Valentine's Day Open Thread

From our heart to yours, Happy Valentine's Day.

This is an open thread, all topics welcome.

< Feds Issue Banking Regs for Marijuana Businesses | Jurors Given Allen Charge in Michael Dunn Trial >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Happy V day... (5.00 / 5) (#1)
    by desertswine on Fri Feb 14, 2014 at 08:58:08 PM EST
    I'll love you, dear, I'll love you till China and Africa meet and the river jumps over the mountain and the salmon sing in the street.

    W. H. Auden

    I spent Valentine's evening with that (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by ruffian on Sat Feb 15, 2014 at 11:22:56 AM EST
    happiest of couples,  Francis and Claire Underwood. Never a dull moment in that House of Cards!

    I spent Valentine's evening w/Amanda, Tom, (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by oculus on Sat Feb 15, 2014 at 11:30:57 AM EST
    Laura, and Jim, the Gentleman Caller. Poignant.

    Watched the first two episodes (none / 0) (#13)
    by jbindc on Sat Feb 15, 2014 at 12:03:54 PM EST
    All I can say is O.M.G!

    Episode 3 - now he is way out of line (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by ruffian on Sat Feb 15, 2014 at 08:58:50 PM EST
    I am truly angry now. No spoilers but I prefer my fantasy political thrillers to keep actual policy discussions out of it! How can I relax?

    That said, it shows how policy is just a game to these people.


    Yeah, re the end of the first one.... (none / 0) (#14)
    by ruffian on Sat Feb 15, 2014 at 01:12:27 PM EST
    I did NOT see that coming!

    Happy to see Molly Parker, my favorite Deadwood actress, in a meaty role. Looks like Frank has met his match!


    I'm starting it tonight (none / 0) (#15)
    by nycstray on Sat Feb 15, 2014 at 01:13:11 PM EST
    can't wait!

    Episode # I lost count (none / 0) (#32)
    by ruffian on Sun Feb 16, 2014 at 03:19:37 PM EST
    Synergy with my other latest pop interest-
    The woman singing the national anthem at Camden Yards is Rachael Price from the band Lake Street Dive. They were on Colbert a couple of weeks ago and I became an instant fan.

    Check them out.


    And here (none / 0) (#33)
    by ruffian on Sun Feb 16, 2014 at 03:21:07 PM EST
    Thanks! (none / 0) (#34)
    by nycstray on Sun Feb 16, 2014 at 03:35:29 PM EST
    You just saved me from looking/trying to find out who she was :)

    I see what you mean re: episode 3. GRRRRR!!!!!


    Can you see Jill and Joe Biden (none / 0) (#35)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Feb 16, 2014 at 03:37:03 PM EST
    Sharing a Secret Service agent for Valentines Day?  I can't :)

    Are you saying... (none / 0) (#39)
    by unitron on Sun Feb 16, 2014 at 07:30:37 PM EST
    ..that the marriage fell apart long ago and is now just a matter of keeping up appearances, or that they're just not into 3-ways?

    Why are those the only choices? (none / 0) (#40)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Feb 16, 2014 at 07:55:38 PM EST
    Can you see Nancy Pelosi zipping up (none / 0) (#41)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Feb 16, 2014 at 08:00:17 PM EST
    Her skirt and telling the hottie lobbyist naked in bed that this changes nothing, it is business as usual no special favors, she turns em and burns em in the sack?  Can you see Boehner telling the hottie lobbyist naked in bed that Uhmmmm, he drank too much last night?

    Pity the 1%, says Gregory Mankiw (5.00 / 2) (#17)
    by shoephone on Sat Feb 15, 2014 at 05:01:28 PM EST
    They really toil honorably for their multi-million dollar salaries, sometimes at great risk to themselves!

    What a dink. Comparing the salaries of writers and performers to those of bankers and investment managers and vulture, I mean venture capitalists. Apparently, Greg thinks Robert Downey Jr. has the same ability to rip off the American people of their nest eggs as Jamie Dimon. How can anyone take this plutocrat seriously?

    At least he's not advising the president on economics any longer, but I won't hold my breath...these scavengers seem to find their way back into the folds of political power every few years.

