who linked this directly to the deaths of the Embassy employees?

    Do you know?


    You really don't remember (1.00 / 1) (#172)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri May 17, 2013 at 05:01:28 PM EST
    Susan Rice and Obama telling us??

    Now, tell me.

    What planet do you live on??


    Just (5.00 / 1) (#174)
    by lentinel on Fri May 17, 2013 at 05:11:33 PM EST
    remind me - or quote it.

    I would appreciate it.

    I'll freely admit, by the way, that I no longer am sure at all what planet I am living on...


    I remember you explaining (5.00 / 1) (#195)
    by jondee on Sat May 18, 2013 at 11:17:59 AM EST
    that Obama "let" those people die because he hates colonialism..

    That completely cleared up everything for me.


    That was the intelligence assessment ... (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by Yman on Fri May 17, 2013 at 07:55:43 AM EST
    ... from the CIA.  Their reasons and sources for including that information won't be public because they are classified, but the open source/media information is available.  That would include several media reports that included eyewitness information to the effect that the attack was prompted by video demonstrators, as well as the fact that demonstrations were erupting all over the world in reaction to the video (i.e. 2,000 protesters at the US embassy in Cairo on the same day which were stopped by the Egyptian army).

    Question for the Benghazi wingnuts (5.00 / 1) (#66)
    by Yman on Fri May 17, 2013 at 08:17:44 AM EST
    For weeks/months you've been claiming that Rice, Clinton, Obama "lied" when they gave statements indicating an opinion that the Benghazi attack was prompted by a response to the anti-Muslim video, without the tiniest shred of evidence that they knew this was incorrect when they made the statements.

    Now that your latest "evidence" (Jonathan Karl's Benghazi emails) has been proven not only to be false but a complete mischaracterization of how the talking points were actually edited, will you be issuing an apology for your "lies"?

    Spin (3.00 / 2) (#83)
    by Slado on Fri May 17, 2013 at 09:32:08 AM EST
    That's what you're doing.

    Bob Woodward says don't dismiss Benghazi.  Go ahead and attack him.

    The emails show that the administration/state were involved int he talking points.

    Something they denied.  Is that lying or misleading?  You be the judge.

    The emails show that the video was a non factor but somehow it became the focus of Hillary and Obama for weeks until that false narrative was obviously false.

    We can assume it was an honest mistake if we want to hold water for the administration and Hillary or we can ask questions of why they would mislead us or be totally incompetent.

    It's one or the other.

    They might not of lied, they might just be terrible at their job.


    Lying (5.00 / 1) (#122)
    by Yman on Fri May 17, 2013 at 11:56:28 AM EST
    That's what you're doing.

    First, you claimed Rice, Clinton and Obama were "lying" when they stated their belief that the video prompted the attack - something supported by evidence at the time.  Yet, despite be asked numerous times, you haven't provided a single shred of evidence that they knew the intelligence assessment - which pointed to the video from day 1 before a single edit - was wrong at the time.  So now you change the subject because you can't defend your accusation.

    Not to mention your latest, baseless accusations in the IRS situation.

    So ridiculous.


    Or, with 700 military bases and (none / 0) (#150)
    by jondee on Fri May 17, 2013 at 01:44:56 PM EST
    innumerable embassies scattered across the globe, and all they people we've pissed off, we're lucky we don't have a Benghazi once a week.

    What say thou, Slado?


    Now you're droppin' science... (none / 0) (#152)
    by kdog on Fri May 17, 2013 at 02:12:08 PM EST
    nobody can deny...well, except the two "serious" political parties.

    So the (5.00 / 2) (#67)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri May 17, 2013 at 08:26:14 AM EST
    moron GOP altered emails. Why anyone would believe ANYTHING these bozos say is beyond belief.

    Here's hoping the GOP takes Newt Gringrich's (5.00 / 2) (#68)
    by ruffian on Fri May 17, 2013 at 08:28:30 AM EST
    advice (always so helpful to them) and parades every aggrieved Tea Party group before a congressional committee. There are always a few ready to leave the platform of reasoned Constitutional debate and hop aboard the Illegitimate Kenyan President Express. Should be quite a show.

    Miller says that targeting is a (5.00 / 1) (#73)
    by Militarytracy on Fri May 17, 2013 at 08:52:55 AM EST
    pejorative term, c4's are a concern and because of the IRS concern they pose they have been gathered together for greater scrutiny.

    Being involved in politics is a concern (none / 0) (#74)
    by Militarytracy on Fri May 17, 2013 at 08:54:31 AM EST
    By law the IRS must ask more questions of such groups.

    Miller is doing very well (none / 0) (#75)
    by Militarytracy on Fri May 17, 2013 at 08:57:39 AM EST
    Crossroads GPS could have this blow up in their faces.  Miller refuses to say any of the groups were abusively "targeted".  They were appropriately being scrutinized.

    Even (none / 0) (#175)
    by lentinel on Fri May 17, 2013 at 05:16:38 PM EST
    though the last time around you called me an arsehole, I must say it is good to see you back in action MT.

    Maybe... (5.00 / 1) (#97)
    by kdog on Fri May 17, 2013 at 09:54:38 AM EST
    there will be a current events perfect storm and the company pimping out the disabled to rich people too good to wait in line at Disney will testify before congress...yep, appears they were allegedly 501-scamming.

    The documents show Dream Tours Florida was once a tax-exempt charity, a claim it still makes on its web site. But IRS records show it is not. My investigation shows Dream Tours Florida failed to file tax records or financial reports the past three years, and the IRS revoked its tax-exempt status.

    Fothermuckers (none / 0) (#142)
    by Militarytracy on Fri May 17, 2013 at 01:24:48 PM EST
    Lazy despicable blankety blank blank blanks.  Unbelievable, except, well it happened so who you gonna believe?  I just....sick em IRS, sick em before I do.

    I'm contractually forbidden from... (5.00 / 1) (#145)
    by kdog on Fri May 17, 2013 at 01:28:03 PM EST
    rooting for the IRS...lets just say they deserve each other;)

    I'm watching Miller being grilled right now (none / 0) (#69)
    by Militarytracy on Fri May 17, 2013 at 08:42:32 AM EST
    We are getting awfully close to a real discussion about who these groups are and what their goals are.  Karl Rove and the Koch brothers are obviously pissed because some of the information they had to submit was leaked.

    Someone is really upset about the donor list for the National Organization for Marriage being leaked and published.  I wonder why?


    thanks for the updates! (5.00 / 2) (#80)
    by ruffian on Fri May 17, 2013 at 09:27:37 AM EST
    I'm in a meeting....

    Neither Miller or Russell (none / 0) (#70)
    by Militarytracy on Fri May 17, 2013 at 08:47:33 AM EST
    During their audit of the branch of the IRS involved in granting tax exemption to any 504 group found any political motivation being involved in the actions that branch was taking.

    Oops, sorry, 501 (none / 0) (#71)
    by Militarytracy on Fri May 17, 2013 at 08:49:14 AM EST
    I just finished Josh's 504 yesterday

    I can't take it (5.00 / 1) (#125)
    by vicndabx on Fri May 17, 2013 at 11:58:49 AM EST
    trying to watch the House hearings on the IRS review of 501(c) groups and I have to give anyone that testifies before Congress tons of credit.  I'd be cursing people out and calling many of these clowns just that - clowns.

    What a colossal waste.  IRS staff was in essence trying to streamline the review process faced w/understaffing and a huge influx of requests.  I would think any of us who has ever been over worked can relate.

    Better thing to do is simply clarify the law and none of these groups are exempt.

    They can't *accept* a reasonable and honest (5.00 / 1) (#132)
    by Angel on Fri May 17, 2013 at 12:13:40 PM EST
    explanation because it just doesn't fit into their narrative. I'm am so beyond sick of the GOP and their attempts to create scandal.  It'd be funny if it weren't so sad.  

    And it's not like... (5.00 / 1) (#138)
    by kdog on Fri May 17, 2013 at 01:05:56 PM EST
    there is any shortage of real scandals...federal prison population up 790% since 1980 anyone?  Perpetually stagnant wages and ever-growing income inequality gap?  Bueller?  Bueller?

    Yup - even if they had used a purely (5.00 / 1) (#146)
    by ruffian on Fri May 17, 2013 at 01:30:35 PM EST
    random search criteria, which they should have, it would have turned up more conservative groups, simply because there ARE more conservative groups filing for this status.

    The GOP (none / 0) (#129)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri May 17, 2013 at 12:11:27 PM EST
    is not concerned about any of this stuff I keep saying. If it's so darn serious, then why do they continue to send the clown posse in to investigate? Because they themselves know there's really nothing their. It's all about feeding the persecution syndrome of conservatives.

    Zactly! (none / 0) (#143)
    by Militarytracy on Fri May 17, 2013 at 01:26:20 PM EST
    Yeah, that would be bad (none / 0) (#157)
    by jbindc on Fri May 17, 2013 at 03:26:06 PM EST
    except, it isn't true:

    Applications for tax exemption from advocacy nonprofits had not yet spiked when the Internal Revenue Service began using what it admits was inappropriate scrutiny of conservative groups in 2010.

    In fact, applications were declining, data show.

