Friday Night Open Thread

I won't catch up on the days' news for a few hours as I'm finalizing a motion I've been working on yesterday and today.

In the meantime, here's an open thread, all topics welcome.

< What's Next for Justin Bieber? | The Grammys >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    From our "Whine and Cheese" file: (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sat Jan 25, 2014 at 02:17:33 PM EST
    In a letter to the Wall Street Journal, venture capitalist Tom Perkins declares himself to be under siege in San Francisco, and further compares liberals to the Nazis on Kristallnacht in November 1938, while no doubt seeing himself and his fellow one-percenters as the rabbis in the synagogue.

    "Writing from the epicenter of progressive thought, San Francisco, I would call attention to the parallels of fascist Nazi Germany to its war on its 'one percent,' namely its Jews, to the progressive war on the American one percent, namely the 'rich.'"

    ¡Oy, caramba!

    I'm thinking the dude needs to MOVE. (none / 0) (#31)
    by nycstray on Sat Jan 25, 2014 at 03:50:13 PM EST
    I was thinking that, too. (none / 0) (#49)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sat Jan 25, 2014 at 08:06:28 PM EST
    Like to Treblinka, Poland.

    Funny, but in the months prior to the U.S. entry into the Second World War, his kind were adamantly opposed to American involvement, and urged the Roosevelt administration to reach some sort of accord with Nazi Germany, because they felt Hitler could not be beaten. Now, they seek to equate themselves with his victims.

    Sad and pathetic.


    Other sources state many opposed U.S. (none / 0) (#53)
    by oculus on Sat Jan 25, 2014 at 08:22:29 PM EST
    Invilvement against Germany because they
    Not want to jeopardize their receiving repayment of Germany's post WW I debts.

    That's true, too. (none / 0) (#54)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sat Jan 25, 2014 at 08:34:16 PM EST
    No one could ever accuse the 1% of letting their humanity stand in the way of making a profit.

    Donald you have no idea whatsoever (none / 0) (#68)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jan 26, 2014 at 07:27:19 AM EST
    about the feelings and beliefs of the writer in regards to pre WWII activities.

    Shame on you for making such outrageous claims.

    You all prove his point.


    Yes, shame on us all.. (none / 0) (#70)
    by jondee on Sun Jan 26, 2014 at 08:30:07 AM EST
    so, basically, it's o.k to compare people on the left to the Nazis but shameful to compare conservatives to the pre-WII isolationists.

    He had actual examples (none / 0) (#121)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jan 27, 2014 at 07:44:40 AM EST
    You offer none.



    There are N0 examples (5.00 / 1) (#131)
    by jondee on Mon Jan 27, 2014 at 09:35:41 AM EST
    of the persecution and suffering of billionaires in this country that justifies the evoking of Kristalnacht.

    A mind that believes that there are is a mind  that'll resort to any cheap, vulgar, rhetorical trick to temporarily gain the upperhand.


    Really, Jim? (none / 0) (#72)
    by Yman on Sun Jan 26, 2014 at 08:42:40 AM EST
    You - of all people - are offended by people interpreting someone's motives, feelings and beliefs?

    Beyond ridiculous ...


    BTW - Another post (none / 0) (#73)
    by Yman on Sun Jan 26, 2014 at 08:46:44 AM EST
    ... where you not only stating the motivations, beliefs and feelings of the writer/speaker, but you are, in fact, making up "quotes".

    There's another word for that ...


    Jesus Krist Yman.... (5.00 / 2) (#84)
    by desertswine on Sun Jan 26, 2014 at 02:05:40 PM EST
    I clicked on your link. Yow..How can you read that stuff?

    Jim tries to play ... (5.00 / 1) (#87)
    by Yman on Sun Jan 26, 2014 at 02:29:44 PM EST
    ... the reasonable, "independent", "social liberal" when he comments here.

    His posts when he feels a little more "at home" give a little peek behind the curtain.


    Every comment re (none / 0) (#120)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jan 27, 2014 at 07:43:33 AM EST
    man made global warming is factual an backed by a link.

    You can't stand truth.


    Which truth? (none / 0) (#123)
    by jondee on Mon Jan 27, 2014 at 08:40:16 AM EST
    that the greenhouse effect is an expression of God's wrath over secularism and the War On Christmas?

    "Backed by a link" - Heh (none / 0) (#183)
    by Yman on Mon Jan 27, 2014 at 06:28:12 PM EST
    Yes - to your own blog, Fox News or some wingnut blog.



    Yman... (none / 0) (#135)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Jan 27, 2014 at 10:34:47 AM EST
    ...you are a better man/woman than I to push beyond the limits of the human mind to carefully read Jim's posts and ensure that his BS is called out appropriately.

    But I have to agree with Jim, those poor persecuted kazillionaires, always bearing the brunt of us peasants, some of who are too poor to feed their families, how do they even find the courage to rise in the morning.  

    Thank god they have people like Jim coming to their aid or they just might be stripped of their ill-gotten wealth and have to live life like the rest of us schmoes...


    Hey, Scott - "league sources" (none / 0) (#136)
    by Anne on Mon Jan 27, 2014 at 10:39:11 AM EST
    are reporting that Gary Kubiak is emerging as the favorite to be Ravens' new offensive coordinator, and they're trying to roll Rick Dennison and Kyle Shanahan into the package.



    I Don't Know... (none / 0) (#147)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Jan 27, 2014 at 01:08:49 PM EST
    ...he's likeable enough and last year, sans a damn close games with the Ravens, I feel like he could have taken us tall the way.  Yeah, the one where Jacobi fluttered a kickoff at like the 5yd line, then next season he's a Raven.

    This year Kubiak just refused to accept reality, Schaub sucks, he kind of made it hard for anyone to really play their hearts out with Schaub throwing pick 6's like Manning throws TD's.  But not sure you can pin a coach with playing a franchise guy, especially QB, but that is his legacy here.  Even though he took us from a scrub expansion team to a contender.

    He was Elways's back-up in Denver and I know how much you love Johnny Elway.  He did get a SB ring as offensive coordinator while in Denver and San Fran I believe.

    I don't think any team would be a miss by having Kubiak and I think without the spotlight of the press he will be a phenomenal offensive coordinator, he has been in the past.  

    It's going to suck to play against him next year, hopefully in the playoffs.  But I would imagine he will get a standing ovation, he is liked that much IMO.  The guy took out a full page ad thanking the fans and the McNair's for affording him the chance to coach here, that is pretty cool in my book.


    What Scott said. (none / 0) (#167)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Jan 27, 2014 at 03:18:36 PM EST
    IMHO, Kubiak is an excellent choice for offensive coordinator, if the Ravens do in fact land him.

    Now, if someone could come up with a wholly inappropriate Nazi analogy for John Elway, preferably one using the terms "Blitzkrieg" and "Stalingrad," it would dovetail perfectly into this sub-thread.



    What everybody else said, Jim. (none / 0) (#98)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sun Jan 26, 2014 at 08:31:43 PM EST
    Have a nice evening.

    You too, Donald (none / 0) (#119)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jan 27, 2014 at 07:42:07 AM EST
    and don't forget to attack and make up some stuff about some dude you hate for his politics.

    (Sigh!) As you wish. (5.00 / 1) (#126)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Jan 27, 2014 at 08:56:46 AM EST
    Please join us next time, boys and girls, as Jim seeks to equate his own sense of persecution with the plight of St. Joan of Arc at her trial for heresy in Rouen, with yours truly in the role of Bishop Cauchon of Beauvais.

    I was born one month later... (none / 0) (#33)
    by fishcamp on Sat Jan 25, 2014 at 04:24:36 PM EST
    A theme party. Perkins (none / 0) (#41)
    by KeysDan on Sat Jan 25, 2014 at 06:10:15 PM EST
    just seems to be catching-up with Blackstone founder, billionaire Steve Schwarzman, who expressed himself on increased taxes for the rich as being.."like when Hitler invaded Poland."

    My maternal grandparents (5.00 / 2) (#89)
    by christinep on Sun Jan 26, 2014 at 02:35:43 PM EST
    immigrated as teenagers from Poland in the early 20th century.  The relatives that they left behind did not fare so well ... especially my grandfather's (jaja) brothers and others who were later lost at Treblinka during WWII.  

    The right-wing's loudmouths often cause me to shake my head and screech/curse/yelp.  But, this latest ignorant comment about Poland and WWII from these right-wing billionaire greedy jerks only engenders disgust overtaken by a retching  sensation. For a sobering review of how oblivious these greedy yahoos are, they could begin with a day-tour in southern Poland of the death-camp at Auschwitz. Then, they could continue with visits throughout the country to learn even just a little about the horrors visited on Poland during the war.


    Agreed. (5.00 / 2) (#91)
    by KeysDan on Sun Jan 26, 2014 at 03:09:01 PM EST
    These thin-skinned, wacko billionaires should, as you say, view first-hand, true horrors such as Auschwitz.  My visit to Dachau, near Munich, while an undergraduate etched a deep and lasting memory-- trivializing historical events of such magnitude is incomprehensible to me.   If these greedy 0.0000l percenters have any historical analogies to ponder, the French Revolution might be instructive.  

    So, too, they might well ponder ... (5.00 / 1) (#102)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sun Jan 26, 2014 at 09:37:49 PM EST
    ... the fate of Imperial Russia's Czar Nicholas II, his wife the Empress Alexandra Federovna, his son and heir the Czarvich Alexis, his four daughters, and the family's remaining coterie of retainers, who in July 1918 all found themselves standing in a dingy basement room in the Ural city of Ekaterinberg expecting evacuation, only to suddenly find themselves facing the business end of a Red Army firing squad.

    My mother and I visited Aushwitz ... (5.00 / 1) (#100)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sun Jan 26, 2014 at 09:15:01 PM EST
    ... and its neighboring death camp site at Treblinka on a side trip, when we were on a trip to Germany, Poland and then-Czechoslovakia not too long after the fall of the Berlin Wall and end of the Cold War. The Spouse and my stepfather both declined to accompany us and remained in Warsaw that day, and they later admitted that they were very sorry that they didn't go with us.

    Walking on hallowed ground to confront the ghastly specter of man's inhumanity to his fellow human beings can often be a particularly searing experience to one's own soul. Suffice to say, that particular day still stands as one of the most sobering of my life. My mother -- who is definitely not one to show public emotion -- had tears in her eyes, when the guide told us at one point that the ground upon which we were trodding was composed primarily of the ashen remains of the camps' victims.

    Nazi Germany was truly a singular and unique horror show in the broad pantheon of world history, and I've shied away from offering modern analogies to that sorrowful time ever since.

    Because if a comparison to the Nazis stands as your pat answer to a question or problem posed to you by someone who subscribes to a differing point of view, then you've not only lost that particular argument, you probably never really had a phuquin' clue in the first place.



    I remember and will never forget (5.00 / 2) (#103)
    by christinep on Sun Jan 26, 2014 at 09:43:06 PM EST
    that day when my cousin Marcia & I walked, staggered through Auschwitz.  No words.

    Much of the left (none / 0) (#79)
    by Mikado Cat on Sun Jan 26, 2014 at 01:08:31 PM EST
    is whining about how terrible it is some people have wealth, which is supposed to have something to do with other people having little. Total nonsense, governments create poverty and keep people locked into it, it has nothing to do with the existence of rich people, other than without a wealthy class many more would be poor and without jobs.

    Rich people make money by providing jobs and services to working people. Only a thin layer on the far lower end of rich make money providing housing and services to the poor, and generally only via some political connections. Its not a path to wealth, just another flavor of political patronage.


    Yeah - THAT makes sense (5.00 / 1) (#88)
    by Yman on Sun Jan 26, 2014 at 02:33:22 PM EST
    Total nonsense, governments create poverty and keep people locked into it

    Which explains why the richest countries on earth have the largest governments and the poorest countries have virtually non-existent governments.



    The parasite (none / 0) (#108)
    by Mikado Cat on Mon Jan 27, 2014 at 01:58:15 AM EST
    is rarely larger than the host.

    THAT'S the best ... (none / 0) (#114)
    by Yman on Mon Jan 27, 2014 at 06:13:52 AM EST
    ... explanation you can come up with for your silly, baseless claim?



    Wealth creation (none / 0) (#149)
    by Mikado Cat on Mon Jan 27, 2014 at 01:26:28 PM EST
    is active, people need to be working and buying things for wealth to increase. Its not like government where politicians can take some from everybody, in the private sector you have to offer something people want and those people have to be able to buy it.

    Paying as low of a wage as possible and selling for the highest possible price is not a crime, its called business, and a free market by its nature sets fair compensation and prices.

    Extreme poverty means the person is NOT part of the market, and that is NOT the fault of business, its firmly on the shoulders of government.


    Are more rightwing ... (none / 0) (#184)
    by Yman on Mon Jan 27, 2014 at 06:31:43 PM EST
    ... talking points supposed to be convincing?