    How quickly would those "consulting" (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by jondee on Sun Feb 16, 2014 at 01:05:44 PM EST
    fees dry up if the Mankiws of the world halted their avocation of flattering all the doings of the one percent?

    More proof that economics profs can be trained to think the right thoughts the way Pavlov's dogs were trained to salivate..


    Calif and guns (none / 0) (#2)
    by Mikado Cat on Sat Feb 15, 2014 at 02:46:09 AM EST
    First I knew about something happening was a snoop at VC which had half a dozen bits on it. 9th circuit strikes down Calif ban on public carry (first it was CCW nobody can get, then no open carry even unloaded, court says that equals denial of 2nd amendment rights).

    I wonder where its going to go?

    who turned on the spam faucet? (none / 0) (#4)
    by Mikado Cat on Sat Feb 15, 2014 at 04:46:36 AM EST
    Seems like somebody must have left a door open for all these spammers to show up.

    OTOH, easy to ignore.

    ALPR back in news (none / 0) (#5)
    by Mikado Cat on Sat Feb 15, 2014 at 04:52:11 AM EST
    EFF and ACLU go after Los Angeles ALPR system.

    I'm only seeing info on right wing sites so it isn't real here yet, but DHS announced setting up nationwide system. Some info here, more if you google dhs alpr and hold your nose.

    "Back in the news"? (none / 0) (#6)
    by Yman on Sat Feb 15, 2014 at 07:38:27 AM EST
    They weren't in the "news" the first time you wrote about it.  Conspiracy theories presented as fact at the CTH aren't "news" ... just fairy tales.

    About the (none / 0) (#19)
    by Mikado Cat on Sun Feb 16, 2014 at 04:21:23 AM EST
    same fairy tale the ACLU is talking about now. If you want to wait for MSN to tell you what is going on, lots of things won't exist in your world.

    ALPR meta data is a LOT worse than NSA cell info, and don't think for a moment that information from all databases isn't going to be crossed and mined without oversight.


    It's possible, ... (none / 0) (#23)
    by Yman on Sun Feb 16, 2014 at 10:46:45 AM EST
    ... but that want my point.  My point was that the "first time" you claimed that ALPRs were "in the news", they weren't ... other than a silly, evidence-free fairy tale from  wingnut website.

    If you want to push silly fairy tales from wingnut websites (i.e. your story about the guy from FL being "targeted" with ALPRs because he owned a gun) that have no evidence to support them, you shouldn't expect others to buy them just because you think the MSM is biased.


    I feel (none / 0) (#49)
    by Mikado Cat on Mon Feb 17, 2014 at 01:23:15 AM EST
    genuine pity for such a limited vision of reality.

    Obviously politically partisan news sources are going to get things wrong, good reason not to rely on them exclusively, but they do get some things right, so good reason not to ignore them totally.


    That's funny (none / 0) (#50)
    by Yman on Mon Feb 17, 2014 at 07:41:33 AM EST
    Because I feel genuine pity for those who state wingnut conspiracy theories as fact and believe them because - despite a complete and utter lack of any evidence to support them - they want to believe them.

    Site violator (none / 0) (#7)
    by oculus on Sat Feb 15, 2014 at 08:12:29 AM EST

    Just in time, (none / 0) (#8)
    by KeysDan on Sat Feb 15, 2014 at 08:52:01 AM EST
    for Valentine's Day.  Senator Ted Cruz (R. TX) along with his tea party sidekick, Senator Mike Lee (R. UT), introduced an anti-gay bill that would have the effect of denying federal benefits to same sex legally married couples.  This would presumably effect primarily,  but not necessarily limited to, those legally  married couples residing in states that do not permit same sex marriages, and prevents such states from recognizing marriages celebrated in other states.  

    It never ceases to (5.00 / 3) (#9)
    by Anne on Sat Feb 15, 2014 at 09:25:02 AM EST
    amaze - and disgust - me how much effort people will go to, and how much energy they will expend, trying to stop people from doing something that has absolutely nothing to do with them, that isn't any of their business.

    He's Carnival Cruz, a one-man ship of fools. (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sat Feb 15, 2014 at 02:23:51 PM EST
    I wish him the best of luck as he seeks the 2016 GOP presidential nomination. The Republicans truly deserve him, especially if they face Hillary Clinton. It's not often that one is privileged to witness the political equivalent of Pickett's Charge.