    Top IRS officials have been saying that a "significant increase" in applications from advocacy groups seeking tax-exempt status spurred its Cincinnati office in 2010 to filter those requests by using such politically loaded phrases as "Tea Party," "patriots," and "9/12."

    Both Steven Miller, the agency's acting commissioner until he stepped down Wednesday, and Lois Lerner, director of the agency's exempt-organization division, have said over the past week that IRS officials started the scrutiny after observing a surge in applications for status as 501(c)(4) "social welfare" groups. Both officials cited an increase from about 1,500 applications in 2010 and to nearly 3,500 in 2012. President Obama ask Mr. Miller to resign on Wednesday.

    The scrutiny began, however, in March 2010, before an uptick could have been observed, according to data contained in the audit released Tuesday from the Treasury Department's inspector general for tax administration.

    The number of 501(c)(4) applications for all of 2010 was actually less than in 2009.

    I Find This Whole Thing so Odd... (none / 0) (#166)
    by ScottW714 on Fri May 17, 2013 at 04:15:22 PM EST
    ...one of the search terms used was 'Tea Party', which if listed on the application should be a near automatic disqualification, like anything with D Party of Obama in the title.

    I wonder if liberal apps were increasing as well.  There is a lot BS going around, seems like releasing the number of all applications, the number reviewed, and their names would certainly be an easy way for the IRS to vindicate itself.

    The timing could be explained away as the assumption that the number of applications would increase leading up to an election.

    What I can't stand about this whole mess is that no one is discussing why any of these types of obvious political groups qualify for exemption.  Social Welfare, please, they do the exact opposite IMO.


    I was (5.00 / 2) (#137)
    by lentinel on Fri May 17, 2013 at 01:01:41 PM EST
    in a waiting room in a Doctor's office and passed some of the time glancing through a May 6 issue of Time Magazine.

    It named 100 of the most influential people - none of whom have influenced me in the fking least.

    Anyway... Obama was one of them.

    And there was a quote from him that I found ... memorable...

    "I am a warrior for the middle class."

    Yes, folks.
    He is a warrior for the middle class.

    Sound the clarion call.
    Bring out the fifes and drums.

    Very dry, with a twist please.

    See, Obama has influenced you (none / 0) (#155)
    by Militarytracy on Fri May 17, 2013 at 03:02:01 PM EST
    to (none / 0) (#159)
    by lentinel on Fri May 17, 2013 at 03:37:29 PM EST
    turn to drink?


    Not even that way.


    See... (5.00 / 2) (#139)
    by jbindc on Fri May 17, 2013 at 01:08:07 PM EST
    This is great! (none / 0) (#176)
    by Zorba on Fri May 17, 2013 at 05:49:02 PM EST
    I love it!
    While I cannot see myself doing such a thing if my child were President, I could well imagine my maternal grandmother doing something like this.......

    IRS (3.00 / 2) (#1)
    by Slado on Thu May 16, 2013 at 01:57:24 PM EST
    When asked if anyone in his administration new about IRS...

    "I can assure that I certainly did not know anything about the [inspector general] report before the IG report had been leaked through the press", he told reporters during a Thursday lunchtime press conference held in the White House Rose Garde


    Why is he hedging?

    Also we find out IRS head was resigning anyway.

    An official close to Miller told Fox News, shortly after Obama's brief announcement, that the IRS chief was "set to resign the position of acting commission as of early June." He was planning to leave the IRS entirely a "couple of months later, regardless of the current controversy," the source said.

    Way to go Obama.

    The lack of evidence is not the same (5.00 / 2) (#4)
    by MKS on Thu May 16, 2013 at 02:39:42 PM EST
    thing as evidence....

    This full-on (5.00 / 3) (#5)
    by MKS on Thu May 16, 2013 at 02:45:25 PM EST
    attempt to attribute all manner of evil to Obama reminds me of the headlong rush into war in Iraq....

    People jumping to conclusions based on the conservative fanning of the flames....This is how the public was convinced that Saddam Hussein attached us on 9/11.

    Facts do matter.  The GOP, however, is making every attempt to exaggerate and twist, etc.  Beyond just politics, it can lead to terrible mistakes in judgment a' la CEO decider George  Bush.



    Wow (5.00 / 2) (#6)
    by Yman on Thu May 16, 2013 at 02:46:07 PM EST
    When asked if anyone in his administration new about IRS...

        "I can assure that I certainly did not know anything about the [inspector general] report before the IG report had been leaked through the press", he told reporters during a Thursday lunchtime press conference held in the White House Rose Garde


    Why is he hedging?

    Do you have any idea how many people are "in his administration"?  How could he even possibly speak for everyone in his administration?


    Good point (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by Slado on Thu May 16, 2013 at 04:09:58 PM EST
    how could this president have any clue what people are doing in his name?

    To quote David Axlerod..."It's a huge government".

    This is exactly the problem many have with the president.  He is by his own admission a figure head.  Responsible for nothing.

    How does he hear about the days events?  He watches the news like me.

    Maybe I could be president.  I can read a teleprompter too.


    Utterly ridiculous (5.00 / 2) (#27)
    by Yman on Thu May 16, 2013 at 04:48:48 PM EST
    If you were President and you were asked a question about whether anyone in your administration knew about issue X, you would have to be a complete idiot to answer that question in the negative.  The same would hold true for a CEO of a corporation with tens/hundreds of thousands of employees.

    You already have enough idiots who call you a "Liar!" based on nothing more than their overactive imaginations.  Why worry about them labeling you a "figurehead" for not answering questions about what tens or hundreds of thousands of government employees know?


    The IRS should target the "Tea Party" (5.00 / 2) (#47)
    by MKS on Thu May 16, 2013 at 10:05:41 PM EST
    501(c)(4) tax exempt organizations cannot by law have any political purpose.  

    As Lawrence O'Donnell has pointed out, it would be appropriate to target applicants for tax exempt status that have the word "party" in their name.

    Do Republcians really want a prolonged look at the actual facts?  Of course not.  They will do a typical hit-and-run and just adopt generalized slogans and move on.....


    And the question is designed (none / 0) (#82)
    by ruffian on Fri May 17, 2013 at 09:30:06 AM EST
    as a gotcha - if you go on record either way you get slammed.

    Slado, he didn't answer the question. (3.00 / 2) (#50)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu May 16, 2013 at 11:32:39 PM EST
    He avoided the question and tried to change the subject to the IG report.

    Why do people do that??

    Because they do not want to answer the question.

    It is called lying by avoidance.


    The President is lying.

    I wonder who will be Obama's John Dean?


    Even plainer - Jim is lying (5.00 / 4) (#62)
    by Yman on Fri May 17, 2013 at 07:48:23 AM EST
    He didn't answer the question because it would require him to make a declaration about the knowledge of every employee of the government - something he couldn't possibly know.

    When you worked for whatever telephone company you worked for, if someone asked the CEO if anyone in the company knew about situation X, would you seriously expect the CEO to answer that question?  Even if he/she honestly believed no one had knowledge of it, there is no way he/she could know.  He/She would either have to refuse to answer the question (in which case they're accused of lying - as you just did) or he/she would have to give such a highly qualified answer that they would be accused of lying.

    So ridiculous.


    Even plainer (none / 0) (#99)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri May 17, 2013 at 10:05:40 AM EST
    I never respond to Yman because he has called me various nasty names for years.

    He is a stalker.

    I stand by my comment.

    Obama lied.


    Please, tell us *exactly* what was Obama's lie? (5.00 / 1) (#101)
    by Angel on Fri May 17, 2013 at 10:10:41 AM EST
    I really, really want to know.

    Angel, you know. (none / 0) (#170)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri May 17, 2013 at 04:55:56 PM EST
    No, I'm not aware of any lies. Please (none / 0) (#173)
    by Angel on Fri May 17, 2013 at 05:09:41 PM EST
    enlighten me.

    Uhhhhmmmmm, ... (none / 0) (#104)
    by Yman on Fri May 17, 2013 at 10:19:20 AM EST
    ... you just responded to me, Jim.

    BTW - You didn't address my point because you are unable to, but I do appreciate the humor in you taking offense to the term "liar" when you are the one introducing it.


    He is a stalker.. (none / 0) (#140)
    by jondee on Fri May 17, 2013 at 01:12:25 PM EST
    and I don't know about the rest of you, but it came as shock to me when I found out Britney Spears had been posting here under the moniker "Jimakappj"..

    You know what? (none / 0) (#29)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu May 16, 2013 at 04:54:39 PM EST
    The GOP is not really all that concerned about any of this stuff because they keep sending the Clown Posse in to "investigate".

    What the GOP does is something happens and then they wrap a big conspiracy theory around it and then people start laughing at them.

    Like that Breitbart idiot who was shopping the story that Obama handed the stuff over to progressive groups when they were being investigated too. I guess Breitbart realizes that his readers are too stupid to actually check things out for themselves.

    And secondly, this problem stems largely from teh Citizen's United Decision. I would not be surprised to see the Rehnquist court go down as one of the worst in the history of the country.


    Do you mean "Roberts" court, as opposed (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by Anne on Thu May 16, 2013 at 04:59:52 PM EST
    to "Rehnquist?"  