    Maybe to the Ayn Rand crowd.  Over here, we prefer to deal in facts and evidence - which as usual, you fail to offer.


    So the Term... (none / 0) (#138)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Jan 27, 2014 at 11:13:06 AM EST
    ...for wealth going upwards is "making money" and when it flows downwards it's "wealth redistribution" ?

    Sounds flawed to begin with, where do lobbyists and politicians fit into the mix, hint, one group has the resources to fiance them for their own personal gain.

    But it is rich to hear another broke D schmo singing the praises of the people ensuring they remain in that state.

    FYI, A report came out Friday stating that 85 people have the exact same wealth as half the poorest population of the entire globe, some 3,500,000,000.

    Yes, the number of people that could be squeezed into a bus, have the wealth of 3 times the number of people populating all of Africa, plus another half billion.  Yeah, it's those pesky lefties thinking that just might not be right...

    Only in a mental ward at GOP central is that number not shameful beyond belief.  But those 85 need you defending them because surely they have worked harder than 3.5B people to get where they are.


    The wrong thinking (none / 0) (#148)
    by Mikado Cat on Mon Jan 27, 2014 at 01:17:16 PM EST
    is that the poverty of half the world is due to anything other than corrupt governments they live under.

    The idea that the rich impact the wealth of some middle class people has some merit.

    The idea that the rich negatively impact the poverty of most of the world is utter nonsense. They live in poverty because their corrupt governments don't allow the rich to exploit them with jobs that would give them decent in modern standards lifestyles.

    I'm not in favor of destroying every non western culture on the planet turning them into urban workers either.


    Clarification, Please (none / 0) (#156)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Jan 27, 2014 at 02:12:43 PM EST
    I'm not in favor of destroying every non western culture on the planet turning them into urban workers either.

    Which ones do you favor turning into urban workers ?

    So you agree that people of means use government to increase their wealth ?

    The wrong thinking is that the poverty of half the world is due to anything other than corrupt governments they live under.
     You do understand that Americans are in both those classes, the 85 and the 3.5 billion, right ?

    If I had the time, I would find where you specifically called the current regime, aka Obama, corrupt.  I doubt I would have to look very far.

    And you also understand that you aren't rich, right, that you are one of the folks getting screwed over by the very people you are defending, right ?


    Puh-leeeze (5.00 / 2) (#93)
    by Repack Rider on Sun Jan 26, 2014 at 03:16:00 PM EST
    Rich people make money by providing jobs and services to working people.

    Yeah, they're all misunderstood Robin Hoods.


    A lot of people got rich by inheriting it.  A lot more got rich by selling the industrial capacity of the United States, which employed a lot of people, to other countries.  A lot of "employers," such as the Waltons, one of the world's richest families, pay such low wages at Walmart that the taxpayers have to pick up the slack in the form of food stamps and welfare.  These monstrously rich assholes still require a tax subsidy.

    The capital gains tax rate of 15%, down from 40%, means that people whose inherited money makes money for them while they sleep or do drugs or whatever, pay a lower tax rate than people like me who work six days a week.

    Spare me your martyrs.  They don't exist.

    Now project an unmitigated migration of wealth from the middle class to the 1%, which is what we are seeing.  What will be the end result?


    Nobody (none / 0) (#109)
    by Mikado Cat on Mon Jan 27, 2014 at 02:01:25 AM EST
    at Walmart is underpaid, most seem working very near the peak of their ability. Once the next stage of minimum wage kicks in people with better skills will be replacing them, and its doubtful most will find employment elsewhere.

    This is sad if you have any concern for the poor and low skilled.


    Wow. (5.00 / 1) (#130)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Jan 27, 2014 at 09:33:45 AM EST
    Mikado Cat: "Nobody at Walmart is underpaid."

    That sort of demonstrable ignorance is simply breathtaking. Where do you come up with this stuff?


    Shopped at Walmart (none / 0) (#150)
    by Mikado Cat on Mon Jan 27, 2014 at 01:36:29 PM EST
    this week, they are the absolute bottom of the employment chain for low skilled workers. Anyone who can find a better job gets one and leaves.

    Yet Walmart has a steady stream of people applying for jobs, so the pay must be sufficient for the work.

    When minimum wage gets bumped up, Walmart will be able to hire some better people, but I think it is a shame these currently working low skill, work challenged people will be losing their jobs.


    Do you understand why it's called (5.00 / 1) (#155)
    by Anne on Mon Jan 27, 2014 at 01:58:57 PM EST
    a "minimum" wage?  Because your comment suggests you really don't understand the concept.

    It's called a "minimum" wage because it prevents employers from paying less than that to their employees.  What it doesn't do - what it has never done - is prevent employers from paying more than the minimum.

    I don't know that I have ever read such whacked-out theories and opinions on fiscal and economic matters as the ones you regularly offer.


    Not the Only One... (none / 0) (#161)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Jan 27, 2014 at 02:34:09 PM EST
    ...with this non-sense, a lot of it actually sound like communist talk using terms like peak abilities and other such lingo.

    My guess, it's what is making the Fox News circuit to convince people with nothing that all is well in the castle.

    And the fact that MC thinks Walmart workers are "they are the absolute bottom of the employment chain for low skilled workers" is clearly a sign that MC doesn't understand much of anything and that pretty much everything posted is made up and/or a product of his mind.

    Maybe some praise in due, the fact that he actually spends his hard earned millions at a place who only hire unskilled talent (in his mind) is pretty noble.  The alternative is that he's not getting paid enough and is forced to make purchases at a place with the worse(according to MC) the US has to offer in regards to a work force, but that's not right, hard workers we are told are on the top of the food chain, not shopping at Walmart...

    I hate to keep replying to you, but I am not engaging directly if I can help it.


    No, it's fine - I probably shouldn't engage (none / 0) (#164)
    by Anne on Mon Jan 27, 2014 at 02:54:40 PM EST
    either; between MC and PK, it's been like spending the day in Crazy Town.

    Ravens just introduced Kubiak and Dennison, so it's official; guess we'll see what happens next and go from there!


    I Don't Think There Will Be Any... (none / 0) (#166)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Jan 27, 2014 at 03:17:28 PM EST
    ...complaints over Kubiak.  

    Must be your lucky day 2 former Bronco players/coaches in one day.

    If Kubiak is the OC, what is Dennison going to be, assistant ?


    Quarterback coach, I believe. (none / 0) (#169)
    by Anne on Mon Jan 27, 2014 at 03:22:52 PM EST
    Don't really know anything about Dennison - though I'm sure we'll be learning more in the days ahead.

    Will be interesting to see if Kyle Shanahan becomes part of the new staff, as I understand they had been thinking along those lines.


    Word from ESPN has it that ... (none / 0) (#175)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Jan 27, 2014 at 03:55:06 PM EST
    ... the Ravens were talking with Rick Dennison this weekend about the OC position. Makes me wonder if perhaps Dennison recommended during those discussions that they consider Gary Kubiak for the job, with himself as Kubiak's No. 2. If he did, he got them both a great gig.

    Yes, because (none / 0) (#153)
    by jbindc on Mon Jan 27, 2014 at 01:49:02 PM EST
    Anyone who can find a better job gets one and leaves.

    Walmart completely $ucks as a company.  I mean, they make enough so Alice Walton can keep her horses, but everyone else can just deal with it.

    Oh, and since WalMart continually goes into small markets and puts everyone else out of business, it stands to reason that many of their employees can't just "find a better job."


    If, as you say, "Rich people make (5.00 / 1) (#96)
    by Anne on Sun Jan 26, 2014 at 05:06:29 PM EST
    money by providing jobs and services to working people," why don't we have full employment? Better yet, why are wages still stagnant?  How does the average worker improve his or her financial position, when their employers aren't reinvesting their profits in the workforce?

    Never mind - I'm not really interested in your answers, because I know they will be something you've woven together from a collection of right-wing talking points, and won't have any substantive support.

    If you cared to do any reading on the subject, you'd learn that many of the wealthy are getting that way, or growing their wealth, by exploiting those in the trenches laboring at wages that have not grown appreciably in the last five years:

    The job market may be gradually improving, but the gains aren't showing up in worker's paychecks.

    And the resulting belt-tightening continues to weigh on an economy heavily dependent on consumer spending.


    Wage growth hasn't stalled for the very top earners--senior executives and the highest paid worker in finance--who have seen their compensation soar compared to the typical workers, according to data compiled by the Economic Policy Institute.

    According to EPI's analysis, from 1978 to 2011, CEO compensation rose more than 725 percent, while pay for the average worker rose just 5.7 percent. As a result, while a CEO earned roughly 20 times the typical worker in 1965, that gap has exploded in the last 50 years.

    Because wages for the highest earners typically include a big chunk of stock-related compensation, their pay gains are much more sensitive to the financial markets. That's why the gap between CEO pay and the typical worker peaked in 2000, narrowing sharply following the bursting of the dot-com bubble, and then began rising again as the markets recovered. With the collapse of the financial markets in 2008, the gap narrowed again and has begun widening again and the stock market hits new highs.

    Meanwhile, the average worker has seen little or no increase in pay since the Great Recession left 10 percent of the workforce without a steady job.

    Government (none / 0) (#110)
    by Mikado Cat on Mon Jan 27, 2014 at 02:08:14 AM EST
    limits the number of jobs, not the private sector. Governments decide the minimum skill level that can be employed via minimum wage laws, and use regulations to keep job growth low and unemployment tolerable.

    Companies don't set wages, the market of supply and demand set wages and all companies are constrained to closely follow what the market demands.


    Where is your source for the claim (5.00 / 2) (#116)
    by Anne on Mon Jan 27, 2014 at 06:26:54 AM EST
    that "government limits the number of jobs?"

    Oh, wait - that's right: you don't have one, you never do.  

    Which is why you won't be telling us where we can find the government's definition of this "minimum skill level" you say it has, and you won't be able to point us to the report that will tell us what the government's magic jobs number is.

    You won't because you can't - no such material exists, except perhaps in your imagination.

    ::rolling eyes::


    Yes Anne... (5.00 / 1) (#151)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Jan 27, 2014 at 01:38:36 PM EST
    ...if they could simply pay all their employees $1/hr they could hire 7.3 times as many as they currently have which would reduce unemployment while simultaneously increasing their profits, with the added bonus of making ACA obsolete as no one could afford a computer or phone to sign up, much less actually purchase insurance.  

    It would be just like those days Charles Dickinson wrote about, kids working for in factories for 12 hours because the low wages made it a necessity for the family to eat, what the GOP calls the good ole days, every rich man for himself, with no government interference.


    Do you have any concept (none / 0) (#154)
    by Mikado Cat on Mon Jan 27, 2014 at 01:58:56 PM EST
    of what sort of labor you can hire at low wages?

    The idea that hiring very low cost workers will result in making lots of money is total nonsense with no connection to reality.

    Take a trip to the local Home Depot or donut shop where people gather looking for day work and see if somebody will work for $5/hr.

    Its backwards thinking looking for low wage workers, the higher the skill level of the workers you can hire the more profitable it is.


    I have some understanding of business (none / 0) (#152)
    by Mikado Cat on Mon Jan 27, 2014 at 01:46:39 PM EST
    I'm sorry if you don't, and I don't really see how I can educate you away from your handful of leftwing talking points.

    Minimum  wage restricts employment to those who can meet the corresponding minimum work skills.

    Chew on that concept until you understand it.

    Job creation requires someone to take risk with both time and money at starting or expanding a business. Government restricts job creation by increasing the risk, amount of money needed, and reducing the reward from possible success.


    Thanks for Educationg... (5.00 / 4) (#172)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Jan 27, 2014 at 03:36:20 PM EST
    ..."leftwing talking point" with a right wing talking point.  Or rather 'for profit' companies talking points, one in the same I know, but it's worth noting.

    If only the country wasn't held back by big corporations and their rationing of of pay, I mean seriously, you keep using the examples of corporate America run amok.  You certainly don't have respect for anyone working at these places, but you keep preaching how grand is the creator of all these jobs you discount.  And yet, you keep giving them your business, it simply doesn't add up.

    Unless you simple don't care to go to a place who workforce (your words) the lowest available.  If that is the case, that is beyond sad.  You can't spend a dollar or two more to go to Target or Ace Hardware, sounds like your issue might be with your employer not giving you enough to go anyplace other the ones with the least skilled employees in the country(your words).  

    Or your set of skills won't allow that kind of freedom of choice, which one is it ?  Yes, I am making fun of your ridiculous thoughts on the American worker and minimum wage.  But you are an American worker and you clearly shop at the places you believe to have the least skilled workers, that really can only mean one thing in regards to your skill set as it applies using your definitions/beliefs.


    Consumer demand... (5.00 / 2) (#191)
    by unitron on Mon Jan 27, 2014 at 08:54:06 PM EST
    ...or the lack thereof, determines the number of jobs much more than any other factor.