    Once you start really believing (none / 0) (#12)
    by jondee on Sat Feb 15, 2014 at 11:33:03 AM EST
    that every tornado, flood, and attack of sciatica is a result of the Burning Bush's wrath over homosexuality, the actions of Cruz and company will make perfect sense to you.

    Its not about (none / 0) (#20)
    by Mikado Cat on Sun Feb 16, 2014 at 04:24:10 AM EST
    stopping anything, the deal is done, it political posturing for 2014, fund raising, all the standard political reasons.

    Yes, Exactly... (none / 0) (#59)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Feb 18, 2014 at 10:55:58 AM EST
    ...what else is the party going to use get their base fired up beyond discrimination of people they dislike ?

    Republicans start running on policy and they might as well quit politics.


    Or How the Tea Party... (none / 0) (#58)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Feb 18, 2014 at 10:50:25 AM EST
    ...idiots claim to be separate from the republican party, but still chase every ridiculous policy of the party.  

    If I had to guess, Cruz and Company have convinced themselves this is about dollars not discrimination.

    Wonder where the libertarian faction of the replubican party stands on this issue, actually I don't, just making a point that when is all said and done, they are all republicans who will support denying people who are different any right they can.


    An interesting essay (none / 0) (#21)
    by jbindc on Sun Feb 16, 2014 at 06:49:50 AM EST
    On the challenges re: the tensions within the Democratic Party. While all the talk has been about the  Republicans trying to define themselves as a party, it's also Democrats who face challenges about who they want to lead and the vision they want to put forth.

    Though more united than Republicans, Democrats nevertheless face simmering tensions between the establishment and a newly energized populist wing, led by the unabashed liberalism of New York Mayor Bill de Blasio and the fiery rhetoric of Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren.

    The schisms are as much stylistic as substantive. But however defined, they offer a challenge to the party's next leader, whether former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, Vice President Joe Biden or any number of lesser-knowns who await a decision by Clinton before making their own.

    All will have to grapple with this reality. The Democratic Party, by various measures of public opinion, has moved to the left in the past decade. But that does not necessarily mean that progressives have become the party's dominant force or that the policies and messages they advocate can carry the day in a national election.


    By many measures, the party is certainly seen as more liberal than it once was. For the past 40 years, the American National Election Studies surveys have asked people for their perceptions of the two major parties. The 2012 survey found, for the first time, that a majority of Americans describe the Democratic Party as liberal, with 57 percent using that label. Four years earlier, only 48 percent described the Democrats as liberal.

    (In the same survey, 59 percent said they saw the Republicans as conservative, up from 52 percent four years earlier.)

    Gallup reported last month that 43 percent of surveyed Democrats identified themselves as liberal, the high water mark for the party on that measurement. In Gallup's 2000 measures, just 29 percent of Democrats labeled themselves as liberals.

    Still, liberals are a plurality of the Democratic Party, not a majority, which is strikingly different from the Republican Party, where Gallup found that 70 percent identified themselves as conservative.

    WaPo (5.00 / 2) (#22)
    by squeaky on Sun Feb 16, 2014 at 08:26:03 AM EST
    The only reason, or believable reason to think that the Democratic Party has shifted to the left in the last decade is that America has shifted way to the Right, IOW goalposts have been moved 90 yards and the average POV is closer to McCarthy than Nixon who today, would be seen as a raging liberal.

    The illogical reason also in play is (5.00 / 2) (#24)
    by ruffian on Sun Feb 16, 2014 at 12:54:44 PM EST
    the 6 years of misinformation about the Kenyan Socialist Democrat President.

    How many of the polled (5.00 / 2) (#26)
    by jondee on Sun Feb 16, 2014 at 01:15:47 PM EST
    could provide a close approximation of the dictionary definition of the word "liberal"; or give an acceptable thumbnail sketch of the history of the liberal-progressive political tradition in America?

    No thanks to the conservative frontal assault on language and rational thought in the last few decades, half the country now seems to believe that a liberal is an atheistic hedonist dedicated to avoiding work at all costs.


    So (none / 0) (#57)
    by jbindc on Tue Feb 18, 2014 at 09:51:13 AM EST
    people who hold liberal views are too dumb to know if they are liberal (or moderate)?