    Because I think Roberts may be one of the most dangerous justices in my lifetime, especially with Alito and Scalia are on the same court.

    And to think, Obama came "this close" to voting for Roberts...


    Yes, (none / 0) (#32)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu May 16, 2013 at 06:08:32 PM EST
    you are correct. It's not like the Rehnquist court wasn't bad about restricting the freedoms of Americans either though.

    Bingo (none / 0) (#31)
    by CoralGables on Thu May 16, 2013 at 05:00:28 PM EST
    I guess Breitbart realizes that his readers are too stupid to actually check things out for themselves.

    Or replace Breitbart with Limbaugh, or Beck, or Fox News, or....


    Alot of attacking (3.50 / 2) (#84)
    by Slado on Fri May 17, 2013 at 09:35:34 AM EST
    going around here.

    Reminds me of the right attacking the left when Iraq was blowing up and they correctly pointed it out.

    My how the tables of partisanship can turn.

    If you simply support the truth hypocrisy is easily avoidable.  

    This is so similar it's scary.

    Attack the accuser.   Sift through the previous administrations faults as a way to deflect and then when all else fails deny the facts.

    Trust me, I recognize it because I was doing it in the mid 2000's.


    Actually (5.00 / 1) (#87)
    by CoralGables on Fri May 17, 2013 at 09:45:08 AM EST
    it's still the right attacking with false statements. So it's obvious you don't yet recognize it.

    Funny.... (5.00 / 2) (#108)
    by ScottW714 on Fri May 17, 2013 at 10:37:00 AM EST
    ...coming from the person who's posted endless attacks on Obama, even after you are proven to be wrong again and again.  

    Doesn't seem like you recognize it, or you do and simply don't care.  I guess it's true about they say about old habits.

    And for the love of god, would you stop equating what Bush did, to what you think Obama did.   Even if he is guilty of all you believe, it is simply insane to believe it equates to deceiving the world to start a war.

    You are a political hack who keep trying to convince everyone you're not, and the only person you seem to have convinced, is you.


    CBS News Reports (3.00 / 2) (#116)
    by Slado on Fri May 17, 2013 at 11:19:20 AM EST
    Obama administration has a new argument.

    We didn't lie, we're just incompetent.

    You bleat bleat bleat bleat like a whiny sheep (5.00 / 1) (#121)
    by Angel on Fri May 17, 2013 at 11:51:20 AM EST
    day after day after day on these non-scandals.  

    When are you going to admit that Benghazi is not and never will be the scandal the GOP so fervently wishes it were.  


    Don't (5.00 / 1) (#124)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri May 17, 2013 at 11:58:26 AM EST
    interrupt the GOP while they are shooting themselves in the foot. Honestly, I have never seen a party either so stupid or so bent in destroying themselves. The same hubris that destroyed George W. Bush lives on in some of these people.

    I'm under the impression (none / 0) (#130)
    by nycstray on Fri May 17, 2013 at 12:12:23 PM EST
    that they feel the more places and times they type this drivel, it will eventually be true . . . to someone besides themselves.

    More lies (5.00 / 3) (#126)
    by Yman on Fri May 17, 2013 at 11:59:45 AM EST
    What the official actually said was that they made mistakes - as opposed to your wingnut translation of "incompetence".

    Question - have you ever made a mistake at work?  Is your work as stressful and chaotic as the job they were doing on the night of the attack in Benghazi?

    Guess you're "incompetent", too, huh?


    Follow-up questions (5.00 / 2) (#134)
    by Yman on Fri May 17, 2013 at 12:21:42 PM EST
    Have you ever issued an opinion at work based on preliminary evidence that turned out to be wrong?

    Does that make you a "liar"?

    (Don't worry ... it's rhetorical.  The reasons you won't answer these questions is obvious).


    It's Pretty Entertaining... (5.00 / 3) (#127)
    by ScottW714 on Fri May 17, 2013 at 12:03:04 PM EST
    ...to see you willfully neglect the news & posts about the emails being a product of right wing hackery, while simultaneously posting links from same news source that reported the very hackery.

    Remind me again why you should be taken seriously, I keep forgetting.  Waiting on those right wing talking points before you comment ?


    You would (none / 0) (#118)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri May 17, 2013 at 11:31:56 AM EST
    think that CBS news after being burned one time already would be twice shy.

    I would love to see how Fox News eats crow on this one but I'm not holding my breath on that. Of course, the conservative world has become so insular in general that unless they tell their listeners there was a faked email, the majority of them will have no clue it even happened.


    2 suspected terrorists admitted into (none / 0) (#2)
    by Militarytracy on Thu May 16, 2013 at 02:10:16 PM EST
    Witness protection now missing too.  I don't like Jake Tapper much, he strikes me all wrong, but he is reporting this. After Boston, this isn't good for the Obama administration either.  There may be more terror suspects who worked with us and who were admitted into witsec missing as well.

    "They" are collecting all of our phone calls and data, god knows that were all over Occupy Wall Street and.........................

    Barbara Boxer (none / 0) (#3)
    by jbindc on Thu May 16, 2013 at 02:33:43 PM EST
    What I hate most about these (none / 0) (#19)
    by Slado on Thu May 16, 2013 at 04:13:09 PM EST
    things is they act as if 3.5 trillion isn't enough money.

    We already spend almost 1 trillion more then we take in but anytime something goes wrong it's because funding was cut, and by "cut" that is usually Washington speak for not raised by the same amount as last year.

    How about just plain old incompetence?  

    According to this line of reasoning we need 10 Trillion in spending to make sure everything gets done.


    With much of the damage from Bush (none / 0) (#7)
    by CoralGables on Thu May 16, 2013 at 02:50:26 PM EST
    slowly fading into the past, and the stock market now hovering in rarefied air, it's good to remember that free financial advice passed out on a blog may be useful, or may be the worst thing you could possibly do with your investments.

    Some financial advice given freely here at TL this past January by someone that shall remain nameless:

    "It's a mess and I now don't see it being fixed until the economy crashes again. Buy Gold".

    As of right now YTD:
    Gold is -17.48%
    The S&P 500 is +17.01%

    The U3 unemployment rate (3.00 / 2) (#52)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu May 16, 2013 at 11:38:31 PM EST
    remains right at the same point it was when Obama took power.

    Fewer people are employed now than then.

    Gasoline is almost twice as expensive.

    And you think the stock market is a good indicator of the health of the economy?

    I mean, really???

    People are investing in the market because money market rates are zip.

    Why are they low?? Because the Fed is printing money at warp speed.

    Wanna see a 1929 style crash?? Let the Feds pull back.


    Your claim on gas prices is specious (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by shoephone on Fri May 17, 2013 at 12:25:52 AM EST
    Gasoline retail prices hit their peak in July 2008, at $4.106 per gallon, when Bush was in office.


    The numbers for 2013 aren't out yet because we're only five months into this year, but gas prices in Seattle right now are hovering around $3.89 per gallon, and that's after a five week period of oil companies consistently raising prices every week for the start of the summer driving season -- as they do every year. Up until the second week of April, I was paying $3.319 per gallon. Still nearly 20% cheaper than Bush's peak price.

    While gas hit a low of $1.62 in January 2009, the price did not hit a peak of $3.985 per gallon until May 2011, and May 2012's retail price was still lower than that, at $3.6780. Still lower than Bush's peak price.

    Of course, gas prices are predicated on factors that have nothing to do with Fed policies. But just keep on flogging your dead horse, Jim. Apparently, it gives you something to do with your time.


    And Bush and Congress took action (none / 0) (#109)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri May 17, 2013 at 10:42:34 AM EST
    and opened up additional drilling. This was around 8/1/2008 and the bubble burst. By the time Obama took power the price was around $1.81.


    Now what had Obama said?

    High prices are okay as long as the rise is slow.

    And what did he do??

    On 2/11/2009 just days after he took power:

    Facing gas prices near $4 a gallon and a pivotal national election, congressional Democrats allowed a ban on offshore drilling to lapse in September

    But times change, and on Tuesday, the Obama administration - with gas prices roughly half what they were and many Democrats' having been swept into office - blocked offshore drilling plans put in place at the last minute by the Bush administration, including plans to open the national outer continental shelf for drilling.


    Now go back to the chart and what the prices rise and fall.... and slowly, as Obama said was okay...to over $4.00 and now around $3.50-3.60.

    BTW - The high prices in 2008 lasted a few months. The high prices now have lasted for years and years.

    And if the Fed policies have nothing to do with gasoline prices.... Why did the Demos run in 2006 claiming Bush had made gasoline too high?? Were the wrong??

    shoephone, thanks for the giggles. You are always good for a laugh!


    Good--offshore dirlling is inherently (5.00 / 3) (#110)
    by MKS on Fri May 17, 2013 at 11:00:16 AM EST

    And do you really think "leases" have anything to do with current prices?  The lag time between leases and oil supply is significant.


    Jim does not understand what causes (5.00 / 4) (#131)
    by shoephone on Fri May 17, 2013 at 12:13:30 PM EST
    gas prices to rise or fall. He's a telecommunications expert. He also knows how to use a keyboard, google right wing web sites, and flog dead horses.