    If everyone's out of work, there's no paycheck.  No paycheck, no consumer demand. No consumer demand, no need to hire anybody to handle meeting that non-existent demand.

    Which is why, when joblessness soars, so should government spending, even if they have to borrow the money, because that puts paychecks in people's hands, which mean they buy groceries, cars and gasoline for getting to work with, school clothes for the kids, and all sorts of other things, which means the companies providing those things hire more people to meet that demand, which means more paychecks, which means even more consumer demand, which means even more jobs created, lather, rinse, repeat.

    And those paychecks mean increased income tax revenue going back to the government to cover the loans that financed the original government spending.

    And we also get new or repaired infrastructure like roads and bridges and such out of that government spending, which makes it easier for business and consumers to get together and make each other happy.


    Oh, Rand Paul (5.00 / 2) (#176)
    by jbindc on Mon Jan 27, 2014 at 04:01:34 PM EST
    Accused Bill Clinton of 'predatory' behavior for the whole Monica Lewinsky mess (never mind that her job was never threatened and she was a willing participant in a "relationship".  This by no means gives him a pass for acting like a complete pig.)

    However, my favorite line:

    "I think, really, the media seems to have given President Clinton a pass on this," Paul said on NBC's "Meet the Press."

    Seriously - was he asleep for all of 1998??

    He's still asleep (none / 0) (#181)
    by Zorba on Mon Jan 27, 2014 at 06:09:47 PM EST

    The other (none / 0) (#189)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Jan 27, 2014 at 07:18:00 PM EST
    day Huckabee was saying that women are not smart enough understand about "Uncle Sugar" and they should not want to be treated like "victims" and here comes Rand now declaring that Monica was a "victim". These people WANT TO LOSE is all I can say.

    RP Was on the National News... (none / 0) (#193)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Jan 28, 2014 at 09:45:12 AM EST
    ...last night and that comment above is really bad when you see it on video.

    What's next, Linda Tripp comparisons with Edward Snowden; there does not seem to be a limit on crazy in Congress these days.


    DOS Attack hits federal courts (none / 0) (#1)
    by Peter G on Fri Jan 24, 2014 at 09:02:28 PM EST
    All federal courts (other than the Supreme Court) we knocked off line for about four hours this afternoon by a Denial of Service cyberattack. Because the sites were entirely inaccessible, rather than hijacked to present the hackers' message, it did not have the appearance of an Anonymous escapade.  Things seem to be up and running again now, however.

    FBI now claims otherwise (none / 0) (#11)
    by Peter G on Fri Jan 24, 2014 at 11:37:26 PM EST
    Saying "technical glitches," not an attack.  Not sure whether to believe that, though.

    lol; Cupidity - or stupidity? (none / 0) (#13)
    by Mr Natural on Sat Jan 25, 2014 at 06:48:53 AM EST
    Congressional aide charged with CP commits suicide (none / 0) (#2)
    by Peter G on Fri Jan 24, 2014 at 09:09:50 PM EST
    The former aide to Senator Lamar Alexander (R.Tenn.), who was charged last month with possession and distribution of child p*rnography, committed suicide Friday by hanging. He was facing a five-year mandatory minimum sentence on the distribution count. No report yet whether he was confronted with the same sort of intransigent prosecutorial posturing that led to Aaron Swartz's suicide almost exactly a year ago.

    Yes, sad and tragic. (none / 0) (#42)
    by KeysDan on Sat Jan 25, 2014 at 06:14:49 PM EST
    A troubled person whose actions  apparently confronted him with such depression that he saw no other options.  

    I don't think I'd compare Aaron Swartz ... (none / 0) (#65)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sun Jan 26, 2014 at 04:56:43 AM EST
    ... with Ryan Loskarn. I understand the valid point you're trying to make here about prosecutorial zealotry, but Swartz was performing a public service by campaigning against government attempts to censor the internet, which otherwise would have placed intolerable burdens on most online content providers. Loskarn's online activities encompassed no such public purpose, given that he was allegedly trafficking in child pornography.



    Not to mention... (5.00 / 1) (#107)
    by unitron on Mon Jan 27, 2014 at 01:04:57 AM EST
    ...that Swartz was unlikely to commit suicide out of embarrassment or shame over what he did and the public knowing about it.

    Question for you, Peter (none / 0) (#188)
    by NYShooter on Mon Jan 27, 2014 at 07:15:08 PM EST
    Does the term, "distribution," as its used here necessarily require a transfer of funds? In other words, if a person "distributed" contraband to his friends, with no money, or reward, involved, would it still be "distribution" for criminal purposes?

    yes (none / 0) (#192)
    by Peter G on Mon Jan 27, 2014 at 11:34:55 PM EST
    Transmission of illicit images would qualify as distribution, even without remuneration. Often happens, in cases involving CP. Images are traded, or they are shared in exchange for access to protected websites or to others' collections. Such cases are routinely prosecuted under the statute calling for a 5-year minimum.

    Currency plunge in Argentina (none / 0) (#3)
    by Politalkix on Fri Jan 24, 2014 at 09:15:37 PM EST
    For yourdowntime entertainment... (none / 0) (#4)
    by desertswine on Fri Jan 24, 2014 at 09:20:43 PM EST
    San Diego lawyer cannot obtain damages (none / 0) (#5)
    by oculus on Fri Jan 24, 2014 at 09:26:07 PM EST
    for libel against Courtney Love for a tweet and subsequent statements:


    Yeah, right. (none / 0) (#6)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri Jan 24, 2014 at 09:40:34 PM EST
    "Love Will Keep Us Together." NOT!

    Actually, enough with the sarcasm. Darryl Dragon, aka "The Captain," apparently has a rather serious case of Parkinson's Disease. And what's further being reported is that according to the divorce papers, there's an issue regarding medical insurance.

    I'm speculating here, but perhaps the insurance coverage ran out for him, so in order to get him qualified for Medicaid (in California, it's called MediCal), Toni Tennille has been advised to divorce her husband.

    It certainly wouldn't be the first time a couple had to legally divorce in order to obtain better health coverage for one of the spouses. But if that indeed is really the case here, how sad that any couple -- celebrity or not -- would feel compelled by circumstances to have to take that step. And that would be yet another argument for single payer.

    Then, again, maybe the long-term stress from being her husband's primary caregiver finally got to her, and after 38 years of marriage Toni Tennille is bailing out. And that would just be sad.


    We have (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by Mikado Cat on Sat Jan 25, 2014 at 09:33:53 AM EST
    a family member in the same sort of situation, and the marriage penalty hits them hard. In dollars its maybe a couple hundred a month, but they don't start with much.

    What needs eliminating are the penalties for marriage or work.


    He should may be eligible for (none / 0) (#7)
    by oculus on Fri Jan 24, 2014 at 09:47:44 PM EST



    He's 71 years old (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by Zorba on Fri Jan 24, 2014 at 10:59:44 PM EST
    He should be on Medicare because of his age.
    But Medicare doesn't cover every single thing.  Many people get supplemental insurance for that reason.  And the supplemental insurance isn't exactly free.  

    Are they broke? (none / 0) (#10)
    by nycstray on Fri Jan 24, 2014 at 11:12:00 PM EST
    My dad had PD, on Medicare with a supplement (which I think was for the drugs) and I don't think the supplement was all that much. I know it's less that what I have to pay . . . :)

    Who knows? (none / 0) (#12)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sat Jan 25, 2014 at 01:44:29 AM EST
    Speculating again, but they may not be entirely broke. Rather, they could be down to hard assets such as their house. Sometimes, divorce is considered necessary in such a situation to prevent a couple from having to sell their home in order to finance one of the partners' medical care. If they transfer the house to her name and divorced, on paper his financial situation might be such that he would be eligible for MediCal.

    It's not unusual for older adults of limited financial means to be on both Medicare and Medicaid, particularly if they need skilled nursing care.



    No, The residence is exempt from (none / 0) (#15)
    by Anne on Sat Jan 25, 2014 at 08:59:28 AM EST
    eligibility calculations, and Medicaid is further prohibited from impoverishing the "community spouse."

    See here:

    The expense of nursing home care -- which ranges from $5,000 to $8,000 a month or more -- can rapidly deplete the lifetime savings of elderly couples. In 1988, Congress enacted provisions to prevent what has come to be called "spousal impoverishment," leaving the spouse who is still living at home in the community with little or no income or resources. These provisions help ensure that this situation will not occur and that community spouses are able to live out their lives with independence and dignity.

    Under the Medicaid spousal impoverishment provisions, a certain amount of the couple's combined resources is protected for the spouse living in the community. Depending on how much of his or her own income the community spouse actually has, a certain amount of income belonging to the spouse in the institution can also be set aside for the community spouse's use.

    Following is the minimum and maximum amount of resources and income that can be protected for a spouse in the community in 2014


    It's not exactly the high life, but here are the 2014 spousal impoverishment levels.

    There are similar rules in the case of a spouse receiving home care.

    With respect to the residence:

    State Medicaid programs must recover certain Medicaid benefits paid on behalf of a Medicaid enrollee. For individuals age 55 or older, states are required to seek recovery of payments from the individual's estate for nursing facility services, home and community-based services, and related hospital and prescription drug services. States have the option to recover payments for all other Medicaid services provided to these individuals, except Medicare cost-sharing paid on behalf of Medicare Savings Program beneficiaries.

    Under certain conditions, money remaining in a trust after a Medicaid enrollee has passed away may be used to reimburse Medicaid. States may not recover from the estate of a deceased Medicaid enrollee who is survived by a spouse, child under age 21, or blind or disabled child of any age. States are also required to establish procedures for waiving estate recovery when recovery would cause an undue hardship.

    States may impose liens for Medicaid benefits incorrectly paid pursuant to a court judgment. States may also impose liens on real property during the lifetime of a Medicaid enrollee who is permanently institutionalized, except when one of the following individuals resides in the home: the spouse, child under age 21, blind or disabled child of any age, or sibling who has an equity interest in the home. The states must remove the lien when the Medicaid enrollee is discharged from the facility and returns home.

    Also, with respect to qualifying for Medicaid to cover the cost of institutional care, Medicaid has a "look-back" period, which I believe is now five years.  When you apply for Medicaid, they "look back" during that period to determine whether you have transferred or gifted assets in order to reach eligibility levels.  If your financial records indicate that you've been doing this, there is a formula by which they calculate how many months going forward your eligibility will be delayed.

    No one should embark on Medicaid "planning" without seeking legal advice, because it's too easy to think you're doing the right things, and crushing to find out - when it's too late to do anything about it - that it didn't work.


    Thank you for the clarification, Anne. (none / 0) (#23)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sat Jan 25, 2014 at 11:20:22 AM EST
    I wonder what medical insurance issues are afflicting the two, that it would be listed in the divorce papers.

    Or perhaps Ms. Tennille found a boy toy. And if that's the case -- "You go, Auntie!"


    I knew that marriage wouldn't last. (none / 0) (#25)
    by desertswine on Sat Jan 25, 2014 at 11:56:16 AM EST
    For once I'm right.

    Yes, you were. (none / 0) (#28)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sat Jan 25, 2014 at 12:43:03 PM EST
    And further, I'm sure everyone in the Class of '76 will recall you telling them so at the Junior Prom.



    The state will place a lien on the home (none / 0) (#67)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jan 26, 2014 at 07:20:43 AM EST
    equal to the cost associated with the care...skilled nursing facility, drugs, hospital, doctor,etc.

    The care giver can remain in the home after the death of the client until they move or die. They cam also purchase the home by paying off the loan.

    The property can be transferred to the care giver, or anyone else, at least 5 years in advance of going on Medicaid.

    All of this varies from state to state.

    What I have written is just a general overview.
    Consult an attorney specializing in the field.


    A decent supplemental (none / 0) (#66)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jan 26, 2014 at 07:07:45 AM EST
    at age 71 will run around $400.00/month. Drug coverage would be separate.

    And Obamacare (none / 0) (#8)
    by nycstray on Fri Jan 24, 2014 at 10:53:44 PM EST
    let's you sign up with preexisting conditions . . .

    AN AXE LENGTH AWAY, vol. 258 (none / 0) (#14)
    by Dadler on Sat Jan 25, 2014 at 08:51:29 AM EST
    Vladimir forgot about women's hockey. (link)

    v. 257
    v. 256
    v. 255

    Have a good Saturday, peeps. I'll be trying not to think about how careless and inept our corporate healthcare provider is being with my family right now, and how incomparably infuriating it is. Sigh...

    Angie painting AP copyright violation? (none / 0) (#17)
    by Mikado Cat on Sat Jan 25, 2014 at 09:40:15 AM EST
    AP sent GZ a cease and desist order regarding selling his Angie painting claiming copyright. Seems like I recall a discussion of a similar photo sourced image used against the copyright holders wishes in a political campaign for Tshirts on VC and it was found to be reasonable use for a substantially different purpose than the copyright holder. (Something like that, searched and didn't find the case yet).