    People know what they believe, (5.00 / 2) (#60)
    by Anne on Tue Feb 18, 2014 at 11:01:40 AM EST
    but to some extent, they've allowed a combination of the media and the political parties to define the meaning of "liberal."  

    It pretty much kills me that, thanks to the efforts of a president the conservatives deem "liberal," his advocacy for things like chained-OPI and more means-testing of benefits, his rejection of single-payer, his overreach on executive power, are also considered "liberal" positions now.  

    No, they aren't liberal - not in any way, shape or form.  But successfully define him as a liberal - change what it means - and you define everything he does in the same upside-down way.


    You suddenly called to mind (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by sj on Tue Feb 18, 2014 at 11:34:11 AM EST
    So (none / 0) (#57)
    by jbindc on Tue Feb 18, 2014 at 08:51:13 AM MDT

    people who hold liberal views are too dumb to know if they are liberal (or moderate)?

    ABG waxing on about "we liberals" while being perfectly comfortable trading off liberal values for Obama's political gain.

    On the other hand there are people I know personally how hold opinions on privacy, the safety net, single payer, equal rights, etc who would be horrified to realize that those are traditional liberal values.

    And don't even get me started on successful women who shudder at the term "women's liberation" while climbing on the backs of those activists.

    So my answer is "yes". Some people are too "dumb" to know if they are liberal or moderate.


    I agree (none / 0) (#62)
    by jbindc on Tue Feb 18, 2014 at 12:11:13 PM EST
    Some of them post here.

    I dunno (none / 0) (#27)
    by jbindc on Sun Feb 16, 2014 at 02:00:01 PM EST
    Since poll after poll after poll keeps showing that more and more people agree with traditionally "liberal" positions - gay marriage, income equality, etc.

    Or, what could be happening as well, is that those who consider themselves "true" liberals are moving farther and farther to the left, and are really outside of what mainstream America believes - things like imposing high gas taxes, strict gun control,  hailing Edward Snowden as a hero, "law & order", etc.


    I don't think 'true liberals' have moved at all (5.00 / 2) (#28)
    by nycstray on Sun Feb 16, 2014 at 02:17:23 PM EST
    and mainstream America, if given the chance to think logically, may agree with more of those positions you list than most would think. The noise from the other side has gotten pretty extreme, at the same time most of America is waking up to what's not working for them.

    Totally agree, NYC (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by shoephone on Sun Feb 16, 2014 at 02:36:47 PM EST
    I'm about a third of the way through Betty Medsger's new book, "The Burglary," which tells the story of the break-in of the FBI office in Media, PA in 1971. The burglars stole all the office files and sent them anonymously to journalists and congresspeople, one of whom, George McGovern, chickened out of helping expose the FBI's unlawfulness, and returned the set of files he received to the FBI. Thank goodness for Betty Medsger, who, along with her editors at the formerly reputable WAPO, saw the importance of publishing the content of the files. And they were threatened repeatedly by John Mitchell, Nixon's AG -- a criminal in his own right. If it wasn't for that group of unabashed liberal "lawbreakers" the nation wouldn't have found out about a regime dedicated to egregiously violating Americans' constitutional rights. Those liberals revealed the FBI's COINTELPRO, and unmasked Nixon's, Hoover's and Helms' police state tactics against any and all who questioned the status quo, fought for equal rights, and marched against the Vietnam War.

    The parallels between what they did and what Ed Snowden did are inarguable. I thoroughly reject the notion that it's liberals who have changed. The facts are there for all to see. There's a reason the rabid right wing hails Reagan as a hero -- he and his cohorts set the rightward tilt of the country in motion 30 years ago, and we are seeing the results of it everyday.


    I am also reading that book. (5.00 / 2) (#38)
    by Peter G on Sun Feb 16, 2014 at 07:23:40 PM EST
    Now over half way thru.  I knew quite a few of those discussed in the book (both named and unnamed).  At the same time as Betty Medsger at the WaPo, I helped cover the disclosure of those files in our college newspaper.  So did the student editors of other papers where campus activities had been spied on by the FBI. The files were stolen from the Media, Pa., "resident agency" (local office) of the FBI and mailed by the peace-activist burglars to progressive political leaders (who turned their copies over to the FBI), to the subjects of the surveillance, and to professional and campus journalists.