    I am also smart enough to (none / 0) (#171)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri May 17, 2013 at 04:58:10 PM EST
    know that when you increase the cost of gasoline you take money from the average dude and dudette and that keeps them from buying other stuff.

    Where were you when oil went (5.00 / 1) (#196)
    by jondee on Sat May 18, 2013 at 11:30:39 AM EST
    from $13 to $40 a barrel after the Iraq invasion?

    Where was all that concern for the average, salt-of-the-earth working stiff back then, Jimbo?



    Of course (5.00 / 1) (#198)
    by jondee on Sat May 18, 2013 at 11:53:31 AM EST
    things were different back then: President "haves and have mores" was in office, and the dang Rapture was right around the corner..

    drilling has little to do with current gas prices (none / 0) (#186)
    by DFLer on Fri May 17, 2013 at 07:34:06 PM EST
    We have plenty of oil. The monopolies are simply not refining enough gasoline to meet demand, thus keeping the prices (and their profits) high.
    We could use to do a chavez on those bloodsuckers.

    Jim (5.00 / 2) (#61)
    by CoralGables on Fri May 17, 2013 at 07:04:38 AM EST
    The post was about nothing more than one person's financial advice at the start of 2013 and what has taken place since the start of the year.

    As for the stock market, I've been very clear as long as I've written anything here that long term (buy and hold not buy and sell), stocks are the best place to be.

    As for your consistently wrong mathematical gas problem, I would suggest large doses


    ooh! ooh! pick me pick me! (none / 0) (#9)
    by vicndabx on Thu May 16, 2013 at 03:10:21 PM EST
    I know who that is...... :-)

    Heh, Horshack, (none / 0) (#38)
    by MKS on Thu May 16, 2013 at 09:16:20 PM EST
    I do not know and need to know.    Tell, tell, tell.

    Gold Has Tanked... (none / 0) (#10)
    by ScottW714 on Thu May 16, 2013 at 03:21:33 PM EST
    It was almost at $1800 in October and today it's below $1400.  And all the hucksters pushing it on Fox are laughing all the way too the bank.

    Glenn Beck was still hawking gold ... (none / 0) (#42)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu May 16, 2013 at 09:48:21 PM EST
    ... on the day of the Boston Marathon bombing. As you'll see in the video clip linked above, he alludes that the recent crash of gold prices is some sort of government conspiracy.

    What's even more pathetic is that Beck has long been a pitch man for Goldline International, which was the subject of a multi-count legal complaint filed by the City Attorney's office in Santa Monica, CA in November 2011.

    Beck tells his gullible audiences that come the Big Crash, gold is the only safe investment, but since the federal government will confiscate gold bullion, they need to buy gold coins, and oh by the way, there's this company called Goldline International. But Goldline sells semi-numismatic gold coins at such a huge markup that it's virtually impossible for any schmuck who purchases them to ever recoup his original investment. They think they're buying gold, but they end up with something that's basically a gold alloy.


    I remember... (none / 0) (#12)
    by kdog on Thu May 16, 2013 at 03:27:48 PM EST
    when an ounce of high grade reefer was worth more than it's weight in gold...no mas, even after this mini-crash.

    I'd buy silver anyway, a better conductor and it has more practical uses, for when the sh*t really hits the fan.


    Trivia for the day (none / 0) (#13)
    by CoralGables on Thu May 16, 2013 at 03:31:10 PM EST
    Year to date, what was your best possible investment?

    a) gold
    b) silver
    c) kdog's mattress


    That sounds dirty! :) (none / 0) (#14)
    by jbindc on Thu May 16, 2013 at 03:31:43 PM EST
    I should buy some airtime... (none / 0) (#15)
    by kdog on Thu May 16, 2013 at 03:43:56 PM EST
    on FOX....think I could poach William Devane?

    Cue ominous music..."I'm William Devane.  I told you to call Roslyn Capital to buy gold, but I done f*cked up. Sorry about that.  But I have a safer place for your hard earned money, and it's called kdog's mattress."


    We have a winner (none / 0) (#16)
    by CoralGables on Thu May 16, 2013 at 03:52:46 PM EST
    You could get William Devane ... (none / 0) (#43)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu May 16, 2013 at 09:49:32 PM EST
    ... to do that for you?

    Money talks Don... (5.00 / 1) (#72)
    by kdog on Fri May 17, 2013 at 08:52:28 AM EST
    the guy is schilling for Rosland (not Roslyn)Capital robbing paranoid delusionals, he's a whore, just gotta make him an offer;)

    My two favorite unintentional comedy commercials at the moment are William Devane for Rosland Capital (love the fireplace, nice touch!), and that guy playing doctor schilling that book "Obamacare Survival Guide".  

    Fools and their money, so easily parted...


    Ain't that the truth! (none / 0) (#156)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri May 17, 2013 at 03:06:35 PM EST
    That's like Glenn Beck shilling for Goldline International on his cable and radio shows. Beck's audience tends to be lower middle class and working white poor, for whom high school is the extent of their education, if even that.

    Like "Lonesome" Rhodes (Andy Griffith) in Elia Kazan's classic 1957 film A Face in the Crowd, Beck must harbor some serious contempt for the people who listen to him and hang on his every word, to be so willing to steer them to scam artists like Goldline.

    Working as I do with not-for-profit 501(c)(3) organizations in economically challenged that often lead a marginal existence as it is, my conscience would never allow me to fleece clients like that.

    My job has sometimes taken me to places in America where most Americans would be stunned to realize that such dire poverty could exist in this country. I've visited isolated hamlets in Appalachia and the Sierra Nevada foothills where there is no sewer line, electricity or running water, and where dysentery and malnutrition are very real health concerns.

    When your work places you in direct contact with people who are often going hungry and just barely getting by, their daily struggles and economic travails cease to be an abstract concept to you. I have nothing but disgust for those smooth operators who consider such persons as easy marks for their schemes and scams.



    I beat myself up for not (none / 0) (#20)
    by Slado on Thu May 16, 2013 at 04:20:06 PM EST
    buying it for almost 5 years now.

    Glad to see I was right all along!


    But something inside you told you "no." (none / 0) (#44)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu May 16, 2013 at 09:53:06 PM EST
    I am a firm believer that one should always trust his or her inner child. Your first instinct on personal issues is almost always uncannily right.

    I have friends that sat in gold (none / 0) (#24)
    by Militarytracy on Thu May 16, 2013 at 04:37:55 PM EST
    Feel bad for them right now.  They've been in for a long while though.  I think they are still up.  One is a college professor.

    Like all investments (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by Slado on Thu May 16, 2013 at 04:42:14 PM EST
    it's gambling on some level.

    There was an obvious bubble and it eventually had to pop.

    If you can ride it out it's still a good long term investment but you can't expect to buy gold off the internet from G Gordon Liddy and expect to get rich.


    From Petrodollars to Petrogold (none / 0) (#33)
    by Slayersrezo on Thu May 16, 2013 at 07:04:28 PM EST
    US trying to block Iran access gold

    I find it amazing how many here don't seem to realize the larger capital markets in this country are manipulated, and the dollar really is starting to lose its 'reserve' status.

    Nothing to see here folks, just move along.


    U.S. Dollar.....Losing Reserve Status (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by NYShooter on Thu May 16, 2013 at 11:25:18 PM EST
    They've been saying that for over 30 years, back when I worked on Wall St.

    As long as the U.S. spends more on it's military than the next 20 largest countries....combined, has 30,000+ nuclear warheads, and over 1000 military bases worldwide, who do you think the world comes running to, or where do you think they want to stash their "gelt" when an international problem arises?

    The dollar is in a long term uptrend.....at least a decade.


    Mr. McGuire: "I just want to say one word (none / 0) (#64)
    by Mr Natural on Fri May 17, 2013 at 07:59:02 AM EST
    to you. Just one word."

    Benjamin: "Yes, sir."

    Mr. McGuire: "Are you listening?"

    Benjamin: "Yes, I am."

    Mr. McGuire: "Empire."

    Benjamin: "Exactly how do you mean?"

    Mr. McGuire: "I mean Empire, Benjamin.  America is an Empire.  As in 30,000+ nuclear warheads and over 1000 military bases worldwide in over one hundred countries."


    Lol, good one! (none / 0) (#183)
    by NYShooter on Fri May 17, 2013 at 07:05:00 PM EST
    However, "Empire," would be the correct answer had the question been, "what should you study in college, and where should you invest." "Empire," or, rather, the beast that feeds the Empire, "Our Financial Corporatocracy," would be more accurate.

    Regarding the value of the dollar: while there are many reasons for its short term fluctuations, the basic determinate of its value is......safety. It's only natural that, whenever there's a major  international incident, financial or military, most moneyed people want to be inside the magic "Nuke, or Fed Circle" looking out, rather than the other way around.


    Those that don't know the difference (none / 0) (#93)
    by CoralGables on Fri May 17, 2013 at 09:49:28 AM EST
    between gambling and investing, should do neither.