    The great Jeff Koons (none / 0) (#18)
    by jondee on Sat Jan 25, 2014 at 10:00:41 AM EST
    (roll over Caravaggio and tell Rembrandt the news)
    was involved in a similar case not all that long ago.

    He lost the case of the puppies (none / 0) (#27)
    by ZtoA on Sat Jan 25, 2014 at 12:37:49 PM EST
    OTOH he sent a cease and desist letter to a small Canadian company and SF gallery for producing and selling bookends that looks a little like Koons' balloon dog series. They are dull colors and not primary colors and have no details, but the joke is obvious.

    I bought one of the bookends (seemed like one was the right choice) and it came with a copy of "Notice of Infringement re: Balloon Dog Bookend Product". I saw a small notice in the NYT about the gallery's response which reads as "as virtually any clown can attest, no one owns the idea of making a balloon dog, and the shape created by twisting a balloon into a dog-like form is part of the public domain. Any similarities between the Balloon Dog Bookend compared with the Balloon Dog Structure are driven by the wholly unprotectable idea of depicting the shape of a balloon dog in a solid form."


    Let him know (none / 0) (#19)
    by Yman on Sat Jan 25, 2014 at 10:07:23 AM EST
    Maybe he'll rely on your memories and sell it anyway.

    Remember the Barack Obama "Hope" poster case?  After the judge indicated it was likely the AP would win that case, the AP got a settlement for 1.6 million in that case.


    $1.6M Settlement? (none / 0) (#22)
    by squeaky on Sat Jan 25, 2014 at 11:13:34 AM EST
    I don't think so..
    In settling the civil lawsuit, "The A.P. and Mr. Fairey have agreed that neither side surrenders its view of the law," The A.P. said in a statement on Wednesday. "Mr. Fairey has agreed that he will not use another A.P. photo in his work without obtaining a license from The A.P. The two sides have also agreed to work together going forward with the `Hope' image and share the rights to make the posters and merchandise bearing the `Hope' image and to collaborate on a series of images that Fairey will create based on A.P. photographs." The statement added that the two sides had agreed to "financial terms that will remain confidential."....

    A separate copyright infringement lawsuit against Obey Clothing, which makes T-shirts and other apparel with the `Hope' image, has not been settled and remains in court, The A.P. said...


    AP v Obey Clothing:

    The Associated Press and Obey Clothing, an apparel company and exclusive licensee of Shepard Fairey, have agreed to settle their high-profile copyright infringement lawsuit over Obey Clothing's sale and distribution of apparel and other merchandise bearing the image of Barack Obama in the 2008 Obama Hope poster. Pursuant to that agreement, the AP and Obey Clothing will collaborate to create and sell apparel using Shepard Fairey's graphics based on photographs owned by the AP. Obey Clothing has further agreed that it will not use another AP photo without obtaining a license from the AP. The parties agree that neither side surrenders its view of the law. Additional financial terms remain confidential. The settlement also amicably resolves claims that the AP filed last week against three retailers who sold T-shirts and other apparel distributed by Obey Clothing.

    And my guess, had the case gone to trial, and had not Fairey lied...  Fair use would have prevailed..

    On October 16, 2009, Fairey admitted that he had based the poster on the AP photograph and had fabricated and destroyed evidence to hide the fact.[34] Fairey's admission came after one of his employees informed Fairey that he had discovered damning documents on an old hard drive. Realizing that these documents would expose his cover-up attempt, Fairey chose to come clean to his attorney.[8]



    I think so (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by Yman on Sat Jan 25, 2014 at 11:41:08 AM EST
    In fact, I know so.  Glad your link says the terms were supposed to remain confidential, but if you bothered to read mine you would see they didn't:

    Claims between the news agency and Fairey were settled in 2011, with Fairey agreeing to pay the AP $1.6 million.

    Here's another link.

    Turns out, the terms of their civil settlement were disclosed in government court filings during Fairey's criminal case.

    The government outlined in its court papers that the deal required Fairey to pay the AP $1.6 million, with an insurance company contributing about $450,000 of that amount.

    As far as your "guess" as to whether the Fairey would have prevailed if he hadn't lied and if it had gone to trial, ... that's nice.  OTOH - I'm guessing the judge is just a tad more conversant about copyright law and the facts of the case.

    A judge urged Friday that a copyright dispute between an artist and The Associated Press over the Barack Obama "HOPE" image be settled quickly, saying it was likely the AP would win the case.

    Googled and found (none / 0) (#80)
    by Mikado Cat on Sun Jan 26, 2014 at 01:21:07 PM EST
    Case of Mayor in WI and satirical image.

    Tshirt company lifted a campaign image of Paul Soglin, mayor of Madison, Wisconsin, gave this same high contrast image treatment and put on a satirical comment, and it was ruled fair use and I think something like $50 going one way or the other.


    Let him know (none / 0) (#82)
    by Yman on Sun Jan 26, 2014 at 01:51:50 PM EST
    Apart from any factual differences between the cases, maybe GZ will take a chance.

    OTOH, if he makes any substantial amount of money (as he allegedly did on his first "painting") it may hurt his case:

    But, noting that the companies in this case did not generate much money from the t-shirt sales ($1,350), Simmons said:

    "The big caveat is that if someone making a t-shirt criticising a political figure is making a lot of money, that is likely be a tougher case, as they're more clearly eating into the market of the person who owns the image."

    Personally, I'm kind'uv hoping he goes for it.


    Tsar Vladimir and the Kossacks (none / 0) (#20)
    by Politalkix on Sat Jan 25, 2014 at 10:29:01 AM EST

    is on the political menu at Sochi with a side dish of Pat Buchanan. link

    President Obama's selection (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by KeysDan on Sat Jan 25, 2014 at 04:40:06 PM EST
    for the US Delegation to the Olympics, as well as his decision not to attend (nor send V.P. Biden) was pitch-perfect.   Of course, we know that Pat Buchanan and his ilk are livid what with that "side dish" being sidelined.   Putin's anti-gay laws provide, domestically, a distraction from his policies and help with his base, particularly gaining the support of the Russian Orthodox Church.  Globally, Putin offers what he can, a backward look capitalizing on that old time religion--counting on gathering and marshaling backlash to modernity.  Hence, new adherents such as LePen and, even a has-been like Buchanan.

    With their historically tumultuous political and military relationships and the literary imagination of Puskin's 'Ode to Liberty', and the mystical 'Cossacks" of Tolstoy, the warrior class of the Cossacks present a visible sign of security precautions.  The less visible security, as shown to the Russians by the FBI, in preparation for the Super Bowl XLVI in Indianapolis, is likely the security mainstay.  President Obama, has also offered security assistance, including US military ships in the Black Sea, and other precautions for evacuation of US citizens, should that become necessary.  


    You cannot make ths one up (none / 0) (#21)
    by Politalkix on Sat Jan 25, 2014 at 10:37:00 AM EST
    Name of Goldman banker running for GOP nomination for Governor in California is "Cash Carry".

    That is not how his last name is pronounced. (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by vml68 on Sat Jan 25, 2014 at 12:26:38 PM EST
    It is an Indian last name. The Kush sounds like "hush" and the kari sounds like "aahree".

    Well (2.00 / 1) (#32)
    by Politalkix on Sat Jan 25, 2014 at 04:19:15 PM EST
    he should correct people if they are mispronouncing his name, shouldn't he?




    The first part of his name is spelt "kash" and not "kush". Nobody is also pronouncing the second part of his name as "aahree". The pronunciation of the second part of his name seems to be somewhere between carrie (underwood) and curry. Is curry also pronounced "aahree"?


    Perhaps you should also bust his chops (5.00 / 4) (#35)
    by nycstray on Sat Jan 25, 2014 at 04:56:15 PM EST
    for spelling his first name wrong . . .

    Yes, he should correct them. (5.00 / 4) (#36)
    by vml68 on Sat Jan 25, 2014 at 05:11:09 PM EST
    But, having seen first hand how many times my husband, friends, relatives, etc., try to get people to pronounce their names correctly, only to have it repeatedly butchered, I won't fault him for not doing so. After a while, people tend to give up or they anglicize their name.

    You linked to 3 americans pronouncing his name? 2 of whom stumbled while saying his last name? Seriously?
    Even the way I "sounded" it out is not entirely accurate.
    Yes, the first part of his name is spelled "Kash" not  "Kush", I wrote it the way it is supposed to sound.  As for the "aahree" that is how the "ari" part sounds.

    It does not bother me when most people have trouble pronouncing foreign/unfamiliar names. But, I despise people like you who do it so you can mock someone.

    I guess you get your jollies by making fun of ethnic names. Your Lord and Savior Barack Obama being the exception.


    What? (none / 0) (#39)
    by Politalkix on Sat Jan 25, 2014 at 05:50:52 PM EST
    Who is mocking "ethnic names"? You are imagining things that are certainly not true (and not for the first time).

    The Democratic congressmen that are "mocking" him in a link that I posted are doing so because of his role in the bank bailouts and not because of his "ethnic name". FYI, I do not consider Barack Obama's name to be "ethnic", nor names like Neil Kashkari or Kamala Harris or Sanjay Gupta or Steven Chu or Goodwin Liu or Christian Amanpour, etc. These names sound as American to me as names like Hillary Clinton or George Bush or Sarah Palin or Mitt Romney or Dennis Kuchinich or John Smith. People I am aware of that find certain names "ethnic" often subscribe to "birtherism"- it is really surprising that you have accommodated similar thought processes as these people.

    I tried looking for a link where Neil Kashkari pronounced his own name but did not find one. If you have one available, please post it.


    Are you serious? (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sat Jan 25, 2014 at 08:36:35 PM EST
    You don't consider your calling him "Cash Carry" to be a mockery of his name? And now you're saying that it was a "joke"?



    Why don't you answer this (none / 0) (#57)
    by Politalkix on Sat Jan 25, 2014 at 08:59:55 PM EST
    You don't consider "Obambi" to be a mockery of the President's last name? or

    You don't consider "RMoney" to be a mockery of the Governor's last name?

    "Obambi" and "Obummer" have been used in this blog without an iota of protest. Where were you at that time?


    Is that what you're saying, really -- that if others do it, it's okay for you to do it, too? Or am I going to awaken shortly and realize that everything was just a dream, and we're actually all still in the fifth grade?

    Okay, it's pretty apparent that you're passionate about your politics, and speaking in my capacity as a Democratic Party state official, I think that's a good thing. That said, this sort of stuff really doesn't help.

    More to the point, were you working for me on someone's campaign and you did this to our opponent, we'd soon be on the defensive because the media and GOP would be all over our posteriors, the candidate him/herself would have to issue a disclaimer and an apology, and I'd terminate you so fast that you'd be lucky to not catch cold in the draft as you're tossed out the door.

    Further, I'd be sure that other campaigns would know that you're a loose cannon. We don't win elections by accidentally setting our own house ablaze.

    So, if you're going to speak in support of Democratic candidates, I'd like to request in my aforementioned capacity that you please learn to temper your remarks, and refrain from prompting discussions about an opposing candidate's gender, race and ethnicity, even in jest.

    Mahalo nui loa, e Aloha.


    Donald (none / 0) (#61)
    by Politalkix on Sat Jan 25, 2014 at 11:21:28 PM EST
    Please calm down. What I did was a word play on his name, I did not touch the candidates "ethnicity", "gender" or "race".
    vml8 did that by informing us that it was an Indian-American name. Please go and check the thread, once again.

    Well known candidates have made jokes about people's ethnicities that went well beyond word plays on people's names. Here is one example. The Republicans jumped on it. A quick google search also indicated that the Democratic Party did not set their "house ablaze" after HRC made the Gandhi joke, Biden made the Dunkin Donut comment and some staffers in BHO's campaign sent out the "Punjab memo". It is quite likely that people who actually vote understand contexts and intents of campaigns better than politicians and staffers give them credit for. AFAIK, Indian-Americans and Asian Americans in general vote resoundingly for Democratic candidates because of the party's policies.

    Here are 2 Indian-American comedians who were sent by HRC's state dept on an official diplomatic tour to India. They are laughing about how their names get mispronounced in America. link It is quote possible that these comedians and the audiences in front of whom they perform stand-up comedy have a better understanding of "sensitivities" than the "jury" in this blog.

    I have no interest in discussing this subject any more.


    Then please, by all means, ... (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sun Jan 26, 2014 at 04:04:10 AM EST
    ... cease belaboring the issue. You mocked a California GOP gubernatorial candidate's ethnicity and heritage by making fun of his surname, and you seem totally unable to comprehend the fact that I and several others here found your lame attempt at humor to be offensive.

    Good night.


    Here's what really happened, Donald: (none / 0) (#71)
    by Anne on Sun Jan 26, 2014 at 08:31:23 AM EST
    PK thought that since there is no love here for anyone associated with Goldman Sachs and the rest of the financial community that took the economy off the rails, his "joke" about Kashkari would be met with approval, not disdain.

    His feelings were hurt that no one joined in his snickering.