    I have even more admiration for you (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by shoephone on Sun Feb 16, 2014 at 08:33:03 PM EST
    than I did before! To be a part of that crucial event took faith and courage from a lot of people.  

    I think William Davidon should go down in history as one of the bravest Americans ever.


    What is amazing to me is how Bill Davidon -- (none / 0) (#44)
    by Peter G on Sun Feb 16, 2014 at 09:21:12 PM EST
    while certainly not keeping his opinions or his lawful protest activities secret -- was so active at the same time in "underground" antiwar action, while maintaining with total aplomb his public life as a classic, mild-mannered professor of physics and mathematics at a small suburban college. The FBI was so sure that the burglary of their office had been done by the radical Catholic Left (Phil Berrigan and his followers) -- which it wasn't -- that they never got on the right track, investigated and then eliminated as suspects several of the actual burglars, never even got some of the others on their radar, and in the end never charged (much less convicted) anyone in the Media case.

    Medsger exposes the FBI's incompetence (none / 0) (#46)
    by shoephone on Sun Feb 16, 2014 at 09:53:20 PM EST
    They seem to have totally bungled the investigation in so many ways. The Raines' definitely had luck on their side more than once, but, it mostly looked like as soon as the FBI started closing in on leads, the agency would then pivot in the wrong direction. I think it's funny that Davidon was going to academic conferences, speaking out publicly about the content of the files, even handing out copies of the files they stole, and the FBI never really went after him--even though they named him as a major suspect from the beginning.

    What was done to the Berrigan brothers was really corrupt. They strike me as men of great strength and equanimity.

    I know it will sound a bit low-brow of me, but I can't help hoping someone makes a movie of this story.


    A documentary, at least, is in the works (none / 0) (#47)
    by Peter G on Sun Feb 16, 2014 at 10:42:50 PM EST
    Look for "1971", by Johanna Hamilton, to open at film festivals this year, and hopefully in theaters soon after.

    That's excellent news, Peter (none / 0) (#48)
    by shoephone on Sun Feb 16, 2014 at 10:59:35 PM EST
    Seattle Film Festival theaters often get new documentaries before other cities. Hope that's the case with this one too. I'm looking forward to it.

    Yes, (none / 0) (#51)
    by jbindc on Mon Feb 17, 2014 at 07:46:15 AM EST
    The noise from the other side has gotten pretty extreme, at the same time most of America is waking up to what's not working for them.

    And yet, "most of America" is still not far left, but mostly in the middle politically, and within that group, their opinions vary from issue to issue.


    The ongoing myth of the "far left" (5.00 / 4) (#52)
    by MO Blue on Mon Feb 17, 2014 at 09:07:53 AM EST
    Many, if not most, of what is now being classified as positions of the "far left" were once considered pretty standard Democratic policies. Positions that were part of the Democratic platform for years (IIRC are probably in there now) regardless of whether or not they were ignored by the so called "middle of the road" Democratic politicians.

    Many, if not most, of what is now being classified as middle of the road Democratic positions were not too very long ago considered more conservative Republican positions. To paraphrase a statement Squeaky made previously, Nixon's policies would now be described as the "far left" policies of a raging liberal.

    Members of the Democratic Party who insist on labeling populist policies, which were once the foundation of the party, as "far left" policies that are out of the mainstream only help to perpetuate and enforce Republican talking points and squelch public demand and attempts to get  those policies passed into law.



    Many self described liberals did (5.00 / 4) (#29)
    by MO Blue on Sun Feb 16, 2014 at 02:18:53 PM EST
    not move anywhere let alone farther to the left. It is not our beliefs that have changed.

    The definitions for certain terms have been distorted to the point that they lack any true meaning. Conservatives .00001 degree left of batsh!t crazy are described as "moderate," Obama's middle of the road self-described Republican policies are described as socialistic policies and the myth about the "far left" in this county is just part of the ongoing propaganda disbursed by the corporate media and corporatist politicians of both political parties.

    The reason for the distortions are obvious. It protects the government by the 1% for 1%.  


    Conservatives' talent at framing messages (5.00 / 3) (#31)
    by shoephone on Sun Feb 16, 2014 at 02:39:28 PM EST
    is undeniable. They excel at it. Thomas Frank's writings should be a graduation requirement for every college political science student.

