Saturday College Football OpenThread

The picks: Vanderbilt +14 Competitor: South Carolina; Alabama -8 Competitor: Texas A&M (3 units); Oklahoma -24 Competitor: Tulsa; UCLA +3 Competitor: Nebraska; Georgia Tech -9 Competitor: Duke Mississippi State +6 Competitor: Auburn, Army +30 Competitor: Stanford; Utah -3 Competitor: Oregon State; Purdue +19 Competitor: Notre Dame; Kentucky +15 Competitor: Louisville; Oregon -28 Competitor: Tennessee (3 units); Bowling Green +3 Competitor: Indiana; Washington -10 Competitor: Illinois; Mississippi +3 Competitor: Texas.

Don't forget the Amato and Armando Show for sports talk.

Open thread.

< Friday Night Open Thread | Sunday Night Open Thread: More Rain >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    US and Russia come to an agreement on Syria (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by CoralGables on Sat Sep 14, 2013 at 01:30:45 PM EST
    The framework is in place for Syria to sign onto the Chemical Weapons Convention.

    Assad asked for 60 days to provide a comprehensive listing of Syria's chemical weapons. The agreement gives him 7 days.

    It also looks like they will attempt to move the chemical weapons out of the country rather than take the time necessary to build the facilities to destroy them there. The plan is to remove them all from Syria by the middle of 2014.

    This could turn into one of the great middle east accomplishments in many years.

    Assad could still balk, but with Russia in agreement the pressure for Assad to agree will be intense.

    The Framework (none / 0) (#10)
    by christinep on Sat Sep 14, 2013 at 02:22:20 PM EST
    is a succinct, direct outline to accomplish the reduction & destruction of chemical weaponry not thought possible throughout the past years of conflict ... until now.  Fingers-crossed that the signatories can actually be completed & transmitted (via procedural work already scoped out by France's advance with the Security Council.) I am hopeful that any predictable squirming from Assad et al will be minimal at this point in view of the fine diplomatic deal reached by the two seasoned diplomats, Lavrov and Kerry. Of course, the coming inspectors report this weekend could be expected to add its own exclamation point about the horror of such weaponry.

    Incorporating any forthcoming framework agreement in the UN's Chp 7 -- wherein the ultimate authority to assess penalties and impose ultimate sanctions resposits--is quite significant because it will ensure wide-world attention to consequences for any violation.  That is a unique pressure in itself.

    Again, a ways to go yet ... and, in the event of successful progress, there should be no need for a banner; but rather a "job well done" thanks to all those who labored so intensely to reduce the acknowledged threat of chemical weaponry.


    You're welcome. (5.00 / 3) (#12)
    by KeysDan on Sat Sep 14, 2013 at 03:06:16 PM EST
    I feel that a  part of that well done job was the result of those Democrats who registered their concerns for the bombing of Syria, be it  more than a pinprick (cf. (President Obama) or "unbelievably small"  or "changing the momentum on the battlefield (cf. Secretary Kerry), or maybe, much more ( cf. history).

    Urging diplomatic channels through the UN, and jettisoning the dismissive attitude toward even attempts at  working with the Russians were seen by many as nothing short of  Neville Chamberlain at Munich (cf. Kerry, once again).

    Now, whether Kerry's response to the question if there was anyway the bombing could be avoided proved him to be Mr. Magoo-like or whether  he is the statesman of the century, is not as important as the outcome--which remains difficult and uncertain, but never-the-less is encouraging in many ways, including putting the US in the best legal and moral position.

    It is my view that unquestioned support of the president  does not serve him or his policies well.  A tact the Second City player's satirical piece acidically underscores.


    I DO thank you ... (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by christinep on Sat Sep 14, 2013 at 07:45:05 PM EST
    A lot of sincere people from afar, like us, care a lot.
    One comment: Don't underestimate the amount of diplomacy, the skill of those involved in that give & take, and the unseen maneuvering that it has taken to bring us all to this seeming breakthrough.  Personally, I would have loved to have heard the Obama & Putin discussion in Petersburg, and I bet as well that the dinner diplomacy of Kerry & Lavrov (the two old pros) must have been something to behold.  But then, just as you have your opinion, I have mine.

    Anyway, maybe we will all have something to be proud of should this all be resolved as outlined.
    Peace to you.


    Cooperation (5.00 / 3) (#21)
    by ruffian on Sat Sep 14, 2013 at 08:31:05 PM EST
    takes everyone's opinion into account and gives everyone a chance to play a constructive role. Russia's unconditional support of Syria was becoming increasingly untenable and I'm glad they seized the opportunity to cooperate with the international community outside the bounds of sometimes restrictive 'yes', 'no', 'veto', UN votes. I hope this leads to more such creative solutions.

    AN AXE LENGTH AWAY, vol. 128 (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by Dadler on Sun Sep 15, 2013 at 10:12:34 AM EST
    1% Humor (link)

    And the rest of last week's comics:

    Vol. 127
    Vol. 126
    Vol. 125
    Vol. 124
    Vol. 123
    Vol. 122

    Happy NFL Sunday and go Niners!


    Senator Cruz of Texas (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by christinep on Sun Sep 15, 2013 at 05:42:50 PM EST
    Has anyone been paying much attention to the Senator from Canada via Texas?  In the peculiar stakes of the Repub party primaries, the posturing of Rand Paul, Marco Rubio, and whoever else is the usual predictable stuff; but, what is Cruz's game as he appears to be too much the "lean & hungry look" to big players in his own party?  Other than reminding a number of us -- looks, demeanor, self-righteousness-- of Joe McCarthy, is this bull-in-a-china-shop style more than that?  Any ideas?  

    P.S. Even tho past forays by similar types usual finish in self-destruction, this character has a unique kind of outer-destructiveness.  A bit scary.

    Yes. (none / 0) (#67)
    by Zorba on Sun Sep 15, 2013 at 07:19:25 PM EST
    I agree.  He had dual citizenship here and in Canada, and when he recently gave up his Canadian citizenship, I immediately thought, "This guy is definitely positioning himself to get the Republican nomination for President in 2016."  And he's both appealing to the Repubs, and very dangerous for the country.
    And I contemplate the whole stupid thing about the Republican hysteria regarding Obama, his birth certificate, where was Obama born, his Kenyan father, etc, etc, etc.  The right-wing "birthers" are certainly silent about Cruz, who was clearly born in Canada with a Cuban father.  But from those same birthers?  Crickets about Cruz.  And if he succeeds in getting the Republican nomination, there will be further "crickets."  When it's their guy, it's fine.  When it's a Democrat, who was born in this country.....not so much.
    (Although, I must say, no matter where you were born, if one of your parents was a US citizen, then you are a "natural born" US citizen.  Not that it matters to the loonies.  But I do appreciate the irony.)

    Your hypothetical has to assume, Donald... (5.00 / 2) (#72)
    by Dadler on Sun Sep 15, 2013 at 08:41:25 PM EST
    ...that if public opinion had supported intervention, Obama then would've implored his citizenry to ease their fear and bloodlust, that violence must not be considered yet.

    Meh, I ain't buying. I refuse to believe that every thing that Obama does, no matter how stupid, premature, unimaginative is all part of that grand plan. It's a form of soothsaying, it's evangelical in its expected believer's logic. I actually can give the American public credit here. They spoke, and it made a difference. To deny that seems odd, to me. Very. Unless, like Bubba, you think O has to ignore the people lest he come off a a wimp.

    I will give O credit for knowing when his game wasn't working, and, for the time being, trying to let something else work. And if he has to let Putin seem like he did more than he did, and he can stand aside for the good of the end result, then he will deserve credit.

    But we've been here before. And we still sell PLENTY of weapons to PLENTY of scumbags who kill PLENTY of their own people.

    I'm (none / 0) (#91)
    by lentinel on Mon Sep 16, 2013 at 05:37:09 AM EST
    just not sure that Obama isn't still trying to make this chknsht come out chickensalad. To make his red-line posturing which didn't fly look like a diplomatic initiative.