    And instead of just admitting that he had a brain fart (I mean, we've all had those moments, haven't we?), and doing a mea culpa ("hey, sorry - it wasn't my intention to demean his ethnicity, but to highlight the irony of what his name sounds like and what the Gang at Goldman did to the economy), he decided to dig himself into a big ol' hole.

    It wasn't the first time, and I'm pretty sure it won't be the last.


    You people do like to stretch out (none / 0) (#74)
    by jondee on Sun Jan 26, 2014 at 08:51:59 AM EST
    a relatively petty disagreement like salt water taffy..

    And to think: I was going to compare D'Souza to Rikki-Tikki-Tavi..


    C'mon then! Do it! (none / 0) (#94)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sun Jan 26, 2014 at 03:19:51 PM EST
    jondee: "And to think: I was going to compare D'Souza to Rikki-Tikki-Tavi."

    I double-dare ya!



    I'm glad I didn't (none / 0) (#129)
    by jondee on Mon Jan 27, 2014 at 09:16:19 AM EST
    I hate when I do things like that.

    At least you didn't offer to ... (none / 0) (#133)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Jan 27, 2014 at 09:43:06 AM EST
    ... compare D'Souza's plight with that of the Jews on Kristallnacht. One sub-thread on Nazi analogies is probably enough.

    Have a wonderful and blessed day, wherever you may be. :-)


    And you as well, my friend. (none / 0) (#134)
    by jondee on Mon Jan 27, 2014 at 10:13:49 AM EST
    You know something (none / 0) (#76)
    by Politalkix on Sun Jan 26, 2014 at 09:06:27 AM EST
    A quick internet search using search words "Kashkari" and "CashCarry" brought up this article from the Times of India. It seems that the CashCarry joke has been around for a while (atleast since the bank bailout days). If the Times of India (a newspaper from India) thinks "CashCarry" is a "wiseacre" quip but does not see it as an attack on a candidate's "ethnicity", it makes no sense to me why some of you are so hell bent on giving this quip an ethnic angle. Here is a link to the ToI article. If I say something like "Jeralyn's argument has some/no merit (word play on Merritt), are you also going to say that my quip has something to do with gender, race, ethnicity, etc?

    I have decided to cut down my engagement in this blog in the future. I am just tired of people making mountains out of mole hills, all the time. As I said before, I would really like to end this discussion about the GOP candidate.

    From the TOI article
    When Neel Kashkari was drafted by the Bush administration in 2008 to oversee the massive bailout program following the mortgage meltdown, an online wiseacre quipped: "Seriously? The guy overseeing the $700 billion is named 'CashCarry'?"


    There was no discussion about (5.00 / 1) (#77)
    by Anne on Sun Jan 26, 2014 at 09:39:55 AM EST
    the GOP candidate; there could have been, if you'd not started with your "can't make this stuff up" lead-in and instead brought up some substantive reasons why Kashkari shouldn't be the next governor of California.

    The efforts you've made to defend yourself are almost as gob-smacking as the arguments you chose to do it; if what you want are substantive discussions, it helps to bring substance to the table, not, as in this case, a lame play on someone's name.

    The worst argument of all is the one where you keep giving us examples of others making the same lame joke as justification for why it's okay for you to do it.  The bottom line here is that it was obvious from the get-go that no one found it funny, and yet you persisted in trying to defend it.  

    Or maybe that was an actual strategy for avoiding answering the question of why Obama kept Kashkari on in his administration, because if the discussion hadn't gone off the rails because of your "joke," I'm pretty sure the arguments you'd have brought to the table on that issue would have sent all the cars tumbling.


    (Sigh!) 24 hours later, Anne, and ... (5.00 / 1) (#90)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sun Jan 26, 2014 at 03:03:32 PM EST
    ... he's STILL belaboring a long-since-moot point.

    I'll have to concede to PK a few points for sheer determination, doggedly digging through his own self-produced pile of manure like that, because he's absolutely convinced himself that a pony's to be found somewhere in there.



    Link (none / 0) (#63)
    by Politalkix on Sun Jan 26, 2014 at 12:10:49 AM EST

    This is what happens when people do not take themselves so seriously, as is the norm here. They get sent by the State Department to build ties with countries and communities.


    So...when are you leaving for India? (3.67 / 3) (#75)
    by Anne on Sun Jan 26, 2014 at 08:55:50 AM EST
    Given the depth of the hole you've dug yourself into, though, maybe you're already on your way!

    What, so now you're an expert in (5.00 / 4) (#37)
    by Anne on Sat Jan 25, 2014 at 05:28:31 PM EST
    deciding how other people's names should be pronounced?  Jesus.  There's no shortage of things about Kashkari you could ridicule, but you're going to insist his name is pronounced "Cash-Carry" because, why?  The "joke" doesn't work otherwise?

    Now I don't feel so bad about mentally pronouncing your screen name as Polital-"dick."


    Whatever (none / 0) (#43)
    by Politalkix on Sat Jan 25, 2014 at 06:22:58 PM EST
    The Cash-Cahree joke works as well as jokes concerning Hahvahd or New Joisey. People know what I am talking about. Too bad you do not see it that way because of your need to start some stupid fight with me. Grow up!

    Seriously? (5.00 / 2) (#40)
    by Yman on Sat Jan 25, 2014 at 06:07:38 PM EST
    Nobody is also pronouncing the second part of his name as "aahree". The pronunciation of the second part of his name seems to be somewhere between carrie (underwood) and curry. Is curry also pronounced "aahree"?

    Actually, they are pronouncing the second part of his name "ahree":

    Link 1

    Link 2

    Link 3

    Link 4

    Link 5

    But you might be right ... "curry", spelled with a "u" (as opposed to say, "Kashkari"), is not pronounced "ahree".

    Oyyy ...


    It's clear to me that his name (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by Anne on Sat Jan 25, 2014 at 06:28:01 PM EST
    is being pronounced "Kahsh-kah-ree," but the jokes don't work as well when it's pronounced correctly.

    The real "joke" is that Obama apparently thought enough of the guy to retain him in his administration; another example of that stellar Obama judgment.

    Now I await the defense of Neel Kashkari, because nobody puts Baby - I mean, Barack - in a corner...


    You are losing it! (none / 0) (#45)
    by Politalkix on Sat Jan 25, 2014 at 06:34:28 PM EST
    Now you have become an expert on what jokes work and what do not and what a "real joke" should be!

    Don't quit your day job. (none / 0) (#46)
    by Anne on Sat Jan 25, 2014 at 07:45:29 PM EST

    Please stop doubling down on stupid. (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sat Jan 25, 2014 at 08:13:18 PM EST
    Politicalkix: "Well he should correct people if they are mispronouncing his name, shouldn't he?"

    All you're proving here is that as much as we like to think otherwise of late, Republicans have hardly cornered the market on racial and ethnic insensitivity. The guy's politics is fair game. His ethnicity is not.



    That is your opinion (1.00 / 1) (#56)
    by Politalkix on Sat Jan 25, 2014 at 08:43:26 PM EST
    I doubt if that guy thought that "Republicans have cornered the market on racial and ethnic insensitivity", he would have run as a Republican candidate.

    I did not hear any voice of protest from the people, protesting now, when Obama was called "Obambi" or Barry in this blog. Did that reek of "racial and ethnic insensitivity" to you also?

    John McCain was called John McCain't (from "No, he can't) and Mitt Romney was called Mitt Rmoney because of his enormous wealth. Was calling Romney, "RMoney" an attack on Mormonism? It does not get more stupid than this!

    Calling Kashkari, "Cash-Carry" does not show any more "insensitivity" than calling Obama, "Obambi" or Romney "Rmoney" or McCain, "McCain't".

    Please do not double down on stupid!


    Grow up. (5.00 / 2) (#60)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sat Jan 25, 2014 at 10:14:55 PM EST
    You blatantly mocked the man's ethnicity. Period.

    It doesn't matter at all what YOU think you did. Rather, it's about the reaction you provoked here, and what others around you think you did. And judging by the feedback you've gotten in this thread, the jury's verdict is in.

    Stop making excuses for it, and further insisting that everyone here is out of step save for you.



    Although I don't generally approve... (5.00 / 1) (#95)
    by unitron on Sun Jan 26, 2014 at 04:09:11 PM EST
    ...of lampooning someone's name*, the "lampoonability" is generally a matter of chance rather than a direct result of its ethnic origin, and if the guy worked for CNBC they'd probably have exploited it for a show title, like CNN's "Romans' Numeral" with Christine Romans, so I wouldn't be in a hurry to ascribe a desire to mock ethnicity as the motive here.

    In a post-prejudice society, all are free to be mocked for themselves rather than race, creed, color, or sexual orientation.  : - )

    *which puts me in the position of even having to forgo calling W "shrub".


    If you can make fun of yourself, that's fine. (5.00 / 1) (#99)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sun Jan 26, 2014 at 08:43:16 PM EST
    I find self-deprecation to be a rather admirable quality in a person. But it's simply not cool for you as an adult to mock another someone else's ethnicity or race, regardless of context or rationale, just because you happen to think his name sounds funny. That's the stuff of grade school playgrounds at recess.

    I kept my first comment to Politalkix as neutral (5.00 / 2) (#101)
    by vml68 on Sun Jan 26, 2014 at 09:29:31 PM EST
    as possible because I assumed he/she was unaware of the ethnicity of the name and how it is pronounced.  I gave him the benefit of the doubt.

    As an Indian, I have heard my fair share of seven eleven and cash n carry jokes. A few are funny and I will admit, I laughed when I heard them. But, most of them are not funny or are really lame. Plus, it is a very annoying stereotype. Politalkix's "joke" felt like more of the same.

    Like Anne said, Politalkix should have focused on Kashkari's actions rather than his name.


    Well, it WAS more of the same. (none / 0) (#104)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sun Jan 26, 2014 at 09:55:48 PM EST
    And he rightfully got called out for the perhaps unintentional diminution of Neel Kashkari's innate humanity -- and by extension, your own as well. I found it mean-spirited and hurtful.

    Vml68 (none / 0) (#105)
    by Politalkix on Sun Jan 26, 2014 at 10:42:35 PM EST
    My original comment was a play on words, I did not have "ethnicity" in my mind at all.

    However, since you brought up the "ethnicity", issue let us address it. You have mentioned that you are an "Indian". Kashkari is not Indian, he is an American. He has "Indian-American heritage" and the issue of "Indian-American heritage" means different things for different people.

    Do you think you are qualified as an "Indian" to speak on behalf of all "Indians" or "Indian- Americans"? You supported Zorba shooting Bambi in her yard a few months ago in a way that an Indian-American, vegetarian friend of mine would find deeply offensive. I can tell you right away that some fleeting opinions that you have expressed on issues relating to India would seem "annoying stereotypes" to my friend.

    Are you Hindu, Sikh, Christian, Buddhist,  Muslim, atheist?  What language do you speak? It seems Kashkari's family has Hindu-Kashmir "ethnicity"? Do you have the same ethnicity that allows you to speak as an expert on ethnicity?

    I discussed the "CashCarry" joke with an Indian-American friend of mine, today. She started to laugh. She said that if Americans are making "banker jokes" instead of gas station or dunkin donut jokes about Indian-American's, the community has come a long way. Her attitude was very different from yours.

    What right does Anne or Donald have to decide what jokes are allowable. I think both of them are tone deaf on issues relating to ethnicities. Based on what they write, I am doubtful whether they even have any Indian-American friends. I think Donald had written something about Rep Tulsi Gabbard a few years ago, that many Hindu-Americans would find cringeworthy.

    I have repeatedly said that my quip was a play on words. Some of you are hell bent on inserting "ethnicity" into a quip when your own records on sensitivity on this subject is less than stellar.


    Wow. You just really don't know when to (5.00 / 3) (#106)
    by nycstray on Sun Jan 26, 2014 at 11:56:19 PM EST
    STFU do you?

    Yep. (5.00 / 1) (#127)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Jan 27, 2014 at 09:01:40 AM EST
    His defense is going on 48 hours now. I should probably make some more popcorn.

    I'm sure somewhere, at some time, there (5.00 / 2) (#118)
    by Anne on Mon Jan 27, 2014 at 07:01:22 AM EST
    is or was someone trying to convince a group of people that his or her use of the "N" word is just a play on words, and has nothing to do with race.  And that those who object are tone deaf, or maybe don't have any friends of color.  It's everyone else's failing, and look - here's an actual African-American saying the same thing!  It must be okay then, right?

    Do you not see how that argument fails? Really?

    I guess what has me shaking my head is how you've tried so hard to turn this thing around and make it about those objecting to your "joke" and/or calling you out on the endless river of BS you've been spewing ever since.  

    I'd point you to what happened the other day when Dadler used the word "retarded."  When the capstan called him out on it, he apologized.  He didn't try to make it the capstan's problem, didn't provide links to other people using the word as proof that it was okay to say it, didn't trot out any developmentally-challenged friends to prove he wasn't wrong, or try to claim that the capstan - and anyone else who weighed in - was a hypocrite.  