    It's much easier to organize people (none / 0) (#56)
    by jondee on Mon Feb 17, 2014 at 01:35:38 PM EST
    who don't place a high value on free inquiry and independent thought.

    Army ants "think" about food, shelter, and reproduction; conservatives think about free markets, traditional values, and the evils of "big government".


    I read the WaPo article last night, (5.00 / 2) (#53)
    by Anne on Mon Feb 17, 2014 at 11:02:00 AM EST
    and found myself shaking my head through a good bit of it, for several reasons.

    The Democrats I know - and maybe I just don't associate with the right kinds - do not view the party as more liberal than ever; most of them - like me - bemoan the steady creep to the right that has taken place, likely due to the misguided belief that the only way to "get things done" was to concede to conservatives.

    Second, given how radically conservative the Republicans have become, it would be the easiest thing in the world for the Democrats to be perceived as liberal, even though there are plenty of decidedly non-liberal positions being taken by so-called Democratic leaders.

    Third, what is the real reason for an article like this?  Are Dan Balz and Philip Rucker afraid of or feel threatened by a more liberal, populist, Democratic Party?  Maybe that's why they used "liberal" 16 times in the article, and progressive only 9 times. Or maybe, the clue to what this is all about is in the last sentence:  "If Clinton decides not to run, there will be chaos inside the party."  Oooh-wee!  Wouldn't that be fun to write about: chaos in the party with hippie-punching to boot!

    And pardon me, but as soon as I saw "Third Way" weighing in, I threw up in my mouth a little.  

    Finally, I don't much care what label someone wants to put on me for believing that we need to expand the social safety net, adopt a single-payer health system, work on getting more people to vote, not finding more reasons to deny that to them, to raise the minimum wage and narrow the income-inequality gap, to protect our constitutional rights and privileges, not find more ways to erode them - to name just a few - but it irritates the bejesus out of me to read articles like this one.  Articles that disguise themselves as serious journalism, but are really about demonizing liberals and liberal ideas, by people who apparently don't have a clue what it really means to be a liberal.


    Reason (5.00 / 2) (#54)
    by squeaky on Mon Feb 17, 2014 at 11:16:38 AM EST
    Third, what is the real reason for an article like this?

    Pure WaPo (aka Right Wing) propaganda.

    Articles that disguise themselves as serious journalism, but are really about demonizing liberals and liberal ideas, by people who apparently don't have a clue what it really means to be a liberal.

    The writers know exactly what it means to be a liberal. That is the reason for publishing the hit piece in the first place. It is a maneuver to define mainstream GOP occupying the moderate center. GOP Propaganda.


    Getting time for Obama to publish (5.00 / 3) (#55)
    by MO Blue on Mon Feb 17, 2014 at 11:36:44 AM EST
    his budget recommendations.

    The Hill explains why progressive groups, unions and AARP and others are ramping up their efforts to get the Prsident to remove his proposal to cut Social Security from his budget. They're hearing stuff like this and they don't trust that the president isn't listening. For good reason:
    Deficit hawks say walking back the entitlement cuts would damage Obama's credibility on fiscal issues, perhaps fatally.

    "It just looks like caving to special interest groups. This is something he can cite as a hard choice and as standing up to his own base," said Bob Bixby, the head of the Concord Coalition.

    He said the Sanders letter is "all the more reason to keep it in" because Obama's needs to distance himself from a "tax the rich" solution to the debt in order to foster centrist support for Democrats.digby

    Is the corporate media on board with combining "tax reform*" with cutting SS? Why yes the are.

    Who are the most reliable voters in off year elections? Why I believe that group is comprised of seniors.

    Who will benefit in the 2014 elections from the Republicans shouting from the roof tops that the president and the Dems want to cut your SS benefits? Why I believe that Republicans might benefit from that tactic much like they did in 2010.

    This article IMO is just one more piece of the making sure that Obama continues to push chained CPI, tax reform and deficit reduction policies.

    *tax reform = more tax cuts for corporations and the mega rich


    SITE VIOLATOR (none / 0) (#45)
    by Peter G on Sun Feb 16, 2014 at 09:23:45 PM EST