    In any case, Kerry (a rabid pol) and Obama, a leader of a country whose economy has been going nowhere - and whose people are becoming increasingly disillusioned and miserable - are desperately trying to change the subject.

    The American people, like the Brits and the French are not having it.

    I don't give Obama credit for knowing anything.
    If Putin hadn't changed the game, he'd be stuck.

    I just don't see Obama or his associates letting Putin have the major share of the credit should things fizzle out as I hope they do. I have already seen some sniping aimed in Putin's direction.


    AN AXE LENGTH AWAY, vol. 127 (none / 0) (#1)
    by Dadler on Sat Sep 14, 2013 at 09:40:46 AM EST

    Go Bruins!! (Mora seems like he may have found his place. Although, damn, what will always kind of hold UCLA back is that they really a stadium a tad closer to campus than Pasadena, almost thirty miles away. Seriously, is there another bigtime D-1 program that plays its home games that far from the actual school? I doubt it.

    And Niners/Hawks, NFL on Sunday, gimme a pick, Tent. Do a honky a solid. ;-)

    "they really NEED a stadium," that is (none / 0) (#2)
    by Dadler on Sat Sep 14, 2013 at 09:41:54 AM EST

    But they already have one. (none / 0) (#23)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sat Sep 14, 2013 at 10:57:36 PM EST
    UCLA left the Coliseum following the 1981 season when the NFL Raiders announced that they were moving from Oakland to L.A., and the Bruins' home field has been the Rose Bowl for the past 32 years. The place seats 93,000 for football, and the Bruins' attendance averages nearly 70,000 per game.

    Both UCLA and the City of Pasadena have a sweet deal going, and the students don't seem to have any problem showing up on Saturdays. A student bus ticket used to cost $7 round trip between the Westwood campus and the Rose Bowl, but the administration announced that starting this season, on-campus student residents can ride to the Rose Bowl for free.

    I say if it ain't broke, don't fix it.

    Besides, where would you site the stadium at or around UCLA? There's really no room on campus for a stadium. And have you seen the cost of real estate in Westwood, Santa Monica and West Los Angeles lately?



    I realize you can't put a stadium there (none / 0) (#25)
    by Dadler on Sat Sep 14, 2013 at 11:17:13 PM EST
    The residents of Westwood, Bel Air, Beverly Hills, would never allow that many of the rabble so close so regularly. But it's just not that great to have the stadium so far away, kids should be able to walk to the game, and it hurts recruiting, no way around it. Was the Coliseum any better? Not really, but it was rocking in '74 when I watched Pat Haden beat the Bruins for a Rose Bowl berth.

    The University of Miami (none / 0) (#3)
    by CoralGables on Sat Sep 14, 2013 at 10:14:13 AM EST
    is 21.2 miles from their on campus basketball arena to where the football team plays at Sun Life Stadium (aka Joe Robbie Stadium, Pro Player Park, Pro Player Stadium, Dolphin Stadium, Dolphins Stadium, and Land Shark Stadium)

    Mapquest puts Pauley Pavilion to the Rose Bowl at 27.08 miles.

    UCLA wins ..errr...loses.


    Wahoo!! We win!! Ugh... (none / 0) (#4)
    by Dadler on Sat Sep 14, 2013 at 11:12:31 AM EST
    And that's 27+ miles in LA traffic. Blowout loss.

    You guys give the Southland a run for its money, especially San Jose and the South Bay. Ugh!

    When we attended the 2010 NCAA women's volleyball regionals at Stanford, we made the mistake of flying in and out of SJC rather than SFO, because we thought it was closer. Surprise! Whatever advantage in distance was wiped out by traffic. It took us nearly two hours each way to creep to and from Palo Alto. And since I really don't know the San Jose area at all, I was afraid to get off the freeway and seek out an alternative route.

    So of course, where are the 49ers moving next season? 45 miles south, to Santa Clara.



    Yeah, the tech industry has really (none / 0) (#27)
    by nycstray on Sat Sep 14, 2013 at 11:54:00 PM EST
    phucked the traffic in the area. Oh the upside, it does cause expansion of public transport. I'm on the southern end of the Napa Valley, so considered Bay Area, but without severe traffic mess. Just normal traffic messes ;) I don't know how some of those folks south of me do the commutes they do. I have a 'red line' when it comes to that . . .

    What I find odd... (none / 0) (#28)
    by Dadler on Sun Sep 15, 2013 at 01:17:36 AM EST
    ...is that Silicon Valley has reversed what would seem the traditional traffic flow in the city of San Francisco. Both 101 and 280 are packed heading south out of the city in the morning, as a lot of people who like living in the city commute to their jobs down south.

    And Donald, please, you need to get on the 101 at about Topanga, almost any time of the day, and try to head east, or get on at the Universal/Studio City area and try to head west. Or, better yet, give that ol' standby 405 over the Sepulveda Pass a go. And, as a kid who spend half my time in the other valley, the San Gabriel, a few months ago, I took the 10 east out of downtown, and jesu christo man, it took me forever just getting to effing Alhambra, forget the 605 and where I was headed.

    I still think L.A. takes the gridlock bones. Tho I will admit, getting from the end of 101 in the city of SF all the way up Van Ness and over to the Golden Gate is a nightmare unlike anything else in urban America.


    I've never had much of a problem on the 101. (none / 0) (#36)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sun Sep 15, 2013 at 11:33:02 AM EST
    But then we only go out that way if we're heading to Ventura or Santa Barbara, or we're visiting my cousin and her husband in Camarillo.

    I agree that I-10 east out of downtown L.A. can generally be awful, which I think is due to the I-710N ending prematurely at W. Valley Blvd. (Thank you, curmudgeonly South Pasadena residents in the mid-1960s.) That causes almost everyone who's heading north to Pasadena and the San Gabriel Valley to get off at the I-10E exit near the Cal State L.A. campus. It's even worse in the morning and late afternoon when that university is in session.

    I think the biggest and most consistently bad traffic mess in the Southland nowadays has to belong to Orange County, especially going to or from San Diego on the I-5 corridor. Getting from Anaheim to San Juan Capistrano through Santa Ana and Irvine can be painstaking and frustrating, and it's not uncommon for that stretch to take 90-plus minutes.

    That why whenever we drive down to San Diego from Pasadena, we take I-210 east to 57, 57 down to I-10 to Ontario, then south at the I-15 interchanges just past Ontario Int'l Airport. From there, it's a straight shot through Corona, Temecula and Lake Elsinore to San Diego. It's 20 miles farther, but you generally save about 45 minutes each way.



    Corona (none / 0) (#41)
    by Dadler on Sun Sep 15, 2013 at 12:32:00 PM EST
    Egad, you poor man. I have to hear about a big-rig exploding and closing all lanes in the direction I'm heading before I take the I-15 inland route down to SD. The smell of cowsh*t alone is enough to stop me. I mean, I worked the '84 Olympic shooting events in Chino (moved a barricade for Princess Anne's limo, and she opened the window, stuck her gigantic nose out the window and thanked me as only a royal can -- "That was so kind of you, young man, it must be dreadfully warm for you out there," and then the window went back up -- so I know how wretched that area is in terms of smog, smells, and cars. You must be getting lucky, every time I have to go that way...blech, it bites.  

    But I agree with you about the O.C., they have twelve lanes of traffic down there in spots and it's still like Nirvana is playing the Hollywood Bowl, just an automotive paralysis.

    Mahalo, my man.


    It all depends on when (none / 0) (#73)
    by MKS on Sun Sep 15, 2013 at 08:47:46 PM EST
    you travel....

    Aside from 7:00-10:00 am and 3:00-7:00 pm and weekend beach and San Diego traffic, piece of cake.


    Lay the 3 (none / 0) (#5)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Sep 14, 2013 at 11:29:05 AM EST
    Hawks need to win, Niners don't.