    H.L. Mencken? Samuel Clemens? (none / 0) (#154)
    by oculus on Fri May 17, 2013 at 02:53:40 PM EST
    Ali/Frazier I (none / 0) (#8)
    by Dadler on Thu May 16, 2013 at 03:08:04 PM EST
    Don't know exactly (none / 0) (#54)
    by NYShooter on Thu May 16, 2013 at 11:50:12 PM EST
     what you mean by the "purest" of the 3 fights. But, whatever, the 3 fight trio had to be the greatest series of fights between 2 guys ever.

    But, for me, The Greatest Ali fan of all time, (and, don't anyone question that; I will hurt you) lol, the Ali fight that almost made me pass out from anticipatory fear was "The Rumble in the Jungle," Ali-Foreman, Zaire, 1974. This came after Foreman had knocked out Frazier with a punch that lifted him off the canvas two feet, and had him unable to answer the question, "what-is-your-name?" for about 2 days.. I was sitting on the floor in a fetal position in front of the radio, praying to anyone out there, vowing to be alongside Ali as he was surely going to meet his maker that night. But, as the rounds went by, and the "rope-a-dope" was being described, the fears, and tears, turned into laughter. All I could think of was, "Ali, you son of a b*tch, you are a genius."


    Much respect to Ali's politics... (none / 0) (#77)
    by kdog on Fri May 17, 2013 at 09:06:55 AM EST
    and skills as a pugilist, but I'm a Smokin' Joe guy all the way.  Ali was downright cruel with his trash-talk, way over the line....while Joe was class all the way. It was so unfair how the narrative went down with people calling Joe an Uncle Tom and sh*t, just because the establishment couldn't stand Ali.

    Ali said it was all part of the game (none / 0) (#119)
    by Dadler on Fri May 17, 2013 at 11:44:25 AM EST
    Joe didn't quite take it that way, did he?  Doubt I would have either. But Joe seemed to hold onto that grudge in a manner that, IMO, was unhealthy. Also, that Joe celebrated Ali's Parkinson's, seemed to be happy he had it, no matter the personal rift and extreme trash talk, I found that inhumane and out of line. But I certainly understood Joe's anger, Ali was a total a-hole to him for a time, and didn't show the proper gratitude for the help Joe had given him when he needed it.

    Try to imagine the spot Joe was in... (none / 0) (#123)
    by kdog on Fri May 17, 2013 at 11:58:13 AM EST
    His grudge and things said later are totally understandable and forgivable in light of all we know.

    I like a little trash talk as much as the next guy, but Ali went so far over the line it's inexcusable...I mean he called Joe an ugly gorilla Uncle Tom for god's sake, he's lucky Joe didn't kill him.

    And to try and claim Joe didn't win the fight?  That is was a "white man's decision".  Ali was a sore loser to boot, cuz anybody who has seen that fight knows Joe took all his punches and kicked Ali's arse no question.


    I know the story, and I get it (5.00 / 1) (#133)
    by Dadler on Fri May 17, 2013 at 12:15:26 PM EST
    But celebrating Ali's Parkinson's, I just lost a certain amount of sympathy for him. That's all.

    I know you get it my brother... (none / 0) (#135)
    by kdog on Fri May 17, 2013 at 12:44:24 PM EST
    I guess I look at it like Ali reaped what we sowed when it came to Smokin' Joe...there's some lines you just don't cross.

    Joe had a gigantic heart, but everybody has a limit.

    All that sideshow aside, I just liked Frazier's fighting style better.  Ali was skilled, fast and pretty...Frazier was tough.


    Ali had to go along (none / 0) (#141)
    by jondee on Fri May 17, 2013 at 01:23:05 PM EST
    with the Nation of Islam's program. Unfortunately.

    He even publicly denied they had anything to do with Malcom X's death..

    They probably dictated that any heavy weight challenger who wasn't Ali was to be declared "the white man's champion". The same way they put a hit out on the guy who was making Elijah Muhmmad look bad.


    That's another thing... (none / 0) (#144)
    by kdog on Fri May 17, 2013 at 01:26:31 PM EST
    where was The Nation when Ali needed money to live?  Joe Frazier was there.

    To me that's another knock on Ali...getting snookered by The Nation.  He didn't have to go along, he chose to go along.


    On the other hand.. (none / 0) (#148)
    by jondee on Fri May 17, 2013 at 01:40:30 PM EST
    he was young and searching and Elijah Muhammed had a good rap..

    Also they knew how to scare the livin' shite out of people when they wanted to. They scared Liston, which wasn't easy to do..


    I hear ya... (none / 0) (#149)
    by kdog on Fri May 17, 2013 at 01:43:54 PM EST
    if he didn't go along, we might not be having this discussion...gangsters are gangsters.

    think Shoeless Joe (none / 0) (#151)
    by jondee on Fri May 17, 2013 at 01:46:06 PM EST
    telling Arnold Rothstein to go eff himself..

    Uh, no. Let's not think so. (none / 0) (#178)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri May 17, 2013 at 05:56:55 PM EST
    That's simply a self-serving urban legend that arose long after the Black Sox scandal and subsequent trial took place.

    "Shoeless" Joe Jackson actually confessed in sworn testimony before a grand jury in September 1920 to having accepted $5,000 from Rothstein & Co. via two teammates (which amounted to half his salary, and was a lot of money back then):

    Q: You played in the [1919] World Series between the Chicago Americans baseball club and the Cincinnati Baseball club, did you?

    A: I did.

    Q: And what position did you play in that Series?

    A: Left field.

    Q: Were you present at a meeting at the Ansonia Hotel in New York about two or three weeks before -- a conference there with a number of ball players?

    A: I was not, no, sir.

    Q: Did anybody pay you any money to help throw the series in favor of Cincinnati?

    A: Yes, they did.

    Q: How much did they pay?

    A: They promised me twenty thousand, and paid me five.

    Q: Who promised you the twenty thousand?

    A: Chick Gandil.

    Q: Who is Chick Gandil?

    A: He was the first basemen for the Chicago White Sox.

    Q: Who paid you the $5,000?

    A: Lefty Williams brought it in my room and threw it down.

    Q: Who is Lefty Williams?

    A: The pitcher of the White Sox Club.

    Q: Where did he bring it, where is your room?

    A: At the time, I was staying at the Lexington Hotel, I believe it is.

    Q: On 21st and Michigan?

    A: 22nd and Michigan, yes.

    Q: Who was in the room at the time?

    A: Lefty and myself, I was in there, and he came in.

    Q: Where was Mrs. Jackson?

    A: Mrs. Jackson -- let me see -- I think she was in the bathroom. It was a suite, yes, she was in the bathroom, I'm pretty sure.

    Q: Does she know that you got $5,000 for helping throw these games?

    A: She did that night, yes.

    Q: You say you told Mrs. Jackson that evening.

    A: Did, yes.

    Q: What did she say about it?

    A: She said she thought it was an awful thing to do.

    Q: When was it that this money was brought to your room and that you talked to Mrs. Jackson?

    A: It was the second trip to Cincinnati. That night we were leaving.

    Q: This was after the fourth game.

    A: I believe it was, yes.


    Q: Then you talked to Chick Gandil and Claude [Lefty] Williams both about this?

    A: Talked to Claude Williams about it, yes, and Gandil all the more so, because he is the man that promised me this stuff.

    Q: How much did he promise you?

    A: $20,000 if I would take part.

    Q: And you said you would?

    A: Yes, sir.

    Q: When did he promise you the $20,000?

    A: It was to be paid after each game.

    Q: How much?

    A: Split up some way, I don't know how much it amounts to, but during the series it would amount to $20,000. Finally Williams brought me this $5,000, threw it down.

    Q: What did you say to Williams when he threw down the $5,000?

    A: I asked him what the hell had come off here.

    Q: What did he say?

    A: He said Gandil said we all got a screw through Abe Attel. Gandill (sic) said we all got double crossed through Abe Attel, he got the money and refused to turn it over to him. I don't think Gandil was crossed as much as he crossed us.

    Q: You think Gandil may have got the money and then held it from you, is that right?

    A: That's what I think, I think he kept the majority of it.

    Q: What did you do then?

    A: I went to him and asked him what was the matter. He said Abe Attel gave him the jazzing. He said, "Take that or leave it alone." As quick as the series was over I left town, I went right on out.

    (Emphasis is mine.)

    It should also be noted that Jackson's sworn grand jury testimony, as well as that of teammate Eddie Cicotte, mysteriously disappeared just prior to the 1921 Black Sox trial, along with other key pieces of evidence, and it was only then that Jackson subsequently recanted his sworn statements. Those confessions were later found to be in the possession of Alfred Austrian, who was the attorney for Chicago White Sox owner Charlie Comiskey, and who had also represented Jackson when he went before the grand jury.

    Now, I fully realize that the other White Sox players implicated in the 1919 World Series-fixing scandal later also admitted -- but only much later, like two decades afterward -- that Jackson was never present at any of the meetings with Arnold Rothstein and his syndicate. Further, Claude "Lefty" Williams also said much later that they had only used Jackson's name as a means to entice Rothstein into getting behind the scheme to throw the series. And finally, Jackson's apparently stellar play against the Cincinnati Reds hardly suggests that he was dogging it in those World Series games.