    Dadler's response marked him as someone who cares about the feelings of others; yours marked you as someone who only cares about himself.  


    It is 48 hrs (5.00 / 1) (#140)
    by Politalkix on Mon Jan 27, 2014 at 11:31:42 AM EST
    and the pomposity of Anne and Donald are showing no signs of abating.

    The fact that anyone can self-appoint themselves as judge, jury and executioner on every issue related to race, ethnicity, gender, etc is ridiculous in itself. Their expectation that everyone will accept this self appointment is hilarious.

    An AA poster, ABG, was hectored and hounded by Anne and her friends (including vml68)when he posted here. None of them are AAs (and ABG is), yet that never prevented them from lecturing ABG on how he should interpret issues involving racial insensitivities.

    These same people have shown their blind spots on numerous other issues involving religious, ethnic and racial issues. I gave some examples in a previous post. Their pomposity notwithstanding, their judgements on the mentioned issues are very suspect.

    Even though my comment was a simple play on words without any thought given to the ethnicity (of which I was not even aware of) of the candidate, I will definitely reconsider my views, if the Kashkari campaign finds "CashCarry" jokes to be "ethnically" insensitive. However, I have no intention of ever letting self appointed interpreters that do not even belong to Kashkari's Hindu-Kashmir-Indian American heritage determine for me what is "ethnically insensitive". They can go and pound sand.


    Oh, my...you have completely lost it. (5.00 / 1) (#143)
    by Anne on Mon Jan 27, 2014 at 11:59:04 AM EST
    Completely.  What a sad collection of excuses, accusations and convoluted logic - been working on that for a while, have you?

    How (how) are (are) things (things) down (down)  there (there) in (in) that (that) hole (hole)?  Oooh, not good - there's an echo...

    But, I guess there is some good news: you're finally making people laugh.


    While PK continues the re-enact ... (5.00 / 1) (#171)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Jan 27, 2014 at 03:35:50 PM EST
    ... the rhetorical equivalent of Pickett's Charge, does anyone else here have any dead horses lying about that need a beating? PK's should be just about flattened out by now, and I suspect that he'll be wanting another rather shortly.

    Funny... (none / 0) (#145)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Jan 27, 2014 at 12:33:31 PM EST
    ...don't forget the part about knowing why ABG left, apparently it wasn't the reason he stated several times, it was you and Politalkix knows and is stating it as fact, never mind what ABG actually posted or the reason he actually stated many times.

    Which makes Politalkix's post even funnier, yet very sad, when you consider exactly where he went to in a discussion about race...


    Pompous? Nous? (5.00 / 2) (#177)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Jan 27, 2014 at 04:02:31 PM EST
    Nous ne sommes pas amusés par telle impertinence grossière!

    You are having way too much fun (none / 0) (#179)
    by vml68 on Mon Jan 27, 2014 at 04:29:02 PM EST
    with this... :-)!

    At this point, I'm reminded of ... (none / 0) (#180)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Jan 27, 2014 at 04:59:08 PM EST
    ... an old All In the Family episode from that show's very first season, "Judging Books by Covers," when Gloria (Sally Struthers) and Mike (Rob Reiner) accused Archie (Carroll O'Connor) of stereotyping men who wear glasses as homosexual.

    "I never said a guy who wears glasses is a queer," Archie retorted. "A guy who wears glasses is a four-eyes. A guy who's a f&g is a queer."

    And alas, all things must come to an end, if only because we're now within 20 entries of the 200 comment limit for individual threads at TL.

    And to think that on Saturday night, or 121 comments ago, PK was telling me that he "[had] no interest in discussing this subject any more" -- at least, not until he first caught his breath.



    The News (none / 0) (#182)
    by Politalkix on Mon Jan 27, 2014 at 06:23:05 PM EST
    from Versailles was not good. Marquis Donald de Pompous had a broken back after a fall from his high horse and Madame Anne de Hauteur was in a fit of rage. The cause of indignation in the royal court were reports of atrocious behavior of citizens in former colonies in India and North America that demonstrated high contempt for French royal etiquette.

    Two reports caused particular grief.

    An Indian newsblog, FirstPost, mocked banker Neel Kashkari as Kneel Cash n Carry that upset the delicate sensibilities of French nobility. It was clear that the Indians had lost all manners that French colonialists had taught them.

    Another troubling report came from North America where some business magazines had also referred to the banker as Cash n Carry.


    Politalkix, this is my last comment to you (5.00 / 2) (#125)
    by vml68 on Mon Jan 27, 2014 at 08:55:23 AM EST
    on this subject. This whole thing is already beyond ridiculous.

    My original comment was a play on words, I did not have "ethnicity" in my mind at all.

    I gave you the benefit of the doubt on that. But, the way you have been kicking and screaming since, the phrase "thou doth protest too much", comes to mind.

    You have mentioned that you are an "Indian". Kashkari is not Indian, he is an American. He has "Indian-American heritage" and the issue of "Indian-American heritage" means different things for different people.

    I can pretty much guarantee that I know more about being Indian and Indian-American, than you do.

    Do you think you are qualified as an "Indian" to speak on behalf of all "Indians" or "Indian- Americans"?

    Speak for each and everyone of the billion+ of us there are? No. But, I do speak for the ones I know.
    I am humoring you by answering this question but it is one of your stupidest ones yet! According to your reasoning, no one person should speak on behalf of the other, since we are all different.

    Are you Hindu, Sikh, Christian, Buddhist,  Muslim, atheist?  What language do you speak?

    Not that it is any of your business, but I am a very non-practicing Catholic.
    English, Hindi, Arabic, French, Spanish and can communicate enough in 3 other Indian languages and Italian to get by.

    I discussed the "CashCarry" joke with an Indian-American friend of mine, today. She started to laugh. She said that if Americans are making "banker jokes" instead of gas station or dunkin donut jokes about Indian-American's, the community has come a long way. Her attitude was very different from yours.

    She is free to laugh and I am free to find it offensive and point it out when I do.
    My husband, a majority of my Indian friends and acquaintances are in finance and related industries. Not a single person that I shared your "joke" with found it funny.

    What right does Anne or Donald have to decide what jokes are allowable. I think both of them are tone deaf on issues relating to ethnicities.

    I don't believe either one of them decided what was "allowable". What they and I have pointed out to you is that your joke does not really work if you pronounce it correctly and it came across as culturally insensitive.
    On the issue of "tone deaf", I suggest you look in the mirror. I have found both Anne and Donald to be extremely sensitive to issues relating to other cultures and ethnicities.

    You supported Zorba shooting Bambi in her yard a few months ago in a way that an Indian-American, vegetarian friend of mine would find deeply offensive.

    It is hard for me to believe you are an adult when you come up with something like this.
    My suggestion is that you and your Indian-American, vegetarian friend take a class on basic Ecology. It might give you a better understanding on why "Bambi" and her kind need to have their population kept in check. Education is your friend!

    There you go (none / 0) (#142)
    by Politalkix on Mon Jan 27, 2014 at 11:44:20 AM EST
    "My suggestion is that you and your Indian-American, vegetarian friend take a class on basic Ecology"

    With a comment like this and the way you supported the hounding and hectoring of ABG, you should be among the least qualified to discuss issues relating to ethnic and racial sensitivities.


    OMG, get a grip. (5.00 / 2) (#144)
    by vml68 on Mon Jan 27, 2014 at 12:04:15 PM EST
    You have gone off the deep end. Seriously, calm down and take a deep breath.

    What started of as a minor annoyance for me has turned into something hysterically funny. I'll give you credit for that much.


    This is like watching a filibuster ... (none / 0) (#178)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Jan 27, 2014 at 04:20:58 PM EST
    ... by a legislator who just downed a bottle of peppermint schnapps before taking to the chamber floor.

    "Barry" (none / 0) (#69)
    by jbindc on Sun Jan 26, 2014 at 08:20:01 AM EST
    Is not racial nor ethnic insensitivity, since that was what he was called until he went to Occidental College, including by his mother and grandparents (and what his father, Barack Sr. was called).

    Further, he signed off as ... (none / 0) (#92)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sun Jan 26, 2014 at 03:15:25 PM EST
    ... "Barry Obama" on his own Punahou School senior yearbook page (Class of '79).

    Yeah, and that was his name when (none / 0) (#38)
    by Anne on Sat Jan 25, 2014 at 05:30:40 PM EST
    Obama chose to keep him on after he took office in 2009.

    Go figure, huh?


    Crazy (none / 0) (#30)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Jan 25, 2014 at 03:47:46 PM EST
    down here in GA with Paul Broun giving anybody who's not a tea partier heartburn. The Young Republicans had to issue a disclaimer on his idiocy.

    The Iowa GOP puts up a racist flow chart on Facebook and has to issue an apology.

    And Dinesh Dsouza the crackpot who someone psychoanalzyed someone he never met is indicted for money laundering. Apparently he was having people funnel money to Kristen Gillbrand's opposition in the NY Senate Race. So not only did he alledgedly use money wrongly but apparently is stupid enough to think that some crackpot could defeat Gillibrand in NY state.

    Brain dead pregnant Texas woman (none / 0) (#47)
    by Anne on Sat Jan 25, 2014 at 07:50:31 PM EST
    to be taken off life support:

    A federal judge ordered Friday night that Marlise Muñoz, the Texas woman who has been kept on life support against her and her family's will, be removed from her ventilator and respirator.

    Muñoz has been legally dead since she collapsed on her kitchen floor in November, but the state has kept her on a ventilator because she was pregnant. Lawyers for the John Peter Smith Hospital, where Muñoz is being kept, cited an obscure state law that stipulates that hospitals are required not to remove "life-sustaining treatment" from pregnant women to argue that such life support was necessary.

    However, lawyers both for Muñoz's family and for John Peter Smith Hospital acknowledged Friday that the fetus was "non-viable." Earlier, attorneys simply had indicated that the fetus suffered "abnormalities," but did not say whether it could viably live outside of the womb.

    What an ordeal for this family.

    I have no idea why women would ever want to live in a state that regards them as incubators.

    I can't imagine how hard this must have been for (none / 0) (#58)
    by vml68 on Sat Jan 25, 2014 at 09:05:30 PM EST
    her husband and her parents. First, the shock of losing her so suddenly and then being unable to grieve in peace because they had to fight the hospital over this insane law.

    Unfortunately, going by some of the comments I have read, there are quite a few women who would happily be "incubators".


    Not to mention... (none / 0) (#62)
    by unitron on Sat Jan 25, 2014 at 11:35:09 PM EST
    ...the hospital being forced by the legislature into the position of having to fight in court on the other side of the case.

    Crazy times (none / 0) (#81)
    by Mikado Cat on Sun Jan 26, 2014 at 01:37:26 PM EST
    Calif family keeping brain dead child on life support, claiming she is "improving".

    TX case this woman is something like 24 weeks with the family wanting to pull the plug. The husbands claim is that his wife told him she didn't want to be kept on life support. What I find hard to imagine is that she said and meant, and if I am pregnant, don't bother to try and save the child.

    I've only read a couple news bits, so the facts may be very different from what I have read.


    Why would it matter? (5.00 / 1) (#83)
    by Yman on Sun Jan 26, 2014 at 02:01:22 PM EST
    If she clearly expressed an intent that she did not want to be kept on life support, why should the state be permitted to override her wishes, absent some evidence that she actually wanted to be kept on life support if she was pregnant?

    Not to mention the fact that fetus was non-viable.


    She was and is dead (none / 0) (#111)
    by Mikado Cat on Mon Jan 27, 2014 at 02:32:55 AM EST
    fetus not dead. The state of the fetus should have been the primary issue. They pulled the plug at 24 weeks which apparently is the threshold for viability.

    I don't put much weight into the argument that what happens to a dead body should be the prime concern.

    I also don't put a lot of weight into verbal statements the husband said were made to him that specifically did not address her pregnancy.

    I'm not sure how much weight should be given to condition of the fetus. Handicapped friends of mine are a bit mixed on the notion they should have been aborted.

    I wish there was an option with a bit more common sense than a DNR. I heard the term no heroic efforts, which sounds more reasonable. I'd like "some effort" maybe unplug me and plug me back in and see if that helps.


    So? (5.00 / 1) (#115)
    by Yman on Mon Jan 27, 2014 at 06:21:48 AM EST
    I don't put much weight into the argument that what happens to a dead body should be the prime concern.

    It's not about "what happens to a dead body."  It's about a woman and her family having the right to make these decisions, not the state.  That would be the same state that you claim creates poverty and locks people into it.

    I also don't put a lot of weight into verbal statements the husband said were made to him that specifically did not address her pregnancy.

    Too bad.  Of course, what you "put a lot of weight into" is irrelevant.  What matters is what this woman and her family wanted, and there is absolutely no evidence that contradicts her expressed intent.