    Many thanks (none / 0) (#7)
    by Dadler on Sat Sep 14, 2013 at 11:53:10 AM EST
    I trust your objective take more than my infected-by-being-a-fan take.

    "Go Gators"!!!! (none / 0) (#8)
    by oculus on Sat Sep 14, 2013 at 12:32:42 PM EST
    Big Stink... (none / 0) (#6)
    by desertswine on Sat Sep 14, 2013 at 11:43:26 AM EST
    In Little Paradise.  Hawaii Fish Kill.

    With the exception of featherdusters ... (none / 0) (#55)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sun Sep 15, 2013 at 04:59:27 PM EST
    ... and some coralheads that have attached themselves to pier pilings and harbor walls, there's nothing in Honolulu Harbor that can be termed a "reef," as this article mistakenly suggests. (National Geographic, I'm surprised at you.)

    The harbor floor is comprised entirely of coralstone, i.e., dead coral that ossified in layers over the millennia and eventually formed the narrow plain that spans the length of south Oahu from Ewa to Diamond Head, upon which sits the city of Honolulu.

    Further, the shoreline area from downtown Honolulu to Pearl Harbor is highly industrialized and includes Honolulu Int'l Airport and Hickam AFB (and even both a state and federal prison!), and Honolulu Harbor is a very busy port. It is a testament to Mother Nature's resiliency that there exists a thriving population of marine life along this stretch of shoreline.

    As bad as this particular spill is, and while we certainly don't want it to happen again, it's not the first major environmental issue to strike here, and the affected area will rebound eventually. I mean, if it could survive and recover from the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor and Hickam 72 years ago -- which was not just a military disaster, and still affects portions of this region environmentally -- it'll get through this.



    Are you .. (none / 0) (#83)
    by desertswine on Sun Sep 15, 2013 at 09:20:03 PM EST
    attempting to minimize the impact of this toxic spill by comparing it to the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor in 1941?

    My you are a politician.


    Hawaii is not considered (none / 0) (#85)
    by MKS on Sun Sep 15, 2013 at 09:33:50 PM EST
    a diver's paradise....

    The conditions Donald talks about, plus the underwater lava formations, create what divers call desert diving....A bit too harsh a criticism perhaps...

    But diving in Hawaii is done because it is already a vacation destination.  

    Pacific Dive excursions go to Palau, Fiji, Truk and other places in the Pacific.....

    A spill of molasses is still not good...  


    I object only .... (none / 0) (#120)
    by desertswine on Mon Sep 16, 2013 at 09:09:55 PM EST
    to the minimalization of a serious environmental situation.

    Aggies and The Tide (none / 0) (#11)
    by DebFrmHell on Sat Sep 14, 2013 at 02:44:22 PM EST
    have just started...

    It feels weird rooting for the Aggies.
    What's a gal to do...

    Watch another game? (none / 0) (#57)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sun Sep 15, 2013 at 05:07:57 PM EST
    That's what I did. There exists a big wide world of college football outside the SEC.

    The silver winged bananas (none / 0) (#13)
    by CoralGables on Sat Sep 14, 2013 at 04:03:42 PM EST
    are off to a great start to cover the -28 against the pale oranges.

    Ducks lead the Vols 38-7 at the half. (none / 0) (#14)
    by caseyOR on Sat Sep 14, 2013 at 04:21:39 PM EST
    If the Ducks play this way in the second half, well, it looks good for BTD's wallet.

    Bama (none / 0) (#15)
    by CoralGables on Sat Sep 14, 2013 at 04:50:21 PM EST
    scores 35 unanswered against Texas A&M and the Ducks score 45 unanswered against Tennessee. And both are still early in the 3rd quarter.

    Ducks win 59-14. Helfrich pulled the (none / 0) (#16)
    by caseyOR on Sat Sep 14, 2013 at 05:58:42 PM EST
    first string out in the 3rd quarter, so we got a good look at the backups. I like what I see from backup running back Thomas Tyner. He had an extraordinary record in high school. He played at a school in the Portland metro area which meant I read about him almost Saturday morning in the paper. There was great rejoicing throughout Ducksland when Tyner decided on Oregon.

    If I have my gambling facts in order, BTD made money on this game. Let me just say that all of us throughout the Ducks world are happy for BTD's good fortune.

    No game for the Ducks next week. On the 28th the Cal Bears come to Autzen. Given that the Bears came withing a whisker of losing to the Portland State Vikings last week, I am optimistic about the Ducks' chances. i take nothing for granted, though.

    Still, GO, DUCKS!!!!


    What's up with UO's ... (none / 0) (#42)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sun Sep 15, 2013 at 12:32:52 PM EST
    ... "Screaming Yellow Zonker" team uniforms? It's truly a ghastly color that constitutes an assault on one's visual senses. It didn't look good on the 1979 Pittsburgh Pirates (who thankfully retired them after winning the World Series that year), and it's not any better on the Ducks.



    Why do (none / 0) (#17)
    by lentinel on Sat Sep 14, 2013 at 07:22:06 PM EST
    in the world is Obama pushing so hard for Larry Summers?

    He isn't (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by CoralGables on Sat Sep 14, 2013 at 07:47:30 PM EST
    The White House said on Friday that the president had not yet made up his mind

    That has been the White House position all along. It's the endless guessers and pontificators that say otherwise in an attempt to create news.


    This write up claims leaking (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Sep 15, 2013 at 01:56:57 AM EST
    From the White House says Summers already has it.

    Larry Summers: (none / 0) (#30)
    by jondee on Sun Sep 15, 2013 at 08:52:10 AM EST
    Mr "Wall St fraud is nothing to be concerned about" himself..Greenspan's ideological, and possibly literal, catamite..

    What further evidence does anyone need that the so-called Masters of the Universe have our elected representatives by the short 'n curlies with a pair of vice grips than this?


    I'm waiting for Obama's (none / 0) (#31)
    by jondee on Sun Sep 15, 2013 at 09:13:00 AM EST
    local attache here at TL to tell us what a smart guy Summers is, about his intellectual pedigree and how he was a full professor at Harvard at 27..

    And Greenspan was a Presidential Medal of Freedom recipient..

    Cunning and driveness get confused with wisdom a lot these days..maybe they always have been..


    Well, Larry Summers IS smart. (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sun Sep 15, 2013 at 05:18:19 PM EST
    It's his questionable sense of financial ethics and considerable lack of genuine empathy for the plight of the least wealthiest 80% of Americans, which has proved to be the primary source of consternation with a lot of folks.

    I would like to see (none / 0) (#82)
    by MKS on Sun Sep 15, 2013 at 09:15:50 PM EST
    how Summers would have been bad at the Fed.

    He may well have been....But the key thing is would he have been an inflation hawk or like Bernanke?

    Not having compassion for the 80% could suggest an inflation hawk, and Bernanke's scholarship was on deflation during the Great Depression, so there was no doubt before he was appointed he was clearly not an inflation hawk.

    Elizabeth Warren as Fed Chair would have little impact.  The position is influential but not in the sense being discussed.

    Our monetary policy since 2008 has been pitch perfect imo.....Our problems do not stem from too tight Fed policy.


    One of the primary goals of the Fed (5.00 / 1) (#89)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Sep 16, 2013 at 02:31:39 AM EST
    Is full employment.  Larry Summers doesn't give two squirts about full employment.  He demonstrated that during the meltdown at the White House when other advisors were concerned about our crashing employment.  He is on the record screaming in everyone's faces that they couldn't focus on employment.  He was also a full dispicable power player who snarfed publicly about Americans finally being valued at their proper market value when people were losing everything.

    Except that Congress may not want him (none / 0) (#38)
    by shoephone on Sun Sep 15, 2013 at 12:14:08 PM EST
    And the people sure as heck don't. Obama's doubling down on this a$$hole, and I think it's likely he's going to get slapped around for it.