    But all the same, Jackson's sworn confession as cited above remains highly problematic to his chances of ever gaining induction into the Baseball Hall of Fame. If Jackson was really as innocent as he later claimed to be, then why did he ever confess in the first place to having accepted $5,000 as part of the scheme to fix the World Series, and do so in such remarkable detail?

    It has further been alleged that Jackson had been plied with liquor before his grand jury appearance by White Sox attorney Alfred Austrian -- whose representation of both the White Sox and Jackson at this grand jury hearing certainly presented a remarkable conflict of interest, to say the very least. but personally, I think people who are inclined to believe in Jackson's victimhood will continue to grasp at such straws in order to keep doing so.

    Suffice to say that the infamous "Black Sox" affair was all a very dirty, dirty business, and that given his grand jury testimony, "Shoeless" Joe Jackson was hardly the innocent victim that he later insisted he was. That he may have later had second thoughts about his teammates' scheme is completely irrelevant to the evidence per his sworn testimony that (a) he knew about it, (b) he initially agreed to partake in it, (c) he accepted $5,000 for it, and (d) he subsequently lamented that he may have gotten double-crossed by a teammate for the remaining $15,000 balance of the payoff.



    kdog, I don't doubt for a minute (none / 0) (#189)
    by NYShooter on Sat May 18, 2013 at 12:44:58 AM EST
    that you know ten times more than me about those personal things. I don't think there's a subject you could name that, if you dug deep into the background, you couldn't find stuff to debate and argue about. All I know is that I was in college when "Cassius Clay" came onto the scene, and, because he caused such a ruckus in just about everyone, I fell in love (pretty much like when Elvis came on.) In the run-up to the first Liston fight, I've got to tell you, they all hated Ali.....blacks and whites both. He was just this loud-mouthed punk that needed to be "taught a lesson," and Liston was just the guy to do it. And, well, you know the rest.

    About "Smokin Joe," I thought he was great too. And, I even remember seeing an interview where Joe was talking admiringly about Ali, and how Ali knew so much more than he did about how to get publicity for an upcoming fight, and how much more money Joe made because of it. We both know that much of the back-and-forth taunting was planned and rehearsed. But, if it went beyond that, and got really personal, well, I gotta leave that to you cause I really didn't get that much into it.

    But, if you asked me what I thought Of Joe Frazier, as a fighter and a man, I could look you into your eyes and tell he was an exceptionally great, great guy in both.


    Ali was an articulate man, and (5.00 / 1) (#193)
    by Mr Natural on Sat May 18, 2013 at 10:00:47 AM EST
    the Parkinsons took that away.  

    When We Were Kings (none / 0) (#117)
    by Dadler on Fri May 17, 2013 at 11:31:08 AM EST
    Great documentary about that fight. Great fight, too. I just have a thing for that first Ali/Frazier fight, it was in the Garden, without all that out-of-country circus atmosphere (or heightened circus atmosphere), and the first time is always the best. Ahem.

    Dadler.....no argument (none / 0) (#184)
    by NYShooter on Fri May 17, 2013 at 07:18:35 PM EST
    I wasn't responding as a sports reporter, or fight analyst. Just a fan. And fans, like you, me, and kdog, ask us what where "The Greatest  Sport" anything, and I guarantee you'll get three different answers.....every time.

    As for the "Greatest Pure Boxing Match," like I said above Re: the first Ali/Frazier fight.....no argument.


    New acting IRS Commissioner (none / 0) (#11)
    by CoralGables on Thu May 16, 2013 at 03:23:34 PM EST
    Daniel Werfel not to be confused with Danny Wuerffel.

    The Chavez legacy (none / 0) (#23)
    by Slado on Thu May 16, 2013 at 04:28:13 PM EST
    Lives on

    Nothing worse then not having toilet paper.

    Of course the government blames "Anti government forces".    AKA - Supply & Demand

    If George Bush had not tried (none / 0) (#40)
    by MKS on Thu May 16, 2013 at 09:26:25 PM EST
    to kill Chavez early on, things might have turned out differently.

    The Guardian reported that Otto Reich, the conservative apologist for genocide in Guatemala, who was a Bush State Department Appointee, met a week ahead to time in the White HouseD.C. with the plotters of the failed coup attempt on Chavez that tried to kill him.


    Republicans have a long and despicable history of supporting genocide and death in Latin America.  It goes way back, and goes back to Cheney's friend being U.S. Ambassador to Guatemala when Cheney was Secretary of Defense in 1989.


    The U.S's legacy in Latin America (5.00 / 1) (#147)
    by jondee on Fri May 17, 2013 at 01:36:00 PM EST
    in general brings to mind Jefferson's words: "I tremble for my country when I recall that God is just."

    The little, benighted, brown people will have "supply and demand" whether they want it or not..

    The insights gleaned from a Psych 101 course would dictate that our invasions and interventions over time would do nothing but breed deep-seated resentment, distrust, and a seige mentality amongst the populace, but the nihilism of short-term gain was always too good to pass up.

    Plus American conservatives probably mistrust basic psychology at least as much as they mistrust the other sciences..


    Aloha from Newark - Liberty Int'l. (none / 0) (#28)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu May 16, 2013 at 04:53:54 PM EST
    We're awaiting our connecting flight to Albany, another 45 minutes or so. It's a beautiful spring afternoon, and I'm actually looking out at a pretty decent view of the Manhattan skyline. (We're in United's Terminal C.)

    Elder Daughter and Boyfriend are picking us up at the airport, and driving us to the hotel to drop our stuff off before we go to dinner. (Younger Daughter arrives tomorrow afternoon.) Graduation Day is almost upon us, so it's a big weekend ahead. Tomorrow, I'm helping her pack up her dorm room; we're putting everything we can into boxes and then shipping it home via the U.S. Postal Service, as air freight is pretty expensive.

    Okay, better sign off and pack up the laptop before they call our flight. Talk to you all later.


    Uzbekistan=California? (none / 0) (#34)
    by observed on Thu May 16, 2013 at 08:00:54 PM EST
    well, maybe not exactly.
    However, when Spring rolls around, and until mid-Fall, we get some really nice produce from Uzbekistan, of all sorts. It makes eating during the warm months decent. Winter.. another story.

    Huh? (none / 0) (#41)
    by MKS on Thu May 16, 2013 at 09:30:01 PM EST
    What kind of produce?  Where can I get it?

    Cherries have been around for a couple of weeks (none / 0) (#51)
    by observed on Thu May 16, 2013 at 11:36:59 PM EST
    Peaches and apricots are great. Any vegetable you want is available. The watermelons are fantastic.
    All readily available, in season, to anyone living in Astana, Kazkhstan:)

    So... are the song stylings of the Uzbek (none / 0) (#57)
    by Mr Natural on Fri May 17, 2013 at 04:27:19 AM EST
    dictator's daughter, Googoosha, getting much airplay over there?

    Anthony Bourdain's episode on Libya (none / 0) (#60)
    by Militarytracy on Fri May 17, 2013 at 06:58:21 AM EST
    Airing this Sunday looks too good to pass up.  He seems to have fallen in love with Libya.

    I like his shows generally (5.00 / 2) (#120)
    by Dadler on Fri May 17, 2013 at 11:50:03 AM EST
    I have to admit, tho, I think he can be a total prick on Top Chef as judge, and a couple of times, I think he deserved a metaphorical ass-whooping for his snide and condescending comments. For a guy who smokes like a chimney, he has little right to complain about how something tastes. I always find this curious: that so many chefs are smokers. This obviously, um, sorta phucks up your palate. Just sayin'.

    Well, you would think so, (none / 0) (#177)
    by Zorba on Fri May 17, 2013 at 05:55:57 PM EST
    wouldn't you?  
    Maybe they are tasting things "in their mind's eye," so to speak.  I do know that, after you get a lot of experience as a cook, you can pretty well determine what something will taste like, if you know the ingredients.   ;-)

    Mr Kevin Brady on Ways and Means (none / 0) (#76)
    by Militarytracy on Fri May 17, 2013 at 09:06:41 AM EST
    Claims to have a constituent who after filing for tax exemption for her tea party group has not received it, three years later.  But she claims that her personal taxes and her business taxes have been audited since filing and she had never been audited before, and her business has had unscheduled abusive "audits" by OSHA (I thought those were called inspections).

    Sounds like Josephine the Plumber to me.

    I wonder if she once had a fertilizer plant?

    Amy's Baking Company (none / 0) (#78)
    by Yman on Fri May 17, 2013 at 09:19:55 AM EST
    I don't usually watch Gordon Ramsey's Kitchen Nightmares, but I saw an article about this and was intrigued.  The premise of the show is that this celebrity chef goes to a struggling restaurant and helps them make changes to be successful.  What was amazing about this episode was the behavior of the owners of the restaurant - Amy's Baking Company in Scottsdale, Arizona.  When people complained about the food, they were told by the husband/owner they don't know what kind of food they want.  When they complained about waiting for a pizza for an hour, he screamed at them and kicked them out, after demanding they pay.  The owners keep their wait staff's tips.  The list goes on and on.  The chef finally refused to work with them.  Then, they managed to make their situation worse by engaging in public fights on their Facebook page.

    They're promising a "Grand re-opening" this week.  If they were having trouble before, it's going to be a hundred times worse, now.