    The fetus was not dead but it was (5.00 / 1) (#128)
    by vml68 on Mon Jan 27, 2014 at 09:05:20 AM EST
    gestating inside a decomposing body.

    I'm not sure how much weight should be given to condition of the fetus.

    Seriously?! It is not your decision or your business. It is for the family to decide.

    Seriously (none / 0) (#157)
    by Mikado Cat on Mon Jan 27, 2014 at 02:26:37 PM EST
    No its not entirely for the family to decide.

    If the fetus had been viable I would have been in favor of supporting the state position to give the fetus a chance at life.

    The woman was and is dead which I think ends her sovereignty over the fetus.

    The wishes of the family come in third place.

    I don't see a compelling interest of the family overriding the fetus chance of life. What is the comparative harm to the family?


    Really??? (5.00 / 2) (#159)
    by jbindc on Mon Jan 27, 2014 at 02:31:02 PM EST
    What is the comparative harm to the family?

    This family had their daughter die 10 weeks ago, but haven't been allowed to bury her, and yet you ask what is the comparative harm to the family all for a fetus that was never viable???

    How cruel you must be.


    JB... (5.00 / 2) (#162)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Jan 27, 2014 at 02:40:21 PM EST
    ...he obviously forgotten his numero uno talking point, which is government is bad.  Now it's necessary to make decisions about what to do with a pregnant corpse...

    Wow, you are on some kind of roll today. (5.00 / 3) (#163)
    by Anne on Mon Jan 27, 2014 at 02:50:22 PM EST
    And I don't mean that in a complimentary way.

    The fetus wasn't viable, not at 14 weeks when Marlise collapsed, and not weeks later, after she'd been used as an incubator.  No one knew how long Marlise had been without oxygen, what effects that would have on the fetus and its development, and still, the hospital violated one of the precepts of medicine - first, do no harm - in order to comply with yet another law that treats women as property.

    Apparently, you know as much about women and reproductive rights as you do about business - which is to say, not very much.


    I fail to understand why you feel that (5.00 / 1) (#165)
    by vml68 on Mon Jan 27, 2014 at 03:09:52 PM EST
    If the fetus had been viable I would have been in favor of supporting the state position to give the fetus a chance at life.

    YOU should have any say in this.

    Setting aside the issue of keeping a brain dead woman going so she can act as an incubator against her expressed wishes and those of her family. I have to ask, Is this your child? If not, were you planning to offer to adopt and raise the child? Pay off all medical bills incurred so far and those that would be incurred in the future? Provide the round the clock care it would need?
    The fetus is badly deformed and not viable. And I will say this once again, even if it were viable, it is not your decision to make. Unless, it is your child.

    What is the comparative harm to the family?

    Oh, I don't know. Just minor things like not being able to bury your loved one. Watching her body decay slowly over time. Thanks to the cost of health care in this country, certain financial ruin. Little things like that.

    Like scott (5.00 / 2) (#190)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Jan 27, 2014 at 07:21:18 PM EST
    above said you sound exactly like a communist. Darn. It's the prevailing interest of the state to let a dead woman continue to rot with an unviable fetus because creepy fundamentalist freaks want to use her as a science experiment.

    Which is why you should have an (5.00 / 1) (#132)
    by Anne on Mon Jan 27, 2014 at 09:43:01 AM EST
    advance directive, so that if your brain isn't functioning, your wishes regarding the continuation or termination of life support, nutrition and hydration, will be clear and carried out accordingly, and no one will have to take your spouse's or other family members' word for what your wishes are.

    As has been pointed out to you, the patient in this case was brought to the hospital after her husband found her unresponsive on the kitchen floor; she was 14 weeks pregnant just barely into her second trimester, with a fetus well below the age of viability.  A pregnancy lost at 14 weeks would be considered a miscarriage.

    As her next of kin, Marlise Munoz's husband had every right to make decisions about her care, but the legislature, in its infinite wisdom, mandated life-sustaining treatment of a pregnant woman, turning her into an incubator for a fetus that, as it turns out, was not viable.

    Maybe in the universe of Texas, such a decision is considered respecting of life, but in my opinion, it shows a disregard for and disrespect of women's lives; maybe they felt "the least they could do" was try to salvage the life of a fetus from the tragedy of its mother being brain dead, but they had no business, in my opinion, inserting themselves into this private and personal situation that should have been left to her husband and family to decide.


    You might want to get your info straight (5.00 / 2) (#85)
    by nycstray on Sun Jan 26, 2014 at 02:06:28 PM EST
    before commenting.

    Ditto (none / 0) (#112)
    by Mikado Cat on Mon Jan 27, 2014 at 02:35:18 AM EST
    I related what I knew, and my general distrust of its veracity. I don't see any errors so far.

    She was 14 weeks (5.00 / 5) (#86)
    by jbindc on Sun Jan 26, 2014 at 02:07:25 PM EST
    When she originally died.  The fetus was never viable at that point.  It was the hospital that has prolonged this tragedy and brought her to the over 20 week mark, but even in their court filings, the hospital itself admitted that the fetus, even as of this week at 20+ weeks of development, was not viable.

    This was a horrendous prolonging of the inevitable and I hope now her family can start to grieve and eventually find peace.

    (It should also be noted that, at least as of a few days ago, the hospital said it would still be going go through its normal procedures, which means the family still might be billed for all these weeks of "care", which would be the next tragedy in all of this).


    You (5.00 / 3) (#97)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Jan 26, 2014 at 06:39:38 PM EST
    might not want to hit Mikado with so many facts. It might make her brain explode.

    OOPs! McCain too 'liberal' . . . (none / 0) (#48)
    by nycstray on Sat Jan 25, 2014 at 07:53:59 PM EST
    Isn't it kinder (none / 0) (#113)
    by Mikado Cat on Mon Jan 27, 2014 at 02:37:18 AM EST
    to think of him as nuts or senile, not the L word?

    Conservatives trying to do humor (5.00 / 2) (#117)
    by Yman on Mon Jan 27, 2014 at 06:28:16 AM EST
    Like Rush Limbaugh giving out dietary advice.

    You think (none / 0) (#158)
    by Mikado Cat on Mon Jan 27, 2014 at 02:30:27 PM EST
    perhaps a lifelong thin person is the one to get dietary advice from?

    Why do you pay so much attention to RL, I never listen to radio kooks.


    No? The internet ... (none / 0) (#185)
    by Yman on Mon Jan 27, 2014 at 06:40:03 PM EST
    ... kooks at CTH are much better?

    You think perhaps a lifelong thin person is the one to get dietary advice from?

    I think it's better to get advice from someone who: 1) has a clue about the subject and 2) deals in facts and evidence.  My point, however, was that conservatives shouldn't try to do humor.


    No, You Are Worse... (none / 0) (#195)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Jan 28, 2014 at 10:16:38 AM EST
    ...you just condense, regurgitate, and paraphrase all the AM radio right wing talking points without understanding any of it.

    Just because you don't listen to it, doesn't mean you don't believe just about everything they state on the air or regurgitate all of it right here, too afraid to source because it just might prove, conclusively, where all your grand ideas really come from.  AM right wing, as you call them, radio kooks.


    HA HA (none / 0) (#124)
    by jbindc on Mon Jan 27, 2014 at 08:44:06 AM EST
    Like John McCain cares about what they think.

    The progressive Kristallnacht (none / 0) (#50)
    by Yman on Sat Jan 25, 2014 at 08:06:58 PM EST
    Wealthy venture capitalist Tom Perkins compares progressives to Nazis and suggest that their "war" on the 1% is a modern Kristallnacht.

    You wonder how such idiotic people can become so wealthy.

    Danielle Steel must be so glad ... (none / 0) (#52)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sat Jan 25, 2014 at 08:18:23 PM EST
    ... right now that she dumped this putz back in 2002.

    AN AXE LENGTH AWAY, vol. 259 (none / 0) (#78)
    by Dadler on Sun Jan 26, 2014 at 09:48:51 AM EST
    These peeps are seriously creative copywriters. (link)

    v. 258
    v. 257
    v. 256

    Get to church, my friends. And raise some hell. Peace.

    Congressman Trey Radel (none / 0) (#122)
    by jbindc on Mon Jan 27, 2014 at 08:20:15 AM EST
    Resigning today

    Rep. Trey Radel (R-Fla.) will resign from Congress on Monday, according to multiple sources.

    Radel, 37, was caught buying cocaine in November from an undercover federal agent in Washington and spent nearly a month in a rehabilitation facility. He returned to Congress after the winter recess.

    The first-term Republican plans to send a letter to Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) Monday, sources said.

    It's up to Florida Republican Gov. Rick Scott to schedule a special election for Radel's seat. His southwest Florida district is solidly Republican --Mitt Romney won the district with 61 percent of the vote.

    AN AXE LENGTH AWAY, vol. 260 (none / 0) (#137)
    by Dadler on Mon Jan 27, 2014 at 11:12:59 AM EST
    He's not happy with the butt of his own cruel joke. (link)

    Happy Monday. Corporate medicine sucks. Period.

    It's Meat Week! (none / 0) (#139)
    by jbindc on Mon Jan 27, 2014 at 11:13:36 AM EST

    To celebrate, my co-workers and I just ordered lunch from Hill Country BBQ, here in DC.


    How the Tea Party Lost the Farm (none / 0) (#141)
    by jbindc on Mon Jan 27, 2014 at 11:32:55 AM EST
    The Tea Party has turned the GOP against the interests of rural Americans--alienating some of its most loyal constituents.

    The failure of the farmers' agenda is a familiar tale of Washington gridlock, with familiar players: the small group of conservative obstructionists who seemingly control the House, and the policy consequences of a Republican Party at war with itself. But in this case, the people Republicans have antagonized are among their most loyal constituents. Rural America is the party's base. Mitt Romney overwhelmingly won its support in 2012, taking 61 percent of rural voters, according to exit polls. (Romney won 58 percent of small-town voters, 50 percent of suburban voters, and just 36 percent of residents of cities with more than 50,000 occupants.) Now the GOP, hamstrung by its right wing's anti-government zeal, risks breaking faith with its rural stronghold.

    Republicans may already have paid a political price for the Tea Party's derailment of policies important to rural voters. In the summer of 2012, when the House refused to consider the Senate-passed farm bill, the issue became a point of attack for Democrats who won several red-state Senate races--a subplot of the elections that flew beneath the radar of most Washington observers. And that was before the House spent 2013 delaying farm policy further, leaving agricultural interests intensely frustrated. In 2014, that frustration could hurt Republicans in dozens of House and Senate races.

    The farmers' disenchantment with Washington is about more than just a special interest angry that its traditional government assistance is threatened. It's about the deepening divide between rural and urban America. Isolated, shrinking in number, and cast out of the cultural mainstream, rural America now finds itself politically abandoned as well, as the party that once represented its interests is increasingly dominated by a more urban, libertarian, ideological strain.


    The farm lobby's main concern is with the agricultural subsidies in the farm bill. But it also opposes the food-stamp divorce performed by the House. This is partly a matter of political necessity. Just 35 of the 435 congressional districts have agriculture as their dominant industry. "In our opinion, if you separate the two, you would no longer have a farm bill," Bob Stallman, the president of the Farm Bureau, told me. Farmers have another interest in continued food-stamp funding. The SNAP payments constitute another massive subsidy to food producers, giving consumers the money to buy their products. "Food stamps have become a large part of the demand for the food that we raise as farmers," Don Villwock, the white-mustached president of the Indiana Farm Bureau, told me. "When you have one in five Americans on food assistance, that's 20 percent of the demand for food in this country."

    In favoring a farm bill that combines agriculture supports with food stamps, the farm lobby parts ways with the GOP's ideological right wing, and sides with the Obama Administration, which has disappointed environmentalists by not aggressively seeking farm-policy reforms. (The agribusiness sector spent $112 million lobbying Congress in 2013, according to the Center for Responsive Politics--more than the defense industry. The Farm Bureau alone employs 52 Washington lobbyists.)

    The dynamic is similar when it comes to immigration reform to legalize the millions of illegal workers currently living in the U.S. and create new guest-worker programs. The Heritage Foundation and a hard-right faction in Congress oppose such a policy. But farm leaders paint a grim picture of crops rotting on the vine, and even farmers giving up their land, because of a shortage of workers. In a survey conducted by the California Farm Bureau, 71 percent of tree-fruit growers and nearly 80 percent of raisin and berry growers couldn't find enough pickers.

    "There is a myth that somehow Americans will go out and do farm work," Stallman, a rice and cattle producer from Columbus, Texas, told me in an interview. The Farm Bureau's leader for 14 years, Stallman also served as a trade official during the George W. Bush Administration. With his bald pate and neatly trimmed chin-strap beard, he resembles a genial, Texan Ben Bernanke. "Every time that has been tested--and we're not talking about minimum wage, we're talking about paying people $15 or $20 an hour--they don't stick with it. They don't show up." Without immigrant labor, he said, farmers can't survive.