    According to a NYT reporting (5.00 / 2) (#45)
    by KeysDan on Sun Sep 15, 2013 at 03:18:05 PM EST
    by Jeremy W. Peters, Mr. Obama is expected to nominate Summers as Chair of the Federal Reserve. However, three Democratic Senators (Jon Tester,D, MT; Jeff Merkley, D, OR; and Sherrod Brown, D. OH,) said they would vote against Summers, complicating vote counts on the Banking Committee.

    Mr. Peters also reports that Senator Elizabeth Warren is reluctant to support Summers but has not said publicly how she would vote. As skepticism grows among members of the president's own party, the WH is making it clear that Summers is Mr. Obama's choice.

    Republicans John Cornyn of Texas and Pat Roberts of Kansas said last August, " I wouldn't want Larry Summers to mow my lawn."  It was not known if Summers had applied for a 'mow, blow and go' yard job for Roberts, but it has been suggested by some wags that Summers has been claiming that his top rival for the Fed job, Dr. Janet Yellen , is unsuited for the banking position since women are not good at math.


    NYT Times (none / 0) (#46)
    by KeysDan on Sun Sep 15, 2013 at 03:20:21 PM EST
    Get ready for their backtrack (none / 0) (#49)
    by CoralGables on Sun Sep 15, 2013 at 03:43:51 PM EST
    And, the "backtracker" this time (none / 0) (#50)
    by christinep on Sun Sep 15, 2013 at 04:00:03 PM EST
    turns out to be L. Summers himself.  Thank goodness ... 'Guessing he received a strong hint that he should withdraw (in everyone's interest.) Now, we can move to the next one....

    The five most likely choices (none / 0) (#53)
    by CoralGables on Sun Sep 15, 2013 at 04:15:54 PM EST
    in no particular order

    Roger Ferguson
    Stanley Fischer
    Donald Kohn
    Christina Romer
    Janet Yellen


    CG: Views on (none / 0) (#54)
    by christinep on Sun Sep 15, 2013 at 04:25:54 PM EST
    Ferguson and Fischer?

    I would think (none / 0) (#78)
    by CoralGables on Sun Sep 15, 2013 at 09:03:03 PM EST
    the Tea Party folks in Congress would likely scream about either Ferguson or Fischer for a variety of abnormal reasons. But also think Kohn likely has a better chance than either Ferguson or Fischer.

    Probably should have added a 5th possibility which would make some heads explode here... Tim Geithner.

    Interesting note: Wall Street has reacted very strongly to Summers withdrawing. US Stock Futures jumped quickly on the announcement. Perhaps he wasn't Wall Street's choice after all (no matter what anyone may have read here)


    Obama asked Geithner to take the Fed (none / 0) (#115)
    by caseyOR on Mon Sep 16, 2013 at 03:33:52 PM EST
    job. Geithner declined. Or so I read several days ago. Sorry, I do not remember where I rad that. So, no link.

    I never understood the (none / 0) (#74)
    by MKS on Sun Sep 15, 2013 at 08:54:24 PM EST
    Progressive criticism of Summers for Fed Chair.  The Fed does not have the power or role many seem to think.

    A Progressive, going back to William Jennings Bryan, would want easy money and low interest rates.  Bernanke delivered.  What is needed is another Bernanke.

    Regulation of Wall Street and taxes and spending and the rest, not the Fed role.

    Symbolically, it would matter, I suppose.  But the Fed influences money supply and most Progressives are talking fiscal policy.


    Summers (none / 0) (#92)
    by lentinel on Mon Sep 16, 2013 at 05:38:46 AM EST
    dropped out.

    So much for the integrity of the leak...


    OK (none / 0) (#22)
    by lentinel on Sat Sep 14, 2013 at 10:07:51 PM EST
    I'll put the question differently.

    Why is Obama even considering Larry Summers?


    Hey lentinel: He is out (if he was ever in) (none / 0) (#51)
    by christinep on Sun Sep 15, 2013 at 04:01:32 PM EST
    See, o ye of little faith....

    Now there will be people that start to bitch (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by CoralGables on Sun Sep 15, 2013 at 04:04:37 PM EST
    about someone else that is the surefire pick, even though they haven't got a clue.

    LOL! CG, this is for you: (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sun Sep 15, 2013 at 05:37:35 PM EST
    "I Used to Love Her," by Guns'N'Roses.

    Nobody (none / 0) (#94)
    by lentinel on Mon Sep 16, 2013 at 05:45:36 AM EST
    said that Summers was a surefire pick.

    What I questioned was why he was being considered in the first place.

    I credit his dropping out to the obvious opposition by what Don refers to as the 80% of the American people about whom he doesn't give a sh-t.

    Obama was, as usual, clueless and last in line.


    Oh my (none / 0) (#96)
    by christinep on Mon Sep 16, 2013 at 09:23:05 AM EST
    As often is the case, we see the "facts" differently. In this instance, there were a lot of rumors.  While it may have been quite likely and to be expected that the "leaks" were coming from a number of people who "had skin in the game" and backed other would-be nominees, what surprised me most was how quickly people can be to swallow rumors.  Yes, that last sentence is meant to be preachy ... but, really, sometimes it does work to let things play out a bit.  Otherwise, one can find oneself looking as if trying to wiggle out of the corner that was backed into unnecessarily. Seriously, your whatever-Obama-does or doesn't do-must-be-wrong perspective might obscure a view of what is factually happening.  IMO.

    It is also very possible that (5.00 / 1) (#98)
    by MO Blue on Mon Sep 16, 2013 at 10:16:21 AM EST
    if everyone sat back and waited for Obama to announce his pick for Fed Chairman rather than adamantly opposing Summers appointment, we would be stuck with Larry Summers now or in the near future.

    I doubt very seriously that Summers would have withdrawn his name from Fed consideration, if his name wasn't on the list to begin with. Without the highly visible public opposition to his appointment, this statement would never have been necessary:

    "I have reluctantly concluded that any possible confirmation process for me would be acrimonious and would not serve the interests of the Federal Reserve, the administration, or ultimately, the interests of the nation's ongoing economic recovery," Summers said in a letter to Obama.

    I just find it so interesting the (5.00 / 2) (#100)
    by Anne on Mon Sep 16, 2013 at 10:57:24 AM EST
    selective approach to leaks and rumors, wherein those people don't want to believe are dismissed and those they do are elevated to some higher level of credibility.

    I wonder where this fits in:

       Mr. Summers, who was director of Mr. Obama's National Economic Council early in his presidency, was widely believed to be the president's first choice. But opposition from liberals and women's groups--and, importantly, from some Senate Banking Committee Democrats--had been mounting...

        Mr. Obama angrily defended Mr. Summers at a closed-door meeting with lawmakers, but he did little to thaw views among many liberal and centrist lawmakers that Mr. Summers was too combative and too close to Wall Street.

    Since article is behind a pay wall, here's the link to where I read it: FDL NEws Desk.

    So...was this the head-fake portion of Obama's trademarked 11-dimensional game plan, meant to distract from his "real" first choice, setting up the Senate to be amenable to whoever is eventually nominated because it would just be unacceptable to reject a second name?

    Will we regret opposing Summers when we learn who the nominee will be?

    Or does none of this matter, since the Fed Chair doesn't really "do" anything much?

    For the life of me, I do not know why there is so much effort given to making sure absolutely no meaning can be derived from Obama's affinity for the Larry Summers approach to economics; is it because of what that affinity says about Obama, or what it says about Summers?


    Evidently lentinal was not the only (5.00 / 1) (#116)
    by MO Blue on Mon Sep 16, 2013 at 03:48:15 PM EST
    one listening to the "rumors." Democratic members of the Senate Banking Committee responded to the "rumors" as well.

    Democratic lawmakers, including Senators Jeff Merkley of Oregon and Sherrod Brown of Ohio, said they opposed Summers on the grounds that he was too lax on financial regulation.

    (Reuters) - Four Democrats on the Senate Banking Committee are now expected to vote "no" if President Barack Obama nominates former economics adviser Lawrence Summers to be the next chair of the Federal Reserve, complicating one of the most vital decisions of his second term.