    A friend (none / 0) (#103)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri May 17, 2013 at 10:16:31 AM EST
    of mine put that up on her facebook account because she is from AZ and said she used to live around the corner from those people. Apparently she had been in there and is not at all unhappy they are getting bad press.

    It's just amazing (none / 0) (#105)
    by Yman on Fri May 17, 2013 at 10:24:16 AM EST
    The restaurant business can be hard enough when you're serving sub-par food, but I wonder how they've managed to survive when they curse at customers and treat their staff so poorly?  They did mention the husband (retired real estate developer) investing something like a million dollars in the business, so maybe that's been keeping them afloat?  I hope he's prepared to sink a lot more money after this show aired ...

    Restaurant owners or managers in Hawaii ... (none / 0) (#161)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri May 17, 2013 at 03:47:16 PM EST
    ... who purloin or otherwise skim tips from their employees are subject to arrest and prosecution for theft and embezzlement.

    I personally knew one manager out here who was convicted and served four months in jail for it. He used walk around the tables and gather paid checks after the customers left, take the charge slips from a few of them, tell the waiter or waitress that the customer stiffed him or her, and then pocket the tips when cashing out at the end of the day or evening. (He also had a cocaine habit.) Stealing from your employees is really low, in my book.

    Now, I don't know what the law is in Arizona or elsewhere, but I can't believe that such an odious practice could in any way be considered legal anywhere.



    There are ways around it.. (none / 0) (#162)
    by jondee on Fri May 17, 2013 at 04:02:47 PM EST
    managers who insist, in the interests of "fairness", that the waitstaff pool their tips and divide them at the end of the shift (after someone else has first dibs..)

    I worked at a place that tried to do that (5.00 / 1) (#168)
    by shoephone on Fri May 17, 2013 at 04:18:14 PM EST
    The owner wasn't around enough to know that we weren't dividing up the spoils; we each took our own tips. He was a real cheapskate in so many ways, but at least he paid us an okay hourly wage. I've worked at restaurants that paid less than $3.00 an hour, based on their assumption we'd make up for it in tips. But at one restaurant, we had one manager who would give each server only four tables a night. Forget it. There's no way to make a living on that.

    When I broke my wrist and couldn't ever bend it back level anymore, I thought, "Guess I can't carry a tray now. Good!!"


    The Amy/ Arizona GOP intersection (none / 0) (#187)
    by Yman on Fri May 17, 2013 at 09:36:36 PM EST
    Apparently, Amy is a big GOP activist in Arizona.

    But the Amy's Baking Company saga has nothing to do with politics you say?  Well, Amy Bouzaglo is no ordinary crazy cat-lady-baker-cum-meltdown-haver:

    "She is also very involved in the Arizona Republican Party and volunteered numerous hours of her time during the 2006 elections. In 2005, she was 1 of 250 people appointed to the Republican Presidential Task Force in Arizona."

    That's incidentally from the court papers regarding her bank fraud conviction.

    Why anm I nor surprised in the least?


    What's the deal with the ABC stores (none / 0) (#188)
    by MKS on Fri May 17, 2013 at 10:18:50 PM EST
    in Honolulu.  Who has that franchise?

    WH counsel may have known about IRS? (none / 0) (#85)
    by Slado on Fri May 17, 2013 at 09:39:01 AM EST

    What can be guaranteed is if the press does their job more of these little "details" will pop up.  T

    The idea that a couple of low level IRS employees pulled this off is simply ludicrous.   Someone higher up put this together.

    What is also ludicrous is no one in the administration (not saying the president because he was busy with his endless campaigning and golfing) knew what was going on.

    Slado, this McCarthyism (5.00 / 1) (#95)
    by MKS on Fri May 17, 2013 at 09:50:33 AM EST
    Level accusations without proof.

    Jay Carney answered this (5.00 / 1) (#96)
    by MKS on Fri May 17, 2013 at 09:54:35 AM EST
    yesterday on Lawrence O'Donnell's show.

    White House counsel was notified perhaps two or three weeks ago that the IG was investigating the IRS and was preparing a report.  The details were not provided.

    No, the White House did not know of the "abuses" prior to the IG's report.



    What's "ludicrous" (none / 0) (#92)
    by Yman on Fri May 17, 2013 at 09:48:45 AM EST
    Accusations with no evidence to support them.

    The idea that a couple of low level IRS employees pulled this off is simply ludicrous.   Someone higher up put this together.

    Accusations in the form of a question.

    WH counsel may have known about IRS?

    Treasury knew in 2012 (none / 0) (#167)
    by Slado on Fri May 17, 2013 at 04:16:18 PM EST
    NY Times

    But I'm sure no one told anyone in the Obama Administration.

    I mean this logic defies reality but you guys keep assuming the best.

    Maybe Obama can play the "We're incompetent" strategy again.


    Wow (5.00 / 1) (#169)
    by Yman on Fri May 17, 2013 at 04:37:08 PM EST
    So Treasury official knew there was an IG audit.

    Mr. George told Treasury officials about the allegation as part of a routine briefing about ongoing audits he would be conducting in the coming year, and he did not tell the officials of his conclusions that the targeting had been improper, he said.

    Still waiting for any evidence that this was done by "someone higher up" (whoever that is) or that the WH counsel knew about this at some point prior to what they've already said, which was 2-3 weeks ago when they were informed of the report.

    Of course, you have none, soooo ....


    Totally false (none / 0) (#94)
    by MKS on Fri May 17, 2013 at 09:49:35 AM EST
    All the evidece is against any decisions made outside the IRS.

    Do you believe that Saddam Hussein was responsible for 9/11?

    Facts matter.    


    Oh, since you don't have any facts you jump on (none / 0) (#98)
    by Angel on Fri May 17, 2013 at 10:03:00 AM EST
    the tireless GOP standby about Obama "golfing."  How many days did Dubya spend clearing brush out at Crawford?  

    "Hey guys.... (none / 0) (#89)
    by kdog on Fri May 17, 2013 at 09:46:51 AM EST
    check out my new AK Forty Sev....thump."

    Darwin's on a roll...at this rate we just have to wait another decade or so and gun control will take care of itself.

    Oops... (none / 0) (#91)
    by kdog on Fri May 17, 2013 at 09:47:56 AM EST
    Miller is a good witness (none / 0) (#90)
    by MKS on Fri May 17, 2013 at 09:47:27 AM EST
    He looks credible and appears smarter than his questioners....

    Are you kidding me? (none / 0) (#165)
    by Slado on Fri May 17, 2013 at 04:13:53 PM EST
    Wow.   Your partisanship shows through with that one.

    Yeah, right. We're all kidding you, Slado. (none / 0) (#180)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri May 17, 2013 at 06:18:16 PM EST
    In fact, after you leave and unbeknownst to you, we're all getting together a pitcher of margaritas and a bong with some killer reefer, to think of various other ways to mislead and bullsh*t you further, scheming partisan libtards that we are.

    D'OH! (Facepalm.) You tricked me into divulging our nefarious scheme. (Sigh!) You're just too good for us, Slado. We should've known better than to try to fool the likes of you.

    (Eyes roll upward.)


    What??? (none / 0) (#182)
    by Zorba on Fri May 17, 2013 at 06:58:25 PM EST
    Nobody sent me an invitation to this soirée, Donald!  No baklava, spanakopita, or hummus for you!    ;-)

    Dang, the U.S. Post Office must've lost it. (5.00 / 1) (#200)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sat May 18, 2013 at 01:32:11 PM EST
    So of course, it's all President Obama's fault.

    If your comments were specific (none / 0) (#185)
    by MKS on Fri May 17, 2013 at 07:29:52 PM EST
    there would be a basis of further discussion.  When you just state conclusions without support, you are just stating slogans...

    And, yeah, over time, I think Miller would do fine.   The Republicans would not let him finish an answer, and since the guy is already fired, they looked more like political operatives grandstanding than someone searching for the truth.  They were trying to nail Miller, not understand what happened.  


    SF Bay Area TL'ers... (none / 0) (#100)
    by kdog on Fri May 17, 2013 at 10:07:44 AM EST
    I demand an explanation...this is an outrage.  

    It's god-damn unamerican to object to the euphoric aroma of the porcine sacrament.

    Not everybody likes bacon, kdog, or ... (none / 0) (#158)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri May 17, 2013 at 03:29:59 PM EST
    ... the smell of it. I used to like bacon when I was younger, but honestly, I've long since lost my taste for it. While I don't hate it, I just don't go out of my way to eat it when I have a choice. And if it isn't well done and crispy, I'm not even touching it.

    Anybody who's cooked mass quantities of bacon -- As I did in my prior life as a short-order cook back in high school -- knows that the resultant fumes can sometimes be overpowering. I could handle cooking bacon that came from corn-fed swine (from the Midwest), whereas that from pigs which were raised on fish meal (primarily from North Carolina and the east, but also the Northwest) could make me nauseous. And since you are a bacon aficionado, you undoubtedly know there's a real difference between the two.

    The article also says that the Bacon Bacon's owner declined the generous offer from neighbors to buy his establishment's kitchen an air filter (what a fool!), and further that workers were dumping grease illegally down the sewers. That's a very big no-no, from the standpoint of both the environment and public health. I'm not at all surprised that the restaurant was subsequently closed down by the San Francisco authorities.