    The Tea Party wing of the GOP has set itself against the sort of business-as-usual bipartisan compromises that would otherwise enable both a farm bill and immigration reform to pass. Stallman does not hide his frustration with the Tea Party's rise to prominence. "There obviously is a fight for the soul of the Republican Party now," he said. "Are you going to be about moderation, pragmatism, and good governance, with a conservative flavor? Or are you going to be rigid and ideological about your conservative principles and not really focus on governing? I truly believe that some in that particular faction would just as soon see the government shut down."

    I asked Stallman what the consequences could be if Republicans continue to ignore the agricultural community's needs. "This isn't the first time in history that political parties have had schisms," he said. "Sometimes, if they don't come back together, you have new political parties." He drew a parallel with the realignment of the South from Democratic to Republican dominance in the past several decades. "If the Republican Party moves to a place where it no longer mirrors the viewpoints of any segment of rural America," he said, "there will be a switch, I would predict."

    Good article, but I wonder how many farmers (none / 0) (#146)
    by Farmboy on Mon Jan 27, 2014 at 12:59:52 PM EST
    read the Atlantic? Farmers leave the radio on all day, so they've gotten an earful while Hannity, Rush, and the rest of the talk radio crowd blamed the Dems for the failure of the Farm Bill. All because those lazy poor folks want free food...

    The Atlantic (none / 0) (#160)
    by Mikado Cat on Mon Jan 27, 2014 at 02:32:03 PM EST
    Limbaugh of the left.

    Well, that certainly settles that! (none / 0) (#168)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Jan 27, 2014 at 03:20:22 PM EST
    Okay, everyone, run along, nothing to see here ...

    I see the comparison immediately (5.00 / 1) (#170)
    by jbindc on Mon Jan 27, 2014 at 03:27:47 PM EST
    On one hand, we have The Atlantic -  a publication that has been around since 1857 who have hosted writers from all stripes of the political scene, and on the other hand, we have  a megalomaniac with a microphone who spews such nonsense, and yet has convinced millions of people that he knows what he's talking about.

    Yep - I see the similarities.


    Exactly. (none / 0) (#173)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Jan 27, 2014 at 03:41:03 PM EST
    Why, it practically goes without saying that reading The Atlantic is like watching Fox News on Oxycontin.



    Heh (none / 0) (#186)
    by Yman on Mon Jan 27, 2014 at 06:42:42 PM EST
    Yes - a 150+ year old magazine featuring prominent writers that's won awards too numerous to count ... compared to Limbaugh.

    Like I said ... you shouldn't try humor.


    I Gotta Post This SomeWhere... (none / 0) (#174)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Jan 27, 2014 at 03:51:58 PM EST
    ...and since this is the only open thread.

    Friday, here in Houston we got the day off of work.  It's beyond ridiculous for this Wisconsin farm boy to have an entire city shut down because the temp dipped down to about 25, but with the sleet earlier, it turned everything to ice and we simply don't have the infrastructure to make the roads safe to drive.

    Even the mail for christ sake and it's right there in the first sentence of their credo, "Rain or shine, snow or sleet..." Not official, but still.

    My mom even send me a text about hearing it got below 30 degrees.  She was kind of making fun, and wasn't ready for the 'I am at home today' text she got back.

    Where is this going, well tonight at midnight, we are getting a repeat.  According to the news, it will be much worse, with more ice.

    Seriously, I am digging the "Work is cancelled, because it cold and icy out".

    But on the news on Friday, they said there were 500 accidents reported.  They didn't put it in context of an average day, but since no one was on the roads it seems pretty high to me.  They had video of cars doing like 5 mps with like two car lengths between them, looked like a driving school video, no cell phones, just drivers concentrating on driving.

    I though my northern brothers and sisters would get a kick out of it.

    FYI, the NFL said the game will not get cancelled unless they belief people are at risk, which means it's gonna have to be damn cold to reschedule.

    Hope you enjoy your time off (5.00 / 1) (#187)
    by ZtoA on Mon Jan 27, 2014 at 07:07:17 PM EST
    Reminds me of visiting my daughter in LA when the forecast was for light rain and the traffic and weather people freaked out! I live in Portland so I thought "wimps". But we had to drive across the city and there were pileups every mile or so, 6-7 cars each. Apparently a heavy rain will wash the dust and oil off the roads, but a light rain makes a slurry.  It was actually a big mess.

    Now, it isn't even safe to play (none / 0) (#194)
    by Anne on Tue Jan 28, 2014 at 10:14:25 AM EST
    games on your smartphone...

    From The Guardian:

    The National Security Agency and its UK counterpart GCHQ have been developing capabilities to take advantage of "leaky" smartphone apps, such as the wildly popular Angry Birds game, that transmit users' private information across the internet, according to top secret documents.


    Dozens of classified documents, provided to the Guardian by whistleblower Edward Snowden and reported in partnership with the New York Times and ProPublica, detail the NSA and GCHQ efforts to piggyback on this commercial data collection for their own purposes.

    Scooping up information the apps are sending about their users allows the agencies to collect large quantities of mobile phone data from their existing mass surveillance tools - such as cable taps, or from international mobile networks - rather than solely from hacking into individual mobile handsets.


    Depending on what profile information a user had supplied, the documents suggested, the agency would be able to collect almost every key detail of a user's life: including home country, current location (through geolocation), age, gender, zip code, marital status - options included "single", "married", "divorced", "swinger" and more - income, ethnicity, sexual orientation, education level, and number of children.

    Not to worry, though: the NSA wants you to know that it doesn't target Americans (but golly, if they just happen to "incidentally" come upon information from Americans, well, where would it be safer than in the NSA's hands, right?).

    I think it ought to be clear by now that the NSA just wants to know everything about everybody; what will it take to rein them in?

    The Thought Is... (none / 0) (#199)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Jan 28, 2014 at 10:57:58 AM EST
    ...the NSA is free to spy on anyone outside US and the GCHQ is free to spy on anyone outside the UK and lucky for the residents of Earth, they share information.

    Last night on the news they seemed to believe that because both were totally caught off-guard with the Arab Spring, that these kinds of social networking spying, is completely justified.  Have not heard the excuse for spying on phone game players, but I will assume it will be as, if not more ridiculous.

    Surely one of our resident republicans will explain why spying on the users of Angry Birds is vital to National Security or why we should not care.

    The benefits of owning a 'smart' phone are getting smaller with each Guardian release.


    Bill Cosby channeling (none / 0) (#196)
    by oculus on Tue Jan 28, 2014 at 10:42:07 AM EST
    Clarence Thomas:

    (I just received this as a group email!)

    Bill Cosby At 83

    Life isn't tied with a bow, but it's still a gift.
    And Life isn't Fair, but it's good!!

    "I'm 83 and I'm Tired"

    I'm 83. Except for brief period in the 50's when I was doing my National Service, I've Worked hard since I was 17. Except for some serious health challenges, I put in 50-hour weeks, and didn't call in sick in nearly 40 years. I made a reasonable salary, but I didn't inherit my job or my income, and I worked to get where I am. Given the economy, it looks As though retirement was a bad idea, and I'm tired. Very tired.

    I'm tired of being told that I have to "spread the wealth" to people who don't have my Work ethic. I'm tired of being told the government will take the money I earned, by force if necessary, and give it to people too lazy to earn it.

    I'm tired of being told that Islam is a "Religion of Peace," when e very day I can read dozens of stories of Muslim men killing their sisters, wives and daughters for their family "honor"; Of Muslims rioting over some slight offense; of Muslims murdering Christian and Jews because they aren't "believers"; of Muslims burning schools for girls; of Muslims stoning teenage rape victims to death for "adultery"; of Muslims mutilating the genitals of little girls; all in the
    Name of Allah, because the Qur'an and Shari'a law tells them to.

    I'm tired of being told that out of "tolerance for other cultures" we must let Saudi Arabia And other Arab countries use our oil money to fund mosques and madrassa Islamic schools to preach hate in Australia , New Zealand , UK, America and Canada , while no one from these countries are allowed to fund a church, synagogue or religious school in Saudi Arabia or any other Arab country to teach love and tolerance..

    I'm tired of being told I must lower my living standard to fight global
    Warming, which no one is allowed to debate.

    I'm tired of being told that drug addicts have a disease, and I must help support and treat them, and pay for the damage they do. Did a giant germ rush out of a dark alley, grab them, and stuff white powder up their noses or stick a needle in their arm while they tried to fight It off?

    I'm tired of hearing wealthy athletes, entertainers and politicians of all parties talking about innocent mistakes, stupid mistakes or youthful mistakes, when we all know they think their Only mistake was getting caught. I'm tired of people with a sense of entitlement, rich or poor.

    I'm really tired of people who don't take responsibility for their lives and actions. I'm tired Of hearing them blame the government, or discrimination or big-whatever for their problems.

    I'm also tired and fed up with seeing young men and women in their teens and early 20's be-deck them selves in tattoos and face studs, thereby making themselves un-employable and claiming money from the Government.

    Yes, I'm damn tired. But I'm also glad to be 83. Because, mostly, I'm not going to have to see the world these people are making. I'm just sorry for my granddaughter and their children. Thank God I'm on the way out and not on the way in.

    There is no way this will be widely publicized, unless each of us sends it on!

    This is your chance to make a difference.

    "I'm 83 and I'm tired."


    Tell whoever sent it (none / 0) (#197)
    by CoralGables on Tue Jan 28, 2014 at 10:49:05 AM EST
    they should check their sources before forwarding false info.

    Hate to get these kinds of e-mails or (none / 0) (#198)
    by Anne on Tue Jan 28, 2014 at 10:56:30 AM EST
    see them in my Facebook news feed...but Cosby's not the only one that can play that game (why is it, by the way, that so many people regard him as some kind of fount of wisdom, when he's clearly just a cranky conservative with typical conservative ideas?).

    My immediate reaction, of course, is, "well, I'm tired of..."

    I'll let you fill in the rest!


    It wasn't Cosby (none / 0) (#200)
    by CoralGables on Tue Jan 28, 2014 at 11:08:01 AM EST
    Cosby is 76.

    Who is this Clown ? (none / 0) (#202)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Jan 28, 2014 at 11:15:27 AM EST
    Because Wiki puts the real Bill Cosby's bday at July 12, 1937, making him 76.

    This Bill Cosby doesn't mention who exactly paid for his 'Health Challenges' or who was responsible for an economy being so bad he could not retire, surely not this year, which for retirement accounts hit an all time high, unless he's knee deep in gold.  Oversight I guess.

    Jesus, I hope that when I become an old man I don't become one that basically hates everything that isn't like me, this is just sad to read, pitiful would probably be a better term.  Seems like Mr Cosby might have had a better run at it if he didn't get lost in rightwing mania, where generalizations and misnomers seems to be the rule and not the exception.

    And not to sound cruel, but he ain't the only glad to see folks like this on their way out...

    But alas, we all know this is some rightwing hack job that most people will believe is actually coming form someone they know from the TV...


    AN AXE LENGTH AWAY, vol. 261 (none / 0) (#201)
    by Dadler on Tue Jan 28, 2014 at 11:08:46 AM EST
    If he could shoot money into his veins like heroin, he'd do it in a heartbeat. (link)

    v. 260
    v. 259
    v. 258

    Off to the specialist with my wife this afternoon. Glad these dopes are finally getting off their asses. Peace.

    The tax-exempt NFL (none / 0) (#203)
    by Dadler on Tue Jan 28, 2014 at 11:27:01 AM EST
    As we approach the Super Bowl, which I fully admit to being a fan of (though I never buy merchandise or tickets), let's not forget, as I an wont to do as much as anyone else, that somehow the NFL is exempt from federal income taxes.

    LINK (which includes NFL's 2011 tax return)

    I guess because Cosby has (none / 0) (#204)
    by Anne on Tue Jan 28, 2014 at 11:52:57 AM EST
    on occasion delivered lectures about how people are supposed to conduct their lives, I didn't question that he wrote that diatribe, even though when these things land in my mailbox, the first place I go is to snopes.com to see if it's real or not; sure enough, snopes debunks the claim and attributes it to someone else.

    Truth be told, it wouldn't matter to me who the author was, because the content would still be a bunch of crap - kinda like the conservative nonsense we get treated to here (and of which there has been an awful lot lately).

    What's Odd... (none / 0) (#205)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Jan 28, 2014 at 12:10:25 PM EST
    ...is you are going to try to pass off something from a celebrity, why not get the age right ?  Had that been the real BC's age, it would have at least held some merit, as in believing it came from the actual person.

    Plus why is Clarence Thomas' name attached to it, that to me is where the validity comes from, was he fooled or is he in on it ?

    But like Anne says, doesn't matter, we all know there are plenty of respected old timers out there(cough, cough, Eastwood), who believe what this man wrote.  Doesn't mean much other than it would seem as you get older the more you hate people not like you.

    oculus, care to share the context ?