    Jon Tester on Friday became the latest member to publicly announce his opposition, taking to three the number of senators on the committee who are known to be against Summers, while a fourth, Elizabeth Warren, is also expected to be a "no" vote.

    "Senator Tester believes we need a consensus builder to lead the Federal Reserve. He's concerned about Mr. Summers' history of helping to deregulate financial markets," said Andrea Helling, spokeswoman for the Montana Democrat.

    OK (none / 0) (#97)
    by lentinel on Mon Sep 16, 2013 at 10:00:35 AM EST

    Tell me what you feel Obama is doing right - with some details...

    By the way, what other candidates did Obama mention in this dreary scenario besides Summers?


    Not mine to answer (5.00 / 1) (#99)
    by CoralGables on Mon Sep 16, 2013 at 10:34:00 AM EST
    but will pose this instead. Have you heard Obama mention any name at all that is under consideration except in the affirmative when asked if someone is being considered? Or to defend when anyone is degraded as a possible choice?

    Summers' people and Yellen's people (aka unnamed sources and leaks) have been playing politics with the position from day 1. Don't be surprised if the most likely choice has always been behind door number 3. There are at least a handful of very qualified people to choose from.

    Obama has also been very good at choosing women. Would this tendency bias lead to a stronger possibility of his choice being the first female Fed chair?

    While media and blogs like to create a horse race out of everything, the President has given no mention of which direction he is, was, or might be leaning. Instead, he has always said he would make a decision early in the Fall.


    Just to (5.00 / 1) (#101)
    by lentinel on Mon Sep 16, 2013 at 11:29:17 AM EST
    respond to one thing you mentioned...
    His appointment of women.

    Truthfully, I don't know if he has made much of an advance over Bush... Condi et al..

    When I saw a photo of the huge table around which all the deciders were gathered discussing the proposed bombing of Syria, I saw one woman. But for her, it was a gathering of old and middle-aged men deciding whether or not to plunge us into another middle-eastern civil war.


    I think the president would like to (none / 0) (#103)
    by Anne on Mon Sep 16, 2013 at 11:59:14 AM EST
    be seen as a real champion of women in his administration, but is he really?

    Behind the roiling conversation over whether President Obama might make Janet L. Yellen the first female leader of the Federal Reserve is an uncomfortable reality for the White House: the administration has named no more women to high-level executive branch posts than the Clinton administration did almost two decades ago.


     Over all, Mr. Obama has named 13 women to cabinet-level posts, matching the historic high achieved by the Clinton administration. Mr. Obama has also put a record number of women in judicial slots, including two on the Supreme Court. Women make up about 42 percent of confirmed judges appointed by Mr. Obama, compared with 22 percent appointed by George W. Bush and 29 percent by Bill Clinton.

    Yet the ratio of men to women in the administration is where it was two decades ago, if not a little more heavily male. The Obama administration has a smaller proportion of women in top positions than the Clinton administration did in its second term, for instance. Women hold about 35 percent of cabinet-level posts, compared with 41 percent for Mr. Clinton and 24 percent for Mr. Bush at similar points in their presidencies.

    Food for thought, anyway.


    Yes... (none / 0) (#105)
    by lentinel on Mon Sep 16, 2013 at 12:07:18 PM EST
    Yet the ratio of men to women in the administration is where it was two decades ago, if not a little more heavily male. The Obama administration has a smaller proportion of women in top positions than the Clinton administration did in its second term, for instance. Women hold about 35 percent of cabinet-level posts, compared with 41 percent for Mr. Clinton and 24 percent for Mr. Bush at similar points in their presidencies.

    That was my impression of things - although at least he seems to be better than Bush - 24% to his 35%.

    But still.

    When I saw that photo of the gathering of the hawks around the big conference table - all these old men ---  making the really important decisions....


    Actually, (none / 0) (#118)
    by lentinel on Mon Sep 16, 2013 at 05:19:45 PM EST

    Obama was widely reported to have "angrily defended" Summers when liberal and women's groups announced their opposition to his possible appointment to the Fed.

    Reported in the WSJ  and the NYTimes:

    Mr. Obama angrily defended Mr. Summers at a closed-door meeting with lawmakers, but he did little to thaw views among many liberal and centrist lawmakers that Mr. Summers was too combative and too close to Wall Street.

    On the Fed appt status, (none / 0) (#102)
    by christinep on Mon Sep 16, 2013 at 11:49:44 AM EST
    I concur with CG's remarks in reply to your question here. (BTW, I don't discount the point that MOBlue makes below either. The concept & reality of that kind of pressure has significance in many situations; yet, that is different from falling prey to swallowing rumors.)

    Yoiks ... you throw the "justify your life type question" in addition.  Whether that was deflection or not, I will give a brief answer both because I'm too lazy this a.m. to write an essay and to avoid any incoming remark about the size of a reply.  So ... briefly: (1) As I have discussed a lot in the past, I am a fan of health care reform, and the includes the ACA because of the changed burden of proof on insurers together with the benefits that millions will enjoy. Contemporaneous with that position, I would expect & hope that as the years go by the ACA will be improved (as were the Social Security and Medicare programs over the years.)  For 70 years or more, Presidents endeavored in varying degrees to achieve health care reform ... it required tremendous coordination, compromise, and community skills ... only President Obama was successful.  (2) Two women appointees to the Supreme Court and a number of appellate nominees. That speaks for itself.  The ability to recognize the team that the selection of Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State created.  Fashioning the Consumer Protection Bureau through the skilled, adept Elizabeth Warren.  On matters of special significance for women: The early executive action on stem cell research and the early deliverable legislatively to rectify equal pay issues (Lily Ledbetter.)  (3) On Immigration reform, the bold executive action known as the Dreamers' EO ... and the continued direction and push for comprehensive immigration reform.  IMO, when this initiative succeeds -- and I believe that this moral mandate for change surely will -- it will also represent the mastery of achieving reform that has eluded others for decades. (4) Despite your legitimate concerns in general about the growth of wars in our society in recent decades, President Obama acted quickly but methodically to draw down Bush's War in Iraq and he is on schedule to draw down the Afghanistan troops in 2014.  I also strongly believe that the Syria situation has furthered the carrot & stick approach so useful in the hands of skilled politicians and diplomats. (We will continue to disagree about the "coincidentally" rapid march toward resolution via UN agreement after the stick known as believable threat of force.) (5) However the President evolved on the civil rights matter of same sex marriage, he did; and, his DOJ followed suit.  The transition from the hurtful DADT application to open service in the military was the right thing to do, and because it was done with the cooperation of the military (as skillfully built by this President), it was an impressive display of needed transition in the bureaucracy as well.  (6) Given my own EPA background, suffice to say that his Administration's approach to climate change is one that takes advantage of any opening for more restrictive regulations of greenhouse gas emissions.  To date, he is weighing carefully a pathway that provides environmental protection for the Ogalala aquifer with the harsh realities of Repub demagogy as to economic effects in the region.  (7) The big issue always must be the economy.  To begin with, any President that had to confront the collapsing economic situation in 2009 should not have survived the next election.  Most politicians expected a one-termer.  President Obama engineered the stimulus (not the size some of us wanted, but a substantial one at the that which had been predicted to fail in Congress.)  Whether it was his continual efforts to provide jobs via infrastructure repair, rebuilding & construction, green growth, etc. his efforts saw a stabilization ... minor growth, but stabilization.  The citizenry clearly recognized that he used every opportunity to grow the economy in face of those clamoring for austerity provisions by harping on the debt limit (the reprise of this should be heard again in the next weeks.) The recognized that those efforts and rewarded him with another term by a surprisingly large margin.

    OK.  That was my off-the-cuff response about the laudable aspects of Obama's almost 5-year Administration.  Somehow he and his family have managed the no small feat of not being ensnared in any tangle of personal scandal ... that seems to be an achievement in itself given the political combat atmosphere in DC these past twenty years.