    I recently had a tenant in my back studio (none / 0) (#179)
    by nycstray on Fri May 17, 2013 at 06:16:47 PM EST
    she cooked a lot of (cheap) bacon and I came to totally HATE the smell. Seemed to hang around the kitchen for a good 24hrs (winter time, too cold for open windows).

    In places like SF and NYC, some of those close together old buildings really retain your neighbors cooking smells. Can't imagine having a bacon restaurant in the mix . . . .


    Left-coast (none / 0) (#199)
    by jondee on Sat May 18, 2013 at 11:58:02 AM EST
    nanny staters objecting to being smacked in the face by the smell of charred pork?

    No way around it, though..when the field is crowded, sometimes there's a need for a referee..


    Mayor Mike Bloomberg... (none / 0) (#102)
    by kdog on Fri May 17, 2013 at 10:12:55 AM EST
    Ummm (5.00 / 1) (#106)
    by CoralGables on Fri May 17, 2013 at 10:29:14 AM EST
    It's possible you have a future in headline writing for right wing websites :)

    Right Wing, Left Wing, Little Wing... (none / 0) (#107)
    by kdog on Fri May 17, 2013 at 10:36:05 AM EST
    it's the truth...prohibition or excessive taxation fuels black-markets and provides revenue streams for unsavory people.



    Not to Point Out the Obvious... (none / 0) (#112)
    by ScottW714 on Fri May 17, 2013 at 11:02:50 AM EST
    ...but isn't it actually the end users money that does the funding.  If you believe what you say is true, shouldn't anyone using the black market be classified the same way ?

    There are black markets for all kinds of legal goods, like sneakers, and it is wrong to claim that anyone related is somehow "funding terrorism".  Ditto normal goods, like gasoline, that surely put dollars in the pockets of terrorists.

    Funding terrorism is a bold claim and should only be used for people who actually fund them in the pre-9/11 sense.


    A lil' hyperbolic fun of course... (none / 0) (#114)
    by kdog on Fri May 17, 2013 at 11:10:48 AM EST
    just playing on when the man said buying a bag of weed was the same as cutting a check to AQ post 9/11.  What's good for the goose...

    I'm just of the opinion prohibition and excessive taxation is the root of it, if the city or country wants to dry up the revenue for Hamas or AQ or the cartels I'm all for it, all we gotta do is repeal some laws and lower some taxes.  But the state wants to have their cake and eat it too.


    Only if you also admit (none / 0) (#113)
    by CoralGables on Fri May 17, 2013 at 11:05:07 AM EST
    that smokers in New York that purchased their cigarettes from those outlets also funded terrorism.

    You're going down a slippery slope my friend.


    Lion's share of... (none / 0) (#115)
    by kdog on Fri May 17, 2013 at 11:13:22 AM EST
    any "blame" goes to the state...unless you wanna kick the dog aka some poor slob who only wants to pay a reasonable price & tax on his vice.  In no universe is an approx. 400% tax rate reasonable.  The taxes are the original sin...no?

    Damn capitalists (none / 0) (#111)
    by Wile ECoyote on Fri May 17, 2013 at 11:00:53 AM EST
    It may be useful to read what is in a link (5.00 / 1) (#191)
    by Politalkix on Sat May 18, 2013 at 09:12:36 AM EST
    before posting it. The authors of the study indicated that they did not find any good correlation between capitalism and racial tolerance.
    Also please make up your mind whether western europe or latin america is capitalist or "soshulist".

    Someone has a problem with capitalists? (none / 0) (#128)
    by Yman on Fri May 17, 2013 at 12:04:57 PM EST
    BTW - Interesting response pointing out the problems with this map from an expert in the field.

    Damn capitalists indeed (none / 0) (#160)
    by jondee on Fri May 17, 2013 at 03:38:30 PM EST
    up until a few decades ago, they'd burn blck man alive, cut off his fingers and toes and sell them as coin purses for whistling at a white woman.

    And it was mostly through peole seeking redress through dreaded "fed'ral government" that it stopped.  


    Speaking of fingers... (none / 0) (#164)
    by fishcamp on Fri May 17, 2013 at 04:12:46 PM EST
    my hands smell like fish.  They have for years.  There are millions of Tarpon down here now.  I guided an 82 year old fly fisherman yesterday and he caught one.  He could only stay out half a day which was fine with me.  Lots of yellowtail snapper, grouper, and mahi mahi way offshore.  

    Hypothetical question: (none / 0) (#190)
    by NYShooter on Sat May 18, 2013 at 07:18:06 AM EST
    Since I've spent a lot of time in courtrooms, and witnessed lawyers whose skills ranged from almost intelligible to incredibly effective, how does one go about finding good representation if, let's say, you move into a new city/state? Everyone's ads claim they're the personification of Clarence Darrow. Trial & error is a formula for bankruptcy, or worse. Lawyers will rarely give negative opinions when asked for referrals. Are "lawyer rating blogs any good?" Even asking around with friends, neighbors, and colleagues will only give you opinions based on the outcomes of their experiences. I mean, you can be a great lawyer and still have lost a particular case if the evidence was simply overwhelming, so the client`s opinion could very well be skewed by that.

    Any advice?

    My lawyer used some sort of peer ratings guide (5.00 / 1) (#194)
    by Mr Natural on Sat May 18, 2013 at 10:09:11 AM EST
    when we wanted to learn about an opponent's attorney several states distant. It's some sort of attorney peer review.

    There's trouble in River City (the (none / 0) (#192)
    by KeysDan on Sat May 18, 2013 at 09:49:21 AM EST
    Potomac).  No, not the AP, IRS and Benghazi kerfuffles--the budget deficits.  They are falling.   In part that is because the gap between spending and revenue has begun to shrink substantially, in response to recent tax increases, spending cuts and improvements in the economy.

     If Congress and the president do  nothing save for some vast expenditure such as for a new war, the CBO predicts that the deficit would fall to just over two percent of the economic output in 2015.  But, hold on--the CBO warned that if health care spending should start rising sharply  and debt payments soar as interest rates rise we may be back in the deficit saddle again.

    This is the same CBO that significantly cut its old estimate (old, being three months ago) of the current fiscal-year deficit by more than $200 billion.   And, Medicare increases are not rising as in the past, for yet undetermined reasons, but probably owing to movements by health care providers in anticipation of ACA changes, differences related to Medicare changes in progress, and computer-assists in health care delivery.   As I suggested long ago in ACA discussions, additional changes in Medicare should await evaluation of changes made or contemplated.  Not an earths-shaker opinion, just good practice.  

    But, what to do.  The crisis window for implementing the Bowles/Simpson, Pete Peterson ideas to cut social security, "reform" Medicare, and liberate Medicaid, is now fogged.  President Obama has vowed to tackle the "long term" deficits even though there is no imminent threat.  That long term matter may be resolved better by further strengthening of  the economy by reducing the unemployment rates and watch the tax receipts grow.  Maybe, we can even entertain increases in the puny social security checks that will be increasingly needed to enable the now young workers to retire at above poverty levels.

    The interesting take (none / 0) (#197)
    by CoralGables on Sat May 18, 2013 at 11:33:46 AM EST
    With the implementation of the ACA, the tax change, and the drop in unemployment, what Bowles/Simpson wanted to accomplish is already on pace to be accomplished faster than Bowles/Simpson.

    It has pretty much made Bowles/Simpson a non-factor and put them out to pasture.


    Agreed. I think B.S. (none / 0) (#201)
    by KeysDan on Sat May 18, 2013 at 01:53:14 PM EST
    has been called on B.S.  But it is not for a lack of trying nor for a lack of Peter Peterson $millions.   As Albert Hunt reported in Bloomberg (that I read in the Herald Tribune while traveling), B.S. will not go away.  

    It has morphed into such corporate astroturf supergroups as "Fix the Debt."  Hunt, in his column, chides President Obama for refusing to embrace the recommendations of "his own deficit reduction panel."   Of course, the rules of the Commission called for the approval of 14 of the 18 members, but only got 11 in a "straw poll."    And, that tally is elusive since the Commission, taking the cue, simply adjourned without an official vote.  

    So, the recommendations are, essentially, that of the co-chairs,  Bowles and Simpson.  Bowles and Simpson, undaunted, have as a pair, modified their recommendations by moving further to the right, with more spending cuts and less in revenue.

     Let's hope the austerity kick has been unmasked for what it is--a failure if not a fraud.  A swindle of history, a debasement of Keynes, with an assessment of what apparently passes for academic rigor these days  in conservative circles (Harvard Professor, Niall Ferguson said that Keynes had it all wrong because he was gay), and  charlatan research by Harvard economists, Reinhart and Rogoff (whose errors and unconventional statistics were caught , when their data became available, by a U Mass graduate student).  It is clear that Reinhart and Rogoff's work is worthy of publication only in the Journal of Irreproducible Results, but it has been the "intellectual underpinning" of the austerity movement.

     And, let's hope that President Obama and the Democrats get the message of the Republicans--they aren't interested in a balanced grand bargain.