    One major area where we need to do a bit of redirection, imo, involves the correction of our long spate of fear following 9-11.  I am supportive of legislative change of the type proposed by Senator Mark Udall (CO) as to the seemingly unrestrained gathering of information on US citizens.  Understanding that the balance shifts from time to time, nonetheless, a NSA "fix" is in order.

    I hope that begins to answer your question.


    "briefly?" (5.00 / 2) (#104)
    by Anne on Mon Sep 16, 2013 at 12:04:07 PM EST
    All I can say is, thank God you were - in your own words - feeling too lazy to write an essay.

    If that comment had been broken down into paragraphs, I might have made my way through it all, but I gave up around Item 2.


    Yea, I know (my typing fingers still ache) (none / 0) (#106)
    by christinep on Mon Sep 16, 2013 at 12:22:34 PM EST
    Consider lentinel's fun question.  I thought that it would be amusing to take the gotcha question he asked and turn it a wee bit. :)

    Since you did (none / 0) (#117)
    by lentinel on Mon Sep 16, 2013 at 05:06:57 PM EST
    spend a lot of time on your reply, and suffered aching fingers, I will try to reply briefly to each of the subjects to which you referred.

    About healthcare: I remember the caves to the pharmaceutical and hospital industries. Obama sunk the public option right away - and out of sight.

    If ACA does help our people, that would indeed be good. Krugman, I believe, thinks it will. I don't know. It won't really be in force for some years - so I'll have to reserve judgment. I'm still dismayed that we can't have the same or equal system as our neighbors the Canadians - or the French. It is the grip of these profit-making enterprises have on our healthcare system and will continue to have. But we'll see.

    On the Supreme Court, all I can say is that I was not, and am not, particularly a fan of Kagan or Sotomayor... but OK. They're not Scalia or Thomas.

    Obama was anything but supportive of Elizabeth Warren with respect to her heading the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.

    Immigration reform... Again, to use your phrase.. "when this initiative succeeds" ... I admit to not knowing much about it - so I'll cede to your judgement.

    About Iraq - All American military forces were mandated to withdraw from Iraqi territory by December 31, 2011 under the terms of a bilateral agreement signed in 2008 by President Bush.  Oy.

    About Afghanistan - when we're out of there, I'll believe that we're out of there. But we have been there for the five years that Obama has been in office - and he began by sending an additional 30,000 into that hellhole. During his tenure, the withdrawal date kept being pushed into the future - and we are still figuring on leaving a significant force there to "train" and all that crappola.

    To me, this Syria thing, if it turns out well, is a case of Obama walking backwards into a good thing. He painted himself into a corner with his redline, Clinton was nagging at him - and so he burst forward with a very poorly thought out bombing plan. Kerry was an embarrassment defending the bloody thing. Putin saved his bacon. I hope.

    Yeah he "evolved" on gay marriage. But Holy Mackerel. He hung on to an unbelievably stupid position for years and years and defended his stupidity by saying his religion dictated that position. Whew. Can you imagine some president taking that long to affirm the right of people of different races or religions to marry in the United States of America because of their "religious upbringing"? He would have, or should have, been told to take his religious beliefs and move to a theocracy.

    So he evolved to the bloomin" obvious. I just can't bring myself to cheer very loudly.

    About the environment - I haven't seen much in the way of limiting green house gasses. Or for a major push to seek alternative ecologically safe means of energy production. We'll see where he finally goes with Keystone. I'm not holding my breath. And forget about challenging the nuclear power industry - a true mega-disaster in the wings God help us.

    The improvement in the economy has been at a snails pace. The people at the top are making lots of money. The rest are scrambling. Hoping for viable employment.

    And, as you say, we need a wee bit more of "redirection" in the trend of repression and suppression of our civil liberties and right to privacy - which has been incrementally intensified during Obama's tenure. An intensification Obama defends.

    I think that Obama believes what he said about GW Bush. He thinks to know him is to like him. He thinks he is a good man.

    I think I would rather know just about anybody than W.
    And I think he is a terrible, horrible man. An evil man. A twisted and heartless man.

    So, somebody who praises him in the manner of Mr. Obama is really and truly suspect to me as to his priorities.

    Those are my off the cuff responses to yours.

    Interesting dialogue.


    lentinel: I liked this dialogue. Thanks. (5.00 / 1) (#119)
    by christinep on Mon Sep 16, 2013 at 06:37:05 PM EST
    When I compare our written views ... heck, in the not too distant future there is at least a good bet that you & I might have concord on the health care process, some appointments, immigration, and maybe even more.  It feels as if I look at the matters we have compared here and see the sky clearing in my glass-half-full way, whereas you are aware of the clouds nearby and the discouraging storms.  Maybe there will be a genuine silver-lining soon.  
    Thank you, again.

    Oh... (none / 0) (#93)
    by lentinel on Mon Sep 16, 2013 at 05:43:14 AM EST
    I see.

    All those reports for these many months about Obama considering Larry were bogus.

    He never really was being considered.

    That's a relief.


    I keep reading all this crap though (none / 0) (#24)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Sep 14, 2013 at 11:00:48 PM EST
    That Obama is pushing Summers.  Who is starting these rumors :)?

    A joke from Henny Youngman (none / 0) (#18)
    by lentinel on Sat Sep 14, 2013 at 07:36:23 PM EST
    A guy joins the Israeli army and immediately asks for a three day pass. The Sargeant tells him that he's nuts to ask for a three day pass after just joining. To get a pass, he tells him, he would have to do something really spectacular.

    A day later, the soldier comes back with a captured Jordanian tank and gets his pass.

    How'd he do it?

    He gets in a tank and drives it up to the Jordanian border where  he is met by a Jordanian tank. He puts out his white flag, and the Jordanian puts out his white flag. The Israeli soldier goes up to the Jordanian soldier and said, "You want a three-day pass?"

    So they exchange tanks.

    BTD College Football Financial Update (none / 0) (#32)
    by CoralGables on Sun Sep 15, 2013 at 09:54:15 AM EST
    If not for a late Texas A&M touchdown, BTD would be backing up the Brinks truck. As it is he just had a really great day:

    BTD 10-3-1... +7 units
    visteo a bye... even
    CG no Gators, no football... even

    For the Season
    BTD 20-22-1... -6 units
    visteo 4-11... -17 units
    CG 2-2... even

    You shortchanged me (none / 0) (#58)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Sep 15, 2013 at 05:10:17 PM EST
    Standard bet of 2 units.

    +14 units.


    Uhoh WMD's back in Iraq! (none / 0) (#34)
    by Jack203 on Sun Sep 15, 2013 at 10:16:08 AM EST

    And taking in consideration that Iran is only 6 months away from a nuclear bomb.  (Iran has been 6 months away from a nuclear bomb since 1992...seriously).  We need to act!

    Who do the neocons want us to attack this time?  Syria, Iran, Iraq again?? Let's do it!

    If you can't tell I'm not a fan of neocons.
    As Obama has even stated, he may not win style points, but the end result of his Syria policy is about the best of many lousy options.  That's a true leader in my book.  The end result is more important than how he personally looks.

    I see. (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by lentinel on Sun Sep 15, 2013 at 11:23:27 AM EST
    it differently.

    I think the rejection by England's parliament came as a rude awakening to Obama.

    That was followed by report after report that the resolution he proposed to congress was likely going nowhere.

    Things evolved.


    That's the British Parliament. (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sun Sep 15, 2013 at 12:21:14 PM EST
    While England does account for almost 80% of the population of the United Kingdom of Great Britain an Northern Ireland, it's actually incorrect to use the term "England" as rhetorical stand-in for the UK -- and further, the Scots and Welsh will take quite vigorous exception to it, if you happen to do it in front of them. (I speak from personal experience.)

    Current Prime Minister David Cameron's immediate predecessor, Gordon Brown, hails from Scotland and still represents the constituency of Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (north of Edinburgh) in the House of Commons. And David Lloyd George, the PM who led the British government throughout the First World War, was from Wales.

    Since 1999, Scotland has also had its own parliament, which convenes in Edinburgh and has jurisdiction over the Scots' own internal affairs. Wales also has its own legislature, too, which is called the Welsh Assembly and meets in Cardiff.



    Yes... (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by lentinel on Sun Sep 15, 2013 at 02:43:40 PM EST
    I think the rejection by the British parliament came as a rude awakening to Obama.

    That was followed by report after report that the resolution he proposed to congress was likely going nowhere.

    Things evolved.


    I doubt it (none / 0) (#86)
    by Jack203 on Sun Sep 15, 2013 at 09:51:05 PM EST
    I don't think he lost or cared about either.

    The British parliament rejecting a conservative?  They are war weary just like us.  Predictable, and meaning little.

    And I'm guessing Obama doesn't lose sleep over Congress rejecting him.  The neocon/tea party split was the most amusing (and only good) part of this entire event.  The neocons for the first time in the last six years agreed with Obama (a bad sign).  That was predictable, as anything to do with bombing Muslim countries is neocons wet dreams.

    The tea partiers were definitely a wild card. I could tell you one thing for sure, is if it was a Republican party held the presidency, they would have followed 100% behind a Syria attack.  But their irrational hatred of Obama runs deep.  Once a few of the tea party leaders started going against the war, the deluge soon opened, and the rout was on.  The neocons could not be on the same side as Obama and still get their war.  They'll certainly retreat and plot their next move as the neocons consider the tea partiers their "useful idiots".


    Au contraire. (5.00 / 2) (#90)
    by lentinel on Mon Sep 16, 2013 at 05:17:22 AM EST
    Some thoughts:

    One is that if this had been proposed by a republican, and the democrats were of the mold that they currently possess, they would fall in line with it just as they did with Bush. They are so eager to show that they're just as tough as the republicans. Look at the verbiage coming from Kerry and the rest. Look at the exponential increase of domestic spying and intimidation of the press and attempts to suppress information that has flourished under the democrats. With the active support of the titular leader of the party, Mr. Obama.

    Cameron was all set to do his Blair to Obama's Bush.

    They were all set to be strutting together - leaders of the not-so-free world against the forces of darkness.

    And it didn't fly.

    I think this was a shock to all and sundry.
    There and here. All over the world.
    He wouldn't have flown into it if he has expected such speedy rejection.

    In addition, you had M. Hollande of France joining in the band wagon. Another leader whose popularity is in the toilette due to the god-awful state of the economy. Another leader looking for a diversion. And he flopped as well.

    And then, it looked as if the republicans over here began acting as republicans - that is to say conservative in the true sense of the word. That is to say, being at least peripherally aware that the case for war had not been made - as well as being somewhat sensitive of the sentiment of the American people that this drama initiated by Mr. Obama was W-redux. The people had learned something even if the government had not.
    But in addition to that, you had a number of democrats who didn't feel like falling in line with Ms. Pelosi. And why should they? Read Grayson's comments for example.

    I also don't know if I can go along with your description of the republicans' view of Mr. Obama as, "irrational hatred". They have a guy in office who they can twist in any direction they want. That is because he is, except for some window dressing, basically in the same camp as they. Briefly - the rich get richer and the poor get their heating subsidies cut.

    Obama is a neo-con.
    Hasn't his behavior during these last nowhere years told you that?  Hasn't his threat to use force - to bomb - with or without the consent of congress - something he once acknowledged as un-constitutional - told you that?


    Are those the same WMDs... (none / 0) (#43)
    by unitron on Sun Sep 15, 2013 at 01:01:08 PM EST
    ...that sneaky old Saddam snuck out of Iraq just before W sent troops in so that he'd have to look for them under his desk instead?

    Yes, the same WMD. (none / 0) (#84)
    by Jack203 on Sun Sep 15, 2013 at 09:30:20 PM EST
    Saddam moved them to Syria right before we invaded, and not Syria is moving them back to Iraq before we invade them.

    It all adds up.

    What we really need is a neocon president to sort things out  Say fake an attack on Syria, and then invade Iran out of the blue.  Then we'll catch them red-handed with WMDs for sure.


    Thought experiment (none / 0) (#37)
    by Edger on Sun Sep 15, 2013 at 12:10:30 PM EST
    Some days I wish I was 20 again. Most days I'm glad I'm 60, so I won't have to put up with all the bullsh*t as long as 20 year olds will have to?

    And I'm often surprised at how nice 20 most years old are, when maybe they really should be shooting at us?

    I read the news today. Oh boy...

    Yay Oregon State Beavs! (none / 0) (#40)
    by Cashmere on Sun Sep 15, 2013 at 12:30:33 PM EST
    They won in OT!  I did not watch but it was likely a much better game than the Duck slaughter of Tennessee!  Go both Oregon schools, you make us proud!

    I'm still making my way through (none / 0) (#47)
    by ruffian on Sun Sep 15, 2013 at 03:20:43 PM EST
    Kurt Eichenwald's '500 Days', in the short sessions my blood pressure will allow. Although I am far from satisfied with Pres. Obama in many ways, I do rest easily at night in the firm belief that no coversations like this occur:
    "Before Chirac could elaborate on that point, Bush veered in another direction.
    "Jacques," he said, "you and I share a common faith. You're Roman Catholic, I'm Methodist, but we are both Christians committed to the teachings of the Bible. We share one common Lord."
    Chirac said nothing. He didn't know where Bush was going with this.
    "Gog and Magog are at work in the Middle East," Bush said. ".

    Excerpt From: Eichenwald, Kurt. "500 Days." Touchstone Book. iBooks.
    This material may be protected by copyright.

    Larry (none / 0) (#62)
    by lentinel on Sun Sep 15, 2013 at 05:38:19 PM EST
    Summers has withdrawn his name from consideration.

    I'm glad that's over.

    On a totally different topic (none / 0) (#64)
    by christinep on Sun Sep 15, 2013 at 06:21:35 PM EST
    Being a superstitious football fan all my days... but hey, now it looks good enough for the Broncos to win it.  (Earlier, I was focused on this & other news items after Ball fumbled the ball with that high-school one-arm hold in the first series of plays just short of a touchdown.  At that point, I decided the game would go better for us if I left the TV area ... ah, my Polish self.)

    I'm beginning to get really interested in Peyton Manning.  It takes me awhile to get on board ... but, hey, my dad had Broncos tickets since the 1960s and Frank Tripucka (which he gave up in disgust after about ten years.)  It is one of those labors of love ... the Elway years were fun, of course.  (Oh my gosh ... they just announced that Tripucka died this weekend. May he rest in peace.)  My train of thought and time are scrambled with the Tripucka news....

    We wuz robbed. (none / 0) (#65)
    by Towanda on Sun Sep 15, 2013 at 07:10:25 PM EST



    The Saints (none / 0) (#68)
    by CoralGables on Sun Sep 15, 2013 at 07:37:43 PM EST
    just showed Wisconsin how to get off a field goal with no timeouts left.

    See below; Pac-10 admits the error (none / 0) (#108)
    by Towanda on Mon Sep 16, 2013 at 01:18:12 PM EST
    but so what.  Nice for them.

    I watched that game last night. (none / 0) (#70)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sun Sep 15, 2013 at 07:58:32 PM EST
    Why didn't the Wisconsin QB just throw the ball out of bounds to stop the clock, when he had plenty of time to do so? Rather, there's a very good case to be made that, by simply laying the ball on the ground as he did without even taking a knee, it was still a live ball.

    Regardless, it was a brain fart of monumental proportions, and it cost the Badgers a chance to kick the game-winning field goal. Sorry, Wisconsin, but you can't hang that one on the officials. That was self-inflicted.



    The replays have been watched (5.00 / 2) (#87)
    by Towanda on Sun Sep 15, 2013 at 11:14:21 PM EST
    by all sorts of folks now, and the knee was down.  Read: the sports pages.

    The brain fart was by the refs, yet again.

    Sorry, yourself, but anyone who wants to see the game continue to be undermined by bad calls is as bad as the refs. And can stuff their alohas where the sun shines or doesn't in Hawaii, who cares.  


    Thanks!! I would love.... (none / 0) (#88)
    by Cashmere on Mon Sep 16, 2013 at 02:28:17 AM EST
    to do away with the Alohas all the time...   It is annoying!

    And Pac-10 now admits the error (5.00 / 1) (#107)
    by Towanda on Mon Sep 16, 2013 at 01:17:01 PM EST
    by officials, but a lot of good that does the students, the players. I happen to know one, and it was a heartbreaking loss, after so much hard work.

    In other words, aloha guy is wrong, again.


    "To err is human... (none / 0) (#109)
    by kdog on Mon Sep 16, 2013 at 01:39:57 PM EST
    to forgive is divine."

    These are supposedly student-athletes we're talking about right?  Perfect opportunity to teach of forgiveness, and the unfairness of life, and overcoming adversity.  

    Nobody feels worse than the officials, that I can guarantee.


    "nobody feels worse than the officials?" (5.00 / 1) (#110)
    by Anne on Mon Sep 16, 2013 at 01:58:08 PM EST
    Why?  Because they might get demoted or bumped off the schedule?

    Because these officials aren't emotionally invested in the outcomes of these games - they can't be and call them as objectively as the bang/bang nature of the game allows - after all, even if they call a perfect game, one of these teams is going to lose.  

    Now the argument could be made that these teams run a lot of plays, and each one has the potential to put a team ahead or behind, so to leave it all at the feet of the officials, in the last seconds of the game, is maybe putting too much on the officiating crew.

    But even if that's true, there's just no way the officials feel worse than players and a team that got officiated to an "L."  

    Yeah, the team will have to suck it up and move on, and maybe they can use it to motivate themselves going forward, but the sting of losing that way is going to stay with those guys for a long time.


    Why you ask? (none / 0) (#111)
    by kdog on Mon Sep 16, 2013 at 02:05:55 PM EST
    Because they know they f*cked up and determined the outcome of the game.  I'd feel absolutely terrible...wouldn't you?

    Of course, but I wouldn't lay claim to (5.00 / 1) (#112)
    by Anne on Mon Sep 16, 2013 at 02:21:55 PM EST
    feeling worse than the players/team who suffered the consequence of my error.

    It's supposed to be "just a game" - and it's a rather silly one, at that - but we've imbued it with so much meaning and poured so much money into it, treated it like an unpaid tryout for the pros, so we can't then fall back on the it's-just-a-game thing and call it a day.  

    I pretty much hate the "no one feels worse than I do" response to things that don't go the way they should, and I'm probably reacting as much to that as anything.


    Hate it all you want Anne... (none / 0) (#113)
    by kdog on Mon Sep 16, 2013 at 02:34:02 PM EST
    but I think it's true...don't you think Jim Joyce felt worse than Armando Gallaraga after the 28 out perfect game?  One guy got shafted, the other errored and did the shafting.

    Regardless of what the records say Wisconsin knows they won, Gallaraga knows he threw a perfect game...all the refs/ump know is they done f*cked up big time.  That's gotta be much harder to live with.


    Add.. (none / 0) (#114)
    by kdog on Mon Sep 16, 2013 at 02:42:55 PM EST
    assuming the kicker hits the chippie.  Really Wisconsin was robbed of a chance to win the game.

    To err twice in two years (none / 0) (#121)
    by Towanda on Tue Sep 17, 2013 at 09:27:31 AM EST
    as the Pac-10 refs have done to Wisconsin is. . . ?

    I'm with the F*ck That Corrupt Conference movement.

    Alohans, of course, like it, just fine, the way it is.  Apparently, so do you.  It could be worth more than a reflexive moment of typing to consider what that means a la your usual worldview.


    Whenever the beer league... (1.00 / 1) (#122)
    by kdog on Tue Sep 17, 2013 at 03:04:23 PM EST
    team loses by bad call, I always say don't blame the refs, we should blame ourselves for putting ourselves in the position where the game can be decided by a bad call.

    Listen to yourself Towanda...it's a football game, it ain't even the pros, and you're an educator.  


    But this isn't the beer league, kdog; (5.00 / 1) (#123)
    by Anne on Tue Sep 17, 2013 at 03:34:55 PM EST
    if it was, they wouldn't need multi-million dollar budgets, gigantic stadiums, multi-million dollar TV/radio broadcast deals, state-of-the-art practice and training facilities, full-time coaches with 7-figure paychecks, full-time recruiters and scouts, now, would they?

    No, they'd be having fun playing on the full-of-divots, dusty, imagine-this-is-where-the-yard-markers-are fields when they could cadge some time from the girls' softball team, and be lucky to get a frat-house, dorm-full of spectators to sit on the splinter-y bleachers.

    College football is a business, not a game, kdog, but I guess by the rules of business these days, who cares if something goes wrong as long as it doesn't affect the cash flow, right?  You think Nicholls State went up against Oregon in week 1 for the love of the game?  You think they loved the game so much they were willing to get 66 points laid on them while managing only a measly field goal?

    No, Nicholls went to Oregon because of the big, fat check the school got for it.

    I don't disagree that within the 60 minutes of the game, with each team getting a chance to run 50 or more plays, any one of them can be the difference between winning and losing.  I don't think you'll find any player who can't or won't accept responsibility for bad play, but asking them to take responsibility for bad officiating is a bridge just a tad too far.


    Take responsibility? (none / 0) (#124)
    by kdog on Tue Sep 17, 2013 at 03:57:34 PM EST
    What are you talking about...all I'm saying is bad calls are part of the game.  No sense crying about it.

    It's big money but it ain't no legit business...it's glorified indentured servitude.  If you wanna talk scandal, lets talk about when we're gonna start paying these kids a percentage of the massive profits.

    PS..I think it's sinful the way small schools take a check to see their students get slaughtered...don't get me started!


    Yes, and these are students (none / 0) (#125)
    by Towanda on Wed Sep 18, 2013 at 12:43:55 AM EST
    so listen to yourself.  Really.  Your argument is more ridiculous with every attempt to extend it.  You are not reading the realities of two bad calls, two years in a row, targeted to the same team.

    And I gather that it is not Pac-10 that you're dismissing as "the beer league" but the Big Ten?

    Arrogant East Coast carp.


    Targeted? (none / 0) (#126)
    by kdog on Wed Sep 18, 2013 at 06:14:01 AM EST
    You think there is an anti-Wisconsin conspiracy?   Allrighty then...I thought I was out there;)

    The beer league is my rec league...the refs may struggle but it ain't on purpose.  I'm not a big college football fan, the exploitation turns me off.



    WTF does your rec league (none / 0) (#127)
    by Towanda on Wed Sep 18, 2013 at 02:50:40 PM EST
    have to do with this discussion, then? I didn't think it could get more ridiculous, but you did it.

    Football is football Towanda... (none / 0) (#128)
    by kdog on Wed Sep 18, 2013 at 02:59:20 PM EST
    if ya don't want the refs to have a chance to make a mistake that may cost you the game, blow the other team out.

    I thought (none / 0) (#80)
    by MKS on Sun Sep 15, 2013 at 09:04:40 PM EST
    he was referring the UN report which will be published next week, and apparently will show that Assad forces gassed their own people.

    The rebels didn't do it.

    But subsequent comments above show another subject was apparently being discussed.

    No subject was being discussed (none / 0) (#95)
    by CoralGables on Mon Sep 16, 2013 at 09:15:49 AM EST
    It was just generic bait cast upon the water to see what would rise to the surface on an otherwise quiet commenting day.

    Take your pick: who used chemical weapons, starting a new war, Summers chosen, et al. It was a week of many commenters full of accusation, conspiracy theory and declarative statements which turned out to be wrong, wrong, and wrong.


    Lots of BS in this thread (none / 0) (#81)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Sep 15, 2013 at 09:05:14 PM EST
    including form me.

    I'm deleting it.